-----Original Message-----
From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wed, 25 May 2005 08:42:36 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fond Farewells- Salvation
John wrote: > dicussions never begin with personal > attacks, well meaning or not. I don't think pointing out doubt concerning the reality of the kingdom of God being here is a personal attack.When you present yourself in a positive light and your opponent
in a negative light, one with which he does not agree (and I speak of personal judgments) -- would
that not be a personal atack, David? John wrote: > 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. I would think from comments you have made that your position would be that there is a little bit of doubt in all of us. Am I mistaken about that? Yes Do you think that some of us have absolutely no doubt concerning the reality of the Kingdom of God? A life without doubt is a life of passion. We can be passionate and mistaken.
I have no doubts about the reality of the kingdom. Retaining and Remitting sins is an aspect of the Kingdom of God. Make your argument on this, please. This authority is granted to those who press into the kingdom of God after being delivered from sin and justified in the spirit. You claim that this teaching of Christ does not include us. From my perspective, this emanates from doubt and unbelief. To disagree with you is to manifest doubt and disbelief?? If you think otherwise, explain your perspective instead of taking personal offense and starting a personal attack against me which you think is justified because I supposedly attacked you first. By the way, being attacked first does not justify you or anyone else to give back what you have received. The teaching of Christ is that we should turn the other cheek, and that we should be willing to suffer wrong for righteousness sake. Do you agree with this teaching, or are we not included in this instruction either? John wrote: >>> The notion that David walks in the apostles doctrine >>> to a degree that I do not is both untrue and arrogant. David Miller wrote: >> 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. John wrote: > 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. ... I agree with you that the 12 have a place of uniqueness, especially in regards to governmental oversight in the reign of Christ. However, this does not mean that what Christ taught them does not include us. This line of thinking is like saying that the King or the President is not subject to the same laws and teachings as the rest of us. Such a line of thinking is completely contrary to the doctrine of Christ, who taught us that those who would be great among us should be the servant of all. Furthermore, Christ came among us as an example, and so likewise he taught his apostles to teach and live by example. John wrote: > 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. I make no pretensions to being one of the 12, nor even to being any kind of apostle. You are bearing false witness against me in your effort to discredit my belief that the teaching of Christ to his apostles apply to all those who abide in the doctrine of Christ. David Miller wrote: >> What do you want me to repent of? John wrote: > False claims of apostleship on a par > with the 12; I have never claimed to be an apostle on par with the 12, nor even an apostle on par with Paul, Barnabas, Silas, or anybody else. I have stated many times and will say it again, I am not an apostle of Christ and never have been. My function in the body of Christ is prophet, and I have made that clear so many times that I don't know why I keep having to repeat it. John wrote: > arrogance and condenscension in at least > some of your dealings; I'm sorry if my humility is not sufficient for you. If you have any specific examples of my "dealings" where you think I could have been more humble, please bring it to my attention. I do hope you understand the difference between humility and self abasement. I try to walk in humility before God, but I will not abase myself below that which I have been given by grace, for to do such would be sin. John wrote: > your refusal to give honor to your elders; I believe in giving honor to my elders, so if you think I have not done so, please point that out too and I will work on it. I do not refuse to give honor to elders, but I may at times be able to do a better job in giving honor. John wrote: > They (the 12) are to make disciples by by > baptizing and teaching. And the letters > give us that teaching. Most of the 12 left us no letters at all. The teaching also is found in the gospel accounts, given to us by two of the 12, and two disciples of the 12. You go to great lengths to discredit the applicability of the teachings to us. What can be the source of this but unbelief? This is not a slam. I'm raising a point. Feel free to give an alternative viewpoint. It seems to me that you believe some of the teachings you read, such as how you are saved by believing in Christ, but other teachings concerning the retaining and remission of sins you do not believe include us today. Why? Because in your heart, you don't see how such a passage could apply to you. If the exact same passage being spoken to the exact same people instead said, "teach others about their reconciliation through the faith of Christ," you would not be arguing that the passage does not include us. Clearly you believe the latter idea but have doubt about the former idea concerning the retaining and remission of sins. John wrote: > 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. Right. These are ideas which you accept and believe. But what about the reality of the Kingdom of God, which would include not only the poor having the gospel preached to them, but the retaining and remission of sins by the ambassadors of Christ as well as miracles of healing? John wrote: > Yeah and some believe Mark 16:18 > applies to them, as well. Yes, and as you might guess, that includes me. John wrote: > We are going to "plant" a new congregation > -- based on the bibilical model of grace, > reconciliation, and the triune Godhead. > Not a denomination, however. Don't apostles plant churches? Are you claiming to be an apostle? Upon what authority do you "plant" a new congregation? The way I read my Bible, Christ plants churches and none other. We are merely participants in that process. Too many men have become so arrogant as to think that they are church planters. I would really like to see some Biblical justification for you planting a congregation. There is more evidence in Scripture for you to declare a person not saved, not forgiven of their sins, than there is justification for you to plant a church. Does your moving forward in this area really come from what you have read in the letters of the apostles or does it come from some other source or revelation? John wrote: > Not upset at all, David. Good. I am very glad to hear that. I hope you don't mind if I take you at your word on this. 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.
