David Miller wrote: >> If this were true, then the Scriptures are >> no standard at all. Are you saying that >> our understanding of Scripture is ALWAYS >> prone to error and therefore none of us can >> be sure that we understand the Scriptures, ever?
John wrote: > Actually, David, it is all the more critical that the > biblical message as pretains to the revelation of > God within that message be "infallible." My > understanding of scripture is not infallable and it > is quite obvious that yours is not, as well. It is quite obvious to me that some of my understanding is infallible. For example, I understand that Jesus is the Messiah. Is this understanding fallible? Is it subject to error or change? I think not. John wrote: > The fact that the Bible is "infallable" is no reason > to assume that we do not insist upon our own > standards of faith and practice. Such is an > unavoidable bias. If we insist upon our own standards of faith and practice, and we believe that our standards are fallable and prone to being wrong, then we would be operating out of pride and arrogance. We should be locked up if that were the case. Nobody has the right to insist that others follow our fallible beliefs. David Miller wrote: >> If this is your position, then the Scriptures are >> not profitable for reproof and correction because >> someone could always just say that the person giving >> the correction misunderstands the Scripture. John wrote: > No David. I do not confuse one's understanding > of scripture with scripture, itself. ... I know that > Christ loves me as I stan d before Him this day; > that He died for me just as I am and that He is > working within me and in the community of those > surrounding me to bring me to the quality of life > I hunger for ------- and I believe this, in part, > because of the Bible [whether Catholic or Protestant.] > As you can tell, with God it is all about "me." > Praise God. It is all about you, eh? Well, don't you see that you are operating as if your understanding of these things are infallible? If it is possible that you are in error about all this, then you should be open to the idea that maybe God is not loving you in the manner that you describe. But... if you do have an infallible understanding here, and I think you do but just won't admit that you do, then nobody can take away your assurance that God loves you. John wrote: > You have hit upon the problem of evangelism, > David. And how do we solve the problem? > Scare them into the church? Devise crafty > arugments that cannot be defeated? Wave > underwear? Or love them into His grace? > Present the work of God in our lives and offer > THAT as the strength of our position? How about we leave the work to God and we just be willing vessels to do and speak whatever he directs us to do and speak. John wrote: > If you and I ever do "team evangelism," it will be > in this wise. I will build my church behind your > building. That way I can invite the hordes running > out your back doors (double wide, no doubt) through > the front doors of my chapel. Given enough time, > your church, in comparision, will look like a closet > space. :-) [how am I doing , G?] Actually, you are getting kind of close to the way this team work goes. God does not allow me to draw men unto me in the kind of work that I do in regards to evangelism. So first off, I don't have a building. Only you do. Then as I preach and people come under conviction, they are baptized and believe upon Jesus Christ. Then they go to your home or the homes of others or to church buildings where people congregate around the Lord Jesus Christ. They form relationships and grow in the grace of Christ. David Miller wrote: > You keep quoting 1 Cor. 5. This chapter shows > a little more than just example when Paul instructs > the Corinthians to cast out the sinner from their > church. John wrote: > Gee, David, where WAS the leadership of that > church? They were puffed up, thinking that they could keep this man in fellowship even with his sin. John wrote: > And what kind of "order" was it. An order of holiness, that nobody in the body of Christ should be allowed to continue in sin. John wrote: > I mean, if they decided to deal with > the problem differently, what would > have happened? Other believers would have fallen into sin, and eventually the whole church would be full of sinners. John wrote: > And what is there in I Cor 5 that preaches > against my claim? The admonition to excommunicate this man is contrary to the way that you teach to deal with sin. John wrote: > When leadership moves from example to authority, > tyranny is born and time will record its ugliness!! Example is authority, John. Jesus never got rid of authority. Rather, he taught authority how to exercise their power, which is from the bottom up, as servants. Tyranny was not born in 1 Cor. 5. A man was delivered over to Satan that his spirit might be saved. John wrote: > The church has a history that attests > to this fact, does it not? It depends upon which church you are talking about. In Roman Catholicism, we do find examples of tyranny, but it is not because of authority per se, but because of a type of authority which lords over others. 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.
