1. You have, in past times, made it clear that such things as "selfishness" or "pride" form the foundation or source for "sin" or "sinning." Such has been considered by you as "temptation," not sin. I will not "speak of the Lord only" on this forum, David.
Here is a perfect illustration of your double speak (please do not hear these words spoken harshly. I am not angry or even frustrated with you -- keep that in mind) :
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. DM
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. DM
2. As regards paragraph two (your comments below) -- is there a sense in which David Miller is a sinner at any time and, therefore, one who has sinned but continues to fall short of the glory of God? You have denied this, in the past. What is your position today? Let's not forget that "pride" something that we all possess to one degree or another. You now argue that thiis IS sin (pride), making you a "sinner" on any occasion that I care to post to you.
3. (see para # DAvid's comments below). It is almost comical to me, the extent to which most on the "right" dislike being pinned down.
-----Original Message-----
From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 11:10:02 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Sinless Perfection.htm
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.
Did you mean to say this?!! LOL my friend. 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?
Yes, on a discussion forum, it really is. 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.
