[TruthTalk] The fall - Where's the beef ??

Mon, 23 Jan 2006 07:53:13 -0800

 
 
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 15:32:45 +0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And I agree with Debbie's analysis of the difficulty experienced by Judy.  In addition,  I think Judy's attachment to her thinking concerning the "generational curse" is a huge problem as well. 
 
Not for me JD; the problem is yours and Debbie's.  Her wisdom comes by way of TFT and mine from God's
Holy Word.  The curse of the law is a present day reality - as is generational curses.  You don't have to accept that but they are working in you and in your children as we speak.
 
As for me,  I just do not see a change in human nature with the event of the fall.   In fact, the fall is only possible because of a nature that provided for the opportunity of disobedience.   How is that not true? 
 
Oh well, you haven't been reading your Bible very well.  What about the first murder and the fact that within just
a few generations God saw the need to destroy the whole shooting match - except for one family.
 
I have said this several times before and I say it again:  in all of my reading, to date,  I have yet to discover an actual apologetic for the theology of the "fall."   Does such exist?  How could it not?   But so far, I can't even find the pickle.   Where's the beef, I say ?? !!     
 
It's all through the Bible - Your reading must be selective along with the fact that you obviously don't have eyes to see.
 
I hate to couch the  rise of a budding theologian in terms of specific and/or unique contributions, fearing an attachment to "gimmick" theology,  but Bill (or someone) has a perfect chance to contribute in the most meaningful of ways in this regard.   A book or paper entitled "A Theology of the 'Fall'" or "In Defense of the 'Fall'"
or "The 'Fall' Is Not Just A Postulated Truth,"  or ..................  well , you get the picture.   Currently, it appears to me that the "Fall" is an assumption ,  even in Barth  !!
 
Who would want to "defend it"  Much better to write a paper entitled "Reconciliation in and through Christ"
Of course my paper would be vastly different from yours, Lances, Debbies, and Bills.
 
Understand,  I have been in this theological persuasion for little more than a year.  There is much (even in Barth) that I have not read.  Actually,  "much" is an understatement of grand proportions.   But I have looked for such an explanation without success.  jd
 
Poison JD, and remember only a little bit of arsenic is all it takes to ruin a good steak.
 
 
 
 
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: January 22, 2006 14:23
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

I think the stumbling block for those coming from a viewpoint like Judy's is that Jesus could not have been an acceptable sacrifice for us--i.e., to take our penalty--if he were blemished in any way, and having a fallen nature (not unreasonably) constitutes a blemish in their view. The answer (as I understood it from TFT) is that Jesus was doing more than being a sacrifice for us. Like Bill says, there is more than the legal transaction happening. He is 'bending human nature back', purifying it, by his obedient life, his steadfast refusal to think or act out of the fallen nature. He put the fallen nature to death in two ways and was raised a fully restored human in every sense, which is how his resurrection is intrinsically linked to ours. Just the legal transaction, just the sacrifice, doesn't do anything to fix the fallen human nature. This is what I understand Bill to be saying, too. I remember TFT insisting that wron g views of who Jesus was always end up losing either the substitutionary or the representative character (or both).
 
D

From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 1:19 PM
To: Debbie Sawczak
Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Taylor
Sent: January 22, 2006 12:41
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

cd: No Bill -I did not completely understand Judy-I view Christ as Wholly God Wholly Human and Judy does not. Not do I agree totally with yours and David stance that Christ was of common man. His nature was no lower than a Christ -like nature:-) That may mean that I am in my own field alone? But at least I have a field to be alone in:-)
 
Thanks Dean. I think we can all agree emphatically that Christ was holy and pure and did not sin. The last time this topic was a point of contention here on TT, David wrote some really good posts on Christ's holiness and purity, and how it was that neither of these were compromised by his human condition. Perhaps he can find time to revisit that concern.
 
The major difference between a belief in Jesus as having a human nature other than ours -- some sort of a pre-fallen nature -- and the belief that Jesus was born as we are, a subject of the fall, is that whereas our battle against sin is an internal battle, his would have been external to who he was in his human nature. His plight would have been to keep sin out, whereas ours is to get it out. As Christians, we are called to put sin to death "in our members." Jesus, in his lifetime, would not have had that battle, and hence could not have helped us, as his would have been a fortress mentality: just keep sin out of his members and he will have proven it can be done. Well, that is not only not helpful to us -- as we've already missed out on that opportunity -- it leaves us in an even more disparate condition, since Christ only proved us wrong but did not defeat sin in the way that we experi ence it. And if he only proved us wrong but did not defeat sin from within our plight, then all he can really do is become our offering for sin (not that he is not that, too). Thus he may be our perpetual bull or goat, but don't call him our example, because he isn't an example to us, in that we never get to walk in his steps, as ours is altogether a different starting place than his.
 
The best then that your view can offer is a substitutionary theory of the atonement (and again not that Christ was not also our substitute). Yours is that God takes Christ's righteousness and imputes it to us and takes our sin and imputes it to him -- a legal transaction, if you will, but not a helpful one since we are still in our sin, it not having been defeated in our members. And so, even this double imputation is lacking in your view; indeed, it is a legal fiction: God declares us righteous, when we're not; and he winks at his Son, saying: "I'll call you sin, even though we all know you're not"; hence it is fiction on both accounts. On the contrary, see 2 Corinthians 5.21: "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." God sent his Son, perfect from eternity, to earth, and cloaked him in human form from the fruit of David's genitals according to the flesh -- that is, replete with David's nature,&nbs p;which is "Sin" with a capital S -- in order that he might defeat sin where in resides in sinful humanity, so that we might experience genuine righteousness and not the kind you have to wink at.
 
Look with me at Mark 7.20-23 and at James 4.1, and ask yourself if a man who does not have a fallen or "Sin" nature (your kind of Jesus) could actually be tempted in every way like his brothers:

And [Jesus] said, "It is what comes out of a man, that defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man."

Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members?

Could a man who does not have a nature of "Sin" actually experience the desire to act upon these things that war within us? In other words, could a man who does not have a human nature like we do truly be tempted to behave in the way that we do? Of course not! Our battle comes from within; his would be to wall it out. Temptation for him would be an external battle; ours is the opposite of that (as attested to above). Ours is intrinsic to who we are as fallen human beings. His would be extrinsic to his nature. His plight would be to keep sin out, while ours is to get it out of our members. Hence, he would have nothing in common with us and nothing to offer us.
 
Ah but that is not the case with Jesus. He can relate because he was tempted in every way that we are, yet was sinless, in that he did not act upon the desires of his heart; instead he defeated those desires in obedience to his Father. For inasmuch as we have partaken of flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared in the same, having been made like us in every detail, in order that "he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people; for in that he himself has suffered, being tempted, he is able to aid those who are tempted" (See Heb 4.15, and 2.14-18). Amen
 
Bill 
----- Original Message -----
From: Dean Moore
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 4:26 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man

 
 
Dean, that is a different position all-together from Judy's. My question for you is, did you realize what you were affirming when answering my question?
 
Bill 
 
cd: No Bill -I did not completely understand Judy-I view Christ as Wholly God Wholly Human and Judy does not. Not do I agree totally with yours and David stance that Christ was of common man. His nature was no lower than a Christ -like nature:-) That may mean that I am in my own field alone? But at least I have a field to be alone in:-)

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is
believed to be clean.

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.21/236 - Release Date: 1/20/2006


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.21/236 - Release Date: 1/20/2006

 

Reply via email to