Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
Such is my experience as well. -Original Message-From: Charles Perry Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 15:21:38 -0800Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey John, can you explain "heretical ignorance" to me? I always thought heretics claimed to more than others...not less! :-) Perry >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey >Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 16:35:34 -0500 > >Your heretical ignorance of the facts of scripture coupled with your >refusal to deal with the issues presented in past postings. The myth that >you function off the Holy Spirit in the interpretation of scripture is >herein debunked. Adoptionism is not a bibllical doctrine when applied to >Christ. > >So what's your problem? > >jd > >-Original Message- >From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org >Sent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 02:44:20 -0500 >Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Judy -- my point is this: if you reject the notion that Jesus Christ >and God are the same, then you believe that Jesus the man saved mankind >- man saving man. An impossibility. Perhaps Bill >could make my point clearer or Lance or Gary. > >The sacrifice had to be that of a man and Jesus overcame in the three areas >A&E surrendered to during his >time in the wilderness before His teaching and healing ministry and laying >down his physical life on the cross. Scripture tells us as much Heb 2:9 >says "But we see Jesus who was made a little lower than the angels for the >suffering of death" Now I know you don't believe that God the Eternal >Father is a "little lower than the angels" do you? Also God can not die, so >there was something different about His only begotten Son. Only another >man could overcome sin and pay our ransom - and it is written: > >"For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the >dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" >(1 Cor 15:21-22) > >So what is the problem JD??? > > > > > > >On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 10:09:52 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Especially in view of the foregoing. To argue that at some poi nt in time, > Jesus Christ became the Son of God is to preach the doctrine of Adoption. > You have man saving man instead of God saving man -- and that bothers >me. Jd >How can you call it "man saving man" when it is what God ordained from the >foundation of the world? Jesus is called many things in scripture >including "the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world" > >I don't believe this (man saving man) . you do if you believe that >he was not God in the flesh. jd > >This man saving man idea is a figment of your own imagination JD. If God >could have redeemed >mankind as God then Jesus would never have had to be born of the woman and >learn obedience >by suffering. It could have all been done from heaven. > > > > > > > > > > judyt >He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandment s > is a liar (1 John 2:4) -- "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] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
John, can you explain "heretical ignorance" to me? I always thought heretics claimed to more than others...not less! :-) Perry From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 16:35:34 -0500 Your heretical ignorance of the facts of scripture coupled with your refusal to deal with the issues presented in past postings. The myth that you function off the Holy Spirit in the interpretation of scripture is herein debunked.Adoptionism is not a bibllical doctrine when applied to Christ. So what's your problem? jd -Original Message- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 02:44:20 -0500 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy -- my point is this: if you reject the notion that Jesus Christ and God are the same, then you believe that Jesus the man saved mankind -man saving man. An impossibility. Perhaps Bill could make my point clearer or Lance or Gary. The sacrifice had to be that of a man and Jesus overcame in the three areas A&E surrendered to during his time in the wilderness before His teaching and healing ministry and laying down his physical life on the cross. Scripture tells us as much Heb 2:9 says "But we see Jesus who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death" Now I know you don't believe that God the Eternal Father is a "little lower than the angels" do you? Also God can not die, so there was something different about His only begotten Son. Only another man could overcome sin and pay our ransom - and it is written: "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor 15:21-22) So what is the problem JD??? On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 10:09:52 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Especially in view of the foregoing. To argue that at some point in time, Jesus Christ became the Son of God is to preach the doctrine of Adoption. You have man saving man instead of God saving man -- and that bothers me. Jd How can you call it "man saving man" when it is what God ordained from the foundation of the world? Jesus is called many things in scripture including "the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world" I don't believe this (man saving man) . you do if you believe that he was not God in the flesh. jd This man saving man idea is a figment of your own imagination JD. If God could have redeemed mankind as God then Jesus would never have had to be born of the woman and learn obedience by suffering. It could have all been done from heaven. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) -- "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] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
Adoptionism is a figment of your own extremely fertile imagination JD I have no part in any of it .. and no problems here. jt On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 16:35:34 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Your heretical ignorance of the facts of scripture coupled with your refusal to deal with the issues presented in past postings. The myth that you function off the Holy Spirit in the interpretation of scripture is herein debunked. Adoptionism is not a bibllical doctrine when applied to Christ. So what's your problem? jd From: Judy Taylor [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy -- my point is this: if you reject the notion that Jesus Christ and God are the same, then you believe that Jesus the man saved mankind - man saving man. An impossibility. Perhaps Bill could make my point clearer or Lance or Gary. The sacrifice had to be that of a man and Jesus overcame in the three areas A&E surrendered to during his time in the wilderness before His teaching and healing ministry and laying down his physical life on the cross. Scripture tells us as much Heb 2:9 says "But we see Jesus who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death" Now I know you don't believe that God the Eternal Father is a "little lower than the angels" do you? Also God can not die, so there was something different about His only begotten Son. Only another man could overcome sin and pay our ransom - and it is written: "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor 15:21-22) So what is the problem JD??? On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 10:09:52 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Especially in view of the foregoing. To argue that at some point in time, Jesus Christ became the Son of God is to preach the doctrine of Adoption. You have man saving man instead of God saving man -- and that bothers me. Jd How can you call it "man saving man" when it is what God ordained from the foundation of the world? Jesus is called many things in scripture including "the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world" I don't believe this (man saving man) . you do if you believe that he was not God in the flesh. jd This man saving man idea is a figment of your own imagination JD. If God could have redeemed mankind as God then Jesus would never have had to be born of the woman and learn obedience by suffering. It could have all been done from heaven. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4) judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
Your heretical ignorance of the facts of scripture coupled with your refusal to deal with the issues presented in past postings. The myth that you function off the Holy Spirit in the interpretation of scripture is herein debunked. Adoptionism is not a bibllical doctrine when applied to Christ. So what's your problem? jd -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 02:44:20 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy -- my point is this: if you reject the notion that Jesus Christ and God are the same, then you believe that Jesus the man saved mankind - man saving man. An impossibility. Perhaps Bill could make my point clearer or Lance or Gary. The sacrifice had to be that of a man and Jesus overcame in the three areas A&E surrendered to during his time in the wilderness before His teaching and healing ministry and laying down his physical life on the cross. Scripture tells us as much Heb 2:9 says "But we see Jesus who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death" Now I know you don't believe that God the Eternal Father is a "little lower than the angels" do you? Also God can not die, so there was something different about His only begotten Son. Only another man could overcome sin and pay our ransom - and it is written: "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor 15:21-22) So what is the problem JD??? On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 10:09:52 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Especially in view of the foregoing. To argue that at some point in time, Jesus Christ became the Son of God is to preach the doctrine of Adoption. You have man saving man instead of God saving man -- and that bothers me. Jd How can you call it "man saving man" when it is what God ordained from the foundation of the world? Jesus is called many things in scripture including "the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world" I don't believe this (man saving man) . you do if you believe that he was not God in the flesh. jd This man saving man idea is a figment of your own imagination JD. If God could have redeemed mankind as God then Jesus would never have had to be born of the woman and learn obedience by suffering. It could have all been done from heaven. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy -- my point is this: if you reject the notion that Jesus Christ and God are the same, then you believe that Jesus the man saved mankind - man saving man. An impossibility. Perhaps Bill could make my point clearer or Lance or Gary. The sacrifice had to be that of a man and Jesus overcame in the three areas A&E surrendered to during his time in the wilderness before His teaching and healing ministry and laying down his physical life on the cross. Scripture tells us as much Heb 2:9 says "But we see Jesus who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death" Now I know you don't believe that God the Eternal Father is a "little lower than the angels" do you? Also God can not die, so there was something different about His only begotten Son. Only another man could overcome sin and pay our ransom - and it is written: "For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor 15:21-22) So what is the problem JD??? On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 10:09:52 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Especially in view of the foregoing. To argue that at some point in time, Jesus Christ became the Son of God is to preach the doctrine of Adoption. You have man saving man instead of God saving man -- and that bothers me. Jd How can you call it "man saving man" when it is what God ordained from the foundation of the world? Jesus is called many things in scripture including "the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world" I don't believe this (man saving man) . you do if you believe that he was not God in the flesh. jd This man saving man idea is a figment of your own imagination JD. If God could have redeemed mankind as God then Jesus would never have had to be born of the woman and learn obedience by suffering. It could have all been done from heaven. judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
Good enough -Original Message-From: Terry Clifton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 19:45:33 -0600Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey I can clear that up in a hot minute. There is God, the Father, and there is God, the Son, and there is God the Holy Spirit. Three persons, one mind, one goal.[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy -- my point is this: if you reject the notion that Jesus Christ and God are the same, then you believe that Jesus the man saved mankind - man saving man. An impossibility. Perhaps Bill could make my point clearer or Lance or Gary. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 10:44:05 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 10:09:52 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Especially in view of the foregoing. To argue that at some point in time, Jesus Christ became the Son of God is to preach the doctrine of Adoption. You have man saving man instead of God saving man -- and that bothers me. Jd How can you call it "man saving man" when it is what God ordained from the foundation of the world? Jesus is called many things in scripture including "the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world" I don't believe this (man saving man) . you do if you believe that he was not God in the flesh. jd This man saving man idea is a figment of your own imagination JD. If God could have redeemed mankind as God then Jesus would never have had to be born of the woman and learn obedience by suffering. It could have all been done from heaven.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
I can clear that up in a hot minute. There is God, the Father, and there is God, the Son, and there is God the Holy Spirit. Three persons, one mind, one goal. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Judy -- my point is this: if you reject the notion that Jesus Christ and God are the same, then you believe that Jesus the man saved mankind - man saving man. An impossibility. Perhaps Bill could make my point clearer or Lance or Gary. -Original Message- From: Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 10:44:05 -0500 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 10:09:52 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Especially in view of the foregoing. To argue that at some point in time, Jesus Christ became the Son of God is to preach the doctrine of Adoption. You have man saving man instead of God saving man -- and that bothers me. Jd How can you call it "man saving man" when it is what God ordained from the foundation of the world? Jesus is called many things in scripture including "the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world" I don't believe this (man saving man) . you do if you believe that he was not God in the flesh. jd This man saving man idea is a figment of your own imagination JD. If God could have redeemed mankind as God then Jesus would never have had to be born of the woman and learn obedience by suffering. It could have all been done from heaven.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 09:43:46 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I cannot offer enlightenment to you, Judy. Are you saying that you can not explain to me what you are saying? Yes - you are not one who takes the counsel of others -- at least others on TT I'm not seeking counsel JD, I would just like to understand your point - that's all. the way of the fool is wise in his own sight, but the wise seek counsel. The above makes no more sense than your original msg as a whole; your point is not exactly God's counsel JD. More to the point, you read my comments with a view to opposition and for no other reason - that is apparent. So you continue to judge my motives JD and find it impossible to believe that I might just enjoy dialoguing with another believe outside of an evil motive? Yes, that would be my position. I see absolutely no joy in your writings. You should be excited then to know that I downloaded 10,000 smileys to show you some "genuine" joy but can't figure out how to use them with Juno. Then you read them with a jaundiced eye - just like beauty is in the eye of the beholder; everything cannot be joybells JD, but that is not an indictment against me personally. Joybells ?? There is no joy in your instructional posts at all. No peace. Definitely no discernment on your part JD, none at all - because I have a lot of peace, in fact wouldn't have made it through the stresses of the last months along with our grandau's leukemia at all aside from His peace and the prayers of saints who love rather than judge. What bothers me about the "begotten" as used in John 3:16 AND 1:14 & 18 (monogenes) is that is means "unique" and has no reference to his physical birth. It means "unique" in the sense that He is the only one of a kind having a human mother and a Holy Spirit Father and if one reads in context this word does have to do with Him being born of the woman. the three scriptures I gave you have nothing to do with His birth. You are an Adoptionist and I am not. Wait a minute - who or what is an "adoptionist?" Wait a minute. Did you just ignore my textual argument?? And regarding the question, "Who is an 'adoptionist," why that would be you. God is always the Father but Christ is not always the Son --- an adoption of some sort has taken place in this line of "reasoning." You are an adoptionist. Not me JD; my belief is that He was born of the woman. He has a human mother and a divine Father. God (the Father) does not have mortal parents. You misunderstand my belief when you ask Why does it bother you that he layed aside the glory he had with the Father, emptied Himself and took the form of a man? Well possibly this is why I am asking you to clarify what you are saying for me because at thispoint it makes no sense. What makes no sense? And, do you believe that you must understand HOW something happens before you can accept that it did, in fact, happen? You are not explaining how anything happens JD; you are just making statements like this is how it is that are void of explanation. The passage in Philip 2 speaks of changing form -- not of ceasing to be God. He did take upon Himself the form of a servant but he also layed aside the glory He had with the Father. Even in "servant form," "we" beheld his glory as the unique one (John 1:14) You didn't behold it personally JD. Are you thinking that I believe I was actually there? You cannot possibly be that ridiculous. So why did you write this? I was responding to the way you wrote it, you should know by this time that your meaning (for me) is unintelligible. the apostle John was present at the Mount of Transfiguration as Christine has pointed out already and He was seen in a measure of glory there along with Moses and Elijah. And all this happened when Christ was where (earth) and in what (the flesh). It was a one time thing JD; he didn't walk about like that and Mos
Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
Judy -- my point is this: if you reject the notion that Jesus Christ and God are the same, then you believe that Jesus the man saved mankind - man saving man. An impossibility. Perhaps Bill could make my point clearer or Lance or Gary. -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 10:44:05 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 10:09:52 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Especially in view of the foregoing. To argue that at some point in time, Jesus Christ became the Son of God is to preach the doctrine of Adoption. You have man saving man instead of God saving man -- and that bothers me. Jd How can you call it "man saving man" when it is what God ordained from the foundation of the world? Jesus is called many things in scripture including "the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world" I don't believe this (man saving man) . you do if you believe that he was not God in the flesh. jd This man saving man idea is a figment of your own imagination JD. If God could have redeemed mankind as God then Jesus would never have had to be born of the woman and learn obedience by suffering. It could have all been done from heaven.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 10:30:31 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 09:43:46 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I cannot offer enlightenment to you, Judy. Are you saying that you can not explain to me what you are saying? Yes - you are not one who takes the counsel of others -- at least others on TT I'm not seeking counsel JD, I would just like to understand your point - that's all. the way of the fool is wise in his own sight, but the wise seek counsel. More to the point, you read my comments with a view to opposition and for no other reason - that is apparent. So you continue to judge my motives JD and find it impossible to believe that I might just enjoy dialoguing with another believe outside of an evil motive? Yes, that would be my position. I see absolutely no joy in your writings. Then you read them with a jaundiced eye - just like beauty is in the eye of the beholder; everything cannot be joybells JD, but that is not an indictment against me personally. Joybells ?? There is no joy in your instructional posts at all. No peace. What bothers me about the "begotten" as used in John 3:16 AND 1:14 & 18 (monogenes) is that is means "unique" and has no reference to his physical birth. It means "unique" in the sense that He is the only one of a kind having a human mother and a Holy Spirit Father and if one reads in context this word does have to do with Him being born of the woman. the three scriptures I gave you have nothing to do with His birth. You are an Adoptionist and I am not. Wait a minute - who or what is an "adoptionist?" Wait a minute. Did you just ignore my textual argument?? And regarding the question, "Who is an 'adoptionist," why that would be you. God is always the Father but Christ is not always the Son --- an adoption of some sort has taken place in this line of "reasoning." You are an adoptionist. You misunderstand my belief when you ask Why does it bother you that he layed aside the glory he had with the Father, emptied Himself and took the form of a man? Well possibly this is why I am asking you to clarify what you are saying for me because at thispoint it makes no sense. What makes no sense? And, do you believe that you must understand HOW something happens before you can accept that it did, in fact, happen? The passage in Philip 2 speaks of changing form -- not of ceasing to be God. He did take upon Himself the form of a servant but he also layed aside the glory He had with the Father. Even in "servant form," "we" beheld his glory as the unique one (John 1:14) You didn't behold it personally JD. Are you thinking that I believe I was actually there? You cannot possibly be that ridiculous. So why did you write this? the apostle John was present at the Mount of Transfiguration as Christine has pointed out already and He was seen in a measure of glory there along with Moses and Elijah. And all this happened when Christ was where (earth) and in what (the flesh). If He appeared here the way He was in heaven noone would be able to stand in His presence. Look at the reaction of Israel when Moses went up the mountain to meet with God. They were terrified and didn't want any part of it. No one is saying this Then what exactly are you saying JD Christ was fully God and man. We know this to be true because it is just impossible to think of Him as half man and half God -- phraseology that is as ridiculous as saying he was part man and part God. I thought that was pretty clear. To reject this view is to argue for Adoption, to set up the scenario that man died for man and that the Great Confession is not about Christ being deity as we declare his Sonship. Again, this has nothing to do with anyone's presentation. I incorporate John 1:14 into the discussion -- you ignore it for what ever reason. I'm not ignoring anything JD. To date, you have offered no explanation for John's claim that he saw , in Christ, the glory as of the only begotten . Until you show me how you INCORPORATE this passage into your thinking, I am left with no choice but to think you ignore the passage. I don't need to because I have no agenda and nothing to prove so I can receive ALL scripture - every Word and nothing offends me. I love His Law. Deegan refuses to answer questions; Dean gets angry ; and Judy uses very little scripture as she develops your sense of biblical interpretation. If you accepted all scripture, then you would say "Amen brother John " and move from John 1:14 to the
Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
I think this refers to Israel beginning with John the B. I am open to suggestions. That seems to be the context of (John 1:14ff). the Jews had prophetical foundation to accept Him as the Christ of God and didn't. who is 'we', Bro? (think about this, Christine:) On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:50:02 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The first chapter of John's gospel makes it clear that God (Christ) came to "his people" (in this case they are ONLY the people of GOD). The Word, pronounced to be God Himself in v 1 became flesh and in the flesh, we beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten (v 14). judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 10:09:52 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Especially in view of the foregoing. To argue that at some point in time, Jesus Christ became the Son of God is to preach the doctrine of Adoption. You have man saving man instead of God saving man -- and that bothers me. Jd How can you call it "man saving man" when it is what God ordained from the foundation of the world? Jesus is called many things in scripture including "the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world" I don't believe this (man saving man) . you do if you believe that he was not God in the flesh. jd This man saving man idea is a figment of your own imagination JD. If God could have redeemed mankind as God then Jesus would never have had to be born of the woman and learn obedience by suffering. It could have all been done from heaven.
Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 09:43:46 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I cannot offer enlightenment to you, Judy. Are you saying that you can not explain to me what you are saying? Yes - you are not one who takes the counsel of others -- at least others on TT I'm not seeking counsel JD, I would just like to understand your point - that's all. More to the point, you read my comments with a view to opposition and for no other reason - that is apparent. So you continue to judge my motives JD and find it impossible to believe that I might just enjoy dialoguing with another believe outside of an evil motive? Yes, that would be my position. I see absolutely no joy in your writings. Then you read them with a jaundiced eye - just like beauty is in the eye of the beholder; everything cannot be joybells JD, but that is not an indictment against me personally. What bothers me about the "begotten" as used in John 3:16 AND 1:14 & 18 (monogenes) is that is means "unique" and has no reference to his physical birth. It means "unique" in the sense that He is the only one of a kind having a human mother and a Holy Spirit Father and if one reads in context this word does have to do with Him being born of the woman. the three scriptures I gave you have nothing to do with His birth. You are an Adoptionist and I am not. Wait a minute - who or what is an "adoptionist?" You misunderstand my belief when you ask Why does it bother you that he layed aside the glory he had with the Father, emptied Himself and took the form of a man? Well possibly this is why I am asking you to clarify what you are saying for me because at this point it makes no sense. The passage in Philip 2 speaks of changing form -- not of ceasing to be God. He did take upon Himself the form of a servant but he also layed aside the glory He had with the Father. Even in "servant form," "we" beheld his glory as the unique one (John 1:14) You didn't behold it personally JD. The apostle John was present at the Mount of Transfiguration as Christine has pointed out already and He was seen in a measure of glory there along with Moses and Elijah. If He appeared here the way He was in heaven noone would be able to stand in His presence. Look at the reaction of Israel when Moses went up the mountain to meet with God. They were terrified and didn't want any part of it. No one is saying this Then what exactly are you saying JD Again, this has nothing to do with anyone's presentation. I incorporate John 1:14 into the discussion -- you ignore it for what ever reason. I'm not ignoring anything JD. I don't need to because I have no agenda and nothing to prove so I can receive ALL scripture - every Word and nothing offends me. I love His Law. More than this, it says NOTHING OF LAYING ASIDE THE GLORY OF GOD. As a member of the Godhead what other kind of glory would He be laying aside? He was God in the flesh. That is the teaching of scripture. Look to the phrase "And Jesus Christ came in the flesh." "Jesus Christ" for that writer is God and , thus, the writer sees value in telling us that Jesus Christ came in the flesh -- an otherwise redundant comment. More than this, such is the foundation stone of the Christian Confession (cf. I Jo 4:2.) I don't deny that Jesus Christ came in the flesh JD or that he was also the "son of man" but what does this have to do with his laying down the glory He had with the Father as per Phil 2:7 when he made himself of no reputation and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men ... which literally means emptying himself and divesting himself of his visible glory. If he actually came as God he would hardly have been "of no reputation" The first chapter of John's gospel makes it clear that God (Christ) came to "his people" (in this case they are ONLY the people of GOD). The Word, pronounced to be God Himself in v 1 became flesh and in the flesh, we beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten (v 14). Yeah! Well some remained, He was anointed and He is/was holy, unlike the generation He walked amongst. That he layed aside His form and took on the form of a servant does not bother me in the slightest. But it is heretical to then argue that He ceased to be God. I don't r
Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 00:28:29 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:50:02 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I cannot offer enlightenment to you, Judy.
Are you saying that you can not explain to me what you are saying?
Yes - you are not one who takes the counsel of others -- at least others on TT
More to the point, you read my comments with a view to opposition and for no other reason -that is apparent.
So you continue to judge my motives JD and find it impossible to believe that I might just enjoy dialoguing with
another believe outside of an evil motive? Yes, that would be my position. I see absolutely no joy in your writings.
What bothers me about the "begotten" as used in John 3:16 AND 1:14 & 18 (monogenes) is that is means "unique" and has no reference to his physical birth.
It means "unique" in the sense that He is the only one of a kind having a human mother and a Holy Spirit Father
and if one reads in context this word does have to do with Him being born of the woman.
the three scriptures I gave you have nothing to do with His birth. You are an Adoptionist and I am not.
You misunderstand my belief when you ask Why does it bother you that he layed aside the glory he had with the Father, emptied Himself and took the form of a man? The passage in Philip 2 speaks of changing form -- not of ceasing to be God.
He did take upon Himself the form of a servant but he also layed aside the glory He had with the Father. Even in "servant form," "we" beheld his glory as the unique one (John 1:14)
If He appeared here the way He was in heaven noone No one is saying this
would be able to stand in His presence. Look at the reaction of
Israel when Moses went up the mountain to meet with God. They were terrified and didn't want any part of it. Again, this has nothing to do with anyone's presentation. I incorporate John 1:14 into the discussion -- you ignore it for what ever reason.
More than this, it says NOTHING OF LAYING ASIDE THE GLORY OF GOD.
As a member of the Godhead what other kind of glory would He be laying aside?He was God in the flesh. That is the teaching of scripture. Look to the phrase "And Jesus Christ came in the flesh." "Jesus Christ" for that writer is God and , thus, the writer sees value in telling us that Jesus Christ came in the flesh -- an otherwise redundant comment. More than this, such is the foundation stone of the Christian Confession (cf. I Jo 4:2.)
The first chapter of John's gospel makes it clear that God (Christ) came to "his people" (in this case they are ONLY the people of GOD). The Word, pronounced to be God Himself in v 1 became flesh and in the flesh, we beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten (v 14).
Yeah! Well some remained, He was anointed and He is/was holy, unlike the generation He walked amongst.
That he layed aside His form and took on the form of a servant does not bother me in the slightest. But it is heretical to then argue that He ceased to be God.
I don't remember arguing that specifically - what I have been saying is that while here He was born as a human baby, he had to grow and learn certain things as a child and He walked as a man anointed by the Spirit of God in total dependence upon the Father. If He were walking around as "wholly God" How would He then have been an example that we could follow (in His steps)? Humility. That is how it all happened. God humbled Himself and did these things. Look at what Christ did here on earth that declare His divinity. First, he is oberved to be divine. Secondly, He forgives sin -- an exclusive function of God. He continued to have a memory of the way things were before the foundations of the world. He accepted worship. He continued to command legions of angels. And He allowed for being the Son of God
, making himself equal to God. The Great Confession of Peter's ("Thou are the Christ, the son of the Living God') is completely misunderstood if one does not see that this is a confession of His diety and attachment to the God of Israel. The Confession is meaningless if not inclusive of divine nature.
Especially in view of the foregoing. To argue that at some point in time, Jesus Christ became the Son of God is to preach the doctrine of Adoption. You have man saving man instead of God saving man -- and that bothers me. Jd
How can you call it "man saving man" when it is what God ordained from the foundation of the world? Jesus is called many things in scripture including "the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world"
Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
I think this refers to Israel beginning with John the B. I am open to suggestions. That seems to be the context of (John 1:14ff). the Jews had prophetical foundation to accept Him as the Christ of God and didn't. who is 'we', Bro? (think about this, Christine:) On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:50:02 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The first chapter of John's gospel makes it clear that God (Christ) came to "his people" (in this case they are ONLY the people of GOD). The Word, pronounced to be God Himself in v 1 became flesh and in the flesh, we beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten (v 14). judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
-Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 00:28:29 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:50:02 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I cannot offer enlightenment to you, Judy.
Are you saying that you can not explain to me what you are saying?
Yes - you are not one who takes the counsel of others -- at least others on TT
More to the point, you read my comments with a view to opposition and for no other reason -that is apparent.
So you continue to judge my motives JD and find it impossible to believe that I might just enjoy dialoguing with
another believe outside of an evil motive? Yes, that would be my position. I see absolutely no joy in your writings.
What bothers me about the "begotten" as used in John 3:16 AND 1:14 & 18 (monogenes) is that is means "unique" and has no reference to his physical birth.
It means "unique" in the sense that He is the only one of a kind having a human mother and a Holy Spirit Father
and if one reads in context this word does have to do with Him being born of the woman.
the three scriptures I gave you have nothing to do with His birth. You are an Adoptionist and I am not.
You misunderstand my belief when you ask Why does it bother you that he layed aside the glory he had with the Father, emptied Himself and took the form of a man? The passage in Philip 2 speaks of changing form -- not of ceasing to be God.
He did take upon Himself the form of a servant but he also layed aside the glory He had with the Father. Even in "servant form," "we" beheld his glory as the unique one (John 1:14)
If He appeared here the way He was in heaven noone No one is saying this
would be able to stand in His presence. Look at the reaction of
Israel when Moses went up the mountain to meet with God. They were terrified and didn't want any part of it. Again, this has nothing to do with anyone's presentation. I incorporate John 1:14 into the discussion -- you ignore it for what ever reason.
More than this, it says NOTHING OF LAYING ASIDE THE GLORY OF GOD.
As a member of the Godhead what other kind of glory would He be laying aside?He was God in the flesh. That is the teaching of scripture. Look to the phrase "And Jesus Christ came in the flesh." "Jesus Christ" for that writer is God and , thus, the writer sees value in telling us that Jesus Christ came in the flesh -- an otherwise redundant comment. More than this, such is the foundation stone of the Christian Confession (cf. I Jo 4:2.)
The first chapter of John's gospel makes it clear that God (Christ) came to "his people" (in this case they are ONLY the people of GOD). The Word, pronounced to be God Himself in v 1 became flesh and in the flesh, we beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten (v 14).
Yeah! Well some remained, He was anointed and He is/was holy, unlike the generation He walked amongst.
That he layed aside His form and took on the form of a servant does not bother me in the slightest. But it is heretical to then argue that He ceased to be God.
I don't remember arguing that specifically - what I have been saying is that while here He was born as a human baby, he had to grow and learn certain things as a child and He walked as a man anointed by the Spirit of God in total dependence upon the Father. If He were walking around as "wholly God" How would He then have been an example that we could follow (in His steps)? Humility. That is how it all happened. God humbled Himself and did these things. Look at what Christ did here on earth that declare His divinity. First, he is oberved to be divine. Secondly, He forgives sin -- an exclusive function of God. He continued to have a memory of the way things were before the foundations of the world. He accepted worship. He continued to command legions of angels. And He allowed for being the Son of God
, making himself equal to God. The Great Confession of Peter's ("Thou are the Christ, the son of the Living God') is completely misunderstood if one does not see that this is a confession of His diety and attachment to the God of Israel. The Confession is meaningless if not inclusive of divine nature.
Especially in view of the foregoing. To argue that at some point in time, Jesus Christ became the Son of God is to preach the doctrine of Adoption. You have man saving man instead of God saving man -- and that bothers me. Jd
How can you call it "man saving man" when it is what God ordained from the foundation of the world? Jesus is called many things in scripture including "the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world" I don
Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
We isn't JD because he never did behold God the Word walking about in a flesh body in his generation. On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 21:25:39 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: who is 'we', Bro? (think about this, Christine:) On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:50:02 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The first chapter of John's gospel makes it clear that God (Christ) came to "his people" (in this case they are ONLY the people of GOD). The Word, pronounced to be God Himself in v 1 became flesh and in the flesh, we beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten (v 14). judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:50:02 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I cannot offer enlightenment to you, Judy. Are you saying that you can not explain to me what you are saying? More to the point, you read my comments with a view to opposition and for no other reason -that is apparent. So you continue to judge my motives JD and find it impossible to believe that I might just enjoy dialoguing with another believe outside of an evil motive? What bothers me about the "begotten" as used in John 3:16 AND 1:14 & 18 (monogenes) is that is means "unique" and has no reference to his physical birth. It means "unique" in the sense that He is the only one of a kind having a human mother and a Holy Spirit Father and if one reads in context this word does have to do with Him being born of the woman. You misunderstand my belief when you ask Why does it bother you that he layed aside the glory he had with the Father, emptied Himself and took the form of a man? The passage in Philip 2 speaks of changing form -- not of ceasing to be God. He did take upon Himself the form of a servant but he also layed aside the glory He had with the Father. If He appeared here the way He was in heaven noone would be able to stand in His presence. Look at the reaction of Israel when Moses went up the mountain to meet with God. They were terrified and didn't want any part of it. More than this, it says NOTHING OF LAYING ASIDE THE GLORY OF GOD. As a member of the Godhead what other kind of glory would He be laying aside? The first chapter of John's gospel makes it clear that God (Christ) came to "his people" (in this case they are ONLY the people of GOD). The Word, pronounced to be God Himself in v 1 became flesh and in the flesh, we beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten (v 14). Yeah! Well some remained, He was anointed and He is/was holy, unlike the generation He walked amongst. That he layed aside His form and took on the form of a servant does not bother me in the slightest. But it is heretical to then argue that He ceased to be God. I don't remember arguing that specifically - what I have been saying is that while here He was born as a human baby, he had to grow and learn certain things as a child and He walked as a man anointed by the Spirit of God in total dependence upon the Father. If He were walking around as "wholly God" How would He then have been an example that we could follow (in His steps)? Especially in view of the foregoing. To argue that at some point in time, Jesus Christ became the Son of God is to preach the doctrine of Adoption. You have man saving man instead of God saving man -- and that bothers me. Jd How can you call it "man saving man" when it is what God ordained from the foundation of the world? Jesus is called many things in scripture including "the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world" -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 06:59:15 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey What are you saying here JD? I've read it through and was no more enlightened at the end than before I began. What bothers you about Jesus the man being "begotten" of the Father, rather than made like Adam or procreated from two human beings like us? Why does it bother you that he layed aside the glory he had with the Father, emptied Himself and took the form of a man? Is your faith rooted in ontology? On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:49:51 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have read a number of articles concerning the Sonship of Christ as the result of some action associated with His incarnation. The Apostle John clearly understood Christ to be the Son of God and God at the same time. Those who disagree find the sonship established with His birth, others see it in His resurrection and still others see the sonship vested in the ascension. All of these considerations imply that there was a time when Christ was not the son of God. I might add that these very people believe that Christ was not Son of God at a time in history when God WAS the Father --- few argue that God was ever not the Father. If God has always been the Father but Christ's Sonship is not an extension of His eternal nature, then adoption is the only solution. The silliness that "begotten" has to do with "birthing" as oppose
Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
do you believe (because) they saw God in the flesh? On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 20:42:36 -0800 (PST) Christine Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Isn't "we" all those who saw Jesus in the flesh? ||
Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
Or is it the three who saw Jesus on the mount of transfiguration? I thought about that right after I hit "Send." Sorry about responding to myself, but perhaps you will understand, Gary. ;-)Christine Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Isn't "we" all those who saw Jesus in the flesh? What's your point, Gary?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: who is 'we', Bro? (think about this, Christine:) On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:50:02 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The first chapter of John's gospel makes it clear that God (Christ) came to "his people" (in this case they are ONLY the people of GOD). The Word, pronounced to be God Himself in v 1 became flesh and in the flesh, we beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten (v 14). Yahoo! Personals Let fate take it's course directly to your email. See who's waiting for you Yahoo! Personals Yahoo! Personals Single? There's someone we'd like you to meet. Lots of someones, actually. Yahoo! Personals
Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
Isn't "we" all those who saw Jesus in the flesh? What's your point, Gary?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: who is 'we', Bro? (think about this, Christine:) On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:50:02 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The first chapter of John's gospel makes it clear that God (Christ) came to "his people" (in this case they are ONLY the people of GOD). The Word, pronounced to be God Himself in v 1 became flesh and in the flesh, we beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten (v 14). Yahoo! Personals Let fate take it's course directly to your email. See who's waiting for you Yahoo! Personals
Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
who is 'we', Bro? (think about this, Christine:) On Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:50:02 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The first chapter of John's gospel makes it clear that God (Christ) came to "his people" (in this case they are ONLY the people of GOD). The Word, pronounced to be God Himself in v 1 became flesh and in the flesh, we beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten (v 14).
Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
I cannot offer enlightenment to you, Judy. More to the point, you read my comments with a view to opposition and for no other reason -that is apparent. What bothers me about the "begotten" as used in John 3:16 AND 1:14 & 18 (monogenes) is that is means "unique" and has no reference to his physical birth. You misunderstand my belief when you ask Why does it bother you that he layed aside the glory he had with the Father, emptied Himself and took the form of a man? The passage in Philip 2 speaks of changing form -- not of ceasing to be God. More than this, it says NOTHING OF LAYING ASIDE THE GLORY OF GOD. The first chapter of John's gospel makes it clear that God (Christ) came to "his people" (in this case they are ONLY the people of GOD). The Word, pronounced to be God Himself in v 1 became flesh and in the flesh, we beheld His glory, the glory of the only begotten (v 14). That he layed aside His form and took on the form of a servant does not bother me in the slightest. But it is heretical to then argue that He ceased to be God. Especially in view of the foregoing. To argue that at some point in time, Jesus Christ became the Son of God is to preach the doctrine of Adoption. You have man saving man instead of God saving man -- and that bothers me. Jd -Original Message-From: Judy Taylor <jandgtaylor1@juno.com>To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgCc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.orgSent: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 06:59:15 -0500Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey What are you saying here JD? I've read it through and was no more enlightened at the end than before I began. What bothers you about Jesus the man being "begotten" of the Father, rather than made like Adam or procreated from two human beings like us? Why does it bother you that he layed aside the glory he had with the Father, emptied Himself and took the form of a man? Is your faith rooted in ontology? On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:49:51 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have read a number of articles concerning the Sonship of Christ as the result of some action associated with His incarnation. The Apostle John clearly understood Christ to be the Son of God and God at the same time. Those who disagree find the sonship established with His birth, others see it in His resurrection and still others see the sonship vested in the ascension. All of these considerations imply that there was a time when Christ was not the son of God. I might add that these very people believe that Christ was not Son of God at a time in history when God WAS the Father --- few argue that God was ever not the Father. If God has always been the Father but Christ's Sonship is not an extension of His eternal nature, then adoption is the only solution. The silliness that "begotten" has to do with "birthing" as opposed to "uniqueness" is at the center of this heresy. At this time of year, we celebrate much more than the birth of Christ. We , in fact, celebrate the coming of God into our world - or perhaps I should say "into His world." We have decided, each of us, to worship the man Jesus precisely because He was and is and will always be GOD. If God was completely folded into this man [Christ] then God acted as man to save man. There can be no eternal value in the salvation of man by man. There can be no demand to worship Christ for the same reason. But few make this argument. On the other hand, many argue that Christ emptied Himself of being God, took on our form, and became the savior of mankind. There is no difference between the first consideration and the second. There is no alternative (other than the heretical) to the notion that God in Christ experienced what seemed to an impossibility (for God) and died so that all might live. His death has eternal value because He is (and was) God. God dying for man when coupled with the resurrection and the ascension&nbs p; [ both functions of a LIVING God ] is one thing. Man dying for man is something else and far less profound. To change form as God , is reasonable. To cease to be God for some grand purpose or to become God when one is not God is to believe in that which cannot be. I cannot stop being who I am, in essence. And I cannot become what I am not. Neither can God, IMO, because of the ontology of the circumstance. the point is this: the Great God Almighty accomplished His mightiest work in an event that stripped Him of all that we would consider to be His essence !!! Only God could survive such an event. Hence, only God could actually save man -- and that was His intention from the beginning of the foundations of the world. Thank you Jesus Pastor Smithson
Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
What are you saying here JD? I've read it through and was no more enlightened at the end than before I began. What bothers you about Jesus the man being "begotten" of the Father, rather than made like Adam or procreated from two human beings like us? Why does it bother you that he layed aside the glory he had with the Father, emptied Himself and took the form of a man? Is your faith rooted in ontology? On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:49:51 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have read a number of articles concerning the Sonship of Christ as the result of some action associated with His incarnation. The Apostle John clearly understood Christ to be the Son of God and God at the same time. Those who disagree find the sonship established with His birth, others see it in His resurrection and still others see the sonship vested in the ascension. All of these considerations imply that there was a time when Christ was not the son of God. I might add that these very people believe that Christ was not Son of God at a time in history when God WAS the Father --- few argue that God was ever not the Father. If God has always been the Father but Christ's Sonship is not an extension of His eternal nature, then adoption is the only solution. The silliness that "begotten" has to do with "birthing" as opposed to "uniqueness" is at the center of this heresy. At this time of year, we celebrate much more than the birth of Christ. We , in fact, celebrate the coming of God into our world - or perhaps I should say "into His world." We have decided, each of us, to worship the man Jesus precisely because He was and is and will always be GOD. If God was completely folded into this man [Christ] then God acted as man to save man. There can be no eternal value in the salvation of man by man. There can be no demand to worship Christ for the same reason. But few make this argument. On the other hand, many argue that Christ emptied Himself of being God, took on our form, and became the savior of mankind. There is no difference between the first consideration and the second. There is no alternative (other than the heretical) to the notion that God in Christ experienced what seemed to an impossibility (for God) and died so that all might live. His death has eternal value because He is (and was) God. God dying for man when coupled with the resurrection and the ascension [ both functions of a LIVING God ] is one thing. Man dying for man is something else and far less profound. To change form as God , is reasonable. To cease to be God for some grand purpose or to become God when one is not God is to believe in that which cannot be. I cannot stop being who I am, in essence. And I cannot become what I am not. Neither can God, IMO, because of the ontology of the circumstance. the point is this: the Great God Almighty accomplished His mightiest work in an event that stripped Him of all that we would consider to be His essence !!! Only God could survive such an event. Hence, only God could actually save man -- and that was His intention from the beginning of the foundations of the world. Thank you Jesus Pastor Smithson judyt He that says "I know Him" and doesn't keep His Commandments is a liar (1 John 2:4)
Re: [TruthTalk] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
DAVEH: Do you believe Adam & Eve were predestined to transgress? [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hence, only God could actually save man -- and that was His intention from the beginning of the foundations of the world. Thank you Jesus Pastor Smithson -- ~~~ 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] The Eternal Sonship and the Adoption heresey
I have read a number of articles concerning the Sonship of Christ as the result of some action associated with His incarnation. The Apostle John clearly understood Christ to be the Son of God and God at the same time. Those who disagree find the sonship established with His birth, others see it in His resurrection and still others see the sonship vested in the ascension. All of these considerations imply that there was a time when Christ was not the son of God. I might add that these very people believe that Christ was not Son of God at a time in history when God WAS the Father --- few argue that God was ever not the Father. If God has always been the Father but Christ's Sonship is not an extension of His eternal nature, then adoption is the only solution. The silliness that "begotten" has to do with "birthing" as opposed to "uniqueness" is at the center of this heresy. At this time of year, we celebrate much more than the birth of Christ. We , in fact, celebrate the coming of God into our world - or perhaps I should say "into His world." We have decided, each of us, to worship the man Jesus precisely because He was and is and will always be GOD. If God was completely folded into this man [Christ] then God acted as man to save man. There can be no eternal value in the salvation of man by man. There can be no demand to worship Christ for the same reason. But few make this argument. On the other hand, many argue that Christ emptied Himself of being God, took on our form, and became the savior of mankind. There is no difference between the first consideration and the second. There is no alternative (other than the heretical) to the notion that God in Christ experienced what seemed to an impossibility (for God) and died so that all might live. His death has eternal value because He is (and was) God. God dying for man when coupled with the resurrection and the ascension [ both functions of a LIVING God ] is one thing. Man dying for man is something else and far less profound. To change form as God , is reasonable. To cease to be God for some grand purpose or to become God when one is not God is to believe in that which cannot be. I cannot stop being who I am, in essence. And I cannot become what I am not. Neither can God, IMO, because of the ontology of the circumstance. the point is this: the Great God Almighty accomplished His mightiest work in an event that stripped Him of all that we would consider to be His essence !!! Only God could survive such an event. Hence, only God could actually save man -- and that was His intention from the beginning of the foundations of the world. Thank you Jesus Pastor Smithson
