I'm so sorry Judy but, have you failed to read
the recent posts concerning Christine? Have you also failed to read of DM's
many misadventures or, to have seen the accompanying photographs? Here is some
of the logic that underpins that which they do: Let us go forth with T-shirts
and accompanying signage to some "sinful" event, condemn those in attendance
and, thereafter give testimonies of those who took offence with accompanying
surprise. Now, that's a bit of a charicature but, just a
bit.
I've been reading them this morning Lance
.. What is wrong with the following scenario apart from telling
ppl
to go to hell which I seriously doubt they
say - Makes no sense to put your life on the line for ppl you are
wanting
to go to hell does it? The rest is
true, their souls are condemned and their morals are corrupt and being
gay
is a sin. Today's street preachers
are speaking to ppl who are living in gross darkness.
We detest Miller's message and deplore his tactics, but this incident
leaves much to be questioned about selective free speech. Plaza preachers tell
us to go to hell on a daily basis. They shout that our morals are corrupt and
our souls condemned. They claim that their religion triumphs over others. And
many of them insist that being gay is a sin. These preachers disrupt our lives
every day. Some of us jump into the debate. Others watch with morbid
curiosity. Most simply ignore the fuss. Very few are convinced.
Imagination run amock Lance .......... You have
seen things that are not there, they are constructs
of your own imagination.
David Miller: "putting Judy on trial, David"? I've seen YOU go on
over a thorougoing misunderstanding (read misinterpretation) ad nauseum.
You've "demanded" that said person humble themselves while offering up an
apology for less than Judy does in about one of every two posts.
Gimmeeabreak, David!! It strikes me as strange that such as yourself,
along with your offspring, believe yourselves "called upon by God" to get
in the faces of others with accompanying signage then call for the cavalry
when these groups take offence and retaliate.
You claim to "know the ways of the Lord", David. You, on some
occasions, act/speak/write as if just delivered by a
midwife (I'm guessing that to be your preferred method.)
Just this morning I listened to C. S. Lewis, in his own voice,
deliver a lecture over the BBC (1954). You remind me of him sans
discernment.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: January 28, 2006 06:42
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus
of God's Nature?
Lance, why are you putting Judy on
trial? You could share these messages with her in private you
know.
David Miller
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006
6:24 AM
Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was
Jesus of God's Nature?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: January 27, 2006 17:16
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's
Nature?
Sigh. I guess you've already alerted
her many times to the fact that if she takes this position, then
everybody who disagrees with her interpretation of any passage must
not be a true believer. I guess that doesn't give her pause at
all...
D
----- Original Message -----
Sent: January 27, 2006 08:51
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's
Nature?
Scriptural Interpretation under the
tutelage of the Holy Spirit? I trust that every true believer
prays for the Spirit's assistance in reading/interpreting/living out
the Scriptures. HOWEVER, HOWEVER, HOWEVER ETC.....The Scriptures are
NOT
self-interpreting.
As I have said before many, many
times Lance - God's Word needs no "interpreter" We need
understanding, the
scriptures are to be
"understood" rather than "interpreted" and understanding comes from
God alone, He turns it off
or on according to the condition
of the heart. God is not mocked....
MANY IF NOT MOST true believers arrive
at differing conclusions as to the meaning of the
Scriptures.
We will see whent he Lord
returns which ones were "true" and which ones were not. To
some who think they are "true" today He will say "I never did know you. Depart from me you
who practice lawlessness" It's only as we
abide in Him and HIS WORDS (not
some fleshly interpretation) abide in us ...that we are on the
narrow way
and headed toward the strait
gate.
Does anyone (in particular, Judy and
DM) believe that EVERY true believer ALWAYS has access, via the
Spirit, to the ONE TRUE MEANING of the Scriptures (I refer to the
entirety of the Scriptures)?
Yes....
IFO do not believe that this is
anywhere promised in the Scriptures themselves.
It is not only promised it is demonstrated
in the life of the apostle Paul himself who may have read lots
of
books before he fell down before the Lord
on the Damascus Road but from all accounts he certainly did not
afterwards.
Hi Dean. I hope you will accept my
apologies for any misunderstanding: I am not wishing that you
would stop contributing, but that you would stop jumping so
quickly to conclusions. It is insulting to
me -- although I know it was not intentionally so --
that you would suggest that I or the others
would endorse a view which sets forth Christ as a sinner. If you
do not know Lance, John, Debbie (and her dust-bunnies:>) and
myself well enough to know that we would not embrace such a
doctrine, then surely you do know that David Miller would
never espouse the same: for we can all agree that a sinning
Savior would be anathema to us all.
ATST Bill it is
insulting to me - (and perhaps Dean also) for the ppl mentioned
above to make the claim that Jesus' humanity "so called"
included an Adamic sinful nature when scripture clearly records
that he is the Lord from heaven (the same yesterday, today, and
forever)and that He is the second Adam.
And so I was
hoping that out of respect for your siblings you may be
willing to set aside your prejudice about Jesus being a sinner
(for he was not!), and open yourself to consider his humanity
from a different point of view -- as difficult as that may be.
Let go of truth out
of some misguided respect for ppl? I certainly hope and
pray that Dean is more mature than to fall for
this.
I know, for example, that John is
getting frustrated with me for not weighing in on the "fallen
nature" debate. The truth is, I have been holding back just so
it can play for a while. And while I am confident that the
Bible does set forth a "fall" which perversely affected both
Adam and his posterity, I am also persuaded
that the last and best words have not been spoken on the issue;
hence, I am of the opinion that John's position, while not
something I can readily endorse, is nonetheless healthy for us
all, because it will have the effect of forcing us to
re-examine our beliefs on this very important
doctrine.
It is written
Bill - the last and best words are written already and you
can take them to the Bank. Believing them is the problem.
Why would you want to
malign Dean's faith which is rooted and grounded in the right
place?
I would like to suggest that you
take a similar approach to our discussion concerning Christ's
humanity. Ease off a little, and see how it plays out. You
may never come to a change of mind, but you should at least want
to have a valid reason when you don't. Dean, I'll try to post a response to your
questions tomorrow evening. In the meantime, I hope you
will consider my request. Sincerely,
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January
26, 2006 7:09 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Was Jesus of God's Nature?
----- Original Message -----
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?
y SANC'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 --
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: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 1/27/2006
-- No virus found in this outgoing
message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus
Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date:
1/27/2006
|