Re: [asa] Random and design

You mean it is your interpretation of scriptural teachings. This is
very much a philosophical interpretation. Calling it a plain
Scriptural teaching is just begging the question.

By defining good at that which is done for the glory of God merely
makes the discussion about good and bad one of a poor definition.

On Nov 24, 2006, at 2:43 PM, Janice Matchett wrote:

> At 04:54 PM 11/24/2006, Pim van Meurs wrote:
>> People can be good, people can be bad, people can be capable of
>> doing good, people are capable of doing bad. Perhaps we should
>> be weary of these calvinistic interpretations. I am certainly not
>> impressed by Hamilton's claims especially since it is based on
>> exactly the philosophical interpretation to which I object. ...
>
> @ Sorry, but it's NOT a "philosophical" interpretation, it's a
> plain Scriptural teaching. ~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 24 18:03:09 2006