Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ and adoption (to Judy)

[knpraise]

 

 

-------------- Original message --------------
From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

 

 

On Fri, 06 Jan 2006 08:38:57 +0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

Hello Bill.  thanks for the post and the thoughts.  Apparently,  I missed reading the last sentence or two below,  just prior to Dean's quote of Wesley.  

 

Dean,  I believe there is a Father, a Son and a Holy Spirit.   The Spirit expresses the will of the Father and the Son.   You do not know anything about Barth, nor do you care but,  his view is something that I fully agree with  --   and,  I came to my understanding before I read Barth.   The personality of God is seen in the two.  The activity of God is seen in the third.   I have been in discussion with some Unitarians.   These men  (there are three of them) believe that God and the Father are one and the same to the exclusion of all other considerations.   Christ pre-existed the virgin birth only as the "Plan."  So your scriptures where of some importance to me.   I skipped the part of your post that set us at odds.   But,  there it is.  I am interested in your answer to Bill's question, as well. 

 

There it is - the theology of Barth. Just because it came to you before you read him does not mean it is so unless

it stands in the light of ALL scripture.    Certainly that is true.

 

Another point that I did not include in my post is this:  if Christ had a pre-existence as something or someone other than the Son of God, then  His sonship is an action of adoption.  

 

Nonsense.  He was the pre-existent Word or Wisdom of God for whom God provided a body.  In Luke 24:44 He tells ppl that he has been written about in the law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.   Other than the prophecy in Isa 9 - "Unto us a child is born" where do you find an "eternal Son" in all of the OT?   ah, you miss my point.   If Christ pre-existed "Sonship,"  then He was adopted as a son.   If my son, James,  lived as James Taylor and then, became my son,  adoption is the only way that happens.   You argue the point because you know that adoption is never applied to Christ,  yet you believe that He existed as Not The Son  (remember "not the momma?") prior to becoming the Son  -- ala adoption via virgin birth, apparently. 

 

 It makes no differenc to me whether He was born and this "begetting" made Him the Son  --   such begetting is only a form of adoption, if Christ pre-existed that birth as something other than the Son.     We have Andy Taylor and He is predestined to become Andy Smithson.    There is no way in which he can become a Smithson except through some form of adoption and we know this because he has a prior existence as someone other than Andy Smithson.  There is no "becoming" when it comes to the Sonship of Christ because there is no hint of adoption in His regard.    If He is alive and well and not the Son,  His becoming is adoptive.  Ok  -- I'll stop repeating myself.   I think this is a strong point.   jd 

 

You need "understanding" which comes by way of the Holy Spirit, rather than Barthian "rationalizing" JD   I probably have had the Spirit longer than you, my dear  --  I think I am older than you.  I was certainly more prolific than you. 

 

jd

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: "Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Hi Dean. I moved your post up in its entirety below. The question I am having difficulties answering in regards to your statements is how exactly you see yourself differing with John. I am having difficulty in understanding your point of contention. I very much affirm everything John sets forth in his six points (see below), with a possible exception over the wording in his fourth point, where I would want to state that "only begotten" is a term which can mean "only unique," and therefore has a range of meaning which may encompass more than being only a reference to the birth or appointment of Christ. Other than that I think his points are relevant, valid, and very well-stated.

 

But then when I read your post, I find myself in much agreement with you, not seeing anything there to cause me great concern. And so I am wondering what exactly your problem is with John's points. To help add some clarity to my confusion, would you please attempt a second go at this one, this time with a special aim toward being more specific? It will be very much appreciated.

 

Thanks,

    Bill

 

cd:Also consider these words of Jesus

 

 I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. (Rev 1:8)

 

 ...I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last...(Rev 1:11)

 

I am he that liveth, and was dead;.. (Rev1:18)

 

John we are finite in our thinking. The day ends-the week ends-as does years. We cannot even conceive what eternity is-as time without end-I can only solve this by a comparison of eternity to a circle.. How about a universe that has no end-goes on forever and ever and if it does end what is there at that end? A wall? And what is on the other side of that wall or is the dept of that wall non ending?So it is hard for me to think of one being who are three-but if I consider my self more then one  my understand is also more. I am made up of body, soul, and spirit-this is how I am created in the image of one who is a spirit, who came in the body and has /is a eternal soul. Three parts of the whole. Take a whole pie , cut it into three equal slices and taste each slice. How are they different? They taste, look ,and smell the same but are different slices-yet they are the same. That being said I simple view Christ as God(ie." I and the father are one")-problem solved-for me. You on the other hand are a d ifferently matter entirely:-) So here is another type of similar theory/thinking.

 

John Wesley wrote:

 

Joh 10:30 - I and the Father are one - Not by consent of will only, but by unity of power, and consequently of nature. Are - This word confutes Sabellius, proving the plurality of persons: one - This word confutes Arius, proving the unity of nature in God. Never did any prophet before, from the beginning of the world, use any one _expression_ of himself, which could possibly be so interpreted as this and other expressions were, by all that heard our Lord speak. Therefore if he was not God he must have been the vilest of men.

Adam Clark wrote:

Joh 10:30 - I and my Father are one - If Jesus Christ were not God, could he have said these words without being guilty of blasphemy? It is worthy of remark that Christ does not say, I and My Father, which my our translation very improperly supplies, and which in this place would have conveyed a widely different meaning: for then it would imply that the human nature of Christ, of which alone, I conceive, God is ever said to be the Father in Scripture, was equal to the Most High: but he says, speaking then as God over all, I and The Father, e?? ?a? ?? pat?? e?? esµe? - the Creator of all things, the Judge of all men, the Father of the spirits of all flesh - are One, One in nature, One in all the attributes of Godhead, and One in all the operations of those attributes: and so it is evident the Jews understood him. See Joh_17:11, Joh_17:22.

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

From: Dean Moore

To: TruthTalk

Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 10:39 AM

Subject: FW: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God

 

 

Dean Moore

[EMAIL PROTECTED]

EarthLink Revolves Around You.

 

 

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

From: Dean Moore

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: 1/5/2006 12:18:07 PM

Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God

 

 

 

 

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

From:

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: 1/5/2006 9:48:58 AM

Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ as the incarnate God

 

 

1.  Matt 1:23 gives us the word "Immanuel" as a name for Jesus.  Most significantly, the Apostle Matthew gives us the meaning of this word,  an apostolic definition, if you will   -----------   God with us.   This single sentence should end the controversry, but, of course, people will choose to follow their bias.

 

2.  Secondly,  Col 1:19-20 tells us that Christ reconciled all thing UNTO HIMSELF.  If Christ were only the representative of God,  there would be no value in having drawn all things, on the earth and in the heavens unto Himself.  This passage makes sense only as one admits to the deity of the incarnate Christ  -- we should not forget that the act of reconciliation was performed in the body of His flesh. 

 

3.  John 17:5 establishes the fact that the Son shared the glory of the Father before the foundations of the world,  estalishing His eternity as the Son.  

 

4.  In view of the fact that "Only begotten" is a term that actually means "only unique" and has nothing to do with the birth or appointment of Christ,  there is no biblical hint that Christ became the Son of God.   He is, therefore,  the eternal Son,  never becoming  --  always being. 

 

5.  John - chapter one - teaches us that the Logos and  Jesus, the Son, are one and the same:  "He was in the world  (incarnation !!) and the world was made by Him and the world did not know Him." 

 

6.  Matt 16:16  has Peter confessing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God,"  a wonderful statement that looses its vaule if it means "thou are the Christ , the Holy Representative of the living God."  

 

 

Hoping to help. 

 

jd

 

 cd:Also consider these words of Jesus

 

 I am the Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. (Rev 1:8)

 

 ...I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last...(Rev 1:11)

 

I am he that liveth, and was dead;.. (Rev1:18)

 

John we are finite in our thinking. The day ends-the week ends-as does years. We cannot even conceive what eternity is-as time without end-I can only solve this by a comparison of eternity to a circle.. How about a universe that has no end-goes on forever and ever and if it does end what is there at that end? A wall? And what is on the other side of that wall or is the dept of that wall non ending?So it is hard for me to think of one being who are three-but if I consider my self more then one  my understand is also more. I am made up of body, soul, and spirit-this is how I am created in the image of one who is a spirit, who came in the body and has /is a eternal soul. Three parts of the whole. Take a whole pie , cut it into three equal slices and taste each slice. How are they different? They taste, look ,and smell the same but are different slices-yet they are the same. That being said I simple view Christ as God(ie." I and the father are one")-problem solved-for me. You on the other hand are a d ifferently matter entirely:-) So here is another type of similar theory/thinking.

 

John Wesley wrote:

 

Joh 10:30 - I and the Father are one - Not by consent of will only, but by unity of power, and consequently of nature. Are - This word confutes Sabellius, proving the plurality of persons: one - This word confutes Arius, proving the unity of nature in God. Never did any prophet before, from the beginning of the world, use any one _expression_ of himself, which could possibly be so interpreted as this and other expressions were, by all that heard our Lord speak. Therefore if he was not God he must have been the vilest of men.

Adam Clark wrote:

Joh 10:30 - I and my Father are one - If Jesus Christ were not God, could he have said these words without being guilty of blasphemy? It is worthy of remark that Christ does not say, I and My Father, which my our translation very improperly supplies, and which in this place would have conveyed a widely different meaning: for then it would imply that the human nature of Christ, of which alone, I conceive, God is ever said to be the Father in Scripture, was equal to the Most High: but he says, speaking then as God over all, I and The Father, e?? ?a? ?? pat?? e?? esµe? - the Creator of all things, the Judge of all men, the Father of the spirits of all flesh - are One, One in nature, One in all the attributes of Godhead, and One in all the operations of those attributes: and so it is evident the Jews understood him. See Joh_17:11, Joh_17:22.

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is
believed to be clean.