Re: [TruthTalk] Comments on Luke 2.52
In a message dated 3/13/2004 10:12:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Malachi he says "I am the Lord, I change not" Actually, judyt, you apparently misquoted this verse. Apparently it says, I am the Lord, I change not my mind." It is scripture that tells us that the Lord repented that he ever made man --- not me. Again, I benefit more when someone tells me where I am going wrong with the scripture I have instead of using other scripture to defeat my scripture. In time, you will at least appreciate the fact that nothing I will say in any email discussion is speculation apart from some kind of biblical base. If I am wrong, it is because I am misunderstanding those scriptures. But I am packing for a trip --- JUST CAN'T PUT THIS LIST BEHIND ME. The discussion is great and a real blessing to me --- inspite of the differences. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Comments on Luke 2.52
In a message dated 3/13/2004 7:20:20 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What a remarkably transparent email!! All should undertake to pray for this meeting today with his son. Blessings, Lance Actually, I will be at his house on Sunday evening. He and I will be together all of next week. All of the children are Christian and excited about the lord. He considers himself a Christian and I am not saying he is not BUT his walk has not included the experience we all share in the Spirit. He is 36 but he is still my boy and the oldest of the three sons. Anyway. Thank you and pray that God will make what I say work in his life. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Comments on Luke 2.52
In a message dated 3/13/2004 3:44:45 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John says Although He had emptied Himself of the nature of God What scripture supports this theory? Kevin, understand that I am not standing in concrete on this idea that God had something to learn about his human creation. And it is not a question that should cause deep concern on anyone's part. It is not germane to faith - the discussion may be detrimental to such. So let's me careful here. Scripture? Well, in Old Testament scripture, God is pictured as one who can change his mind -- he repented that he made man. If the biblical author meant what he said, we (I) can conclude that God can change his mind. That he sees, learns, considers, and even changes. In Phip 2, Christ empties himself and becomes man. The Heb writer says that he became like us in every way. So the very nature of his existence changed for a time while on this earth. He was tempted and sinned not. That victory is completely meaningless to me if he overcame Satan's advance by powers and authorities that are not available to me (to us.) God did not sin --- big deal. God, who is not like us at all, emptied Himself, lived the same life He has ordered us to live, and did what we keep saying that we cannot do --- he never committed a sin. That is a bid deal. If he lived his life as I do' if he was victorious by the same powers available to me, then my failure to imitate his victory is my fault. I can never say, "I am only human," as an offering for why I am an unrighteous servant because Christ was human and he did what God charged him to do. I believe that the life of Christ (and his success over sin) condemns me because it leaves without excuse; His death and resurrection solve that problem. Actually, I think I got off track a little here. I am trying to get ready for a trip to visit my wayward son. I am not as focused as I should be. I will be gone for a week so I may not get back to anyone for a while. Maybe I can sneak in a response or two before I leave this afternoon. We will see. Does any of the above help or hurt? I do ask your prayers for my son. The old man (that would be me) is going to have to be sharp -- yet, I know amd am fully convinced that it is God who brings the increase. My son is a lawyer and has been greatly influenced by the situaltional ethics taught by those in his profession. That has become a problem for him, spiritually. Dad needs to come to the rescue. I am hoping that God will work thru the respect that my son has for me and turn on the light of true understanding. I certainly do not want to add harm to the situation. Anyway --- pray, right now. I would if you ask of me the same. A friend in Christ John Smithson John
Re: [TruthTalk] Comments on Luke 2.52
What a remarkably transparent email!! All should undertake to pray for this meeting today with his son. Blessings, Lance - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: March 13, 2004 09:59 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Comments on Luke 2.52 In a message dated 3/12/2004 10:39:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you kind of get what I'm saying? I hope you do, because it speaks to what I like about you. I'm not advocating error, but I want to go to that abounding grace. I think that's where we find Christ. Don't you?Much appreciated. I more than get it. I went to the School of Preaching in Dallas as a 24 year old preacher (I had been preaching for 5 years to that date). The big question on my mind was the "binding of apostolic approved examples" as being equal to stated law. There was a book in print, then, titled We Be Brethren (written by the professor of biblical studies at Abilene Christian). One of the two CofC doctrines coming from that principle was weekly First Day of the Week communion (established only in example -- Acts 20:7 and the Lord's feast with the disciples before His death). My problem was this: In the two examples the day is NOT the same, but the place of meeting was (the upper room). I needed a rule of interpretation that got rid of the upper room but bound the day. Ain't going to happen! The real problem about this issue was more than obvious to me: I was about to enter the world of deep du du. As you know, there is no discussion allowed on this matter within the church. I was excited about going to the school because I thought this question would be answered. One of the churches in south Dallas offered full support while I attended. I maintained a 4.0 grade average and was class President while there. The youth group I pastored doubled in size -- I was everybody's favorite son. But then I wrote a paper on the New Covenant. That paper, that darned old paper, was my demise in the CofC for two reasons. First: I discovered grace and the true difference between the Old and New Covenants (grace verse law, even the "law"of God) What was exciting to me with that new found understanding was the logic used against me -- "if you believe that, well then, you could commit all kinds of sin and still be saved" which was every similar to the argument Paul had to deal with "shall we sin more that grace may abound?" I HAD NEVER DEFENDED MYSELF FROM SUCH AN ACCUSATION before. That told me that I was probably on the same track as Paul (and his teaching of grace) --- I mean we were both defending ourselves from the same rebuttals. You see what I mean? Anyway, that combined with my final decision to leave binding apostolic example out of my teaching put me over the edge. I was not allowed to graduate from the school a big scandal and I was a very frightened young man. My church gave me six weeks to get out of town and off I went. My wife, dyed in the wool CofC never forgave (we divorced after 23 years - part of the reason my exit from the church). I remember the day I had to meet with the school administration. Driving into Dallas, praying to God in tears, "God I do not want to believe this. Give me something, open my eyes if they are closed." Anyway, I have to get out the door. We will continue the discussion of the limitations of the all knowing God -- and i do say that with reverence. Understand this -- I like to think but I am grounded in my faith, not afraid to be wrong, pleasantly demanding when I am right. You will learn of me that I go down in flames. I defend a point until its defense is exhausted. But if I am wrong, even if afraid, I do change. I respect that in others. We are all truth seeker. None of us are right about everything. . By the way, I am going to see my oldest son today (leaving for the State of Washington. He is the only one of my five children that is somewhat of a space cadet (he is a layer, you know). He attends a Unitarian Church. Me and him are going to have it out. Pray that I will be given the right words. This a great group and I do respect your view point --- even the Mormon dudes. I see you all of you a commitment to what you must believe. I amy have time before I go to handle a challenge or two - today. I am leaving for Seattle this evening and driving straight thru. E gads. In Grace John Smithson I am looking forward tyour continued and increasing friendship, Bill Taylor. Peace out.
Re: [TruthTalk] Comments on Luke 2.52
In a message dated 3/12/2004 10:39:10 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Do you kind of get what I'm saying? I hope you do, because it speaks to what I like about you. I'm not advocating error, but I want to go to that abounding grace. I think that's where we find Christ. Don't you? Much appreciated. I more than get it. I went to the School of Preaching in Dallas as a 24 year old preacher (I had been preaching for 5 years to that date). The big question on my mind was the "binding of apostolic approved examples" as being equal to stated law. There was a book in print, then, titled We Be Brethren (written by the professor of biblical studies at Abilene Christian). One of the two CofC doctrines coming from that principle was weekly First Day of the Week communion (established only in example -- Acts 20:7 and the Lord's feast with the disciples before His death). My problem was this: In the two examples the day is NOT the same, but the place of meeting was (the upper room). I needed a rule of interpretation that got rid of the upper room but bound the day. Ain't going to happen! The real problem about this issue was more than obvious to me: I was about to enter the world of deep du du. As you know, there is no discussion allowed on this matter within the church. I was excited about going to the school because I thought this question would be answered. One of the churches in south Dallas offered full support while I attended. I maintained a 4.0 grade average and was class President while there. The youth group I pastored doubled in size -- I was everybody's favorite son. But then I wrote a paper on the New Covenant. That paper, that darned old paper, was my demise in the CofC for two reasons. First: I discovered grace and the true difference between the Old and New Covenants (grace verse law, even the "law"of God) What was exciting to me with that new found understanding was the logic used against me -- "if you believe that, well then, you could commit all kinds of sin and still be saved" which was every similar to the argument Paul had to deal with "shall we sin more that grace may abound?" I HAD NEVER DEFENDED MYSELF FROM SUCH AN ACCUSATION before. That told me that I was probably on the same track as Paul (and his teaching of grace) --- I mean we were both defending ourselves from the same rebuttals. You see what I mean? Anyway, that combined with my final decision to leave binding apostolic example out of my teaching put me over the edge. I was not allowed to graduate from the school a big scandal and I was a very frightened young man. My church gave me six weeks to get out of town and off I went. My wife, dyed in the wool CofC never forgave (we divorced after 23 years - part of the reason my exit from the church). I remember the day I had to meet with the school administration. Driving into Dallas, praying to God in tears, "God I do not want to believe this. Give me something, open my eyes if they are closed." Anyway, I have to get out the door. We will continue the discussion of the limitations of the all knowing God -- and i do say that with reverence. Understand this -- I like to think but I am grounded in my faith, not afraid to be wrong, pleasantly demanding when I am right. You will learn of me that I go down in flames. I defend a point until its defense is exhausted. But if I am wrong, even if afraid, I do change. I respect that in others. We are all truth seeker. None of us are right about everything. . By the way, I am going to see my oldest son today (leaving for the State of Washington. He is the only one of my five children that is somewhat of a space cadet (he is a layer, you know). He attends a Unitarian Church. Me and him are going to have it out. Pray that I will be given the right words. This a great group and I do respect your view point --- even the Mormon dudes. I see you all of you a commitment to what you must believe. I amy have time before I go to handle a challenge or two - today. I am leaving for Seattle this evening and driving straight thru. E gads. In Grace John Smithson I am looking forward tyour continued and increasing friendship, Bill Taylor. Peace out.
Re: [TruthTalk] Comments on Luke 2.52
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/12/2004 8:44:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It helps me understand the Incarnation Good point and amen. For me, the life of Christ (and his ability to resist sin as a man [like me]) makes clear my own condemnation because he did what I keep saying that I cannot do. His death frees me from this consequence. I would not teach this in a class or pulpit, but I believe that the creator God did not fully understand His own creation in man. I will not take time to develop this theme scripturally. I believe the problem centered in the difference between God and man and this thing called "free agency.' God is not a free moral agent. He is not temptable --- therefore there exists no opportunity for sin because of His nature. He created lots of thing that had no free moral agency --- trees and dogs and the like. None of them are capable of worship and reverence. Christ , thru the prophet David, is quoted in Acts 2 (Peters' sermon) "Thou hast taught me the ways of life." Although He had emptied Himself of the nature of God, Christ certainly had vivid memories of what it was like on the other side. Hebrews makes it clear that He is a better intercessor or high priest because of his human suffering. He was made to be like us in every way. I am not sure there is a soteriological impact here, but it is at least interesting to me. There are lots of things that God cannot do. He cannot die, He cannot be tempted. Resurrection was not an experience of God. But in the, dare I say, person of Christ, He experienced all these things. Amazing. He needed to learn why we are all such idiots. We have to learn what He can do about that. John I would not teach that either; anywhere. It is speculation. Terry
Re: [TruthTalk] Comments on Luke 2.52
John says Although He had emptied Himself of the nature of God What scripture supports this theory?[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 3/12/2004 8:44:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It helps me understand the IncarnationGood point and amen. For me, the life of Christ (and his ability to resist sin as a man [like me]) makes clear my own condemnation because he did what I keep saying that I cannot do. His death frees me from this consequence. I would not teach this in a class or pulpit, but I believe that the creator God did not fully understand His own creation in man. I will not take time to develop this theme scripturally. I believe the problem centered in the difference between God and man and this thing called "free agency.' God is not a free moral agent. He is not temptable --- therefore there exists no opportunity for sin because of His nature. He created lots of thing that had no free moral agency --- trees and dogs and the like. None of them are capable of worship and reverence. Christ , thru the prophet David, is quoted in Acts 2 (Peters' sermon) "Thou hast taught me the ways of life." Although He had emptied Himself of the nature of God, Christ certainly had vivid memories of what it was like on the other side. Hebrews makes it clear that He is a better intercessor or high priest because of his human suffering. He was made to be like us in every way. I am not sure there is a soteriological impact here, but it is at least interesting to me. There are lots of things that God cannot do. He cannot die, He cannot be tempted. Resurrection was not an experience of God. But in the, dare I say, person of Christ, He experienced all these things. Amazing. He needed to learn why we are all such idiots. We have to learn what He can do about that. John Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam
Re: [TruthTalk] Comments on Luke 2.52
"I would not teach this in a class or pulpit, ..." -- John That's probably a good idea. Let's work on through this together, but let's do it deliberately. I admire your wonderings, by the way. You are thinking about this stuff; you are inquisitive. You and Terry will strike up a nice cord. Have you read what I wrote concerning the Redeemer / go'el language of the OT? I think the go'el teaches us that Jesus is much more to us than just a good example (not implying that this is what you thought). Moreover, go'el teaches us that our justification is more than just a transaction, a legal decree, an imputation. Atonement is these things, no doubt. But go'el teaches us that Jesus actually went into the far country and gathered us up in himself and brought us home to his Father. Go'el speaks to our existence, wrapped up and secured in Christ, in the go'el. That's pretty cool to think about. John, I really like you. I love you, man. Thanks for being so open. I think that's the really great thing about all the misery involved in breaking out from the C of C. After the break, you're not afraid of anything. You're ready to learn. You're ready to drink and not get drunk. And what the hay, I think if we happen to error, then we're still on the right track. Let's error on the side of Grace. "Where sin increased, grace abounded much more, ..." Let's not make the first Adam greater than the Last. We're talking about the Father's Son here. Do you kind of get what I'm saying? I hope you do, because it speaks to what I like about you. I'm not advocating error, but I want to go to that abounding grace. I think that's where we find Christ. Don't you? - Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 10:13 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Comments on Luke 2.52 In a message dated 3/12/2004 8:44:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It helps me understand the IncarnationGood point and amen. For me, the life of Christ (and his ability to resist sin as a man [like me]) makes clear my own condemnation because he did what I keep saying that I cannot do. His death frees me from this consequence. I would not teach this in a class or pulpit, but I believe that the creator God did not fully understand His own creation in man. I will not take time to develop this theme scripturally. I believe the problem centered in the difference between God and man and this thing called "free agency.' God is not a free moral agent. He is not temptable --- therefore there exists no opportunity for sin because of His nature. He created lots of thing that had no free moral agency --- trees and dogs and the like. None of them are capable of worship and reverence. Christ , thru the prophet David, is quoted in Acts 2 (Peters' sermon) "Thou hast taught me the ways of life." Although He had emptied Himself of the nature of God, Christ certainly had vivid memories of what it was like on the other side. Hebrews makes it clear that He is a better intercessor or high priest because of his human suffering. He was made to be like us in every way. I am not sure there is a soteriological impact here, but it is at least interesting to me. There are lots of things that God cannot do. He cannot die, He cannot be tempted. Resurrection was not an experience of God. But in the, dare I say, person of Christ, He experienced all these things. Amazing. He needed to learn why we are all such idiots. We have to learn what He can do about that. John
Re: [TruthTalk] Comments on Luke 2.52
In a message dated 3/12/2004 8:44:46 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It helps me understand the Incarnation Good point and amen. For me, the life of Christ (and his ability to resist sin as a man [like me]) makes clear my own condemnation because he did what I keep saying that I cannot do. His death frees me from this consequence. I would not teach this in a class or pulpit, but I believe that the creator God did not fully understand His own creation in man. I will not take time to develop this theme scripturally. I believe the problem centered in the difference between God and man and this thing called "free agency.' God is not a free moral agent. He is not temptable --- therefore there exists no opportunity for sin because of His nature. He created lots of thing that had no free moral agency --- trees and dogs and the like. None of them are capable of worship and reverence. Christ , thru the prophet David, is quoted in Acts 2 (Peters' sermon) "Thou hast taught me the ways of life." Although He had emptied Himself of the nature of God, Christ certainly had vivid memories of what it was like on the other side. Hebrews makes it clear that He is a better intercessor or high priest because of his human suffering. He was made to be like us in every way. I am not sure there is a soteriological impact here, but it is at least interesting to me. There are lots of things that God cannot do. He cannot die, He cannot be tempted. Resurrection was not an experience of God. But in the, dare I say, person of Christ, He experienced all these things. Amazing. He needed to learn why we are all such idiots. We have to learn what He can do about that. John
