|
Thank you Bill for your
observations. I am sure you were at least trying to walk in love by
assuming the best of me. J The point I was making,
tongue in cheek, was that we can agree that JD, Lance, Gary, and whoever agree
with them, DO sin every day, because they continually testify to that and we
must take them at their word However there are those of us who
disagree, and we do not appreciate being accused of such against our
protestations which, IMO, is sinful. izzy From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of ----- Original Message ----- From: ShieldsFamily
Sent: Thursday,
October 06, 2005 5:11 PM Subject: RE:
[TruthTalk] God is a relational God: Father, Son, Spirit We can all certainly agree on that
regarding you, Lance, Gary, etc. iz When we think to know something,
we do not yet know it as we ought. JD I thought I would use this exchange between Izzy and John as
a catalyst for a short discourse on sin and the question of whether we must
do it every day, or even ever at all. Without wanting too sound judgmental, to
me, Izzy's response to John looks like sin. It looks like she took
something John said, stripped it of its context, and deliberately used it
to insult him and Lance and Gary, and anyone else who may agree with them in
difference to the things that she holds to be true. I say it "looks"
like sin because I do not know for sure her motive. If she did not intend
to insult them, but rather meant to communicate something else, her motivation
being godly and true, then it wouldn't necessarily have to be sin. But for the sake of argument, let's say that the intent was
to insult John et al,
or in some other way to malign or marginalize them over against the
"all" of the rest of us :>) The question is, Did she have
to do it? The answer, I believe, is no. No, she did not have to do it. She
could have chosen not to. Moreover, and more to the point, I think this is the
choice that we all can make every time we are confronted with a conscious
opportunity to sin: we do not have to do it. By the power of Christ, we can
choose not to. Christ has defeated the powers of darkness; we are in
Christ; therefore, we can choose to participate in his victory, rather than in
sin. This is especially true for those of us who are also indwelt with his
Spirit. As believers, we more than all others do not ever have to sin,
not when that sin involves a conscious and deliberate decision on our part to
commit it; indeed, God will always provide us a way out -- if we will
but choose to take it. And so, so much for my views on conscious
and deliberate sin . . . What about those sins in our make-up the presence of which
we are unaware, pride being the most obvious -- to others -- but also such
things as arrogance and stubbornness, along with other conditions: Must
we traffic in them? These sins, it seems to me, are different. It's not
that we have to commit them; nor would we even want to, given the
choice. The problem is, plain- and simply, in these areas we are ignorant of
what we are. Who among us wants to be prideful or arrogant or stiff-necked? I
don't think any of us want to be these things. Ah, but how many of us are
prideful, arrogant, and stiff-necked -- if not all the time, then at least
sometimes? If there are any, and if it is not intentional, then it is because
in these areas we are a work in progress. While perfectly in Christ, we
are yet practically imperfect. It is in these areas that I believe we do
participate inadequately and incompletely, which is what Lance is saying
-- and we will continue to until that day when there is no longer a trace of
pride or arrogance or stubbornness or prejudice or any of a host of other
character deficiencies to be found within us. We are complete and adequate in
our present state only because we are hid in Christ in his
righteousness. There as Priest, he takes our inadequacies and our
insufficiencies, sanctifies them and presents them holy to his Father on our
behalf. I hope this is enough said well enough to satisfy your
questions, David. I still owe g a few words
on my observations concerning present day Bill |
- Re: [TruthTalk] God is a relational God: Father, Son, Spirit Lance Muir
- Re: [TruthTalk] God is a relational God: Father, Son, Spirit Judy Taylor
- Re: [TruthTalk] God is a relational God: Father, Son, Spirit Judy Taylor
- Re: [TruthTalk] God is a relational God: Father, Son, Spirit Judy Taylor
- Re: [TruthTalk] God is a relational God: Father, Son, Spirit Lance Muir
- Re: [TruthTalk] God is a relational God: Father, Son, Spirit Judy Taylor
- [TruthTalk] God is a Relational God: Father, Son, Spirit Judy Taylor
- RE: [TruthTalk] God is a relational God: Father, Son, Spirit ShieldsFamily
- [TruthTalk] God is a Relational God: Father, Son, Spirit Judy Taylor
- Re: [TruthTalk] God is a relational God: Father, Son, Spirit Judy Taylor
- Re: [TruthTalk] God is a Relational God: Father, Son, Spirit Judy Taylor
- Re: [TruthTalk] God is a relational God: Father, Son, Spirit Judy Taylor
- Re: [TruthTalk] God is a relational God: Father, Son, Spirit David Miller

