you could get even more excited about that.�Does your voice lower in tone when you are talking down on someone? I'm curious. Unfortunately, why "unfortunately?" Because it does not agree with your perspective? Why not say something substantive instead of personal. That would be good and I might even listen.
All of this is simply the product of language which is never precise enough
to communicate exactly what we conceptualize. We all need to lighten up and
realize that our words only approximate our concepts, and repetition along
with using other words to restate our concept in a different way is the best
we can do in communicating with one another. Apparently you do not believe that there is a difference between misquoting and misunderstanding.
In regards [sic] to this passage in Colossians, you have taken a lot of time and
effort to explain that which we already agree upon. Kind of a waste of time, huh? You have argued against universality in the past. I missed the change or are you just trying to prove how much you and I agree? That seems to be a current theme. I had hoped that you would perceive that the fact of reconciliation has a purpose which produces a result in us that is even more magnificent (from my perspective) than the
fact of reconciliation. Amazing statement for a number of reasons. David, the Colossian Brief was not a commentary of my perspective so much as it was an exegetical discussion of the passage, verse by verse. I spent as much time as Paul did in discussing the purpose. That we can be holy, unblameable, and unreproveable through faith is a wonderful product of reconciliation. That we are saved before any of this happens is a pretty good deal, as well. I would hope that
it appears that the prospect of someone not having faith and therefore not being reconciled is too abhorent [sic]a concept for you to deal with. Boy, I must threaten the hell out of you, David. I can't write. my logic is poor. My perspectives are way off. and you seem to almost feel sorry for me. But more than that --- this last sentence ("it appears that the prospect ........") contradicts the first sentece in this paragraph. The fact of reconciliation is not conditioned on faith and any resulting holiness. But more than that ---- the exegetical statement ( the "Brief") shows the grammatical play on words as God, in script, argues for the reconciliation of all and establishes it purpose. We do not agree and you do not get what I believe. I would have never written that last sentence because it flies in the face of unmerited grace and denies the effectual ministry of reconciliation. One never finishes -- in this life -- with the effort to become holy, blameless and above reproach. Consequently, we are always in need of unmerited grace as seen in the fact of reconciliation. We do not see things the same. Your ARE a perfectionist salvationist. And our ministries are extremely different. You have only disagreed with this since I decided to acknowledge the facts of life as concerns you and me.
I would like for you to answer this question: The comments below seem to have you saying that we agree on most things -- it is our perspectives that are different. I have no idea what this means. Can you explain?
I don't think there is anything you
believe passionately that I do not believe.� The problem is that there are
some perspectives that I have that you seem to be oblivious toward.�
