Re: [TruthTalk] And Gary, and John, and Bill and, on occasion(s), Linda and David

[knpraise]

 

 

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> John wrote:
> > "techniccally" is the word of a legalist justifying
> > what he has actually done while pretending to
> > be fully consistent. One simply cannot tell another
> > to "stop the blasphemy" without, at the same time
> > and in the same breath, accusing him OF blasphemy.
>
> There is a distinction between holding to an opinion about someone being in
> error and accusing someone of an error.

Here we go again  --  David introducing words and phrases into the discussion that were not a part of the originial intent.  I said this: One simply cannot tell another
> to "stop the blasphemy" without, at the same time
> and in the same breath, accusing him OF blasphemy

If you would stick to the very wording I used, that would be good.  "Error" includes any number of categories including blasphemy.   "Error " and "blasphemy" are not the same  --  one is much broader in meaning and definition that the other.  One most definitely can be in error without being blasphemous.   But one cannot blaspheme without being guilty of blasphemy. 

None of the following has anything to do with what I said above.  .

 

 Part of this distinction has to do
> with the attitude of our heart. It is important to understand this
> distinction if we are to correct others in love.
>
> Many times my children fall into error. If I took the approach of accusing
> them of error, it could crush their spirit. Instead, I can hold to the
> opinion that they are in error and seek to correct the problem in love.
> There is indeed a difference between working to stop blasphemy and accusing
> someone of blasphemy. Even when Jesus warned about blasphemy against the
> Holy Ghost, he did not accuse anyone in particular. He held to an opinion
> that those who confused the good work of the Holy Spirit with the work of
> Satan were in great danger of unforgiveable blasphemy.
>
> You might also consider the woman taken in adultery. Jesus held to the
> opinion that she had sinned, yet he told the woman that he did not condemn
> (accuse) her. In other words, Jesus held to the opinion that she was wrong
> to commit adultery without accusing the woman of adultery. I hope you
> understand this distinction. It is an important one and not merely the
> rhetoric of a legalistic sophist.
>
> 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.