Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: CS Lewis

Expand Messages
  • Beth Ellen
    ... Susan
    Message 1 of 43 , Oct 23, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      >>I don't have anything to say about CS Lewis though. :)

      lol...well why not??
      Beth Ellen

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Susan
      Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 12:59 PM
      Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: CS Lewis

      Hi, KL,

      You wrote:
      > When the Bible speaks of being saved from sin it does not
      > mean that Christ has saved us from committing certain actions. It
      > means He saved us from our sinful *condition*.

      Isn't it both, and more? I believe Christ has saved me from my sinful
      condition (original sin), from my actual sins, and even from my
      potential sins by subduing me to Himself. In other words, Christ has
      not only saved me from my sins (original and actual), He has also
      saved (and is still saving) me from ~myself~ through sanctification.
      He is Prophet, Priest, ~and~ King. He is saving me from the power of
      sin, the penalty of sin, and eventually, He will save me from the
      presence of sin. 

      I don't have anything to say about CS Lewis though. :)


      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
    • Fredrick Fleming
      Thanks for decipher my message. *LOL* ... __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
      Message 43 of 43 , Nov 8 12:58 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Thanks for decipher my message. *LOL*
        --- thebishopsdoom <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
        > --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., "Jerry"
        > <ragingcalvinist@c...>
        > wrote:
        > > I'm sorry, are you addressing this towards Dan or
        > BD? It's not
        > clear
        > > from the verses you produced which position you
        > are holding --
        > > passibility or impassibility.
        > >
        > > gmw.
        > I was curious too at first, I followed the thread up
        > and it replies
        > to Dan's post. I did think some of the verses
        > isolated in the post
        > required explanation of what bearing they had on the
        > issue. Since it
        > says to "look at the Scripture reference that were
        > given you" I
        > presumed he was pulling out proof texts from either
        > the confession or
        > catechism on the question, because I don't recall
        > anyone citing these
        > particular texts offhand. So I double checked the
        > confession and saw
        > the prooftexts, but they are for WCF 2:1 - the whole
        > section, which
        > covers numerous topics, which is where I (and I
        > think you) got
        > confused.
        > -thebishopsdoom

        Do you Yahoo!?
        U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.