|
cd: No Bill -I did not completely understand Judy-I view Christ as
Wholly God Wholly Human and Judy does not. Not do I agree totally with yours and
David stance that Christ was of common man. His nature was no lower than a
Christ -like nature:-) That may mean that I am in my own field alone? But at
least I have a field to be alone in:-) Thanks Dean. I think we can all agree
emphatically that Christ was holy and pure and did not sin. The last time this
topic was a point of contention here on TT, David wrote some really good posts
on Christ's holiness and purity, and how it was that neither of these were
compromised by his human condition. Perhaps he can find time to revisit that
concern.
The major difference between a belief in
Jesus as having a human nature other than ours -- some sort of a pre-fallen
nature -- and the belief that Jesus was born as we are, a subject of the fall,
is that whereas our battle against sin is an internal battle, his would have
been external to who he was in his human nature. His plight would have been to
keep sin out, whereas ours is to get it out. As Christians, we are called to put
sin to death "in our members." Jesus, in his lifetime, would not have had that
battle, and hence could not have helped us, as his would have been a fortress
mentality: just keep sin out of his members and he will have proven it can
be done. Well, that is not only
not helpful to us -- as we've already missed out on that opportunity
-- it leaves us in an even more disparate condition, since Christ only proved us wrong but did not defeat sin in
the way that we experience it. And if he only proved us wrong
but did not defeat sin from within our plight,
then all he can really do is become our offering for sin
(not that he is not that, too). Thus he may be our perpetual bull or goat,
but don't call him our example, because he isn't an example to us, in that we
never get to walk in his steps, as ours is altogether a different starting place
than his.
The best then that your view can offer is a
substitutionary theory of the atonement (and again not that Christ was not
also our substitute). Yours is that God takes Christ's righteousness and imputes
it to us and takes our sin and imputes it to him -- a legal transaction, if you
will, but not a helpful one since we are still in our sin, it not having been
defeated in our members. And so, even this double imputation is lacking in your
view; indeed, it is a legal fiction: God declares us righteous, when we're not;
and he winks at his Son, saying: "I'll call you sin, even though we all know
you're not"; hence it is fiction on both accounts. On the contrary, see 2
Corinthians 5.21: "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that
we might become the righteousness of God in Him." God sent his Son, perfect from
eternity, to earth, and cloaked him in human form from the fruit of David's
genitals according to the flesh -- that is, replete with
David's nature, which is "Sin" with a capital S -- in order that he
might defeat sin where in resides in sinful humanity, so that we might
experience genuine righteousness and not the kind you have to wink
at.
Look with me at Mark 7.20-23 and at James
4.1, and ask yourself if a man who does not have a fallen or "Sin" nature (your
kind of Jesus) could actually be tempted in every way like his
brothers:
Could a man who does not have a nature of
"Sin" actually experience the desire to act upon these things that war within
us? In other words, could a man who does not have a human nature like we do
truly be tempted to behave in the way that we do? Of course not! Our battle
comes from within; his would be to wall it out. Temptation for
him would be an external battle; ours is the opposite of that (as attested
to above). Ours is intrinsic to who we are as fallen human beings. His would be
extrinsic to his nature. His plight would be to keep sin out,
while ours is to get it out of our members. Hence, he would have nothing in
common with us and nothing to offer us.
Ah but that is not the case with Jesus. He can relate because he
was tempted in every way that we are, yet was sinless, in that he did not act
upon the desires of his heart; instead he defeated those desires in obedience to
his Father. For inasmuch as we have partaken of flesh and blood, he himself
likewise shared in the same, having been made like us in every detail, in order
that "he might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to
God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people; for in that he
himself has suffered, being tempted, he is able to aid those who are tempted"
(See Heb 4.15, and 2.14-18). Amen
Bill
|
- Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man Taylor
- Fw: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man Lance Muir
- Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man Dean Moore
