-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 00:28:29 -0500
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:50:02 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I cannot offer enlightenment to you, Judy.Are you saying that you can not explain to me what you are saying?Yes - you are not one who takes the counsel of others -- at least others on TTMore to the point, you read my comments with a view to opposition and for no other reason -----that is apparent.So you continue to judge my motives JD and find it impossible to believe that I might just enjoy dialoguing withanother believe outside of an evil motive? Yes, that would be my position. I see absolutely no joy in your writings.What bothers me about the "begotten" as used in John 3:16 AND 1:14 & 18 (monogenes) is that is means "unique" and has no reference to his physical birth.It means "unique" in the sense that He is the only one of a kind having a human mother and a Holy Spirit Fatherand if one reads in context this word does have to do with Him being born of the woman.the three scriptures I gave you have nothing to do with His birth. You are an Adoptionist and I am not.You misunderstand my belief when you ask Why does it bother you that he layed aside the glory he had with the Father, emptied Himself and took the form of a man? The passage in Philip 2 speaks of changing form -- not of ceasing to be God.He did take upon Himself the form of a servant but he also layed aside the glory He had with the Father. Even in "servant form," "we" beheld his glory as the unique one (John 1:14)If He appeared here the way He was in heaven noone No one is saying thiswould be able to stand in His presence. Look at the reaction ofIsrael when Moses went up the mountain to meet with God. They were terrified and didn't want any part of it. Again, this has nothing to do with anyone's presentation. I incorporate John 1:14 into the discussion -- you ignore it for what ever reason.More than this, it says NOTHING OF LAYING ASIDE THE GLORY OF GOD.As a member of the Godhead what other kind of glory would He be laying aside?He was God in the flesh. That is the teaching of scripture. Look to the phrase "And Jesus Christ came in the flesh." "Jesus Christ" for that writer is God and , thus, the writer sees value in telling us that Jesus Christ came in the flesh -- an otherwise redundant comment. More than this, such is the foundation stone of the Christian Confession (cf. I Jo 4:2.)The first chapter of John's gospel makes it clear that God (Christ) came to "his people" (in this case they are ONLY the people of GOD). The Word, pronounced to be God Himself in v 1 became flesh and in the flesh, we beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten (v 14).Yeah! Well some remained, He was anointed and He is/was holy, unlike the generation He walked amongst.That he layed aside His form and took on the form of a servant does not bother me in the slightest. But it is heretical to then argue that He ceased to be God.I don't remember arguing that specifically - what I have been saying is that while here He was born as a human baby, he had to grow and learn certain things as a child and He walked as a man anointed by the Spirit of God in total dependence upon the Father. If He were walking around as "wholly God" How would He then have been an example that we could follow (in His steps)? Humility. That is how it all happened. God humbled Himself and did these things. Look at what Christ did here on earth that declare His divinity. First, he is oberved to be divine. Secondly, He forgives sin -- an exclusive function of God. He continued to have a memory of the way things were before the foundations of the world. He accepted worship. He continued to command legions of angels. And He allowed for being the Son of God , making himself equal to God. The Great Confession of Peter's ("Thou are the Christ, the son of the Living God') is completely misunderstood if one does not see that this is a confession of His diety and attachment to the God of Israel. The Confession is meaningless if not inclusive of divine nature.Especially in view of the foregoing. To argue that at some point in time, Jesus Christ became the Son of God is to preach the doctrine of Adoption. You have man saving man instead of God saving man -- and that bothers me. JdHow can you call it "man saving man" when it is what God ordained from the foundation of the world? Jesus is called many things in scripture including "the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world" I don't believe this (man saving man) ..... you do if you believe that he was not God in the flesh.jd
-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 06:59:15 -0500
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
What are you saying here JD? I've read it through and was no more enlightened at the end than before I began.What bothers you about Jesus the man being "begotten" of the Father, rather than made like Adam or procreatedfrom two human beings like us?Why does it bother you that he layed aside the glory he had with the Father, emptied Himself and took the formof a man?Is your faith rooted in ontology?On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:49:51 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have read a number of articles concerning the Sonship of Christ as the result of some action associated with His incarnation.The Apostle John clearly understood Christ to be the Son of God and God at the same time.Those who disagree find the sonship established with His birth, others see it in His resurrection and still others see the sonship vested in the ascension. All of these considerations imply that there was a time when Christ was not the son of God. I might add that these very people believe that Christ was not Son of God at a time in history when God WAS the Father --- few argue that God was ever not the Father.If God has always been the Father but Christ's Sonship is not an extension of His eternal nature, then adoption is the only solution. The silliness that "begotten" has to do with "birthing" as opposed to "uniqueness" is at the center of this heresy.At this time of year, we celebrate much more than the birth of Christ. We , in fact, celebrate the coming of God into our world - or perhaps I should say "into His world." We have decided, each of us, to worship the man Jesus precisely because He was and is and will always be GOD.If God was completely folded into this man [Christ] then God acted as man to save man. There can be no eternal value in the salvation of man by man. There can be no demand to worship Christ for the same reason. But few make this argument. On the other hand, many argue that Christ emptied Himself of being God, took on our form, and became the savior of mankind. There is no difference between the first consideration and the second. There is no alternative (other than the heretical) to the notion that God in Christ experienced what seemed to an impossibility (for God) and died so that all might live. His death has eternal value because He is (and was) God. God dying for man when coupled with the resurrection and the ascension&nbs p; [ both functions of a LIVING God ] is one thing. Man dying for man is something else and far less profound.To change form as God , is reasonable. To cease to be God for some grand purpose or to become God when one is not God is to believe in that which cannot be. I cannot stop being who I am, in essence. And I cannot become what I am not. Neither can God, IMO, because of the ontology of the circumstance.the point is this: the Great God Almighty accomplished His mightiest work in an event that stripped Him of all that we would consider to be His essence !!! Only God could survive such an event. Hence, only God could actually save man -- and that was His intention from the beginning of the foundations of the world.Thank you JesusPastor Smithson
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
judyt
He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments
is a liar (1 John 2:4)
