Some might draw a comparison between the 'witch
of Endor" and you but, I'd not place myself alongside such, Judy. You do
appear to have some sort of 'gift' for wrong descriptions of many on TT.
I can't recall describing anyone on TT,
let alone many.
These back-and-forthis this morning JT, are
simply an informed opinion regarding you.
Now, now Lance - what is it you have been
saying about DM esteeming himself and his own opinions, tut,
tut??
I've said this often of you. You strike me as a
profoundly genuine; deeply committed believer. You are, IMO, in bondage to
your "rightness". That, IMO, is downright sad.
Well Lance, I have to follow my own
conscience. Lord forbid that I would hang my eternal destiny on any man's
opinion ... including my own because these are not the ones that count ie:
"Beware when all men speak well
of you"
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
|