Re: [TruthTalk] Whatever It Would Take

[Judy Taylor]

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 19:34:05 -0700 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Judy, I'll let your comments stand as they are. I can tell by reading your words that we have a definite difference of understanding on some very pertinent terms; however, I have found it to be quite a futile task trying to come to agreement with you over the meaning of the terminology we use. And so, while I know you would like to understand what I am attempting to communicate, I do not believe it is possible, at this time, for you to do so. Rather than get into yet another protracted debate with you, may I suggest that we just give each other some space? Perhaps at some point a light will come on and we will find ourselves able to move to the same page. That will be a happy day. For now, if you want to comment on my posts, that will be fine; but I am going to be a little more selective than in the past regarding that to which I shall respond. Blessings,  Bill   jt: Whatever you choose Bill. Only I think that "terminology" would cease to be a problem if we could lay aside theological jargon and just deal with scripture itself [KJV preferably]. I'm a little disappointed that you won't be writing about why you think the Eternal Son doctrine to be so important because I have searched the internet and found that some defend and others reject it. All I can come up with is that this doctrine in some way supports the doctrine of the Trinity, both fruit of the Council at Nicea along with the writings of Athanasius [if I am understanding correctly].  Why don't we agree on scripture like the Bereans did?  The word Trinity is not in there but the concept of the Godhead is and before the incarnation Jesus was the Word of God, the second member of the Godhead. What authority did Athanasius and the religious men at Nicea have to change the clear meaning of the Word of God into the doctrine of the Trinity making an Eternal Son out of God the Word?.  I was hoping you could enlighten me if there is something I am missing.  judyt     On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 14:59:18 -0500 "Debbie Sawczak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: 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,   jt: When the Creation was completed God pronounced it "Very Good" Adam and his descendants were already in communion with God, in fact Adam walked with Him in the cool of the day.  No need for an adoption when one is already a son.   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.   jt: Which end would have been totally unnecessary had there not been a "breach" in relationship between Adam and God, Adam and himself, and Adam and others (he blamed the woman for what had been his own choice).   No matter what his creation did, he would do that which was necessary to see his plan to fruition.   jt: No need for a plan or an adoption until there is a problem.   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 --   jt: Whatever - but this hardly negates the fall. Are you saying that "propitiation" is the equivalent of "adoption?"   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 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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?   jt: Are you making Adam into a "symbolic old man" Bill?   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!   jt: Not if we are "carnal" - the carnal mind is at enmity with God and can not please Him. If we call ourselves a carnal Christian then the old man is still alive and kicking. He hasn't gone anywhere.   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.   jt: What Church Bill? The RCC? Isn't this where the kind of orthodoxy you have embraced originates?   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. jt: A lot of ppl believe they have the Spirit to guide them and they are saying all sorts of things. The Spirit never guides anyone contrary to the Word of Truth. 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.   jt: What? No details?  Who caused him to 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.    jt: Hey! I came up with the Plan B concept but I don't have a Plan B theology; God in his foresight took care of things, I don't know that he works by Plan A and Plan B. I see Adam in scripture as having the same "fallen" nature as David Miller.    jt: David Miller, and John, and Judy, and Lance, and Debbie, and Izzy, and Terry, and Kevin, and DavidH, and Blaine et al. There are none who have not missed the mark.  None.   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.   jt: But it did have an effect on his nature and character. He chose a wisdom that was earthly, sensual, and demonic, over one that was pure, peaceable, and full of good fruit that day.     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...........   jt: There were two Adams, In the first Adam ALL DIE, even so in Christ SHALL all be made alive but each man in his own order. (1 Cor 15:22)  and so it is written "he first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual." (1 Cor 15:45,46) Vs.47 "The first man is of the earth, earthy, the second (was made exactly like him in every way? WRONG) the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy (ie US) and as is the heavenly such are they also that are heavenly (those who are BORN OF THE SPIRIT)   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  --    jt: It didn't have to happen - just like we don't have to sin every day just because we can.   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   jt: Adam needed nothing before he made the wrong choice.  Nothing.