Re: [TruthTalk] Please hear me out before ousting me.

[Wm. Taylor]

Judy,   If you will bear with me through a short anecdote, I will try to spin it into something that explains my fears regarding the direction in which I see this discussion taking us.   After Augustine the Church went in a decidedly different direction from where it had been heading prior to the Pelagian v. Augustinian controversy. The climate after Augustine was such that to be "Pelagian" or even "semi-Pelagian" (and this for several centuries) was to be condemned as a heretic, almost without due process. But the reason Christians could not stay on the same course as before the controversy was because even Augustine, their hero, had led them astray.   Here's the point: when Augustine and Pelagius began to bicker, they were much closer to agreement (and truth) than they were once the controversy had been "settled." I happen to think that Augustine, going into the debate, was closer to right than Pelagius. But I have major concerns about where Augustine ended up. Why? Because in the heat of the battle, they both said things and were forced into positions that neither of them would have affirmed had it not been for the other. They pushed each other not only away but away from what they would have believed themselves. And bigger than this, I can see the damage it did to the Church. Because after Augustine, to say anything that may have gotten the church back on track, was to say something that might just get you labeled a Pelagian. Hence the Church, and I mean all the Church, is now influenced rightly and wrongly by these two men. Where Augustine ended on his positions about sin, humanity, the grace of God, predestination, and free will, cemented and thereby cursed the entire Church ever after him. I really believe that he would not have said or even come to some of the things he did about these topics if he had not got caught up in "being right."   I am not saying that our debate (yours and mine) will have the same impact on "the Church" that Augustine v. Pelagius had. But in light of this little tidbit of history, I do think we should be asking ourselves a question that Augustine may have missed: How can I be right and at the same time be wise about it? Judy, I am afraid that I am pushing you into a position that you may not otherwise want to take. I will address that today. If I am all wet, then thank you, God, for soaking me. But if I am not all wet, then I hope we are both in a state of mind when this is "settled" to thank God for soaking you. I do not want to lead you astray, even if I am wrong about Christ's humanity :>)   (Oh, and I may respond to some of your other comments later. We'll see what tomorrow brings tomorrow.)   You say: "It is impossible to understand spiritual concepts using natural reasoning Bill.  I am not being cute or smart - the apostle Paul taught that "we should use words that the Holy Ghost teaches and compare spiritual things with spiritual (1 Corinthians 2:13); so it may help to take a look and see if when God is speaking of natural or spiritual generation when he uses the word "seed" (because I keep hearing on TT that the reason Jesus had to have sinful flesh going all the way back to the first Adam is because he was Mary's seed and Mary is the one to whom the promise was made so this is why the RCC was forced to invent the immaculate conception)."   Judy, I hope I haven't slipped up along the way and written "Mary" when I was thinking "Eve." I think Mary assumed a fallen nature from Adam, this is sure, but the promise in the proto-evangel was given to Eve. She is the one who received the promise of the Seed who would crush the Serpent's head. Immediately following the account of Adam and "Woman’s" disobedience (Gen 3.8-15), and in their first post-fall encounter with God, rather than smiting them dead, God blessed Woman for her honest confession (v. 13); this He did in two ways: (1) by putting hostility (v. 15) between her and the serpent, whom she had trusted; and (2) by placing the same hostility between her “Seed” (masculine singular) and the serpent’s “seed” (feminine singular; the only time in the Scriptures where the Hebrew word “zera” is used with a feminine ending). God then predicts that “He”—the Seed of Woman—will crush the serpent. (Assuming I did slip up in talking about Eve but calling her Mary, I hope this was helpful.)   You go on to say, "Romans 9:6-8 explains to us who the seed are 'For they are not all Israel which are of Israel, neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children, but in Isaac shall the seed be called, that is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for seed.' Get that - ONLY the children of promise are counted for seed. Then... Galatians 3:16 expands... 'Now to Abraham and his seed (singular) were the promises made. He saith not. And to seeds, as of many, but as of ONE. And to thy seed which is Christ. Then on to our generation' ... Galatians 3:29: 'And IF ye be Christ's THEN are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.' "   Judy, I think if we never come to agreement on the humanity of Christ, it will still be important and helpful if you will take into consideration what I am about to say concerning the Seed. Furthermore, you will not have to relinquish your belief in order to incorporate this teaching into your repertoire (because even though I disagree with you, I will concede your point: it is possible if he so desired for God to have created a new kind of sanctified humanity for Jesus to incarnate in Mary's womb.)   I mentioned this to Terry the other day, that if you will follow the genealogy of Jesus through the unfolding of the OT, you will also see a concerted effort on behalf of the evil one to cut-off  i.e., to destroy, the bloodline leading to the birth of the Holy One of Israel. I think this is so because we can see that the Serpent of old took the promise of pending judgment so seriously. (He is now defeated in Christ, to be sure, but he is yet to be judged.) Throughout the OT he had not yet even been defeated. He believed that if he could prevent the coming of the Seed who could crush him, he could thwart the judgment; i.e., being crushed. Let me give you a short example of what I am talking about, and then a longer one:   After the "curse" and the promise of a Seed to come, Eve gave birth to a son. Look at her words, "I have been given a Man from the Lord" (Gen 4.1). That "man" was Cain. Now look what happened in the drama of Cain / Abel event. Evil caused Cain to rebel against the Lord, and Abel was then murdered by Cain.   But had the evil one destroyed the bloodline? No, he had not; moreover, neither had Eve lost faith in God's faithfulness to fulfill his promise. We can see this is the birth of her next son, Seth.   "Seth" means "Name." Look what Eve said when she gave birth to him: "God has appointed another Seed for me instead of Abel, whom Cain killed" (Gen 4.25). You see, Judy, Eve may have thought that she had been confused during the time when believing that Cain was going to be the human fulfillment of God's promise rather than Abel; but she had not given up hope that there would come a human Seed through her blood, nor had she changed her mind to think that the Seed-promise was strictly a spiritual one and not physical. Instead, she gave her new son the Name which identified him as the bearer of the Seed.    Moreover, and once again, neither had the Serpent thwarted the pending judgment.   Now let's jump ahead a few thousand years and pick up the Line again, and this time let's also see what happens when the Church fails to take seriously the genealogy of Jesus. I am thinking here of the story of Tamar and Onan and Judah (Gen 38.6-26, I won't include it here, but it might be helpful to read it now). The RCC uses this story as the basis of and warrant for its teachings against birth control. They say something like, See what God thinks about 'pulling out'; he must really hate that; therefore birth control must be a sin. But is this what is really happening? I don't think so.   The Seed of Eve was going to pass through Judah and also through Tamar. This we know from other Scripture. Tamar knew this too, as we will see. But look what happens with Judah and his three sons. His first son was wicked and the Lord blotted him out. Then the second son, Onan, takes the first son's wife but refuses to impregnate her, pulling out instead and spilling his seed on the ground. And this displeased the Lord and the Lord blotted him out too. This leaves only one descendent of Judah for the Seed to pass through. But Judah refuses to let Tamar marry him, because he thinks Tamar is bad luck and doesn't want to lose his last son.   So, has the Serpent thwarted pending judgment? He thinks he has. He's corrupted and destroyed two of Judah's sons, and has kept the other from acquiring a woman. ... But this is not the end of the story. Tamar, refusing to be unfaithful to the promise of the Lord, tricks Judah into impregnating her. Thus the Seed is preserved and the Serpent fails once again to thwart the judgment.   How do we know that this is the correct way to interpret this story, and thereby conclude that the RCC was off-base in its conclusion, the reason being that they failed to take into account the human lineage of Jesus? Look what Judah says when he discovers that he is the one who impregnated Tamar. He says she has been more faithful than he. More faithful? How can that be? She sinned too, didn't she? More faithful than Judah, because Tamar remembered the promise of the Seed, knowing that it must past through Judah and herself, but Judah had disregarded it. Finally he comes to his senses and realizes what a devastating effect the withholding of his last son from Tamar would have had, had she not done what she did. Hence he says, "She has been more righteous than I, because I did not give her to Shelah my son" (38.26).   Nevertheless, she is pregnant, gives birth to twins, the Seed is preserved, and the evil one has to wait for another day, if he is going to destroy the blood of the promise.   Allow me to address a couple of other things in light of what I have just said.   You say, "Romans 9:6-8 explains to us who the seed are "For they are not all Israel which are of Israel, neither because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children, but in Isaac shall the seed be called, that is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted for seed.   Judy, I think that you have maybe kind of missed it here. The "seed" (pl.) of Abraham were two: Ishmael and Isaac. "But in Isaac the Seed (sg.) shall be called." (The Seed is singular here -- I believe, and this is because there is an interpretive task involved any time we see this word, because sperma in the Greek is the same word whether singular or plural) Hence the "children of the flesh" here are the descendents of Ishmael, and "the children of the promise" are counted "in the Seed (sg)" because the Seed is the descendent of Isaac, who was the child of promise, who came through Sarah in fulfillment of God's covenant faithfulness to Abraham. This passage has spiritual connotations, no doubt, but it is about the flesh and blood of Jesus, before it is anything else.   You say, "Get that - ONLY the children of promise are counted for seed."   Judy, I think it is better translated and understood here as "the children of the promise are counted in the Seed (sg.)"; this is at least a more wooden or 'literal' translation of this portion of the verse, than what we see in the English.   You then go on to look at a couple of other passages: "Then... Galatians 3:16 expands... 'Now to Abraham and his seed (singular) were the promises made. He saith not. And to seeds, as of many, but as of ONE. And to thy seed which is Christ. Then on to our generation' ... Galatians 3:29: 'And IF ye be Christ's THEN are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.' "   Judy, the controversy in Galatia to which Paul wrote is over how to be a Jew, and whether it was necessary to become Jewish to be in Christ, and a question as to who the real Jews were. In verse 29, Paul is saying since the Galatians are included in Christ by way of his fulfillment of the Seed-promise, they are truly Abraham's descendents, because Christ is the Seed through Isaac, the child of promise, and not Ishmael. That is, Paul is saying that Jews and Gentiles are both included in Abraham by way of their inclusion in Christ (and this goes back to the go'el discussion), and it is not just Isaac's descendents who are included (i.e. the Jews) but gentiles as well.   I know that this has gone on and on and on, but Judy, I am concerned that you may miss what's being said here because of where I've pushed you in the past. I don't want to cause you to miss the beauty of this. If you disagree with me on the Incarnation, we can work on that, but don't let what happened to the Church after Augustine happen to you. If you may have been pursuaded concerning this before our debate, then don't allow yourself to miss it now.   Thank you for enduring this,   Bill