Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

[knpraise]

Dean,  I appreciate your desire to have  a  discussion of peers.  I will keep that in mind as I write. 

 

Dean writes: 

 

When we first started this debate most of the group stated Christ to be as "common man"-     Right here, Dean,  is an example, IMO,  that you are hearing the discussion differenctle from its intent  --   at times.   I do not understand Bill to be saying that Christ was a "common man."   In fact,  I would view such a statement as heretical.    If you have a specific reference in mind,  I would think the larger context of that statement would help to  understand the specific reference you make.     I,   actually, do not think those words were used.   With this observation (of mine) , you might reread the first several lines in the Bill's response, below.  Maybe you will see what he is talking about. 

 

You speak of "Godly fear" as the rason why Christ is different from us  --  an emotion and conviction that is entirely possible for each of us.  Jesus, as a man  (and He was both God and Man),  did what we all say we "cannot" do.   His life in regards to sin condemns us all because it takes away all our excuses.   It turns out that sin is something we all decide to do.  The notion that we have no choice is simply not biblical (IMO). 

 

As concerns "sanctification,"  you seem to ignore the fact that such occurs on two very different levels, not of a single but profound consideration.   Your theology on this matter (sanctification) is limited to your own personal efforts in the matter.  It is Deans efforts and only Deans (with the indwelling) that bring sanctification.   You seem to ignore the biblical "fact" that sanctification is also a gift of grace.    When we come to Christ,  the Father sees us as existing IN Christ (Gal 3:26-27)  We are holy, blameless and above reproach IN Christ because it is His death that makes such so  (Col 1:21).   One the hallmarks of this "New Covenant" is that fact sin is not longer visited upon the People of God  (Jere 31:34).  We are fully "sanctified" even before we our efforts are partnered with the Indwelling's. 

 

When you read such things,  you see the writer  (in this case,  ME) preaching a gospel of license and willful sin.   Not true.   And when you [might] respond by saying, "Yes, John,  but this IS the effect of your message,"  you are speaking from your own undertanding of what has been shared.   I agree with Bill that you are not allowing for a reasonable explanation of this seeming contradiction.   EVERY theology, Dean,  has its particular difficulties  .............  yours included.  To be able to point to such difficulties is easy to do, with any theology.   I am asking you to allow our explanation and , at least, try to see why we continue to preach obedience and personal effort IN SPITE OF YOUR CONCLUION THAT OUR THEOLOGY DOES NOT ALLOW FOR SAME.  Please allow for this explanation. 

 

jd

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

 

 

 

 

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

From: Taylor

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: 1/26/2006 7:20:48 AM

Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

John writes  >  No one in this discussion believes that Christ sinned, Dean. 

 

cd responds   >  Respectfully- If one states that Christ had a fallen nature sinful nature that is what one is saying John.

 

No, Dean, it is not. Rather, it is what you hear us saying. Your hearing, however, is influenced by your view of sin. That John and I and Debbie and Lance, and even David on this one, are coming from a different vantage point than you, is a given. Why assume then that you can see well enough from your perch to identify things from ours? I began my previous post with an assurance that none of us view Jesus as a sinner; John did the same with his; yet you continue to speak only from a limited view, rather than budge just a little, that you might see him more completely. There must be some reason why we can see Jesus as fully representative of humankind in sinful flesh, and yet uphold the truth that he did not sin while in that flesh. Why must conclude therefore that he must have been a sinner? Why not give us the benefit of the doubt, if for just a peak, and try to see things from our perspective?

 

cd: Wow tough response Bill-I hope my response to David concerning didn't influence you to do likewise as the topic are different-I am suppose to give my life-  if God put me in that position- for the brethren. I can also  assume one can defend those same brethren from looking like fools. Let's not carry our  conversation to that same order of battle-okay? I have not read anything on Debbie belief of this issue to support you stance-I would like to read them. When we first started this debate most of the group stated Christ to be as "common man"-I objected to that and tried to show He was not common-but rather more than common as man went to a state of sin that Christ did not go too.Bill -this is a very significant difference. If you have changed you view or make a mistake in your earlier statement by claiming Christ the same as "common man" then say so and we move on. Believe it or not I am not focused on proving you wro ng as I am impressed by you and want to learn what God has given you but on this matter it would seem that God gave knowledge to me-but at your level there is much I can learn from you.Can the foot say to the hand:" Hey stop walking and start clapping !". Concerning David M. there is a lot of truth with him and He has a lot to offer us but I cannot find a place of trust for Him (may God show me error if it exists). If my belief is limited I can only hope it is limited to the bible.

 

You have a Christ who was born perfected from the womb, yet the writer to the Hebrews clearly states that Christ "learned obedience through suffering" and that it was only after "having been perfected" -- that is, after his resurrection even -- that he became the Author of salvation.

 

cd: Bill as I have shown before. Suffering for a Christian in this world comes from resisting sin and therefore becoming opposed by people that sin.If I am not resisting I am not suffering because I am giving into sin and have no opposition to suffer from. There is also a suffering of the flesh that comes from that flesh wanting sin and our instructed to bring that flesh into subjection to the spirit-but as both Wesley and I believe-there is a place where on can put the flesh under so much subjection that it breaks completely leaving one free from the drawing of the flesh towards sin or even the thoughts of sin this is called "Total sanctification"-I believe Jesus put His flesh under total control. With us it is still possible to fall back into that sin after the second(or deeper level of) sanctification-yet unlikely- but for Christ as it was not possible as He made that falling into sin not possible for Himself through Godly fear.Hope this make sense to you as it works for me.

 

You have a Christ who was born fully sanctified, yet Jesus himself says, "I sanctify myself (present continuous) that they too might be sanctified by the truth."

 

cd: Our difference in the area of sanctification has to do with the definition of sanctification and how one applies that term. I believe this to mean:" I keep myself Holy for God to do His work so that you too can become Holy for God because of me and by the truth I live and speak. This meaning does not conflict with what I am stating Bill. Christ kept Himself from sin to help us-no common man ever came close to doing this-so what is being missed in the majority of this group thought?

ySANC'TIFY, v.t. [Low L. sanctifico; from sanctus, holy, and facio, to make.]

1. In a general sense, to cleanse, purify or make holy.

2. To separate, set apart or appoint to a holy, sacred or religious use.

God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it.

 

You have a Christ who did not experience the temptations of a fallen man, yet Paul writes that he came in the likeness of our sinful flesh, because of sin, that he might condemn sin in the flesh.

 

cd: I believe Christ put on a flesh (covering) like ours but did not conform to this world which follows Satan as we have as "common men" therefore He was not as we were but as we now are- because of Him ( speaking of course of a mature Christian). Satan had to be giving his chance to lose or hold the world so Christ came in the state Satan controlled (the flesh)-and had claim too in order to take that claim away. He came to the strong man house to bind the strong man in his own house.He defeated the strong man by staying pure and proved He was stronger than the strong man through resistance to impurity.

 

You have a Christ who did not share in our humanity, yet Luke assures us that he was born of the fruit of David's genitals according to the flesh, and the writer to the Hebrews that as much as we "share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same," ... that he might assume the nature of Abraham's offspring.

 

cd:Bill - you misunderstand me in this area-Christ did share in our humanity-even in flesh and blood as David and Abraham's offspring.

 

Indeed their is enough here to warrant a second look, Dean. But if you will not budge, then I must respectfully request that you please keep silent about things you cannot see.

 

cd: Sorry Bill I chose not to remain silent as that would mean not to offer a different view and I encourage you to also not keep silent by answering my last post to you on this issue or simple go on to another issue.Here's one that John brought to the table:Can Children sin and be accountable for sin-your thoughts? By the way be nice:-) Thanks bro. 

 

Bill