subject:"RE\: \[TruthTalk\] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me"




Now you're asking the right kind of questions! I 
may return with some answers. We'll see how the day goes. It looks like I still 
owe DaveH a response on the word echad. Hey, Slade. If you've got that 
paper, please post it.

Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 12:41 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal 
  Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
  In a message dated 1/10/2005 4:54:11 PM Pacific 
  Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  Moreover we see from the actions of the father that the son was 
also loved throughout, as well as forgiven 
  throughout.This is very true. Allow me to add a thought or 
  more. This parable is found in Luke 15: 12 - 
  32 (I just read the thing in less than 2 minutes). 
  1.) Is this parable about becoming children of God or is it 
  about the joy the father experienced when he has his son safe at home? 
  2.) This "repentance" we speak of, not found in the text 
  itself, per se, - was it a repentance based upon grief 
  for having sinned against the father, or were those words used by the prodigal 
  to gain acceptance and a hot meal with his father (v 
  v17,18) 3.) Is the father's acceptance shared 
  before or after the "statement of 
  repentance?' 
  If after -- who benefited from this confession, the son or the 
  father? 
  (v20) 
  4.) The remaining son -- selfish or 
  not (v v 25-29).5.) The remaining son 
   accepted or not (v v 31). 
  6.) Is the father concerned that his children do the right 
  thing, make good 
  decisions 
  -- v 32. How many really 
  mature and (spiritually) healthy sons were in this family? 
  1, 2 or 0?Can we say that the father loved 
  both no matter what? Do we suppose that the father wanted 
  his sons to act out in a righteous way? (v 32)Does 
  unconditional love negate a father's concern for right actions on the part of 
  his children?Why are the sons accepted? Their right 
  actions? Or, simply because the father loves 
  them?You read, you decidedPastor Smithson

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me




Cool story, John.

Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 1:56 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal 
  Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
  In a message dated 1/10/2005 7:11:10 PM Pacific 
  Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  Ah, I 
didn't know that he wasn't a part of mainstream Pentecostals. How many 
Pentecostal sects are there? As many as Baptists? Or what some would call 
Messianics? What's the difference between Pentecostals and the Four Square 
people? KayThe Baptist have the 
  Exclusion Market cornered, I think. There are several 
  kinds of pentecostals -- but the divisions are more matters 
  of degree than fights that end in exclusion and division. 
  You seldom hear of a split with Pentecostals. Oneness holiness 
  types (UPC and such --- United Pentecostal 
  Church) think they are the only ones saved 
   but the rest of us are pretty accepting of the 
  differences. Holiness, prosperity, and the rapture teachings 
  are the things Pentecostals share to one degree or another 
  --- Gifts and Spirit baptism are common to 
  all. Oneness - Jesus only --is not a Pentecostal doctrine 
  but the teaching has it's pentecostal fan base. These folks are 
  not a part of the movement and their numbers are extremely small. 
  Assembly of God, Four Square, and Church of God are your primary 
  denominations, each very accepting of the others. This summer, I will 
  enter a PhD program at an Assembly school. It will be accepted 
  throughout the movement. The movement, if you will, is 
  also heavily influenced by personalities who minister in a para-church type 
  circumstance, different from non- Pentecostal types. The 
  biggest difference I see, an important difference to me, is the belief 
  that God "visits" us in the display of miracles (not as many as we 
  claim but more than most think), the infilling or baptism of the 
  Spirit (same thing) - with or without the 
  evidences of tongues (my wife speaks in 
  tongues, I, as you might expect, do not. When brethren 
  ask if I speak in tongues, I often tell them "Yes, I 
  call it ENGLISH !!! " -- all with a big 
  smile on my rather roughedly handsome face.) , and confimations in prophacy 
  and signs. Sounds wierd, I know, but there is 
  more of a practicality to all of the above than you might suppose 
  -- and many of you on TT have shared/similar experiences but with 
  differing descriptions or by different names. 
  A most memorable visitation/confirmation was the day I decided 
  that water baptism did not save (in a unique and universal way). I 
  had been dealing with the matter, just me myself and the Devil's 
  Advocate (me again). I was at the Berean Bookstore, 
  took the afternoon off to make this decision. I was lead to Gals 
  3:26,27 - a big big passage for us baptism types "know 
  ye not that as many of you as have been baptised into Christ have put on 
  Christ?" While reading this passage, I came to the rather 
  startled decision that this passage was not talking about "water baptism" at 
  all. Rather, it was talking about IMMERSION INTO CHRIST 
  HIMSELF. I am not one who deserts his 
  faith.no matter what. But suddenly, there it was 
  - something in my mind, a thought, that was pusing me away from 
  the water -- forcing me to change a very significant 
  belief. If that highlighted "translation" were 
  true, IMMERSION INTO CHRIST HIMSELF, then Paul was not speaking of 
  salvation in terms of a historic event so much as he was speaking of conduct 
  that could only be described as an immersion into the Son. 
  Wow !! I was afraid to accept this very different 
  understanding. Afraid I was about to do harm to the gospel 
  message itself. I got up and began just wondering around the 
  book store -- totally focused on this discision about to be 
  made (some would call this "prayer.") No one to talk 
  to. No help. Just me and my poor old dumb 
  self. I rounded the end of one of the book racks and started 
  down yet another aisle. I looked to my left -- a long 
  rack of books for sale. Sitting face out, on the top shelf was a 
  little book - the title: "The practice of 
  the presence of the Lord" by "brother Lawrence." For "some 
  reason,'' I went over and took the book in hand. 
  On the back cover were these words shouting at me as if it were the voice of 
  God Himself : "Brother Lawrence was a man of humble beginnings who 
  discovered the greatest secret of living in the Kingdom of God here on 
  earth. It is the art of 'practicing the presense of God in one 
  single act that does not end.'" If that is not the same as 
  "know ye not that as many of you as have been immersed into Christ himself 
  have put on Christ," then I do not know how to read. Anyway, 
  it was the same to me. A visitation. Not too

RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me




He was 
at work and school for many a day, BillWinter Session. Today he comes home 
from work at the normal time.

Kay

  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Bill 
  TaylorSent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 08.19To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal 
  Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
  Now you're asking the right kind of questions! I 
  may return with some answers. We'll see how the day goes. It looks like I 
  still owe DaveH a response on the word echad. Hey, Slade. If you've 
  got that paper, please post it.
  
  Bill
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 12:41 
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the 
Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
In a message dated 1/10/2005 4:54:11 PM 
Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Moreover we see from the actions of the father that the son 
  was also loved throughout, as well as forgiven 
throughout.This is very 
true. Allow me to add a thought or more. 
This parable is found in Luke 15: 12 - 32 (I just read 
the thing in less than 2 minutes). 1.) Is this parable 
about becoming children of God or is it about the joy the father experienced 
when he has his son safe at home? 2.) This "repentance" 
we speak of, not found in the text itself, per se, 
- was it a repentance based upon grief for having sinned 
against the father, or were those words used by the prodigal to gain 
acceptance and a hot meal with his father (v v17,18) 
3.) Is the father's acceptance shared before or after 
the "statement of 
repentance?' 
If after -- who benefited from this confession, the son or the 
father? 
(v20) 
4.) The remaining son -- selfish or 
not (v v 25-29).5.) The remaining son 
 accepted or not (v v 31). 
6.) Is the father concerned that his children do the 
right thing, make good 
decisions 
-- v 32. How many really 
mature and (spiritually) healthy sons were in this family? 
1, 2 or 0?Can we say that the father loved 
both no matter what? Do we suppose that the father 
wanted his sons to act out in a righteous way? (v 
32)Does unconditional love negate a father's concern for right 
actions on the part of his children?Why are the sons 
accepted? Their right actions? Or, simply 
because the father loves them?You read, you 
decidedPastor Smithson

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me




Oh I remember those Intensives! I hope he knows he 
if he's too overwhelmed he does not have to bother. DaveH and I can work through 
this without him. I just thought it would be nice to read a well-thought-out 
presentation of the word.

Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Slade 
  Henson 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 6:45 
  AM
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal 
  Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
  
  He 
  was at work and school for many a day, BillWinter Session. Today he comes 
  home from work at the normal time.
  
  Kay
  
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Bill 
TaylorSent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 08.19To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: 
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to 
Me
Now you're asking the right kind of questions! 
I may return with some answers. We'll see how the day goes. It looks like I 
still owe DaveH a response on the word echad. Hey, Slade. If you've 
got that paper, please post it.

Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 12:41 
  AM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the 
  Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
  In a message dated 1/10/2005 4:54:11 PM 
  Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  Moreover we see from the actions of the father that the son 
was also loved throughout, as well as forgiven 
  throughout.This is very 
  true. Allow me to add a thought or more. 
  This parable is found in Luke 15: 12 - 32 (I just read 
  the thing in less than 2 minutes). 1.) Is this parable 
  about becoming children of God or is it about the joy the father 
  experienced when he has his son safe at home? 2.) This 
  "repentance" we speak of, not found in the text itself, per 
  se, - was it a repentance based upon grief for 
  having sinned against the father, or were those words used by the prodigal 
  to gain acceptance and a hot meal with his father (v 
  v17,18) 3.) Is the father's acceptance 
  shared before or after the "statement of 
  repentance?' 
  If after -- who benefited from this confession, the son or the 
  father? 
  (v20) 
  4.) The remaining son -- selfish or 
  not (v v 25-29).5.) The remaining son 
   accepted or not (v v 31). 
  6.) Is the father concerned that his children do the 
  right thing, make good 
  decisions 
  -- v 32. How many 
  really mature and (spiritually) healthy sons were in this 
  family? 1, 2 or 0?Can we say 
  that the father loved both no matter what? Do we 
  suppose that the father wanted his sons to act out in a righteous 
  way? (v 32)Does unconditional love negate a father's 
  concern for right actions on the part of his children?Why are the 
  sons accepted? Their right actions? Or, 
  simply because the father loves them?You read, you 
  decidedPastor Smithson

RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me




Those 
are pretty hard on everyone. The kids and I are stuck at home the whole time 
with no car. He leaves by 6 AM for work and doesn't come home until after 
schoolafter 11 PM. That's why I made him go away with us on the 30th. We 
spent two nights at a condo, then came back the 1st because he began this class 
on the 2nd. Last night was the last class. Now I'm making him do another family 
activity on Saturday because I'm going down to the condo the weekend of the 
22nd!

--Kay

  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Bill 
  TaylorSent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 08.52To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal 
  Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
  Oh I remember those Intensives! I hope he knows 
  he if he's too overwhelmed he does not have to bother. DaveH and I can work 
  through this without him. I just thought it would be nice to read a 
  well-thought-out presentation of the word.
  
  Bill
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Slade 
Henson 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 6:45 
AM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Why the 
Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

He 
was at work and school for many a day, BillWinter Session. Today he 
comes home from work at the normal time.

Kay

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-11 Thread David Miller

John wrote:
 You apparently teach that Christ was
 at one time not the Son.

It is not my teaching, but the teaching of Judy that came via Finis Dake, 
Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, etc.  The word son, especially as used in the 
phrase, Son of Man, is a term that applies to him when he became human 
flesh.  Also note that when Jesus referred to himself as the son, he seemed 
to prefer son of Man to son of God.

John wrote:
 If He existed apart from sonship,  this
 begetting you speak of, is, in effect,
 a rite of adoption.   It is only a role the
 2nd Whatever in the Godhead plays
 to effect the salvation of us all.   He
 was not   but now is the son.
 That is the very essense of adoption.
 You cannot call it such for biblical
 reasons but that is the effect of your
 teaching.  Not an entirely unwarranted
 conclusion  --   just something I strongly
 disagree with.

The Biblical Reason is the virgin birth, the miracle of Mary's womb.  Luke 
1:35 has been shared over and over again, but for some reason you seem to 
overlook this miracle

Luke 1:35
(35) And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come 
upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore 
also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of 
God.

Why would the holy thing born of Mary be called the son of God?  Because the 
Holy Ghost came upon her, and the power of the Highest overshadowed her, and 
created that which was of God within her womb.  This was not some adoption! 
This was a miracle of the Logos becoming flesh, the miracle of God begetting 
the son of Man.  God had now begotten a son among men, something never 
before done, and it opened the doors of adoption whereby we all can be 
adopted into his family.

David Miller wrote:
 All of us were adopted because we were born
 children of Satan, but he was born a child of God
 from the beginning.  Therefore we call him the only
 begotten son of God.

John wrote:
 Gosh, David, which is it?  begotten son means
 virgin born or is He the child of God (that would
 make Him son)  from  the beginning?

I was talking about the beginning of his existence in flesh and blood.  This 
was the start of a new relationship, not just of the Logos to the father 
above as a son, but also a new relationship of God to man, God relating to 
man through the flesh.  From the very first moment he partook of flesh and 
blood, he was son of God as well as son of man.

John wrote:
 More than simply being confusing,  the above seems
 to equate begetting with the English  definition of that
 word  to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth .
 rather than the definition of monogeno  (only begotten)
 which has to do with uniqueness  (Kittle, Arnt/Gengrich).
 Christ was the only unique son of God.

The definition of monogenes has a long history of debate that goes back to 
the early church fathers.  Some of the debate hinges on whether the second 
half of the word originates from ginomai (to become) which would lend 
itself toward the translation only existing, or gennao (to beget) which 
would lend itself toward only begotten.  Kittle tends to take an extreme 
position on defining this word that is propelled by the theological 
viewpoint of eternal sonship.  Not all theologians fully accept this 
definition.  While there is no dispute regarding the concept of uniqueness 
being communicated, there is some debate over what kind of uniqueness is 
being communicated.  The dictionary of New Testament words by Zodhiates 
acknowledges the viewpoint that I tend to adopt.  Perhaps his wording will 
better communicate to you the perspective that I tend to accept, which 
relates his uniqueness to the incarnation, to his being begotten not just of 
the flesh, but of God.  No other man is like Jesus in this way.  Jesus is 
unique.

Zodhiates says, ... it is the word logos (3056), Word, which designates 
His personage within the Godhead.  Christ's Sonship expresses an economical 
relationship between the Word and the Father assumed via the incarnation. 
This stands in fulfillment of OT prophecies which identify Christ as both 
human, descending from David, and divine, originating from God.  Like David 
and the other kings descending from him, Christ is the Son of God by 
position (2 Sam. 7:14), but unlike them and because of His divine nature, He 
is par excellence the Son of God by nature (Psalm 2:7; Heb. 1:5).  Thus the 
appellation refers to the incarnate Word, God made flesh, not simply the 
preincarnate Word.  Therefore, monogenes can be held as syn. with the 
God-Man.  Jesus was the only such one ever, in distinction with the Holy 
Spirit, the third Person of the Triune God.

John wrote:
 That He (Christ) claims this sonship as an aspect
 of who He is,  is clear in John 8:54-59
 If I glorify Myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father
 who glorifies me    Your father, Abraham, rejoiced
 to My day and he saw it and was glad   The Jews,

RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-11 Thread ShieldsFamily









I got up and began just wondering around the
book store -- totally focused on this discision about to be
made (some would call this prayer.) No one to
talk to. No help. Just me and my poor old dumb
self. I rounded the end of one of the book racks and started
down yet another aisle. I looked to my left -- a long
rack of books for sale. Sitting face out, on the top shelf was a
little book - the title: The practice
of the presence of the Lord by brother Lawrence.
For some reason,'' I went over and took the book in
hand. On the back cover were these words shouting at me as if it
were the voice of God Himself : Brother Lawrence was a man of
humble beginnings who discovered the greatest secret of living in the Kingdom of God here on earth. It is the
art of 'practicing the presense of God in one single act that does not
end.' If that is not the same as know ye not that
as many of you as have been immersed into Christ himself have put on
Christ, then I do not know how to read. Anyway, it was
the same to me. A visitation. Not too weird? That
is my word for such events. I like the sound. It is my
way of admitting that God has a personal interest in me and that, at times, He
pays me a visit - even finds ways of talking to
me. One of my kids ask me, one day, Dad, how come God
doesn't just talk to us like -- you know, normal? My
answer - because the still small voice does not run the risk
of SACRING THE HELL OUT OF YOU. 

But He spoke to me that day - never read that little
book - put it on my shelf in plan view so I will never
forget. Have read the back cover many a time. 

Nappy time

John the Beloved -out!!! 



John, you should read it. It is probably the most life changing
(non-Bible) book I have read in my life. Izzy

RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-11 Thread ShieldsFamily

Awesome post, David! Izzy

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:TruthTalk- This passage of
John 1:18 also continues the Word made Flesh theme from 
four verses earlier.  The idea is that man hath not seen God, but man has 
seen the only begotten Son.  Why?  Because the son of God is a term that 
refers to the Word made flesh, to Jesus, the Word Incarnate.  Men know the 
son of God because he is flesh, and men can know God only through the 
declaration of this unique son of God.  It seems pretty clear that the 
phrase son of God refers to the miracle of the incarnation.

Peace be with you.
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-11 Thread David Miller

Bill Taylor wrote:
 LOL, David, be sure to pull out your trusty Encarta
 the next time you need a theological explanation
 for a biblical term.

LOL.  I was very surprised to find the word there.  I thought you might find 
it interesting, and especially looking at its definition, it might help 
explain difficulty you might have communicating with others when they look 
up words that they do not recognize.  I remembered Judy expressing some 
questions about what the word kenosis meant. If she read this definition of 
partial relinquishing of divinity, she might have all the more reason to 
reject what you are trying to communicate.

Bill Taylor wrote:
 As for me, I'll look to the lexicons when I need
 a definition and continue to draw my theology
 from sources a little, shall we say, closer to the
 mainstream of the Faith was delivered.

Feel free to share your definition from such lexicons with us.  I looked up 
many and found five different definitions and explanations that were far too 
lengthy to reproduce here.  I could not determine which of them you would 
follow in your perspective.  I gave the Encarta Dictionary definition 
without explanation partly in hopes that you might clarify the definition 
you follow should you differ from this popular definition.

Peace be with you.
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-11 Thread Knpraise

In a message dated 1/11/2005 5:30:06 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Cool story, John.
 
Bill


Isn't this the really cool thing about that story: the art of 'practicing the presense of God in one single act that does not end.'" 

Man, I like that  and only because of my association with TT do I understand this in ways that I did not, even back then. Back then, it was simply a word from the Lord, a confirmation. 

friend and brother
JD

RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me




Hello, 
Judy. Please understand that there is no past, present, or future tense in the 
Hebrew Scriptures. We can infer past or present or future by perfect and 
imperfect tenses, but prophesy...? It breaks a lot of the grammar rules. It can 
be fun as long as you don't get dogmatic about it.


Only 
Begotten" means "unique."


-- 
slade

  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy 
  TaylorSent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 18.25To: 
  truthtalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal 
  Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
  jt: Correction David. This is what I believe at this 
  point but it did not come via the above three souls. It is what I see in the 
  Bible. The only place I seea "Son" in all of the OT is in prophecy. It 
  is always future tense.
  
  jt:...He is the ONLY begotten 
  Son

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-11 Thread David Miller

John wrote:
 You apparently teach that Christ was
 at one time not the Son.

DM:
 It is not my teaching, but the teaching of Judy
 that came via Finis Dake, Adam Clarke, Albert
 Barnes, etc.

Judy Taylor wrote:
 Correction David. This is what I believe at this
 point but it did not come via the above three souls.
 It is what I see in the Bible. The only place I see
 a Son in all of the OT is in prophecy. It is always
 future tense.

Thanks for the correction.  So you had this understanding before you read 
Finis Dake and shared his notes with us?

I guess upon further reflection, I should point out that it is not that 
Christ was once never the son, because there was no Christ or Messiah before 
he was born of the woman.  More properly, it might be said that there was a 
time when the Logos was not the Son of David, was not the Son of Man, was 
not the Son of God, was not the Christ, was not Messiah, was not Yeshua, was 
not Jesus, and was not Emmanuel, etc.  He became all these things through 
the miracle of the incarnation.  Is that how you see it Judy?

Peace be with you.
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-11 Thread Terry Clifton





Slade Henson wrote:

  
  
  
  Only Begotten" means "unique."
  
  
  -- slade

I evidently need a little help here Slade. Does the word "Begotten"
have no relation to the word "Begat"? Do both not relate to child
birth? I understand that "only" means "unique". Does this mean
something other than the only son God ever had by a woman?
Terry

RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me




Yes, 
basically it has nothing to do with it. "Begot" is a terrible translation. Two 
different languages

--slade

  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Terry 
  CliftonSent: Tuesday, 11 January, 2005 18.29To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal 
  Sonship of Christ Matters to MeSlade Henson wrote: 
  


Only Begotten" means "unique."


-- 
sladeI evidently need a little help here 
  Slade. Does the word "Begotten" have no relation to the word 
  "Begat"? Do both not relate to child birth? I understand that "only" 
  means "unique". Does this mean something other than the only son God 
  ever had by a woman?Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me





David writesin reference to Jesus' statement, 
"Before Abraham was, I AM" To surmise that this statement in 
some way means that he was begotten of God and was the son of God prior to his 
incarnation is to read one's theology into the text. Nothing here 
indicates that he was the son of God prior to his incarnation. It only 
speaks to his having existence as God prior to Abraham's existence. 


I disagree with you, David, at every strata in your 
statements above. It was not just his divine status that Jesus is attempting to 
establish with this statement. He is mostemphatically not just 
saying that he was "God" prior to Abraham's existence.Moreover, one does 
not have "to read one's theology into the text" to make this determination. 


With his statement, "Before Abraham was, I 
AM"(and it having been made in the context ofa derogatory 
suggestion, which had cast dispersions upon the legitimacy of his own sonship), 
he clearly interprets his status as that of the divineSonof 
God the Father; and thisprior even toAbraham's day. Remember that 
his statement came at the end of a series ofvolleys between himself and 
some Pharisees that goes back to a couple of questions they had asked:"Are 
you greater than our father Abraham, who is dead?...Whom do you make yourself 
out to be?" (John 8.53, and keep in mind that Jesus had in this same exchange 
already on four separate occasions employed the language of ego eimi -- 
"I AM"). Now look at how Jesus sets forth his answer in his very next 
statement: "If I honor myself, my honor is nothing. It is my Father who 
honors me, of whom you say that he is your God"(v 54, emphasis mine). 
In this verse Jesus answers their question concerning who he is by calling the 
one whom they call their God his very own"Father."They had 
insinuated earlier that Jesus was a bastard son and didn't evenknow 
hisfather (see v 44); they had just identified themselves as legitimate 
sons of Abraham (v 53),not only that but they had alsotried 
unsuccessfully to establish themselves as sons of God (see again v 44ff). 
Makeno mistake:in response to all of this, when Jesus calls their 
God his Father, heIDENTIFIES himself as the Son of that Father, the 
verySon of their God! He then turns their accusations of his illegitimacy 
back on them: "Yet you have not known Him, but I 
know Him. And if I say, 'I do not know Him,' I shall be a liar like you; but I 
do know Him and keep His word.Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, 
and he saw it and was glad"(vs 55-56).At this pointthey again 
attempt to interpret his sonship in purely temporal, human terms: "You are not 
yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?"But Jesus would have 
nothing to do with it. The legitimacy of his Sonship could not be contained, or 
determined, or measured in earthly years, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before 
Abraham was, I AM." At this there was no mistake:they picked up rocks to 
stone him.

David, I am curious about something: Why are 
youdenying (and on more than one occasion) that what you are setting forth 
is your "teaching" as well? Why instead do you insist on calling this "the 
teaching of Judy that came via Finis Dake,Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, 
etc"? Is it purely on her behalf that you are making these arguments?-- Or 
is it because you do not want to explicitly identify yourself as the teacher of 
that which can only be interpreted as heresy from the position of classic 
orthodoxy? I say this not to offend either one of you, but if I were Judy, I 
would want to know why you are so willing to let her hang out on that branch all 
by herself.

Bill








- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 8:25 
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of 
Christ Matters to Me
 John wrote:  You apparently teach that Christ 
was  at one time not the Son.  It is not my 
teaching, but the teaching of Judy that came via Finis Dake,  Adam 
Clarke, Albert Barnes, etc. The word "son," especially as used in the 
 phrase, "Son of Man," is a term that applies to him when he became 
human  flesh. Also note that when Jesus referred to himself as the 
son, he seemed  to prefer "son of Man" to "son of God."  
John wrote:  If He existed apart from sonship, this 
 begetting you speak of, is, in effect,  a rite of 
adoption. It is only a role the  2nd Whatever in the 
Godhead plays  to effect the salvation of us all. 
He  was not  but now is the son.  That is the 
very essense of adoption.  You cannot call it such for 
"biblical  reasons" but that is the effect of your  
teaching. Not an entirely unwarranted  conclusion 
-- just something I strongly  disagree with. 
 The Biblical Reason is the virgin birth, the miracle of Mary's 
womb. Luke  1:35 has been shared over and over again, but for some 
reason you seem to  overlook this miracle  Luke 
1:35 (35) And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-11 Thread Knpraise

In a message dated 1/11/2005 7:26:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

You apparently teach that Christ was
at one time not the Son.

It is not my teaching, but the teaching of Judy that came via Finis Dake, 


Of course this is your teaching  you have been debating those who believe in the eternal sonship teaching for weeks. For you to pretend that you have not taken a position on this teaching is now longer possible. 

John

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

David, I broke your statement down into parts and answered accordingly:

More properly, it might be said that there was a time when the Logos

1) was not the Son of David, -- Yes.
2) was not the Son of Man, -- Yes.
3) was not the Son of God, -- No. The Logos was always the Son of the
Father.
4) was not the Christ, was not Messiah, -- Yes.
5) was not Yeshua, was not Jesus, -- Yes. Although I will be very interested
to see Judy's response here. Moreover, I am surprised at your own reversal
as it relates to this admission.
6) and was not Emmanuel, ... -- Yes.
7) He became all these things through the miracle of the incarnation. -- No,
but we are five out of six in terms of agreement.

 Is that how you see it Judy?





--
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-11 Thread Judy Taylor




jt: I don't know about "fun" Slade. It's 
seriousbusiness to student's of God's Word as it was to the astrologers or 
whoever they were who travelled so far to see the child Jesus;alsoto 
Simeon and Anna. Do you see Isa 9:6,7 as something other than "future" 
Slade?Should"shall and wil"l be interpreted as present or past 
tense? 


On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:40:44 -0500 "Slade Henson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  Hello, Judy. Please understand that there is no past, present, or 
  future tense in the Hebrew Scriptures. We can infer past or present or future 
  by perfect and imperfect tenses, but prophesy...? It breaks a lot of the 
  grammar rules. It can be fun as long as you don't get dogmatic about 
  it.
  
  
  Only 
  Begotten" means "unique."
  
  
  -- 
  slade
  
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Judy 
Taylor
jt: Correction David. This is what I believe at 
this point but it did not come via the above three souls. It is what I see 
in the Bible. The only place I seea "Son" in all of the OT is in 
prophecy. It is always future tense.

jt:...He is the ONLY 
begotten Son

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-11 Thread Judy Taylor





jt: Correct David. Those are all the things He is not 
calledunder the Old Covenant but
there is another listHe is identified with that 
goes back to from "before the 
foundation of the world." I'm just learning about 
Adam Clarke and Albert Barnes
The latter is profiled in a Closer Walk devotional for 
Feb that I happened to pick up
today. Interesting...

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:51:30 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John 
wrote:  You apparently teach that Christ was 
 at one time not the Son.  DM:  It 
is not my teaching, but the teaching of Judy  that came via 
Finis Dake, Adam Clarke, Albert  Barnes, etc.  
Judy Taylor wrote:  Correction David. This is what I believe at 
this  point but it did not come via the above three souls. 
 It is what I see in the Bible. The only place I see  a "Son" in 
all of the OT is in prophecy. It is always  future tense. 
 Thanks for the correction. So you had this understanding before 
you  read  Finis Dake and shared his notes with us? 
 I guess upon further reflection, I should point out that it is not 
 that  Christ was once never the son, because there was no 
Christ or  Messiah before  he was born of the woman. More 
properly, it might be said that  there was a  time when the 
Logos was not the Son of David, was not the Son of  Man, was  
not the Son of God, was not the Christ, was not Messiah, was not  
Yeshua, was  not Jesus, and was not Emmanuel, etc. He became all 
these things  through  the miracle of the incarnation. Is 
that how you see it Judy?  Peace be with you. 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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

Nice spin, Judy, but David not say anything about
the "Old Covenant." He said, quote, "More properly, it might be said
thatthere was atime when the Logos was not
the Son of David, was not the Son ofMan, wasnot the Son of God, was
not the Christ, was not Messiah, was notYeshua, wasnot Jesus, and
was not Emmanuel, etc. He became all these thingsthroughthe
miracle of the incarnation. Is that how you see it Judy?"
What do you think, Judy: Was there a time when the Logos was
not Son of David, Son of Man, Son of God, the Christ, the Messiah,
Yeshua, Jesus, Emmanuel, etc.? Did he become all these things
through the miracle of the incarnation?

I would very much like a direct answer
here.

Bill

- Original Message -
From:
Judy
Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 10:22
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal
Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

jt: Correct David. Those are all the things He is not
calledunder the Old Covenant but
there is another listHe is identified with that
goes back to from "before the
foundation of the world." I'm just learning
about Adam Clarke and Albert Barnes
The latter is profiled in a Closer Walk devotional
for Feb that I happened to pick up
today. Interesting...

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:51:30 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
John wrote: You apparently teach that Christ was
at one time not the Son. DM: It
is not my teaching, but the teaching of Judy that came via
Finis Dake, Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, etc.
Judy Taylor wrote: Correction David. This is what I believe at
this point but it did not come via the above three souls.
It is what I see in the Bible. The only place I see a "Son"
in all of the OT is in prophecy. It is always future
tense. Thanks for the correction. So you had this
understanding before you read Finis Dake and shared his
notes with us? I guess upon further reflection, I should
point out that it is not that Christ was once never the son,
because there was no Christ or Messiah before he was born of
the woman. More properly, it might be said that there was a
time when the Logos was not the Son of David, was not the Son of
Man, was not the Son of God, was not the Christ, was not
Messiah, was not Yeshua, was not Jesus, and was not
Emmanuel, etc. He became all these things through the
miracle of the incarnation. Is that how you see it Judy?
Peace be with you. 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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-11 Thread Judy Taylor




Yes, according to scriptureHe became all these 
things "in the fullness of time" judyt

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:38:32 -0700 "Bill Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  Nice spin, Judy, but David not say anything about 
  the "Old Covenant." He said, quote, "More properly, it might be said 
  thatthere was atime when the Logos was 
  not the Son of David, was not the Son ofMan, wasnot the 
  Son of God, was not the Christ, was not Messiah, was notYeshua, 
  wasnot Jesus, and was not Emmanuel, etc. He became all these 
  thingsthroughthe miracle of the incarnation. Is that 
  how you see it Judy?" What do you think, Judy: Was there a time when 
  the Logos was not Son of David, Son of Man, Son of God, the 
  Christ, the Messiah, Yeshua, Jesus, Emmanuel, etc.? Did he 
  become all these things through the miracle of the 
  incarnation?
  
  I would very much like a direct answer 
  here.
  
  Bill
  
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Judy 
Taylor 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Tuesday, January 11, 2005 10:22 
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the 
Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me


jt: Correct David. Those are all the things He is 
not calledunder the Old Covenant but
there is another listHe is identified with 
that goes back to from "before the 
foundation of the world." I'm just learning 
about Adam Clarke and Albert Barnes
The latter is profiled in a Closer Walk devotional 
for Feb that I happened to pick up
today. Interesting...

On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 18:51:30 -0500 "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 
John wrote:  You apparently teach that Christ 
was  at one time not the Son.  
DM:  It is not my teaching, but the teaching of Judy 
 that came via Finis Dake, Adam Clarke, Albert  
Barnes, etc.  Judy Taylor wrote:  Correction 
David. This is what I believe at this  point but it did not come 
via the above three souls.  It is what I see in the Bible. The 
only place I see  a "Son" in all of the OT is in prophecy. It is 
always  future tense.  Thanks for the 
correction. So you had this understanding before you  read 
 Finis Dake and shared his notes with us?  I guess 
upon further reflection, I should point out that it is not  that 
 Christ was once never the son, because there was no Christ or 
 Messiah before  he was born of the woman. More 
properly, it might be said that  there was a  time when the 
Logos was not the Son of David, was not the Son of  Man, was 
 not the Son of God, was not the Christ, was not Messiah, was not 
 Yeshua, was  not Jesus, and was not Emmanuel, etc. He 
became all these things  through  the miracle of the 
incarnation. Is that how you see it Judy?  Peace be 
with you. 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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-10 Thread Jeff Powers




I'll cast a vote for the Bishop of 
Californa!
Jeff

Life makes warriors of us all.To emerge the victors, 
we must armourselves with the most potent of weapons.That weapon is 
prayer.--Rebbe Nachman of Breslov

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Dave Hansen 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 
23:50
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal 
  Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
  DAVEH: My latest response is in 
  BLUE.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  In a message dated 1/9/2005 6:23:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  So be it  How can I conclude 
that Dave Hansen is not a brother ( in the grandest sense of that word) 
when this confession is so? The only rebuttal, as I 
see it, is to effectively argue that "brotherhood" is based upon 
doctrinal agreement that finds him no longer a 
  MormonDAVEH: ??? Not sure why you 
  would deny me Mormonism while maintaining Protestantism, JD. Is that 
  not a double standard? It would be as you are understanding my 
  post -- but that is not what I am saying. I 
  think my use of the word "effectively" has caused some 
  confusion. My point is that one cannot make an effective 
  argument. The only rebuttal to your inclusion would be an 
  effective argument that allows for the differing traditions of all except 
  you -- not possible as far as i am concerned. 
  DAVEH: Ahhh.thanx for clearing that up for 
  me, JD.
  

  but allows me to continue as a Pentecostal and and Kay as a 
Messianic and Bill as a Bricklayin Fool For Christ and Jonathan/Lance as 
Canadian Mega Liberals !! Dave will never agree with us 
"protestants,"DAVEH: Seems like I already didat 
  least in one aspect..that without Jesus, there would be no 
  salvation. Absolutely -- sorry the 
  confusion. DAVEH: I suspect there are other areas I may agree as 
  well. But for the sake of dividing folks (and I admit to doing it too), 
  it is more interesting/entertaining to point out the differences.
  

  nor will any of us convert to 
  Mormonism.DAVEH: Heyno need to draw hasty 
  conclusions, JD! :-D Read on ;-)
   Nor will I ever be whatever Judy is (I truly do 
not know her denominational tie) or a Baptist as is BillyT. 
But the fact embraced in the above "confession" binds us together in a 
way that cannot be destroyed. This includes you. 
  DAVEH: You won't win any TT popularity trophies with 
  comments like that, JD. ;-) 
  
  

  DAVEH: Perhaps.But I suspect 
  you are making a lot of TTers rather uncomfortable right now, JD. 
  Very few TTers are going to feel good about getting chummy with a Mormon 
  boy.Perhaps. 
  Why so  because we are 
only passively involved in this reconciliation that names Christ as the 
Author and Finisher. Joseph Smith is not that 
-- neither is Charles Finney, the Pope, Calvin, 
Luther and the like. 
JDJohn 
-- 
~~~
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] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-10 Thread Terry Clifton





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/9/2005 7:53:44 PM
Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
  
  
John wrote  when, exactly, was the prodigal saved? When
he came to himself? When he turned and started the trek home? When
he saw his father? When he came to the door of the house? When he
entered therein or when or accepted and particiated in the meal? I
say -- in the pit, with the swine, covered with mud, coming to
himself. 


I say he was the father's son throughout. The fact that the father was
always looking for his son's return ought to tell us that the son was
accepted and loved and considered a son throughout. Repentance brought
the son to his senses; it did not make him a son. Repentance brings us
to our senses; it does not make us sons or daughters of God. Adopted in
Christ, we are already His children.
 
Bill
 

  
  
Yes, a son always. But in need of a turning around, correct? If he
had not turned what would have been the implications? It seems to me
that the prodigal son was separated from his father because of his
decision to reject the father's partnership and live for himself.
Destruction was his only destiny. 
  
Agree?
  
John Boy
==
That is most assuredly true. Sitting in the pigpen did not restore
him. Neither did thinking about going back. It was when he returned
to the father that the celebration started.
Terry

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-10 Thread Terry Clifton





Dave Hansen wrote:

  
  
  
Terry Clifton wrote:
  


The
only certainty I see is that He became the Father of
Jesus when His Holy Spirit impregnated Mary.
  
DAVEH: Did you use impregnated as you intended, Terry? Do
Protestants believe Mary was actually impregnated, or do they consider
the conception of Jesus to be supernatural?
  ==
  

I do not know what Protestants believe, Dave. I believe that the Holy
Spirit (God) impregnated Mary. This had to be done supernaturally, as
she remained a virgin. Jesus wasn't stuffed in there full size. He
grew in her womb, from an implanted seed.
Terry

   
  
  
  -- 
~~~
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] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-10 Thread ShieldsFamily










Yes, a son always. But in need of a turning around,
correct? If he had not turned what would have been the
implications? It seems to me that the prodigal son was separated from
his father because of his decision to reject the father's partnership and live
for himself. Destruction was his only destiny. 

Agree?

John Boy

==
That is most assuredly true. Sitting in the pigpen did not restore
him. Neither did thinking about going back. It was when he returned
to the father that the celebration started.
Terry

Exactly, which is the definition of Repentance: not thinking
the right thoughts, but turning from sin and doing right. Izzy

RE: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-10 Thread Slade Henson




Are 
you saying you don't adhere to everything this man in your movement teaches or 
does?? Why do you say yesreluctantly?

Kay

  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, 09 January, 2005 
  23.44To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: 
  [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to 
  MeIn a message dated 1/9/2005 7:53:30 PM 
  Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  You forgot your guyBenny Hinn...right??? :) 
  Yes - I say reluctantly. JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-10 Thread Judy Taylor

On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 16:12:47 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you go back to my post, you will find
scripture that reveals what I was talking about. I never reference
New Age or 12 step programs as a source of "truth." But you know
that.

jt: I know you have never referenced
them John but without spiritual discernment we can be professing believers and
follow the same mindset. What's wrong with using the same terms as God uses
toportray spiritual truth? God is only within us in terms of the
Holy Spirit and when we ignore, grieve, or refuse to obey him we are 'on our
own' for all intents and purposes. I don't see that remaining carnal is
acceptable with God because "To be carnally minded is death" and "to be
spiritually minded is life and peace" How will walking in "death" lead to
life?
In view of the scriptures above, how could
we not think and believe that our actions or God's
actions. I am not saved by that response -- rather,
I am saved by that relationship. The reponses just
happen. Really? And what if there is no
godly fruit in the life - what then? Do you believe this "relationship" doctrine will save you
from the wrath of God against all ungodliness and unrighteousness in men even if
you never ever OVERCOMEin your own life
personally?This is what I believe and said I loose
my salvation when I move to serve myself and in so doing, deny the very Image I
am. I am destroyed in serving self. Does that sound as though I
believe that Christ in me will not produce godly fruit? I certainly
do not mean it that way. For instance let's look at Amber Frey who is well known
and in the news right now. She was raised a Baptist,
went to Church and SS but lacked a godly example at home. Still she was taught
in God's Word. As a teen she became pg and had an abortion which so traumatized
her she vowed never to do that again. Later in an affair with a man barely
separated who had a pg wife she became pg again and insisted upon carrying this
baby to term even tho he wasn't ready to be a dad. Then came Scott Peterson and
a seduction on their first date along with the public humiliation and all that
.. but even before Amber witnessed at the trial she was fornicating again (with
the son of this "wonderful Christian couple") and was pg by another fellow who
was 'not ready to be a dad'. This girl is obviously hurting and has obvious
spiritual problems but in her book Amber quotes scripture all over the place.
She talks of attending Chosen Woman meetings and Bible Studies. She sent
Scott Peterson "The Purpose Driven Life" book as a witness to him in prison.
Note: I admire the girls honesty and the fact that she was willing to put her
life out there warts and all but what kind of a witness for Christ is this? Are
Amber's actions God's actions? Dosen't he say "fornicators don't inherit
the Kingdom?". I know that what she does is wrong. But I also
know that she is no different than me
(Romans 2:1ff). That is what I KNOW. Is she lost or
saved -- depends upon whether she is growing or
not. Is she a carnal Christian -- it would appear
so. But a carnal Saint is a saint,
nonetheless.

jt: The above is deception
John. The one who is righteous DOESrighteousness. He who SINS
is of the devil (1 John 3:7,8 3; John 11)
An obedience to repentance? If you mean, by
that, actions that demonstrate a change of heart/mind, my answer is the
same. The prodigal son demonstrates this obedience to repentance,
does he not? But why did he turn around? Two
reasons. 1) he was headed in the wrong direction
-- leaving his community and moving away for the expressed purpose
of serving himself. Correct? 2) He turns around
because there is a reason to turn around -- a father who
is already there. A home. An inheritance. A
life. Acceptance without question. Forgiveness without
reservation. He is 'saved" when he stops serving himself and
begins the quest for expressed community and all the
benefits that are associated with community.

Nothing is said at all about
community in the Parable of the prodigal son so you are adding to the Words of
God here.. The word "forgiveness" is also not found
in the text. So what? Father, home, brother,
blessings -- are all "community" just as acceptance by the
father IS forgiveness. Much to do about nothing

jt: Really? So youadd that
also? We know the Father was glad to see him, we don't know whether or not he
left the next week to go to a different pigpen. As for community; there wasn't
much fellowship with the elder brother, he was jealous and in sin - sin breaks
fellowship and destroys the concept of community.
Since the Father did not follow the son into the
pigpen to try and talk him into coming back or bless
him into coming back (he was obviously cursed and in poverty there) So the
Father does not overtake the will of the son? Would we say that the
father standing on the porch, the blessings of the home, love and
acceptance within the

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

In a message dated 1/9/2005 9:40:21 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

John wrote:
If Jesus was not the Son before the incarnation,
the virgin birth was His rite of adoption

No, because Jesus did not lay aside his divinity in becoming man. The
virgin birth was a miracle of God begetting a son, something that had never
been done before. There was no adoption, but rather a begetting of a holy
son.

You apparently teach that Christ was at one time not the Son. If He existed apart from sonship, this begetting you speak of, is, in effect, a rite of adoption. It is only a role the 2nd Whatever in the Godhead plays to effect the salvation of us all. He was not but now is the son. That is the very essense of adoption. You cannot call it such for "biblical reasons" but that is the effect of your teaching. Not an entirely unwarranted conclusion -- just something I strongly disagree with.

All of us were adopted because we were born children of Satan, but he was
born a child of God from the beginning. Gosh, David, which is it? "begotten son" means "virgin born" or is He the child of God (that would make Him "son") from " the beginning?" Therefore we call him the only begotten son of God. Huh ??

More than simply being confusing, the above seems to equate "begetting" with the English definition of that word "to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth ." rather than the definition of monogeno (only begotten) which has to do with uniqueness (Kittle, Arnt/Gengrich). Christ was the only unique son of God. That He (Christ) claims this sonship as an aspect of who He is, is clear in John 8:54-59

"If I glorify Myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who glorifies me
Your father, Abraham, rejoiced to My day and he saw it and was glad
..The Jews, therefore, said to him, You are not yet fiftey years
old and have you seen abraham? Jesus said to them, Truly, truly I say
to you, before Abraham was born, I am " (all of this spoken in the context
of being the Son of God.)

John

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

In a message dated 1/9/2005 8:34:29 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

John wrote:
these Gentiles KNOW NOTHING. They have
heard nothing (v v 13,14) that would cause
them to even begin to compare with those
of prominence.

The phrase, "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the
doers of the law shall be justified," does not mean that these who did the
law had not heard it. Rather, it simply means that justification before God
is not based upon hearing but upon doing. Back up and look at Rom. 2:6-11.
God renders glory, honor, and peace to every man that WORKETH GOOD, to the
Jew first, and also to the Gentile.

And how does your point at this juncture differ from mine -- except that you seem to ignore the contrast Paul has set up in Romans 2 - between the haves and the have nots. Look at what you just said "does not mean that these who did the law had not heard it. Rather, it simply means that justification before God
is not based upon hearing but upon doing." If justification is not based upon hearing (your very words), then who in the world cares that they ONLY performed based upon what came naturally as I claim the text says ? Your comments above agree with me.

There are some who become righteous (work good) because of faith in Jesus
Christ. Although these do not have Torah, they keep Torah because Torah is
written upon their hearts. So by their new nature in Christ, they do the
things contained in the law and are a law unto themselves. They show the
work of the law written upon their hearts.

Here, it seems, confusion abounds. Salvation for the Gentiles is a possible outcome (v v 15,16 " their thoughts either accusing or defending ." There is nothing in these two verses that indicate an uncondtitional salvation from their point of view. There is nothing that would give these Gentiles an confidence. They amy not even know of a judgment day - only that they are taken with notion of serving others (what else could instictive obedience in the absence of law - be?)
In the closing verse of this chapter (Romans 2, I believe we have an application of the prophetical truth found in Jere 31:31-34 -- an expressed fact that does give us confidence and explains why it is that nothing can stand in our way of salvation except our own decision to reject so great a salvation. Romans 2:28, 29 do not go to a description of the Gentile as a Christian but, rather, to the Gentile as having fulfilled the ultimate concern of God in Christ -- and that is the condition of the heart. He (the Gentile) has fulfilled the Law without the law and may be saved. As benefactors of the Abrahamic covenant, we will be saved apart from law ( see the parallel? " without the law" (the Romans 2 Gentile) and "apart from obedience to the law" - chapter 3:28? ) same difference. There is much more to this theology, of course, but on point, I say again, "Same diff."

John wrote:
You are not the only who goes elsewhere
in the letter or the biblical message to argue
the point that this passage could not possibly
mean what it says.

On the contrary, I believe that the passage means exactly what it says. You
simply seemed to read your own idea into it and caused a reading of it that
contradicts what Paul teaches elsewhere in this same epistle.

Good try, I suppose, but nothing here 'cept your opinion about me.

John wrote:
I see no contradiction, but more importantly,
I see the critical importance for the existence
of these Gentiles in this illustration. Without
them, Paul's point is without the contrast
necessary to the making of his point.

I think you mean that without the contrast necessary, he could not make YOUR
point. His point is something other than you think (IMO).

I understand "IMO" and say "thanks" for that. We are the same page in that regard. As far as what I really mean to say -- your version misses the mark. I believe I said what I meant, for once.

If you won't hear me, maybe you would reconsider upon hearing the highly
respected Bishop of Durham, who seems to take the same position as me on
this subject. :-)

Tom Wright considers several viewpoints of Romans 2, including yours, and he
says that your viewpoint "... falls foul of Paul's emphasis on the
universality of human sin, in the overarching theme stated in 1:18 and
concluded in 3:20. ... here he [Paul] is hinting at a theme he will explore
later in the letter, namely that the people in question are Christian
Gentiles (vv. 14-15)."

I do not dismiss Wright entirely or finally. I have considered his thinking and see no reason to change. I see the purpose of the hypothetical "Gentiles" in Romans 2 as esstential to the point being made in chapter two, namely that God is not a respecter of persons -- a very specific purpose. If there is a purpose or theme that extends beyond the specifics of the chapter two, then so be it. I just think it quite clear that those of prominence within

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-10 Thread Bill Taylor




From David's post  
ke·no·sis noun partial relinquishing 
of divinity: according to Christian belief, JesusChrist's act of partially 
giving up his divine status in order to become aman, as recorded in 
Philippians 2: 6-7[Late 19th century. From Greek kenosis "an emptying," from 
the phrase inPhilippians 2:7 heauton ekenose "emptied 
himself."]Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 
MicrosoftCorporation. All rights reserved.

LOL, David, be sure to pull out your trusty Encarta 
the next time you need atheological explanationfora biblical 
term. As for me, I'll look tothe lexicons when I need a definition and 
continue to draw my theology from sources a little, shall we say,closer to 
the mainstream of the Faith was delivered.

Alllaughs aside, thanks for your response. 
You have helped me better understand your position.

Bill


- Original Message - 
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of 
Christ Matters to Me
 Bill Taylor wrote:  The Son did not become less than 
God  in his service to humanity  David Miller 
wrote:  1. Yeshua, in his earthly service to humanity, 
 was made a little lower than the angels.  2. Yeshua 
said his father was greater than he was.  Do such facts have any 
relevance in discussing the  notion of equality with 
God?  Bill Taylor wrote:  I fail to see how 
this statement needs to be handled  or understood in a light 
different than that of the  kenosis of Phi 2.5-11. ...  
rather than parse my thoughts into oblivion,  how about a definitive 
statement from you on  your own teaching on these matters? That, 
it  seems to me, would give us all a comparative  basis 
upon which to draw. God bless you.  I will be eagerly awaiting your 
presentation.  - ke·no·sis 
noun partial relinquishing of divinity: according to Christian belief, 
Jesus  Christ's act of partially giving up his divine status in order to 
become a  man, as recorded in Philippians 2: 6-7  [Late 
19th century. From Greek kenosis "an emptying," from the phrase in  
Philippians 2:7 heauton ekenose "emptied himself."] Microsoft® Encarta® 
Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft  Corporation. All rights 
reserved. -  I don't think I have it 
all figured out, Bill, and I am certainly not as  good a writer as you 
are. Nevertheless, following are some thoughts I have  which 
perhaps explain how I view the kenosis.  I perceive that in the 
beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God,  and the Logos was 
God. The Logos did not perceive equality with God  something to be 
held onto, but rather he emptied himself, and took the form  of a 
servant, being born of a woman by the power of the Holy Spirit, not  
just a son of a woman, but was born the son of God by his miraculous mighty 
 power.  At this point he took upon himself some other 
names. The Logos became known  as the Son of man. The Son of 
God. Emmanuel. Yeshua. Jesus. Messiah.  
Christ. The Cornerstone. The Lamb of God. Apostle of 
God. High Priest of  God. Previously he was unknown by these 
names, but he now took upon himself  a new function which brought upon 
him new names and new titles.  In becoming the man we know as 
Yeshua, the Logos relinquished some of his  glory that he had with 
Yahweh. He did not relinquish any of his divinity.  Who he was had 
not changed. Rather, he set aside the power and glory which  he 
had in the beginning. He took upon himself the flesh of man and became a 
 servant, being made lower than the angels. There are some ways in 
which he  is equal to the father. He takes the father's name and 
inherits all that is  the father's. There are other ways in which 
he is not equal to the father.  This is why he said that the father is 
greater than he is. On the earth in  human flesh, he did not have the 
glory and power that the father had. So he  was not equal in this 
way. He was not omniscient, which is why he prayed so  much and 
inquired of others, and he was not omnipotent, which is why he said  he 
could have called angels to deliver him from the crucifixion instead of  
saying that he could have just used his powers as God to escape them. So 
 becoming the son was a humbling experience. The role of son is to 
represent  God to a world in darkness, and to submit unto the death of a 
cross when the  world which was made by him rejected him. This was 
the specific role of the  son of God. And now he is resurrected 
and glorified with the glory which he  had with the father in the 
beginning. We will always remember his role as  the son, but as he 
rules upon the throne of David, he will be better known  in our hearts 
as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, the Everlasting  Father. 
 Peace be with you. David Miller.
-- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, 
that you may know how you ought to answer every man."

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-10 Thread Jeff Powers




Amen! Tell it like it is 
John!
Jeff

Life makes warriors of us all.To emerge the victors, 
we must armourselves with the most potent of weapons.That weapon is 
prayer.--Rebbe Nachman of Breslov

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 
13:52
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal 
  Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
   That He 
  (Christ) claims this sonship as an aspect of who He is, is clear 
  in John 8:54-59  
  "If I glorify Myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who glorifies 
  me 
   
  Your father, Abraham, rejoiced to My day and he saw it and was glad 
   
  ..The Jews, therefore, said to him, You are not yet fiftey 
  years 
  old and have you seen abraham? Jesus said to them, Truly, 
  truly I say 
   
  to you, before Abraham was born, I am " 
  (all of this spoken in the 
  context 
  of being the Son of God.)John

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-10 Thread Bill Taylor




John wrote  when, exactly, was 
the prodigal saved? When he came to himself? When he 
turned and started the trek home? When he saw his 
father? When he came to the door of the house? When he 
entered therein or when or accepted and participated in the meal? I 
say -- in the pit, with the swine, covered with mud, 
coming to himself. Bill responded  I say he was 
the father's son throughout. The fact that the father was always looking for his 
son's return ought to tell us that the son was accepted and loved and considered 
a son throughout. Repentance brought the son to his senses; it did not make him 
a son. Repentance brings us to our senses; it does not make us sons or daughters 
of God. Adopted in Christ, we are already His children.
Then John responds  Yes, a son 
always. But in need of a turning around, correct? If he 
had not turned, what would have been the implications? It seems to 
me that the prodigal son was separated from his father because of his decision 
to reject the father's partnership and live for himself. Destruction 
was his only destiny. Agree?


John, sorry if I caused you a heart attack. My point was not so much to 
question the need for repentance on the part of the son, as it was to point out 
that it was not his repentance which made him a son. Evangelicals are wont to 
use this parable to argue that it takes repentance (faith, belief, obedience, on 
and on and on) before a person can become a son or daughter of God. Well, that 
may be the case -- I happen to think it is not -- but if it is, this is not the 
place to prove it. The young man in the parable was a son throughout. He did 
nothing in the narrative to change that status. Moreover we see from the actions 
of the father that the son was also loved throughout, as well as forgiven 
throughout. Had the young man refused to repent he would have missed out on the 
relationship, the banquet, the celebration, but he would still have been his 
father's son. This I believe is analogous to our status with the Father. We are 
all included in Christ. We are adopted children. However, we may for any number 
of reasons choose to go to the pigpen, but this does not mean we are not 
children of God. We are his children throughout. And so if we do come to our 
senses and repent, that does not affect our status already established in 
Christ; it just changes the way we participate in that status -- the 
relationship, the banquet, the celebration.

You asked, "If he had not turned, what would have been the implications?" I 
don't know. It seems to me that your question calls for a speculation which goes 
beyond the scope of the parable. We can go elsewhere and project our answers, 
but when we do that, we need to be very careful that we are not introducing 
elements into the story that the parable itself will not support, or subtracting 
factors from it which change the dynamics of the relationships contained within 
the parable. I guess what I'm saying is that answers are a dime a dozrn, I'll 
leave the speculation for those with all the answers.

Bill

Bill



  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 9:59 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal 
  Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
  In a message dated 1/9/2005 7:53:44 PM Pacific 
  Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
   Bill John 
  Boy

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

In a message dated 1/10/2005 6:25:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Are you saying you don't adhere to everything this man in your movement teaches or does?? Why do you say yes reluctantly?
 
Kay


Actually, Kay, Benny is not a part of mainstream Pentecostalism, although he has a hugh following. The attention he draws to himself is not good. He has little support in the Four Square fellowship. 

JD

RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-10 Thread Slade Henson




Ah, I 
didn't know that he wasn't a part of mainstream Pentecostals. How many 
Pentecostal sects are there? As many as Baptists? Or what some would call 
Messianics? What's the difference between Pentecostals and the Four Square 
people?

Kay

  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Monday, 10 January, 2005 
  19.57To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: 
  [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to 
  MeIn a message dated 1/10/2005 6:25:20 AM 
  Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  Are you saying you don't adhere to everything this man in 
your movement teaches or does?? Why do you say yes reluctantly? KayActually, Kay, Benny is not 
  a part of mainstream Pentecostalism, although he has a hugh 
  following. The attention he draws to himself is not 
  good. He has little support in the Four Square 
  fellowship. JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

In a message dated 1/10/2005 4:10:06 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


Amen! Tell it like it is John!
 Jeff


Ok -- now , nice and easy, Mr Powers  slowly move away from the monitor, hands off the key board, concentrate on breathing in and out. We will tell it like it is together, my friend but first you must rest. 

The Doctor is in the house.
J


In and out -- in and out .. you are getting sleepy.

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

In a message dated 1/10/2005 4:54:11 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

He did nothing in the narrative to change that status

In fact, once a son, always a son. 


J

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

In a message dated 1/8/2005 6:20:37 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

John wrote There is a very real sense, then, that salvation is ours to loose.

I agree with you, John. However, it is only before we have once placed our faith in Jesus Christ that we may lose our salvation -- and so, this may be a fairly significant HOWEVER that we will need to work out. I do not believe the one who has heard the good news of Jesus Christ and believed that message will ever lose his or her salvation, because upon believing in Jesus Christ, believers receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, who in the Power of God secures their salvation forever; the Gift guarantees their inheritance in Christ. Check out the wording here and see if you see what I am saying: In [Christ] you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory" (Eph 1.13-14).

Bill

At first glance, I thought Bill was actually disagreeing with my statement -- kind of a surprise. But after reading and reviewing the above , it does not seem that we are far apart, at all. So, I am missing something, here.

Let me put it another way -- and with fewer words.

I have studied Romans more times than I can count. What I see there presented by Paul, at least through the first seven chapters is a dual theme: 1) man is a sinner and worthy of even death and 2) his (man's ) problems are solved in and through Christ.

Romans 1 -- homosexuality along with 25 other listed sins are issues that effect all of us
(Romans 2:1ff). The kindness, forbearance and patience of God is the soluton.

Romans 3 -- all have sinned and continually fall short of His glory. BUT
Blessed is the man whose sins God will not take into account. (Romans 4)

Romans 5 While we were yet hopeless
Christ died for the ungodly (v 6) {that would be all the ungodly, I presume]

While we were yet sinners
Chrsit died for US (now there is no doubt, we are a part of the indictment)

By the transgression of the one, the many died
By one does the gift of grace abound to the many

Romans 6 The wages of sin is death
But the free gift results in eternal life IN Chrsit Jesus our Lord.

Romans 7 Who will set me free from this body of death?
Thanks be to Christ

Man is connected to his Creator from the very beginning (thus, Christ's declaration of the children -- "and such is the kingdom of heaven"). But somewhere along the way, he (most of mankind) becomes self absorbed --- the very opposite of Divine Commonality. Along the way, man looses his way and is need of a savior, friend, partner, Brother (The Son is that to each of us), and Father. The Gentile in Romans 2, the one who does by nature the things of Law without having any knowledge of the Law (?) -- that man is not a typical picture of what God sees. God through Christ saves this man -- based upon the commonaliy with God he demonstrates in his righteous actions -- a mirror of his conscience (or heart) It is clearly, the Faith of Christ that saves this man. There isn't anything else working for him!!!

Those who do have Law, who have been presented the gospel message, have a choice. Some are confused. Some deny the Lord and live for self. Others "accept" Christ in their lives and live with confidence and direction -- having received a knowledge of the truth that others have missed.

Can this person be lost? Well, not if he prefers Christ? Nothing can separate us from the Lord (Romans 8) --- Nothing but our own decision to leave Him behind. I do believe we can make that decision at any time. I believe that we can leave off good works and serve self, even after choosing Christ. But we cannot loose our salvation in any other venue. Sin will not separate us -- poor doctrinal considerations will not hinder our relationship judgmentalism on the part of those zealots who claim the name and feign knowledge of Him will not strike us down. And so, I am saved until such time as I care not to be.

How am I doing?

John

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

In a message dated 1/8/2005 4:53:45 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


 He is 'saved" when he stops serving himself and begins the quest for expressed community and all the benefits that are associated with community. Smithson

 

Smithson, what if his chosen community is Al Qaeda? Izzy




Al Qaeda is not a religous choice, as far as I am concern. There is nothing in Al Qaeda tha demonstrates the Lordhsip of Christ and His teachings. 

But what about Buddism? Are Buddist's saved?

I would ask the question a little differenctly. I would ask: "Can a Buddist be saved?" 
For me the answer is "yes." If the Gentile in Romans 2 can be saved, why not the Buddist who does by nature, the things of the law? It is important to me, that one uderstands that IF that Buddist is saved, it is not because of his faith -- it is because of the faith of Christ Jesus Himself. There is salvation in none other. On that we all agree. 

Does Dave Hansen agree?

John

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-09 Thread Terry Clifton





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/8/2005 6:20:37 AM
Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
  
  
John wrote  There is a very real sense, then, that
salvation is ours to loose. 


I
agree with you, John. However, it is only before we have once
placed our faith in Jesus Christ that we may lose our salvation -- and
so, this may be a fairly significant HOWEVER that we will need to work
out. I do not believe the one who has heard the good news of Jesus
Christ and believed that message will ever lose his or her
salvation, because upon believing in Jesus Christ, believers receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit, who in the Power of God secures their
salvation forever; the Gift guarantees their inheritance in
Christ. Check out the wording here and see if you see what I am saying:
In [Christ] you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the
gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were
sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our
inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the
praise of His glory" (Eph 1.13-14).
 
Bill

  
  
At first glance, I thought Bill was actually disagreeing with my
statement -- kind of a surprise. But after reading and reviewing
the above , it does not seem that we are far apart, at all. So, I am
missing something, here. 
  
Let me put it another way -- and with fewer words. 
  
I have studied Romans more times than I can count. What I see there
presented by Paul, at least through the first seven chapters is a dual
theme: 1) man is a sinner and worthy of even death and 2) his (man's )
problems are solved in and through Christ. 
  
Romans 1 -- homosexuality along with 25 other listed sins are issues
that effect all of us 
 (Romans 2:1ff). The kindness, forbearance and patience of
God is the soluton.
  
Romans 3 -- all have sinned and continually fall short of His glory.
BUT
 Blessed is the man whose sins God will not take into
account. (Romans 4)
  
Romans 5 While we were yet hopeless
 Christ died for the ungodly (v 6) {that would be all the
ungodly, I presume]
  
 While we were yet sinners
 Chrsit died for US (now there is no doubt, we are a part
of the indictment)
  
 By the transgression of the one, the many
died
 By one does the gift of grace abound to the many
  
  
Romans 6 The wages of sin is death
 But the free gift results in eternal life IN Chrsit Jesus
our Lord. 
  
Romans 7 Who will set me free from this body of death?
 Thanks be to Christ
  
  
Man is connected to his Creator from the very beginning (thus, Christ's
declaration of the children -- "and such is the kingdom of
heaven"). But somewhere along the way, he (most of mankind) becomes
self absorbed --- the very opposite of Divine
Commonality. Along the way, man looses his way and is need of a
savior, friend, partner, Brother (The Son is that to each of us), and
Father. The Gentile in Romans 2, the one who does by nature the
things of Law without having any knowledge of the Law (?) -- that
man is not a typical picture of what God sees. God through Christ saves
this man -- based upon the commonaliy with God he demonstrates in his
righteous actions -- a mirror of his conscience (or heart) It is
clearly, the Faith of Christ that saves this man. There isn't
anything else working for him!!!
  
Those who do have Law, who have been presented the gospel message,
have a choice. Some are confused. Some deny the Lord and live for
self. Others "accept" Christ in their lives and live with confidence
and direction -- having received a knowledge of the truth that
others have missed. 
  
Can this person be lost? Well, not if he prefers Christ? Nothing can
separate us from the Lord (Romans 8) --- Nothing
but our own decision to leave Him behind. I do believe we can make
that decision at any time. I believe that we can leave off good
works and serve self, even after choosing Christ. But we cannot loose
our salvation in any other venue. Sin will not separate us -- poor
doctrinal considerations will not hinder our relationship 
judgmentalism on the part of those zealots who claim the name and feign
knowledge of Him will not strike us down. And so, I am saved until
such time as I care not to be. 
  
How am I doing?
  
John
  
Looks like you have most of it figured out John, but as I read what you
say, I sometimes have trouble seeing a concrete statement. Please
answer this question yes or no ,based on what you now believe. If a
theif believes that Christ is his Savior, but continues to steal, Is
he saved?
Terry

RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me









Al Qaeda is not a
religous choice, as far as I am concern. There is nothing in
Al Qaeda tha demonstrates the Lordhsip of Christ and His teachings. 

But what about Buddism? Are Buddist's saved?

I would ask the question a little differenctly. I would ask:
Can a Buddist be saved?

For me the answer is yes. If the Gentile in Romans 2
can be saved, why not the Buddist who does by nature, the things of the
law? It is important to me, that one uderstands that IF that
Buddist is saved, it is not because of his faith -- it
is because of the faith of Christ Jesus Himself. There is salvation
in none other. On that
we all agree. 
John



John, I think
NOT. You say that there is salvation in none other than Christ, but also that someone
whose god is Buddha is saved. This is very
confused reasoning. Either you are IN Christ or you are NOT. Christs faith
does not save you. (His faith in what???) Your faith in Christ is what saves
younot His faith in you. Who is
worshipping whom??? Izzy

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-09 Thread Dave Hansen







[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/8/2005 4:53:45 AM
Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
  
  
 He is 'saved" when he stops serving himself and begins the quest for
expressed community and all the benefits that are associated with
community. Smithson

 

Smithson,
what if his chosen community is Al Qaeda? Izzy



  
  
Al Qaeda is not a religous choice, as far as I am concern. There is
nothing in Al Qaeda tha demonstrates the Lordhsip of Christ and His
teachings. 
  
But what about Buddism? Are Buddist's saved?
  
I would ask the question a little differenctly. I would ask: "Can
a Buddist be saved?" 
For me the answer is "yes." If the Gentile in Romans 2 can be saved,
why not the Buddist who does by nature, the things of the law? It is
important to me, that one uderstands that IF that Buddist is saved, it
is not because of his faith -- it is because of the faith of Christ
Jesus Himself. There is salvation in none other. On that we all
agree. 
  
Does Dave Hansen agree?
  
DAVEH: Yes.

John
  

-- 
~~~
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] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me









 Sin will not separate us -- 

How am I doing?

John



Not well, John. I admire your searching for truth, just
not your conclusions. Stick with the Bible, John, not with human reasoning.
Thats my advise. Izzy

I John7(R)Little children,
make sure no one (S)deceives you; (T)the one who practices righteousness
is righteous, just as He is righteous; 
8the one who practices sin is (U)of the devil; for the
devil has sinned from the beginning (V)The Son of God (W)appeared for this purpose, (X)to destroy the works of the devil. 

9No one who is (Y)born of God (Z)practices sin, because His seed
abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 

10By this the (AA)children of God and the (AB)children of the devil are obvious: anyone
who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who (AC)does not love his (AD)brother. 



Rom 6:16Do
you not (AC)know that when you present
yourselves to someone as (AD)slaves for obedience, you are
slaves of the one whom you obey, either of (AE)sin resulting in death, or of obedience resulting in righteousness?
23For the wages of (AR)sin is death, but the
free gift of God is (AS)eternal life in Christ Jesus our
Lord.

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-09 Thread Bill Taylor




John  How am I 
doing?


"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes 
in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but 
has passed from death into life." -- John 5.24
I think we're close, John. 
By the way, Michael got third place again yesterday, but wrestled 
his best tournament of the year. He's learning to slow down the match and 
wrestle with more control. He got a bad draw and had to wrestle a state champ 
from last year in the first round (112 lbs last year, 140 this year. hm) and 
got beat 5-4 on a reversal in the third. From there he won out. I didn't see 
anything in the kid that got 2nd that would make me think Michael couldn't have 
handled him, at least the way they were both wrestling yesterday. Michael used 
your advice in his final match and beat a kid 13-6. Almost all of the points 
were scored on take downs and releases. Michael just didn't give him opportunity 
to work him from the bottom --reversals and those dreaded 5-point 
reversal-to-back moves that have got him in trouble in other tournaments. Great 
advice. When Michael had to wrestle on top, he used a two (hands) on one (arm) 
that Tyler taught him over theirbreak. Tyler had a half-dozen or 
morethings he could do from that position. Michael doesn't have it all 
figured out yet, but did a good job with it, controlling his opponents. 
Talk to you later,
Bill

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

In a message dated 1/9/2005 6:22:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Looks like you have most of it figured out John, but as I read what you say, I sometimes have trouble seeing a concrete statement. Please answer this question yes or no ,based on what you now believe. If a theif believes that Christ is his Savior, but continues to steal, Is he saved?
Terry


Is he stealing pencils at work, pilfering words from another author, not working as hard for his pay as he could and should (a form of theft), keeping extra change after a purchase, stealing food from a tryant or seeing good to do and stealing the time of day to do what he perfers, leaving off the good that needs to be done? 

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-09 Thread Judy Taylor






On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 23:43:50 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  DAVEH: ??? Do you believe one 
  can be saved without obedience to repentance?John: Aaah. My first real question after 
  stating that I know what I believe.What we might call 
  "obedience", which would include repentance, doing good, 
  confession, visiting the widows and the fatherless, taking communion and the 
  like, are things we do because we have been saved -- because 
  we are already involved with God. 
  
  jt: Say John, this is a discussion 
  isn't it? It's not just a "wise one" (like a guru or 
  something)taking questions and giving answers - right?
  I'd say 'obedience' goes much deeper than the 
  things you list above which are all outward. God desires truth in the "inward 
  parts" and anyone who claims to be saved by the faith of Jesus ought to 
  bewalking the same walk as Jesus and doing what he did. Jesus said "Lo, 
  I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy 
  will, O GodThen said he, Lo I come to do thy 
  will, O God..." (Hebrews 10:7,9). So how does one claim to 
  be saved by Jesus' faith andATST reject obedience?Isn't 
  theresomething wrong with this picture?
  
  That passage in Philip 2:12,13 is critical to 
  me.
  
  "Wherefore my beloved, as ye have 
  always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now 
  much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 
  For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good 
  pleasure." (Phil 2:12,13)
  
  The notion that "no man comes to the Son 
  except the Father draw him" ( a paraphrase of John 6:44) is explained in this 
  passage 
  
  "No man can come to me, except the 
  Father which hath sent me draw him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 
  (John 6:44) It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all 
  taught of God. Every man therefore that 
  hath heard, and hath learned 
  of the Father, cometh unto me."
  
  --- "work out your salvation in fear and 
  trembling for it is God at work in you both to will and do His good 
  pleasure." BOTH TO WILL AND TO 
  PERFORM. 
  
  Sure John, but (see above) first 
  one must hear and learn and be taught of God before they are able to 'come to 
  Jesus' and many are hearing and learning from a polluted 
  well.

  There is a sense, a very real sense, that God is a part of our 
  lives already. When Chrsit speaks of the children, he says 
  " for such is the Kingdom ..."
  
  He is talking about their trust and faith in someone 
  higher than themselves
  
  God is already there. He created us, He draws us unto 
  Himself, if you believe that Christ is God Manifested and 
  Defined; He is the influence that wills good works, He is 
  power that performs those good works. What we are doing when we repent or 
  confess or feed the poor -- is this: we are responding 
  to the God within.
  
  Both New Agers and 12 Step Programs teach that we 
  have a Higher Power residing within. Are you speaking of the same thing here 
  John?Like Shirley Maclaine when she stood on 
  the sand at Malibu raised her arms heavenward and said "I am God" - is not 
  such a great leap from this kind of thinking
  
  In view of the scriptures above, how could we not think and believe that 
  our actions or God's actions. I 
  am not saved by that response -- rather, I am saved by that 
  relationship. The reponses just happen.
  
  Really? And what if there is no godly fruit in the 
  life - what then? For instance let's look at Amber Frey who is well 
  known and in the news right now. She was raised a Baptist, went to 
  Church and SS but lacked a godly example at home. Still she was taught in 
  God's Word. As a teen she became pg and had an abortion which so traumatized 
  her she vowed never to do that again. Later in an affair with a man 
  barely separated who had a pg wife she became pg again and insisted upon 
  carrying this baby to term even tho he wasn't ready to be a dad. Then came 
  Scott Peterson and a seduction on their first date alongwith the public 
  humiliation and all that.. but even before Amber witnessed at the trial 
  she was fornicating again (with the son of this"wonderful Christian 
  couple") and waspg by another fellowwho was 'not ready to be a 
  dad'. This girl is obviously hurting and has obvious spiritual problems 
  butin her book Amber quotes scripture all over the place. She talks of 
  attendingChosen Woman meetings and Bible Studies. Shesent 
  Scott Peterson "The Purpost Driven Life" book as a witness to him in 
  prison.Note:I admire the girls honesty 
  and the fact that she was willing to put her life out therewarts and all 
  but what kind of a witness for Christ is this? Are Amber's actionsGod's 
  actions?Dosen't he say "fornicators don't inherit the 
  Kingdom?". An obedience to 
  repentance? If you mean, by that, actions that demonstrate a change of

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

In a message dated 1/9/2005 6:27:47 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

John, I think NOT. You say that there is salvation in none other than Christ, but also that someone whose god is Buddha is saved. This is very confused reasoning. Either you are IN Christ or you are NOT. Christs faith does not save you. (His faith in what???) Your faith in Christ is what saves younot His faith in you. Who is worshipping whom??? Izzy

How do you know that the Gentile without the law in Romans 2 did not have a faith of his own -- he certainly is not pictured as being Jewish or Christian. If he can be saved because he was a doer, why not the Buddist who does the same? Again, it is not their god that saves -- it is Christ.

The faith of Christ? When Bill first wrote of this some time ago, I did not agree either -- but I did not understand. As I understand this biblical teaching today, it is the faith of Christ, Himself, that saves me because I do not have the degree of faith that allows me to do it for myself. As I see it, there is no choice to this teaching. It was Christ's faithfulness to His assignment that works the working of God in my life. Linda, ask yourself this question -- why didn't God do all this saving of man from the comfort of His throne room? I do not believe there is anything arbitrary about the administration of the Plan. If that true, then God did what He had to do and in the way it was done.

In an earlier post, I spoke of "eternal" life as opposed to "spiritual" life. If the life that awaits us is truly "eternal," it is a life force without a beginning. It is the very force that "makes" God eternal. Our final destiny is in that Life - His life. So Christ, God Eternal, empties Himself of that circumstance and suffers for us. In so doing, He reconciles that which is eternal with that which is not yet. It is more than fitting that the Creator God is also the Author and Finisher of the Faith. Izzy, that makes so much sense to me, now , that I am somewhat startled that I did not see it the moment Bill introduced the idea.

You write Your faith in Christ is what saves younot His faith in you. The first part of this statement, ignores the Gentile in Romans 2 who had no faith in Christ, was neither a Jew or a Christian but simply accomplished ( to a degree) those things in the law that could be known "instinctively." I cannot get by this. Now, I do not deny the importance of our faith. I can say that personal faith "saves" to the same degree that anything we do saves - caring for the poor, visiting widows and fatherless, confession for some, repentance for others, selling all that we own for still others, knowing brokenness and contrition, water baptism, leaving off adultery ("go thy way and sin no more") and so on. My faith in Christ does not save me as a condition of "getting " saved, but as result of being saved by the response of Christ to His Father [hence -- the "faith of Christ].

I do not believe you think differently? What I do believe, here, is that I am not doing a good job in making my case. but the lights have gone on for me, in more ways than one this past week. Time will tell if I am any kind of teacher ( read: witness).

John

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

In a message dated 1/9/2005 6:59:03 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

it is not because of his faith -- it is because of the faith of Christ Jesus Himself. There is salvation in none other. On that we all agree. 

Does Dave Hansen agree?

DAVEH: Yes.

John



So be it  How can I conclude that Dave Hansen is not a brother ( in the grandest sense of that word) when this confession is so? The only rebuttal, as I see it, is to effectively argue that "brotherhood" is based upon doctrinal agreement that finds him no longer a Mormon but allows me to continue as a Pentecostal and and Kay as a Messianic and Bill as a Bricklayin Fool For Christ and Jonathan/Lance as Canadian Mega Liberals !! Dave will never agree with us "protestants," nor will any of us convert to Mormonism. Nor will I ever be whatever Judy is (I truly do not know her denominational tie) or a Baptist as is BillyT. But the fact embraced in the above "confession" binds us together in a way that cannot be destroyed. Why so  because we are only passively involved in this reconciliation that names Christ as the Author and Finisher. Joseph Smith is not that -- neither is Charles Finney, the Pope, Calvin, Luther and the like. 

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

In a message dated 1/9/2005 7:06:17 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:



 Sin will not separate us -- 

How am I doing?

John

The practice of sin (read: given over as a servant of sin) is not the same as sinning, 
The scriptures you quote about the practice of sin are favorites of mine, as well. 

John

RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me









Looks like you have most of it figured out John, but as I
read what you say, I sometimes have trouble seeing a concrete statement.
Please answer this question yes or no ,based on what you now believe. If
a theif believes that Christ is his Savior, but continues to steal, Is he
saved?
Terry



Is he stealing pencils at work, pilfering words from another author, not
working as hard for his pay as he could and should (a form of
theft), keeping extra change after a purchase, stealing food from a
tryant or seeing good to do and stealing the time of day to do what he perfers,
leaving off the good that needs to be done? 

JD 



Answering a question with a question?

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

In a message dated 1/9/2005 10:44:59 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/9/2005 6:22:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Looks like you have most of it figured out John, but as I read what you say, I sometimes have trouble seeing a concrete statement. Please answer this question yes or no ,based on what you now believe. If a theif believes that Christ is his Savior, but continues to steal, Is he saved?
Terry

Is he stealing pencils at work, pilfering words from another author, not working as hard for his pay as he could and should (a form of theft), keeping extra change after a purchase, stealing food from a tryant or seeing good to do and stealing the time of day to do what he perfers, leaving off the good that needs to be done?

JD
===Stealing is stealing John. If that one is too hard, let's make him a homosexual. If that is the pattern of his life and he claims Jesus as his Savior, but continues in his sin, according to what you now believe, is he saved?
Terry

I was hoping for an answer to my question. But, whether a thief or a homosexual -- it makes no difference to me. Good question, I might add. If we take that list in Romans 1, we can add to the short list above, back-talking our parents, envy and arrogance. None of these things (in and of themselves) keep Christ from us -- all of them, without Christ, will send us to "hell." Our relationship with Christ, a saving relationship, is not one thing. "Not stealing" is no more a sign of salvation than "not burping." A willful disregard for the will of God in my life and a commitment to the resulting shabbiness will find me a prodigal. I cannot say more than this -- I am not the one who determines eternal sentence. Is it wrong? Of course. It is dangerous? Yes. Apart from any other consideration, is this person lost? Yes --- but "any other consideration" is not my field of expertise (nor anyone else's). I do know that there is Christ and there is what I do. Two different things. One is a witness to the other. When this is not true -- one is in trouble.

You know that from time to time, I counsel the gay types incidently, never lesbians, only the guys (wondering why?). I have been in their homes. In a number of cases, I see no reason to believe that they are saved. I have seen some really disgusting things. Also, I have seen a number of addicts who have completely given in to their addiction. Most, in fact. No fight is left. No continued confession. Nothing. Not good for them at all. And I do not blame the addiction -- we are all responsible for our circumstance. Romans 14:4 is important to me as a (pastoral) counselor -- the reality of standing and falling is circumvented by the Master's MAKING US TO STAND. If the sinner (aren't we all) rejects that assistence - well, then, he is on his own. I pray to never heard those words from the Lord, "John, you are, now, on your own !!!"

Hopefully that gives answer. In a practical sense -- you and I are on the same page, I am sure of that.

John

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

In a message dated 1/9/2005 10:52:57 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


 
 
On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 23:43:50 -0800 Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 
DAVEH: ??? Do you believe one can be saved without obedience to repentance?

John: Aaah. My first real question after stating that I know what I believe. What we might call "obedience", which would include repentance, doing good, confession, visiting the widows and the fatherless, taking communion and the like, are things we do because we have been saved -- because we are already involved with God. 
 
jt: Say John, this is a discussion isn't it? It's not just a "wise one" (like a guru or something) taking questions and giving answers - right?

Read my first post in this thread (of mine) and the above question will be seen as a waste of effort. I am not the one on this list who speaks excethedra, Judy. 


 I'd say 'obedience' goes much deeper than the things you list above which are all outward. God desires truth in the "inward parts" and anyone who claims to be saved by the faith of Jesus ought to be walking the same walk as Jesus and doing what he did. Jesus said "Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O GodThen said he, Lo I come to do thy will, O God..." (Hebrews 10:7,9). So how does one claim to be saved by Jesus' faith and ATST reject obedience? Isn't there something wrong with this picture?

Right on. 



 
That passage in Philip 2:12,13 is critical to me. 
 
"Wherefore my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." (Phil 2:12,13)
 
 The notion that "no man comes to the Son except the Father draw him" ( a paraphrase of John 6:44) is explained in this passage 
 
"No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him; and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:44) It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me."

So far, we are on the same page, my Child. 


 
--- "work out your salvation in fear and trembling for it is God at work in you both to will and do His good pleasure." BOTH TO WILL AND TO PERFORM. 
 
Sure John, but (see above) first one must hear and learn and be taught of God before they are able to 'come to Jesus' and many are hearing and learning from a polluted well.

So many are waiting that pracher to show and tell. 



 
There is a sense, a very real sense, that God is a part of our lives already. When Chrsit speaks of the children, he says " for such is the Kingdom ..." 
 
He is talking about their trust and faith in someone higher than themselves

He is talking about kids - not to deny your conclusion above. 
 

 
God is already there. He created us, He draws us unto Himself, if you believe that Christ is God Manifested and Defined; He is the influence that wills good works, He is power that performs those good works. What we are doing when we repent or confess or feed the poor -- is this: we are responding to the God within. 
 
Both New Agers and 12 Step Programs teach that we have a Higher Power residing within. Are you speaking of the same thing here John? Like Shirley Maclaine when she stood on the sand at Malibu raised her arms heavenward and said "I am God" - is not such a great leap from this kind of thinking

If you go back to my post, you will find scripture that reveals what I was talking about. I never reference New Age or 12 step programs as a source of "truth." But you know that. 



 
In view of the scriptures above, how could we not think and believe that our actions or God's actions. I am not saved by that response -- rather, I am saved by that relationship. The reponses just happen. 
 
Really? And what if there is no godly fruit in the life - what then? 

This is what I believe and said I loose my salvation when I move to serve myself and in so doing, deny the very Image I am. I am destroyed in serving self. Does that sound as though I believe that Christ in me will not produce godly fruit? I certainly do not mean it that way. 


For instance let's look at Amber Frey who is well known and in the news right now. 
She was raised a Baptist, went to Church and SS but lacked a godly example at home. Still she was taught in God's Word. As a teen she became pg and had an abortion which so traumatized her she vowed never to do that again. Later in an affair with a man barely separated who had a pg wife she became pg again and insisted upon carrying this baby to term even tho he wasn't ready to be a dad. Then came Scott Peterson and a seduction on their first date along with the public humiliation and all that .. but even before Amber witnessed at the trial she was fornicating again (with the son of this "wonderful Christian

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

In a message dated 1/9/2005 12:32:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Is he stealing pencils at work, pilfering words from another author, not working as hard for his pay as he could and should (a form of theft), keeping extra change after a purchase, stealing food from a tryant or seeing good to do and stealing the time of day to do what he perfers, leaving off the good that needs to be done? 

JD 

 

Answering a question with a question?



I believe there was a follow up post. 

Did you get that? May have not come through as yet.

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

John Smithson wrote to Izzy:
 You write Your faith in Christ is what saves you
 not His faith in you.  The first part of this statement,
 ignores the Gentile in Romans 2 who had no faith in
 Christ, was neither a Jew or a Christian but simply
 accomplished ( to a degree) those things in the law
 that could be known instinctively.   I cannot get by
 this.

Read Romans 2 again.  The Gentile there is one who had faith in Christ.
Otherwise, Paul contradicts other statements that he makes in the book of
Romans.

Romans 2:13-16
(13) (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of
the law shall be justified.
(14) For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things
contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
(15) Which shew the work of the law WRITTEN IN THEIR HEARTS, their
conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing
or else excusing one another;)
(16) In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ
ACCORDING TO MY GOSPEL.

Peace be with you.
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-09 Thread Dave Hansen







[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/9/2005 6:59:03 AM
Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
  
it
is not because of his faith -- it is because of the faith of Christ
Jesus Himself. There is salvation in none other. On that we all
agree. 
  
Does Dave Hansen agree?


DAVEH: Yes.

John


  
  
  
So be it  How can I conclude that Dave Hansen is not a brother (
in the grandest sense of that word) when this confession is so? The
only rebuttal, as I see it, is to effectively argue that "brotherhood"
is based upon doctrinal agreement that finds him no longer a Mormon
DAVEH: ??? Not sure why you would deny me Mormonism while
maintaining Protestantism, JD. Is that not a double standard?
 but allows me to continue as a
Pentecostal and and Kay as a Messianic and Bill as a Bricklayin Fool
For Christ and Jonathan/Lance as Canadian Mega Liberals !! Dave will
never agree with us "protestants,"
DAVEH: Seems like I already didat least in one aspect..that
without Jesus, there would be no salvation.
 nor will any of us convert to
Mormonism.
DAVEH: Heyno need to draw hasty conclusions, JD!  :-D 
 Nor will I ever be whatever Judy is
(I truly do not know her denominational tie) or a Baptist as is
BillyT. But the fact embraced in the above "confession" binds us
together in a way that cannot be destroyed. 
  
DAVEH: Perhaps.But I suspect you are making a lot of TTers rather
uncomfortable right now, JD. Very few TTers are going to feel good
about getting chummy with a Mormon boy.
 Why so  because we are
only passively involved in this reconciliation that names Christ as the
Author and Finisher. Joseph Smith is not that -- neither is
Charles Finney, the Pope, Calvin, Luther and the like. 
  
JD
  
  
  

-- 
~~~
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] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-09 Thread Slade Henson




You 
forgot your guyBenny Hinn...right???

:)

Kay

  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, 09 January, 2005 
  14.38To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: 
  [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to 
  MeIn a message dated 1/9/2005 6:59:03 AM 
  Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
it is not because of his faith -- it is 
  because of the faith of Christ Jesus Himself. There is 
  salvation in none other. On that we all agree. Does 
  Dave Hansen agree?DAVEH: Yes.
JohnSo be it 
   How can I conclude that Dave Hansen is not a brother ( in the 
  grandest sense of that word) when this confession is so? The 
  only rebuttal, as I see it, is to effectively argue that "brotherhood" is 
  based upon doctrinal agreement that finds him no longer a Mormon but allows me 
  to continue as a Pentecostal and and Kay as a Messianic and Bill as a 
  Bricklayin Fool For Christ and Jonathan/Lance as Canadian Mega Liberals 
  !! Dave will never agree with us "protestants," nor will any 
  of us convert to Mormonism. Nor will I ever be whatever Judy 
  is (I truly do not know her denominational tie) or a Baptist as is 
  BillyT. But the fact embraced in the above "confession" binds us 
  together in a way that cannot be destroyed. Why so 
   because we are only passively involved in this 
  reconciliation that names Christ as the Author and Finisher. 
  Joseph Smith is not that -- neither is Charles Finney, 
  the Pope, Calvin, Luther and the like. 
JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-09 Thread Bill Taylor




John wrote  when, exactly, 
was the prodigal saved? When he came to himself? When he 
turned and started the trek home? When he saw his 
father? When he came to the door of the house? When he 
entered therein or when or accepted and particiated in the meal? I 
say -- in the pit, with the swine, covered with mud, 
coming to himself. 

I say he was the father's son throughout. The fact 
that the father was always looking for his son's return ought to tell us that 
the son was accepted and loved and considered a son throughout. Repentance 
brought the son to his senses; it did not make him a son. Repentance brings us 
to our senses; it does not make ussons or daughtersof God. Adopted 
in Christ, we are already His children.

Bill




  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 2:12 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal 
  Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
  In a message dated 1/9/2005 10:52:57 AM Pacific 
  Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 23:43:50 -0800 Dave Hansen 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:
DAVEH: ??? Do you believe one can be saved 
  without obedience to repentance?John: Aaah. 
  My first real question after stating that I know what I believe. 
  What we might call "obedience", which would include repentance, 
  doing good, confession, visiting the widows and the fatherless, 
  taking communion and the like, are things we do because we have been 
  saved -- because we are already involved with 
  God. jt: Say John, this is a discussion isn't it? It's not 
  just a "wise one" (like a guru or something) taking questions and giving 
  answers - right?Read my first post in this 
  thread (of mine) and the above question will be seen as a waste of 
  effort. I am not the one on this list who speaks excethedra, Judy. 
  
  
I'd say 'obedience' goes much deeper than the things you 
  list above which are all outward. God desires truth in the "inward parts" 
  and anyone who claims to be saved by the faith of Jesus ought to be 
  walking the same walk as Jesus and doing what he did. Jesus said "Lo, I 
  come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy 
  will, O GodThen said he, Lo I come to do thy 
  will, O God..." (Hebrews 10:7,9). So how does one claim to 
  be saved by Jesus' faith and ATST reject obedience? Isn't there 
  something wrong with this picture?Right on. 
  
  
 That passage in Philip 2:12,13 is critical to 
  me.  "Wherefore my beloved, as ye 
  have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much 
  more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. 
  For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good 
  pleasure." (Phil 2:12,13) The notion that "no man 
  comes to the Son except the Father draw him" ( a paraphrase of John 6:44) 
  is explained in this passage  "No man can come to me, 
  except the Father which hath sent me draw him; and I will raise him up at 
  the last day. (John 6:44) It is written in the prophets, And they 
  shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that 
  hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, 
  cometh unto me."So far, we are on the same 
  page, my Child. 
  
 --- "work out your salvation in fear and trembling for 
  it is God at work in you both to will and do His good 
  pleasure." BOTH TO WILL AND TO 
  PERFORM. Sure John, but (see above) 
  first one must hear and learn and be taught of God before they are able to 
  'come to Jesus' and many are hearing and learning from a polluted 
well.So many are waiting that 
  pracher to show and tell. 
  
There is a sense, a very real sense, that God is a part 
  of our lives already. When Chrsit speaks of the 
  children, he says " for such is the Kingdom ..." 
   He is talking about their trust and faith in someone higher 
  than themselvesHe is talking about 
  kids - not to deny your conclusion above. 
  
  
 God is already there. He created us, 
  He draws us unto Himself, if you believe that Christ is God 
  Manifested and Defined; He is the influence that wills good 
  works, He is power that performs those good works. What we are doing 
  when we repent or confess or feed the poor -- is 
  this: we are responding to the God within.  
  Both 
  New Agers and 12 Step Programs teach that we have a Higher Power residing 
  within. Are you speaking of the same thing here John? Like Shirley Maclaine when 
  she stood on the sand at Malibu raised her arms heavenward and said "I am 
  God" - is not such a great leap from this kind of 
  thinkingIf you go back to my 
  post, you will find scripture that reveals what I was talking 
  about. I never

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-09 Thread Jeff Powers




Isn't Benny Hinn Jewish?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Slade 
  Henson 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 
18:28
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal 
  Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
  
  You 
  forgot your guyBenny Hinn...right???
  
  :)
  
  Kay
  
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, 
09 January, 2005 14.38To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: 
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to 
MeIn a message dated 1/9/2005 6:59:03 AM 
Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  it is not because of his faith -- it is 
because of the faith of Christ Jesus Himself. There is 
salvation in none other. On that we all agree. Does 
Dave Hansen agree?DAVEH: Yes.
  JohnSo be it 
 How can I conclude that Dave Hansen is not a brother ( in 
the grandest sense of that word) when this confession is 
so? The only rebuttal, as I see it, is to effectively 
argue that "brotherhood" is based upon doctrinal agreement that finds him no 
longer a Mormon but allows me to continue as a Pentecostal and and Kay as a 
Messianic and Bill as a Bricklayin Fool For Christ and Jonathan/Lance as 
Canadian Mega Liberals !! Dave will never agree with us 
"protestants," nor will any of us convert to Mormonism. 
Nor will I ever be whatever Judy is (I truly do not know her 
denominational tie) or a Baptist as is BillyT. But the fact 
embraced in the above "confession" binds us together in a way that cannot be 
destroyed. Why so  because we are 
only passively involved in this reconciliation that names Christ as the 
Author and Finisher. Joseph Smith is not that 
-- neither is Charles Finney, the Pope, Calvin, 
Luther and the like. JD

RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-09 Thread Slade Henson




I 
think he's from Palestine

Kay

  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Jeff 
  PowersSent: Sunday, 09 January, 2005 19.08To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal 
  Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
  Isn't Benny Hinn Jewish?
  
- Original Message - 
From: 
Slade 
Henson 
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 

Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 
18:28
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Why the 
Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

You forgot your guyBenny Hinn...right???

:)

Kay

  -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: 
  Sunday, 09 January, 2005 14.38To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: 
  Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to 
  MeIn a message dated 1/9/2005 6:59:03 
  AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
it is not because of his faith -- it is 
  because of the faith of Christ Jesus Himself. There is 
  salvation in none other. On that we all agree. 
  Does Dave Hansen agree?DAVEH: 
Yes.
JohnSo be 
  it  How can I conclude that Dave Hansen is not a 
  brother ( in the grandest sense of that word) when this confession is 
  so? The only rebuttal, as I see it, is to effectively 
  argue that "brotherhood" is based upon doctrinal agreement that finds him 
  no longer a Mormon but allows me to continue as a Pentecostal and and Kay 
  as a Messianic and Bill as a Bricklayin Fool For Christ and Jonathan/Lance 
  as Canadian Mega Liberals !! Dave will never agree with us 
  "protestants," nor will any of us convert to Mormonism. 
  Nor will I ever be whatever Judy is (I truly do not know her 
  denominational tie) or a Baptist as is BillyT. But the fact 
  embraced in the above "confession" binds us together in a way that cannot 
  be destroyed. Why so  because we 
  are only passively involved in this reconciliation that names Christ as 
  the Author and Finisher. Joseph Smith is not that 
  -- neither is Charles Finney, the Pope, Calvin, 
  Luther and the like. JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-09 Thread Judy Taylor




He's from Lebanon. judyt

On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 19:48:39 -0500 "Slade Henson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  I 
  think he's from Palestine
  
  Kay
  
-Original Message-From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Jeff 
PowersSent: Sunday, 09 January, 2005 19.08To: 
TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the 
Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
Isn't Benny Hinn Jewish?

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  Slade Henson 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 
  18:28
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Why the 
  Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
  
  You forgot your guyBenny Hinn...right???
  
  :)
  
  Kay
  
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: 
Sunday, 09 January, 2005 14.38To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: 
Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to 
MeIn a message dated 
1/9/2005 6:59:03 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
writes:

  it is not because of his faith -- it 
is because of the faith of Christ Jesus Himself. There 
is salvation in none other. On that we all agree. 
Does Dave Hansen agree?DAVEH: 
  Yes.
  JohnSo be 
it  How can I conclude that Dave Hansen is not a 
brother ( in the grandest sense of that word) when this confession is 
so? The only rebuttal, as I see it, is to effectively 
argue that "brotherhood" is based upon doctrinal agreement that finds 
him no longer a Mormon but allows me to continue as a Pentecostal and 
and Kay as a Messianic and Bill as a Bricklayin Fool For Christ and 
Jonathan/Lance as Canadian Mega Liberals !! Dave will never 
agree with us "protestants," nor will any of us convert to 
Mormonism. Nor will I ever be whatever Judy is (I 
truly do not know her denominational tie) or a Baptist as is 
BillyT. But the fact embraced in the above "confession" 
binds us together in a way that cannot be destroyed. Why 
so  because we are only passively 
involved in this reconciliation that names Christ as the Author and 
Finisher. Joseph Smith is not that -- 
neither is Charles Finney, the Pope, Calvin, Luther and the 
like. JD

RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-09 Thread Slade Henson




Are 
Jews no longer Jewish when they accept their very Jewish 
Savior?
Does 
anyone agree 100% with what their church, home group, denomination, etc. has to 
say regarding doctrine or beliefs?
For 
instance, our ministry is affiliated with another rather large ministry and I 
don't believe everything they teach or believe. DoALL Baptists believe 
they can't dance, can't drink, can't play cards, can't go to movies? Do all 
Pentecostals believe in Jesus Only, or that women have to have long hair and 
wear it in a beehive thing and wear long dresses? Do all Plymouth Brethren 
believe they have to take communion every Sunday? Are ALL 7th Day Adventists 
veggie heads and do they ALL believe Helen G. White is a prophet completely 
without error? Do ALL Catholics believe in the Immaculate Conception or her 
perpetual virginity? Do ALL Mormons have more than one wife? Do ALL Amish refuse 
to ride in cars? Do ALL Muslims hate Jews and Christians?

Kay

  -Original Message-From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Dave 
  HansenSent: Sunday, 09 January, 2005 18.12To: 
  TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal 
  Sonship of Christ Matters to Me[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 
  In a message dated 1/9/2005 6:59:03 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

  it is not because of his faith -- it is 
because of the faith of Christ Jesus Himself. There is 
salvation in none other. On that we all agree. Does 
Dave Hansen agree?DAVEH: Yes.
  JohnSo be it 
 How can I conclude that Dave Hansen is not a brother ( in 
the grandest sense of that word) when this confession is 
so? The only rebuttal, as I see it, is to effectively 
argue that "brotherhood" is based upon doctrinal agreement that finds him no 
longer a MormonDAVEH: ??? 
  Not sure why you would deny me Mormonism while maintaining Protestantism, 
  JD. Is that not a double standard?
  but allows me to continue as a Pentecostal and and Kay as a 
Messianic and Bill as a Bricklayin Fool For Christ and Jonathan/Lance as 
Canadian Mega Liberals !! Dave will never agree with us 
"protestants,"DAVEH: Seems like I already 
  didat least in one aspect..that without Jesus, there would be no 
  salvation.
   nor will any of us convert to 
  Mormonism.DAVEH: Heyno need to draw 
  hasty conclusions, JD! :-D 
  
   Nor will I ever be whatever Judy is (I truly 
do not know her denominational tie) or a Baptist as is BillyT. 
But the fact embraced in the above "confession" binds us together in a way 
that cannot be destroyed. DAVEH: 
  Perhaps.But I suspect you are making a lot of TTers rather uncomfortable 
  right now, JD. Very few TTers are going to feel good about getting 
  chummy with a Mormon boy.
  Why so  because we are only 
passively involved in this reconciliation that names Christ as the Author 
and Finisher. Joseph Smith is not that -- 
neither is Charles Finney, the Pope, Calvin, Luther and the 
like. JD-- 
~~~
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] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me









Try Lebanese?











From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff Powers
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005
6:08 PM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the
Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me







Isn't Benny Hinn Jewish?







- Original Message - 





From: Slade
Henson 





To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org






Sent: Sunday, January
09, 2005 18:28





Subject: RE: [TruthTalk]
Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me











You forgot your guyBenny
Hinn...right???











:)











Kay





-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On
Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, 09 January, 2005
14.38
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the
Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

In a message dated 1/9/2005 6:59:03
AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:






it is not because of his faith -- it is
because of the faith of Christ Jesus Himself. There is salvation in
none other. On that we all agree. 

Does Dave Hansen agree?




DAVEH: Yes.




John





So be it  How can I conclude that Dave Hansen is not a
brother ( in the grandest sense of that word) when this confession is
so? The only rebuttal, as I see it, is to effectively argue
that brotherhood is based upon doctrinal agreement that finds him
no longer a Mormon but allows me to continue as a Pentecostal and and Kay as a
Messianic and Bill as a Bricklayin Fool For Christ and Jonathan/Lance as
Canadian Mega Liberals !! Dave will never agree with us
protestants, nor will any of us convert to
Mormonism. Nor will I ever be whatever Judy is (I truly do
not know her denominational tie) or a Baptist as is BillyT. But the
fact embraced in the above confession binds us together in a way
that cannot be destroyed. Why so 
because we are only passively involved in this reconciliation that names Christ
as the Author and Finisher. Joseph Smith is not that
-- neither is Charles Finney, the Pope, Calvin, Luther
and the like. 

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-09 Thread Jeff Powers




hey, what ever he is, benny ha ha has a great 
money-making shtick going! Now if only he could see clear to support a 
couple of starving seminary students!
:)
Jeff

Life makes warriors of us all.To emerge the victors, 
we must armourselves with the most potent of weapons.That weapon is 
prayer.--Rebbe Nachman of Breslov

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  ShieldsFamily 
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 
20:56
  Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal 
  Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
  
  
  Try 
  Lebanese?
  
  
  
  
  
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeff PowersSent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 6:08 
  PMTo: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal 
  Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
  
  
  Isn't Benny Hinn 
  Jewish?
  

- Original Message - 


From: Slade 
Henson 

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 


Sent: Sunday, 
January 09, 2005 18:28

Subject: RE: 
[TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to 
Me



You forgot your 
guyBenny Hinn...right???



:)



Kay

  -Original 
  Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: Sunday, 09 January, 2005 
  14.38To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the 
  Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
  In a message 
  dated 1/9/2005 6:59:03 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  writes:
  
it is not because of his 
faith -- it is because of the faith of Christ Jesus 
Himself. There is salvation in none other. On that we 
all agree. Does Dave Hansen 
agree?
  DAVEH: 
  Yes.
  John
  
  So be 
  it  How can I conclude that Dave Hansen is not a 
  brother ( in the grandest sense of that word) when this confession is 
  so? The only rebuttal, as I see it, is to effectively 
  argue that "brotherhood" is based upon doctrinal agreement that finds him 
  no longer a Mormon but allows me to continue as a Pentecostal and and Kay 
  as a Messianic and Bill as a Bricklayin Fool For Christ and Jonathan/Lance 
  as Canadian Mega Liberals !! Dave will never agree with us 
  "protestants," nor will any of us convert to Mormonism. 
  Nor will I ever be whatever Judy is (I truly do not know her 
  denominational tie) or a Baptist as is BillyT. But the fact 
  embraced in the above "confession" binds us together in a way that cannot 
  be destroyed. Why so  because we 
  are only passively involved in this reconciliation that names Christ as 
  the Author and Finisher. Joseph Smith is not that 
  -- neither is Charles Finney, the Pope, Calvin, 
  Luther and the like. 
JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

In a message dated 1/9/2005 2:08:42 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Read Romans 2 again. The Gentile there is one who had faith in Christ.
Otherwise, Paul contradicts other statements that he makes in the book of
Romans.

Paul's point in Romans 2 is this: Paul is concerned with the issue of judgment some members of the church might levy against others. He reminds them of two things, at least, in this passage. 1) Judging others is wrong because in some ways, we are all guilty ( v v 1-3). 2) Secondly, judging is wrong because God is the one, in this case, who works the work of repentance (v 4) and judgment through Christ (v 15,16). The Gentiles, in this passage are in contrast to those of prominence within the church (v v 17ff). They (those in prominence) have the Law; they are teachers of the immature and are the embodiment of knowledge and truth. By contrast, these Gentiles KNOW NOTHING. They have heard nothing (v v 13,14) that would cause them to even begin to compare with those of prominence. All these Gentiles have, by contrast, is a natural inclination to perform what is essentially required in the Law. Paul is saying " You have all this going from you and are wrong while they have nothing going for themselves except righteous (as it turns out) effort. While we might have everything going for us, the only thing that really works in our expressed effort at living outside ourselves is Jesus.

You are not the only who goes elsewhere in the letter or the biblical message to argue the point that this passage could not possibly mean what it says. I see no contradiction, but more importantly, I see the critical importance for the existence of these Gentiles in this illustration. Without them, Paul's point is without the contrast necessary to the making of his point.

John

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

Bill Taylor wrote:
 The Son did not become less than God
 in his service to humanity

David Miller wrote:
 1. Yeshua, in his earthly service to humanity,
 was made a little lower than the angels.
 2. Yeshua said his father was greater than he was.
 Do such facts have any relevance in discussing the
 notion of equality with God?

Bill Taylor wrote:
  I fail to see how this statement needs to be handled
 or understood in a light different than that of the
 kenosis of Phi 2.5-11. ...
 rather than parse my thoughts into oblivion,
 how about a definitive statement from you on
 your own teaching on these matters? That, it
 seems to me, would give us all a comparative
 basis upon which to draw. God bless you.
 I will be eagerly awaiting your presentation.

-
ke·no·sis
noun
partial relinquishing of divinity: according to Christian belief, Jesus 
Christ's act of partially giving up his divine status in order to become a 
man, as recorded in Philippians 2: 6-7

[Late 19th century. From Greek kenosis an emptying, from the phrase in 
Philippians 2:7 heauton ekenose emptied himself.]
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft 
Corporation. All rights reserved.
-

I don't think I have it all figured out, Bill, and I am certainly not as 
good a writer as you are.  Nevertheless, following are some thoughts I have 
which perhaps explain how I view the kenosis.

I perceive that in the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, 
and the Logos was God.  The Logos did not perceive equality with God 
something to be held onto, but rather he emptied himself, and took the form 
of a servant, being born of a woman by the power of the Holy Spirit, not 
just a son of a woman, but was born the son of God by his miraculous mighty 
power.

At this point he took upon himself some other names.  The Logos became known 
as the Son of man.  The Son of God.  Emmanuel.  Yeshua.  Jesus.  Messiah. 
Christ.  The Cornerstone.  The Lamb of God.  Apostle of God.  High Priest of 
God.  Previously he was unknown by these names, but he now took upon himself 
a new function which brought upon him new names and new titles.

In becoming the man we know as Yeshua, the Logos relinquished some of his 
glory that he had with Yahweh.  He did not relinquish any of his divinity. 
Who he was had not changed.  Rather, he set aside the power and glory which 
he had in the beginning.  He took upon himself the flesh of man and became a 
servant, being made lower than the angels.  There are some ways in which he 
is equal to the father.  He takes the father's name and inherits all that is 
the father's.  There are other ways in which he is not equal to the father. 
This is why he said that the father is greater than he is. On the earth in 
human flesh, he did not have the glory and power that the father had.  So he 
was not equal in this way.  He was not omniscient, which is why he prayed so 
much and inquired of others, and he was not omnipotent, which is why he said 
he could have called angels to deliver him from the crucifixion instead of 
saying that he could have just used his powers as God to escape them.  So 
becoming the son was a humbling experience.  The role of son is to represent 
God to a world in darkness, and to submit unto the death of a cross when the 
world which was made by him rejected him.  This was the specific role of the 
son of God.  And now he is resurrected and glorified with the glory which he 
had with the father in the beginning.  We will always remember his role as 
the son, but as he rules upon the throne of David, he will be better known 
in our hearts as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, the Everlasting 
Father.

Peace be with you.
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

John wrote:
 these Gentiles KNOW NOTHING. They have
 heard nothing (v v 13,14) that would cause
 them to even begin to compare with those
 of prominence.

The phrase, For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the 
doers of the law shall be justified, does not mean that these who did the 
law had not heard it.  Rather, it simply means that justification before God 
is not based upon hearing but upon doing.  Back up and look at Rom. 2:6-11. 
God renders glory, honor, and peace to every man that WORKETH GOOD, to the 
Jew first, and also to the Gentile.

There are some who become righteous (work good) because of faith in Jesus 
Christ.  Although these do not have Torah, they keep Torah because Torah is 
written upon their hearts.  So by their new nature in Christ, they do the 
things contained in the law and are a law unto themselves.  They show the 
work of the law written upon their hearts.

John wrote:
 You are not the only who goes elsewhere
 in the letter or the biblical message to argue
 the point that this passage could not possibly
 mean what it says.

On the contrary, I believe that the passage means exactly what it says.  You 
simply seemed to read your own idea into it and caused a reading of it that 
contradicts what Paul teaches elsewhere in this same epistle.

John wrote:
 I see no contradiction, but more importantly,
 I see the critical importance for the existence
 of these Gentiles in this illustration.  Without
 them,  Paul's point is without the contrast
 necessary to the making of his point.

I think you mean that without the contrast necessary, he could not make YOUR 
point.  His point is something other than you think (IMO).

If you won't hear me, maybe you would reconsider upon hearing the highly 
respected Bishop of Durham, who seems to take the same position as me on 
this subject. :-)

Tom Wright considers several viewpoints of Romans 2, including yours, and he 
says that your viewpoint ... falls foul of Paul's emphasis on the 
universality of human sin, in the overarching theme stated in 1:18 and 
concluded in 3:20.  ... here he [Paul] is hinting at a theme he will explore 
later in the letter, namely that the people in question are Christian 
Gentiles (vv. 14-15).

Peace be with you.
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

In a message dated 1/9/2005 6:23:38 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

So be it How can I conclude that Dave Hansen is not a brother ( in the grandest sense of that word) when this confession is so? The only rebuttal, as I see it, is to effectively argue that "brotherhood" is based upon doctrinal agreement that finds him no longer a Mormon
DAVEH: ??? Not sure why you would deny me Mormonism while maintaining Protestantism, JD. Is that not a double standard? It would be as you are understanding my post -- but that is not what I am saying. I think my use of the word "effectively" has caused some confusion. My point is that one cannot make an effective argument. The only rebuttal to your inclusion would be an effective argument that allows for the differing traditions of all except you -- not possible as far as i am concerned.
but allows me to continue as a Pentecostal and and Kay as a Messianic and Bill as a Bricklayin Fool For Christ and Jonathan/Lance as Canadian Mega Liberals !! Dave will never agree with us "protestants,"
DAVEH: Seems like I already didat least in one aspect..that without Jesus, there would be no salvation. Absolutely -- sorry the confusion.
nor will any of us convert to Mormonism.
DAVEH: Heyno need to draw hasty conclusions, JD! :-D Read on ;-)
Nor will I ever be whatever Judy is (I truly do not know her denominational tie) or a Baptist as is BillyT. But the fact embraced in the above "confession" binds us together in a way that cannot be destroyed. This includes you.

DAVEH: Perhaps.But I suspect you are making a lot of TTers rather uncomfortable right now, JD. Very few TTers are going to feel good about getting chummy with a Mormon boy.Perhaps.
Why so because we are only passively involved in this reconciliation that names Christ as the Author and Finisher. Joseph Smith is not that -- neither is Charles Finney, the Pope, Calvin, Luther and the like.

John

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

In a message dated 1/9/2005 7:53:30 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


You forgot your guyBenny Hinn...right???
 
:)
 


Yes - I say reluctantly. 

JD

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-09 Thread Dave Hansen





DAVEH: My latest response is in BLUE.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/9/2005 6:23:38 PM
Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
  

  
So be it  How can I conclude that Dave Hansen is not a brother (
in the grandest sense of that word) when this confession is so? The
only rebuttal, as I see it, is to effectively argue that "brotherhood"
is based upon doctrinal agreement that finds him no longer a Mormon

DAVEH: ??? Not sure why you would deny me Mormonism while
maintaining Protestantism, JD. Is that not a double standard? It
would be as you are understanding my post -- but that is not what I
am saying. I think my use of the word "effectively" has caused some
confusion. My point is that one cannot make an effective argument.
The only rebuttal to your inclusion would be an effective argument that
allows for the differing traditions of all except you -- not
possible as far as i am concerned. 
  
  
DAVEH: Ahhh.thanx for clearing that up
for me, JD.

  
but
allows me to continue as a Pentecostal and and Kay as a Messianic and
Bill as a Bricklayin Fool For Christ and Jonathan/Lance as Canadian
Mega Liberals !! Dave will never agree with us "protestants,"

DAVEH: Seems like I already didat least in one aspect..that
without Jesus, there would be no salvation. Absolutely -- sorry
the confusion. 
  
  
DAVEH: I suspect there are other areas I may
agree as well. But for the sake of dividing folks (and I admit to
doing it too), it is more interesting/entertaining to point out the
differences.

  

nor will any of us convert to Mormonism.

DAVEH: Heyno need to draw hasty conclusions, JD! :-D Read
on ;-)

Nor will I ever be whatever Judy is (I truly do not know her
denominational tie) or a Baptist as is BillyT. But the fact embraced
in the above "confession" binds us together in a way that cannot be
destroyed. This includes you. 

  
  
DAVEH: You won't win any TT popularity trophies
with comments like that, JD. 
;-) 

  


DAVEH: Perhaps.But I suspect you are making a lot of TTers rather
uncomfortable right now, JD. Very few TTers are going to feel good
about getting chummy with a Mormon boy.Perhaps. 
Why
so  because we are only passively involved in this
reconciliation that names Christ as the Author and Finisher. Joseph
Smith is not that -- neither is Charles Finney, the Pope, Calvin,
Luther and the like. 
  
JD
  


  
  
  
  
  
John 

-- 
~~~
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] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

In a message dated 1/9/2005 7:53:44 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:


John wrote  when, exactly, was the prodigal saved? When he came to himself? When he turned and started the trek home? When he saw his father? When he came to the door of the house? When he entered therein or when or accepted and particiated in the meal? I say -- in the pit, with the swine, covered with mud, coming to himself. 

 
I say he was the father's son throughout. The fact that the father was always looking for his son's return ought to tell us that the son was accepted and loved and considered a son throughout. Repentance brought the son to his senses; it did not make him a son. Repentance brings us to our senses; it does not make us sons or daughters of God. Adopted in Christ, we are already His children.
 
Bill
 


Yes, a son always. But in need of a turning around, correct? If he had not turned what would have been the implications? It seems to me that the prodigal son was separated from his father because of his decision to reject the father's partnership and live for himself. Destruction was his only destiny. 

Agree?

John Boy

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

John wrote:
 If Jesus was not the Son before the incarnation,
 the virgin birth was His rite of adoption

No, because Jesus did not lay aside his divinity in becoming man.  The 
virgin birth was a miracle of God begetting a son, something that had never 
been done before.  There was no adoption, but rather a begetting of a holy 
son.

All of us were adopted because we were born children of Satan, but he was 
born a child of God from the beginning.  Therefore we call him the only 
begotten son of God.

Peace be with you.
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.

RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-08 Thread ShieldsFamily









 He is 'saved when he stops serving
himself and begins the quest for expressed community and all the benefits that
are associated with community. Smithson



Smithson, what if his chosen community
is Al Qaeda? Izzy

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-08 Thread Terry Clifton





[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just
for the record, the following are some of those things I brought into
this forum and where I am now. I would be interested in a similar
contruct from any and all. 
Those words above were the first words of what I thought would be a
list issues. Instead, writing this line after writing the following
(below) , the Lord has led me to a statement of faith of sorts and it
is .. 
  
. Water baptism: for me, the last of the great Mohicans as
regards my works salvationist upbring. I believed that works
AND faith carried equal weight. That changed shortly before I came to
this list. And at the time I came onto this list, I believed
that God had two considerations in His thinking on salvation: 1) that
the condition of the heart carried more weight in the soteriological
sense that any other consideration --- that salvation occured apart
from obedience. A prayerful consideration of Ps 51 and Romans
2:8-29 showed me the basis for God's judgment in our lives and
confirmed the above thinking; 2) that when this salvation is
expressed in Jesus Christ -- we have confidence and definition in
regard to our salvation. We know we are saved. The entire
letter of I john is written with this purpose in mind -- that we
might have confidence in our salvation. As luck would have it, where
I was when I came to this forum was accidently correct, as far as it
went. 
  
(after coming to this list -- this is what happened next)
  
Sadly, I did not understand why this was so -- although I thought I
did -- an accident. Paul's argument (Gal 3) that the Abrahmic
promise was extended to Jesus Christ (as the seed, not of many but as
of one v 16) opened the door to understanding that it is the faith
of Christ that has secured (aorist, if you will) our salvation. When
I combine this biblical fact with the idea that community is the very
image of God, that we were created in this image, that not only
attachment to others ("it is not good for man to be alone") but
a profound and expressed caring for those "others" is the central
issue in any definition of this Image, the conclusion if forced upon
me in this wise: that Christ, in the flesh, was no less
involved in this Image (of community) than before or after the
incarnation event; that He (in the flesh) gives definition of
"God" (and I changed verb tenses, here, intentionally for His was
an action begun during the incarnation and extending to this very
moment or any moment we call "now.") and my imitation of Him (to
any degree) in deed and perhaps word has the benefit of a salvation
already procured for me in the Christ of the Cross. I loose my
salvation when I move to serve myself and in so doing, deny the very
Image I am. I am destroyed in serving self. 
  
  
  My faith in Christ does not save me -- it gives me
confidence and opens the door to an understanding of the soteriological
process I am involved in as a human being -- knowingly or
not. When the biblical message speaks of "saved," "being saved" and
a future "salvation," it is demonstrating the process we are
all involved in. The fact that "judgment day" is for all of mankind
proves, to me, that this process is for us all and that we are all
involved in it, like it or not --- whether they have heard of Christ
or not - no matter what. 
  
Water baptism? How did that figure in? Well, I used to believe
that you had to be baptised to be saved. Now, and here is the change
for me, I believe that anything I do, including water baptism however
you define it (immersion or sprinkling, I do not care), and
especially those things done in the name of the Lord, are acts that
reveal God in Christ through me to others. I can preach it or I can
simply perform. All is to the revealed glory and certainty of the
Great God Almighty. So baptism saved me years ago, at age 12, because
it was an _expression_ of the very faith of Christ Jesus Himself. He
was even baptised !!! And now I am doing it  that is
salvation. 
 
 His life is mirrored in mine when I do
what He did
 His life is confirmed in mine when I do
what He wills. 

-- me --
How could this not be salvation? 
  
And the "baptism" that really matters to me, is the one spoken of in
Gal 3:26,27 -- a full immersion into Christ Himself.
  
  
"Work out your own salvation in fear and trembling for it is God at
work in you both to will and to perform His good pleasure" (Phil
2:12,13). Why did Paul add "fear and trembling". The message is the
same without this parenthetical. It is exactly the same, to me. So
why? Because, if the performance of righteousness is act of community
and its individual memership -- the pronouncement that it is God
performing in us should bring to our mind a startled awareness that is
manifest in fear and trembling. In this passage , Paul has suddenly
put his readership in tune with that which is the Subtle Force behind
their works of goodness. Suddenly -- there it is!! Community
with God Himself. He has

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-08 Thread Bill Taylor




John wrote  There is a very 
real sense, then, that salvation is ours to loose. 


I agree with you, John. However, it is only 
before we have once placed our faith in Jesus Christthat we may 
loseour salvation -- andso,this may be a fairly significant 
HOWEVER that we will need to work out. I do not believe the one who has heard 
the good news of Jesus Christ and believed that message will ever lose 
his or her salvation, because upon believing in Jesus Christ, believers receive 
the gift of the Holy Spirit, who in the Power of God secures their salvation 
forever; the Gift guarantees their inheritance in Christ. Check out the 
wording here and see if you see what I amsaying:In [Christ] you also 
trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your 
salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit 
of promise,who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of 
the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory" (Eph 
1.13-14).

Bill

  - Original Message - 
  From: 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
  
  To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 
  
  Sent: Friday, January 07, 2005 10:11 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal 
  Sonship of Christ Matters to Me
  Just for the record, the 
  following are some of those things I brought into this forum and where I am 
  now. I would be interested in a similar contruct from any and 
  all. 
  Those words above were the first words of what I thought would be a list 
  issues. Instead, writing this line after writing the following (below) 
  , the Lord has led me to a statement of faith of sorts and it is 
  .. . Water 
  baptism: for me, the last of the great Mohicans as regards my 
  works salvationist upbring. I believed that works AND 
  faith carried equal weight. That changed shortly before I came to this 
  list. And at the time I came onto this list, I 
  believed that God had two considerations in His thinking on salvation: 
  1) that the condition of the heart carried more weight in the soteriological 
  sense that any other consideration --- that salvation occured 
  apart from obedience. A prayerful consideration of Ps 
  51 and Romans 2:8-29 showed me the basis for God's judgment 
  in our lives and confirmed the above thinking; 2) that 
  when this salvation is expressed in Jesus Christ -- we have 
  confidence and definition in regard to our salvation. We know 
  we are saved. The entire letter of I john is written with this 
  purpose in mind -- that we might have confidence in our 
  salvation. As luck would have it, where I was when I came to 
  this forum was accidently correct, as far as it went. (after 
  coming to this list -- this is what happened next)Sadly, I 
  did not understand why this was so -- although I thought I 
  did -- an accident. Paul's argument (Gal 
  3) that the Abrahmic promise was extended to Jesus Christ (as the seed, not of 
  many but as of one v 16) opened the door to understanding 
  that it is the faith of Christ that has secured (aorist, if you will) 
  our salvation. When I combine this biblical fact with the idea 
  that community is the very image of God, that we were created in this 
  image, that not only attachment to others ("it is not good for man 
  to be alone") but a profound and expressed caring for those 
  "others" is the central issue in any definition of this Image, the 
  conclusion if forced upon me in this wise: that Christ, in the 
  flesh, was no less involved in this Image (of community) than 
  before or after the incarnation event; that He (in the flesh) 
  gives definition of "God" (and I changed verb tenses, here, 
  intentionally for His was an action begun during the incarnation and extending 
  to this very moment or any moment we call "now.") and my imitation of 
  Him (to any degree) in deed and perhaps word has the benefit of a 
  salvation already procured for me in the Christ of the Cross. I loose my 
  salvation when I move to serve myself and in so doing, deny the very Image 
  I am. I am destroyed in serving self. 
  My faith in Christ does not save me -- it gives 
  me confidence and opens the door to an understanding of the soteriological 
  process I am involved in as a human being -- knowingly or 
  not. When the biblical message speaks of "saved," "being 
  saved" and a future "salvation," it is demonstrating the 
  process we are all involved in. The fact that "judgment 
  day" is for all of mankind proves, to me, that this process is for us all and 
  that we are all involved in it, like it or not --- whether 
  they have heard of Christ or not - no matter 
  what. Water baptism? How did that figure 
  in? Well, I used to believe that you had to be 
  baptised to be saved. Now, and here is the change for me, I 
  believe that anything I do, including water baptism however you define it 
  (immersion or sprinkling, I do not care), and especially those things 
  done in the name of

RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-08 Thread ShieldsFamily





















From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005
8:14 AM
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Why the
Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me







John wrote  There is a very real
sense, then, that salvation is ours to loose. 











I agree with you, John. However, it is only before we
have once placed our faith in Jesus Christthat we may loseour
salvation -- andso,this may be a fairly significant HOWEVER that we
will need to work out. I do not believe the one who has heard the good news of
Jesus Christ and believed that message will ever lose his or her
salvation, because upon believing in Jesus Christ, believers receive the gift
of the Holy Spirit, who in the Power of God secures their salvation forever;
the Gift guarantees their inheritance in Christ. Check out the wording
here and see if you see what I amsaying:In [Christ] you also
trusted,
after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also,
having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,who is
the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased
possession, to the praise of His glory (Eph 1.13-14).











Bill



Bill, Im tempted to show you the
scriptures that disprove the once saved always saved theology,
but Im sure you must be familiar with them. Folks who hold such
theology always argue, Well if they fell away from their faith/walk in Christ
they really werent saved in the first place. It becomes a circular
argument, and no real consensus is possible. Izzy

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-08 Thread Judy Taylor




John also wrote:
1) that the condition of the heart carried 
more weight in the soteriological sense that any other consideration 
--- that salvation occured apart from 
obedience.

The above is not true John because if 
it werethen salvation would have to happen apart fromthe Holy Spirit 
because it is written:
God gives the Holy Spirit to 
those who obey Him (Jesus) Acts 
5:32
And being made perfect He (Jesus) 
became the author of eternal salvation unto all them 
that obey Him. Hebrews 5:9
Know ye not that to whom ye yield 
yourselves servants to obey his servants ye are 
to whom ye obey, 
whether of sin unto 
death, or of obedience unto righteousness Romans 
6:16. and you continue .

The 
entire letter of I john is written with this purpose in mind 
-- that we might have confidence in our 
salvation.

John how can we have confidence in 
something we are not yet in possession of? It's a salvation ready to be revealed 
in the last time (1 Peter 1:5) andthe entire letter of 1 John includes 
theconditions in 1 John 3:22-24: Whatsoever we ask we receive of him beause we keep his 
commandments and do those things that are pleasing in his sight; 
and this is his commandment that 
we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another 
as he gave us commandment. And he that 
keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him and he in him 
and hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us 
(the ones who obey him)
He that loveth 
not knoweth not God; for God is love 1 John 4:8
By this we know that we love the 
children of God, when we love God and keep 
his commandments. 1 John 5:2
For this is the love of 
God, that we keep his commandments and his 
commandments are not grievous 1 John 5:3

When I combine this biblical fact with the idea that 
community is the very image of God, that we 
were created in this image, that not only 
attachment to others ("it is not good for man to be alone") 
but a profound and expressed caring for those "others" is the 
central issue in any definition of this Image, the conclusion if forced 
upon me in this wise: that Christ, in the 
flesh, was no less involved in this Image (of community) than 
before or after the incarnation event...

The above is a horrible distortion John - Is 
this the fruit of this "Eternal Son" doctrine, is this why that and the 
Tertullian idea of Trinity is so important? The man Jesus was not a "community" 
during His earthly ministry John and there is no "community"sitting at the 
RH of the Father in heaven interceding for us right now. The "image" of 
God is His nature and character which could be seen in Jesus by those paying 
close attention; Phillip almost missed it... and this is the "image" we are to 
be conformed to in Him. If you think you are already there then you've 
missed it. Salvation is a walk of grace, one that we must cooperate with 
byobedienceso that perfect love can drive out the fear in our hearts 
and they will be perfected in love... (as Paul wrote to Timothy "the goal of the 
instruction is love from a pure heart") So that when we "see Him" we 
will be like 
Him.

Grace and Peace, judyt



  Bill writes: John wrote  
  There is a very real sense, then, that salvation is ours to loose. 
  
  
  I agree with you, John. However, it is only 
  before we have once placed our faith in Jesus Christthat we may 
  loseour salvation -- andso,this may be a fairly significant 
  HOWEVER that we will need to work out. I do not believe the one who has heard 
  the good news of Jesus Christ and believed that message will ever lose 
  his or her salvation, because upon believing in Jesus Christ, believers 
  receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, who in the Power of God secures their 
  salvation forever; the Gift guarantees their inheritance in Christ. 
  Check out the wording here and see if you see what I amsaying:In 
  [Christ] you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the 
  gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with 
  the Holy Spirit of promise,who is the guarantee of our inheritance until 
  the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory" (Eph 
  1.13-14). Bill
  

From: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Just for the record, the 
following are some of those things I brought into this forum and where I am 
now. I would be interested in a similar contruct from any and 
all. 
Those words above were the first words of what I thought would be a list 
issues. Instead, writing this line after writing the following (below) 
, the Lord has led me to a statement of faith of sorts and it is 
.. . Water 
baptism: for me, the last of the great Mohicans as regards my 
works salvationist upbring. I believed that works 
AND faith carried equal weight. That changed shortly before I came to this 
list. And at the time I came onto this list, I 
believed

RE: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-08 Thread ShieldsFamily



























John also wrote:





1) that the condition of the heart carried more
weight in the soteriological sense that any other consideration ---
that salvation occured apart from
obedience.











The above is not true
John because if it werethen salvation would have to happen apart
fromthe Holy Spirit because it is written:





God gives the Holy
Spirit to those
who obey Him (Jesus) Acts
5:32





And being made perfect
He (Jesus) became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that
obey
Him. Hebrews 5:9





Know ye not that to
whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey his servants ye
are to whom ye
obey, 





whether of sin unto
death, or of obedience
unto righteousness Romans 6:16. and
you continue .









Thats why Jesus said: 
Matt 13:12(H)For
whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but
whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. 

Izzy

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-08 Thread Dave Hansen







[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/7/2005 9:40:10 PM
Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
  
  
  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 

. Water baptism: for me,
the last of the great Mohicans as regards my works salvationist
upbring. I believed that works AND faith carried equal
weight. That changed shortly before I came to this list. And at
the time I came onto this list, I believed that God had two
considerations in His thinking on salvation: 1) that the condition of
the heart carried more weight in the soteriological sense that any
other consideration --- that salvation occured apart from obedience.
  
  

DAVEH: ??? Do you believe one can be saved without obedience
to repentance?


John David Smithson
Pastor and Bishop of Calfornia
  

  
  
Aaah. My first real question after stating that I know what I
believe. 
  
What we might call "obedience", which would include repentance, doing
good, confession, visiting the widows and the fatherless, taking
communion and the like, are things we do because we have been saved
-- because we are already involved with God. That passage in
Philip 2:12,13 is critical to me. The notion that "no man comes to
the Son except the Father draw him" ( a paraphrase of John 6:44) is
explained in this passage --- "work out your salvation in
fear and trembling for it is God at work in you both to will and do His
good pleasure." BOTH TO WILL AND TO PERFORM. 
There is a sense, a very real sense, that God is a part of our
lives already. When Chrsit speaks of the children, he says
" for such is the Kingdom ..." God is already there. 
He created us, He draws us unto Himself, if you believe that Christ is
God Manifested and Defined; He is the influence that wills good
works, He is power that performs those good works. What we are doing
when we repent or confess or feed the poor -- is this: we are
responding to the God within. In view of the scriptures above, how
could we not think and believe that our actions or God's actions. I
am not saved by that response -- rather, I am saved by that
relationship. The reponses just happen. 
  
An obedience to repentance? If you mean, by that, actions that
demonstrate a change of heart/mind, my answer is the same. The
prodigal son demonstrates this obedience to repentance, does he not?
But why did he turn around? Two reasons. 1) he was headed in the
wrong direction -- leaving his community and moving away for the
expressed purpose of serving himself. Correct? 2) He turns around
because there is a reason to turn around -- a father who is already
there. A home. An inheritance. A life. Acceptance without
question. Forgiveness without reservation. He is 'saved" when he
stops serving himself and begins the quest for expressed community and
all the benefits that are associated with community. 
  
It just dawned on me -- the child is not lost at birth, born into
sin and all that; rather, he is saved and then lost in self serving
crap, and then saved as he responds to what is already his, crucifies
himself, and chooses to live the life he was created to live. 
  
What do you think about THAT  ?? 
  
DAVEH: HmmI think you forgot to answer my question,
John. Please considerI'm not the sharpest tack in TT. I ofttimes
have trouble understanding obtuse answers. Could I possibly persuade
you to answer with a simple yes or no? 

I could be wrong, but probably not. 
  
Your friend
  
Smithson

-- 
~~~
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] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-07 Thread Knpraise

In a message dated 1/6/2005 9:21:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

such seldom is the case in my case. 

We do know that tongue in cheek is illustrated above?

J

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-07 Thread Knpraise

Just for the record, the following are some of those things I brought into this forum and where I am now. I would be interested in a similar contruct from any and all.
Those words above were the first words of what I thought would be a list issues. Instead, writing this line after writing the following (below) , the Lord has led me to a statement of faith of sorts and it is ..

. Water baptism: for me, the last of the great Mohicans as regards my works salvationist upbring. I believed that works AND faith carried equal weight. That changed shortly before I came to this list. And at the time I came onto this list, I believed that God had two considerations in His thinking on salvation: 1) that the condition of the heart carried more weight in the soteriological sense that any other consideration --- that salvation occured apart from obedience. A prayerful consideration of Ps 51 and Romans 2:8-29 showed me the basis for God's judgment in our lives and confirmed the above thinking; 2) that when this salvation is expressed in Jesus Christ -- we have confidence and definition in regard to our salvation. We know we are saved. The entire letter of I john is written with this purpose in mind -- that we might have confidence in our salvation. As luck would have it, where I was when I came to this forum was accidently correct, as far as it went.

(after coming to this list -- this is what happened next)

Sadly, I did not understand why this was so -- although I thought I did -- an accident. Paul's argument (Gal 3) that the Abrahmic promise was extended to Jesus Christ (as the seed, not of many but as of one v 16) opened the door to understanding that it is the faith of Christ that has secured (aorist, if you will) our salvation. When I combine this biblical fact with the idea that community is the very image of God, that we were created in this image, that not only attachment to others ("it is not good for man to be alone") but a profound and expressed caring for those "others" is the central issue in any definition of this Image, the conclusion if forced upon me in this wise: that Christ, in the flesh, was no less involved in this Image (of community) than before or after the incarnation event; that He (in the flesh) gives definition of "God" (and I changed verb tenses, here, intentionally for His was an action begun during the incarnation and extending to this very moment or any moment we call "now.") and my imitation of Him (to any degree) in deed and perhaps word has the benefit of a salvation already procured for me in the Christ of the Cross. I loose my salvation when I move to serve myself and in so doing, deny the very Image I am. I am destroyed in serving self.

My faith in Christ does not save me -- it gives me confidence and opens the door to an understanding of the soteriological process I am involved in as a human being -- knowingly or not. When the biblical message speaks of "saved," "being saved" and a future "salvation," it is demonstrating the process we are all involved in. The fact that "judgment day" is for all of mankind proves, to me, that this process is for us all and that we are all involved in it, like it or not --- whether they have heard of Christ or not - no matter what.

Water baptism? How did that figure in? Well, I used to believe that you had to be baptised to be saved. Now, and here is the change for me, I believe that anything I do, including water baptism however you define it (immersion or sprinkling, I do not care), and especially those things done in the name of the Lord, are acts that reveal God in Christ through me to others. I can preach it or I can simply perform. All is to the revealed glory and certainty of the Great God Almighty. So baptism saved me years ago, at age 12, because it was an _expression_ of the very faith of Christ Jesus Himself. He was even baptised !!! And now I am doing it that is salvation.

His life is mirrored in mine when I do what He did
His life is confirmed in mine when I do what He wills.
-- me --
How could this not be salvation?

And the "baptism" that really matters to me, is the one spoken of in Gal 3:26,27 -- a full immersion into Christ Himself.

"Work out your own salvation in fear and trembling for it is God at work in you both to will and to perform His good pleasure" (Phil 2:12,13). Why did Paul add "fear and trembling". The message is the same without this parenthetical. It is exactly the same, to me. So why? Because, if the performance of righteousness is act of community and its individual memership -- the pronouncement that it is God performing in us should bring to our mind a startled awareness that is manifest in fear and trembling. In this passage , Paul has suddenly put his readership in tune with that which is the Subtle Force behind their works of goodness. Suddenly -- there it is!! Community with God Himself. He has been there all the while. We have manifested

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

2005-01-07 Thread Dave Hansen







[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
.
Water baptism: for me, the last of the great Mohicans as
regards my works salvationist upbring. I believed that works
AND faith carried equal weight. That changed shortly before I came to
this list. And at the time I came onto this list, I believed
that God had two considerations in His thinking on salvation: 1) that
the condition of the heart carried more weight in the soteriological
sense that any other consideration --- that salvation occured apart
from obedience. 
  
DAVEH: ??? Do you believe one can be saved without obedience
to repentance?

John David Smithson
Pastor and Bishop of Calfornia
  
  
  
  

-- 
~~~
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] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

John wrote:
 The Son is such because He is always
 the Servant of the Father.

John wrote:
 A son can become a servant on any or several occasions.

And a servant can become a son, which is the case in which we find 
ourselves.

John wrote:
 The fact that He claimed to be the Son was understood
 by those of His day as making Himself equal to God.

Actually, we should recognize that for the most part, Jesus did not directly 
claim to be the Son of God.  He referred to God as his Father, and this is 
what was interpreted as his making himself equal to God.  Furthermore, it 
was not just his words, but how he acted and carried himself.

John wrote:
 I believe that Jesus Christ is a term that always includes
 this notion  Sonship.  I doubt seriously that the biblical
 writers ever wrote those words, Jesus Christ, without
 felling the excitement of that first confession,   Thou are
 the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

I agree.  As Terry pointed out, he was never known as Jesus Christ until 
he was born of Mary, so if this is the term that denotes sonship to you, why 
would you object to those who see sonship as a functional role he took on by 
his own personal experience of the incarnation?

John wrote:
 If being a son does no damage to the notion of equality,
 why would any other function impair that belief, when
 speaking of the Christ?

Being a son does affect the notion of equality in some ways.  In a father 
and son relationship, the father is considered superior and in authority 
over the son, is he not?  I have always viewed my earthly father this way. 
How about you?

Furthermore, we have Jesus saying, my father is greater than I.  Does this 
denote any inequality in your mind?

Peace be with you.
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me





Bill Taylor wrote:
 I guess I know 
you well enough to know that 
 this will not be convincing, nor the end of 
this :)

Perhaps you do not know me as well as you 
think. I thought your post was articulated very well and was very 
convincing. Nonetheless,I'm sure you would agree that suchdoes 
not mean that it was comprehensive and settled the matter for all, once and for 
all. I fully agree with all that you said. Yeshua did reveal the 
same servant heart whom he shared with God throughout eternity.

Bill Taylor wrote:
 The Son did not 
become less than God 
 in his service to humanity

1. Yeshua, in his earthly service to humanity, was 
made a little lower than the angels.

2. Yeshua said his father was greater than he 
was.

Do such factshave any relevance in discussing 
the notion ofequality with God?
Peace be with you.David 
Miller.

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

John wrote:
 ... that would have over looked the intrinsic
 value of shared thinking.

I have always said it this way.  No man on earth has the full revelation of 
Christ within himself.  The fullness of Christ is revealed only through his 
ekklesia (assembly), as we are in relationship with one another.  There are 
some truths that we will never receive directly through the Spirit or 
through reading the Bible for ourselves, but God has determined that some 
truth will be revealed to us through our brothers and sisters who are in 
Christ.  In other words, if I want to know the whole truth, I cannot ignore 
the community of Christ.

Another analogy I often give is that understanding truth is a lot like 
holding up a coin in the midst of a circle of people.  Some people view one 
side of the coin while others view the other side.  We can sit around and 
fight about how one side is inaccurately representing the description of the 
coin, or we can lighten up and realize that there are two sides to the coin 
and some of us cannot view the other side except through our neighbor.  When 
we walk in love toward one another, we will listen to our neighbor and gain 
a more full knowledge of the coin by doing so.  Of course, we must recognize 
also that some people are not looking at the coin and want to enter into the 
dialogue and so they make stuff up.  Some people too might just want to try 
and misrepresent the coin for their own personal reasons.  And then there 
are those sincere people who are just not very good at describing what they 
see.  Such makes the whole situation a little less than pristine as we seek 
to distinguish those who are accurately describing the coin from those who 
are not.

Peace be with you.
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me

John wrote:
 Bill could very well become a teacher's teacher.   

Bill already is a teacher's teacher.  :-)

Peace be with you.
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.

Re: [TruthTalk] Why the Eternal Sonship of Christ Matters to Me