|
Once more Lance you put what you are about on to me.
You might be surprised to learn that I spend little or
no time psychoanalyzing any of you. The
difference between all of you and DM is that most of what comes
from him is godly counsel; also he shows love and
caring in difficult situations. When ppl say what God
says consistently I see them as submitted to Him rather
than carried away with themselves. God is funny
about that. He tends to hide Himself from some
and reveal Himself (by wayof His Word) to others.
Judy: DM an exception of course! How utterly
ironic that those two (JT & DM) who esteem themselves more highly than
others with respect to their capacity to "infallibly read" the Scriptures fail
to see themselves in those very Scriptures. "Awake thou that
sleepest"
You wise ones will probably find it amusing that I
see you as the "rebellious" and "obdurant" I also
perceive no humility at all, none of any kind,
intellectual or other. Neither do a read any spiritual
understanding or evidence of a renewed mind going
on (of course DM not included). Well folks
sad to say this is what I see right now but I don't
give up on any of you because God will be God
and hopefully one day you will tire of yourself and
your own wisdom and ask and seek God for His.
For Judy there is no "considering" an alternate point
of view, in order to come to a conclusion after considering.
She is of the "just say No" school. One flirt with
intellectual humility and you could get hooked. D
What kind of person could you be,
Judy, if you would put to death that rebellious spirit (read: nature)
you claim not to have. You could maybe learn to read for understanding.
You could grow to see the best in your siblings. You may even aspire to
keep your nose out of their business. Imagine: a Judy who isn't
always causing trouble. Heck, you might even be likable. As it were,
though, you will prove once again your denial.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 6:11
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus
of God's Nature?
Hi Dean. I hope you will accept my
apologies for any misunderstanding: I am not wishing that you would
stop contributing, but that you would stop jumping so quickly to
conclusions. It is insulting to me --
although I know it was not intentionally so -- that you would suggest that I or the others would
endorse a view which sets forth Christ as a sinner. If you do not know
Lance, John, Debbie (and her dust-bunnies:>) and myself well enough
to know that we would not embrace such a doctrine, then surely you
do know that David Miller would never espouse the same: for we
can all agree that a sinning Savior would be anathema to us
all.
ATST Bill it is insulting
to me - (and perhaps Dean also) for the ppl mentioned above to make
the claim that Jesus' humanity "so called" included an Adamic sinful
nature when scripture clearly records that he is the Lord from heaven
(the same yesterday, today, and forever)and that He is the second
Adam.
And so I was hoping
that out of respect for your siblings you may be willing to set
aside your prejudice about Jesus being a sinner (for he was not!), and
open yourself to consider his humanity from a different point of view
-- as difficult as that may be.
Let go of truth out of some
misguided respect for ppl? I certainly hope and pray that Dean
is more mature than to fall for this.
I know, for example, that John is getting
frustrated with me for not weighing in on the "fallen nature" debate.
The truth is, I have been holding back just so it can play for a
while. And while I am confident that the Bible does set forth a
"fall" which perversely affected both Adam and his posterity, I am also persuaded that the last and best words have
not been spoken on the issue; hence, I am of the opinion that John's
position, while not something I can readily endorse, is nonetheless
healthy for us all, because it will have the effect of forcing
us to re-examine our beliefs on this very important
doctrine.
It is written Bill -
the last and best words are written already and you can take them
to the Bank. Believing them is the
problem.
Why would you want to
malign Dean's faith which is rooted and grounded in the right
place?
I would like to suggest that you take a
similar approach to our discussion concerning Christ's
humanity. Ease off a little, and see how it plays out. You may
never come to a change of mind, but you should at least want to have a
valid reason when you don't. Dean, I'll try to post a response to your questions tomorrow
evening. In the meantime, I hope you will consider my
request. Sincerely,
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 26,
2006 7:09 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was
Jesus of God's Nature?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 1/26/2006 7:20:48 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was
Jesus of God's Nature?
John writes > No one in
this discussion believes that Christ sinned, Dean.
cd responds >
Respectfully- If one states that Christ had a fallen nature
sinful nature that is what one is saying
John.
No, Dean, it
is not. Rather, it is what you hear us saying.
Your hearing, however, is influenced by your view of
sin. That John and I and Debbie and Lance, and even David on
this one, are coming from a different vantage point than you, is a
given. Why assume then that you can see well enough from your
perch to identify things from ours? I began my previous
post with an assurance that none of us view Jesus as a
sinner; John did the same with his; yet you continue to
speak only from a limited view, rather than budge just a
little, that you might see him more completely. There must be some
reason why we can see Jesus as fully representative of humankind
in sinful flesh, and yet uphold the truth that he did not sin
while in that flesh. Why must conclude therefore that he must have
been a sinner? Why not give us the benefit of the doubt, if for
just a peak, and try to see things from our perspective?
cd: Wow tough response Bill-I
hope my response to David concerning didn't influence you to do
likewise as the topic are different-I am suppose to give my
life- if God put me in that position- for the
brethren. I can also assume one can defend those same
brethren from looking like fools. Let's not carry our
conversation to that same order of battle-okay? I have not read
anything on Debbie belief of this issue to support you stance-I
would like to read them. When we first started this debate most of
the group stated Christ to be as "common man"-I objected to that
and tried to show He was not common-but rather more than common as
man went to a state of sin that Christ did not go too.Bill -this
is a very significant difference. If you have changed you view or
make a mistake in your earlier statement by claiming Christ the
same as "common man" then say so and we move on. Believe it or not
I am not focused on proving you wro ng as I am impressed by you
and want to learn what God has given you but on this matter it
would seem that God gave knowledge to me-but at your level
there is much I can learn from you.Can the foot say to the
hand:" Hey stop walking and start clapping !". Concerning
David M. there is a lot of truth with him and He has a lot to
offer us but I cannot find a place of trust for Him (may God show
me error if it exists). If my belief is limited I can only hope it
is limited to the bible.
You have a
Christ who was born perfected from the womb, yet the writer to the
Hebrews clearly states that Christ "learned obedience through
suffering" and that it was only after "having been perfected"
-- that is, after his resurrection even -- that he became the
Author of salvation.
cd: Bill as I have shown before.
Suffering for a Christian in this world comes from resisting sin
and therefore becoming opposed by people that sin.If I am not
resisting I am not suffering because I am giving into
sin and have no opposition to suffer from. There is also a
suffering of the flesh that comes from that flesh wanting sin and
our instructed to bring that flesh into subjection to the
spirit-but as both Wesley and I believe-there is a place
where on can put the flesh under so much subjection that it breaks
completely leaving one free from the drawing of the flesh towards
sin or even the thoughts of sin this is called "Total
sanctification"-I believe Jesus put His flesh under total control.
With us it is still possible to fall back into that sin after the
second(or deeper level of) sanctification-yet
unlikely- but for Christ as it was not possible as He made
that falling into sin not possible for Himself through Godly
fear.Hope this make sense to you as it works for
me.
You have a
Christ who was born fully sanctified, yet Jesus himself says, "I
sanctify myself (present continuous) that they too might be
sanctified by the truth."
cd: Our difference in the area
of sanctification has to do with the definition of sanctification
and how one applies that term. I believe this to mean:" I keep
myself Holy for God to do His work so that you too can become Holy
for God because of me and by the truth I live and speak. This
meaning does not conflict with what I am stating Bill. Christ kept
Himself from sin to help us-no common man ever came close to
doing this-so what is being missed in the majority of this
group thought?
y SANC'TIFY, v.t. [Low L. sanctifico;
from sanctus, holy, and facio, to make.]
1. In a general sense, to cleanse, purify or make holy.
2. To separate, set apart or appoint to a holy, sacred or
religious use.
God blessed the seventh day and sanctified
it.
You have a
Christ who did not experience the temptations of a fallen man, yet
Paul writes that he came in the likeness of our sinful flesh,
because of sin, that he might condemn sin in the
flesh.
cd: I believe Christ put on a
flesh (covering) like ours but did not conform to this world which
follows Satan as we have as "common men" therefore He was not as
we were but as we now are- because of Him ( speaking of
course of a mature Christian). Satan had to be giving his chance
to lose or hold the world so Christ came in the state Satan
controlled (the flesh)-and had claim too in order to take that
claim away. He came to the strong man house to bind the strong man
in his own house.He defeated the strong man by staying pure and
proved He was stronger than the strong man through resistance to
impurity.
You have a
Christ who did not share in our humanity, yet Luke assures us that
he was born of the fruit of David's genitals according to the
flesh, and the writer to the Hebrews that as much as we "share in
flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same,"
... that he might assume the nature of Abraham's
offspring.
cd:Bill - you misunderstand
me in this area-Christ did share in our humanity-even in flesh and
blood as David and Abraham's offspring.
Indeed their
is enough here to warrant a second look, Dean. But if you will not
budge, then I must respectfully request that you please keep
silent about things you cannot see.
cd: Sorry Bill I chose not to
remain silent as that would mean not to offer a different view and
I encourage you to also not keep silent by answering my
last post to you on this issue or simple go on to another
issue.Here's one that John brought to the table:Can Children sin
and be accountable for sin-your thoughts? By the way be
nice:-) Thanks bro.
Bill
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous
content by Plains.Net,
and is
believed to be clean.
--
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: 267.14.23/243 -
Release Date: 1/27/2006
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked
by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 -
Release Date: 1/27/2006
|
