Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: Quadrilateral.htm
- Original Message - From: To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/26/2006 12:17:58 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: Quadrilateral.htm cd: Wow I understand Gary and agree with him. Something tells me this is going to be a good day:-) By the way where is everybody? Lance are you still running people Off? one thing J Wes and radical Protestants may have in common is the displacement of theologians: interestingly,the 'J Wesley quad' which omits Finney (a theologian)embraces Kant (a philosopher) cd:Finny and Wesley disagreed on Christian perfection at first-later Finney changed his viewand came on board withWesley.I mean of course Wesley's view of Christian perfection not what is being offered by the masses and the best way to study the teaching of Wesley is to read His sermons for your self and decide-there are some online if one cared to search. His journals are also good reading.Coming from the Baptist background I didn't much care for his teachings at firstbut a couple of years later the Lord lead me to read them again-and I liked what I read-I guess it took me a while to assimilate the new approach.I believe him to be in St. Paul's class but not infallable in all things.Seven day Adventist and Kant- have little in common with Wesley as Kant was opposed to Christianity-and Seventh Day Adventist don't believe in hell ( there is more opposition of coursebut this is the common differences). But it is possible that log ic would haveprevailed in the truth of these beliefs to come to an agreement with Wesley on certain issues. I believe that this is why one should justkeep studing the Bible as God wants to lead all to truth and to show error. summarizingly, gauging theology for what it is biblically,radical Protestants do notcircumventCath priest-ologythen replace the priest-ology with philosophy cd: Amen-this is of course coming from my view of what a radical protestant as-which may disagree with Gary view.If Gary would care to explain the statement in more detail it would be helpful-English will do as I cannot interpret tongues:-)
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 naturethat is what one is saying John. No, Dean, it is not. Rather, it is what you hear us saying. Yourhearing, however,is influenced by your view of sin. That John and I and Debbie andLance, 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 perchto identify things from ours? I began myprevious post with anassurance that none of us view Jesus as a sinner; Johndid the same withhis; yet you continue to speak onlyfrom 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? 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. 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." 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. 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 mightassume the nature ofAbraham'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. Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
corrections - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 5:31 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 naturethat is what one is saying John. No, Dean, it is not. Rather, it is what you hear us saying. Yourhearing, however,is influenced by your view of sin. That John and I and Debbie andLance, 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 perchto identify things from ours? I began myprevious post with anassurance that none of us view Jesus as a sinner; Johndid the same withhis; yet you continue to speak onlyfrom 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 you conclude therefore that he must have been a sinner? Why not give us the benefit of the doubt, if for just a peek, and try to see things from our perspective? 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. 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." 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. 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 mightassume the nature ofAbraham'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. Bill-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Dean: You asked 'where is the rest'? (the aforementioned 'methodology) There is more to follow over time but, I ask you to be particularly attentive to both the form and content of all of Bill Taylor's posts. In Bill you have as good a biblical theologian as you are likely to encounter. (with apologies to Bill for any embarrassment caused) The title of one of my favourite books is 'Faith Thinking' (Trevor Hart 1995) Bill's posts exemplify FaithThinking. Lance - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 26, 2006 07:31 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 naturethat is what one is saying John. No, Dean, it is not. Rather, it is what you hear us saying. Yourhearing, however,is influenced by your view of sin. That John and I and Debbie andLance, 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 perchto identify things from ours? I began myprevious post with anassurance that none of us view Jesus as a sinner; Johndid the same withhis; yet you continue to speak onlyfrom 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? 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. 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." 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. 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 mightassume the nature ofAbraham'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. Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
- 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 naturethat is what one is saying John. No, Dean, it is not. Rather, it is what you hear us saying. Yourhearing, however,is influenced by your view of sin. That John and I and Debbie andLance, 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 perchto identify things from ours? I began myprevious post with anassurance that none of us view Jesus as a sinner; Johndid the same withhis; yet you continue to speak onlyfrom 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- ifGod 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 gaveknowledge to me-but at your level there is muchI 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 resistingI am not suffering becauseI am giving into sin and have noopposition 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 asboth Wesley and Ibelieve-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 doingthis-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
Re: [TruthTalk] beginning
Dean wrote: Another man of one book J.Wesley ... John Wesley was not a man of one book. He read other books constantly, just as Paul did. What is meant by your quotes is that in the context of that particular ministry to the people being talked about, the preaching focused upon Jesus Christ and nothing else. David Miller wrote: I do not believe in a pre-existent creation. I simply believe that the earth is very old, primarily for Biblical reasons. From my perspective, the Scriptures seem to assert an ancient foundation for the earth. cd: I would like to see this scripture? Such a teaching can get rather involved, and it does involve some personal revelation, but following are a few passages. Psa 102:25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. Eze 26:20 When I shall bring thee down with them that descend into the pit, with the people of old time, and shall set thee in the low parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I shall set glory in the land of the living; 2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Job 38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? cd: In my view that would mean that the older salt water would have to disappear somewhere in very large volumes? No, you are assuming that the old earth was basically in the same shape and form that it is now, with oceans of saltwater and continents. Genesis 1:2 says that the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. The subsequent account specifies the separation of land from water, which I believe took place much later than the actual creation of the earth itself. In other words, between Genesis 1:1 1:2 was a great amount of time. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
cd: Maybe I will have a change of heart and keep silent-if that's what youand the group really wants Bill?Or maybe I won't give you the choice and just keep silent. I will give it thought -goodbye Bill- may God bless you and His light shine upon you. - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/26/2006 7:36:59 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? corrections - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 5:31 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 naturethat is what one is saying John. No, Dean, it is not. Rather, it is what you hear us saying. Yourhearing, however,is influenced by your view of sin. That John and I and Debbie andLance, 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 perchto identify things from ours? I began myprevious post with anassurance that none of us view Jesus as a sinner; Johndid the same withhis; yet you continue to speak onlyfrom 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 you conclude therefore that he must have been a sinner? Why not give us the benefit of the doubt, if for just a peek, and try to see th ings from our perspective? 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. 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." 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. 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 mightassume the nature ofAbraham'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. Bill-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
John wrote: ... I am not a dualist. There is only one nature. Just for the record in regards to this discussion, it is dualism that provides for me the framework for understanding how Jesus could have a fallen nature. Without the understanding of man's dualism that comes from Romans 7, I would probably be on Judy's side in saying that Jesus could not have had a fallen nature as part of his being. I also could not believe in Christian sanctification without dualism. Jesus was perfectly pure and holy in his spirit, but he was housed in a corruptible body of flesh. His inner man was incorruptible but his outer man was corruptible. His inner man had no shadow of darkness, but his outer man was subject to passions and appetites like all other men, which created a drive in him toward that which would be contrary to the spirit. Jesus, just like us, had to live a life of self denial in order to walk in holiness. To suggest that Jesus did not have a fallen nature is to say that Jesus did not live in any kind of self denial at all, but that he simply did what was natural for him, which is perfect, holy living. I believe his spirit had that nature, of naturally doing what was right, but he was in a corruptible body of flesh that did not agree with the direction of his spirit. Hence, in the wilderness when he was fasting, he hungered and desired to turn rocks into bread. His spirit told him to resist the temptation. In the garden his fallen nature tempted him to sleep when he was suppose to fast and pray. The prospect of the cross caused his flesh to cry out, to run away, and not to sacrifice himself for a people who all deserted him at the smallest sign of trouble. Without a model of dualism, I truly do not know how to process all of these facts. Dualism provides the means to understand Paul's statement in Romans 7:17 in regards to sin, Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. If this can be said concerning sin, how much more concerning temptation. When Jesus was tempted to sin, it was not him, but sin that dwelled in his flesh. As Paul says in Romans 7:25, with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin. How any of you avoid the dualism taught here is very strange to me. Modern theologians erroneously make dualism a dirty word. John wrote: I used to believe that man, apart from Christ, had no choice when it came to sin. I no longer believe that to be the case. Man does have a choice. Adam had a choice. Make sure you study Pelagianism very closely. You are moving close to that position. Such leads to moral government theology and open theism. Make sure that is where you want to be. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
cd: I am not saying He isn't a "good" theologian but there will be issues I will disagreewith and express that disbelief-but he is not infallible. But if all keep silent then in just a short amount of time Bill will not be a good theologian with his own beliefs rather he will only present another theologians views.So let him prove himself to us common street preachers.Respectfully my opinion Lance. - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/26/2006 7:42:20 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Dean: You asked 'where is the rest'? (the aforementioned 'methodology) There is more to follow over time but, I ask you to be particularly attentive to both the form and content of all of Bill Taylor's posts. In Bill you have as good a biblical theologian as you are likely to encounter. (with apologies to Bill for any embarrassment caused) The title of one of my favourite books is 'Faith Thinking' (Trevor Hart 1995) Bill's posts exemplify FaithThinking. Lance - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 26, 2006 07:31 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 naturethat is what one is saying John. No, Dean, it is not. Rather, it is what you hear us saying. Yourhearing, however,is influenced by your view of sin. That John and I and Debbie andLance, 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 perchto identify things from ours? I began myprevious post with anassurance that none of us view Jesus as a sinner; Johndid the same withhis; yet you continue to speak onlyfrom 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? 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. 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." 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. 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 mightassume the nature ofAbraham'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. Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
DaveH wrote: Do you view circumcision in a similar light as baptism...it being a covenant? Yes, I view it in a similar light, but I would not use the words you used, it being a covenant. Circumcision is a sign of the convenant, actually used for more than one covenant in history (both Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants for example), and baptism also serves this purpose, as a sign of a covenant with God through Jesus Christ. I believe that a covenant sign is one reason that Jesus was himself baptized by John. However, baptism has other purposes as well, and one is to provide a means of establishing faith in Jesus Christ. It is a vehicle for expressing faith, the same way that an automobile is a method of allowing gasoline or diesel to propel cars. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
I receive it in the spirit with which it is offered, Dean. (RESPECTFULLY) - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 26, 2006 09:29 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? cd: I am not saying He isn't a "good" theologian but there will be issues I will disagreewith and express that disbelief-but he is not infallible. But if all keep silent then in just a short amount of time Bill will not be a good theologian with his own beliefs rather he will only present another theologians views.So let him prove himself to us common street preachers.Respectfully my opinion Lance. - Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/26/2006 7:42:20 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? Dean: You asked 'where is the rest'? (the aforementioned 'methodology) There is more to follow over time but, I ask you to be particularly attentive to both the form and content of all of Bill Taylor's posts. In Bill you have as good a biblical theologian as you are likely to encounter. (with apologies to Bill for any embarrassment caused) The title of one of my favourite books is 'Faith Thinking' (Trevor Hart 1995) Bill's posts exemplify FaithThinking. Lance - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 26, 2006 07:31 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 naturethat is what one is saying John. No, Dean, it is not. Rather, it is what you hear us saying. Yourhearing, however,is influenced by your view of sin. That John and I and Debbie andLance, 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 perchto identify things from ours? I began myprevious post with anassurance that none of us view Jesus as a sinner; Johndid the same withhis; yet you continue to speak onlyfrom 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? 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. 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." 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. 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 mightassume the nature ofAbraham'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. Bill
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
FWIW Dean, PLEASE DO NOT KEEP SILENT! IFO value both your contribution and, your demeanour. Lance - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 26, 2006 09:18 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? cd: Maybe I will have a change of heart and keep silent-if that's what youand the group really wants Bill?Or maybe I won't give you the choice and just keep silent. I will give it thought -goodbye Bill- may God bless you and His light shine upon you. - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/26/2006 7:36:59 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? corrections - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 5:31 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 naturethat is what one is saying John. No, Dean, it is not. Rather, it is what you hear us saying. Yourhearing, however,is influenced by your view of sin. That John and I and Debbie andLance, 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 perchto identify things from ours? I began myprevious post with anassurance that none of us view Jesus as a sinner; Johndid the same withhis; yet you continue to speak onlyfrom 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 you conclude therefore that he must have been a sinner? Why not give us the benefit of the doubt, if for just a peek, and try to see th ings from our perspective? 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. 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." 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. 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 mightassume the nature ofAbraham'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. Bill-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
DAVEH: Again, thanx for the explanation. Do you feel that the OT sacrificial rites were similarly relatedthat is, were signs of a covenant? If so, why do you think they needed to be replicated? David Miller wrote: DaveH wrote: Do you view circumcision in a similar light as baptism...it being a covenant? Yes, I view it in a similar light, but I would not use the words you used, "it being a covenant." Circumcision is a sign of the convenant, actually used for more than one covenant in history (both Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants for example), and baptism also serves this purpose, as a sign of a covenant with God through Jesus Christ. I believe that a covenant sign is one reason that Jesus was himself baptized by John. However, baptism has other purposes as well, and one is to provide a means of establishing faith in Jesus Christ. It is a vehicle for expressing faith, the same way that an automobile is a method of allowing gasoline or diesel to propel cars. David Miller. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
I believe that a covenant sign is one reason that Jesus was himself baptized by John. DAVEH: With who do you think was Jesus making a covenant? baptism has other purposes as well, DAVEH: With Jesus' baptism, was the reason not the primary reason to fulfill righteousness? David Miller wrote: DaveH wrote: Do you view circumcision in a similar light as baptism...it being a covenant? Yes, I view it in a similar light, but I would not use the words you used, "it being a covenant." Circumcision is a sign of the convenant, actually used for more than one covenant in history (both Abrahamic and Sinaitic covenants for example), and baptism also serves this purpose, as a sign of a covenant with God through Jesus Christ. I believe that a covenant sign is one reason that Jesus was himself baptized by John. However, baptism has other purposes as well, and one is to provide a means of establishing faith in Jesus Christ. It is a vehicle for expressing faith, the same way that an automobile is a method of allowing gasoline or diesel to propel cars. David Miller. -- ~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.
Re: [TruthTalk] Benny Hiin the thief
cd: Due to the lack of response from the brethren-which I think is due to their not wanting to get involved in any more of out discussions. The last one we completed on Pal Talk concerning the Mormons did end so well, at least for you anyway:-) I will try and relate as to why I believe the brethren preach at Hinn events. I'm not sure what you are talking about in regards to PalTalk. cd: But I had understood from your previous letter that you believed the preachers was wrong because it gave doubts to those going to Hinn for a healing and that the faith for the healing came from their faith-not Hinns faith-if there is such faith in Hinn. Which is it that would make you speak against the brethren in front of the ungodly-their faith or Hinns faith? I'm not real sure what you are asking. Furthermore, I am not speaking against brethren. We are to provoke one another to love and good works. We should correct and instruct one another as thoroughly as we do others. Street Preachers in general do have problems with envy and pride, including me. It in some way, at times, aids the drive to get out front and speak. So I'm not sure why you are reacting so negatively to my comments. My perspective about the Hinn meetings is not to say that Hinn is a good guy. If I had to vote right now, based upon what I have heard about him, I would vote against him. However, if it were in my power not to vote, that is what I would choose to do because most of my information comes second hand, though gossip and rumor mills. Not a good source of information. Furthermore, such news is INFESTED with the love of money. It is all talking about MONEY, MONEY, MONEY, and I get sick of reading it. What I was trying to say about faith was that people who are terminally ill seek out God and seek out a remedy wherever they can find it. I work with people in nursing homes and the homeless and infirmed on the streets. I think it is good to encourage them to believe God, because when they do reach out to him in faith, they will be healed. Sometimes it takes a minister who believes in healing to bolster their faith. Like Paul in Acts 14 preaching and seeing the crippled man before him, he perceived that he had faith to be healed. So he told him to stand up. Faith comes through hearing God's Word and we should encourage people to believe God. What a disgrace it is for people such as this to be coming to a meeting that offers hope of healing, only to meet up with a bunch of Street Preachers with signs protesting and telling them that the man inside is a fraud and out to steal their money. I have little doubt that they have been instruments of doubt and unbelief, causing people to return home sick. cd: Hogwash David-You have preached with these same brethren have you seen jealousy and envycoming from these brethren that give all for the gospel even their meager saving to go and preach? All I have seen is the preachers being treated badly by the world and now by you. How would Hinn's unbelief effect the healing of those who have faith? The only thing I believe that is not from the Spirit of God is you teaching on this matter David and Hinn. I'm not sure who it is that goes to these Hinn meetings. I guess they are too scared to let me know who they are if I have preached with them. The only person I know about who did this kind of a protest was Paul Mitchell. When I criticized what he was doing on a public list, little was said in his defense. cd: As I have not seen any Healing from Hinn ministry can you tell me the name of those healed? I would like to speak to them myself. I'm sorry, Dean, but I can't give you any names right now. I hear little about Benny Hinn in the circles I move in. However, as I minister, people come up and talk to me and there have been numerous individuals who have told me of how they were healed at one of his meetings. I have an uncle named Bob DeVone who was healed at a Kathryn Khulman meeting, the woman who Hinn says his mantle of ministry comes from. My own father was taken to one of Khulman's meetings on a stretcher and healed too. Dean wrote: I do not see the Spirit of God leading people to give money to Hinn who spends millions on self-while poor people suffer and preachers lose all they have for the gospel sake while wicked men attack even their character. If you see it otherwise then I believe you to be in denial David. I'm not saying that the Spirit of God leads these people to give directly to this man. I'm saying that when a person experiences the miracle working power of God, and they realize that if it were not for this person, they would be sick and dying and probably dead by now, they give of what they have to that person out of gratitude and the desire to see others healed as they were. You should think about the story of the widow's mite very carefully. Did Jesus stand outside the Temple and rebuke her for giving to the Temple? Did
Re: [TruthTalk] Emailing: Quadrilateral.htm
Gary wrote: ... interestingly, the 'J Wesley quad' which omits Finney (a theologian) embraces Kant (a philosopher) LOL. You are making an anachronistic mistake here. Finney was born after Wesley had died already, so naturally Wesley never mentioned Finney because Wesley had never heard of Finney! You should rethink your method of philosophy Gary. :-) David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
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 arehearing 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 beable 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 naturethat is what one is saying John. No, Dean, it is not. Rather, it is what you hear us saying. Yourhearing, however,is influenced by your view of sin. That John and I and Debbie andLance, 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 perchto identify things from ours? I began myprevious post with anassurance that none of us view Jesus as a sinner; Johndid the same withhis; yet you continue to speak onlyfrom 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- ifGod 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
Re: [TruthTalk] beginning
Such a teaching can get rather involved, and it does involve some personal revelation, but following are a few passages DM What does this mean, David, in regards to "personal revelation" ?? Do you mean "personal inerpretation" or is it more than that? jd -- Original message -- From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Dean wrote: Another man of one book J.Wesley ... John Wesley was not a man of "one book." He read other books constantly, just as Paul did. What is meant by your quotes is that in the context of that particular ministry to the people being talked about, the preaching focused upon Jesus Christ and nothing else. David Miller wrote: I do not believe in a pre-existent "creation." I simply believe that the earth is very old, primarily for Biblical reasons. From my perspective, the Scriptures seem to assert an ancient foundation for the earth. cd: I would like to see this scripture? Such a teaching can get rather involved, and it does involve som e personal revelation, but following are a few passages. Psa 102:25 Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. Eze 26:20 When I shall bring thee down with them that descend into the pit, with the people of old time, and shall set thee in the low parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I shall set glory in the land of the living; 2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. Job 38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the cor ner stone thereof; Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? cd: In my view that would mean that the older salt water would have to disappear somewhere in very large volumes? No, you are assuming that the old earth was basically in the same shape and form that it is now, with oceans of saltwater and continents. Genesis 1:2 says that the earth was "without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep." The subsequent account specifies the separation of land from water, which I believe took place much later than the actual creation of the earth itself. In other words, between Genesis 1:1 1:2 was a great amount of time. David Miller. -- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6 ) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
DAVEH: With who do you think was Jesus making a covenant? With the Father in heaven. John the Baptist was a forerunner of the new convenant that would come through Jesus. His baptism prepared the way by helping people understand the elements of entering into this new covenant. Therefore, his stewardship had an authority which the Father expected all men to parake of. Jesus, as a man, partook of it also, that he might fulfill all righteousness. He aligned himself with the testimony and ministry of John that came from the Father above, and that is a covenant. DAVEH: With Jesus' baptism, was the reason not the primary reason to fulfill righteousness? Yes, and I view my comments as details concerning that phrase, to fulfill all righteousness. It created a public testimony of alignment and participation of the covenant that comes through John for all who would heed the preaching of the gospel to repent, because the kingdom of heaven was at hand. Of course, the covenant of Christ far superseded John's covenant, coming with it the promise of the gift of the Holy Ghost. John's covenant was temporary, making way for a more perfect one through Jesus Christ. In regards to baptism, it seems to me that you perceive the authority of the one who does the baptizing as being very important. I see it to be more important that the one being baptized has faith. One who has faith in baptism causes the miracle of the new birth as a result of faith being applied. However, if one is baptized and does not really have faith, but only mental assent, then he does not experience the new birth, even if the authority of the one baptizing him was from God. Does this properly characterize our differences about baptism from your perspective? David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
JD wrote: ... try to see why we continue to preach obedience and personal effort Why would you continue to preach personal effort if you have already achieved sanctification by grace through faith? I personally do not preach personal effort. The reason that you find people like me sometimes talking about your view promoting sin is because you still preach personal effort and you still testify to having no hope to keep from sinning in the future. My problem is that if your testimony is that you will sin in the future, then how can you call that sanctification? David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Question Regarding Covenants Salvation
DaveH wrote: Do you feel that the OT sacrificial rites were similarly relatedthat is, were signs of a covenant? If so, why do you think they needed to be replicated? No, I view the sacrificial rites of the Sinai covenant were not signs of the covenant, but rather elements of the covenant which illustrated the need for atonement for sin. When I mentioned previously that sacrifices were sometimes used to cut a covenant, I did not have these sacrifices in mind, but rather the example of Abraham cutting the covenant with God. This was culturally practiced then. Sometimes salt was used. I see baptism and circumcision similar to the signing of a contract. Note that law allows for contracts to be enforceable even without a signature if it is clear that an agreement was made orally as per the things stated in the contract. However, a signature makes it very clear as to the agreement between the parties involved. The OT sacrificial rites were not like the signing of the contract, but rather responsibilities expected of the party who has entered into the agreement. At least that's how I look at it. :-) David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Benny Hiin the thief
Wasn't Lonnie the one who wore the skull cap to mock James White? Maybe not. I can't remember, but I remember that both Ruben and Jim Webber corrected that street preacher for certain behavior at SLC. This kind of correction should go on all the time. cd: I will not say who wore the cap or who encouraged the wearing-That is between them and God and I would hate to speak against a servant of God and find that I was wrong. I also feel that after reading this response that I understand you better and believe that I have been too hard on you -forgive me David. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
- Original Message - From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/26/2006 9:32:47 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? FWIW Dean, PLEASE DO NOT KEEP SILENT! IFO value both your contribution and, your demeanour. Lance cd:Thanks Lance-I will do as you requested but it seems that I am carrying the fight from W.C.U. to this site and I need a break from this site for a few days to deal with WCU. See ya later:-) - Original Message - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: January 26, 2006 09:18 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? cd: Maybe I will have a change of heart and keep silent-if that's what youand the group really wants Bill?Or maybe I won't give you the choice and just keep silent. I will give it thought -goodbye Bill- may God bless you and His light shine upon you. - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: 1/26/2006 7:36:59 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? corrections - Original Message - From: Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 5:31 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 naturethat is what one is saying John. No, Dean, it is not. Rather, it is what you hear us saying. Yourhearing, however,is influenced by your view of sin. That John and I and Debbie andLance, 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 perchto identify things from ours? I began myprevious post with anassurance that none of us view Jesus as a sinner; Johndid the same withhis; yet you continue to speak onlyfrom 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 you conclude therefore that he must have been a sinner? Why not give us the benefit of the doubt, if for just a peek, and try to see th ings from our perspective? 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. 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." 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. 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 mightassume the nature ofAbraham'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. Bill-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean.
[TruthTalk] Ministry at University of Florida
I would appreciate prayers for my daughter Christine at the University of Florida. She is under a great deal of persecution there. Last week Christinewas urged by a Senator to come speak to the Student Government Senate meeting, and so she went and spoke, asking, questioning, whether theLesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered (LGBT)Affairs office of the University was the right thing. Since then, three newspaper articles have come out maligning her and saying all kinds of falsehood. They have completely stereotyped her as someone intolerant and hate-filled,even falsely claiming that the office she hasquestions about was privately funded. This week the University gave her an official letter of warning, threatening that she would be terminated from her employment with the University if she did not change her behavior. Exactly what she is suppose to change about her behavior is not stated, but the implication in the letter is that she should keep her viewpoints private. I have tried to keep up a list of news articles and related documentsatwww.InnGlory.org undernews links. Thefollowing url is a direct link to the UF news page: http://www.innglory.org/UF.htm You can read the actual letter there if you are interested. This is a gross miscarriage of justice. How ironic it is that Christine has become the object of discrimination by those whoclaim to be fighting discrimination. Please pray for her, and if you can write letters or do anything to help, I'm sure she would appreciate it. If you want to send her a kind note of encouragement to counteract all the hate-filled things being said about her, her email address is [EMAIL PROTECTED]. David Miller.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 05:31:47 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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 naturethat is what one is saying John. No, Dean, it is not. Rather, it is what you hear us saying. Yourhearing, however,is influenced by your view of sin. That John and I and Debbie andLance, 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 perchto identify things from ours? The same question goes both ways Bill. Why would you and the four in your corner assume that you are comprehending and understanding what Dean speaks of since your view is also influenced by how you view sin. I began myprevious post with anassurance that none of us view Jesus as a sinner; Johndid the same withhis; yet you continue to speak onlyfrom a limited view, rather than budge just a little, that you might see him more completely. Dean is seeing Him completely, it is your group who have the "limited view" Bill.A sinner is a sinner by nature - that is one with a sin nature born in fornicationwith a legacy in the first Adam. 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? Why not give Dean the benefit of the doubt and all of you try to see it from a scriptural perspective as he is doing? The Jews in Jesus day who believed they belonged to God claimed to be Abraham's seed and not born of fornication (John 8:41) - so apparently they understood that it was "spiritual seed" rather than the fruit of Abraham's loins that made one a child of God. 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. The suffering was in obeying the will of the Fatherto the point of laying down his life on a sinners cross when he had no sin and BTW he left us an example that we should follow in His steps but you have a Christ who has done it all IYO so that you don't need to perfect anything. 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." Yes he was a "holy thing" from birth and the kind of sanctification he refers to here (John 17:17) is sanctification in God's Word which is truth because He is not of this world and neither were they. Amazing that some doctrines of men todayhave the whole world sanctified and saved in Christ today aside from knowing one word of God's Truth. 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. Wrong again. Dean's Christ overcame in the three areas that caused the fall and then went on to endure the cross, where he took upon himself the sin of all humanity - despising the shame of it for the joy set before Him. 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 mightassume the nature ofAbraham's offspring. When will you get one of these right Bill. Of course he shared flesh and blood with us aside from David's genitals which were by that time mouldering in the grave like John Brown's body. Heb 2:14 says nothing about the "nature" of Abraham's offspring; it speaks of Jesus taking on a flesh and blood body so that through death he might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil. 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. Bill And as our kids often say "right back atcha Bill" that is - "if you will not budge" because Dean is not wresting anything. Nor is he speaking of "dualism" Jesus had one nature and one only and I'll let you in ona secret. It wasn't that of the devil like an unregenerate son of the first Adam.
[TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 05:31:47 -0700 "Taylor" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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 naturethat is what one is saying John. No, Dean, it is not. Rather, it is what you hear us saying. Yourhearing, however,is influenced by your view of sin. That John and I and Debbie andLance, 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 perchto identify things from ours? The same question goes both ways Bill. Why would you and the four in your corner assume that you are comprehending and understanding what Dean speaks of since your view is also influenced by how you view sin. I began myprevious post with anassurance that none of us view Jesus as a sinner; Johndid the same withhis; yet you continue to speak onlyfrom a limited view, rather than budge just a little, that you might see him more completely. Dean is seeing Him completely, it is your group who have the "limited view" Bill.A sinner is a sinner by nature - that is one with a sin nature born in fornicationwith a legacy in the first Adam. 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? Why not give Dean the benefit of the doubt and all of you try to see it from a scriptural perspective as he is doing? The Jews in Jesus day who believed they belonged to God claimed to be Abraham's seed and not born of fornication (John 8:41) - so apparently they understood that it was "spiritual seed" rather than the fruit of Abraham's loins that made one a child of God. 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. The suffering was in obeying the will of the Fatherto the point of laying down his life on a sinners cross when he had no sin and BTW he left us an example that we should follow in His steps but you have a Christ who has done it all IYO so that you don't need to perfect anything. 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." Yes he was a "holy thing" from birth and the kind of sanctification he refers to here (John 17:17) is sanctification in God's Word which is truth because He is not of this world and neither were they. Amazing that some doctrines of men todayhave the whole world sanctified and saved in Christ today aside from knowing one word of God's Truth. 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. Wrong again. Dean's Christ overcame in the three areas that caused the fall and then went on to endure the cross, where he took upon himself the sin of all humanity - despising the shame of it for the joy set before Him. 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 mightassume the nature ofAbraham's offspring. When will you get one of these right Bill. Of course he shared flesh and blood with us aside from David's genitals which were by that time mouldering in the grave like John Brown's body. Heb 2:14 says nothing about the "nature" of Abraham's offspring; it speaks of Jesus taking on a flesh and blood body so that through death he might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil. 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. Bill And as our kids often say "right back atcha Bill" that is - "if you will not budge" because Dean is not wresting anything. Nor is he speaking of "dualism" Jesus had one nature and one only and I'll let you in ona secret. It was notthat of the devil like an unregenerate son of the first Adam.
[TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
From: "David Miller" [EMAIL PROTECTED] John wrote: ... I am not a dualist.There is only one nature. Just for the record in regards to this discussion, it is dualism that provides for me the framework for understanding how Jesus could have a fallen nature. Without the understanding of man's dualism that comes from Romans 7, I would probably be on Judy's side in saying that Jesus could not have had a fallen nature as part of his being. I also could not believe in Christian sanctification without dualism. How so David; Christians are not supposed to have two natures operating ATST either because those in Christ have made a covenant agreement to die to the one and walk after the other. In Romans 7 Paul speaks of sin dwelling in his flesh. IOW he was trained in it before he was converted. Jesus never experienced either. Jesus was perfectly pure and holy in his spirit, but he was housed in a corruptible body of flesh. His inner man was incorruptible but his outer man was corruptible. His inner man had no shadow of darkness, but his outer man was subject to passions and appetites like all other men, which created a drive in him toward that which would be contrary to the spirit. Jesus, just like us, had to live a life of self denial in order to walk in holiness. I don't see any of the above in scripture David. So far as I can see he was stressed out by sinners coming against him; having to secret himself away at times after nearly being thrust off a cliff... or stoned. But resisting himself? I don't think so. How about "Lo I come in the volume of the book it is written of me. I delight to do Thy will O My God" To suggest that Jesus did not have a fallen nature is to say that Jesus did not live in any kind of self denial at all, but that he simply did what was natural for him, which is perfect, holy living. Exactly David. He didn't have to take up his cross daily and follow Jesus. He is Jesus and He literally went to the cross. We are the ones who do it the other way. I believe his spirit had that nature, of naturally doing what was right, but he was in a corruptible body of flesh that did not agree with the direction of his spirit. Where do you get the above? How did his body get corrupted? Ours are trained in unrighteousness. His was not. Hence, in the wilderness when he was fasting, he hungered and desired to turn rocks into bread. His spirit told him to resist the temptation. The devil suggested he turn rocks into bread; this was not his own suggestion. He resisted with the sword of the Spirit "Man does not live by bread alone but..." In the garden his fallen nature tempted him to sleep when he was suppose to fast and pray. It was not He who was sleeping, it was the disciples who could not watch and pray with Him for one hour. The prospect of the cross caused his flesh to cry out, to run away, and not to sacrifice himself for a people who all deserted him at the smallest sign of trouble. I don't read it that way David. What is unusual about the Lord of Life abhorring the prospect of physical death along with taking upon himself the fruit of evil. All the evil there ever was... Without a model of dualism, I truly do not know how to process all of these facts. Dualism provides the means to understand Paul's statement in Romans 7:17 in regards to sin, "Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." If this can be said concerning sin, how much more concerning temptation. Temptation is not a sin; a test is fine for those who overcome as Jesus did in the wilderness. When Jesus was tempted to sin, it was not him, but sin that dwelled in his flesh. As Paul says in Romans 7:25, "with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." How any of you avoid the dualism taught here is very strange to me. Modern theologians erroneously make dualism a dirty word. John wrote: I used to believe that man, apart from Christ, had no choice when it came to sin. I no longer believe that to be the case. Man does have a choice. Adam had a choice. Make sure you study Pelagianism very closely. You are moving close to that position. Such leads to moral government theology and open theism. Make sure that is where you want to be. David Miller. --"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Judy wrote: How so David; Christians are not supposed to have two natures operating ATST either because those in Christ have made a covenant agreement to die to the one and walk after the other. Judy, the very idea of dying to one and walking in the other is dualism. Otherwise, if you died to one, then you are dead. Paul speaks of putting off the old man, which is corrupt according to deceitful lusts. Paul says to put off the old man with his deeds. What can that instruction possibly mean except that there are two natures to man, one created after Christ Jesus, the new man, the inner man, and one created after the sinful nature in which the world operates, the old man, the outer man. Yes, we are to reckon it dead, but on a daily basis. Paul said, I die daily. He also wrote: 1 Corinthians 9:27 (27) But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. Two natures? Yeah. Keep one dead (the flesh) and do not live after it. Keep the other one (spirit) alive. Unfortunately, most people play around with the flesh and don't keep it dead. David Miller. -- Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man. (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
Re: [TruthTalk] Ministry at University of Florida
DONE. I would appreciate prayers for my daughter Christine at the University of Florida. She is under a great deal of persecution there. Last week Christinewas urged by a Senator to come speak to the Student Government Senate meeting, and so she went and spoke, asking, questioning, whether theLesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered (LGBT)Affairs office of the University was the right thing. Since then, three newspaper articles have come out maligning her and saying all kinds of falsehood...
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 doknow that David Miller would never espouse the same: for we can all agree that a sinning Savior would be anathema to us all.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. 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 Iam 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. 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 - From: Dean Moore To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 7:09 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature? - 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 naturethat is what one is saying John. No, Dean, it is not. Rather, it is what you hear us saying. Yourhearing, however,is influenced by your view of sin. That John and I and Debbie andLance, 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 perchto identify things from ours? I began myprevious post with anassurance that none of us view Jesus as a sinner; Johndid the same withhis; yet you continue to speak onlyfrom 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- ifGod 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 gaveknowledge to me-but at your level there is muchI 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
