Even the 'exalted one' had a 'revelation'
concerning BT. It was favourable concerning his 'living out the gospel'. Did
you forget that?
That was HIS revelation - not mine.
My experience with BT has been anything but favourable and
pleasant.
Have you failed to read, from all of the
aforementioned, life anecdotes? I thought that 'see'rs could 'see'. As
Dennie Crane would say, upon receipt of an email from any one of the 'bad
guys' 'lock and load'.
I've read lots of words .. I wouldn't call
them "life anecdotes". When you say "seer" are you thinking like "witch
of Endor?" Where is this gift
in New Covenant economy?
Very hard to tell Lance because noone you mention
ie G, BT, DS etc. reveal themselves; what I read from them
is mostly their opinions (of
others) - glowing ones about favorite theologians
and/or critical ones concerning
myself and many times DM. DS does produce a
little essay now and then which is well written but still
centers
around her and her opinion ... Do they live
out the gospel in their daily lives? How would I be able to determine
this?
JT:Implicit-He 'hides Himself" from you (bad)
guys while "showing Himself" to us (DM and myself, good guys). I see no
pride there. Does anyone else see any pride there? BTW, I DO believe you
represent God fairly in that which you say. That little bit that I know of
JD, G, BT, DS etc. would give me every indication that live out the
gospel. Can YOU not see that also?
Once more Lance you put what you are about on
to me. You might be surprised to learn that I spend little
or
no time psychoanalyzing any of you. The
difference between all of you and DM is that most of what
comes
from him is godly counsel; also he
shows love and caring in difficult situations. When ppl say
what God
says consistently I see them as submitted to
Him rather than carried away with themselves. God is
funny
about that. He tends to hide Himself from
some and reveal Himself (by wayof His Word) to others.
Judy: DM an exception of course! How
utterly ironic that those two (JT & DM) who esteem themselves more
highly than others with respect to their capacity to "infallibly read"
the Scriptures fail to see themselves in those very Scriptures. "Awake
thou that sleepest"
You wise ones will probably find it amusing
that I see you as the "rebellious" and "obdurant" I also
perceive no humility at all, none of any
kind, intellectual or other. Neither do a read any
spiritual
understanding or evidence of a renewed mind
going on (of course DM not included). Well folks
sad to say this is what I see right now but
I don't give up on any of you because God will be God
and hopefully one day you will tire of
yourself and your own wisdom and ask and seek God for
His.
For Judy there is no "considering"
an alternate point of view, in order to come to a conclusion
after considering.
She is of the "just say No"
school. One flirt with intellectual humility and you could get
hooked. D
What kind of person could you be,
Judy, if you would put to death that rebellious spirit (read:
nature) you claim not to have. You could maybe learn to read for
understanding. You could grow to see the best in your siblings.
You may even aspire to keep your nose out of their business.
Imagine: a Judy who isn't always causing trouble. Heck, you
might even be likable. As it were, though, you will prove once
again your denial.
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, January 27,
2006 6:11 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk]
Was Jesus of God's Nature?
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.
-- 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
|