John wrote:
> That which stands out above the rest, in this article,
> is the authors notation that those who are believers
> in "sinless perfectionism" have a "softer" view of sin.
> DM has a very limited view of what sin is ..............
> limited pretty much to "event sin."
John, I really wish you would stop trying to represent my views. You do not
understand me or my teaching one bit. Please be quiet when it comes to
representing me. Speak of the Lord only please.
You are wrong to say that I have a limited view of sin, limiting it only to
what you call "event sin." I believe that anything not of love and not of
faith is sin. Sin is defined to be much broader than violating the 613
commandments of Torah. Jesus makes this clear in Mat. 5 and other passages.
John wrote:
> By Miller's definition, his debate with me, at least, is
> between equals!! Two non-sinners (by his definition)
> arguing about "sinless perfectionism."
Sigh. I do not teach "sinless perfectionism" so your concept of arguing
about such is only in your mind.
John wrote:
> And the real difference between his theological position and
> other's is his narrow definition of sin - an important point
> in this article.
I have said many times that my views about holiness are virtually identical
to John Wesley's view. The article you talk about was favorable toward his
view, so I suspect David Reagan also would be favorable toward my teachings
about holiness.
John wrote:
> He allows for pride to be a continuing circumstance
> but cannot allow himself to call it "sin."
Pride is sin, John. Please stop bearing false witness about me. I
recognize that the temptation to be proudful of oneself resides in my flesh
and could be a source of temptation in the future. I do not allow for pride
to be a continuing circumstance in my life or the life of a believer.
John wrote:
> He also drags Christ in the fray. Christ was
> prideful and bigoted and conceited ---------
Blasphemy! How can you write such words. Christ was tempted in these areas
like all of us are, but he was never prideful, bigoted, or conceited.
John wrote:
> as all humans are to some degree, "proving"
> a broader definition of sin to be without merit.
This is all in your imagination, John, apparently in an effort to discount
hearing what I teach on the matter of holiness in Christ.
John wrote:
> Sinless perfectionist actually deny the "truth"
> of Romans 3:23, completely missing the point
> of that particular passage AND, (IMO) misunderstanding
> the very circumstance of the Cross, itself ("Christ
> only died for past sins" - DM).
Why do you keep mixing my initials in there with the term "sinless
perfectionist." I can't tell if you are rightly criticizing sinless
perfectionists, or trying to insult me by calling me a sinless
perfectionist.
In regards to the remission of sins past, please just read the Bible two
verses beyond your favorite Romans 3:23. Verse 25 says precisely what I
teach about the remission of sins past.
John wrote:
> When one begins with sinless perfectionism,
> so much of the biblical message is confused.!
I agree, and when one begins with John Smithson's commentary on David
Miller, the Biblical message becomes confused.
Please, John, don't talk about me on this list. Represent your views or
represent the Lord. The choice is yours. Just do not represent David
Miller. Please. Is this too much to ask?
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.
