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
