Chris,Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Well, it depends on whether or not we all mean the same thing by "endorse," since it is a vague word in this context. I already laid out the senses in which I would and would not "endorse" it. Would you really just as soon have someone talking about global warming on the program as you would have Cameron teaching what he is, and not encourage anyone to listen to the latter any more than the former?Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Again, I am encouraging the reformed to not endorse the stuff. Why would you say anything positive about it when there are better things to hang your hat on. Do you want to be held responsible for the people whom hear the error and subscribe to it?
Why is this so difficult????
Because in addition to a mere belief in synergism, the Catholic gospel adds the salvific necessity of Christ being continually re-sacrificed, the salvific necessity of the sacraments and purgatorial cleansing on top of that, and the belief that we only receive Christ's righteousness in the sense that our faith in Him causes us to act righteous, just to name a few minor differences.Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel
How is the Catholic gospel any different than the modern Arminian gospel?
I thought the Catholics were considered Arminians (they're just more consistent )
Of course the Catholics are synergists - but that has absolutely no implications for the error of synergism in and of itself, without other baggage attached. Would you no sooner vote to have Cameron on the program than you would Hagin or a Mormon, if given the option?
[Edited on 3-17-2006 by Me Died Blue]
C'mon. You know what I mean; in the context of what I have been saying, it is not vague. Here, hows this: I would endorse Fred greco, I would not endorse Warren. I would endorse Chris Blum, I would not endorse CC. I would endorse PB, not TBN and Comfort. I would endorse Mcmahon, not Geisler. I would endorse Calvin, not Westley.