|
Jt:One cannot help but commend you on your
thoroughness. I suspect that you are the reigning 'diva' of your bible study
group.
Your (not the Bible's) theology has an excellent
representative in you.
On the nature of sin in humankind: It's organic.
It's a disease with which we are born. 'Proclivity'? (what verse is that?)We
live out our nature (sin). Jesus took on this nature (fully human) and redeemed
it from within.
God is Spirit. You say this often and accurately
support it. Who was it that Stephen saw standing at the Father's right hand? Was
that God? Was that also the resurrected, glorified MAN, Jesus?
Who was excluded, out of hand, in this 'vicarious
life, death, resurrection and, ascension of Jesus?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: August 24, 2004 04:33
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Smithson and
Kruger
In a message dated 8/23/2004 5:50:24 AM Pacific Daylight
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 23:27:45 EDT [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Just finished
reading two books: one is The Great Dance, by Kruger and the second, the
Letter to the Ephesians, by Paul. ------- all of it
is a little overwhelming. Much insight and some
questions. I will say that Kruger is no theological
liberal. At least, not according to my understanding of such a
label. That is not to say that he is a "fundamentalist"
either. Perhaps he is just his own man in Christ.
His explanation for the differences and fallacies of both pantheism
and deism is somewhat profound. He cautions against a theology
that finds the individual lost in the larger notion of God while, on the
other hand, embracing a theology that so separates the two (the
individual and God) as to place God "up there" and the rest of us "down
here." If he has a working teaching of the indwelling Spirit, it
is not as evident as it might be. I have no
idea how he handles the issue of "accepting Christ." Because of his convincing presentation regarding the universality of the
redeeming work of Christ, he leaves open a door
for criticism by those who do not carefully read his work or who have
a working bias that prevents them from doing so.
Where is
this concept of "universality" written about in
scripture?
John 3:16; For God so
loved the world that he gave His only begotten son [...]
Eph 1:3-5; Accordingly as he hath chosen
us (the Church) in Him before the foundation of the world [...]
Rom 4:25; Who was delivered for
our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
Rom 5:8, While we were yet
sinners, Christ died for us.
Rom 5:18; Therefore as by the
offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation, even so by the
righteousness of one [...]
II Co 5:19 To wit that God was in
Christ reconciling the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses unto
them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation [...].
To name a few. Be
careful, here, Judy and try not to straw dog this
discussion.
jt: I only typed part of these
to be brief but first let me point out that people who subscribe to
Kruger's mindset appear to have a problem with the idea that sin passed
to all men because of Adam when actually it was the nature or
proclivity that passed to all (we make our own choice to sin) so thank
you for the definition of "bias" here because it is perfect,
Adam received a certain bent, tendency or bias toward sin and this is the
state of all mankind today who are outside of
Christ. Their nature is toward sin and they
are spiritually dead the "children of wrath" (see Eph 2:1-3) - The point I would like to make
here is that Adam did not force anyone to sin, each person makes their
own choice but noone so far (not one) has chosen against it because the
scriptures teach us that "there is none righteous, no
not one" However Kruger and
friends appear to deny the universality of the
fall.
Bias : : BENT, TENDENCY b :
an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a
personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : PREJUDICE c :
an instance of such prejudice d (1) : deviation of the expected value
of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates (2) :
systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or
encouraging one outcome or answer over others
The verses above may appear to
promote universality at face value or at first glance...
but when examined in their
setting the picture is becomes a lot more complete ie:
John 3:16b "that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have
everlasting life"
Eph 1:4 "that we should be
holy and without blame before him in
love"
Rom 4:24 "For us also to whom
it shall be imputed IF we
believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the
dead.
Rom 5:9 "being justified by
his blood, we shall be
saved from wrath through
him"
Rom 5:17,18 "If by one man's
offence death reigned by one, much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift
of [...]"
2 Cor 5:17-19 "Therefore IF any man be in Christ he
is a new creature; old things are passed away;
behold, all things are become
new."
....So we see that it is not good
to leave out the IF's, AND's, BUT's and THEREFORE's. Also I find that
just as we must choose sin and then take responsibility before God for our
choice. We must choose righteousness (or life) and be just as
responsible before God if we are to be found "in Christ" because none
of this happens to anyone by osmosis and these realities are only universal
insofar as they affect the individual.
Essence: 1 a : the permanent as
contrasted with the accidental element of being b : the individual,
real, or ultimate nature of a thing especially as
opposed to its existence c : the properties or
attributes by means of which something can be
placed in its proper class or identified as being what it is
jt: I still don't think this word appropriate
for describing God. To begin with He is a person rather than a thing;
and we have it on very good authority that He is Spirit. So why not call Him
what He calls Himself?
His
(Kruger's) background is "high
church" and that reality plays a larger role in his thinking
that even he might suppose. It is his bias. We all have such. Specifically, he
does not speak of "justification" except
to say that it is overplayed by many in the Western
Church.
He rejects
the idea of an angry God who is isolated from his creation because
of sin and can only deal with us through Christ. He thinks that
we have over emphasized the Cross
TO THE NEAR EXCLUSION OF THE INCARNATE CHRIST. His argument in defense of such is
both effective and biblical.
Kruger may reject the idea of an angry
God but we were not called "by nature children of wrath" because He is
tickled with us. Also what are we saved from? If I remember correctly,
we are saved from God's wrath. I'm sorry Kruger can not accept
this but it is reality all the same. High
church? This explains a lot ...
It is his reality, his
background. None of us escape this issue --
none. You are full of no less bias than Kruger. That is
why we compare notes and read and pray.
jt: When we choose to
follow Christ we let go of all that - we leave the plow (baggage)
behind...... Justification
overplayed? With Kruger's grandious "incarnational" ideas I guess it is not
all that necessary.
The incarnation of Christ is a
grandious theology?????? Justification can be overplayed if it is
preached to the exclusion of amending and relevant biblical
doctrine.
jt: I'm not
understanding what you would call "amending and relevant biblical doctrine"
but I would hope it is not KRUGER'S CHRIST because aside from the
CROSS there
is no remission of sin and no reconciliation with God, how can this
be OVER EMPHASIZED. The centrality of the
cross was the apostle Paul's focus almost entirely. Kruger's
incarnational revelation is not apparent in Paul's
writings.
I thought
I was clear on that -- when our emphasis excludes the "incarnate
Christ" (Kruger). I would say when it excludes the indwelling and
transcendent Christ.
I'm surprised you would call this
kind of argument biblical even if you find it effective
John.
As a fundamentalist liberal, I must have
book, chapter and verse before I accept anything wild and
freaky. That is part of the reason why I don't accept your
theoretical application for Ro 2:12-16.
jt: You think it "wild and freaky" that a
person must be born again before they are out
from under God's wrath and able to walk in a way that is pleasing
to Him? You have apparently swallowed Kruger's line that the
fall was no big deal. Actually back when I was trying to figure it all
out and wanted to have all the answers to everything I accepted Romans
2:12-16 the same as you teach it now. It is presented that way in
denominational circles and it helped me to feel better about relatives
I thought were lost. I have since then, learned that God can handle it
and am able to take back my peace, pray for them and leave their future with
Him.
He does not believe in
universalism and clearly makes the point. However, he spends no
time dealing with the problematic issues of universality verses
universalism. It is not the purpose of his book to develop a
systematic theology. Rather, the more
narrow issue of the communal essence of a triune God at work in this fallen
world is his only real purpose.
And, he develops his essay in just less than 100
pages.
Sounds more and more to me as
though the man does not know God John. Calling the Godhead a "community"
give me a break..
Community:
1 : a unified body of individuals:
You know, like Father, Son and Holy
Ghost
A community would be polytheism; God is
One. This is why it is so important that we use spiritual words to
describe spiritual concepts.
Paul's letter is even shorter.
But what he says is profound. I had not realized it before, but
Paul in this letter is making an effort to show how it is that Gentiles are
equally included in the mission and purposes of God through
Christ. As this letter relates to Kruger's theme, chapter 1:4-5
are profound. I am going to quote this passage from the
New Living
Bible.
Long ago, even before he made the world, God
loved us and chose us in Christ to be holy and without fault in his
eyes, His unchanging plan has always been to adopt us into his own
family by bringing us to himself through Jesus Christ
Paul isn't making any such statement John.
Where in the above do you see my
comments? Paul isn't making any such statement?? Of course he
does. He is the only one talking (in the above.)
Like I said before -- don't straw dog this discussion and you
are.
I'm not straw dogging it John but quoting
from this New Living Bible and taking that verse out of it's
setting makes it appear to say something completely other. How
about reading and comparing the "majority text" which
says
"According as he hath
chosen us in him (question,
who is "us" see (Vs.1) us is "the saints which are at Ephesus, and
the faithful in Christ Jesus")
before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame
before him in love. Having predestinated us into the adoption of
children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his
will."
Have you joined Kruger in making the text
say something it was never meant to say. It's focus is on holiness and
sanctification in Christ. Not nationality or
universality.
.
"Us" has a universal tone
to it (just as does these words
"For God so loved the world ....) I found in these words
supoortive of much of the theology of Kruger. And just as importantly, I
found a little justification for my thinking that Adam was never the
complete picture without Christ.
What do you mean Adam was never the "complete picture?"
He didn't need fixing until he became broken.
I don't think anyone needs to be afraid to read
Kruger --- but it is not for the casual student. By that, I mean
that he will make you think. He does not use the high tone words
Torrance is fond of -- but his theology is not what most of us
are used to. Demon Bias is
everywhere. John
I'm
not afraid of Kruger, I just find high Church and religious stuff to be
boring, boring, boring. Pretty soon sin will be a thing
of the past as will be holiness/sanctification. All we will need is the
validation of men who hold to these big sweeping theological generalizations
to make it. However, God does not change and it was He who inspired
the Psalmist to write..."Who shall ascent to the hill of the Lord? or who
shall stand in his holy place? He that hath clean
hands, and a pure heart; who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity,
nor sworn deceitfully. He shall receive the blessing from the Lord,
and righteousness from the God of his salvation" (Psalm
24:3,4)
I
see no point in my responding to something that I have not said, something
that I do not believe and something that I do not teach. You
write these words :All we will need is the validation of men
who hold to these big sweeping theological generalizations to make it
which completely misrepresents the
issue.
jt: This is how it appears to me
John when you are willing to disregard so much truth to embrace this
"incarnational" thing.
You see my part of this discussion as
ending in some kind of theoretical statement -- words as opposed to
becoming. I do not want to be defending Kruger and I will
not. But you misrepresent him if you believe that he cares more
for theory and sanctimony than he does inclusion into the community of
God and the image of Christ. Let's stay on issue.
jt: I don't believe Kruger understands the
"image of Christ" or the temple of God constructed of "living stones"
with Jesus Christ as the cornerstone. This is different from a
bunch of nice folk (after the flesh) who call themselves a "community of
God"
|
