Suzy - let's try an experiment. Take that question, write it down exactly as it is written, tell you unsuspecting friends that someone on an email group presented this question to you and ask them what they think it means?
Wanna bet no one will come up with anything similar to DM explanation?
John, communication should never ignore context. A valid experiment would give all the posts leading up to this one, and include our exchanges after it. I think Suzy could find plenty of people to believe me and find my questions to be honest and sincere when they are considered in the context from which I was speaking.
Look, I'm going to try again to help you understand where I'm coming from. I would probably post this privately except that there are several on the list who seem to think I am not being honest in my dialogue with you.
You interested me in this thread when you pointed out how you had observed that the New Testament was not written systematically. You wondered why the NT writers did not spend time quoting Jesus in making their case. I was interested because I too had these questions in years past, and it led me to an understanding of the gospel that I never had before. Of course, my understanding of the gospel continues to grow, but examining the NT with the mindset that you had suggested played a big part in leading me down a road of independent study of just what the gospel is.
We first started getting bogged down with terminology that you used which I found to be ambiguous (e.g., authoritative appeal, perfected by another, etc.). When I pointed out that you were wrong about no NT writer ever quoting Jesus, that was when you started getting truly offended and accusing me of implying that your original question was without merit. I tried to keep us on track by talking about the gospel and defining what it means because it is very related to the concepts going on in other thread about repentance, obedience, the law, etc. In the midst of this, there was the question of reconciling the love and hate verses. You accused me of implying a shallowness on your part because I asked you if you actually reconciled the two passages together, or if you thought one simply negated the other. It was an honest question on my part because I know that you have a Church of Christ background and members of the Church of Christ often have argued with me that NT passages trump out and negate OT passages. I try to ignore dealing with these misunderstandings between us as much as I can because they usually detract from meaningful dialogue. Right now, however, I desire that you have a little better opinion of me than you presently have. I think discussion can be more meaningful when there is an element of mutual trust and respect.
The present "crisis" concerns what I wrote to you as follows:
... Are you trying to say that before Christ was crucified, they preached the kingdom of God being at hand, repentance, and the remission of sins, but that after Christ was crucified and raised from the dead, then they stopped preaching these other parts of the gospel?
Could it be that you have a very narrow view of the gospel? Is it possible that you have never truly heard the gospel yourself?
Instead of lecturing you about the gospel, I asked you these questions to see if there was any door of opportunity to discuss your definition of the gospel. Obviously, if you have already made up your mind that the gospel is defined by 1 Cor. 15:1-4 and that no other passages of Scripture have anything to add, then further discussion will cause more frustration. You already argued that there were no other passages of Scripture that had any bearing. What am I left with except first asking if there was any possibility that you had not heard the gospel?
Perhaps it would help you to know that my answers to both these questions are yes. I acknowledge that my view of the gospel may very well be too narrow. My understanding of the gospel certainly broadens the more I study. Sometimes I wonder if any man on earth has a handle on it. I think I especially have much to learn about the Atonement, and about the New Birth itself. There is so much lack in my understanding of these things. I realize that these comments might make me look pretty weak and contemptible in the eyes of some, but it is the honest truth. My understanding of this is about like a person who can put gas in a car and drive it, but they have no clue about how it really works. They just know that it works.
I think the bottom line is that we are in very different places regarding our knowledge of Scripture and in our personal confidence concerning the things that we know. This seems to me to be at the root of many of our misunderstandings. There may be other factors as well, but these factors contribute to much misunderstanding in this medium of letters called e-mail.
For now, I will just keep on loving you as my brother in the Lord. He is able through the Spirit to enhance our understanding and appreciation for each other.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
---------- "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.
