From jwquinn@cu-online.comThu Apr 25 10:34:47 1996 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 1996 08:58:36 -0500 From: Jon Quinn Reply to: markslist@jackson.freenet.org To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: 2 JOHN 9 (1 of 4) Joshua, Jon Quinn here, with the historical context of 2 John 9; The antichrists denied that Jesus came in the flesh. Why? Because, the Gnostics held, all matter is inherently evil. Only that which is completely spirit can be good, and only God is completely spirit and completely good. If God became flesh, He could not be good. So, they say, He didn't. Not really. Some said Jesus' flesh was an illusion. There were various theories developed to explain the incarnation. Gnostics also worshiped "emanations" or angels. These beings were mostly spirit, and close to God, only tainted by a small amount of matter. Man, on the other hand, was pretty much split down the middle between his spirit and flesh. There was way too much matter for a man to hope to be "good." He is inherently flawed in his very makeup. This caused many of the Gnostics of John's day, and yes, this mixture of Christianity and human philosophy continued to develop into the 2nd century and beyond, to adopt and very "Epicurean" or libertine lifestyle. Their "spirit was willing, but their flesh was impossible." Their belief system, including the denial that God became flesh, had severe consequences on their morality. Sin in the flesh was no danger to the Gnostic's spirit. It was the nature of matter. How ignorant, they thought, were those who actually thought they could control the flesh, or that they even needed to. This is a summary of the background of the false teachers that John addresses especially in his epistles, but we also see some countering of this philosophy in his gospel. Some also suggest that the liberal teachings of the Nicolaitans are a form of this (REV 2:14,15). I have considered the context from about every perspective I know of in coming to the conclusion that "the doctrine of Christ", while certainly including Jesus' identity and incarnation and death on the cross, and the neccesity of love for God and man, also includes His precepts, or laws, or orders, or rules, or commandments, or pattern, or ordinances, or injunctions... (all these words, or their Greek counterparts, are used to refer to New Testament teaching). So the question; does "the doctrine of Christ" mean the teaching about Jesus, as you say, or the teachings coming from Jesus, as I insist. The historical context shows that the problems associated with denying that Jesus came in the flesh included the thought that keeping the commandments of Christ was not necessary, or even possible for men of flesh. In the future, I am looking forward to sharing with you more from the context of the passage itself, from the context of John's writings addressing these problems, and how similar language is used in other places in the New Testament. I pray that we both will be blessed by God in the best way possible as we study His Word. Brotherly, Jon ------------------------------ From jwquinn@main.keynet.net Fri Sep 20 02:31:41 1996 Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 14:55:08 -0500 From: Jon Quinn To: Randall J Wild Subject: Re: hi At 01:13 PM 9/19/96 -0500, you wrote: > >Need sent in e-mail part 2 of 4 of 2 Jn 9. >thanks. > Here it is: Joshua, Jon Quinn here. Having established the proper historical context of II JOHN 9; that John was battling a loose view of the need to obey the teaching of Christ on the part of those who, for philosophical reasons, denied that God, who was spirit and therefore pure, could take upon Himself material flesh, becauce all matter was inherently evil, we'll narrow the scope of context just a bit. Continuing to take it slow, we'll begin to examine the two possibilities. The phrase "doctrine of Christ" could be either subjective genitive (the things Jesus taught) or objective genitive (the things taught about Jesus). No argument can be made one way or the other from a purely grammatical standpoint. It could be either way. When we have a choice like this to make, we must consider the context. I've already considered the historical context. Now, let's consider the Biblical context, starting with the New Testament itself, and then in the next post I plan to narrow the context further to John's writings; and especially those in which he deals with the problems caused by the antichrists. Finally, I hope to consider with you the immediate context of II JOHN. Hopefully this will keep our discussion of "the doctrine of Christ" from becoming a long, drawn out affair with no end in sight. There are other passages in the New Testament that use the term "doctrine" (didache). In TITUS 1:9 the overseer must be able to "exhort in sound doctrine." This was necessary because of Judiazers (10,11). Titus was to speak those things fitting for "sound doctrine." (TITUS 2:1). This included instructions to various elements within the church in all kinds of things, from being temperate and sensible to family instructions for young Christian mothers to watching one's speech (2:2-14). These are the things Titus was to teach (2:15). The term "doctrine" with reference to the things early disciples taught by the authority of Christ had to do with the body of teachings given through the Holy Spirit. Ron Halbrook quotes Robertson, who says "didache" is synonymous with " the dogmatic teaching, with the body of faithful doctrine which was ultimate type and norm for the community" and then gives this list of references (TITUS 1:9; ROM 6:17; 16:17 and compare MATT 16:12; ACTS 5:28; 17:19; HEB 13:2). Robertson continues by saying this usage is the normal one in John (John 7:16, 17; 18:16). Ron also quotes Wescott who says that the New Testament is "uniformly in favor of it "(i.e. taking the subjective genitive meaning of II JOHN 9; doctrine = the things Jesus taught). He cites JN 18:19 and ACTS 2:42. Notice the term "doctrine of ..." ; note how the occurences of this phrase are obviously used in the subjective genitive sense. In addition to our text in II JOHN 9, John uses this phrase in REV 2:14 "Doctrine of Balaam"; REV 2:15 "Doctrine of the Nicolaitans". Also, consider other NT uses of the phrase: "doctrine of him" (MATT 7:28; 22:33; MARK 1:22; 4:2; 11:18; 12:38); "doctrine of the Pharisees" (MATT 16:12); "doctrine of apostles" (ACTS 2:42); "doctrine of you" (ACTS 5:28); "doctrine of the Lord" (ACTS 13:12). And we find the same things with another form of the word; didaskalia (MATT 15:9; MK 7:7; I TIM 4:1; 6:1; II TIM 3:10; TITUS 2:10). All these passages use the phrase the way I contend it is used in II JOHN 9. It means "doctrine from" and not limited to "doctrine about" That is all for now, Next time, I'll focus more on John's writings, and then take a look at passsages where he deals especially with the problems associated with the false teachings of the antichrists. On a personal note, when I first said that I believe that "doctrine of Christ" refers to the teachings from Christ and not limited to the teachings about Christ in II JOHN 9, you said I must consider the context. I'm challenging you to do the same; consider the context. Whether you ever agree with me or not, I hope you will at least see that I have indeed considered the context in coming to my conclusion. Further, if you find yourself unable to accept my conclusions as reasonable, valid and true, you'll do me the honor of telling me why. Brotherly, Jon ------------------------------ ^Z From jwquinn@cu-online.comSat Apr 27 13:01:16 1996 Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 20:17:59 -0500 From: Jon Quinn Reply to: markslist@jackson.freenet.org To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: 2 JOHN 9 (3 of 4) Joshua, Jon Quinn here. In the first post, we looked at the historical context of I & II John. We saw why those who denied that Christ had come in the flesh had taken that view, and how their philosophy had influenced them to live lives of disobedience to the doctrine of Christ (the commandments of Christ). In the second post, we looked at how the New Testament uses the phrase "doctrine of _____" in the subjective genetive sense. This being the case, "doctrine of Christ" would refer to the things Jesus taught; not merely to the teachings about the nature of Jesus. In this post, I'd like to look at the emphasis in the context of I and II John placed on obeying the doctrine, or teaching of Christ. You have suggested that we take 2 John 9 out of context when we suggest that "Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ" means to exceed the bounds of what His teaching authorizes. We "go beyond" when we add to the things He has taught us to do, including our moral and doctrinal practices. When we do things He has not authorized, we have gone beyond the teaching of Christ. [Those references marked with an "*" are especially noteworthy since they show that the context deals with the "doctrine of Christ" or the things "written" or "practiced" in the sense of all His commandments, and not just teachings about His identity.] I John 1:1-4 - Affirmation that Jesus, the Word of Life was here; that He was tangible; and that the things written are for the purpose of allowing others to enter into fellowship with Him. *I John 1:5-10 - Cannot walk in darkness and have fellowship with God. Instructions to those in the light about being cleansed of sin. *I John 2:1-6 - Those who say they know Him but do not keep His commandments are liars. It is the one who keeps His word that are in Him. *I John 2:7-11 - Remember the old commandment, to love your brothers *I John 2:12-17 - Encouragement to be strong in the word and to not love the world. *I John 2:18-29 - Warning about the antichrists who deny the Son. Must continue to abide in what was heard from the beginning (cf 1:1) and not be deceived. Those who truly are of God practice righteousness. *I John 3:1-12 - Children of God purify themselves. Those who practice sin are of the devil. Sin is lawlessness. Those who practice righteousness are of God. The antichrists had claimed that what one practiced did not effect his spirit (see first post). *I John 3:13-24 - The child of God lives by a different standard that the world, therefore the world hates him. True love is that which is in deed, not just words. It is the one who keeps His commandments that abides in Him. *I John 4:1-6 - The spirit of the antichrist has gone into the world. Must listen to the teachings of the apostles, for they are of God, and this is the only way to distinguish between truth and error. *I John 4:7-21. Love; love of God; love for one another; and God's love for us. Love of brethren is a commandment of God. *I John 5:1-12 - Those who love God's children love God and observe His commandments, which are not burdensome. It is by this active faith in Christ we overcome the world. It is in the Son we have eternal life. *I John 5:13-17 - We know we have eternal life through the things written. We have confidence to ask according to His will. All unrighteousness is sin. I John 5:18-21 We know that we are of God. *II John 1-3 Know truth; truth abides in us. *II John 4-12 Children walking in commandment, encouraged to love one another, which is not a new commandment, and this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. >From the very beginning, the commandment has been to walk according to His commandments. Many deceivers have gone out into the world; the antichrists (who say keeping His commandments unneccesary; see post 1) deny Jesus came in the flesh. Those that do not abide in the doctrine of Christ do not have God. Do not encourage the false teacher. That's it. Next, my final post will deal more with the immediate context of II John. To say that taking "the doctrine of Christ" to mean all of Christ's teachings, including His commandments, ignores the context is just not so. It is my prayer that this 4 part study will convince you otherwise. Brotherly, Jon From jwquinn@cu-online.comMon Apr 29 02:35:53 1996 Date: Sat, 27 Apr 1996 22:22:16 -0500 From: Jon Quinn Reply to: markslist@jackson.freenet.org To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: 2 JOHN 9 (4 of 4) Joshua, Jon Quinn here, with the fourth and final installment of the study of 2 JOHN 9. In the first post, we looked at the historical context of I & II John. We saw why those who denied that Christ had come in the flesh had taken that view, and how their philosophy had influenced them to live lives of disobedience to the doctrine of Christ (the commandments of Christ). In the second post, we looked at how the New Testament uses the phrase "doctrine of _____" in the subjective genetive sense. This being the case, "doctrine of Christ" would refer to the things Jesus taught; not merely to the teachings about the nature of Jesus. In the 3rd post, we saw the emphasis in the context of I and II John placed on obeying the doctrine, or teaching of Christ. You have suggested that we take II John 9 out of context when we suggest that "Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ" means to exceed the bounds of what His teaching authorizes. We "go beyond" when we add to the things He has taught us to do, including our moral and doctrinal practices. When we do things He has not authorized, we have gone beyond the teaching of Christ. Finally, this post contains an article I wrote and included in the August, 1994 issue of Expository Files, a monthly publication which I co-edit with Warren Berkley. It deals specifically with II John. LOVE AND TRUTH: A STUDY OF SECOND JOHN (II John) By Jon Quinn ~~~~~~~~~~ Early Christians received the second epistle of John from the aged apostle in the latter quarter of the first century. He referred to himself as "the elder" and is certainly the last apostle living at the time. You can imagine the esteem with which the early Christians would have viewed the last surviving apostle; one who had actually walked and talked with the Lord. Even among the rest of the early Christians, the number of those who had actually seen Jesus was dwindling down to only a few, and it would not be long until no one would be left from the generation which had witnessed the Saviour. John wrote to "the chosen lady." It appears that this is a personification of a church and not a literal lady. It is not unusual for the Scripture to do so (EPHESIANS 5:22f; II CORINTHIANS 11:2; etc.). The context suggests that "the elect lady" is not a single person but a group of people. For example, the use of the plural personal pronoun in the Greek in verses 10 and 12. In our English translations the Greek words "humas", "humin" are translated "you." However, these words are more like our southern expression "you all." John refers to the "elect lady" as "you all." There are two main points which John makes in the letter. One is that we are to walk in love and this means keeping the commandments of God. The second is a warning not to give encouragement to false teachers. Both "truth" and "love" are important. "Grace, mercy and peace will be with us, from God the Father, in truth and love..." (II JOHN 3). SALUTATION: A MATTER OF TRUTH "The elder to the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in truth; and not only I, but also all who know the truth, for the sake of the truth which abides in us and will be with us forever: Grace, mercy and peace will be with us, from God the Father and from Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love." (II JOHN 1-3). John uses the word "truth" no less than four times in just the salutation. There is a reason for that. The truth is being threatened by false teachers. Notice what John says concerning the "truth." First, John says he loves the elect lady and her children. That is to say he loves the church (the elect lady) to which he is writing as a whole as well as the individual members (her children) who make it up. He loves them "in truth." This could mean one of two things: either he loves them sincerely or that he loves them as they both stand in the Lord's truth. Certainly both are true. Second, John says all who "know the truth" would have the same love for this church as he does. When we "know the truth" of what we are as brothers and sisters in Christ; when we "know the truth" of God's great love for us; when we "know the truth" of what it is to bear God's image as His offspring, then we will love one another as God has loved us. Third, John says that the truth "abides in us" and that it will be with us "forever." The truth dwells in the faithful Christian. It shows itself through his or her deeds, thoughts and words. If Jesus reigns on the throne of our hearts, then truth is the law of our lives. And to the enemies of truth; to those who mock it and desire it to disappear, we have this bit of bad news; the truth will be with us forever. Fourth, The blessings of God; His grace, mercy and peace, will be with us "in truth and love." We must follow the truth and have love for God and one another in order to receive the blessings. WALKING IN THE TRUTH "I was very glad to find some of your children walking in truth, just as we have received commandment from the Father. And now I ask you, lady, not as writing to you a new commandment, but the one which we have had from the beginning, that we love one another. And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment that you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it." (II JOHN 4-6). Where the first section emphasized the word "truth," this section elaborates. John commends those who were "walking in truth" and then tells us that this means keeping God's "commandments." And notice something else, though it had been many years since Jesus had ascended back into heaven and the gospel began to be proclaimed on the day of Pentecost, the commandments were the same as when the twelve had stood up and preached the first gospel sermon proclaiming Jesus as the Christ. "Just as you have heard from the beginning" John says. It was "forever." How foolish and prideful to tamper with the truth by seeking to alter the commandments of God to fit our own cultures and fads and opinions. In these first two sections we discover something else. Jesus is real! His word is true! Truth is objective. It is not what I wish were true or feel is true that determines what is true. It has already been determined. Today many like to say, "It does not matter what you believe as long as you are sincere." as if sincerity can make a wrong belief right. It cannot! John says, "and this is love, that we walk according to His commandments." The real test of faith and love comes in the application. If we love Him, we will keep His commandments. WARNINGS ABOUT FALSE TEACHERS "For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist. Watch yourselves, that you might not lose what we have accomplished, but that you may receive a full reward. Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son." (II JOHN 7-9). The reason for the great amount of attention given to truth, the commandments and obeying them is the very real danger which existed (and exists today) of being destroyed by a false teacher. The particular false teachers of John's day were called "deceivers" and "antichrists." They have "gone out into the world" showing that they were once within the church (cf. I JOHN 2:19). They were denying that Jesus had come "in the flesh." They said that that which was divine could not become material flesh. He wasn't really here! His body was an illusion! He did not really die! These teachers were the antichrists. They lived and worked in the first century. The Bible does not use the term "antichrist" to refer to some future world leader. John cautions "watch yourselves" because it would be possible to "lose what we have accomplished." One writer, who believes it is impossible to fall from grace, said these people were in danger of losing "part of the reward at the judgment seat of Christ." But John says nothing about losing a part of anything. He says we can lose it all or we can receive it all; a full reward! If we go beyond the teaching, or doctrine of Christ, then we forfeit our relationship with God. This letter stresses the need to walk in the commandments of God. If we push them aside substituting our own doctrines and practices, then we do not have God. We must continue to abide in the teaching of Christ to maintain our relationship with Him and the Father. Yes! Doctrine does matter! DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN ANOTHER'S EVIL DEEDS "If anyone comes to you, and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds." (II JOHN 10,11). If it is true that the "elect lady" is a church, then "house" here could be the place where the saints assemble to worship. Or perhaps Christians are being told not to allow a traveling false teacher a place to stay. At any rate, Christians are prohibited from lending encouragement to false teachers. Do not even wish them well in their work, because whatever encouragement or support we may give them will only serve to aid in the accomplishment of evil. The false teacher must be shown that his teaching is unacceptable. Truth will be with us forever. It makes us free. We must be loyal to the way, the truth and the life. ========================================================== Thanks for reading and considering. Brotherly, Jon ---------------------- From VisionClr@aol.comMon Apr 29 02:36:30 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 02:41:42 -0500 From: VisionClr@aol.com Reply to: markslist@jackson.freenet.org To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: Re: 2 JOHN 9 (4 of 4) Jon, Again thanks for the obvious time you spent with this discussion, However, I have shown your first three installments to be based on faulty assumptions. 1. The historical context is off a bit 2. The grammer is NOT conclusive 3. The context of some other writting does not give any insight to the context of an unrelated letter. Now in this 4th installment you don't really get to the question "What is the "doctrine" in 2 John 9" Sionce your first three legs of your stool have been shown to be faulty and there does not seem to be a fourth, then what's left? Again, You must have put alot of time in to this....But you have offered nothing concrete to support the idea that the doctrine refered to in 2 John 9 is anything but Jesus coming in the flesh. However, no matter which side of this discussion one stands, our souls are not in danger of being lost...so God bless you, by considerate and kind brother. Graciously, Joshua Scott From jwquinn@cu-online.comMon Apr 29 02:37:43 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 16:30:05 -0500 From: Jon Quinn Reply to: markslist@jackson.freenet.org To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: 2 JOHN 9 (JQ summary) Joshua, After this post, until such a time that you allow the God of grace to soften your hard heart, I shall cease discussing this matter or any other with you. If I respond to anything you say, it wil be to markslist in general. I have been as patient as I can be while you have rejected what is obvioulsly true on the most flimsy of grounds. Your resistance, offerred for the most pathetic reasons I've ever heard, has proven that you have already closed your eyes and stopped up your ears. I have nothing else to offer you... you have groound the pearls into the mud. This has been for all to see. Your objections have been so bad as to be an embarrasment. I hope that there is, at least, some tiny awareness of this in you, and that you are not completely obliviuous to the fact. I hope that you are not so smugly self-satisfied by this spectacle that you do not even realize how foolish you have sounded. Now, to summarize my four posts and your response, just to make sure all is clear to everyone: My Post #1 ~ Historical context. I showed the historical context had to do with the false teachers and the libertarian attitude they took toward the commands of God. Your response to #1 ~ You rejected everything because I CAPITALIZED the "G" in gnostic! That's it! First, whether they were officially called "Gnostics" or not, this was the doctrine upon which the Gnostic doctrines were built. Your handling of this was SHAMEFUL! This is not a game. To pass all this off for this reason is ludicrous, and not something anyone would do who is even remotely fairminded and interested in obeying the truth. The point I made remains the same, capital G or not. By the way, John's emphasis on TRULY KNOWING God (gnosis) shows he is fighting something already claiming to be "gnostic". My Post #2 ~2 Study of the phrase "Doctrine of ____" in the context of the New Testament." Your response to # 2 ~ You did not deny that my observations on the use of the word "doctrine" in the N.T. was correct; you simply said it doesn't matter. The fact that "doctrine of ______" phrase is NEVER used how you want to use it in 2 JOHN 9 and ALWAYS used the way I contend it is being used there is of no consequence at all. You used some silly excuse about words having different definitions in different circumstances; but my point was that the PHRASE "doctrine of ____" is ALWAYS used in the subjective genitive sense. You said grammar does not matter. If that is so, then we can no longer communicate. Words mean nothing. DOUBLE SHAME ON YOU. You resist the Holy Spirit when you resisit the meaning of the words He has used to tell us what we need to know. My post # 3 ~ A study of the text of 1st & 2 JOHN, showing that keeping God's commandments is in the context, which you denied it was. Your Response #3 ~ THIS is where you proved you were NOT REALLY READFING MY POST, just PRETENDING to (am I shouting?). I know this because you said all those passages from 1 JOHN didn't apply because we are talking about 2 JOHN and surmised they may not be about the same thing!!! FIRST, THEY ARE ABOUT THE SAME THING! They both deal with the error of the false teachers known as the "antichrists". Don't you know that? Are you so willing to deny the truth that you're even willing to smugly suggest that this is reasonable... to say that 1 & 2 JOHN are not about the same thing? SECOND if you HAD read my post, you would have noticed that I spent MORE time on the specific section of 2 JOHN than I did with any other passage. Here follows 2 clips which prove you merely glanced at my posts, assumed what they said, and pretended to have read them: a). I had said: >>>*II John 4-12 Children walking in commandment, encouraged to love one another, which is not a new commandment, and this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. >From the very beginning, the commandment has been to walk according to His commandments. Many deceivers have gone out into the world; the antichrists (who say keeping His commandments unneccesary; see post 1) deny Jesus came in the flesh. Those that do not abide in the doctrine of Christ do not have God. Do not encourage the false teacher.<< b) you responded: >>>Jon, as much as i have admired your tenacity with this discussion, I do hope you will bring some relevant comments concerning 2 John 9. Not that you haven't tried to be relevant, but you can't go the 1 John to determine the context of 2 John. We don't even know if these three letter were written in this order, nor how long apart they were, nor to exactly whom they were written. To go from one letter to determine the context of the other letter just does not follow. << If you had read, you would have known that I did deal with 2 JOHN. YOU DIDN'T READ IT; shame on you for pretending you had. I, by this time, had lost any hope that I would be able to convince you accept what 2 JOHN 9 teaches. Your heart simply is not prepared to accept the Bible truth on this matter. My Post # 4 ~ I dealt with the immediate context of 2 JOHN. Your response #4 ~ you said: >>>However, I have shown your first three installments to be based on faultyassumptions. 1. The historical context is off a bit 2. The grammer is NOT conclusive 3. The context of some other writting does not give any insight to the context of an unrelated letter. << You showed NO SUCH THING! Your objections to the first three were ridiculous! The only thing you have shown to be faulty so far was your own handling of the Scriptures. You did not even deal with the passage. I am not upset that you disagreed with me... But that you did so with such blatantly silly arguments. I'm finished with you until you repent of your false teaching. Only then will I feel that any time spent with you will have any possibility of bearing righteous fruit. You have proven yourself, at this point at least, to be uncircumsized of heart and ears. It's time for you to cut away the dross and come to the Word with an open heart. May God bless you with an opportunity to do so. I want nothing ill for you. But I simply am tired of throwing the pearls with which Jesus as blessed us away to be trampled underfoot by you. Very concerned for your soul, and hoping something pricks your heart, Jon From VisionClr@aol.comMon Apr 29 02:39:04 1996 Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 21:43:46 -0500 From: VisionClr@aol.com Reply to: markslist@jackson.freenet.org To: Multiple recipients of list Subject: False Summary on 2 Joh 9 (JS) Jon, It is regretful that you have not heeded my posts on 2 John 9. Regretful and sad. You continue to lack the relevancy and proper exegesis pertaining to this passage. I think your decision to cease this discussion to be a wise one. I know you have tried hard, but your theology has simply been found wanting. The responses to your posts i offered were ignored and not delt with even in your Summary. This is sad. The phrases you then use (ridiculous, shameful, uncircumcised in heart, silly arguments) are so typical of one who has failed miserably to make a cogent argument so as to resort to wild name calling and tossing out parts of scriptures. I am surprised you did not call me the antichrist. I truly thought from your previous posts you were closer to the truth than that. The supposed pearls you think you are throwing to this swine are in fact lumps of coal which will some day be burned, (thank God). However, we may disagree - even one with your theology could not begin to make this an issue of salvation. Therefore i forgive you for your Summary post which reflected your anger so well. I understand being passionate about some things, but to quote out of context (I really don't know why this surprises me) passages to flame me such as the pearl reference, uncircumcised in heart, and others merely deteriorates your position further. However, if you do make this an issue of salvation, I have two responses: 1. The NT does not 2. Are you ready to be judged by the judgement by which you judge? That is, are you ready to say that because you believe you have the proper interpretation on this issue and I don't that I am not saved? Dear Jon, think carefully on this one....is there even the slightest chance that you could be mistaken on ANY issue you hold to be true? Do you believe that when you get to heaven (and I bleive you will be there, by the grace of God) you will have no further insight to ALL the issues you believe? Finally, I do not (as you do me) judge your heart on this one. I do think you have very weak exigetical proceedures - but then again, you are only human as I am. There is no way you could have the corner on the market of truth. It is truly sad to hear someone say that because they disagree with me, that I must have a closed heart. Again, this is typical of one who just can't get around their own theology.....Jon, as to you flaming Summary post, I would offer this advice - GET OVER YOURSELF. Don't try to level YOUR interpretations with God's heart - it will be your undoing Joshua Scott