Re: [TruthTalk] Comments on Luke 2.52

[Wm. Taylor]

"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 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