Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
And another LRC error. They are so sure that John is the really important gospel. But if that is true, why did God have the others written first, and seemingly three passes at much of the same things, then later add that different gospel by John? Maybe the content of the other three is three times more important than the one. (Probably not that simple.) Or the three are the core, but the one is also needed. And if you are going to focus on only part of it, the weight of the three may just indicate relative importance in some ways. You can be obedient without getting into so much of the spirituality. But if you try to be spiritual without the obedience, you are just a sham.
|
It's not just the LRC that sometimes views the Gospel of John uniquely, but that should not in any way diminish the importance of the other three. Each gospel has its own viewpoint, as inspired by the Spirit. I see no LRC error on this point, in fact, the LSM might have been faulted for diminishing the value of John in favor of their more legalistic teachings on the "kingdom" found in Matthew.
Dr. Philip Comfort, formerly a minister in the Church in Columbus at its inception, was passionate about the gospel of John, his favorite book of the Bible. He eventually departed from the LRC after he was badly abused by TC of Cleveland, whose chief rebuke was that PC was "too theoretical." Amazingly, no one else, including all the GLA leaders, felt this way about PC and his ministry until the "wise seer" TC was able to point this out.
I do believe the gospel of John is unique because of the time it was written. Instead of being written by a young teenage John, an eye-witness of all these events from the earliest days of Jesus' ministry, it was written by an aging and mature John, who had benefited from decades of serving the Lord in the churches.