----- Original Message -----
Sent: 1/22/2006 12:32:09 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man
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.
cd: Bill this is my point in it's entirety-Christ never came down to the fallen man,s state. He came in the flesh and experience the sufferings of the flesh but not the results of sin-from the place of a sinner-till sin was imputed on him at the cross so his state was not as a sinner in his walk while on earth till it ended at the cross.You are clearly showing two different states here that is my point.
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 o
urs is altogether a different starting place than his.
cd: Bill we do have a sinless starting place with Christ-upon salvation we are cleansed-completely of all sin-white as snow-a new creature-The opportunity is there now not missed.
1Co 6:11
And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
cd: Bill. Christ is our example.
Pe 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
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.
cd: Bill to be Justified is to be righteous-one is cleansed and make right by the law-ie righteous. The old time winked at sin was in the OT- but when Christ came and explained the complete area of what sin is- God said He would no longer wink at sin.Nor did He wink at the sin laid upon Christ at the cross-Christ paid the full price for that sin. (Wink as used: Close an eye to it momentary. One of the reasons why multi-wives was allowed)
Act 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Webster Dictionary :Justification: In theology, to pardon and clear form guilt; to absolve or acquit from guilt and merited punishment, and to accept as righteous on account of the merits of the Savior, or by the application of Christ's atonement to the offender.
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:
And [Jesus] said, "It is what comes out of a man, that defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man."
Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members?
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.
cd: Bill I do not have a fallen sin nature-as to your reference of "our" nature. You almost speak as if we have no salvation and are not new creature in Christ-Is this what you believe?Still fallen? Yes sin comes from the heart(thoughts) but is not sin until those thoughts are received and acted upon whether the act is committing the sin or enjoying the imaging of committing the sin-but the thoughts themselves are not sin as we are told to take every thought into captivity.Simply say no to the fiery darts Satan sends our way. There is also a place this side of heaven those fiery darts will not enter a Christians mind as the Christian armor becomes stronger in our warfare.
2Co 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
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
cd: Amen I agree with this last paragraph Brother Bill even in "every detail" but Christ did not go into our old sinful state by sinning Himself. I think one should study the difference between the "sin nature"(a nature that would make one apt to sin) as opposed to the new nature of a Christian (ie christ -like) which doesn't tolerate (enjoy) sin in its members.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 4:26 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor Man
Dean, that is a different position all-together from Judy's. My question for you is, did you realize what you were affirming when answering my question?
Bill
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:-)
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is
believed to be clean.
