Originally Posted by glew
Wow,
A new guy makes a one letter obvious misspelling, (how in the world can anyone seriously think that a nationality was in play over theology) and it feels like the stones are getting ready to come out. (Think that am indeed in deep clover.) Really afraid to go further as not sure why so touchy.?. Cannot believe that you guys don’t know where the law was given, it was recorded, the first Sabbath violation stoning took place etc, etc. Hint, somewhere in the Old Testament. Hint, hint, somewhere in the Pentateuch, (hope that this last word is spelled correctly or who knows, maybe I will wake up with frogs in my bed).
Now, now... there is no need to get your knickers in a knot. You obviously have taken our responses in a wrong manner, and that is unfortunate. Let me try and explain somethings to you:

1. We have a wide range of members here who, a) are from various theological backgrounds, [historic Calvinists, Arminians, semi-Pelagians, Roman Catholics, Atheists, sectarians and even occasionally cultists] b) some are biblically illiterate, some are theologically ignorant or untrained, and c) some are even unregenerate. Thus, we cannot take it for granted what a person knows and/or believes. Would you believe that you are definitely not the first to use the word "Armenian" here? giggle And many were of the understanding that this is how "Arminian" was spelled. They were also corrected in the same friendly manner. Most took the correction gracefully and thanked us for it.

2. Perhaps you aren't aware that at Nicea, when the doctrine of the Trinity was upheld against the attacks of Arius and others, that much debate centered around one single letter. Some wanted to use the word homoiousios which means "of like substance" instead of the word homoousios, which means "one substance". But the former was rejected strongly because it denied the place and nature of the Son [Christ] within the Trinity. The latter affirms that God the Son and God the Father are of the same substance or essence. So lending oneself to exactness can be a good thing.

3. Since you are the "new guy" here, it is not overly helpful to get sarcastic in your responses to those whose desire is to HELP you where needed. Trust me, we are very familiar with "where the law was given". What we would like to know is the exact passage which apparently is giving you some trouble in understanding what was written therein. So again, if you would please provide the specific passage which is troubling you perhaps we can be more specific in our answer(s). I have already given you a "hint" toward that understanding with my own question to you. Did that not put some light on the issue for you?

Okay, let's try and begin again and hopefully you will not be so quick to take offense, especially due to misconceptions about some of us here. bigglasses

In His grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]