-----Original Message-----
From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tue, 24 May 2005 15:39:31 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fond Farewells- Salvation
John wrote: > What David does in this response is clear; he manifests > his lack of concern for either myself or the actual discussion. Lighten up, John. I care about you. John wrote: > This comment "This is the crux of our difference then: doubt and > unbelief concerning the reality of the kingdom of God" is not an > honest attempt at dialogue for it was not written with me in mind. > Rather, it was written with David's audience in mind. Smithson > must be stopped -- his gospel of "humanism" (apparently words > with more than four letters have definitions that often escape David's > comprehension). He knows, full well, that I do not agree with his > statement (above.) Only an idiot would think this statement would > carry merit with me -- and we all know that David is no idiot. > So what is left. David protecting his church kind of like the Apostle > Peter or the Apostle Paul -- we have the Apostle Miller. > Correct me if I am wrong - seriously. You are very wrong. You seem to assume that discussions must start with some point of agreement. dicussions never begin with personal attacks, well meaning or not.
Our point of agreement is that the Bible is a source of truth. Where we depart is how we apply the Bible to our lives. I hope that pointing out the disconnect between following the Bible and then disbelieving certain teachings of the Bible as being applicable to us would give you pause to reconsider your position.
That tactic does not work on anyone who understands why he/she believes anything.
But more than that - this is not what you did. You did not contrast me and
biblical application; you contrasted me and "the reality of the kingdom."
You asserted that I did not believe in the reality of the kingdom. It is in black and white.
John wrote: > The notion that David walks in the apostles doctrine to > a degree that I do not is both untrue and arrogant. Then why did you say that their teachings do not include us and that their relationship to the Christ is different from ours? Clearly we walk in the doctrine differently.Because Christ Himself treated them differently. Their place in the kingdom
was different for that reason. More than that, there was something special about the "12." That
is why Judas was replaced after his death. Church history testifies to the uniqueness of the 12.
In the New Jerusalem, each of the 12 foundation edifices represent one of the 12 spostles,
hence their names appear on these fooundation stones. For you to pretend that you are on an equal
to any one in that circle of firends is almost as wrong as it gets. One of those names, ironically,
is NOT Paul's. John wrote: > His need for repentance is clear. What do you want me to repent of?
False claims of apostleship on a par with the 12; arrogance and condenscension in at least some
of your dealings; your refusal to give honor to your elders; John wrote: > The "Great commission" was given to His apostles - > the 12. Ditto for John 20:22-23 -- we know this to > be the case because the text is specific as to whom it > is He is talking to (syntax, David -- like it?). The text also commands them to teach us to walk in all those things that he taught them.
So you are admitting, that the context of those statements -- Great Commission
and the Johannanninhanan passge are what I said? They (the 12) are to make disciples by
by baptizing and teaching. And the letters give us that teaching. I preach the gosple because
it is God's power. I share the grace because I have been called to the ministry of reconciliation.
I am an ambassador of Christ. .... And so on. That's why I and anyone I know, shares the Message.
The value of the contextual consideration is - especially - the difficulties of applying
Mark 16:18 the general discipled population. Many have died because they did not "handle aright the
(written) word of God."
John wrote: > Anyway - I share the gospel message because of what > I have learned in the letter to the Romans. Chapter one - > the gospel is God 's power in saving man and, again in > chapter ten .... how shall the hear without an evangel. > More than that -- we are all given to the ministry of > reconciliation. The "Great Commission" per se has little > to do with you and I. Speak for yourself, John. Some of us believe that the "Great Commission" has meaning for us too. Yeah and some believe Mark 16:18 applies to them, as well. John wrote: > Acts 2:38ff tells us the promised spirit is for all. The indwelling > of the spirit is evidenced by any number of gifted manifestations > from love, joy, peace, kindness, gentleness to prophecy, the > speaking in tongues and even hospitality. > JD > Pastor of the New Perichoretic Church of the First Born > California Branch > Bs, Ma and , well ..... BS again > Please note: this new Christian Denom will have no congregations > in the area of Compton unless and until hell freezes over. Oh, so you accuse me of usurping apostolic authority while you create a new Christian denomination? We are going to "plant" a new congregation -- based on the bibilical
model of grace, reconciliation, and the triune Godhead. Not a denomination, however. Sorry you got upset, John. Not upset at all, David. Maybe we can get back to the discussion some day about whether or not the teaching of the apostles include us. 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.
