Lance wrote: > There was no ATTACK of any sister in my 'seeing'. John attacked Judy on numerous issues:
1. He claimed that she represented a certain quote from him in which she purposely changed the wording of the quote. 2. He claimed that she was dishonest. 3. He attacked her as being a legalist. 4. He attacked her as being someone who has rejected the gospel. 5. He attacked her as being ever knowing and never learning. 6. He claimed that she does not understand the difference between the two covenants. 7. He accused her of being for works salvation. 8. He claimed that she was in need of repentance. 9. He claimed that her theology has no grace. 10. He claimed that she was not searching for truth. 11. He claimed that she was out to win the argument. 12. He claimed that she was INTENTIONALLY misrepresenting what he has said and what he believes. The reason I say that Judy was attacked is because John's wording usually follows the line of, "YOU are," or "YOU have," or "YOU want," etc. Following are some snippets from his posts: On March 26, 2005, 11:14 pm EST: John wrote to Judy: > You, my dear, have completely rejected the gospel of grace > ... Ever knowing and never learning. Keep in mind that from Judy's perspective, as well as mine and many others, those who reject the gospel of grace will be rejected by God. John also wrote: > If you were Bill saying this, I would agree > -- but your [sic] are a legalist writing this. What difference does it make who says it? John declares her a legalist so now he has the right to disagree with something that he otherwise would agree with? Talk about bigotry and deception! On March 28, 2005 at 8:19 am EST, John wrote: > you really don't have any rules. > You WANT to be under the rule of law > ... You are just making up stuff in order > to maintain what? That every time you > sin you condemn yourself and move out > from under the shelter of grace. You are > a works salvation, pure and simple and in > need of repsentance [sic] (a change of mind). > > Don't you understand the difference between the > two covenants and the promise of the indwelling Spirit > verses the rule of Law and the praise worthy decision > by God to "remember our sins no more?" > I don't think you do. > ... you have no understanding of the very thing it is that > saves you ... You simply do not understand grace. > ... > You [sic] theology allows not time for growth -- > for the move away from sin. It has no grace. On March 28, 2005 at 1:01 pm EST, John wrote: > ... your continued insistence is an intentional misrepresentation > of what I believe or what I said. You are out to win the > argument, not involve yourself in a truth search. And that is > fine -- as long as you are honest in representing the other side. > You are not. > I will feel no need to continue a discussion with someone who > refuses to honestly discuss. This last example is one of the most clear and classic examples of an ad hominem arugment that can ever be made. Instead of addressing the problem that Judy was pointing out with John's theology, that it is impossible to do what the apostle John taught in 1 John (abide in Christ and keep his commandments) and still be comfortable in sin, he resorts to attacking Judy's character, claiming that she is intentionally misrepresenting him and is dishonest and therefore unworthy for further discussion. 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.
