Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

[knpraise]

cd: Gosh John I agree- too much too fast-this is scary. I see my work is cut out for me :-) Don't forget the ones in John 3:21 who will not come to the light because their deeds are evil. How do they fit into your above scenario?As concerning man doing the right thing one needs to consider their motives prior to salvation as entirely selfish -to their gain- even love-John.      cd

 

I think you have asked a good question.   I am not going to give it a quick answer.  But, regarding what I said of John 3:21.  ...........  I would argue that my point  (we do good works, we come to the light later in life,  IN THIS LIGHT it is made clear (manifested) that our works have been   (and it does say "have been") the works of God (all along.)   I beleive that this is not so much a commentary of the this verse as it is an actual translation.   You don't agree?  I mean, put that verse in your own words  --  just that verse.  

 

jd

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From:

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: 1/24/2006 3:32:11 PM

Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

My comments below

 

----- Original Message -----

From:

To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org;TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org

Sent: 1/24/2006 10:22:25 AM

Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?

 

Lets get away from “fallen nature.”  That suggests a sinful occurrence

and you guys are getting hung up on that .  No one in this discussion

believes that Christ sinned, Dean. 

 

cd:Respectfully- If one states that Christ had a fallen nature sinful nature that is what one is saying John.     It is not what I am saying. 

 

I do not like using the James passage as a proof-text for the function

Temptation, but it is the only passage I know that goes into  detail,

such as it is.   And I do not accept personal logic when I have a clear

statement that really needs no addendum.   And James 1;13-15 is such

a passage.   And so I say “exactly” because I have no other defining than

that which appears in James.   

 

From now on,  I am going to use the wording “human nature.”  Maybe

That will help a little.  And I am saying that Adam and Eve were created

wth the same human nature as you and I.  Ditto for Jesus.   If He doesn’t have the same nature, He is not like us. 

 

cd: Do you mean the pre-salvation human nature that the world has or do you mean the new nature"you and I" now hold that was giving by Christ-John? Changing terms without changing meanings will only add confusion to a complex issue-complex in the we have made it such.He is like man in every way except a sinful way.That puts us born again believers in His nature now.What if we used the term "spiritual nature" to mean Christ-like ( born again) and the term "lost nature" to mean worldly nature?In this example which would Christ have been sent in? 

Well,  I am not a dualist.  There is only one nature.  I used to believe that man, apart from Christ, had no choice when it came to sin.   I no longer believe that to be the case.   Man does have a choice.  Adam had a choice.   But because man can do the right thing does not mean that man can save himself.   We do know that justification/salvation is a process or circumstance that is not related to obeying the law  (works of the law).  God is at work in us all.  We can frustrate that purpose.   In John 3:21, we see that one works, comes to the light and IN THAT LIGHT it is revealed that he was doing the work of God ALL ALONG.   I believe that "new birth"  occurs when we become aware of that fact   --  verse 21 is the last breath of a continuous statement on New Birth as Christ spoke to Nicodemus. 

 

Anyway  -- probably too much to fast.   One nature is all there is because there is only one "humanity." 

 

cd: Gosh John I agree- too much too fast-this is scary. I see my work is cut out for me :-) Don't forget the ones in John 3:21 who will not come to the light because their deeds are evil. How do they fit into your above scenario?As concerning man doing the right thing one needs to consider their motives prior to salvation as entirely selfish -to their gain- even love-John.

2Pe 2:10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, self-willed, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

 

 

 

 

Eph 4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. Read the full passage carefully and you see that the old nature is as present as the new nature.  

 

cd: I believe this to be as directional advice-Being a new creature doesn't remove from one lose the ability to sin-the choice is still there but now we knowChrist- as before we were led by the fallen angel now we are led by the Holy Spirit . Paul is teaching us which direction to use that new spirit. Believe it or not most people don't even know these commandments exist and some are even told that Christ died for their future sins -so they believe all sin is covered which is error. Consider this to be speaking to babes in Christ. Tell me John what does it mean to not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain?

2Co 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

cd: So John what do you make of this verse above I noticed you made no comment on it?

Knowing how sin works is not a deterrent to sinning.  Sin and sinning is anti-logical in my opinion.   I cannot imagine a time when I have committed a sin  and knot known , at that moment,  thatI would regret it or that it was just plain wrong. 

 

cd: As the commandments are now written in our hearts and the hearts of all men I can agree with you-we knew it was wrong. The difference now is that one does not get the excitement from sin as one did prior to salvation. Rather one will detest the same sin that they at one time found pleasure in. If we did not find pleasure from it we would not have continued to sin. Thank God we now have a new spirit/nature that does not take pleasure from sinning.

 

The new law is not "commandments written in our hearts" for that would not be unlike the covenant given to those who were led by the hand out of the land of Egypt.   Proof of that fact is seen in the realization that the "rule book" from which these "commandments  were written on the heart" can never be disregarded !!   The laws of God were in the hearts of  man during OT times.............................................................  but the seal of the Spirit was not a fact.  You speak of the rule of law and I speak of the rule of the Spirit   --------------   obedience versus ontology.  I do not mean to put words in your mouth, Dean,  but that is the difference between our two views.................................  your belief in an indwelling, not withstanding. 

cd: The rule of the Spirit will lead one to keep God laws as will the bible John- this is what the above Eph 4:24 is doing-this is what the entire New Testament is speaking of- the consequents of Sin- the redemption from sin(Christ)-and the direction advice to keep one from fallen back to the former state of sin and onward to the sinless/Holy life of loving others. Surely you must see this?