|
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?
jt: Why ask the question if you
already believe you have it figured out Lance?
2. As we 'speak', do you consider yourself to be
completely free of sin in thought, word and deed?
jt: I am not walking in any known
sin as we speak..
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?
jt: Yes it is possible to live a
sanctified life and to stand before Him without shame when he
returns.
3b. If you (you also David) are testifying to
this in your life then, please say so without ambiguity.
jt: What do you mean ambiguity? I
don't make it a secret that I believe sanctification is a second work of grace
and from what
I read I believe DavidM just
might be talking about the same.. People seem
to get it in their head for some reason that I follow
John Wesley and to tell you the
truth I don't really know what he believed about holiness.
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
|
