|
Judy,
May I respectfully ask to nuance some of your
observations, thereby demonstrating that I do not overlook the "rich young
ruler" in my presentation of Jesus, and that I do not diminish Jesus when
speaking of our own (Christian) limitations?
- The first distinction I would like to draw is that
we were initially discussing people whom Jesus approached, whose company he
sought. The rich young ruler approached Jesus. What is the significance of
this distinction? Perhaps it can be found in the young man's heart and not the
heart of Jesus. Maybe the ruler was puffed up with pride and arrogance and
looking only for an opportunity to flaunt his own "godliness." No, Jesus did
not run after him, saying something like, Okay, okay, you don't have to give
up your idol. Instead, his heart broke because of the young man's rejection of
him.
- The second distinction I would like to draw is one
which validates this whole inquiry. Yes, it is true that "church people" --
which includes you, Judy -- are unable to be "real" with each other, unable at
least to a degree which will count us as righteous on our own merits.
Yet, because we are not able to really be "real" with Jesus and others
and ourselves, Jesus takes our limitations, perfects them, and presents them
to his Father, sanctified and pure: "For their sakes I sanctify myself that
they too may be sanctified by (this) truth" (Joh 17.19). Jesus is "real"
with us, for us, and about us. This truth sanctifies us. Hence we can
become more and more real in and about our relationships and our own
personhood. We can be this because he has taken and converted our limitations
in his own personhood. The "real" me is hidden in Christ at this very moment
and seated next to our Father, and is waiting to be revealed on the last day.
Right now, and in this very moment, Christ is taking my pathetic "real," the
down-here me, and lifting it up, perfecting it and presenting it in
himself to the Father, cleansed now and sanctified. Our "real" is true on both
ends: I am being "as real as" I know how to be in my current physical state
(Judy, I think you are too); I do not fear, however, because I also know
that the really real me is already lifted up in Christ's resurrection. I want
to say, as humbly as I know how, that I am not fearful -- not in the sense of
being afraid. I know that kind of fear, and I know that it is not of the Lord.
Christ freed me from that kind of fear when he freed me from the c of C. I do
not sit around and worry about my future, whether temporal, here on earth, or
eternal. I know where I am, because I believe in Jesus Christ and know where
his is.
- And so, if the rich young ruler was finally lost,
it was not because Christ did not ultimately seek him -- he did; he loved him
to the end, to the point of dying for him. No greater love is there than this.
If the young man was lost, it is because once found he refused such great a
salvation. "He came unto his own and his own received him not" -- John
1.11
Bill Taylor
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 7:23
AM
Subject: [TruthTalk] FELLOWSHIP (was
Dialogue with Mormons)
This apparently is where your doctrine veers off
into a wide sweeping thing Bill. I don't see it in scripture. When the young
man came to Jesus who was rich and unwilling to part with his riches; he
walked off and Jesus was sad but he didn't go running after him. So from
what we know Jesus left that man in his sin. Also we are not real with
him. Church people are not real with him or with each other. We are
still full of fear and all kinds of other stuff that we need to deal
with. Sanctification is a second work of grace.
jt
PS,
This is not to say that fellowship and
relationship does not involve trust and commitment. It is to say that that
relationship was initiated by Jesus at his movement toward them, in his
utter acceptance of them in spite of who they were, and his absolute refusal
to leave them in their sin. That fellowship is what removed the fear on the
part of his recipients, allowing them to drop the pretence and be real with
him about who they were; that then is their repentance, resulting in trust and
commitment. Bill
Wrong. He
fellowshipped with them and then they made a commitment to him, then they
loved him. I John 4.18-19 -- "There is no fear in love; but perfect love
casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been
made perfect in love. We love Him because He first loved
us." The movement is always, God>manward. Was Jesus not God? Did
he not always do the will of his Father? Why would his dining with tax
collectors and harlots be anything less than his love and demonstration of
that perfect love for them; and that being the reason for the change of
their heart/attitude for him?
Bill Taylor
He ate with them but
ATST was separate from them, fellowship
and relationship involve trust and
commitment..
"Jesus did not commit himself unto them,
because he knew all
men and needed not that any should testify of
man; for he knew
what was in man" (John 2:24) and
"For such an high priest became us, who is holy,
harmless,
undefiled, separate from sinners, and made
higher than
the heavens (Hebrews 7:26)
Jesus fellowshipped with those who had first made
a total
(left all) commitment to him.
jt.
and this is not the
standard Jesus and the First Century Church left to us.
Do you mean
that Jesus did not really dine with tax collectors and harlots?
John wrote:
I don't want to speak for
Blaine, but I see nothing in Mormonism that prevents either of us to
fellowship with non-LDS Christians. Perhaps I don't understand
fellowship quite the same way you do
though. Fellowship. I do think that fellowship is
bigger than denominational boundaries but limited by a true sense
of mutuality and purpose. A lexical view of koinonia
reveals a number of nuances, to wit (old guys say that a lot, "to
wit"): fellowship, association, community, communion, joint
participation, intercourse. Note the progression. It
was part of the routine of the first church (Acts
2:42).
jt: Scripture defines "fellowship" as "walking in the
light as HE is in the light" This is the only way we can have true
fellowship (light also meaning truth) and this is when the
blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us. When we compromise with
the mixture we are fellowshipping with devils and this is not the
standard Jesus and the First Century Church left to
us.
john: My experience with the Mormon
church has been one that is the witness to a degree of exclusion
which goes beyond sectarian or denominational bias. It seems to me
that this exclusiveness is the surrounding halo of a world
religion. If that is the case, we have no fellowship or
brotherhood. I don't like saying that. I have only my
instincts about this issue. If Blaine and I are brothers (or Dave and
I), to what eventuality can we point as the defining factor
which presents us with the same Parent? Or is there more to brotherhood
than divine genetics?
jt: The fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man are
taught by Freemasonry and the mystic cults, it's part of the OLD
religion. God created all men but today Jesus defines the
brethren. He said "who is my mother and who are my brethren? and
he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my
mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father
which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother"
(Matthew 12:48). This is an impossible feat if we are holding on
to 'doctrines of devils'
judyt
|
