Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14

Sun, 24 Jul 2005 10:55:16 -0700

 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 9:04 AM
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14

Izzy in bold blue:

 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 8:33 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14

 

Bill in green.

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 9:34 PM

Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14

 

Izzy in pink!

 

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 2:44 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14

 

Bill in red.

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 10:33 AM

Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14

 

 

Izzy in blue:

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 8:15 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Re:John 16:13,14

 

I know I’m not up on your doctrinal issues, Bill, so please tell me why you seem to reject the idea of someone being spiritually dead prior to being born again of the Spirit.  I’d appreciate it. izzy

 

 

There are numerous reasons why I reject this doctrine, Izzy, the foremost of which is because I believe it is impossible for Jesus to have been "spiritually dead" at any point in his lifetime.  True.

Paul tells us that Jesus came in the "likeness of sinful flesh" and that it was in his flesh that he destroyed sin. I believe that it is absolutely essential that Christ had to assume sinful flesh in order to save us in our sinful flesh. If he did not have the same flesh as we, then he did not defeat sin in our flesh -- it's as simple as that. Hence we are still in our sin and he did nothing to restore or revive us in his resurrection. Stated another way, if he was born with flesh other than our kind, which is "sinful," then he may have avoided sin in his kind of flesh, but he left us in the sin of ours; hence he is not our Savior.  I don’t follow you here, Bill.  We ARE still in our sinful flesh unless/until we are born again of the Spirit, as Jesus told Nicodemus. Jesus accomplished that deliverance (to those who become born again) for us on the cross. I understand the distinction you are drawing, Izzy, and it is a very common and "orthodox" one at that; however I am not convinced that this "born again" event is something which happens at a point in our twenty-first century lifetime. I am leaning instead toward the view that were "born again" in Christ in his resurrection. You can read my comments to Kevin for more on this.  I know you think that, but that is nonsensical to me.  In your viewpoint everyone is born “born-again”? Yes, in Christ in his resurrection, BUT not everyone is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, that comes by way of belief or faith in Jesus Christ. What we call our "conversion experience" does happen in this lifetime, and sometimes this can be a profound and life-altering experience; other times it is not so profound for people who have grown up in the church and spent their lifetimes worshiping the Lord. Bill I see your response as unbiblical.  Jesus told Nicodemus: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” So we are not “born again” when we are born.  Please reconsider this and tell me again, Do you really think we are born (in the natural flesh as newborns) already “born again” of the Spirit?  Being born again IS our “conversion experience”.  If you grew up in the church you still need to be born again, as this is not something that comes over you by osmosis.

 

Izzy, I have a different understanding concerning the thrust of Jesus' words to Nicodemus than you do. I have explained it to you before. You are considering this from your vantage point only and are therefore unable to consider another possibility here. I think the chances of you being able to consider anything else are remote, if not nil. Hence I am going to take a rain-check on this one. Some exercises truly are futile; this one seems at the present to be just that.

 

I think we are prone to base too much of our "faith" in religious experience and not trained well enough at basing it in the object of that faith: Jesus Christ. I watched a saintly ninety year old elder of our church break down and weep because he did not know for sure if he had been "born again." He had grown up in the church and could not remember a time that he did not believed in Jesus Christ, yet he had never had one of those earth-shaking conversion experiences that others had had. We, the church, had placed so much emphasis on that "born again experience" that we had misled godly people into doubting their salvation. The weight of the world was upon this man's shoulders, and he could not withstand the weight of it. He was as godly as anyone you would ever meet, had served the Lord faithfully his whole life, yet believe in "spiritual death" and the necessity to be "born again" and thus could not place his finger on a point in his life when he stopped being spiritually dead and started being a born again believer. We did that to him -- not the Lord.  Jesus was not speaking of a “religious experience”—He was speaking of a real transaction that one MUST experience to enter His kingdom.  If your dear, saintly friend was never born again, or was even unsure about it, it would have been the kindest thing you could do to simply pray with him the same prayer anyone prays to become born again.  If he was already born again it wouldn’t have hurt him and bit and would have given him the true reassurance he needed.  But if he really was being convicted by the Holy Spirit to do so, it would have saved him for all eternity. I fear that you may have missed a golden opportunity there.  One is not born again by being raised in the church, doing good deeds, or just “believe in Jesus” as that is also what the mormons and a host of other lost people do—even the demons.  Please pray with this dear man to be sure that he really is born again, as it will not harm him one bit, and that is what he really wanted and needed to do.  I recently did this with a sweet formerly RCC man, and now he can look back to a day when he “made sure” he was born again.  He won’t be plagued by any more doubts.

 

He was "born again," and he had been a believer from "as far back" as he could remember. Why do you try to make more of this than is there? He had been manipulated into believing he needed to have a certain kind of conversion experience before he could have any assurance that he was saved. This was false. We got it straightened out and he is just fine now, having "fallen asleep" safely in the arms of Jesus.

 

<SNIP>  “Dead” is a term Jesus used about living human beings, so I don’t think it is unbiblical language. I am not saying that "dead" is un-biblical language, Izzy; I am saying that the language of "spiritual" death is non-biblical terminology, and as such does not carry the degree of authority that Scriptural language would carry. It is therefore open to a higher degree of scrutiny on our part, if we so desire.  Okay, so I keep asking you what kind of death was Jesus speaking of when he said to let the dead bury the dead???Well, I thought I did tell you that. He was talking about what it is like for people who refuse to follow him: they are walking as if in death; it is as if they were already dead. It was a metaphor which described their condition in the refusal of him: the only certainty they had was the certainty that they too were as good as dead.  So what’s the difference, Bill? If folks in that condition die to today they are hell-bound.  Why do you have a problem with calling them “spiritually” dead? It simply defines for us that they are not actually physically dead yet.  Yet Jesus said they are dead.  So we know He was referring to something other than their bodies; right? And what was that? (hint: their spirits!) Do you have some other part that You think He was describing as dead??? Please answer, as I can’t imagine.

 

I address this in another post.

 

<SNIP> Sin is what separates us from the Father and sends us to hell—not our weak, human nature (if it does not sin). I disagree with a few caveats, but I would rather not discuss it here; it will get us off track and onto another discussion.  Sorry, I don’t agree, as I think this is a very important part of the discussion.  What is it that you believe separates us from God?

 

We are not "separated" from God. All things have been re-gathered in Christ. He is before all things and in him all things consist. Whatever the sin problem, it has been addressed in him; it is finished. We have been called to love him and live in obedience to him. The problem is, we believe lies which contradict our true ontological status in Christ, and so we have this great guilt issue going on: we keep finding ways to find ourselves unworthy, or in other cases, ways to find others unworthy -- and Satan capitalizes on this and uses it to exploit us and raise doubts in our minds about that true status.

 

There is only one "sin" which can "separate" us from Christ, and it is a sin the consequence for which is realized in resurrection; it is the sin of rejection. There on the other side of death, there will be a great walled city which will keep out those who refused him in this present lifetime. There they will have opportunity to experience the "second death," the consequence of committing the unpardonable sin, and this death will be experienced without a Savior.

 

Bill

 

Reply via email to