Most of your 'wisdom', as you call it, Judy, comes
from your fertile imagination. Should you choose to equate that (your
imagination) with God, I can sort of live with that.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: January 23, 2006 10:48
Subject: [TruthTalk] The fall - Where's
the beef ??
And I agree with Debbie's analysis of the difficulty experienced by
Judy. In addition, I think Judy's attachment to her thinking
concerning the "generational curse" is a huge problem as well.
Not for me JD; the problem is yours and
Debbie's. Her wisdom comes by way of TFT and mine from
God's
Holy Word. The curse of the law is a present
day reality - as is generational curses. You don't have to accept that
but they are working in you and in your children as we speak.
As for me, I just do not see a change in human nature with the
event of the fall. In fact, the fall is only possible because of
a nature that provided for the opportunity of disobedience. How
is that not true?
Oh well, you haven't been reading your Bible very
well. What about the first murder and the fact that within
just
a few generations God saw the need to destroy the
whole shooting match - except for one family.
I have said this several times before and I say it again: in
all of my reading, to date, I have yet to discover an actual
apologetic for the theology of the "fall." Does such
exist? How could it not? But so far, I can't even find the
pickle. Where's the beef, I say ?? !!
It's all through the Bible - Your reading must be
selective along with the fact that you obviously don't have eyes to
see.
I hate to couch the rise of a budding theologian in terms of
specific and/or unique contributions, fearing an attachment to "gimmick"
theology, but Bill (or someone) has a perfect chance to contribute in
the most meaningful of ways in this regard. A book or paper
entitled "A Theology of the 'Fall'" or "In Defense of the 'Fall'"
or "The 'Fall' Is Not Just A Postulated Truth," or
.................. well , you get the picture. Currently,
it appears to me that the "Fall" is an assumption , even in
Barth !!
Who would want to "defend it" Much better to
write a paper entitled "Reconciliation in and through Christ"
Of course my paper would be vastly different from
yours, Lances, Debbies, and Bills.
Understand, I have been in this theological persuasion
for little more than a year. There is much (even in Barth) that I have
not read. Actually, "much" is an understatement of grand
proportions. But I have looked for such an explanation without
success. jd
Poison JD, and remember only a little bit of
arsenic is all it takes to ruin a good steak.
--------------
Original message -------------- From: "Lance Muir"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
----- Original Message -----
Sent: January 22, 2006 14:23
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor
Man
I think the stumbling block for those coming from a
viewpoint like Judy's is that Jesus could not have been an acceptable
sacrifice for us--i.e., to take our penalty--if he were blemished in any
way, and having a fallen nature (not unreasonably) constitutes a
blemish in their view. The answer (as I understood it from TFT) is that
Jesus was doing more than being a sacrifice for us. Like Bill says, there
is more than the legal transaction happening. He is 'bending human
nature back', purifying it, by his obedient life, his steadfast
refusal to think or act out of the fallen nature. He put the fallen nature
to death in two ways and was raised a fully restored human in every sense,
which is how his resurrection is intrinsically linked to ours. Just the
legal transaction, just the sacrifice, doesn't do anything to fix the
fallen human nature. This is what I understand Bill to be saying, too. I
remember TFT insisting that wron g views of who Jesus was always end
up losing either the substitutionary or the representative character (or
both).
D
----- Original Message -----
Sent: January 22, 2006 12:41
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus , neither God nor
Man
cd: No Bill -I did not completely understand Judy-I view Christ
as Wholly God Wholly Human and Judy does not. Not do I agree totally with
yours and David stance that Christ was of common man. His nature
was no lower than a Christ -like nature:-) That may mean that I am in
my own field alone? But at least I have a field to be alone
in:-)
Thanks Dean. I think we can all agree
emphatically that Christ was holy and pure and did not sin. The last time
this topic was a point of contention here on TT, David wrote some really
good posts on Christ's holiness and purity, and how it was that neither of
these were compromised by his human condition. Perhaps he can find time to
revisit that concern.
The major difference between a belief
in Jesus as having a human nature other than ours -- some sort of a
pre-fallen nature -- and the belief that Jesus was born as we are, a
subject of the fall, is that whereas our battle against sin is an internal
battle, his would have been external to who he was in his human nature.
His plight would have been to keep sin out, whereas ours is to get it out.
As Christians, we are called to put sin to death "in our members." Jesus,
in his lifetime, would not have had that battle, and hence could not have
helped us, as his would have been a fortress mentality: just keep sin out
of his members and he will have proven it can be done. Well, that is not only not helpful to us
-- as we've already missed out on that opportunity -- it leaves us in
an even more disparate condition, since Christ only proved us wrong but did not defeat sin in the
way that we experi ence it. And if he only proved us
wrong but did not defeat sin from within our plight,
then all he can really do is become our offering for
sin (not that he is not that, too). Thus he may be our perpetual bull
or goat, but don't call him our example, because he isn't an example to
us, in that we never get to walk in his steps, as ours is altogether a
different starting place than his.
The best then that your view can
offer is a substitutionary theory of the atonement (and again not
that Christ was not also our substitute). Yours is that God takes Christ's
righteousness and imputes it to us and takes our sin and imputes it to him
-- a legal transaction, if you will, but not a helpful one since we are
still in our sin, it not having been defeated in our members. And so, even
this double imputation is lacking in your view; indeed, it is a legal
fiction: God declares us righteous, when we're not; and he winks at his
Son, saying: "I'll call you sin, even though we all know you're not";
hence it is fiction on both accounts. On the contrary, see 2
Corinthians 5.21: "For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for
us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." God sent his
Son, perfect from eternity, to earth, and cloaked him in human form from
the fruit of David's genitals according to the flesh -- that
is, replete with David's nature,&nbs p;which is "Sin" with a
capital S -- in order that he might defeat sin where in resides in
sinful humanity, so that we might experience genuine righteousness and not
the kind you have to wink at.
Look with me at Mark 7.20-23 and at
James 4.1, and ask yourself if a man who does not have a fallen or "Sin"
nature (your kind of Jesus) could actually be tempted in every way like
his brothers:
And [Jesus] said, "It
is what comes out of a man, that defiles
him. For from within, out of the
heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications,
murders, thefts, covetousness,
wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride,
foolishness. All these evil things
come from within and defile a man."
Where do wars and fights
come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure
that war in your members?
Could a man who does not have a
nature of "Sin" actually experience the desire to act upon these things
that war within us? In other words, could a man who does not have a human
nature like we do truly be tempted to behave in the way that we do?
Of course not! Our battle comes from within; his would be to wall it
out. Temptation for him would be an external battle; ours is the
opposite of that (as attested to above). Ours is intrinsic to who we are
as fallen human beings. His would be extrinsic to his nature. His
plight would be to keep sin out, while ours is to get it out of
our members. Hence, he would have nothing in common with us and nothing to
offer us.
Ah but that is not the case with Jesus. He can relate because
he was tempted in every way that we are, yet was sinless, in that he did
not act upon the desires of his heart; instead he defeated those desires
in obedience to his Father. For inasmuch as we have partaken of flesh and
blood, he himself likewise shared in the same, having been made like us in
every detail, in order that "he might be a merciful and faithful High
Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of
the people; for in that he himself has suffered, being tempted, he is
able to aid those who are tempted" (See Heb 4.15, and 2.14-18).
Amen
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006
4:26 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Jesus ,
neither God nor Man
Dean, that is a different position
all-together from Judy's. My question for you is, did you realize what
you were affirming when answering my question?
Bill
cd: No Bill -I did not completely understand Judy-I
view Christ as Wholly God Wholly Human and Judy does not. Not do
I agree totally with yours and David stance that Christ was of common
man. His nature was no lower than a Christ -like nature:-) That
may mean that I am in my own field alone? But at least I have a field
to be alone in:-) -- This
message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed
to be clean.
-- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked
by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.21/236 -
Release Date: 1/20/2006
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked
by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.21/236 -
Release Date: 1/20/2006
|