-------------- Original message --------------
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> John wrote:
> > I think the problem, here, is that yoou consider me
> > to be someone who has no boundaries.
>
> Actually, just the OPPOSITE. Legalists have boundaries. Yes, but I wasn't talking about legalism, was I ??
>
> John wrote:
> > Not true, as it turns out. .... that I have "no boundaries."
>
> Yes, this was my point. :-) That I have no boundaries?
>
> John wrote:
> > I would argue with your conclusion as regards me.
> > A true legalist would put Judy on the outside of the
> > Assembly and refuse to let her anywhere near that
> > body of believers. Let us not forget that your definition
> > of "legalist" and mine a re two very different things.
> > Yours makes no disctinction between firmly held
> > beleifs and salvation by works -------------
> > my definition is only about that circumstance.
>
> You and I may define legalism differently, but what you don't seem to
> recognize is that your definition is very much like that of the Pharisees.You're right about that !! I don't seem to recognize that. But I do see your ACTIONS as being very much in line with those of the Pharisees. So much for ad hom v ad hom. Shall we stay on subject or do you really prefer the mud?
> They did not put people outside the body of Israel for their beliefs. The
> Sadduccees were not put out for not believing in spirits, angels, the
> resurrection, eternal life, etc. They were simply categorized in the same
> way that you would categorize Judy. One important difference, though, is
> they did not treat them as second class citizens, forbidding them to teach,
> as you would Judy. In other words, (you probably hate me saying this) it
> seems to me that you are more legalistic than the Pharisees were. Now
> please remember, I do not consider legalism a dirty word. I just see that
> you are far more strict than the Pharisees were and yet you don't seem to be
> able to see it.LOL. David, you will dis-allow this, but absolutely no one who knows me, not even my enemies , consider me a legalist. Your reality on this matter is of the same nature as that of a comic book. Seriously. I am not a works salvationist and such is a legalist to me..........................to the exclusion of any other definition.
Why can't you just let people like Judy teach all they like
> to their own hearts content? Is not the truth strong enough to resonate
> with people that they will side with it when you teach?Cause I am just a mean and nasty fellow. And I rebel at all those passages in the bible that tell me to let anyone teach anything to anyone else, whether in or out of the Assembly of Saints. Paint me to be the heretic for insisting on the words of the Apostle when he says "you are of God when you proclaim that Jesus Christ came in the flesh -- you are not of God when you deny it." I should have the courage to disagree with the Apostle, but I am just plain .. aahhh .. ............................ chicken.
>
> 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.
