More probably, I was the one who missed something.
Sorry,
Walt
Dr. Blake Nelson wrote:
>
> I thought his point was that he accepted _even_ those
> who did subscribe to Biblical infallability, but did
> not believe it himself. I thought the broader
> principle he espoused was everyone who depend on
> Christ for their salvation. Maybe I missed something.
>
> --- Walter Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > > What about me, Jan.
> >
> > I do not suscribe to Biblical infallabilty.
> > > Am I rejected?
> > > Walt
> > >
> > JW Burgeson wrote:
> > >
> > > Jan wrote: "I probably have said this before. I
> > accept all people who
> > > believe the infallibility of the Bible as
> > Christian brothers and sisters,
> > > who depend for their salvation on Christ's
> > death."
> > >
> > > Do you accept me too? I could not subscribe to
> > the above (narrow)
> > > definition.
> > >
> > > How wide do you draw the circle? I draw it very
> > wide indeed, for I'd rather
> > > err in that direction than the other.
> > >
> > > Burgy
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
> http://health.yahoo.com
-- =================================== Walt Hicks <wallyshoes@mindspring.com>In any consistent theory, there must exist true but not provable statements. (Godel's Theorem)
You can only find the truth with logic If you have already found the truth without it. (G.K. Chesterton) ===================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon May 06 2002 - 23:28:59 EDT