Grand Canyon University Web Resources

A Washington directory of Newcomers Clubs, which help integrate new residents into the local community through social events, interest groups and children's activities

Bart Goddard wrote:

> wrf3@stablecross.com wrote:
>
> >> In the way I mean here, "no". The unforgivable sin is to reject what
> >> the Holy Spirit has convicted one of.
> >
> > Can one be convicted that Jesus died for one's sins and rose from the
> > dead, and yet not be convicted of other doctrinal points?
>
> The question misses the point a bit. The _only_ message the Holy Spirit
> carries is "Jesus Christ and Him crucified."

The JWs (and Christadelphians) believe this.

> All doctrine flows out of this and any doctrine which contradicts this is
> heretical.
>

Are you pre-mil (historic or dispensational), post-mil, a-mil, or
preterist (partial or full)? Wine or grape juice for communion? As you
already know, I don't agree with the practice of infant baptism. You
might be able to make as case as to the last point connecting to your
thesis; I would be very interested in seeing a case made for all three.

>
> >> And what the Holy Spirit convicts one of is the Gospel. The doctrine
> >> of the Trinity isn't just a sort of philosophical conclusion, but _an
> >> expression of the Gospel_.
> >
> > That's what you need to prove. I made a brief attempt in another
> > thread, but I'm still not convinced, because I don't think that we are
> > saved by our having a correct understanding of doctrine.
>
> I didn't use the words "correct understanding of doctrine." It's easy to
> pooh-pooh the idea of a pedant who is overly attached to the letter of
> sophisticated doctrine.

Hmmm... isn't that the charter for this newgroup?

> But that is not the picture here. When Scripture speaks of "the faith",
> then it is speaking of doctrine. And we're not so concerned with
> head-knowledge but instead the conviction of one's heart. Certainly head
> knowledge must follow the heart and inform the heart, but it is the heart
> which "holds" the faith (or doctrine.)

I don't see how this is relevant. Whether it's not in my heart, or not
in my heat, the case for infant baptism simply isn't there. BB would
say the same for the DoT.

> People aren't converted because they are logically argued into a corner,

Depends on who does the arguing. In my case, He managed to "win" in one
fall. Didn't need two out of three.

> but rather because the Word has been preached to them and the Holy Spirit
> changes their heart with it.

I don't disagree. The question is, where is the line drawn?
>
> And infant can hold the doctrine in this sense (and this is the sense in
> the Nicene Creed.)

Even infant JWs?