|
Hi Dean. I hope you will accept my apologies for
any misunderstanding: I am not wishing that you would stop contributing, but
that you would stop jumping so quickly to conclusions. It is insulting to me --
although I know it was not intentionally so -- that you would suggest that
I or the others would endorse a view which sets forth Christ as a sinner. If you
do not know Lance, John, Debbie (and her dust-bunnies:>) and myself well
enough to know that we would not embrace such a doctrine, then surely you
do know that David Miller would never espouse the same: for we can all
agree that a sinning Savior would be anathema to us all. And so I was
hoping that out of respect for your siblings you may be willing to set aside
your prejudice about Jesus being a sinner (for he was not!), and open yourself
to consider his humanity from a different point of view -- as difficult as that
may be.
I know, for example, that John is getting
frustrated with me for not weighing in on the "fallen nature" debate. The truth
is, I have been holding back just so it can play for a while. And while
I am confident that the Bible does set forth a "fall" which perversely
affected both Adam and his posterity, I am also persuaded that the last and best
words have not been spoken on the issue; hence, I am of the opinion that John's
position, while not something I can readily endorse, is nonetheless healthy for
us all, because it will have the effect of forcing us to re-examine our beliefs
on this very important doctrine.
I would like to suggest that you take a similar
approach to our discussion concerning Christ's humanity. Ease off a little,
and see how it plays out. You may never come to a change of mind, but you should
at least want to have a valid reason when you don't.
Dean, I'll try to post a response to your questions
tomorrow evening. In the meantime, I hope you will consider my
request.
Sincerely,
Bill
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2006 7:09
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of
God's Nature?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 1/26/2006 7:20:48 AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of
God's Nature?
John writes > No one in this
discussion believes that Christ sinned, Dean.
cd responds >
Respectfully- If one states that Christ had a fallen nature sinful
nature that is what one is saying John.
No, Dean, it is not.
Rather, it is what you hear us saying. Your hearing,
however, is influenced by your view of sin. That John and I and Debbie
and Lance, and even David on this one, are coming from a different
vantage point than you, is a given. Why assume then that you can see well
enough from your perch to identify things from ours? I began
my previous post with an assurance that none of us view Jesus as a
sinner; John did the same with his; yet you continue to speak
only from a limited view, rather than budge just a little, that you
might see him more completely. There must be some reason why we can see
Jesus as fully representative of humankind in sinful flesh, and yet uphold
the truth that he did not sin while in that flesh. Why must conclude
therefore that he must have been a sinner? Why not give us the benefit of
the doubt, if for just a peak, and try to see things from our perspective?
cd: Wow tough response Bill-I hope my
response to David concerning didn't influence you to do likewise as the
topic are different-I am suppose to give my life- if God put me
in that position- for the brethren. I can also assume one can
defend those same brethren from looking like fools. Let's not carry
our conversation to that same order of battle-okay? I have not read
anything on Debbie belief of this issue to support you stance-I would like
to read them. When we first started this debate most of the group stated
Christ to be as "common man"-I objected to that and tried to show He was not
common-but rather more than common as man went to a state of sin that Christ
did not go too.Bill -this is a very significant difference. If you have
changed you view or make a mistake in your earlier statement by claiming
Christ the same as "common man" then say so and we move on. Believe it or
not I am not focused on proving you wro ng as I am impressed by you and want
to learn what God has given you but on this matter it would seem that God
gave knowledge to me-but at your level there is much I can learn
from you.Can the foot say to the hand:" Hey stop walking and start clapping
!". Concerning David M. there is a lot of truth with him and He has a
lot to offer us but I cannot find a place of trust for Him (may God show me
error if it exists). If my belief is limited I can only hope it is limited
to the bible.
You have a Christ who
was born perfected from the womb, yet the writer to the Hebrews clearly
states that Christ "learned obedience through suffering" and that it was
only after "having been perfected" -- that is, after his resurrection
even -- that he became the Author of salvation.
cd: Bill as I have shown before. Suffering
for a Christian in this world comes from resisting sin and therefore
becoming opposed by people that sin.If I am not resisting I am not
suffering because I am giving into sin and have no opposition to
suffer from. There is also a suffering of the flesh that comes from that
flesh wanting sin and our instructed to bring that flesh into subjection to
the spirit-but as both Wesley and I believe-there is a place where
on can put the flesh under so much subjection that it breaks completely
leaving one free from the drawing of the flesh towards sin or even the
thoughts of sin this is called "Total sanctification"-I believe Jesus put
His flesh under total control. With us it is still possible to fall back
into that sin after the second(or deeper level of) sanctification-yet
unlikely- but for Christ as it was not possible as He made that falling
into sin not possible for Himself through Godly fear.Hope this make sense to
you as it works for me.
You have a Christ who
was born fully sanctified, yet Jesus himself says, "I sanctify myself
(present continuous) that they too might be sanctified by the
truth."
cd: Our difference in the area of
sanctification has to do with the definition of sanctification and how one
applies that term. I believe this to mean:" I keep myself Holy for God to do
His work so that you too can become Holy for God because of me and by the
truth I live and speak. This meaning does not conflict with what I am
stating Bill. Christ kept Himself from sin to help us-no common man ever
came close to doing this-so what is being missed in the majority of
this group thought?
y SANC'TIFY, v.t. [Low L. sanctifico; from
sanctus, holy, and facio, to make.]
1. In a general sense, to cleanse, purify or make holy.
2. To separate, set apart or appoint to a holy, sacred or religious
use.
God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it.
You have a Christ who
did not experience the temptations of a fallen man, yet Paul writes that he
came in the likeness of our sinful flesh, because of sin, that he might
condemn sin in the flesh.
cd: I believe Christ put on a flesh
(covering) like ours but did not conform to this world which follows Satan
as we have as "common men" therefore He was not as we were but as
we now are- because of Him ( speaking of course of a mature
Christian). Satan had to be giving his chance to lose or hold the world so
Christ came in the state Satan controlled (the flesh)-and had claim too
in order to take that claim away. He came to the strong man house to bind
the strong man in his own house.He defeated the strong man by staying pure
and proved He was stronger than the strong man through resistance to
impurity.
You have a Christ who
did not share in our humanity, yet Luke assures us that he was born of the
fruit of David's genitals according to the flesh, and the writer to the
Hebrews that as much as we "share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise
also partook of the same," ... that he might assume the nature
of Abraham's offspring.
cd:Bill - you misunderstand me in
this area-Christ did share in our humanity-even in flesh and blood as David
and Abraham's offspring.
Indeed their is enough
here to warrant a second look, Dean. But if you will not budge, then I must
respectfully request that you please keep silent about things you cannot
see.
cd: Sorry Bill I chose not to remain
silent as that would mean not to offer a different view and I encourage you
to also not keep silent by answering my last post to you on this
issue or simple go on to another issue.Here's one that John brought to the
table:Can Children sin and be accountable for sin-your thoughts? By the way
be nice:-) Thanks bro.
Bill
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is
believed to be
clean.
|
