we might ought to close this thread. I just want to correct a few false
statements that you keep on making and tie up a few loose ends.
1. Glenn wrote:
> Job said he was perfect but according to David he
> lied because a perfect person cannot admit he is
> perfect. But David then says Job was perfect. It
> is soooooooo easy to see the inconsistency here.
The only inconsistency is in your mind. You can't seem to pay attention. I
never said or implied that Job lied. That is a false statement. I have
said over and over again that Job never said he was perfect. That statement
is also false. Please stop the false statements.
Glenn- Did Job say he was perfect? If Job said he was perfect, then that made him imperfect. If Job claimed to be perfect, then that made him a liar.
That was what I was saying. Why? Because you said a perfect man can't say he is perfect.
.
2. Glenn wrote:
> This doctrine falls on its head with anyone BEING
> AS PERFECT AS GOD. So the doctrine has to say,
> perfect yes, but not in love.
Wrong. Perfect in love too, but not necessarily an absolute perfection.
When my 3 year old climbs in my lap, she loves me with a perfect love.
Nevertheless, that does not mean that she cannot grow in how she loves me.
The problem is that you keep switching definitions whenever it pleases you
because for some reason, you hate the message that we can love each other as
God loves.
Glenn - The Bible says to be perfect as God the Father is perfect. God the Father is absolutely perfect.
No, I don't love as God loved in absolute perfection love. I would not allow my daughter to be crucified for you. Would you allow your daughter to be crucified for me?
I tell you the truth that when a person loves, their love is from God, and
as such, it cannot be anything but perfect love. If a person loves, it
comes from God. It's source is God. For some reason you want to say that
when a person loves another person that it is inferior to God. How can that
be when God is love? Love does not exist at all without God.
3. Glenn wrote:
> This perfect thing was used in the Nazarene church with
> a lady I know to not allow a lady to volunteer in the
> Nursery because she smoked. I SEE THIS PERFECTION
> DOCTRINE AS SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS.
You should not judge all Nazarenes based upon your perception of what is
proper. The apostles would not appoint men to serve tables unless they were
full of the Holy Ghost. They would probably not allow a lady to work in the
Nursery if she smoked either. Neither would I, but I'm not sure that all
Nazarenes feel that way.
Would you want to pick up your baby from the nursery and smell smoke on him
or her because this lady was holding your baby and the smoke from her
clothes transferred to the baby? Would you want someone who smoked
breathing on your baby?
Glenn - A person smoking (which I do not do) does not translate to picking up an infant smelling like smoke.
4. Glenn wrote:
> Notice, David, knocks all scholars, if they
> do not agree with him.
This is a flat out lie. For example, I do not knock John Gill. I respect
him and often look to him for comments about Hebrew related topics.
Nevertheless, I disagree with his Baptist perception of once saved always
saved and nobody can live like Jesus doctrine.
Glenn - It seems to me you were knocking him. I stand corrected.
5. Glenn wrote:
> I see you scoffing at Watter Martin and any scholar
> that disagrees with the perfection doctrine.
I never scoffed at Walter Martin. Walter quoted the definition of a cult
from a scholar that he respected. He said he agreed with it and then added
to it. In my opinion, his addition makes the definition derogatory and more
vague. I simply expressed my opinion. For some reason, you can't handle it
so you say that I scoff at him or anyone else who disagrees with me. That
is a false accusation.
Glenn - I took it as scoffing.
6. Glenn wrote:
> it is OK to make money off of the KJ Bible by selling
> it, but not OK to make money off of the NIV Bible
> through royalties. Inconsistent is the way I see this.
You keep misrepresenting what I say. This is starting to appear very wicked
to me.
I said that it is ok to make money off selling Bibles, any Bibles, both KJV
and NIV. However, it is not right to demand royalties for a publicly owned
document. So I deny the right of royalties for both the KJV and the NIV. I
am very consistent on this matter.
Glenn - You think it is wrong to pay NIV royalties, but not wrong to pay to sell the KJ Bible. I see this as inconsistent. You fail to mention that the KJ cannot be copyrighted by American law do to it's age.
If I had more of a legal background, I would sue on this matter in court, in
order to set a precedence and protect the right of the public to own the
Bible. THE NIV PUBLISHERS DO NOT OWN THE BIBLE. They act as if they
produced the work themselves, as if they were the original authors. If I
was a lawyer, I would make my case in court, because they did not author the
Bible, neither do they own it, and God certainly did not give them
permission to act like they own the Bible. Their hope of winning such a law
suit would be the very fact that their translation differs significantly
enough from other translations that it is another work entirely. Now isn't
that an interesting thought? Do you think they would win the law suit? If
they did win based upon the basis of this legal theory, do you think people
would believe that they restored the true Bible, or do you think that they
would think that this new work was a corrupted Bible?
7. Glenn wrote:
> It says we are to be perfect as God. No explaining can change that.
I agree that explaining won't change what it says. You only have to believe
it and stop doubting it.
Glenn - Agreed.
8. Glenn wrote:
> Yea, and lets kick people out of the church for
> smoking or working on Sunday or wearing the
> wrong dress in the name of perfection.
>
> I had failed to make the connection between what
> you were saying and the Nazarenes. Now I
> understand how these perfect people stink more
> than ever with the sin of self-righteousnes.
This kind of perfection is not what I am talking about. Not all Nazarenes
approach holiness the way you depict it here. In Nazarene sects as well as
Pentecostal holines sects, there are some who focus on the natural outward
man. That kind of perfection is the letter, and it kills. I am not talking
about that kind of perfection. I've explained what I'm talking about
enough, but you just don't want to hear it.
9. Glenn wrote:
> DavidM says he worships the same Jesus as Mormons worship.
This is another flat out lie. I never said this.
Glenn - What did you say then? You said Mormons do not worship a different Jesus? If Mormons don't worship a different Jesus then they worship the same Jesus you worship. This may or may not be true. You said this when knocking Martin's definition of a cult. I said a Jesus who was created and is the brother of Satan is suspect at the very least. I cannot be sure it is the same Jesus.
Perhaps we should back off for awhile on this thread. I see no profit in
continuing to repeat myself over and over again.
Glenn - OK, I think it would be best for you to call it the holiness doctrine as the Church of God, Wesleyans, and Nazarenes have called this doctrine to me. I believe a person can be holy and righteousness without being absolutely perfect. Maybe we believe the same thing. Sometimes I think we do. Sometimes I think we do not.
I "argue" with you as a brother not as an adversary. I thought you were having fun with me so I was having a little fun back.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
