Dean wrote: > I consider the fact the DaveH is allowed to dwell among > the brethren as sin, David. To me it is a clear violation > of the Bible-as it also was to J. Wesley.
It still seems to me that you are thinking of this list like a church or someone's home where we all live together. Many on the list I have never met. I have never met any of the Mormons, never shook their hand, never eaten with them. How can you possibly say that my allowing them to post here is a violation of the Bible? From my perspective, that would be like saying that allowing the newspaper in my town to publish articles from those who are not Christians is sin. Or maybe you think I should run off all my neighbors who are not Christians? Please examine your basic premise of why you think this list ought not allow anyone but Christians. How is it sin to allow non-Christians to post their views here? Believe me, Dean. If you convince me, I will change. If you cause me to even doubt and suspect that I might be sinning by doing this, I will take down the list immediately. I have no desire other than to do God's will. I see some benefit of learning in the list and that is why it exists. I will never place learning above holiness, so if something is wrong with what I'm doing, all you have to do is show it to me and I will change. Have you ever studied John Calvin's town of Geneva? He took the approach that you do toward not allowing anything that is not Biblical to happen in town. The goal was to create a Biblical Utopia. Well, he went at it for many years, but in my opinion, the whole thing was a failure. People were not free. Study how Michael Servetus, a traveler from another country, was burned at the stake because he believed in Oneness doctrine rather than the Trinity. I think your attitude is very much like John Calvin's in this regard. John Wesley did not have e-mail lists, so why do you say that he would agree with you? Dean wrote: > But what does the Bible tell us about the moon-I don't > feel that this is open to private interpretations as > words have meanings. Do you see the difference? Yes, there is a difference, but I chose an extreme to make a point. Some ideas are so foolish that they are no threat whatsoever. No matter how long you hang around someone who thinks the moon is cheese, you are not in danger of being deceived by it. It might be that Mormonism is not as attractive to me as it is to you. I don't know. Dean wrote: > That is the difference between us David- I see a false > teachers as the same as Paul Hill-You see P.Hill as a > killer- Right. I do not see them as the same. Dean wrote: > I see DaveH as a killer also as I believe he is > here to steal seeds of life- You may not realize this, but when you are not here and Glenn is not here, DaveH seems to be pretty quiet. Dave responds to the jabs that you guys throw at him. I actually think he treats it as entertainment. I think he likes Glenn's style a little better than yours. Maybe he thinks he can control Glenn better. I never saw DaveH so sad as when Glenn left the list. He has been trying to talk him into coming back ever since that time. I think that if DaveH were here to steal seeds of life as you put it, he would have left a long time ago. Several Mormons have come and gone, but Dave sticks around, mostly in lurk mode. It does not seem like he is trying to steal any seeds, but simply observe our discussions. Dean wrote: > Remember the passage that had to do with not > even wishing those that bring a false doctrine > Good luck. This particular passage is 2 John. Look at it again. 2Jo 1:5 And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another. 2Jo 1:6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it. 2Jo 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. 2Jo 1:8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. 2Jo 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 2Jo 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 2Jo 1:11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. The commandment is: Verse 5: Love one Another Verse 6: Walk after His commandments Verse 7 : Jesus Christ is come in the flesh Hasn't DaveH brought each of these here with him? >From my perspective, Dave believes false doctrines, but he is not here to spread them around. He only offers his views when asked. Furthermore, this is NOT my home. As I explained before, I see that passage as having to do with receiving apostles into your home who do not abide in the doctrine of Christ. DaveH does not live with me. DaveH posts here in the same way that someone might write a letter to the editor of a newspaper. What's the big deal? Dean wrote: > While you/others on this site claim to me that > DaveH is not teaching any false doctrine here. I have not said that DaveH does not teach false doctrine. I have confronted him many times, especially about his view that the Book of Abraham is Scripture. Dean wrote: > Consider what you stated to Judy in 'Love or Rebuke' > dated 12/18/2003 10:02:13 pm " Ask DaveH. He teaches > the same doctrine that you do." I was wrong in that statement. Judy corrected me and I accept her correction. Dean wrote: > Which is it? Does he or doesn't here teach here? > Or are you wanting to confuse the facts. I'm not trying to confuse anything. Dave teaches kind of like Socrates I suppose. He teaches when invited to, but withholds if not. Just look at his recent response to Perry for example. He was not asked questions, so he does not volunteer information. He is overly polite, in my opinion, but I can understand it when so many want to ascribe false motives for his being here. Dean, where else can you get loud mouth preachers to talk civilly with a quiet and somewhat shy Mormon? Think about it. David Miller wrote: >> In the many denominations of Christianity, errant >> ideas are rampant. If we separated from everyone >> who thought about things in the wrong way, as >> we matured and came to know more and more things, >> we would not be able to have fellowship with anyone. Dean wrote: > I whole disagree with that statement-as the Bible is > clear on these issues and once studied out on all issues. > God isn't that unclear. So Roman Catholics have no errant doctrines, and the Greek Orthodox have no errant doctrines, and the Baptists have no errant doctrines, and the Presbyterians have no errant doctrines, and the Wesleyans have no errant doctrines, and the Episcopalians have no errant doctrines, and the Messianics have no errant doctrines, and the Seventh Day Adventists have no errant doctrines, and the Churches of Christ have no errant doctrines and the Pentecostals have no errant doctrines and the charismatics have no errant doctrines? Need I go on? I don't understand what you are trying to say. Dean wrote: > The why did you claim him as a Christian in the > last post? And why do you say he doesn't sin when > you just admitted he does in the above post? I usually use the word "Christian" to refer to someone who professes a faith in Jesus Christ. DaveH does this, so I consider him a Christian. Most Roman Catholics I consider Christians also. This does not mean that I think they have eternal life. They simply subscribe to a religion of men that has Jesus Christ as its center focus. Sometimes I might refer to how a "true Christian" would act for the sake of discussion, in order to be brief. If I say that, then I mean someone who has truly met Jesus and has trust and faith in Him. For example, I might tell DaveH that if he were a true Christian, he would not continue to sin. I might say the same thing to Gary too. Dean wrote: > I don't think that issues that have nothing > to do with sin or warning should divide > brethren-nor will I be drawn into a cult. > Some issues have a low level of importance > others are more serious. When I was but a lad and had not studied, life was so much more simple. I did not recognize dangerous ideas for what they were. As my knowledge increased, the danger of more and more ideas became glaring. My bar of discernment continues to move, and I suspect yours does too. Many things that have a low level of importance for you now will have a serious level of importance for you later. We have to pick our fights and we have to choose wisely, because sometimes the fights themselves, even if you are on the right side, cause more damage than the doctrine you are dealing with. This is why the Scriptures always admonish us to rebuke with meekness. David Miller wrote: >> To drive the point home, just look at the Judaizers >> in the book of Galatians. Paul never urged >> excommunication over this false doctrine. They >> disputed about it and disputed about it. Even >> when they went to Jerusalem and doctrinally settled >> the matter with the apostles and elders there, they >> still did not come back with excommunication for the >> Judaizers. They simply taught the truth and said that >> the apostles and elders in Jerusalem agree. >> And for Paul, this doctrine meant damnation for the >> Galatians if they followed the false doctrine, yet, he >> never excommunicated them. Why? Dean wrote: > I don't read it this way-I see Paul going up Jerusalem > with Barnabas and rebuking Peter 2:11 and due to that > rebuke the gospel of peace is vindicated. Later Peter > teaches the same thing Paul did. In short Peter > repented. You have the events confused. Galatians 2:11 concerns Peter's trip to Antioch, not Paul's trip to Jerusalem. This event happened in Acts 11, whereas I was talking about Acts 15, something that happened later. My point is that the Judaizers are not excommunicated. We don't see anything like what we see in 1 Cor. 5 where the church is told not to endure the fornicator, but to cast him out of the church. The Galatians were never instructed to cast out Judaizers. Rather, their doctrine is simply refuted. I suspect that the Judaizers tried pulling rank on Paul, claiming that Peter, James, and other in the Jerusalem church taught what they were teaching. That's why they went to Jerusalem, to put to silence that false claim. Even when they came back from Jerusalem, there was no bull of excommunication to cast out the Judaizers. Rather, the letter they sent along with the prophets were to instruct them how the Jerusalem church acknowledges how Gentiles are welcome into the body of Christ without abiding in the Mosaic covenant. Dean wrote: > I believe there is actual sin here-When God told Adam > and Eve not to eat the fruit- they did it was sin . When they did it, that was sin, but when they were talking about doing it, was that sin? Did Jesus sin when the Devil tempted him in the wilderness, just because he entertained the idea of turning stones into bread or jumping off the pinnacle of the Temple? I don't think so. In the other words, we can let the devil speak and teach, and we have not sinned. Did not God allow this in the book of Job, even when the Devil was accusing Job? Dean wrote: > When God told me not to dwell with false teachers > who bring another doctrine-I believe it is sin not > to listen. If DaveH were living in my home for these last five years, you might have a point. I say MIGHT because it really depends upon whether he was bringing doctrine that was damaging to me and my family. I have had many guests in my home who have believed wrong doctrine, but if they are not talking about them in front of my family, it really does not matter. I fully agree that we need to be careful about false doctrine, but I see neither Jesus nor Peter and James removing themselves completely from the constant presence of the Pharisees who had not converted. Only Paul removed himself at some point, because he was the apostle to the Gentiles, but the others continued meeting in the synagogues and were basically considered Jews by the Jews. James especially had an excellent reputation among them as a very holy and pious man. These men were warned about the leaven of the Pharisees, but he did not remove themselves from it, even when it became evident that Peter was tainted by it in the Galatians 2:11 passage. Peace be with you. David Miller, Beverly Hills, Florida. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
