Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: excerpt redux
For someone whose expertise is withwords Lance, your friend sure plays fast and loose with them. Nowhere doesscripturesay "Christ became sin or a sinner" - Remember? He was "begotten not made, of one substance with the Father" - so even Orthodoxy disputes her thesis. It was on the cross that he was actually"made" sin for us who knew no sin so that we might be "made" the righteousness of God in Him (2 Corinthians 5:21). Note the words "made" in this verse have two different meanings. The first #4160 "to make or do" ie: God made him sin on the cross The second #1096 "generate, to become or come into being, to cause" Which happens afterthe New Birth when the Holy Spirit comes to indwell the believer and make all things new. From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: March 14, 2006 22:04 Subject: excerpt redux Lance, I was just printing out the next raw chapter (on "Two Kinds of Righteousness" and "A Meditation on Christ's Passion") in preparation for editing, and my eye lit on this portion at the end. I'm sending it to you raw, because being at the end of a 24-page chapter it'll be a while till I get to it in the editing. It's QA, and the point I was noticing was that sinhas no existence apart from sinners,two interestingramifications of which are (a) thatChrist, in becoming sin, became sinner, and (b) that theaphorism, "hate thesin but love the sinner" is problematic.I think of both of these in relation to recent (well, not so recent anymore, perhaps) threads on TT. Any thoughts? What do you do with this hatred thingy? D
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: excerpt redux
Lance's friend writes: It's QA, and the point I was noticing was that sinhas no existence apart from sinners What about the angels who sinned and are held in chains of darkness - are they persons also? And BTW what is personhood anyway? Last time I looked angels were ministering spirits.
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: excerpt redux
Very interesting dialogue, Lance. I appreciate you sharing it with us. There is much more that can be developed here. The concept of love the sinner but hate the sin is problematic in certain contexts, but it is not entirely a logical contradiction. The reason is that the concept of sinner is not fixed in stone when it comes to humans. A sinner today may not be a sinner tomorrow. This is because of grace and the work of Christ to transform a sinner into a righteous saint who obeys the commandments of God. I have to address this issue often when I preach on the homosexual deception that is sweeping across this world. I find myself needing to communicate my love for the homosexual person but my hatred for the sin of homosexuality. How can I do this? Because I believe that homosexuality is preventable and curable. It is a sin problem that is solved by faith in Jesus Christ. I have no hatred in my heart toward most of those who consider themselves to be a homosexual. In fact, sometimes I am confronted by homosexual virgins, and I have to tell them that from my perspective they are not yet homosexual if they have never had any sexual relations with other men. God does not condemn a person based upon their inner desires or temptations, but rather he condemns them for sinful actions. A few weeks ago, a student attempted to point out this logical inconsistency mentioned below, that if I truly hated homosexuality, then I would have to hate the homosexual. I agreed with him, but with a caveat, that only in the case of the homosexual who would not or could not repent. If a person has given himself completely over to sin such as homosexuality, then yes, I should hate that homosexual because he is an abomination in the eyes of God. It is only in this way that I can love those whom he is hurting by his sin. However, many of the homosexuals on campus are not in this category. There is time for them to repent and be transformed by the grace of God. Concerning those homosexuals, I love them, and it is my love for them that causes me to sacrifice in order to deliver the message of repentance and hope to them. There is one other contextual issue here as well, and that is that I am in need of grace as much as any homosexual. Therefore, I cannot sit in judgment upon his sin without putting myself in jeopardy. In other words, if my attitude is not one of love when I call for his repentance, but rather is accusatory and judgmental, then how can I expect to receive mercy myself? No, what I must do is give the message of how repentance is apprehended in Jesus Christ, through confession of sin and a turning away from all that offends God. I do this as one who has experienced this work of grace. I testify to its work and exhort others to experience it as well. Therefore, there is a love in me for that person who is still able to repent and find Christ. It is in this context, with these other considerations, that I can say that I love the person who calls himself a homosexual because of the present philosophy in the world today, but hate the sin of homosexuality and call upon him to forsake it and abandon it. David Miller. - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 5:31 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Fw: excerpt redux - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: March 14, 2006 22:04 Subject: excerpt redux Lance, I was just printing out the next raw chapter (on Two Kinds of Righteousness and A Meditation on Christ's Passion) in preparation for editing, and my eye lit on this portion at the end. I'm sending it to you raw, because being at the end of a 24-page chapter it'll be a while till I get to it in the editing. It's QA, and the point I was noticing was that sin has no existence apart from sinners, two interesting ramifications of which are (a) that Christ, in becoming sin, became sinner, and (b) that the aphorism, hate the sin but love the sinner is problematic. I think of both of these in relation to recent (well, not so recent anymore, perhaps) threads on TT. Any thoughts? What do you do with this hatred thingy? D [Question: I was just thinking about Christ being sinner or sin. And just, without having thought about it too much, it makes sense that he would have to be a sinner if he was being punished in proxy for humanity, because God was punishing – or God needed to punish – humanity, because they, as a collective whole, were sinners, so God was punishing sinners. So unless Christ became a sinner, then it wouldn't be a perfect substitution. If God was never interested in punishing sin …] That's exactly right. [… he was punishing sinners. So if all of a sudden you're just punishing sin, it would be different. It wouldn't be the same.] You can't punish sin. You can only punish sinners, because sin has no existence apart from sinners. Sin doesn't
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: excerpt redux
Because I believe that homosexuality is preventable and curable. DAVEH: Did you/anybody happen to watch 60 MINUTES a few days ago? It had a very interesting segment on homosexuality. And as I understood the story, they seemed to be neutral in their examination.which was inconclusive, but pointed out there are no simple answers as to whether it is genetic or environmentally influenced. David Miller wrote: I have to address this issue often when I preach on the homosexual deception that is sweeping across this world. I find myself needing to communicate my love for the homosexual person but my hatred for the sin of homosexuality. How can I do this? Because I believe that homosexuality is preventable and curable. It is a sin problem that is solved by faith in Jesus Christ. I have no hatred in my heart toward most of those who consider themselves to be a homosexual. In fact, sometimes I am confronted by homosexual virgins, and I have to tell them that from my perspective they are not yet homosexual if they have never had any sexual relations with other men. God does not condemn a person based upon their inner desires or temptations, but rather he condemns them for sinful actions. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: excerpt redux
Great post. I would include David's response but I am still working on his comments. Perhaps only the definition of sin exists in the abstract. We I speak of "hating the sin" I only mean that I am displeased with the effects sin is having on his person. I think it a perversion to hate the abstract or non-personal. I don't really hate my computer - I hate that it performs in a particular way -- it's ontology, if you will. As far as Christ the sinner -- wasn't sin already in grand disfavor with God? In Christ there is no death -- it has been defeated. And death is punishment handed out ONLY to persons. Christ became like us in all respects --only as a sinner can He accept death deserving for us all. He did not die unjustly !! What is "unjust" is the fact that he actually became what He was not -- a sinner without [personal] sin !! We seem to all agree on this, no? jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: March 14, 2006 22:04 Subject: excerpt redux Lance, I was just printing out the next raw chapter (on "Two Kinds of Righteousness" and "A Meditation on Christ's Passion") in preparation for editing, and my eye lit on this portion at the end. I'm sending it to you raw, because being at the end of a 24-page chapter it'll be a while till I get to it in the editing. It's QA, and the point I was noticing was that sinhas no existence apart from sinners,two interestingramifications of which are (a) thatChrist, in becoming sin, became sinner, and (b) that theaphorism, "hate thesin but love the sinner" is problematic.I think of both of these in relation to recent (well, not so recent anymore, perhaps) threads on TT. Any thoughts? What do you do with this hatred thingy? D [Question: I was just thinking about Christ being sinner or sin. And just, without having thought about it too much, it makes sense that he would have to be a sinner if he was being punished in proxy for humanity, because God was punishing or God needed to punish humanity, because they, as a collective whole, were sinners, so God was punishing sinners. So unless Christ became a sinner, then it wouldn't be a perfect substitution. If God was never interested in punishing sin ] That's exactly right. [ he was punishing sinners. So if all of a sudden you're just punishing sin, it would be different. It wouldn't be the same.] You can't punish sin. You can only punish sinners, because sin has no existence apart from sinners. Sin doesn't exist apart from sinners. Therefore to me, to say that Christ became sin but not sinner makes the same mistake, it falls into the same error. In the same way, when we speak of the love of God, what we really mean is God himself loving us at this moment. The love of God is God himself loving us. It isnt that God is here, and he visits us with his love, you know, his love is detachable from him. That's not what we mean. Calvin will say, the person of God is found in all the acts of God. That's right: the person of God is found in all the acts of God. That's just another way of saying, God's judgement is God judging us. God's love is God himself loving us. Well then to say, to relate all of this to sin, is to say that we always live at the realm of the person and personhood. It's rather that what we call sin is highly abstract. The person of the sinner and the person of God are highly concrete. And it's at the level of the concrete that redemption always has to occur, not the level of the abstract. Clay? [Question: So that when people are discussing homosexuality, abortion, whatever the case may be, to take the line that, well, you know, we hate the sin but we love the sinner, that's sort of, off target?] Yes, it is. I've always said, in my first-year systematic theology class, that the old Christian aphorism, we have to love the sinner but hate the sin, is logically impossible. Sin has no existence apart from sinners. You can't hate sin, love sinners. You can only love and hate the sinner himself at the same time. I recognise the danger, oh, man, I recognise the danger, because if we ever legitimate the church's hatred of sinners, can you imagine what's going to happen tomorrow? But logically, you can't love sinners and hate sin, sin has no existence. This is safe in the hands of God, not safe in our hands, because Scripture, if you read Scripture with one eye open, what you find that God is a terrific hater, terrific hater. And at the same time, the hatred of God is always a manifestation of the love of God. And that's where it's safe in God but not safe in us, because Stephen's hatred here, Stephen's hatred of the homosexual isn't a manifestation of his love for him. It's just hatred, unqualified hatred. And that's why, on the one hand logically I want to say, you can't love sinners and hate sin, but on the other hand I'm so reluctant to say, we have to love and hate
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: excerpt redux
NO Jd Some of us believe the scriptural account which teaches us that as a person He was "begotten" not made The word JD is "monogenes" and it means one of a kind and different from the rest of us who were conceived in in sin and iniquity. YES Jd He did die unjustly and if you believe the scriptures - The princes of this world had no idea because if they had known they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. God pulled a fast one on them. On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:21:33 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Great post. I would include David's response but I am still working on his comments. Perhaps only the definition of sin exists in the abstract. We I speak of "hating the sin" I only mean that I am displeased with the effects sin is having on his person. I think it a perversion to hate the abstract or non-personal. I don't really hate my computer - I hate that it performs in a particular way -- it's ontology, if you will. As far as Christ the sinner -- wasn't sin already in grand disfavor with God? In Christ there is no death -- it has been defeated. And death is punishment handed out ONLY to persons. Christ became like us in all respects --only as a sinner can He accept death deserving for us all. He did not die unjustly !! What is "unjust" is the fact that he actually became what He was not -- a sinner without [personal] sin !! We seem to all agree on this, no? jd -- Original message -- From: "Lance Muir" [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message - From: Debbie Sawczak To: 'Lance Muir' Sent: March 14, 2006 22:04 Subject: excerpt redux Lance, I was just printing out the next raw chapter (on "Two Kinds of Righteousness" and "A Meditation on Christ's Passion") in preparation for editing, and my eye lit on this portion at the end. I'm sending it to you raw, because being at the end of a 24-page chapter it'll be a while till I get to it in the editing. It's QA, and the point I was noticing was that sinhas no existence apart from sinners,two interestingramifications of which are (a) thatChrist, in becoming sin, became sinner, and (b) that theaphorism, "hate thesin but love the sinner" is problematic.I think of both of these in relation to recent (well, not so recent anymore, perhaps) threads on TT. Any thoughts? What do you do with this hatred thingy? D [Question: I was just thinking about Christ being sinner or sin. And just, without having thought about it too much, it makes sense that he would have to be a sinner if he was being punished in proxy for humanity, because God was punishing or God needed to punish humanity, because they, as a collective whole, were sinners, so God was punishing sinners. So unless Christ became a sinner, then it wouldn't be a perfect substitution. If God was never interested in punishing sin ] That's exactly right. [ he was punishing sinners. So if all of a sudden you're just punishing sin, it would be different. It wouldn't be the same.] You can't punish sin. You can only punish sinners, because sin has no existence apart from sinners. Sin doesn't exist apart from sinners. Therefore to me, to say that Christ became sin but not sinner makes the same mistake, it falls into the same error. In the same way, when we speak of the love of God, what we really mean is God himself loving us at this moment. The love of God is God himself loving us. It isnt that God is here, and he visits us with his love, you know, his love is detachable from him. That's not what we mean. Calvin will say, the person of God is found in all the acts of God. That's right: the person of God is found in all the acts of God. That's just another way of saying, God's judgement is God judging us. God's love is God himself loving us. Well then to say, to relate all of this to sin, is to say that we always live at the realm of the person and personhood. It's rather that what we call sin is highly abstract. The person of the sinner and the person of God are highly concrete. And it's at the level of the concrete that redemption always has to occur, not the level of the abstract. Clay? [Question: So that when people are discussing homosexuality, abortion, whatever the case may be, to take the line that, well, you know, we hate the sin but we love the sinner, that's sort of, off target?] Yes, it is. I've always said, in my first-year systematic theology class, that
Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: excerpt redux
BE WARNED!!! On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 17:21:33 + [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Perhaps only the definition of sin exists in the abstract. We I speak of "hating the sin" I only mean that I am displeased with the effects sin is having on his person. I think it a perversion to hate the abstract or non-personal. I don't really hate my computer - I hate that it performs in a particular way -- it's ontology, if you will. Sound more like Christian Science .. ie there is no such thing as sickness - it is all an illusion if you will. What is "ontology?" A branch of metaphysics that has to do with the nature of being ... What is metaphysics? The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality and the relationship between mind and matter. The title of Aristotles treatise on the subject... What does God sayregarding these things?: "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" (Colossians 2:8)
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: excerpt redux
Doesnt that prove that 60 Minutes doesnt know a __ thing? iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Hansen Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 9:11 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: excerpt redux Because I believe that homosexuality is preventable and curable. DAVEH: Did you/anybody happen to watch 60 MINUTES a few days ago? It had a very interesting segment on homosexuality. And as I understood the story, they seemed to be neutral in their examination.which was inconclusive, but pointed out there are no simple answers as to whether it is genetic or environmentally influenced. David Miller wrote: I have to address this issue often when I preach on the homosexual deception that is sweeping across this world. I find myself needing to communicate my love for the homosexual person but my hatred for the sin of homosexuality. How can I do this? Because I believe that homosexuality is preventable and curable. It is a sin problem that is solved by faith in Jesus Christ. I have no hatred in my heart toward most of those who consider themselves to be a homosexual. In fact, sometimes I am confronted by homosexual virgins, and I have to tell them that from my perspective they are not yet homosexual if they have never had any sexual relations with other men. God does not condemn a person based upon their inner desires or temptations, but rather he condemns them for sinful actions. -- ~~~Dave Hansen[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://www.langlitz.com~~~If you wish to receivethings I find interesting,I maintain six email lists...JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: excerpt redux
An example of a carnal reply. Does anyone doubt the sincerity of Linda's faith -- yet we have something that could not sound more worldly. I think this has to do with I Cor 3:1ff. jd Doesnt that prove that 60 Minutes doesnt know a __ thing? iz
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: excerpt redux
The blank space is so that YOU can fill in the blank. I suppose your fill-in was carnal. (Mine was not.) J iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 2:26 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: excerpt redux An example of a carnal reply. Does anyone doubt the sincerity of Linda's faith -- yet we have something that could not sound more worldly. I think this has to do with I Cor 3:1ff. jd Doesnt that prove that 60 Minutes doesnt know a __ thing? iz
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: excerpt redux
-- Original message -- From: "ShieldsFamily" [EMAIL PROTECTED] The blank space is so that YOU can fill in the blank. I suppose your fill-in was carnal. (Mine was not.) J iz From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2006 2:26 PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: excerpt redux An example of a carnal reply. Does anyone doubt the sincerity of Linda's faith -- yet we have something that could not sound more worldly. I think this has to do with I Cor 3:1ff. jd Doesnt that prove that 60 Minutes doesnt know a __ thing? iz
RE: [TruthTalk] Fw: excerpt redux
Thanks for your example of as you say "a carnal reply"Now that I see your response I am a BELIEVER!!! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An example of a carnal reply. Does anyone doubt the sincerity of Linda's faith -- yet we have something that could not sound more worldly. I think this has to do with I Cor 3:1ff. jd Doesnt that prove that 60 Minutes doesnt know a __ thing? iz__Do You Yahoo!?Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
