You Lance, are obviously not familiar with the Word of
God. Your have been
tutored by the theological arguments put together by
men... so between your opinion
and spiritual reality there is a vast
gulf.
Most of your 'wisdom', as you call it, Judy,
comes from your fertile imagination. Should you choose to equate
that (your imagination) with God, I can sort of live with that.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: January 23, 2006 10:48
Subject: [TruthTalk] The fall - Where's
the beef ??
And I agree with Debbie's analysis of the difficulty experienced by
Judy. In addition, I think Judy's attachment to her thinking
concerning the "generational curse" is a huge problem as well.
Not for me JD; the problem is yours and
Debbie's. Her wisdom comes by way of TFT and mine from
God's
Holy Word. The curse of the law is a
present day reality - as is generational curses. You don't have to
accept that but they are working in you and in your children as we
speak.
As for me, I just do not see a change in human nature with the
event of the fall. In fact, the fall is only possible because
of a nature that provided for the opportunity of disobedience.
How is that not true?
Oh well, you haven't been reading your Bible very
well. What about the first murder and the fact that within
just
a few generations God saw the need to destroy the
whole shooting match - except for one family.
I have said this several times before and I say it again:
in all of my reading, to date, I have yet to discover an actual
apologetic for the theology of the "fall." Does such
exist? How could it not? But so far, I can't even find
the pickle. Where's the beef, I say ?? !!
It's all through the Bible - Your reading must be
selective along with the fact that you obviously don't have eyes to
see.
I hate to couch the rise of a budding theologian in terms of
specific and/or unique contributions, fearing an attachment to "gimmick"
theology, but Bill (or someone) has a perfect chance to contribute
in the most meaningful of ways in this regard. A book or paper
entitled "A Theology of the 'Fall'" or "In Defense of the 'Fall'"
or "The 'Fall' Is Not Just A Postulated Truth," or
.................. well , you get the picture.
Currently, it appears to me that the "Fall" is an assumption , even
in Barth !!
Who would want to "defend it" Much better
to write a paper entitled "Reconciliation in and through
Christ"
Of course my paper would be vastly different from
yours, Lances, Debbies, and Bills.
Understand, I have been in this theological
persuasion for little more than a year. There is much (even in
Barth) that I have not read. Actually, "much" is an
understatement of grand proportions. But I have looked for
such an explanation without success. jd
Poison JD, and remember only a little bit of
arsenic is all it takes to ruin a good steak.
--------------
Original message -------------- From: "Lance Muir"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
----- Original Message -----
Sent: January 22, 2006 14:23
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor
Man
I think the stumbling block for those coming from a
viewpoint like Judy's is that Jesus could not have been an acceptable
sacrifice for us--i.e., to take our penalty--if he were blemished in any
way, and having a fallen nature (not unreasonably) constitutes a
blemish in their view. The answer (as I understood it from TFT) is that
Jesus was doing more than being a sacrifice for us. Like Bill says,
there is more than the legal transaction happening. He is 'bending
human nature back', purifying it, by his obedient life, his
steadfast refusal to think or act out of the fallen nature. He put the
fallen nature to death in two ways and was raised a fully restored human
in every sense, which is how his resurrection is intrinsically linked to
ours. Just the legal transaction, just the sacrifice, doesn't do
anything to fix the fallen human nature. This is what I understand Bill
to be saying, too. I remember TFT insisting that wron g views of
who Jesus was always end up losing either the substitutionary or the
representative character (or both).
D
----- Original Message -----
Sent: January 22, 2006 12:41
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. 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 experi ence
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,&nbs
p;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:
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.
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
----- 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.
-- No virus found in this incoming
message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus
Database: 267.14.21/236 - Release Date: 1/20/2006
-- No virus found in this outgoing
message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus
Database: 267.14.21/236 - Release Date:
1/20/2006
|