RE: [TruthTalk] Whatever It Would Take

[Debbie Sawczak]

Echo.   Debbie Now, think about it: adoption does not require a fall in order to take place; it requires Jesus Christ. The "plan" from the beginning has remained the same: God's desire has always been to bring Adam and his descendants into communion with himself, through his Son, in the Holy Spirit, and to do this by way of adoption in and through and by his Son, Jesus Christ. The most emphatic and wonderful news about it all is that he was willing to go to whatever length necessary to bring about this end. No matter what his creation did, he would do that which was necessary to see his plan to fruition. When Adam sinned, and introduced death into the equation, it meant that he would then have to do something to defeat death and re-gather and reclaim and revivify his creation. It meant that his Son would have to go to the cross before "adoption" could be complete. Plan B? No! It is Love!!   Love means, whatever it would take --   In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. -- 1 John 4.10 ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 5:56 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Evangelism In a message dated 1/29/2005 6:00:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, Knpraise writes: In a message dated 1/28/2005 12:18:27 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: As far as John goes, if he wants to question the orthodoxy of the fall, I say let him do so. Who is Adam but the old man? When Christ died, we died with him  -- and the old man died, too. The debt of the old is paid by the New. Thank you Jesus! If John persuades me that the church has been wrong in regards to the fall, then I will stand with him in the heterodoxy of our position and attempt to convince the Church that it needs to repent. If not, then I view his position as tertiary to the greater work of Christ and the Good News of his salvation. In other words, it's not worth getting all worked up about. He's got the Spirit to guide him; he'll come around soon enough. Here it is in a nutshell.   It seems to me that the following is the teaching of the "fall" as it pertains to the actual event, itself.          Adam created without a sin nature and living what was intended - heaven on earth     Adam after the sin event now with a sin nature - now destined for a destiny elsewhere     The "line" in the above is the "sin event" or the actual "fall. How do I accept the full equation without believing in a Plan B theology.  I have seen some explanation but nothing that does not strike me as off the mark, somewhat.  I see Adam in scripture as having the same "fallen" nature as David Miller.  While I am writing this, it has just struck me   --    if we do not argue that the "fall" had an effect on the human nature of Adam,  I have no problem with it.   There is no question that Paul uses the sin event of Adam as shadow of sorts of the Christ event.   I just do not believe that Adam was ever created to live out his days on this earth........... what was begun in Adam with his creation is a similar consideration in the lives of us all.   He had a nature that was open to disobedience.   Perhaps I do not see the "sin event" as a tragedy.   Rather, it was and is (us all ) that which springs from unregenerate man. It was going to happen  --  BECAUSE GOD IS NOT FINISHED WITH US YET.   Adam needed the same Author and Finisher as we.   It is not simply that we share in Adam because of sin  -- rather, we share in Adam because we are involved in the same process as he was.  Soooooooooooo,   maybe I am focussing on the wrong wording to express my concern.  Help? JD