|
----- Original Message -----
Sent: January 27, 2006 17:16
Subject: RE: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Sigh. I guess you've already alerted her many times to the
fact that if she takes this position, then everybody who disagrees with her
interpretation of any passage must not be a true believer. I guess that doesn't
give her pause at all...
D
----- Original Message -----
Sent: January 27, 2006 08:51
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of God's Nature?
Scriptural Interpretation under the
tutelage of the Holy Spirit? I trust that every true believer prays for
the Spirit's assistance in reading/interpreting/living out the Scriptures.
HOWEVER, HOWEVER, HOWEVER ETC.....The Scriptures are NOT
self-interpreting.
As I have said before many, many times
Lance - God's Word needs no "interpreter" We need understanding,
the
scriptures are to be "understood" rather
than "interpreted" and understanding comes from God alone, He turns it
off
or on according to the condition of the
heart. God is not mocked....
MANY IF NOT MOST true believers arrive at
differing conclusions as to the meaning of the Scriptures.
We will see whent he Lord returns which
ones were "true" and which ones were not. To some who think they are
"true" today He will say "I never did
know you. Depart from me you who practice lawlessness" It's only as
we
abide in Him and HIS WORDS (not some
fleshly interpretation) abide in us ...that we are on the narrow
way
and headed toward the strait
gate.
Does anyone (in particular, Judy and DM) believe
that EVERY true believer ALWAYS has access, via the Spirit, to the ONE TRUE
MEANING of the Scriptures (I refer to the entirety of the
Scriptures)?
Yes....
IFO do not believe that this is anywhere promised
in the Scriptures themselves.
It is not only promised it is demonstrated in the
life of the apostle Paul himself who may have read lots of
books before he fell down before the Lord on the
Damascus Road but from all accounts he certainly did not
afterwards.
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.
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG
Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release
Date: 1/27/2006
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG
Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release
Date: 1/27/2006
|
