Thank you, Bill. While you attempt very hard to express agreement
with Lance, perhaps for political or relationship reasons, it is
very clear that you use language that is very different from that of
Lance. You rightly affirm that we are "perfectly in Christ." You
also say that we are "complete and adequate in our present state only because
we are hid in Christ in his righteousness." We perhaps
have different syntax for expressing ourselves, and perhaps
also a different perspective about the side effects of being hid in Christ,
but it is very clear to me that you are not way out there theologically in
left field the way that Lance is. You accept the Biblical concept of
being complete in Christ.
If you had more time on your hands, I would argue why, from a Biblical
consideration, you should change some of your language for what you talk about
below. I think you fail to distinguish between the sin elements which
bring guilt and condemnation, and the sin elements resident within all of
us that do not bring guilt and condemnation, but rather which
are temptations of the flesh that must be kept dead until the
resurrection. It is good that you distinguish between them, and it is
good that you acknowledge that we do not have to sin. I can only hope
your voice about this subject, that we do not have to sin, might be heard by
both Lance and JD. I suspect they will fall along party lines and say
amen to your treatise, not really comprehending what you have said. It
would be nice to hear them agree that it is possible for believers not to sin
every day.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 1:56
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God is a
relational God: Father, Son, Spirit
----- Original Message -----
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 Israel. I'm having guilt.
Well good night. I'm off to bed.
Bill
