Lance, event preaching is a little different from campus preaching.
Please
try not to confuse the two. Furthermore, even at event preaching, we
don't
condemn those in attendance. We reprove, rebuke and exhort. We wake up
Christians who are out there sinning, knowing that they really should not
be
there. We are a light in a dark place.
As for the testimonies, I don't post all of those because I know that
people
like you will call it bragging and pride. What I do is show the ugliness
so
others in the Lord will see the need to let their light shine. If we keep
the doctrine of Christ quiet, it is like the soldier in the battlefield
keeping his safety locked on his rifle and pointed down. His weapon of
offense becomes nothing but decoration. We believe that we should
actually
use our weapon, which is the Word of God.
You might note that even Paul spoke of glorying in tribulation, and
glorying
in infirmities, and in persecutions, and in distresses for Christ's sake.
Maybe you are not familiar with this kind of Christianity. Personally, I
like it better than those ministers who compare score cards of how many
people said the sinner's prayer with them.
David Miller.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lance Muir
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 7:14 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
I'm so sorry Judy but, have you failed to read the recent posts concerning
Christine? Have you also failed to read of DM's many misadventures or, to
have seen the accompanying photographs? Here is some of the logic that
underpins that which they do: Let us go forth with T-shirts and
accompanying
signage to some "sinful" event, condemn those in attendance and,
thereafter
give testimonies of those who took offence with accompanying surprise.
Now,
that's a bit of a charicature but, just a bit.
----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 28, 2006 07:02
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Imagination run amock Lance .......... You have seen things that are not
there, they are constructs
of your own imagination.
On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 06:58:03 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
David Miller: "putting Judy on trial, David"? I've seen YOU go on over a
thorougoing misunderstanding (read misinterpretation) ad nauseum. You've
"demanded" that said person humble themselves while offering up an apology
for less than Judy does in about one of every two posts. Gimmeeabreak,
David!! It strikes me as strange that such as yourself, along with your
offspring, believe yourselves "called upon by God" to get in the faces of
others with accompanying signage then call for the cavalry when these
groups
take offence and retaliate.
You claim to "know the ways of the Lord", David. You, on some occasions,
act/speak/write as if just delivered by a midwife (I'm guessing that to
be
your preferred method.)
Just this morning I listened to C. S. Lewis, in his own voice, deliver a
lecture over the BBC (1954). You remind me of him sans discernment.
----- Original Message -----
From: David Miller
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 28, 2006 06:42
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Lance, why are you putting Judy on trial? You could share these messages
with her in private you know.
David Miller
----- Original Message -----
From: Lance Muir
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 6:24 AM
Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
----- Original Message -----
From: Debbie Sawczak
To: 'Lance Muir'
Sent: January 27, 2006 17:16
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Sigh. I guess you've already alerted her many times to the fact that if
she
takes this position, then everybody who disagrees with her interpretation
of
any passage must not be a true believer. I guess that doesn't give her
pause
at all...
D
From: Lance Muir [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 9:04 AM
To: Debbie Sawczak
Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: January 27, 2006 08:51
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
On Fri, 27 Jan 2006 08:30:13 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
Scriptural Interpretation under the tutelage of the Holy Spirit? I trust
that every true believer prays for the Spirit's assistance in
reading/interpreting/living out the Scriptures. HOWEVER, HOWEVER, HOWEVER
ETC.....The Scriptures are NOT
self-interpreting.
As I have said before many, many times Lance - God's Word needs no
"interpreter" We need understanding, the
scriptures are to be "understood" rather than "interpreted" and
understanding comes from God alone, He turns it off
or on according to the condition of the heart. God is not mocked....
MANY IF NOT MOST true believers arrive at differing conclusions as to the
meaning of the Scriptures.
We will see whent he Lord returns which ones were "true" and which ones
were
not. To some who think they are "true" today He will say "I never did
know
you. Depart from me you who practice lawlessness" It's only as we
abide in Him and HIS WORDS (not some fleshly interpretation) abide in us
...that we are on the narrow way
and headed toward the strait gate.
Does anyone (in particular, Judy and DM) believe that EVERY true believer
ALWAYS has access, via the Spirit, to the ONE TRUE MEANING of the
Scriptures
(I refer to the entirety of the Scriptures)?
Yes....
IFO do not believe that this is anywhere promised in the Scriptures
themselves.
It is not only promised it is demonstrated in the life of the apostle Paul
himself who may have read lots of
books before he fell down before the Lord on the Damascus Road but from
all
accounts he certainly did not afterwards.
From: Judy Taylor
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 23:20:20 -0700 "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
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 -----
From: Dean Moore
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 7:09 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
----- Original Message -----
From: Taylor
To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
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?
ySANC'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.
--
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
----------
"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.
