| Author |
Message |
Lori
Registered user
Username: Lori
Post Number: 30
Registered: 11-1999
| | Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 6:48 am: |     |
I went back and re-read what I wrote. It does sound like I'm totally implying the seed is sinful and the egg is perfect. That's not what I meant....sorry. The egg can't possibly be pure because there is no woman born who has not come from the source of a man's seed.
That being said, I'll continue with: Mary didn't supplied anything but an incubator. In John 6:38 Jesus says, "For I have come down from heaven..."
Jesus didn't inherit anything at all from Mary. Matthew 1:18,20 says, "she was found to be WITH (holding,possessing) child through the Holy Spirit" and "what is conceived IN her is from the Holy Spirit." (Just because you hold something in your possession doesn't mean you had a part in its creation.)
The Holy Spirit didn't conceive anything WITH Mary. He conceived something IN Mary. The Holy Spirit is THE SOURCE, and the only source, of the conception of Christ.
Think about it: when has God only provided half of what we needed? He's always provided it all!!!
The only thing Mary provided was a positive attitude toward God. She was a vessel--that's all. God provided all the contents!
|
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1118
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 12:29 pm: | |
Lori, I too believe that the Biblical evidence points to what you are saying. In fact, God didn't just provide all the contents, He was the contents--He became the contents. The Bible says that "the Word [God the Son] became flesh"--it doesn't say that the Word joined up with a woman's sin-infected egg. Jesus is not a created being in any sense of the word. He became flesh. The blood of Jesus is God's blood--it's not from Mary (Acts 20:28).
"The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven." (1 Corinthians 15:47 NIV.)
I think that says it pretty clearly. 
I don't see where the Bible says that Jesus inherited anything from Mary.
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on March 02, 2006) |
Xsra
Registered user
Username: Xsra
Post Number: 14
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 02, 2006 - 10:52 pm: | |
Lori,
Very well said. Jesus' mind was of God while His flesh was of Mary. His sinless mind was tebernacled in sinful flesh, i.e. even while dying of hunger in the wilderness He would not depart from God's will.
I feel a distinction needs to be made between sinful mind and sinful flesh. Sinful mind is the predisposition to think sinful thoughts and desires. Jesus never once did this but we often do. Anyone who claims to have been so delivered from such carnal thoughts and desires is not being honest. But that's not to say we have to indulge in such thoughts, nor is it to say we have to yield to them, for the promise of the gospel is to deliver us from sin -- "sin shall not have dominion over you" Rom 6:14.
I don't believe this means we necessarily have to sin and repent as the normal Christian experience, but that as soon as a sinful thought or desire presents itself we have the choice to immediately give it to Jesus to deal with. So that while on the one hand the predisposition to sin is in us and often raises its ugly head, on the other hand we don't have to serve it but may abide in Christ at all times.
This is the condition of those who have been born again.
With Jesus it was slightly different. He never had a predisposition to sin, but His flesh placed enormous pressure on Him to depart from God in an effort to find relief. He was tempted in all points as we are, yet with a sinless mind. For example, in the area of appetite He could not be tempted to indulge or eat forbidden food, but He could be tempted to relieve His hunger by working a miracle on His own behalf, against His Father's will. In this sense He was tempted as we are -- through the appetites -- but from the perspective of a sinless mind that never once had experienced sin.
This can never be our experience because we have never possessed a sinless mind. Likewise, our experience can never be His because He has never experienced a sinful mind. But we can experience total victory over all sin through refusing to yield to the natural sinful tendency in us, in that although the sin is in us we have not yet committed it until we yield our will to it. This sinful mind might be referred to as the residue of original sin: it isn't the original sin that once completely conquered us before we were born again, but neither is it completely gone so that there is no more trace of it.
Rob |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1119
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 11:05 am: | |
Rob,
You wrote: "Jesus' mind was of God while His flesh was of Mary. His sinless mind was tebernacled in sinful flesh,"
That is the same ancient heresy of Gnosticism and/or Apollinarianism, if you're saying that Jesus only had a divine mind/spirit inhabiting human flesh. Then the "man Jesus" was no more "God" than I am, since I also have God (the Holy Spirit) indwelling/tabernacling in my sinful flesh. The Bible says that I have the mind of Christ in me. Is that "all" that the man Jesus had?
As Lori and I showed above, Jesus did not have sinful flesh. He did not even have a "sin weakened" physical body. He was truly pure in all ways and He was truly God in the flesh. The Word (God the Son) did not just indwell flesh, He became flesh.
Regarding perfection, I don't see how you can call it "perfect" and "sinless" if we still have sinful thoughts and desires.
And I know you'll admit that you have not stopped sinning yet, so how can you possibly have any assurance of salvation?
In fact, since you have not stopped sinning, you know with 100% certainty that if probation were to close today, you would go to hell. That is not the assurance and hope of the Gospel!
1 John 5:13 says that we can know that we have eternal life, if we believe in Jesus--if we trust His righteous life and atoning death alone to save us, instead of trusting in our "becoming perfect" to save us--which is impossible. Believe in the Lord Jesus, trust in Him alone, and you will be saved.
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on March 03, 2006) |
Xsra
Registered user
Username: Xsra
Post Number: 15
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 03, 2006 - 9:14 pm: | |
Jeremy,
Unfortunately, I canít agree with yours and Loriís position regarding the birth and humanity of Jesus. I agree with the following scripture:
"Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
"And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:" Rom.1:3,4
In your post you said:
"Regarding perfection, I don't see how you can call it "perfect" and "sinless" if we still have sinful thoughts and desires.
"And I know you'll admit that you have not stopped sinning yet, so how can you possibly have any assurance of salvation?
"In fact, since you have not stopped sinning, you know with 100% certainty that if probation were to close today, you would go to hell. That is not the assurance and hope of the Gospel!" (Jeremy)
I have had the victory over sin many times. The fact that I have sinned since being born again is my own fault, not the gospel's. But I have never claimed to be without sin, which is another thing entirely. I believe the following scripture:
"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
"If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." 1Jn.1:8-10
Jeremy, are you claiming to be without sin?
Rob
|
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1122
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 04, 2006 - 10:11 am: | |
Rob,
A better translation of Romans 1:3 is:
"concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh," (NASB).
In Mark 12:35-37, Jesus makes it clear that He is not the literal son of David.
I never claimed anything remotely close to being without sin. I don't know what you're referring to.
As long as we have this sinful body, we will keep sinning (Romans 7). As long as you have a sinful body then you can be certain that you will not attain perfection.
But it seems that you have missed the whole point of my last post. So I'll re-post the last paragraph of my above post:
1 John 5:13 says that we can know that we have eternal life, if we believe in Jesus--if we trust His righteous life and atoning death alone to save us, instead of trusting in our "becoming perfect" to save us--which is impossible. Believe in the Lord Jesus, trust in Him alone, and you will be saved.
Jeremy |
Lori
Registered user
Username: Lori
Post Number: 31
Registered: 11-1999
| | Posted on Saturday, March 04, 2006 - 7:10 pm: | |
1Peter 2:24 says, "Who his own self bare OUR SINS IN HIS own BODY on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed."
He bore OUR sins IN HIS OWN BODY.
Christ was perfect!! If he had not arrived, remained and died in perfection then we would not have salvation.
Consider the story of Ruth. The analogy of the servant and the kinsman-redeemer. One in the same condition as we (a state of sinfulness--whether in mind or body is irrelevant) can not save us. It requires someone who is on the "outside" . Only someone on the "outside" (Christ, in his perfection) can redeem those trapped in sin.
2 Cor. 5:21, "God made him(Jesus), WHO HAD NO SIN to be sin for us,.....
As for the lineage:
Please read the lineage of David as listed in Matthew Chapter 1. You will find the lineage is from the fathers side. Read vs. 16, "and Jacob the FATHER OF JOSEPH, THE HUSBAND OF MARY, OF WHOM WAS BORN JESUS CHRIST."
Jesus received nothing from the "bloodline" of Joseph; he was not a "blood" relative of David. He was born IN the line of David not FROM/OF the line of David.
|
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1124
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, March 04, 2006 - 8:11 pm: | |
Rob, please think about the implications here. If I say that Jesus had sinful flesh, then that means that His blood, which purchased my redemption, was sinful. That would be terrible blasphemy. His blood was pure, holy, and undefiled. His blood could not cleanse if it was defiled! His body, including His blood, was absolutely spotless, NOT sinful, or else He could never have saved me by His blood.
But praise God that Jesus, all of Jesus, is holy and sinless and God Himself!
Do we really want to say that it was sinful or defiled blood which had traveled down through generations of vile sinners, that Jesus spilled on the Cross?! Perish the thought. Let us never count the blood of the covenant an unholy thing (Hebrews 10:29)!
Jeremy |
Xsra
Registered user
Username: Xsra
Post Number: 16
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 04, 2006 - 8:42 pm: | |
Lori,
"As for the lineage:
Please read the lineage of David as listed in Matthew Chapter 1. You will find the lineage is from the fathers side. Read vs. 16, "and Jacob the FATHER OF JOSEPH, THE HUSBAND OF MARY, OF WHOM WAS BORN JESUS CHRIST."
"Jesus received nothing from the "bloodline" of Joseph; he was not a "blood" relative of David. He was born IN the line of David not FROM/OF the line of David.î (Lori)
Actually, I stumbled across this problem yesterday, before the Holy Spirit led me to the solution. I canít put it any better than Dr. Morris:
"Joseph was clearly the son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16, so this verse [Luke 3:23 - says 'son of Heli'] should be understood to mean 'son-in-law of Heli.' thus, the genealogy of Christ in Luke is actually the genealogy of Mary, while Matthew gives that of Joseph. Actually, the word 'son' is not in the original, so it would be legitimate to supply either 'son' or 'son-in-law' in this context. Since Matthew and Luke clearly record much common material, it is certain that neither one could unknowingly incorporate such a flagrant apparent mistake as the wrong genealogy in his record. As it is, however, the two genealogies show that both parents were descendants of David--Joseph through Solomon (Matthew 1:7-15), thus inheriting the legal right to the throne of David, and Mary through Nathan (Luke 3:23-31), her line thus carrying the seed of David, since Solomon's line had been refused the throne because of Jechoniah's sin" [Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Defender's Study Bible, note for Luke 3:23 (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Publishing, Inc., 1995).]. http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/mary-motherofjesus.html
So Jesus was a direct descendant of David through Maryís line, and literally inherited all the sins that had been committed through this lineage going back to Adam. It was necessary for Him to literally wear the same flesh and blood of sinners in order for Him to be able to overcome on behalf of sinners. But it is one thing to inherit sinful flesh and another to inherit sinless mind.
At this point it makes no sense to continually argue as we wonít get anywhere. I respect your opinion as well as Jeremyís; itís just that I donít agree with you both.
Rob
|
Xsra
Registered user
Username: Xsra
Post Number: 17
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 04, 2006 - 9:41 pm: | |
Jeremy,
I really don't think we will ever see things eye to eye on this subject, but perhaps let's try from another angle.
Terminology can often get in the way, so let's try keeping it simple. I think we both believe that Jesus had a pure mind or nature, and that He also bore all of our sins in His body. The problem seems to be "how" He did this. You feel that He bore our sins vicariously, i.e. He wore them over His own sinless flesh and blood body, whereas I feel He bore our sins literally, i.e. He wore them as His own flesh and blood body, the same as ours, no difference whatsoever.
You feel this would mean that He was therefore a sinner Himself. I donít. I make a distinction between mind and flesh, as did Paul in Romans 7. The man in Romans 7:14-24 is not a Christian, for would a Christian cry out to be delivered from a Christian experience? No. But he is crying out to be delivered from a sinning and repenting experience. In the end he discovers that it is the law of sin IN his flesh that is causing all the problems.
Prior to this he was concentrating all his efforts on making his flesh obey God, but failing. Now he realizes the impossibility of this so long as his mind is under the control of the law of sin IN his flesh, and gives the problem over to God. Then he says in Romans 8 verse 1, ìthere is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh but after the spiritî. He still bears the same flesh, but he now has a new spirit (mind).
Likewise, I believe Jesus bore sinful flesh but never at any time served it, but instead served God through His mind. Through this means He lifted up the human instrument and restored it to its original purpose -- obedience to God. But note, He began in righteousness, i.e. His human instrument was lifted up from the moment He was conceived in Maryís womb. Therefore, from that time forward His flesh served (obeyed) God. But this was only through His mind obeying God at all times. He never allowed his flesh a chance to disobey god. He kept it on the higher plane. But this flesh was capable of sinning, yet not of itself so long as Jesus kept His mind on God. As such He experienced none of the predisposition to sin that we experience, referred to variously as the carnal mind, old man, self etc.
When a person is born again, the old nature is taken out and replaced by the new nature. But not entirely; there remains traces of the old nature that will need to be overcome on a daily basis so long as we live in fallen flesh. But the difference is we now have a CHOICE. This means we are no longer slaves to sin, for a slave has no choice. Exactly in what manner these traces of sin remain is not important. Satan loves it when terminology gets in the way of faith. Some people believe the carnal mind is eradicated at the new birth and never returns. Others believe the carnal mind is broken but still needs to be resisted every day.
All you need to know is ìsin shall not have dominion over youî Rom. 6:14. Forget about terminology.
I hope I have made my position a little clearer for you.
Take care
Rob
|
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 3483
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 05, 2006 - 12:34 am: | |
Rob, your position is untenable to us because it is not supported by the Bible. It is supported by a philosophical explanation intended to make Ellen's statements about Jesus make sense. You must believe the way you do because you believe Ellen is a true prophet of God.
The idea that Jesus had "sinful flesh" directly contradicts the OT mataphor of the Spotless Lamb of God. Sinful flesh is not spotless, and Jesus was both flesh and spirit.
Further, the understanding of the old nature and the new nature is vague at best if you do not understand that man has a spiritóa part of him (not the breath) that knows and responds to God. This is what is born dead in us; this is what comes to life when the Holy Spirit indwells us. It's not that the "old nature" is "taken out" and the "new nature" is put in. What happens is that our literal spirits come to life. It's not "out" and "in". It's NEW.
2 Corinthians 5:21 describes Jesus'carrying our sin and our having His righteousness. This is a mystery we cannot fully explain, but it is very clear that it had nothing to do with Jesus inheriting literal sin in the flesh:
"He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the rightesouness of God in Him."
Jesus didn't inherit sinful flesh and carry it that way. He BECAME sin, and he BECAME a curse for us (Gal. 3:13). BECOMING sin is not the same thing as inheriting sinful flesh. It's far more overwhelming. He BECAME sinóyet was Himself completely sinless.
What's more, we BECOME His righteousness when we're in Him. We don't achieve it; we don't grow into it. We BECOME His righteousness when we are born from above. And we become righteousness while we are still in our sinful flesh. We don't resist sin when we are born again. We submit. Instead of interacting with our sin, we interact with Jesus, and we submit to Him in our moments of temptation. It isn't at all about resisting sin. It's about saying yes to Jesus. That's very different.,
Jesus was completely "other" from us while still being made human. We cannot understand Jesus by analyzing ourselves.
I believe deeply, Rob, that these issues would look very different to you if you were to abandon Ellen and commit to learning only from the Bible. God really can teach us the truth about Himself without the help of Ellen or any other Biblical interpreter. He is enough, and His word is sharper than a two-edged sword. His word is part of our spiritual armor (Ephesians 6:17). Never are the words of ANY extra-biblical author to have so much authority that they change the meaning of Scripture.
Colleen |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1125
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 05, 2006 - 4:36 pm: | |
Rob,
I agree with the quote by Dr. Morris--Jesus was born of Mary, who was a descendant of David. But that does not mean that Jesus was conceived from Mary. In fact, that very webpage you quote from and link to goes on to say, immediately after your quote, that Jesus was not conceived from Mary in any way! And they also give links to two articles by Dr. Morris which state the same thing. Their links are outdated, so here are the current links to those two articles:
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=76
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=375
Dr. Morris shows that Jesus' body did not come from Mary (although I disagree with him about Jesus' body being "created ex nihilo"--I believe He became flesh).
You say that Jesus bore our sins by having sinful flesh, and you said to Lori that He "inherited all the sins that had been committed through this lineage going back to Adam." But how then did He bear the sins of those who were not part of that lineage? Are you saying that He did not bear the specific sins of the redeemed??? The Bible says that He bore our sins ON THE CROSS! He bore AWAY the sins. He atoned for them and bore the penalty and punishment for them. The Bible makes it clear that it was a legal transaction on the Cross--our sins were imputed to Him so that we could have His righteousness imputed to us! It is not that He "carried sins around in His flesh"!!
Romans 7 is definitely talking about Christians. Paul says that His mind serves God and His flesh serves sin. But a non-Christian's mind does not serve God!
Regarding Romans 6:14, rather than just quoting half a verse, I would suggest reading the whole verse and comparing it with 1 Corinthians 15:56.
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on March 05, 2006) |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1126
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, March 05, 2006 - 4:51 pm: | |
Correction to my above post: the upper case H's should be lower case for the word "his" when talking about Paul.
Jeremy |
Xsra
Registered user
Username: Xsra
Post Number: 18
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, March 05, 2006 - 10:42 pm: | |
Colleen and Jeremy,
"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh" Rom. 8:3
Weak through whose flesh? Ours! So God sent His Son in the same flesh to overcome in the same points whereby we could not.
Nevertheless, I'm interested to know your thoughts on the following questions.
1. I assume you believe Jesus was tempted in all points as we are. How do you think this was done?
2. If Jesus had sinless flesh, how did He die?
3. Do you believe Christians can choose not to sin?
Rob |
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 3492
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 05, 2006 - 11:07 pm: | |
God did not send Jesus to "overcome" sin. He sent Jesus to live a life of perfect submission to the Fatheróthe only definition of true obedience. Only total oneness with God can yield perfect submission which, in turn, prevents sin.
In context, Romans 8:3-4 says nothing about Jesus "overcoming". That is entirely an Ellen-ism. The text says that God sent Jesus "for sin"óas a sin offering. He did not come to "overcome". He came to die for sin. Further, verse 4 says that His becoming an offering (not his "overcoming") was for the sake of the "righteous requirements of the law" being "fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit."
IOW, the requirements of the law are met in us NOT by overcoming but by living according to the Spirit. When we accept Jesus sin offering for our sins, we are covered by His atoning blood, and we are made alive through the indwelling Spiritóthe new birth Jesus said was necessary for eternal life (John 3:5-6). It is Jesus' blood that makes us righteous. We do not "overcome"; we submit to the Spiritósomething we CANNOT do without being born from above as a result of accepting Jesus' sacrifice.
Here are my responses to your questions:
1. Jesus was tempted in all points as we are. He was tempted exactly as Adam and Eve were temptedóby Satan's deceptive promises attempting to cause Jesus to respond with "logic" and analysis to the evil offered instead of in obedience to and trust in the Father's will and promises. Jesus resisted temptation not by saying "no" to sinful desires but by trusting the Father and by using the Word of God to clarify truth and reality. He thwarted the darkness of evil with the light of truth and trust in God.
2. Jesus died by laying down His life. No one took it from Him. He died by committing His spirit to God. Flesh dies when the spirit leaves it.
3. I do not believe Christians choose not to sin. I believe that Christians choose to submit to God, trust His promises, and yield to His will when faced with temptation. The crucial matter here is that we do not fight with evil or resist sin. Rather, we either stay actively submitted to God and to His Spirit's power and discipline, or we ignore Him and gratify "the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts" (Ephesians 2:3).
Jesus, however, did not have sinful cravings, desires, and thoughts. He did not battle against a sin nature. He directly battled Satan's temptations to look aside from the Father's promises and to analyze God's promises and commandsójust as Eve was tempted to do. Jesus, however, kept His connection with the Father and resisted Satan's subtle misuse of Scripture and the twisted temptations he offered. Eve was beguiled by the apparent promise of greater knowledge, and she took the bait.
Colleen |
Lori
Registered user
Username: Lori
Post Number: 32
Registered: 11-1999
| | Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 10:38 am: | |
Rob,
"Your Jesus" isn't really God. And, that makes your final statement, to me, completely true---"At this point it makes no sense to continually argue as we wonít get anywhere."
Lori
|
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1127
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 06, 2006 - 1:18 pm: | |
Rob,
You wrote: "So God sent His Son in the same flesh to overcome in the same points whereby we could not."
You're missing the whole point of Romans 8:3.
The point is that because of the weakness of our flesh we cannot keep the Law. So, if Jesus had the same weak sinful flesh as us then He would not have been able to keep it either!
The point of the passage is that because we cannot be righteous, Jesus died for our sins so that He could credit (impute) His righteousness to our account. That is the Gospel!
It says that Jesus came in the "likeness" of sinful flesh--it does not say that He came in sinful flesh!
He did not have to "overcome" anything sinful--He is holy, sinless, pure, and undefiled. He is the Lord God Almighty!
And do you know what the Bible says about us "overcoming"?
"For whatever is born of God overcomes the world; and this is the victory that has overcome the world--our faith.
5Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?" (1 John 5:4-5 NASB.)
Notice that it says that whatever is born of God does overcome (it is an actual reality according to the Greek). And then it says that our faith is what has overcome--past tense. And, verse 5 says that if you believe in Jesus Christ, you are an overcomer!
Jeremy
(Message edited by Jeremy on March 06, 2006) |
Xsra
Registered user
Username: Xsra
Post Number: 19
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 3:26 am: | |
Colleen,
I agree that we do not enter the battle field with the thought in mind to overcome sin, but that we meet the enemy already with the victory in ourselves.
Regarding Ellen White, Ellen-ism etc., can I ask you to not categorise me like this, for you are implying that I am blindly following a person, and that this person is in error because you say so. I believe the Word of God, the writings of Paul and other Apostles, the writings of Luther, Wesley and many other Christian scholars since Christ, all of whom, in my humble opinion, believed and taught that Jesus bore the same flesh and blood as us.
Jeremy,
Firstly, thanks for the helpful quote.
"You're missing the whole point of Romans 8:3.
"The point is that because of the weakness of our flesh we cannot keep the Law. So, if Jesus had the same weak sinful flesh as us then He would not have been able to keep it either!"
True, we can't keep the law through our flesh, but we can through the mind, when it is in Christ. Jesus had the same flesh as we have, but His mind was sinless. When we have His sinless mind in us it is then that we have "overcome the world".
But as our friend Lori has suggested, there's no point in arguing, as we will get nowhere. I think we understand each other now. Best to let each work it out with Christ through faith.
Rob
|
Colleentinker
Registered user
Username: Colleentinker
Post Number: 3504
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 1:50 pm: | |
I didn't mean to insult you, Rob. I'm sorry.
As you say, however, arguing these things is pointless. We can trust God to lead us more and more deeply into truth, and we can trust Him with each other.
Colleen |
Xsra
Registered user
Username: Xsra
Post Number: 20
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 08, 2006 - 2:36 am: | |
Colleen,
No problem. Have a nice day.
Rob |
Xsra
Registered user
Username: Xsra
Post Number: 31
Registered: 6-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 3:28 am: | |
Hi,
Today I was walking through nature and received a nice thought I'd like to share.
As you know from reading this thread, I passed through some frightening experiences in the Sabbath Rest Advent Church in Australia back in the mid-to-late 90's before I had finally had enough and left. I recalled one of those experiences today and the Holy Spirit clarified some things for me. Between 1986 and 1992 there was a continuous open sin in the Palmwoods church and at the Lordís Supper, of which Fred Wright, Andreas Dura and the church turned a blind eye (because of who was committing the sin). Although I never once complained about this sin (only because Fred Wright and the senior members explained to me that it is Godís will for us to leave the matter in His hands for Him to remove them in His way and in His time) many others did complain, and then left the church in protest and also to preserve their own marriages and protect their children.
I know that the Bible says that we are not to eat the Lordís Supper with open sinners (1 Cor. 5:11), but I always wondered how to implement exclusion. Do we stand at the door and physically prevent them from entering the church? Or if they manage to sneak in, do we ask them to leave and physically remove them if they refuse? Or do we simply hold the supper in some secret location so the open sinners canít attend? I would answer No to all of the above.
But before I continue, who or what constitutes open sin? Well, this is so simple. Open sin is sin that is recognised by the church. But you donít have to be a church member to commit open sin. You merely have to be in a sinful condition, i.e. unrepentant of sin, and this being acknowledged by the church IN the church. The church has no right to call this sin outside the church, nor in another church, but only in its own church. This may take the form of an appearance, or a rumour, or a complaint, all of which must be cleared up prior to you attending the Supper.
And who constitute the church? Or can just anybody attend the Supper? Only those who have been baptised into Christ and who have given this witness before the church may attend the Supper. These are those who have clearly given evidence of having left the world for Christ. Therefore those who are either unconverted, or converted but in sin, disqualify themselves from partaking of the emblem of the Lordís body.
How, then, is the church to judge who is worthy to attend the Supper? The church must make efforts to investigate matters of open sin in an unbiased manner and in the spirit of Christ. Then, prior to the Supper, the minister must remind the church that if any members, or any non members who present themselves at the Supper, who are sinning will eat damnation to themselves if they partake of the Supper. Beyond this the church is to do nothing. It is enough for the members to testify that they do not accept open sinners as being members of Christís body ñ the church. These people have been lovingly warned and entreated, and what they choose to do thereafter is between themselves and God. The church cannot be held accountable.
I mentioned earlier of an experience I recalled today on my walk. In 1996, I had written to a sister who had been a member of the Palmwoods church during those sinful years but had now left Australia, and I had mentioned how Andreas had made a false statement to the Australian church at the 1995 camp meeting by saying that the church had always excluded open sinners from the Lordís Supper, which was a most shocking and unbelievable fabrication, designed purely to protect Fred Wright and himself. This sister wrote back to me and attempted to persuade me that Andreas was correct ñ in a sense. She went on to explain what I have explained above, i.e. that even though open sinners may choose to attend the Supper, they still remain ìspirituallyî excluded from the church.
While I agreed with this view, there was one very important ingredient this sister had left out of her explanation, and this was the fact that open sinners needed to be warned and entreated to return to Christ and the church, but this was never done between 1986 and 1992. Neither Fred Wright nor Andreas Dura spoke so much as one word to the church about open sinners attending the Supper. But in 1995, Andreas stated clearly that the church had a duty to warn and entreat open sinners prior to the Supper. He in fact demonstrated this very thing two days later when he attempted to exclude me from the Supper. This type of warning, investigation and judgment had never been implemented between 1986 and 1992.
Suffice to say I never bothered writing back to this sister because I could see that she was skirting the issue by pretending that everything was in order. This saddened me, as I had considered her to be a dear friend. But I wanted to share this with you now, as it may be that some of you have been confused too with regards to open sinners at the Lordís Supper. More than anything, I want to help others to see and understand the truth before they are deceived and hurt as I was; for there are many false teachers in the world, but there are NO false teachers in Christ; for such separate themselves from Him the moment they change His Word into another form and pass it off as the truth.
Take care
Rob
|
|
