I genuinely appreciated your terse 'yes' in answer
to an earlier question concerning Scripture, Judy. May I then ask for a similar
response to the following: Do you acknowledge a 'tude' (attitude) in some (many)
of your responses to various ones at various times?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: January 27, 2006 16:19
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of
God's Nature?
I know why all of you read me like you do
Lance; no secret there nor is there any reason for me to
be alarmed or sweat it. Sadly the broad road
has always been and always will be full of naysayers.
FWIW, 4 of us 'read' Judy similarly. IFO
actually believe that Judy can't imagine why the 4 of us 'read' her as we
do. The acerbic tone employed, IMO, is apparent to all save
Judy.
Bill, opinions are like noses - everybody has
one.... If yours isn't very pleasant - Oh well!
You own it.
What kind of person could you be,
Judy, if you would put to death that rebellious spirit (read:
nature) you claim not to have. You could maybe learn to read for
understanding. You could grow to see the best in your siblings. You may
even aspire to keep your nose out of their business. Imagine: a Judy who
isn't always causing trouble. Heck, you might even be likable. As
it were, though, you will prove once again your
denial.
Bill
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.
ATST Bill it is insulting
to me - (and perhaps Dean also) for the ppl mentioned above to make
the claim that Jesus' humanity "so called" included an Adamic sinful
nature when scripture clearly records that he is the Lord from
heaven (the same yesterday, today, and forever)and that He is
the second Adam.
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.
Let go of truth out of
some misguided respect for ppl? I certainly hope and pray that
Dean is more mature than to fall for this.
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.
It is written Bill
- the last and best words are written already and you can take
them to the Bank. Believing them is
the problem.
Why would you want to
malign Dean's faith which is rooted and grounded in the right
place?
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.
-- This message has been scanned
for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is
believed to be clean.
|