That may be true of one of us, Judy. Methinks it is
thou!
----- Original Message -----
Sent: January 23, 2006 13:32
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The fall -
Where's the beef ??
You Lance, are obviously not familiar with the Word
of God. Your have been
tutored by the theological arguments put together by
men... so between your opinion
and spiritual reality there is a vast
gulf.
Most of your 'wisdom', as you call it, Judy,
comes from your fertile imagination. Should you choose to equate
that (your imagination) with God, I can sort of live with that.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: January 23, 2006 10:48
Subject: [TruthTalk] The fall -
Where's the beef ??
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
----- Original Message -----
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 -----
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
|