. . . my dear -- I think I am
older than you.
I have no way of knowing, for sure, but my hunch is that you are
not. I am pretty sure that John is sixty. Is that right, John? How old are you,
Judy?
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 8:27
PM
Subject: Re: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ and
adoption (to Judy)
--------------
Original message -------------- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 -----
Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006
10:39 AM
Subject: FW: Re: [TruthTalk]
Christ as the incarnate God
Dean Moore
EarthLink Revolves Around You.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 1/5/2006 12:18:07 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Christ
as the incarnate God
----- Original Message -----
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.
-- This message has been
scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be
clean.
|