|
A couple of questions for the purpose of
clarification, please:
1. What does the _expression_ 'cosmic incarnation'
mean? If you don't know then, why use it?
2. As we 'speak', do you consider yourself to be
completely free of sin in thought, word and deed?
3a. I think you make a good point with respect to
'resurrection power' but, I'd rather speak of the ongoing mediatorial work of
the ascended Christ via the book of Hebrews. However, does either of these provide the REALITY as opposed to the
POSSIBILITY of living a life ENTIRELY FREE OF SIN IN THOUGHT, WORD, AND DEED?
3b. If you (you also David) are testifying to this
in your life then, please say so without ambiguity.
thanks,
Lance
----- Original Message -----
Sent: January 18, 2005 07:59
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Traditional
Christian theology -- does sham mean anything
FWIW Lance, My belief is that you are in a
time warp, stuck in your cosmic incarnation while
DavidM, myself and others have moved on to the resurrection. It is the
power that emanates from the resurrection that enables a believer to be free
from sin past, the power of sin present, and the future consequence for
sin. This is not just static theology - it's a living way that needs to
be walked in. jt
Jt asks:'don't you believe it is in the realm
of possibility for David Miller?' NO I DO NOT! However, it could well be
that the text, here and elsewhere, yourself, and David Miller are in
possession of an 'objective truth' that eludes me.
Thank you for those
thoughts Lance. I use "from what I understand" in this instance because I
am dealing with ppl
in different stages of spiritual growth who may
not see things as I see them. However, I do believe in such a thing
as
objective truth. I do believe that there is a
right and a wrong, a good and an evil. Everything is not
"subjective" -
Paul the apostle told the people at Corinth the
most wicked city in the known world to "awake to righteousness and sin
not" - Is this just a play on words? Was
he telling them to do something that was impossible? If the Corinthians
were able to do this don't you believe it is in the realm of possibility
for David Miller? You are wrong about every believer consciously and
actively sinning daily in thought, word, and deed; if this is what is
going on then these people (even those who profess to be following Christ)
are deceived ppl who are walking in unbelief. jt
Jt says: 'from what I understand David to
say' As everyone has access to what David has 'said', IMO this is
not the difficulty that John has. Even you, Judy, have had to qualify by
uttering 'from what I understand' thus indicating that you just might be
incorrect. I'd posit a couple of thoughts on this and, related
matters:
1. Implicit in every utterance is some version of:'as I see it', in my opinion, 'from
what I understand of the text before me'
2. All speaking of anything is partial and
provisional.
3. David himself may not know how to answer
John's question with the sort of clarity John wants. We did have this
discussion some time ago with, as I recall, the same
outcome.
4. David just might consider his
approximation of an answer the 'way of humility'.
5. IMO, IFF David is 'one of us' then,
he consciously, actively, sins daily in thought,
word and deed. I am, by inference, saying the same thing of every
believer/non-believer in the cosmos.
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Traditional Christian theology -- does sham mean anything
John, some people are able to separate
themselves. From what I understand David to say he still gets
around in a flesh body and he
has the same opportunity to sin every day as
the rest of us both physically and emotionally. Are you baiting
him? Is this some kind
of public humiliation?
I don't know why I have to choke this out of David, when his
postings have been very clear on the subject to everyone except
Judy.
Here is the question and we can start the discussion
from this:
David Miller,. do you
have sin in your life to any degree? Consider
sins of omission (knowing to do right but not taking the time or
energy to do it); event sins (such as murder, angry
words, adultery ---- this is the "biblical sin" usually
referenced in the Message); sins of the character
(pride, selfishness, conceit, envy, laziness, anger, deceitfullness
[different from a deceitful act], arrogance and the
like). A simply one word answer will be
sufficient at this stage.
Let's not speak
of temptation, shall we. Temptation is not sin, as we all
know. Such is a good topic for future
discussion, but not now.
my answer is
"yes." My answer for all on this forum is "yes."
What about you, David? Yes nor no.
Jack D Smithson
The Webbmeister
|
