Lance, why are you putting Judy on
trial? You could share these messages with her in private you know.
David Miller
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 6:24
AM
Subject: Fw: [TruthTalk] Was Jesus of
God's Nature?
----- 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
|