I have stayed up late into the night talking with Bill about this very issue. I know Bill and say amen because I know what the man believes.............. party lines have nothing to do with it. You on the other hand have only Bill's post and your bias. Lance --- will the poor confused foreigner probably scratches his head, often, asking "why do I bother.?" I can't imagine that Lance does not believe that we are made perfect by the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. You simply do not understand Pastor Muir. ... that's all.
Jd
-----Original Message-----
From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 10:06:21 -0400
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] God is a relational God: Father, Son, Spirit
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.
David Miller.
----- Original Message -----From: TaylorSent: Friday, October 07, 2005 1:56 AMSubject: Re: [TruthTalk] God is a relational God: Father, Son, Spirit----- Original Message -----From: ShieldsFamilySent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 5:11 PMSubject: RE: [TruthTalk] God is a relational God: Father, Son, SpiritWe 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. JDI 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
