So are you saying that salvation is based upon philosophy and
understanding? A person must properly understand and profess the right
Christology in order to be saved?
David M.
p.s. I don't put down you, John. You confuse a put-down of
ideas with who you are. Your ideas will change. You as a person will
not change.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 12:50
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] 'i DON'T
UNDERSTAND' -David Miller'
Judy, your very style of response is that of the scornful. It is
what you are about. But be that as it may.
What we believe is one thing, Judy. What we teach others is
another matter altogether. James' advice is "be not many [of you]
teachers." Why? Because words shared can make a difference in
one's walk with God.
There is nothing, nothing at all, in your posts with myself, Bill,
Lance, G and others that is reconciliatory or indicative of one who is a
student. I menationed a "truce" sometime ago -- something
you ignored. When I write something to Dean, for example, you come
charging in and make it clear that I am not led by the Spirit (or some such
crap) and then proceed to spew your brand of logic. I woke
up this morning, in more ways than one. I opened an email
form Dean that suggested that he was considering the notion, the blasphemy,
that Christ was not God in the flesh. It is John who declares that
believing "Jesus Christ came in the flesh" is a line drawn in the
sand. I DO NOT CARE WHY HE SAID IT. I only care that
he did. In not mentioning the reason for the remark, I
believe that John expected his thinking to be used to fight all heresy that
attacks the divinity of Christ incarnate. Had he attached his
comment to a specific reason, the comment would neither be a general principle
of truth nor would it be a timeless moment of revelation. If
you choose to disagree, I am not interested.
David actually thinks I am to enjoy his put-down thinking of me and you
actually think you can join me hip to hip with the Accuser while claiming that
"we are all just plain old believers." Niether is the
case. And in that description, you cast yourself as someone
who knows and is to be listened too -- a teacher or
prophetess. Your weirdness in terms of theology is well documented and at
times , causes one to think or rethink her position of a given matter.
But we were not sharing positions on the deity of Christ
and His nature as the Son of Man. Not at all.
You are correcting us, warning others of our false doctrine,
associating us with the doctrines of men, expecting others to believe that we
do not share in the Spirit of Christ and on and on and on and on and on.
And then, suddenly, it hits me just how harmful your words really
are ...... Dean's post of this morning. He is a
good guy - a Christian.
But he is toying with the doctrine
that is unique to the Christian faith. No other
faith has God as its founder. If Christ is not God in the flesh,
Christianity is just another religious opinion of man. And,
if He is not fully God in the flesh, He is not God at all. Jesus
describes Himself as He who "is, who was and who is to come." In
that statement, somewhere, is the incarnate Christ. I
worship the Man, Jesus Christ, because I believe Him to the Son of God, making
Himself equal to God. If you do not, we are not of the same
heritage at all and your teaching is to opposed. If you
believe that Jesus Christ if fully God incarnate , then I will publicly
apologize. But that is not going to happen, is it !!
jd
--------------
Original message --------------
From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
JD you are too full of your own importance
and you exaggerate everything out of all proportion; we are all just sheep -
plain old professing believers and you say as many outrageous and outlandish
things as the next person. I would not be found sitting in the seat of
the scornful if I were you. judyt
