|
Judy wrote
> Jesus layed aside his former glory so he was not on this
earth as God ...
And again later
she says > Jesus did not come here as God. He layed aside
his former glory and took upon himself a body of flesh made in the likeness
of men.
Judy, my friend, what does the name Emmanuel
suggest to you? Please allow yourself to consider what I've written pertaining
to Philippians 2.5-11 (see below*).
__________________________
But earlier Judy
wrote > For some reason you have embraced a
gospel that teaches that God's image is less than pure and holy both
at the beginning in the Godhead and later in the person of
Jesus.
No, Judy, that is not so. Moreover, you do not
realize what you have done. In the same post you have denied both Jesus'
divinity and his humanity. Jesus did not come in the similarity of a
man; for I am aware that this is what you mean. No, the Son of God
took upon himself the likeness of man in that he was
also fully human.
To uphold the human nature of Jesus is not
to say that his divine nature was anything less than wholly divine.
Jesus was fully human and fully God, two natures in one
person. If I may, I would like to say, as it pertains to your comments
about his humanity, that you are making the mistake that many, many Christians
make today, in that you are attempting to make the human nature of Jesus
something other than what it was -- completely human -- and this
in order to uphold the integrity of his divinity (although as I consider your
comments above I can only wonder why). But that is not necessary: the human
nature of Jesus was not divine, and the divine nature of Jesus was
not human; the humanity was human and the divinity was divine and the two came
together to form an inseparable union in the one person of Jesus
Christ. And because the two natures were not equal, in that his human
nature was infinitely inferior to his divine, yet never once overwhelmed by it
(cf Phil. 2.5-11 see below), the incarnational relationship
between the two natures must always be considered asymmetrical. Being human,
Jesus was frail in every manner commensurate to humanity, even in that he could
sin and that he was fraught with the same proclivities as we; but being
divine, he was able to overcome that frailty in every instance -- throughout his
life gaining victory over that which from the time of the fall had held humanity
in bondage. Hence he was able to reverse that captivity, taking it captive
and defeating it in himself -- finally and forever, once and for all.
O but to recognize and embrace this truth is not to diminish the divine
characteristics of our Lord; nor is it to make him less than or other than what
he was; it is to worship Emmanuel, God with us, pure and holy, to exalt him and
to glorify him for who he was: Mary's son, the Son of God -- for
what he did, none other could do. Thank you, Jesus.
Bill
*In prayerful anticipation I would like to once
again include a few words pertaining to Philippians
2.5-11:
It was the servant heart of the Father which the
Son came to reveal: "He who has seen me has seen the Father." That is the
same servant heart which he shared with God throughout eternity. In becoming
human Christ took upon himself the flesh of a servant, not because that revealed
something other than the heart of God, but because it was humanity's servant
class that best exemplified God's heart.
Paul writes in verse 6 that the Son did not
regard his equality with God something to be exploited. With this idea intact,
we may now begin to grasp the meaning of kenosis (to empty; see v. 8).
In becoming Emmanuel, the Son of God came to bear and disclose the heart of God,
to the Jews first and then to all humanity (Joh 10.38). In all he did he came to
show the world what God was really like. He did this not in overwhelming power
and blinding glory, as the Jews expected -- and he was fully capable of
demonstrating. No, his was not to overwhelm his creation, but to empty himself,
becoming firstly a servant; for the heart of God is humble. Ours is the only God
in the universe who stoops. Every other "God" demands that humans climb their
way to meet him. Our God stoops to meet us, where we are. When he came to show
us who he was, our God looked up to us from a position of servitude. Our God is
a humble God.
In this passage
we see that the Son did not consider his equality with God something to be to be
taken advantage of. This one who possessed divine equality with the Father, did
not regard that status as something to be exploited; instead he interpreted
his earthly status as a vocation to obedient humiliation and death. At any
point along the way he could have grasped at, or taken advantage of, or
exploited his glory, his power, his equality, the honor he deserved, but in so
doing he would not have been demonstrating the heart of his Father: "He who has
seen me has seen the Father." No, the Son did not divest himself of divinity in
the kenosis, the taking on of human form; instead he maintained and
demonstrated divinity via the path of humbling service, even unto
death.
In nothing less
than a staggering pronouncement we read in verses 9-11 that this pleased the
Father, who exalted this God-man, his Son Christ Jesus to the glory that had
previously only been exercised in divinity. Thus it was in the exaltation
that Christ established his Lordship -- indeed in resurrection, over
humanity and all creation, a human being becoming equal with God.
And so we see that the Son did not become less than
God in his service to humanity, indeed quite the opposite: in service he came to
reveal the heart of God: "Then Jesus said to them, 'When you lift up the
Son of Man, then you will know that I AM (ego eimi), and that
I do nothing of Myself; but as My Father taught Me, I speak these
things'" (John 8.28).
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2005 7:22
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Original
Sin
On Wed, 9 Feb 2005 21:58:53 EST [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
In a
message dated 2/9/2005 10:31:10 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
The first Adam chose to do it
without any propensity.
No he
didn't. One is tempted and then sin occurs.
Eve was deceived, for Adam it was a rational
choice; he chose to disobey.
Are you saying that Eve had a
"fallen nature," not Adam? If not, why on earth would you make
such a distinction?
No, I'm saying both of them
were made in God's image which is pure, holy, and unblemished. Eve
took the bait and became deceived because she listened to the wrong
voice. Adam chose to go down with her rather than obey God and take a
stand for righteousness. So whereas they had been naked and unashamed before
God in the garden, they were now full of guilt and shame and trying to hide
and cover themselves.
He sinned exactly like all of us
do. His nature was the same.
So Jesus was born full of guilt and shame with the propensity
to blame others, point the finger, and hide from God? According to the gospel
of JD maybe but not according to God. In creation God said it was "very good"
He did not create a "fallen Adam"
Understand that your entire argument here is a combination
of two things: a put down of my argument (which is completely unnecessary but
OK - obviously something you think you must do) and the
subtle assertion that your logic on the matter is of spirit-filled
proportions.
John how is it you never give me
a well thought out argument from scripture - and why does it always turn
personal (ad hominem) at some point? My argument has nothing to do with
putting you or anyone else down; I just happen to believe that you
are wrong. I am making no assertions about anyone's logic my own included.
And I say "your logic on the matter" because you
offer nothing else - simply "logic." No scripture. Just a
reasoned position. In your mind, Judy cannot imagine a god who
creates with anything less than perfection in mind. Therefore,
Adam HAD to be perfect -- created with no capacity for sin.
If you want chapter and verse John
then I will look them up for you when I get a spare moment. God's
creation was good and man was created (rather than procreated) in His image
which is pure, holy, and separate from sinners. For some reason you have
embraced a gospel that teaches that God's image is less than pure and
holy both at the beginning in the Godhead and later in the person of
Jesus.
You see, "capacity for sin" and "fallen nature"
are the same in my mind. As we stand, face to face with the
creation circumstance, we see it very differently. You see it as a
completed task, on every level and I do not. The "day" in the Genesis record is not a 24 hour period of
time, if for no other reason than the fact that it would never take God 24
hours to say "let there be light."
Capacity for sin and fallen nature are
NOT the same John. Adam was created in God's likeness - Fallen mankind
is the seed of satan (and in his likeness) the seed of the woman is
Christ (God's likeness). I don't know why you would not think of a day
as 24hrs when Genesis 1:5 says clearly "and God called the light day, and
the darkness He called night. And there was evening and there was
morning, one day" (or the first day). How could it be more
clear?
More than that, not a single creation [primary]
event was completed on the same "day" it was presented. A careful
reading of the text will varify this.
You are being "too careful" John
because God can use any timeframe he wants to and none of us were there were
we? No it wouldn't take God the Word 24hrs to make a statement. However
you don't know how long it took God the Spirit to bring it to pass do you? We
can only know what has been revealed, the secret things belong to the
Lord.
So why is the creation of Adam any
different. I believe in the "fall." I do not believe in a
fallen nature. Adam was always going to
sin. Christ was always going to come to his
rescue. And that is why I believe that to disbelieve in the
eternal Sonship of the Christ is to deny what was destined to happen,
appointed to happen, provided for in the creation of Adam before
the worlds were.
Then you have embraced a gospel very
similar to that of Mormonism. I don't see a whole lot of difference. You
are in effect making God responsible for the fall and saying it was appointed
and predestined all along. No wonder you are so hung up on this eternal
sonship doctrine.
When we say, "God is not finished with me
yet," we speak the very thing that was true for Adam and Eve.
This is heresy John. Adam and
Eve were complete; they were innocent and pure, naked and unashamed. They
fellowshipped with God in the cool of the day and needed absolutely nothing;
their job was to be good stewards over what God had already given
them. The saying "Be patient with me God is not finished with me yet" is
an excuse for our offences toward Him and others because of our own sin,
selfishness, and unbelief which is our problem,
not God's.
At the moment of their creation, they were in
need of the resurrected Christ. The creation event, for man, is
not completed outside the reception of the Christ,
Heresy. They needed nothing
before the fall John, Christ included because they were already in
complete and full fellowship with Him since He is God the Word who spoke them
into existence and who they fellowshipped with every day in the garden. The
reason we need Christ today is because there is a breach between us and God
which we have no ability in and of ourselves to mend.
His ministry of reconcilition and the spirtual
process we know as "growth" resulting in a spiritual home with God in
Christ. The "fall" makes this conclusion irresistable. But the
"fall" did not mark the beginning of a different kind of existence for Adam,
himself.
It most certainly did mark the
beginning of a different kind of existence for Adam and for the whole creation
along with him, all of which had known only life but now had to cope with the
advent of death and destruction spiritually, mentally, and
ultimately physically.
Look at the record of the fall. See
there in its pages, the very same processes we, you and I, go through before a
sin event. We have the association with evil influences, an
intellectual openness to the consideration of sin, the act of
justification, the sharing of evil opinion with others, the denial
of the truth of God ("you will surely die"), the reaching out for sin,
the act of taking into your possession the very opportunity for sin
(plucking the fruit from the tree) all before the actual sin
event. How is all this possible if they did not have the same
capacity for sin, the same human nature, as we?
The example of how it is possible is in
all four gospels where the second Adam, the Lord Jesus Christ - "just said NO"
using the sword of the Spirit against the voice of the enemy. The first
Adam could have done the same but unfortunately he chose differently, but the
second Adam left us an example so that we can follow in His
steps.
Remember -- without
propensity, there can be no propooperty and sin is poop. JD
There can be whatever God says there can be and
Adam sinned by choice without any propensity.
Jesus OTOH refused to sin aside from any propensity. JT
Now, you know that Jesus was
"tempted." God is not temptable. What is the
difference between Jesus and God? His flesh.
God is Spirit. Jesus had a flesh
body with physical needs. God can not be tempted with evil but for us he
makes a way of escape. Jesus layed aside his former glory so he was not on
this earth as God and in his day of temptation in the wilderness He chose
obedience to God and used the sword of the Spirit against the voice of the
enemy leaving us an example.
He became like us in every respect.
The fact is this: Christ could have sinned and chose to do
otherwise, condemning all those who say, "I am flesh, I have no
choice." When it comes to sin, it is not that we can or cannot
sin; rather, it is that we will or will not. I do not sin because
I have to. I sin because I want to. An ugly fact that
condemns us all. God has not propensity for sin, and, consequently will
never sin. He cannot sin.
All true but Jesus did not
come here as God. He layed aside his former glory and took upon himself
a body of flesh made in the likeness of men. He is called the
second Adam and he demonstrated how to pass the test that the first Adam
failed none of which proves that either the first or the second Adam was
already fallen at the time of their creation.
Grace and Peace to you
JD,
Judyt
| 
