| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 80.1 | | LEDS::LOPEZ | A River.. proceeding! | Fri Mar 26 1993 17:18 | 9 |
|
re.25
>or short people
>are less sinful than tall people.
8*) 8*)
Nice way to close out the week.
|
| 80.2 | More Flags/Endflags | ROULET::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Fri Mar 26 1993 20:39 | 12 |
| re: .25
Flag: Some people actually do not believe that Jesus took the
flesh and blood as the children of men (Hebrew 2:14), or
was made in all things like His brethren (Heb. 2:17),
and thus was not tempted in all ways like as we are (Heb.
4:15). Endflag
The flesh is not the mind. There was no sin in the mind of Christ.
His character was 100% spotless.
Tony
|
| 80.3 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Mon Mar 29 1993 13:16 | 35 |
| Tony Barbieri (.27)
Flag: Some people actually do not believe that Jesus took the
flesh and blood as the children of men (Hebrew 2:14), or
was made in all things like His brethren (Heb. 2:17),
and thus was not tempted in all ways like as we are (Heb.
4:15). Endflag
Your references:
Hebrews 2:14 (KJv)
Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh, he also himself
likewise took part of same; that through death he might destroy him that
had the power of death, that is the devil.
Hebrews 2:17a
Wherefore in all thing it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren,
...
Here is says Jesus had the same flesh we did. On this we all agree
contrary to what your flag implies. We agree that Jesus had the same
flesh as we do.
But we do not possess *SINFUL* flesh. Our flesh is NOT sinful.
The lust of the flesh is sinful. Just like money is not evil,
but the LOVE of money is the root of all kinds of evil. Flesh is
matter only.
> The flesh is not the mind. There was no sin in the mind of Christ.
> His character was 100% spotless.
There was no sin in either the mind nor the flesh of Christ. And there
is no sin in our flesh[ly matter], but in our hearts [attitudes, minds, etc].
Mark
|
| 80.4 | Sinful Flesh: A *BIBLE* Term | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Mon Mar 29 1993 16:11 | 24 |
| Mark,
I must stick to the terminology that the sacred Word uses.
Romans 8:3
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.
Now, regardless of what constitutes 'sinful flesh', the fact
of the matter is, there is such a thing.
I have sinful flesh. You have sinful flesh. When Adam sinned,
his flesh changed from sinless flesh to sinful flesh. Jesus
TOOK sinful flesh. (It was never His by native right.)
I have not discussed here what sinful flesh is, I am only stating
(as the Bible does) that there most definitely is such a thing.
I happen to believe that what makes the flesh sinful is the fact
that it does 'tempt' the mind to sin in the way that sinless flesh
does not.
Tony
|
| 80.5 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Mon Mar 29 1993 16:37 | 55 |
| Tony,
We banter semantics, or maybe we do not.
I was a sinful man. I am not now sinful. If I sin, then I am sinful.
Romans 3:19-20
Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who
are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may
become guilty before God.
Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in
his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Romans 8:7
Because of the carnal mind is emnity against God: for it is not subject
to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
> I happen to believe that what makes the flesh sinful is the fact
> that it does 'tempt' the mind to sin in the way that sinless flesh
> does not.
Here is where we happen to disagree, for I think you have it backwards.
IT IS THE MIND that tempts the flesh and not the other way around. Sin
is conceived in the mind and EXPRESSED in the flesh. The two are wed
to each other like cart and horse, but distinct and hierarchical.
The commentary I have on Romans 3:19-20 may be better than my words:
"These verses form a key conclusion in Paul's argument regarding sin and
righteousness. In the previous verses, Paul has quoted the OT to
demonstrate mans sinfulness (vv 10-18). The "law" (v 19), referring
to the OT, was designed to silence all mankind under the conviction that
they have nothing to say against the charge of sin. Likewise, the law was
intended to convince all men of their guilt, or liability to punishment,
before God.
"Paul concludes that since all men are guilty, they cannot be "justified"
by their own personal character or condict (v 20). Justification is a legal
term meaning to remove the guilt (liability to punishment) of the sinner.
It does not involve making one inwardly holy, but merely declares that the
demands of justice have been satisfied. hence, there is no grounds for
condemnation (Romans 8:1). Not even obedience to the law can justify one
before God, Paul reasons, because the very nature of the law is to prove to
man that he is sinful and deserves God's punishment. Thus, the purpose of the
law is to lead man to renounce his own righteousness and trust in the imputation
of Christ's righteousness as the only grounds for acceptance with God."
The plasma of flesh is not sinful in and of itself. But you are correct
to point out that flesh becomes a sinful thing when it is used for sinful
purposes.
> I must stick to the terminology that the sacred Word uses.
And if you want to start this type of stuff, I'll break out my BIG Sword.
Mark
|
| 80.6 | Jesus: Our Lamb without blemish | LEDS::LOPEZ | A River.. proceeding! | Mon Mar 29 1993 16:46 | 28 |
|
re.29
Tony,
"IN THE LIKENESS of sinful flesh" is the terminology that the sacred
Word uses.
If Jesus' flesh were sinful then Romans 8:3 would say "God sending His
Son in the sinful flesh". But it doesn't because Jesus' flesh was not sinful.
Rather it is very clear that "God sent His Son *IN THE LIKENESS* of sinful
flesh".
I won't till old ground with you. However, since this matter concerns
the His very person of the Lord, I would hope that you would carefully consider
this matter again.
Here are some other verses to pray over:
"Him who DID NOT KNOW SIN He made sin on our behalf, that we might
become God's righteousness in Him" 2 Cor 5:21
"For we do not have a high priest who is not able to sympathize with
our weaknesses, but One who has been tried in all respects like us, YET WITHOUT
SIN." Hebrews 4:15
regards,
ace
|
| 80.7 | A Pull Comes From the Flesh | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Mon Mar 29 1993 17:09 | 35 |
| Hi Mark,
I finally understand your position...
...and I couldn't disagree MORE. ;-)
The FLESH lusts against the Spirit and the Spirit against
the flesh.
I do believe that the flesh exerts a pull on the mind. The
above sure seems to express the same idea as does Romans 7
_throughout_.
As to your last statement, if it was meant in humour, great.
If not, it is not well taken.
Hi Ace,
I believe that likeness means 'like' and not 'unlike' and that
Christ's mind was 100% without sin even though the flesh he took
EXERTED A PULL far greater than sinless flesh would.
This is a testament to a far greater, lovelier Saviour and not
a testament to something somehow 'dirty' or 'gross to think
upon.'
When I think on 'without blemish', I believe it speaks of the
character. For it to speak of His physical makeup would imply
that He was not "born of the seed [spermatos] of David according
to the flesh [sarx]."
He took the same flesh and blood of the children of men. That's
what it says!
Tony
|
| 80.8 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Mon Mar 29 1993 17:18 | 24 |
| > As to your last statement, if it was meant in humour, great.
> If not, it is not well taken.
It was not well received to begin with.
> I must stick to the terminology that the sacred Word uses.
If you mean to imply that I have not done so, then
>And if you want to start this type of stuff, I'll break out my BIG Sword.
I mean to imply that the sacred Word has more to say (that would require
effort than I currently want to expend on your beliefs). "Big" meaning
concordance, dictionary (Strong's), and commentaries.
This is how I took your words and how I responded.
As to our disagreements, we can do that without upping the ante.
But in this game, if you up the ante, I'm in. So, want to
up it some more, call, or fold?
(Jeepers, I'm using a poker game analogy! Yikes!)
Mark
|
| 80.9 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Mon Mar 29 1993 17:28 | 5 |
| Having nothing to do with the Annunciation (note 74.25->74.34) from
which this note is created, I have moved these notes to a new home.
Mark Metcalfe
Christian Co-Mod
|
| 80.10 | My $.02 | JUPITR::DJOHNSON | Great is His Faithfulness | Mon Mar 29 1993 18:10 | 12 |
| We were made in the image (likeness) of God. Does that mean we are God?
Of course not. God sent His son *in the likeness* of sinful flesh. His
flesh was not sinful. He did have the cravings and desires (comfort,
pleasure, etc.) that we have but it is not these cravings that make us
sinful but what we choose to do with them.
For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our
weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as
we are--yet was without sin.
Hebrews 4:15 NIV
Dave
|
| 80.11 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Search Me Oh God | Mon Mar 29 1993 19:02 | 5 |
| .10
AMEN!!!
Nancy
|
| 80.12 | Trying to Identify The Crux Difference | JUNCO::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Tue Mar 30 1993 16:21 | 59 |
| Hi Mark,
You stated that sin begins in the mind and is manifested in
the flesh. Yes, however, God looks upon the heart in the
first place. I couldn't agree more that sin is 100% in the
realm of the mind. In fact, this is a fundamental partial
reason why Christ could take sinful flesh and yet be "without
sin."
I was not speaking of sin, I was speaking of TEMPTATION. What
I am saying is that the "flesh lusts against the Spirit and the
Spirit against the flesh."
Do you believe that the flesh which is called sinful flesh exerts
a pull on the mind that is contrary to the Spirit?
Do you believe that after we are glorified, we will still have a
flesh with the same characteristic of being contrary to the
Spirit?
That to me is the crux.
Again, I am not talking about where sin originates, I am talking
about where temptation sometimes originates.
Does sinful flesh (as Paul uses the term in Romans 8 and that flesh
spoken of in Romans 7 and elsewhere) tempt the mind? Does it do
so in a way different than unfallen flesh?
What I discern from your reply is that the context of the biblical
term 'sinful flesh' is a physical part of us that flip flops
between sinless and sinful depending on whether or not we are
sinning. If I am correct in this discernment, I ask that you
"draw your sword" and elaborate on how this is indeed the correct
context.
The context I see is that our flesh underwent a change when Adam
and Eve sinned. What was incorruption became corruption. And
that corruption has a _bent_ that the incorruption never had. It
'pulls' on the mind in a way that incorruptible flesh never did.
And to give in to that pull is called being "carnally [or fleshly]
minded."
Throughout the scriptures, I do not see Paul or anyone else speak
of that physical part of us flip-flopping between sinful/sinless
rather I see the call to submit to another PULL - that of the
Spirit and having the flesh submit to the Spirit. That is, the
flesh doesn't change, but in this life it becomes crucified. As
an allegory, Hagar didn't change. She was what she was. BUT, she
did become submitted to the Spirit (Sarah).
So, Mark, that's what I ask of you. Show me how the context of any
scripture portrays a flesh which is denoted sinful when we are
sinning and sinless when we are not sinning. And show me how the
context does not equate sinful flesh simply to a physical part of
us which exerts a pull on the mind and which is always (until it
is changed to incorruptible) lusting against the Spirit.
Tony
|
| 80.13 | Different definitions of "temptation?" | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Tue Mar 30 1993 16:59 | 110 |
| > I couldn't agree more that sin is 100% in the
> realm of the mind. In fact, this is a fundamental partial
> reason why Christ could take sinful flesh and yet be "without
> sin."
Your interpretation and reasoning, Tony.
My interpretating and reasoning says that Jesus never took on *sinful* flesh
but was *without* sin in *any* measurement scale, not in the mind, heart,
flesh, or action.
> I was not speaking of sin, I was speaking of TEMPTATION.
> Do you believe that the flesh which is called sinful flesh exerts
> a pull on the mind that is contrary to the Spirit?
I believe the flesh exerts a pull on the mind, yes. If you speak of
temptation, I can agree. Temptation is NOT sin. Therefore, no matter
how much I am tempted, I have not sinned. Do you agree with this?
We can haggle over at what point temptation is "embraced in the heart
and mind" thereby causing sin, but nothing in the flesh is sinful *IN
and OF ITSELF*. That's all I'm saying.
> Do you believe that after we are glorified, we will still have a
> flesh with the same characteristic of being contrary to the
> Spirit?
No, I don't. When we are glorified, we will "put off the corruption,
and put on the incorruptible." And "we will be like Him."
> Again, I am not talking about where sin originates, I am talking
> about where temptation sometimes originates.
Then it seems we have had a conflict of terminology. But I need to ask
for clarification whether you equate temptation with sinful flesh?
Or to better clarify how I view the term "sinful flesh": do you equate
the presence of temptation with making flesh sinful?
> Does sinful flesh (as Paul uses the term in Romans 8 and that flesh
> spoken of in Romans 7 and elsewhere) tempt the mind? Does it do
> so in a way different than unfallen flesh?
I believe Paul refers to sinful flesh for its predisposition to yield
to temptation, just as we refer to sinful man, etc. But let me answer
about unfallen flesh: Adam had unfallen flesh, and he was TEMPTED, which
means HE DESIRED that which was forbidden. But Adam did not become
"fallen" until sin was conceived (embraced; a decision to yield) and
brought to full bloom (action). Therefore, his temptation, or desire,
was NOT the cause of his falling, but the conception, embracing, yielding
to that desire that caused his downfall.
Now, we are predisposed to desire that which is forbidden.
Jesus, however, like Adam, had NO predisposition. And, like Adam
was TEMPTED (desire to take the "easy" route to "glory" which was not
God's intent).
> What I discern from your reply is that the context of the biblical
> term 'sinful flesh' is a physical part of us that flip flops
> between sinless and sinful depending on whether or not we are
> sinning. If I am correct in this discernment, I ask that you
> "draw your sword" and elaborate on how this is indeed the correct
> context.
Paul speaks of our disposition to yield to tempatation.
I am thankful that the Bible promises us that WE NO LONGER HAVE TO BE SLAVES
TO SIN! We can be FREE from the disposition (even though we may indeed
still be TEMPTED). But I digress...
It is not so much the svaed/fallen from grace argument as it is the
arguments about holiness living, and sanctification. See Christian_V6,
note 622, for sword references.... lots of them.
> The context I see is that our flesh underwent a change when Adam
> and Eve sinned. What was incorruption became corruption. And
> that corruption has a _bent_ that the incorruption never had.
I agree with this.
> It 'pulls' on the mind in a way that incorruptible flesh never did.
> And to give in to that pull is called being "carnally [or fleshly]
> minded."
Not sure about this. If Jesus had the incorruptible nature of Adam, and
he was tempted in every manner as we, then the pull was very real for
Jesus who was not carnally minded.
> So, Mark, that's what I ask of you. Show me how the context of any
> scripture portrays a flesh which is denoted sinful when we are
> sinning and sinless when we are not sinning.
The phrases here are awkward, but I believe you can see in the
Scriptures provided under the Sanctiifcation topic that we can live without
sin in our lives. I think we differ in how we view the protoplasmic skin
we call flesh. I see it as matter having neither sin nor righteousness of
its own, but just as a utensil in the tabernacle was sanctified for holy
use (and one didn't use it to ladle gravy), we are to become holy people.
The utensil is just a piece of shaped metal, but it is set apart for
specific use. I view the flesh as a piece of shaped meat in which
is housed our spirit and souls, and we are called to be separate and
holy, for God's specific use.
> And show me how the
> context does not equate sinful flesh simply to a physical part of
> us which exerts a pull on the mind and which is always (until it
> is changed to incorruptible) lusting against the Spirit.
Again, we have trouble communicating on the term "sinful flesh."
Flesh pertains to the physical part of us. It *becomes* sinful,
just as a tabernacle utensil can be "profaned" if it is used for
anything other than its intended (sanctified and holy) purpose.
Mark
|
| 80.14 | | JUNCO::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Wed Mar 31 1993 21:21 | 15 |
| A MODEL OF THE PERSONAL STRUGGLE
/\
/ \
/ \
/ \ HOLY SPIRIT
/ \ (the constraint of divine love)
____________
__________________________
| MIND | (the field of battle)
--------------------------
---- --------
EXTERNAL TEMPTATION \ / \ / SINFUL FLESH
(from without) \/ \ / (temptation from within)
\ /
\/
|
| 80.15 | | JUNCO::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Wed Mar 31 1993 21:25 | 16 |
| A MODEL OF WHAT SOME BELIEVE WAS JESUS' STRUGGLE
/\
/ \
/ \
/ \ HOLY SPIRIT
/ \ (the constraint of divine love)
____________
__________________________
| MIND | (the field of battle)
--------------------------
----
EXTERNAL TEMPTATION \ / SINLESS FLESH
(from without) \/ (no temptation from within)
(not tempted in all ways as we are)
|
| 80.16 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Thu Apr 01 1993 13:19 | 52 |
| Assuming that these triangles mean directions of force pulling in the
direction of good or evil.
A MODEL OF THE PERSONAL STRUGGLE
/\
/ \
/ \ With the Holy Spirit within us
/ good \ we would do Good, though evil
/ \ tempts us to sin.
____________
__________________________
| Intellect (mind) |
| Body (flesh) | Battlefield
| Will (spirit) |
--------------------------
------------
\ / Without the Holy Spirit, we
\ evil / have the predisposition to do
\ / evil. If we do not, it is
\ / because of a selfish motivation,
\ / Temptation is not something
\/ fought for good versus evil but
for greatest benefit/pleasure.
Man is bent towards evil. The flesh is no more or less evil than the mind
(all man's imaginations are evil). Until a person yields to God, BY GOD"S
GRACE, the will is powerless to subdue the mind and body.
Yes, flesh is sinful, because it is MADE sinful. It has that quality
BESTOWED upon it and that quality can be removed.
The mind is sinful, because it is made sinful. It has that quality because
we bestow lust upon it.
Temptation from without, as I understand your meaning, is no temptation at
all! One is not tempted to steal bread if their belly is full, even if
someone says, "Go on, steal the bread." This is NOT temptation.
Temptation to do something MUST have desire. For Jesus, he was TEMPTED AS
WE ARE. He had desire not to be crucified. "If it be possible, let this
cup pass from me. Nevertheless, not my will but Thine be done." And so
the temptations in the wilderness were REAL desires to sidestep the plan of
salvation.
The only difference I see in external and internal temptations is that one
originates on the outside (BUT IS STILL CONSIDERED and FOUGHT ON THE
INSIDE). Temptation is ALL INTERNAL, only the seeds sprout externally or
internally. But if a seed sprouts externally and there is no desire
internally, there is NO TEMPTATION.
Mark
|
| 80.17 | But The Flesh Does _Lust_ Against the Spirit! | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Thu Apr 01 1993 16:25 | 46 |
| Hi Mark,
Yes, I agree that the differences are where the temptations
originate (differences between within and without). And I'm
sure there is overlap. For example, there may be a temptation
from without, but one in which the flesh provides a pull as well
and as a result of that initial tempting from without.
I came up with the model of the personal struggle not on the
basis of preconception, but on the basis of the Word of God.
I did not put the flesh where you put it (for example) because
Galatians 5:16-25
This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill
the lust of the _flesh_.
For the _flesh_ lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against
the _flesh_: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that
ye cannot do the things that ye would.
But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Now the works of the _flesh_ are manifest, which are these;
Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lascivioussness,
Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife,
seditions, heresies,
Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the
which I tell you before, as I also have told you in time past, that
they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering,
gentleness, goodness, faith,
Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.
And they that are Christ's have crucified the _flesh_ with the
affections and lusts.
If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
And there are several other texts which allude to the same
principle; that being that the flesh 'pulls'. (Romans 7 and 8
for example.)
In fact, Paul in Galatians says "I am crucified WITH Christ."
His cross (experientially) is our cross.
Did Christ our Example also crucify the flesh???
Mark, on what scriptural basis do you support the flesh as
exerting no pull?
Tony
|
| 80.18 | Why 'It' Is Called Sinful Flesh | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Thu Apr 01 1993 16:47 | 68 |
| Hi Again,
The following is why I believe that sinful flesh is called
sinful flesh! ;-)
I see the mind/heart/will as the nonphysical part of us. And
here I refer to that aspect of it which is moral, choosing right
from wrong, being warmed by rvelations of God's love, and
submitting to that, etc.
The mind is subject to forces. If you take the diagram of the
struggle of man that I entered and remove the Spirit, this is
where Adam left us. And we would have no strength to do what
is right.
This is a crucial point. I have come to believe that the mind
in and of itself IS NOT A FORCE RATHER IS SUBJECT TO FORCES.
This is why no matter what, we are enslaved. There is no question
that the mind is enslaved, the only question is "to whom does it
serve?" This is why one cannot 'not choose' God and sin. We are
ultimately a slave to one or the other.
So, left with no link to the constraint of divine love, we can
do nothing but evil for there is another force linked to the
mind and the mind is in bondage to it. Granted, we may be
motivated by fear to not steal for example, but we cannot be
motivated to not harbor the urge in the heart (outside of the pull
of the Spirit).
Sinful flesh is a source of a force to do nothing but evil. It
is selfish to the core. And without an opposing force (God), it
will produce in the mind nothing but sin.
That is why it is called sinful flesh. Not because it is sin, BUT
BECAUSE (IF ALIVE) IT ALWAYS PRODUCES SIN.
(The seed of an apple tree is not an apple, but it produces apples.)
But, thank God, Christ took what we are in Adam and placed us in
Christ - placed us within the sphere of another force. One whose
pull overwhelms that of the flesh. But, we need to come to KNOW
it. We need to acquaint ourselves with it.
I believe Christ took sinful flesh. He took that PULL. He took
that 'physical thing' that does nothing but try to produce sin.
But, He started out submitted to another pull. The pull of the
Spirit.
All His earthly life was a testimony of the crucifixion of the
flesh. That force was always present, but it was not allowed to
produce sin for Christ always did the will of His Father. He
never once sinned.
So this is how it is that Christ could take sinful flesh and still
be the spotless Lamb. There was no sin in Christ even though He
took (and crucified) that part of us that most often produces sin
in us (as a result of our consenting to it) - our flesh.
Just look at the myriad of sins Paul says in Galatians 3:19-21
are fruit of the FLESH.
The fruit is the sin, the flesh is what produces it (when the mind/
heart consents), and the flesh is what can be crucified and thus
not allowed to produce sin.
Tony
|
| 80.19 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Thu Apr 01 1993 17:12 | 26 |
| > Mark, on what scriptural basis do you support the flesh as
> exerting no pull?
Again, I believe you misunderstand what I have said. But here is a verse
or two:
Genesis 2
21 And the lord god caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam,
and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the
flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the lord god had taken from man,
made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
23 And Adam said, this is now bone of my bones, and flesh of
my flesh: she shall be called woman, because she was taken
out of man.
24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother,
and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and
were not ashamed.
Now, you may say that the flesh that God made inthe Garden did not possess
the pull, is this correct? And here I think the disagreement between what
is temptation is most acute. For I say the pull of temptation was something
desired that was forbidden. If these people had no sinful flesh, then
there would be no pull, correct?
|
| 80.20 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Thu Apr 01 1993 17:25 | 28 |
| (I'm getting some screwy effects from cutting and pasting from Bookreader
Bible to Notes and I lost half of my note in the previous reply.)
>But The Flesh Does _Lust_ Against the Spirit!
Yes, we do disagree on this, but the tripartite man is not something
we should separate, though we have done so by calling attention to the
parts of man we call mind, soul, and body. The fact is that these "pieces"
overlap to a significant degree. And that a sinful person is sinful in
mind, soul, and body. It is wrong (I believe) to say that the flesh is
sinful, but that the mind and soul are not.
Conversely, if God has made a man righteous, his mind, soul, and body, are
righteous. Holiness demands a clean vessel for God's use, rendering our
bodies as living sacrifices which is our reasonable service.
Romans 5
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and
death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all
have sinned:
Here is says that sin entered the world, not our flesh (protoplasm)
through Adam. And it is significant to see the word "entered"
which means that something comes in from without. So our flesh
(and mind and soul) becomes sinful; all of it, not only flesh.
I believe we have a significant problem over the defintion and nature of
temptation. Let me read .18 before responding further.
|
| 80.21 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Thu Apr 01 1993 17:45 | 74 |
| .18 Tony
> The mind is subject to forces. If you take the diagram of the
> struggle of man that I entered and remove the Spirit, this is
> where Adam left us. And we would have no strength to do what
> is right.
We differ here. I believe Adam and Eve both had full powers to choose
right. And they were without sin. They did NOT have the propensity
to sin as we do for sin had not entered the world before that time.
> This is a crucial point. I have come to believe that the mind
> in and of itself IS NOT A FORCE RATHER IS SUBJECT TO FORCES.
I would say that the mind is both a force and subject to forces, wouldn't you?
> Sinful flesh is a source of a force to do nothing but evil. It
> is selfish to the core. And without an opposing force (God), it
> will produce in the mind nothing but sin.
I disagree. Lust is a matter of the mind and is one force to do evil.
Lust causes the flesh to sin, not visa versa. (But then again, I hold
that these all work so closely together as to be able to cause them
to be indistinguishable at times.)
James 1
14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his
own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and
sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
> That is why it is called sinful flesh. Not because it is sin, BUT
> BECAUSE (IF ALIVE) IT ALWAYS PRODUCES SIN.
Now why didn't you say so in the first place? We agree that left to our
own devices we will [produce] sin. "All have sinned and come short of
the glory of God." But I believe that a man does NOT have to sin while
in the flesh! We have God's promises of holiness on this!
> But, thank God, Christ took what we are in Adam and placed us in
> Christ - placed us within the sphere of another force. One whose
> pull overwhelms that of the flesh. But, we need to come to KNOW
> it. We need to acquaint ourselves with it.
To become acquainted with it, open the previous conference to note 622
and read the verses on Holiness, and sanctification.
> I believe Christ took sinful flesh. He took that PULL. He took
I believe Christ had no sin, whatsoever, in him.
Let's take another angle. Lucifer did not have our flesh, and yet sinned.
What "pull" was exerted on him?
> That force was always present, but it was not allowed to
> produce sin for Christ always did the will of His Father. He
> never once sinned.
The force was not sinful flesh, for the flesh only resonates to the pull of
sin from without our flesh.
> So this is how it is that Christ could take sinful flesh and still
> be the spotless Lamb. There was no sin in Christ even though He
> took (and crucified) that part of us that most often produces sin
> in us (as a result of our consenting to it) - our flesh.
"..that part of us that most often produces..."
I disagree. The heart is most deceitful. The practices of the flesh are
ONLY expressions of the sin that has ALREADY conceived in our hearts!
I don't think we're far apart, Tony, but from my view, you have the
concepts mixed up.
With Love,
Mark
|
| 80.22 | Genesis 6:5b | ICTHUS::YUILLE | Thou God seest me | Thu Apr 01 1993 20:47 | 1 |
| ....every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually...
|
| 80.23 | Galatians 5:17 | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Thu Apr 01 1993 21:13 | 40 |
| 80.24 | Don't Understand Application | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Thu Apr 01 1993 21:18 | 21 |
| Hi Andy,
What's your point?
Does this imply that the flesh did not exert a pull?
Does it imply that Christ could not have taken a flesh from
whence a pull (to sin) is exerted?
Its a nice verse, but I don't see it as clarifying anything about
the flesh and what flesh it was that Christ took.
Given that the flesh is not in the domain of the mind (where sin
is) and only exerts a pull to the mind, I don't understand the
problem with the simple truth that Christ was "of the seed [sperma]
of David, according to the flesh [sarx]." Romans 1:3.
He had the same flesh you and I have, it was no different. And
He lived a 100% spotless life though encumbered with that flesh.
Tony
|
| 80.25 | re the 'nice verse' of .24 .... | ICTHUS::YUILLE | Thou God seest me | Thu Apr 01 1993 21:53 | 18 |
| 80.26 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Fri Apr 02 1993 00:11 | 31 |
| 80.27 | Pull of the flesh is not necessarily evil - it can be good | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Fri Apr 02 1993 12:51 | 64 |
| 80.28 | | POWDML::MCCONNELL | Cows...So cute, and tasty, too! | Fri Apr 02 1993 14:00 | 7 |
| Recommended reading about this stuff: Lifetime Guarantee, by
Dr. Bill Gillham
He makes the distinctions between spirit, soul, emotions, flesh, mind,
etc very clear, using clear biblical examples.
Sue
|
| 80.29 | Possibly Concluding Remarks... | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Fri Apr 02 1993 16:31 | 55 |
| Hi Mark and Andy,
Just a couple quick questions and then I'm all set.
Oh...first...I do believe that sin originated in the mind and
in fact ONLY takes place in the mind. I just happen to believe
that the flesh underwent a change after Adam and Eve sinned.
That it pulls in a way that Adam and Eve's flesh before they
sinned ever did pull. I believe support of this is the truth that
we are called to be perfect in this life (thus it is possible)
all the while scripture also states that our bodies will change
from corruption to incorruption at the second coming. In other
words, with a sinless character and before the second coming, one
will still have 'corruptible flesh'.
This is the difference. For example, Andy, you spoke of sin
being in the mind (such as anger) and not being manifested by the
flesh. I hear what you're saying, but I don't see the relevence.
I'm talking about what happens BEFORE (not after) the sin takes
place in the mind and I'm saying that our flesh DRAWS THE MIND
with temptations. An obvious example would be a crack baby. That
baby CRAVES something and that craving is probably consuming the
mind, but the source of the craving is the flesh.
So I'm suggesting that because our flesh underwent a change, it
is often the source of passions such as out of control appetite,
sexual desires, etc., etc. Appetite alone is an obvious example
that the flesh is very closely tied (in ways) to the 'mindset' of
the mind. Try being without food and drink for a week. You're
mind would be affected. NOW, what I am saying is the flesh has its
influence in a myriad of ways that perhaps don't seem as obvious.
And if its the case, Romans 1:3 and various verses in Hebrews 2 say
a lot. They say (to me) that Jesus took the genetic 'code' of
'post-fallen' man and that 'code' is flawed in a way that the
'pre-fallen' code was. And the way it is flawed is that it prompts
the mind with cravings and passions in areas such as appetite and
sexual expression that sinless flesh never would have.
So, my questions are?...
Did Jesus take the genetic heritage of post-fallen man?
Why does Paul in Romans 7,8, Galatians 5 and elsewhere tie tempta-
tion so intimately with flesh? Especially for example note Romans
8:1-4.
And I realize we are understanding the implications of such a thing
MUCH differently.
God Bless,
Tony
|
| 80.30 | Answers to questions in .29 | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Fri Apr 02 1993 17:42 | 68 |
| I think we mince words, Tony. but be that as it may, here goes:
>NOW, what I am saying is the flesh has its
>influence in a myriad of ways that perhaps don't seem as obvious.
We agree. INFLUENCE on the mind is different that being sinful.
Desire and what is done with it are two different things.
If the desire for sex is with my wife, then that desire of the flesh is GOOD!
If the desire for sex is outside marriage, that desire of the flesh is BAD!
> Did Jesus take the genetic heritage of post-fallen man?
Jesus was the God-man. Fully God, and fully man. He had the same flesh
we have - BUT (and our contention) neither his nor our flesh have an
intrinsic evil. It DOES have DESIRES, which when directed are good or
bad desires. Jesus had corruptible flesh, I believe. He aged, etc.
But corruptible flesh is different that *sinful* flesh. Corruptible
flesh is one of the side-effects of the fall, when sin entered the
world; the attitude of rebellion towards God.
> Why does Paul in Romans 7,8, Galatians 5 and elsewhere tie tempta-
> tion so intimately with flesh? Especially for example note Romans
> 8:1-4.
Because flesh does have a pull. But that pull is only good or evil based
on what is done with that pull. For the one who is in an attitude of
rebellion towards God, the desires of the heart will be towards the bad.
1 THERE is therefore now no condemnation to them which
are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the
Spirit.
This verse shows which part is in control. Walking after the spirit
means the spirit has dominance over the desires (which can be good or
bad depending on their application).
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made
me free from the law of sin and death.
The life after the Spirit overrules the desires and puts them into
proper subjection. Walking after the Spirit does not remove desire
from our being. But the Spirit directs those desires into the good,
where the sinful nature (the attitude of rebellion towards God; selfishness)
directs those desires into the bad.
3 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:
The law can be summed up in two commandments: "Love God with everything;
love others as yourself." The law attempted to codify these two commandments.
It was fleshly man attempting to put the Spirit of the Law into letters.
God sent Jesus in the *likeness* of sinful flesh - it had all the desires
(pull) that we have - but in 'Him was found no sin.'
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us,
who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Jesus came to establish the law of love in our hearts; the attitude of
complicity towards God, again summed up by the two greatest commandments.
"All the law and the prophets hang on these two commandments."
Walking after the Spirit places the proper order on things.
The reverse order is self, others, and God. Sin is selfishness, desires
for gratification (lust, etc). When God is first, others next, and self
last, desires for self will be fulfilled PROPERLY and in due order.
Mark
|
| 80.31 | Agree On Much/Perhaps One Main Difference | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Mon Apr 05 1993 16:56 | 13 |
| Hi Mark,
Yup, we seem to agree on much.
The only difference (I can see) is in the area of how great
a pull 'incorruptible' flesh exerts and if it differs in any
way from incorruptible.
I believe that 'incorruptible' flesh seeks to pull the mind of
man all the way to "being like God" even if such would require
hanging Him on a cross.
Tony
|
| 80.32 | Mean to Say Corruptible in Last Reply | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Mon Apr 05 1993 16:57 | 1 |
|
|
| 80.33 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Mon Apr 05 1993 20:19 | 19 |
| > The only difference (I can see) is in the area of how great
> a pull 'corruptible' flesh exerts and if it differs in any
> way from incorruptible.
Why should it matter how great the pull (desire) is? It doesn't make
flesh more or less sinful if one's desire is greater or lesser. What it
does cause is a greater struggle for some than others in various areas
of life.
If my desire for women was a great desire where your desire for women
was not as great, then I would struggle more with that temptation.
But, you may desire material things more than I do, and so your
temptation towards materialism is greater than mine.
In any case, DESIRE does not equal SIN. Being tempted is not sinning.
Our flesh is only sinful if we use it to sin. And the flesh cannot be
sinful without the whole man being sinful; flesh is only a component of
man.
|
| 80.34 | forgiveness | WR1FOR::POLICRITI_GR | | Thu Apr 15 1993 18:28 | 5 |
| I am a bit confused here. We are not perfect. From time to time we,
unfortunately, do sin - all of us. Of course, we are forgiven when we
confess this and "turn back to the Lord."
|
| 80.35 | I Believe It Was Continuous | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Mon Apr 04 1994 17:12 | 19 |
| Hi Ace,
No, I believe the spiritual reality described by Romans 7
points to a continuous dying experience. I believe in the
spiritual sense, Christ bore a cross all His earthly life
and after conversion, His folowers do so as well.
Jesus increased in wisdom and stature. He grew in seeing
God's love and correspondingly in being weighed down with
a revelation of the sinfulness of sin and the guilt that
follows. This all reached a crescendo during Gethsemane
and the cross.
Jesus was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
Check out Job by reading the scriptures that contain the
phrase "born of a woman" and also link with Gal. 4:4.
Tony
|
| 80.36 | Romans 7 | LEDS::LOPEZ | A River.. proceeding! | Mon Apr 04 1994 21:23 | 43 |
|
Hi Tony,
Why do you think Romans 7 applies to the Lord Jesus? The Romans 7
experience is clearly our experience as those with the element of sin in our
flesh. Our deliverence from Romans 7 begins with Romans 8:1 (there is no
condemnation to those in Christ Jesus). But Romans 7 doesn't apply to the Lord
Jesus nor does it indicate there that it does. Neither does the Lord need to be
delivered in Christ Jesus because He *is* Christ Jesus!
Do you believe that the Lord Jesus experienced Romans 7 in *any* degree
whatsoever?
Did He experience verse 8? "But sin, taking occasion through the
commandment, wrought in me coveting of every kind."
How about verse 11? "For sin, taking occasion through the commandment,
deceived me, and through it killed me?"
Was the Lord Jesus "sold under sin" as verse 14 says? "but I am fleshly,
sold under sin"
Did He really practice evil? "but the evil I do not will, this I
practice" v19
The Lord Jesus did not have even the slightest inclination toward our
sinful disposition. If He did, He would not have been qualified to be our
substitute.
It sounds like you're saying He did, but I can't believe that you really
believe that. It must be a misunderstanding.
Yes, the Lord bore the cross all His earthly life to bring His humanity
(not sinful) into complete subjection to God. This was God's original
expectation with the first Adam who failed. However, the last Adam (Christ) did
not fail. Not even the slightest thought was improper with Him. Do you agree?
Regards,
Ace
|
| 80.37 | the Gospel isn't this cloudy..... | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Tue Apr 05 1994 13:29 | 33 |
| Being a human is not a sinful thing; if it were, Yeshua was a sinner
merely by the fact that he wore human flesh.
There are two uses of "flesh" in the Bible; there is the "meat" aspect
- the actual flesh that hangs on our bones...it's been referred to as
our "earthsuit", and there are sinful patterns that we develop to meet
our own needs apart from the L-rd (flesh-patterns, sin-patterns, etc.).
Simply having flesh (meat; the earthsuit) is *not* sinful.
The desires of the human body (e.g., desiring liquid, desiring food,
desiring sex, desiring oxygen, etc.) are *neutral*, there is nothing
sinful about the physical desires the human body has. However, when
man chooses to meet those needs *on his own strength*, by his own
(bent) devices, *then* we're talking about sin (for anything not done
in faith is sin).
Isn't this exactly the same as the idea that the *love* of money (not
money, but the *love* of it; a.k.a. greed) is the root of all evil?
Money is not the problem - it's man's heart. Having an earthsuit made
out of human flesh is not the problem, it's where man's heart is before
the L-rd. Surely you're not suggesting, Tony, that Yeshua had a
(spiritual) heart problem, are you?
But even this is more complex a description than it needs to be.
Here's how simple it is,
He (Yeshua) who was *WITHOUT SIN*, *became* sin for us.
If human flesh isn't neutral but is actually sinful, then the Bible
lies when it tells us that He was without sin.
Steve
|
| 80.38 | Yeah...He Took Sinful Flesh | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Wed Apr 06 1994 13:27 | 41 |
| Hi Ace,
I believe that Jesus took sinful flesh and that sinful flesh
exerts a pull on the mind to sin. There are several passages
that allude to the 'lusts' (pulls) of the flesh.
I also believe that this body of sin and death reveals sinfulness
to the mind in proportion to the mind's receiving revelation of
the 'commandment' (the agape of God).
Jesus took that flesh and grew in seeing the love of God and as
He did so, He saw the sinfulness of sin and because of sinful
flesh, He FELT like He was that sinner and He felt the
corresponding pain that results.
I have a REAL heavy cold and so I'm not prepared to specifically
handle each verse you brought out (I no longer remember them!).
All I'm saying is that sinful flesh exerts a pull, a force on the
mind. This in no way implies Christ sinned. Yes, I happen to
believe He had a flesh that needed to be crucified all of His
earthly life. Yes, I do believe He is our Example. And no, I
do not believe He was so unlike us that while we are burdened
with sinful flesh which exerts a tremendous pull on the mind (so
says the Bible), Jesus' path of obedience was entirely unlike ours
because He took some 'better' flesh which had no such awful pull
and thus had a tremendous advantage over us ABOVE AND BEYOND FAITH.
Simply put...
We are righteouss by faith and not by flesh.
Jesus Christ was righteouss by faith and His faith was so perfect
that it triumphs even over sinful flesh.
When one closely studies this, it becomes apparent that to believe
Jesus took sinful flesh and rendered perfect obedience is to
present a far more glorious Savior then to believe He took sinless
flesh and rendered perfect obedience.
Tony
|
| 80.39 | | ICTHUS::YUILLE | Thou God seest me | Wed Apr 06 1994 13:52 | 36 |
| 80.40 | Re-iterating what Steve M. Said | KAHALA::JOHNSON_L | Leslie Ann Johnson | Wed Apr 06 1994 14:19 | 36 |
| Tony,
Your sincerity, zeal, and love of God always impress me, but so often I
am saddened because I see you taking to heart ideas that have evolved from
taking scripture out of its context and turning the meaning into something
quite different from what is true. In this case, I have to reiterate what
Steve McConnell said. It's not the muscles, bone, blood, skin, and organs
of our body that make us creatures of sin, its the rebellion that is in our
mind and "heart". (I'm not talking about the muscle organ that pumps blood,
but about the desires of our spirit).
Jesus did not become sinful flesh, He took the form of a man. Yes, he lived
within the limits of a human body, he got tired, thirsty, hungry and all of
that, but He was man the way man was originally created and meant to be --
without sin. He was a "lamb" WITHOUT BLEMISH. That is why He could be our
atonement for sin, because He was without sin. Read through the Tanakh (what
you would call the O.T.) and pay special attention to the sacrificial system,
the passover lamb, the sin offerings, the scapegoat. In these physical
observances, try to see the spiritual truths that were being taught. One of
these is that an offering to cover sin must be be perfect. We are incapable
of that, and the sacrifice of animals is incapable of that. Jesus took our
place, and paid the price of our sin, but He did not have to pay the price of
His own sin, unlike the temple priests who first had to have their personal
sin covered before they could make the offering for the people. Look at the
concept of kinsman-redeemer too. This is in the laws and in the book of Ruth.
Steve noted that "flesh" can refer to the human condition - the rebellion of
our will, our spirit, our intellect. This is the "sinful flesh". He also
noted that flesh refers to our physical bodies. Although the word for each
is translated flesh, the context and meaning are different. Our sin has
caused all of creation to become abnormal and for disease, age, and decay to
attack our bodies, but our bodies are not what makes us sinful. When Jesus
clothed Himself in muscle, bone, sinews, and skin, He did not clothe himself
in sin.
Leslie
|
| 80.41 | Important enough to emphasized and emphasized | KAHALA::JOHNSON_L | Leslie Ann Johnson | Wed Apr 06 1994 15:15 | 90 |
| <<< Note 447.13 by KAHALA::JOHNSON_L "Leslie Ann Johnson" >>>
-< Important enough to emphasized and emphasized >-
RE: Note 447.10 by STRATA::BARBIERI "God can be so appreciated!" >>>
-< Yeah...He Took Sinful Flesh >-
My previous reply was written without going into your response to Ace
point by point. In re-reading your note, I'd like to say some things
again, more specifically. I think that both Ace and Andrew, as well
as Steve, raised some important points.
>> I believe that Jesus took sinful flesh and that sinful flesh
>> exerts a pull on the mind to sin. There are several passages
>> that allude to the 'lusts' (pulls) of the flesh.
It is the will, thoughts, desires of our spirit that lead us
to physcially sin, and not other way around.
>> Jesus took that flesh and grew in seeing the love of God and as
>> He did so, He saw the sinfulness of sin and because of sinful
>> flesh, He FELT like He was that sinner and He felt the
>> corresponding pain that results.
Jesus came to minister to sinners, to show them the way to live,
the way to be obedient to what is right and good and true, what
is of God, of Himself. He came to heal people from disease both
the disease of the spirit and of the body -- but NOT TO BE A
SINNER Himself.
Jesus came to be a kinsman related to us by virtue of being human.
But being related doesn't mean being sinful. Again, He was human
the way humans were originally designed and created to be. He
experienced the RESULTS of sin - humiliation, rejection, and death,
but He did not need to feel like He was a sinner and He did not
need to be a sinner.
>> All I'm saying is that sinful flesh exerts a pull, a force on the
>> mind. This in no way implies Christ sinned. Yes, I happen to
>> believe He had a flesh that needed to be crucified all of His
>> earthly life. Yes, I do believe He is our Example. And no, I
>> do not believe He was so unlike us that while we are burdened
>> with sinful flesh which exerts a tremendous pull on the mind (so
>> says the Bible), Jesus' path of obedience was entirely unlike ours
>> because He took some 'better' flesh which had no such awful pull
>> and thus had a tremendous advantage over us ABOVE AND BEYOND FAITH.
If Jesus had sin within Himself that "needed to be crucified",
He would not have been without blemish, and could not have been
our substitute. His death would have been the price of His own
sin, and not the payment for ours. Jesus is different from us.
None of us are God. His path IS different from ours. We are the
sinners, He is the perfect, unblemished sacrifice for our sin.
It was not His "faith" that made Him perfect, but the fact that
He is without sin. Our faith doesn't perfect us, but is attributed
to us as righteousness because Jesus's blood became our atonement.
>> Simply put...
>> We are righteouss by faith and not by flesh.
Yes, but our faith is only counted to us as rightousness because
it opens the gates to the perfect righteousness found in the
substitionary sacrifice of Jesus who was and is perfect and sinless.
>> Jesus Christ was righteouss by faith and His faith was so perfect
>> that it triumphs even over sinful flesh.
Faith in Himself ? Jesus said "Why do you call me good, don't you
know that only God is good? Jesus is God, and is good in and of
Himself. It is one of His attributes, a characteristic that is
eternal, unchanging.
>> When one closely studies this, it becomes apparent that to believe
>> Jesus took sinful flesh and rendered perfect obedience is to
>> present a far more glorious Savior then to believe He took sinless
>> flesh and rendered perfect obedience.
What makes Jesus a glorious savior is that instead of utterly
destroying us, He humbled Himself of all the worship, glory, and
praise that was His due, to walk on earth, interacting with people,
in a body made of dust that was as subject to death as ours, and
then allowed Himself to be laughed at, degraded, spit upon, beat,
hurt, and nailed to a piece of wood to die in front of a crowd of
mockers and mourners. He, who was without blemish, sacrificed
Himself for our transgressions against Him!
Leslie
|
| 80.42 | | KAHALA::JOHNSON_L | Leslie Ann Johnson | Wed Apr 06 1994 15:17 | 4 |
| .13 was mine, but I noticed a few typos after I entered it, so I've
reposted it as .14 and deleted .13.
Leslie
|
| 80.43 | Temptation | PIYUSH::STOCK | John Stock (908)594-4152 | Wed Apr 06 1994 15:24 | 39 |
| RE: <<< Note 447.11 by ICTHUS::YUILLE "Thou God seest me" >>>
>The fact that He was 'tempted in every way as we are' does not mean that He
>was attracted to sin;
Andrew, I think that's *exactly* what it means, for what else would be
the point of His temptation?
I heard Dr. Dobson and Mike Trout discussing this with Jerry Jenkins
about a year ago, and Jim's view made sense to me. They were speaking
in the context of sexual temptation, but I believe the principle
applies throughout.
Dr. Dobson's view was that the first step was physical/sexual
attraction; that this was the result of God's creation and not sin in
itself.
He described temptation as the desire to act on that attraction, and
then spoke of Satan's temptation of Christ, saying that if Jesus had
not *wanted* to own the whole world, then he wasn't really being
tempted; that the desire to do wrong is inherent in temptation, is an
element of the offense, to use a legal term.
Lust, which Jim calls the third step, is the conscious decision to act
upon the temptation - which Jesus specifically refused to do, and
therefor did not sin.
This discussion had come from the question of exactly what Jesus meant
when He said "But whoever lusts for a woman has committed adultry with
her". The sin comes not from the "Wow, is she nice!" observation, nor
even from the "Boy, would I sure like to spend some forbidden time with
her" thoughts (temptation). The sin occurs with the "As soon as I get
the opportunity to know her, I'm going to go for it!" decision.
Both Dr. Dobson's theology and his psychology seem real solid to me.
If he is correct, then Jesus was, in fact, attracted to sin - else he
had not been tempted.
/John
|
| 80.44 | But I Believe I Am Being Scriptural: Examples | LUDWIG::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Wed Apr 06 1994 15:53 | 84 |
| Hi,
I don't think I took anything out of context. Let me give a
hypothetical...
Suppose cigarette smoking is a sin (I believe it is actually).
If you took the actual flesh of a person who smoked Camel
straights for 30 years and replaced the flesh of a nonsmoker,
the MIND of the nonsmoker would suddenly 'realize' a PULL that
he never realized before. His flesh would crave that cigarette
and the mind would be exposed to a force.
What I see actually is an inability to consider the possibility
that the actual physical part of us (bones, blood, muscle, etc.)
can have the characteristic of exerting a drawing force on the
mind. And I see this inability as originating from human reasoning
and not from "What saith the Word?"
I invite anyone to do a word study of the phrase "born of a woman."
You will find it in Galatians 4:4, you will also find it 3 or 4
times in Job. In one instance, it is linked with the Psalm 22
verse "I am a worm and no man!" Christ was born of a woman and
because of this He was subject to temptations that are unique to
being born of one who is of a fallen hereditary line. This is
precisely why the Immaculate Conception (which teaches that MARY
was born with unfallen flesh) doctrine came into being. It teaches
that Christ could not have been a man like us, i.e. a product of
the line of fallen heredity.
One other thing I see as untrue is the assertion that Christ being
spotless could not have referred only to His MIND. In other words,
people say that IF Jesus had a PULL that we also have (to sin) then
He is not pure. I believe the spotlessness of Christ refers to
His mind, His character and that if sinful flesh refers to a PULL
(and not the act of sin itself), He can be 'blemished' in that way.
Leslie, I appreciate the earnestness of your reply, but I cannot
fathom how Romans 8:3 could be taken to refer to sinless flesh
(i.e. "likeness of sinful flesh") when the whole of the context is
Romans 7 and refers to a PULL. How can the context point to a
Savior who lacked such a pull? How can that possibly be? The
whole context is obedience and it in no way differentiates the
flesh of Christ from that of us. What it does say is that He is
the proof that we can live an obedient life. It doesn't attribute
obedience to the flesh we have, it attributes obedience to walking
in the Spirit and having the flesh crucified. How in the world
can Romans 8 be contextually accurate if we say that somehow 1)Paul
equates the walk of obedience of Christ to ours, 2)says Christ "came
in the likeness of sinful flesh", 3)speaks of walking in the Spirit
and not after the flesh (Rom 8:4), but is actually implying that
His flesh (and that flesh as relates to the struggle to walk in
obedience) was unlike ours?!!!
How can that possibly be?
The grammar of Romans 8:3 is identical to Phillipians 2:7:
Romans 8:3
"in the likeness of sinful flesh"
Phillipians 2:7
"made in the likeness of men."
Either Christ took both sinful flesh and came as a man OR He
really didn't take sinful flesh and REALLY DIDN'T COME AS A MAN.
If you can wrest Romans 8:3 given due regard to Phillipians 2:7,
then you can interpret anything you want out of the scriptures.
Anything. We may as well set the scriptures aside.
Please do a word study of sarx (flesh). There is a pull there,
BUT NEVER does the inspired word insist that if this pull is
there one must sin. I believe the unblemished Lamb refers to the
character of Christ and not to the flesh He took. I believe the
rational mind is denying the possibility that our physical parts
can exert a force on the mind (to sin). And I believe it is
impossible in the light of Phillipians 2:7 to insist that likeness
in Romans 8:3 actually means _unlikeness_. To do so is to be able
to interpret anything you want anyway you want to.
Do a word study on "born of a woman." Read Hebrews 2.
Tony
|
| 80.45 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Wed Apr 06 1994 16:02 | 23 |
| .17
Hi Tony,
I understand what you are saying and I believe this goes back to your
sarx theory. All through the Bible God speaks of our sinful flesh...
but if you truly look at His word, He says over and over again, it is
the *mind* that controls the flesh..
Proverbs 16:3 Commit thy works unto the LORD, and thy thoughts shall
be established.
The mind that controlled the man who smoked for 30 years indeed
affected his flesh... but it was HIS MIND that started it. His body
became addicted and after his MIND CHOSE to sin by smoking.
Taking now what another man's mind has done to his body and putting
only the SARX with another's NON-smoking mind, is not a good example of
saying our flesh controls our mind... that is backwards to what even
God says in His Word.
Your Sis,
Nancy
|
| 80.46 | | KAHALA::JOHNSON_L | Leslie Ann Johnson | Wed Apr 06 1994 16:12 | 5 |
| No comments on whether smoking is sin or not, but I think Nancy is right,
as regards the analogy you were trying to draw. I'll comment on Romans
7 & 8 tomorrow.
Leslie
|
| 80.47 | More On Flesh | LUDWIG::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Wed Apr 06 1994 16:19 | 65 |
| Hi Leslie,
Just a couple quick comments on your latest reply...
I never said Jesus was righteouss by faith in Himself. How
in the world did you infer that? I said He was righteouss
by faith. Of course I meant by faith in His Father.
The fundamental difference I see in our views is that to take
something that is a PULL to sin equates to _blemish_ as the
O.T. sacrificial system refers to blemish. I equate blemish
only to Christ's spotless character and not to any pull to sin.
In fact, Jesus even said "Not Mine will, but Thine be done."
How could His will possibly be contrary to His Father's? I
believe because of the flesh He took.
I agree with you completely that we can only obey by faith and
faith alone. I agree 100% that sin is a result of rebellion.
NOTHING I have said refutes that.
What I am saying is that within our flesh is a PULL which is
not sin in the mind, but rather a force exerted on the mind to
sin. Even having said that, there is no rational basis to conclude
that I am implying that we are not obedient by faith or disobedient
by rebellion. Only conclude what I have actually said. And that
is simply that we are weighed down with a greater pull to sin than
say an angel has; a force that comes from the physical part of us.
But, given the above, we are still obedient by faith and
disobedient by unbelief.
Perhaps you can show me how the context of the O.T. system
necessarily refers to being unblemished as in the physical part of
us. I believe scripture can be in harmony on that point if it
refers to the mind (only).
Romans 8:3 in consideration of the entirety of the context of
Romans 7 and 8 (to me) is ludicrous if it is taken to refer to
a different flesh than ours. And please note a significant point:
that flesh which is consistent with the context of Romans 7,8,
i.e. that flesh which both exerts a pull and must be crucified.
To insist that it speaks of flesh contrary to one that exerts
a pull is to imply that the introduction of Romans 8:3 to the
discussion at hand (Romans 7,8:1,2,4 and beyond) is essentially
meaningless. There's no meaning outside the clear assetion that
He was weighed down with a similar pull according to His flesh,
but rendered perfect obedience by walking in the Spirit and
"not after the flesh." I mean Romans 8:4 comes right after
Romans 8:3!!!
Both He that sanctifies and they that are sanctified are ONE.
In the context of sanctification (Heb. 2:11), Hebrews said Jesus
took the same flesh and blood as THE CHILDREN. I cannot honestly
read such a passage and conclude that He took the flesh and blood
of those that were not children (Adam and Eve). The _context_
is not Adam and Eve, it is the seed (spermatos) of Abraham
verse 2:16).
Is this wresting scripture? How so?
The mind is not blemished by temptation...whatever it be wherever
it come from. It is blemished by sin and sin alone.
Tony
|
| 80.48 | Need Scriptural Support for Such A Claim | LUDWIG::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Wed Apr 06 1994 16:27 | 21 |
| 80.49 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Wed Apr 06 1994 16:28 | 2 |
| Tony, please clarify something for me. Do you believe that without the
flesh our mind's are free from sin?
|
| 80.50 | 'Corrected Reply' | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Wed Apr 06 1994 16:58 | 24 |
| re: .18,19
There's been crack babies. They _crave_ crack.
I just read that Jeffrey Dahmer's parents both acknowledged
dreaming of murdering people. (Yeah, it was a tabloid!) But,
still, how do we not know that the flesh exerts a force? I
honestly believe that the flesh in and of itself contains a
Pandora's box of pulls to the mind. That within the genes lie
'codes' that will predispose people to various selfish cravings
such a sexual temptations, envies, etc. I'm not saying the
mind cannot be in and of itself a source of pollution, but that
the flesh in and of itseif _is_.
And yet (and I agree), the mind is the deciding thing. It can
consent to the Spirit or submit to the flesh. "Do not be carnally
minded."
Again...provide scriptural proof that the physical part of us
cannot or does not exert a lust to sin. (Rely not on rational
thought alone, include scripture as support for such a claim.)
Tony
|
| 80.51 | A Bummer for Me | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Wed Apr 06 1994 16:58 | 40 |
| Hi,
A little tangent.
I never mentioned this stuff for the purpose of going back
and forth with it.
Its a bummer...I can no longer share the good news especially
the things that really warm my heart without indicating conflicts
with 'mainline evangelical thought.'
Just one example. The whole reason I mentioned Christ's flesh
was to portray how it is He was burdened with the weight of sin,
i.e. sinful flesh bringing sinfulness to greater and greater
view in proportion to increasingly receiving revelations of God's
love, feeling like one is that sinner, and experience the 'death'
in Romans 7.
To me, this is good news. I can see God's character much more
fully.
But, no, it conflicts with a gospel that says God had to 'zap'
His Son. That God could not redeem man outside of having to
inflict some punishment that corresponds to the sum total of the
sins of the world. That God just had to really whack someone.
If not us, then somebody else!
Again, I ask "Why?"
And there is no answer.
Why can't God just remove the sin? After all, that is the deliverance
always referred to in the scriptures. But, no, God just has to give
His Son one tremendous spanking before He can even think of forgiving
lost man.
I don't know...I'm in a quandary. I can't even talk about the gospel
anymore without revealing conflicts with mainline belief.
Tony
|
| 80.52 | Re: Nancy | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Wed Apr 06 1994 17:03 | 28 |
| re: .22
Hi nance,
(By the way, love you too! ;-) )
No, sin only resides in the mind. It is a choice of the mind.
I am only saying that the flesh is a veritable resorvoir that
exerts a drawing force on the mind (to sin). The flesh and the
Spirit are contrary one to the other.
We are called to be spiritually and not carnally minded. Note
the complete distinction between flesh/mind/Spirit. There is no
part of sarx that is mind just as the Holy Spirit is not (in part)
our mind. They are utterly distinct.
Just a force Nance, just a force.
To cite an analogy. Assume flying is the same as obedience.
Assume flying is the same as walking by faith. And not
flying is the same as disobedience (not walking by faith).
I would say that the bird has a weight on it which exerts a
force to keep it from flying.
That weight is sinful flesh.
Tony
|
| 80.53 | | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Wed Apr 06 1994 17:04 | 16 |
| Tony,
Not to "gang up" on you - but if what you're saying is really good
news, it will be received by those whose lives are affected by the Good
News.
The only "bummer" I can see here, is that if physical flesh is itself
sinful, Yeshua was a sinner, his sacrifice meaningless, and we're as
lost as we ever were.
That's not good news, Tony. And I can't see how it warms your heart.
Sorry,
STeve
|
| 80.54 | Summary of Contrasting Postures | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Wed Apr 06 1994 17:23 | 54 |
| Hi,
Would it be accurate to say that the following are points of
conflict?
BLEMISH: posture: Refers to also having a part of us
that draws us to sin and is a blemish even if Jesus had this
thing yet without ever sinning. Other posture: Refers to the
mind consenting to sin only.
SARX: One posture: There are two sarxes. One is nonphysical
and refers to something which draws us to sin. The other is
physical and has no such characteristic of drawing to sin.
Other posture: There is only one sarx and it is the physical
part of us and it exerts a pull to sin.
Romans 7,8/Phillipians 2:7: One posture: Although context seems
to speak of sarx in the sense of something exerting a force and
while Phil 2:7 and Rom. 8:3 as regards to 'likeness' have identical
grammatical structure and are used by the same author under
inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the intended meaning of 'likeness'
is almost opposite in these two verses. Also then, the meaning
of sarx in Rom 8:3 is decidedly different than that contextual
meaning of the rest of Romans 7,8. Other Posture: The context of
sarx is consistent throughout. The author under inspiration
intends likeness to have the same meaning and thus because Jesus
came as a man (1 John 4:2,3), He must also have taken sinful sarx.
The meaning and application of sarx in Romans 8:3 is identical to
Romans 7 and the rest of Romans 8.
Hebrews 2: One posture - while it repeatedly speaks of 'seed' and
'flesh and blood' in the vein of like ours and within the context
of sanctification, the intended meaning of these verses as applied
to Christ is far different than applied to the rest of humanity.
Other Posture: The intentions are identical and are partial basis
for how it is Christ can cleanse our hearts...we have a Forerunner
who fought the battle where the battle is fought (sinful flesh)
and whom we look to by faith.
There are far more points of contention such as what we are
actually delivered from and how sarx is inter-related with this,
but right now I am much more inclined to believe that the weight
of likeness having the same intended meaning, of the context of
sarx being consistent throughout Rom. 7,8 etc. etc. is such that
blemish in O.T. refers to the mind and not to a physical part
of us that draws us to sin and that needs to be crucified.
I hope you guys at least appreciate that I am not trying to wrest
scripure, that I am willing to place any scripture on the table,
and that I am trying to be fair to rules of interpretation.
Tony
|
| 80.55 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Wed Apr 06 1994 17:24 | 20 |
| Hmmmm Actually, I think I understand better what you are saying Tony
and you and I are not that far apart in our beliefs.
Our flesh does have pull, what about our sexuality. That is a desire
that is in our flesh not our mind. God created our bodies to procreate
and thus the urge is in the flesh, I believe the mind enhances said
desire. One example of this is animals, insects and the like, they too
procreate and it's considered nature or natural to do so.
But we have the ability with our mind to stop said desire, by changing
our thoughts.. .which means taking actions and committing our works
unto the Lord or submitting to the Spirit instead. This is what Jesus
did. He had the temptations its recorded, but his MIND overcame the
pull of the body to be sinless through the Spirit.
That is why his sacrifice was pure.
Tony is this what you were talking about?
Nancy
|
| 80.56 | Two Different Sins One Must Be Able To Differentiate | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Wed Apr 06 1994 17:35 | 46 |
| re: .26
Steve...don't get hung up on terminology!!!
Can you not differentiate sinful flesh from sin as in consenting
to sin in the mind?
AND IF YOU CAN DIFFERENTIATE...
the good news is that I can see the righteoussness of Christ and
KNOW that God's love is so constraining that it can render the
mind fully capable of perfect obedience even though encumbered by
the pull of flesh to sin.
I think you're hung up on terminology and given that hangup, you
cannot see that Christ can be our Savior and have taken sinful
flesh.
Its just a pull Steve...just a pull.
I see a Savior who can save to the uttermost. Who really could
bear even the flesh I have and SHOW ME THE WAY. Obey perfectly
though burdened with sinful flesh.
You refuse to see the possibility that the only sin that Christ
could not 'take' is that whose realm is in the choice of the will
and somehow that to take something which exerts a pull to sin, BUT
IN NO WAY SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT SPOTLESSNESS OF CHARACTER, is something
Christ could not take.
If I see a bird fly though encumbered with a lead weight, I do not
conclude the bird is 'bad' because of that weight. Rather I say,
"Look at that bird!! Even though weighted down, it still flies!!"
Somehow you insist that it is evil or bad for Christ to take sinful
flesh and obey perfectly though so encumbered.
Oh no..that is powerful good news.
Again, I believe blemish refers only to mind/character/heart and not
to some physical part of us that exerts a force and one cannot stick
to your interpretation and bring Romans 7,8/Phil 2:7/Heb 2/Gal 4:4/
Job texts on "born of a woman" to the table. Not without wresting
them from their obvious meaning.
Tony
|
| 80.57 | That's It Nancy!!! | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Wed Apr 06 1994 17:42 | 23 |
| re: .29
EXACTLY!!! YOU GOT IT!!
There is a pull that fallen man has that Adam and Eve never
had. Christ came in part to demonstrate the ability to walk
in obedience even though laden with that pull. The source of
that pull is sinful flesh. I would add that our flesh entices
us in ways that Adam's and Eve's never did and does so because
it underwent a change.
Just a pull. And still obedience is 100% by faith in our crucified
Saviour and disobedience is a result of unbelief and includes
(rather than submission to the Spirit) submission to the flesh.
I think the biggest disconnects are the insistence that sarx has
two definitions and the insistence that blemish must refer to more
than just sin in the mind.
I do not see that the whole of scripture supports these two
disconnects.
Tony
|
| 80.58 | Tony | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Wed Apr 06 1994 20:06 | 31 |
| (Well, I'm glad to see that it isn't all me.)
Temptation does have a pull (attraction).
Desire is not sin.
The flesh does NOT equate to being sinful.
Jesus was tempted *AND* Jesus had NO sin in him.
Placing self (yeilding to desire) above (supplanting the proper order of)
God (in our lives) is sin.
I'm sorry you feel bummed that you cannot share what you feel is the truth
of the gospel without people calling you on some of the lynch-pins of
your doctrine. However, to simply allow them to go by without scriptural
challenge would be to wink at error. You say that sincere and close study
would/should reveal these truths to you, but that the "mainline evangelical
thought" conflicts with the good news you would present. In other words,
the "mainline evangelical thought" is in error or immaturely formed (to
put it in a kinder light). The equal possibility is true that the conflict
and error does not rest on the shoulders of mainline evangelical thought.
Recognizing that the conflict does exist, it should not surprize you that
when you share what you feel is the gospel, you get a reaction from those
who hold Truth other than what you have shared.
I know that I have responded to you often, and that may have caused some
personal frictions, but I assure you, my passion for the Truth has dictated
my actions as they have for these others, as they have for you; and it has
not been personal, albeit frustrating at times (admittedly).
|
| 80.59 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Wed Apr 06 1994 20:41 | 10 |
| > One example of this is animals, insects and the like, they too
> procreate and it's considered nature or natural to do so.
An interesting point. Is the flesh of all living things sinful? Or
is just man's flesh sinful, according to your view, Tony?
If the pull is the result of sinful flesh, then all living organisms are
sinful are they not? Mating and breeding are irresistable urges in nature.
MM
|
| 80.60 | | CHTP00::CHTP04::LOVIK | Mark Lovik | Thu Apr 07 1994 14:22 | 5 |
| Tony,
Do you think that Adam and Eve had "sinful flesh" prior to the fall?
Mark L.
|
| 80.61 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Thu Apr 07 1994 15:28 | 7 |
|
Markel, this is .32 of this string, Tony's note. It appears as though
his answer would be no.
>There is a pull that fallen man has that Adam and Eve never
>had.
|
| 80.62 | | CHTP00::CHTP04::LOVIK | Mark Lovik | Thu Apr 07 1994 16:08 | 14 |
| Thanks, Nancy. I had missed that.
Now, I have to also add my voice to those who disagree with Tony's
suggestion regarding the Lord Jesus having the same "sinful flesh" as
do we. The "sinful flesh" is the result of Adam's sin. We all
inherit it as a result of the original disobedience. Christ came
into this world to show men that *a man* *could* live in obedience and
dependence upon God (where the first Adam failed). It was an absolute
necessity that He *not* be begotten in the fallen line of Adam (thus
His human life was begotten by *the Holy Ghost*, and not by man).
Indeed, He was very man (as was the pre-fallen Adam). But He was
unblemished, untainted by the effects of Adam's sin.
Mark L.
|
| 80.63 | Was He fully man? | PIYUSH::STOCK | John Stock (908)594-4152 | Thu Apr 07 1994 16:35 | 15 |
| re: <<< Note 447.37 by CHTP00::CHTP04::LOVIK "Mark Lovik" >>>
Mark, I have trouble with your view - I have been told that Jesus was
fully God, and fully man. Your view seems to say that he was *not*
fully man, but rather a divine imitation of man.
Unless he was fully man, with the same sinful flesh as ours, how could
He show us anything about how *we* could live in obedience and
dependence?
I believe He had the same flesh as I do, and was subject to all the
same temptations - and that in chosing NOT to sin, showed me that I can
do the same. I believe He did not sin until the Father poured all of
our sin upon him on the cross - and that it was the agony of that sin
that made Him cry out "O my God, why have you forsaken me?"
|
| 80.64 | Sin is a deviation from what we are meant to be | KAHALA::JOHNSON_L | Leslie Ann Johnson | Thu Apr 07 1994 16:51 | 8 |
| It isn't necessary to be sinful in order to be fully human. Otherwise
there would be no hope for us at all - we could not become pure in the
resurrection and still be who we are - human beings. Sin has brought
corruption to humanity and has become a characteristic of fallen humanity,
but it was not and is not a permanent part of what humans are supposed
to be.
Leslie
|
| 80.65 | | CHTP00::CHTP04::LOVIK | Mark Lovik | Thu Apr 07 1994 17:01 | 8 |
| Consider this: was Adam fully man prior to the fall? I believe that
he was -- that he was man *as God intended man to be*. This is what I
believe the Lord Jesus came as: a man as God intended man to be, in
perfect union and communion with God. The Lord Jesus "succeeded" where
Adam miserably failed. He demonstrated that man could live by faith,
in dependence upon our Father.
Mark L.
|
| 80.66 | thin and cold, but deep! | DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR | | Thu Apr 07 1994 18:30 | 31 |
|
Hmmm, this string is a lot like the ice remaining here in Maine
THIN... (imo) :-)
The closer to a spherical body you get the flatter it looks.
If we back up to see the full circle of Our father's revelation,we
must of necessity see that Christ was slain from the foundation of the
world. God knew from all eternity that Adam would fail and that
Christ would come (in time, born of a woman) to redeem him and his race.
Not only that but Our Father planned it all that way anyway, but when He
entered the stream of time then things appeared differently looking at the
flattened curve. "Adam where art thou" didnt He know what had happened?
well of course, but (I assume) this is the way it must of necessity have
had to work itself out in the time continuum.
In other words Adam was not Our Father's final rev of Man and He knew it.
Thats what the sharing in Christs' Resurrection is all about.
ohoh - another recursive brain loop! guess I'm a "little people" and
can only use 10% of my brain.
Jesus' flesh :
and the word was made flesh
He was made sin who knew no sin
I dont see a scriptural problem with saying that Jesus was made sinful flesh,
though He never sinned.
Hank
|
| 80.67 | He had a different Nature! | CAPNET::PLOURDE | | Thu Apr 07 1994 20:11 | 14 |
| He WAS fully man too!
He had the same flesh we have, but His nature was different than
ours! Our nature, is worldly.. sin nature passed on from Adam
not Eve. Seeing sin nature is passed on from the earthly father,
and Jesus not from an earthly father had no sin nature. He was
fully man (physically), but He had/has a different nature.
Just my $.02
Richard
|
| 80.68 | probably should start a topic on flesh... | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Thu Apr 07 1994 20:21 | 30 |
| Did Adam have different flesh than you and I?
I don't think so.
What was fallen/dead in Adam was his spirit after the sin. Adam's
flesh didn't change after the fall (unless I missed something
somewhere).
The "faulty equipment" we all inherit from Adam is a dead spirit -
i.e., no way to commune with G-d. Yeshua, born of the Holy Spirit
obviously did not have that problem.
I think the earthsuit that Adam wore, the earthsuit you and I wear, and
the one Yeshua wore are all the same kind.
Think about it - Adam and Eve walked around in the garden completely
naked and it didn't even phase them. They knew G-d was around too, and
it didn't phase them. Only when they yielded to sin did something
change - but it wasn't their earthsuits (though G-d had to make a
covering for them after that point). G-d said "on the day you eat of
the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you will surely
die". Since they didn't physically die (their earthsuits didn't become
toast), something else must have died. I believe it was their spirit.
I don't think they had different flesh than you and me, and I don't
think their flesh changed after they fell.
Am I missing something? I don't think so - but hey, it wouldn't be the
first time ;-)
Steve
|
| 80.69 | The fall, the poison, and our deliverance | LEDS::LOPEZ | A River.. proceeding! | Thu Apr 07 1994 22:53 | 34 |
|
I've understood the fall to be in three stages.
The fall related primarily to the spirt: Adam and Eve in the garden as
was stated.
The further fall related to the soul: Cain murdering his brother.
The complete fall related to the body: Becoming flesh (Gen 6:3) "My
Spirit will not always strive with man for *he has become flesh*". Something
like this.
Anyway the problem started from man's spirit becoming fallen in the
garden. The rest of his being just naturally followed. We now have within us a
sin nature as Paul says in Romans 7 "but sin *dwells* in me". For I know that in
me, that is, in my flesh nothing good dwells." v17-18 And in 8:3 he discusses
the "flesh of sin". Flesh here is the fallen and corrupted body with all its
lusts. Flesh *of* sin. I think it was Andrew who said we commit sins because are
constituted sinners, not we are sinners because commit sins.
But the Bible is clear from Romans 8:3 that our Lord Jesus did not have
the corrupted flesh rather the He had the "likeness of the flesh of sin". Adam
had the ability to fall but did not the indwelling sin until that incident in
the garden with Satan disguised as a serpent. I happen to think God selected a
serpent to describe Satan because a serpent injects its victim with poison. Adam
was injected with the serpentine poison nature of Satan when he fell.
Eventually, this serpentine nature brought man to Gen 6:3 where he "became
flesh". Today we are all born with the flesh of sin due to Adam's fall. But when
we become children of God we receive a divine transfer into the last Adam who,
unlike the first Adam, did not become injected with the poison of the serpent.
He was indeed the complete God and the perfect Man!
Ace
|
| 80.70 | Misc. Replies | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Fri Apr 08 1994 12:59 | 104 |
| Hi,
I was out sick yesterday and just read (quickly) the last
several replies. Quite honestly, I see a decided lack of
scripture in the thoughts presented here (for the most part).
Ace, I think you hit a nail on the head. There is something
sinful about our physical selves. Steve, sorry, I understand
your _interpretation_, I just don't think it stands up
scripturally. Our flesh is very different from Adam's and
Eve's (prefallen) Our genes contain a lot of things that
theirs never did. Just disease alone...do you think Huntington's
chorea or other dreadful genetic diseases were within Adam's
prefallen flesh? There is no way I can accept your position that
their flesh is identical to ours.
Back to you Ace! Amazing that you could take _likeness_ from
from Romans 8:3 and from that conclude it means the flesh He
took was not sinful flesh. Especially in light of my painstaking
effort to link the use of the word _likeness_ in Rom 8:3 with
Phillipians 2:6 (I think its verse 6). In other words Ace...
for you to be consistent, you are forced to conclude that Christ
did not come as a man for Phillipians says He was made in the
_likeness_ of man and you just defined likeness in Rom 8:3 as
'unlike'. Thus He was also really not a man and the condemnation
of 1 John 4:2,3 is upon us.
Rich...good to see you in here! I think its wise to differentiate
flesh from nature. I would say Jesus took sinful 'sarx' and not
sinful 'phusis' (see Rom 2:14/Eph 2:3). As far as the 'sinful'
part coming from the father, I would suggest a word study of the
phrase 'born of a woman' which I will enter. Very illuminating.
My summary thoughts...
The point of flesh when referring to lusts referring to the
physical part of us or to something else is crucial. I believe
it is the physical part of us. I mean even our brains are fallen
I believe. That's critical.
This doctrine touches so many things...
1) If part of that which we are delivered from is SIN and if
Christ came to show us the WAY and IF our flesh did 'fall'
and does present us with obstacles that prefallen Adam and
Eve never had, then the importance of Christ coming in sinful
flesh cannot be underemphasized.
And I believe we are delivered from sin and sin alone and
that texts such as Hebrews 2 and Rom 7,8 tell us that Christ
came to redeem man WHERE MAN WAS WHEN HE NEEDED REDEEMING.
In other words, He is the WAY of a sinless life for man where
man is NOW and that is laden with sinful flesh. It is no
assistance to me to view Christ as demonstrating obedience in
prefallen flesh while I have far bigger obstacles and it is
IDIOTIC for Him to point to Himself as an Example of an obedient
life were He to have such a difference.
2) How Christ suffered on the cross. The sinful flesh position
can view it fully as Romans 7 reveals it. Jesus (at the cross)
looked behind the veil. He saw agape to such a fulness that
via sinful flesh (the commandment came, sin revived, and I died)
He saw the totality of the 'evil of evil', and also via sinful
flesh, it _seemed_ to Him that He was that sinner. And thus He
was burdened with that awful alienation.
In other words, it can all be a spiritual reality that God
cannot circumvent.
The sinless flesh idea has the spiritual burden of the cross
originating from the Father, i.e. for some reason God's law,
His agape has got to give someone quite a whaling before God's
law can forgive sinful man.
I do not believe this and if Christ will not come until the true
gospel is preached to every man...well...we'll be here forever
if our gospel includes such a notion of God's law (love) needing
to just brutalize someone before He can save. The condemnation
is inherent to sin. God has no such need. Agape does not seek
its own.
Those are the two big things I see along with the interpretation
that to be unblemished must include not just the _mind_ but also
that which produces temptation to the mind - sinful flesh. To me,
this is a problem of interpretation.
Anyway...I've been told I'm wresting scripture, but I don't think
anyone here is wresting scripture. I think we're all trying to
be honest and the differences are wholly in the realm of interpre-
tation.
Except for one thing...for something as foundational as this...
to not reply scripturally to (for example) my _likeness_ argument
or the context of Rom 7,8 argument and to reply (instead) with
opinion without being very scriptural...that to me is not the
way to support any position.
We need to open up the word. The amount of scripture in replies
.33 and beyond is really woefully scarce. That's no way to
form any kind of understanding of truth.
God Bless,
Tony
|
| 80.71 | | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Fri Apr 08 1994 13:34 | 62 |
| Ace,
What I understand in the Romans passages (chapter 5-8) is that when he
is talking about "sin living in my members", he's talking about sinful
"flesh patterns" (for lack of a better word) which are developed
throughout our lives pre-Messiah (sometimes, sadly, even after we
become believers) when we continually choose to "yield our members" to
sin; i.e., we build up patterns of sinfulness (habits/strongholds)
which "the power of sin" travels upon (in our members).
For instance...
Human beings actually *need* love. Needing love is of course, not
sinful; it is a need. However, there are many ways to "get 'love'"
from people. If we are not completely trusting Him to meet all our
needs ("my G-d shall supply all your needs according to His riches in
glory in the Messiah Yeshua"), then we will seek to meet our needs on
our own. That lack of trusting in Him is sin (whatever isn't done of
faith is sin).
So let's say that I grew up needing love and that need was going unmet
in my life. Maybe I become a teenager and find myself sleeping around
with 10's of women to meet my need for love (only, I don't realize it,
but what I've got here isn't love, it's just using sex to make me think
I've got love...). If I do this over and over and over again, I've
built up a "flesh pattern" for sexual promiscuity and that pattern is
going to stick with me, even after I become a believer (G-d may just
"zap" it out of me, but maybe not....because He wants me to learn to
trust *Him* to meet all my needs for love; not what "feels" good in the
flesh).
So even after I become a believer, sin (the power of sin) is going to
fire suggestions to my brain to try to make me think about doing
something I know I don't want to (that's sin*ing* if I give into that
temptation; the power of sin wants to make me commit sins). My brain
is part of my flesh, right? So that's how I understand Paul to mean
sin lives in our members - *not* that our members in and of themselves
are sinful (or that merely having human flesh is a sinful thing).
Notice how Paul says (and again, I don't have my Bible here with me, so
this is rough from memory...) things like:
For in my inner being (i.e., the new creation in Messiah), I
delight in G-d's Law.
But I don't do the things that I want to do, on the contrary, the
things I don't want to do; this is what I do!
But if I do the thing I don't want to do; then it is no longer I who
sins, but sin living in my members.
See the difference? The *real* him does NOT want to sin! The new
creation in Messiah simply does not want to sin, but rather delights in
G-d's Law. But *if* the new man does something he doesn't want to do,
then it really isn't him doing it, but sin living in his members (not
his members on their own; not his human flesh/earthsuit - but the power
of sin - to which he yielded....).
Again - I would highly recommend the video series "How to Live the
Victorious Christian Life" by Dr. Bill & Anabelle Gilham.
Steve
|
| 80.72 | serious inquiry... | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Fri Apr 08 1994 13:37 | 11 |
| Tony,
Would you mind showing me Biblically where our actual flesh is
different than Adam's?
I've just not understood it this way, but hey - like I said, I could be
mistaken.
Thanks,
Steve
|
| 80.73 | | CHTP00::CHTP04::LOVIK | Mark Lovik | Fri Apr 08 1994 14:44 | 8 |
| Steve,
I agree with you that what is being referred to as "sinful flesh" is
probably more accurately descried as the "fallen nature". And that is
the reason why I so adamantly reject the implication that the Lord
Jesus had this "sinful flesh".
Mark L.
|
| 80.74 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Fri Apr 08 1994 15:27 | 6 |
| To add adamance, I think it is spurious for Tony to claim that we have not
used Scripture. I think Tony has used Scripture to support his [unorthodox]
view and has pieced a mozaic into a [doctrinal] picture from pieces that
are pulled out of context. Jesus was without sin, period.
Mark M
|
| 80.75 | One other dilemna if Jesus were sinful | KAHALA::JOHNSON_L | Leslie Ann Johnson | Fri Apr 08 1994 15:33 | 22 |
| There is a dilemna here. What I have heard from some of you is that Jesus
had to have "sinful flesh" in order to be fully human. But that would then
have to mean that either He was not fully God because God has no sin in Him,
or that God had changed and somehow become sinful. If God is now contaminated
by sin, then the game's up and the whole of creation and everything is doomed.
I still have to agree with Steve that it is not the body that is sinful, but
something within our spirit. Our bodies, being of the earth, have been affected
by sin along with all the rest of the natural world. Disease, aging, things
going wrong --- these are all the results of the fall, but they are not the
essence of what it means to be human, it is a corruption of what it means to
be human.
As far as the examples of babiess being born with their little bodies
physically tormented because of the affects of their mothers' having been
using crack - I don't think one should label that as being the sin of the
babies or their bodies. Yes its a result of sin in the world. That little
baby has no idea why it is suffering.
Scripture to come later Tony when I have little more time.
Leslie
|
| 80.76 | | ICTHUS::YUILLE | Thou God seest me | Fri Apr 08 1994 15:51 | 8 |
| Re 50,
Amen there Leslie; it's not our bodies that are sinful, but the way we
choose to use them. That choice is made in the will / soul. The fact that
it has physical repercussions, or even that it stems from a wrong indulging
of physical appetite doesn't shift the guilt onto the body which perishes.
Andrew
|
| 80.77 | | RICKS::PSHERWOOD | | Fri Apr 08 1994 15:58 | 10 |
| a personal request:
instead of quoting scripture references, could people quote the
scripture?
I haven't memorized the entire Bible, so saying "chapter mumble of book
rumble says such and so" doesn't help me much.
:-)
thanks!
|
| 80.78 | (sorry - little break there...) | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Fri Apr 08 1994 16:17 | 5 |
| re: not having memorized the Bible
tut, tut, tut....get to it, friend &*}
"Thou shalt memorize thine KJV!" Traditions 4:15
|
| 80.79 | Quickie | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Fri Apr 08 1994 16:27 | 56 |
| Hi,
Just a quick reply and then I'll introduce some more scriptures.
I really think there is a huge terminology disconnect with the
term _sinful flesh_. Sin as I think most of us understand it,
is of the mind. The mind consents to something. A law of sin
and death which is in our members or sinful flesh is not talking
about that kind of sin. Yes, the term _sinful_ is used and _law
of sin and death_ is used and _sin which is in my members_ is
used.
Again...righteoussness is of the mind. Faith is of the mind.
Sin (as I think we all understand it) is of the mind.
And yet...scripture calls something sinful flesh. It obviously
does not refer to sin as in something the mind chooses to do
because the Bible never describes sinful flesh as becoming sinless
when the mind walks in the Spirit...it describes sinful flesh as
being _crucified_.
What I am saying is...yes there is this term sinful flesh, but it
is WAY DIFFERENT than sin in the sense of the mind consenting to
sin. The word 'sinful' is there, but clearly it has an altogether
different meaning and one consistent with the mind being able to
obey perfectly should sinful flesh be crucified.
This (to me) is the big disconnect. To NECESSITATE that the
spotlessness of Christ cannot possibly be taken to refer to His
living a life of perfect righteoussness, but must also include
the flesh He took.
Leslie and any others, do you understand the distinction I am
trying to make between sin as in the mind consenting to sin and
sinful flesh as in a force that tries to draw the mind to sin?
I need to know this.
Steve, as far as the flesh of Adam and Eve...I think we both would
have to admit scripture is silent on the flesh of Adam and Eve
(prefallen). My position is based on sinful flesh and my _inter-
pretation_ that it indeed refers to the physical part of us and
on my own rational thought. Which is...I do not believe that Adam
and Eve's genetic information included such terrible diseases as
there are. I do not understand why it cannot be considered
plausible that our physical selves can exert a drawing force on
the mind (to sin).
Finally Mark...I'd like you to be more specific. What to you mean
by 'mosaic'? Was my _likeness_ analysis flawed? Was it flawed for
me to cite Hebrews 2? In exactly what way?
Tony
|
| 80.80 | | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Fri Apr 08 1994 16:34 | 23 |
| Tony,
If Scripture is silent on the issue, why are you claiming that my
interpretation isn't Biblical but yours is?
re: sinful flesh
re-read your .54 and ask yourself, is your physical flesh what was
crucified in Him 2000 years ago?
Gal. 2:20 clearly says that we were crucified in Him. But I'm still
wearing the same flesh I wore before He began living His life out
through me.
What was put to death in Him, Tony?
And not to argue too much here, but I don't think righteousness is in
the mind - it is a state of being, just as guilt is a state of being.
IF one sins, one is guilty (whether one feels it or not). If one is in
the Messiah he has "become the righteousness of G-d in Messiah"
(whether he feels it or not).
Steve
|
| 80.81 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Memories..... | Fri Apr 08 1994 17:04 | 16 |
| | <<< Note 447.55 by POWDML::SMCCONNELL "Next year, in Jerusalem!" >>>
| And not to argue too much here, but I don't think righteousness is in
| the mind - it is a state of being, just as guilt is a state of being.
| IF one sins, one is guilty (whether one feels it or not). If one is in
| the Messiah he has "become the righteousness of G-d in Messiah"
| (whether he feels it or not).
Steve, I see what you're saying, but let me ask you. Is guilt and
guilty the same thing? If I have been convicted of a crime, I am guilty of it.
If I have remorse for what I did, I feel guilt. Can you see the difference?
Glen
|
| 80.82 | Born of A Woman...Part 1 of 2 | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Fri Apr 08 1994 17:16 | 45 |
| Hi,
Here's a _born of a woman_ study...
followed by a brief look at some of Rom 7,8...
Isaiah 28:10
For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept, Line upon
line, line upon line, Here a little, there a little.
Job 5:7
Yet man is born to trouble as the sparks fly upward.
Job 14:1,2
Man who is _born of a woman_ is of few days and full of trouble.
He comes forth like a flower and fades away; He flees like a shadow
and does not continue.
Job 15:14
What is man that he could be pure, and he who is _born of a woman_
that he could be righteouss?
Job 25:4-6
How then can man be righteouss before God? Or how can he be pure
who is _born of a woman_?
If even the moon does not shine, and the stars are not pure in His
sight,
How much less man who is a maggot, And _a son of man_ who is a worm?
Psalm 22:6
But I am a worm, and no man; A reproach of men and despised of the
people.
Galatians 4:4,5
But when the fulness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son,
BORN OF A WOMAN, born under the law,
to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the
adoption as sons.
There is something about being born of a woman. Something about that
IN AND OF ITSELF that presents quite a perplexity, an obstacle if you
will. Troubles and sorrows as the word has just said. And something
that provokes the question "How can anyone who is _born of a woman_
be righteouss?" (Job 15:14).
I'll continue...
|
| 80.83 | Born of A Womans...Part 2 of 2 | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Fri Apr 08 1994 17:16 | 88 |
| To continue...
And I believe this is the obstacle...
Rom 7:23
But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my
mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in
my members
I submit to you that our fallen flesh contains a LAW, a force if you
will that exerts itself on the mind. To be captive to this law is
to sin in the mind.
verse 24
O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of
death?
This is our physical body which exerts this awful force. Who will
deliver me???
verse 25
I thank God - through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then with the mind
I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.
Somehow...even though the flesh serves the law of sin, he can thank
Jesus Christ his Lord because (through Christ) his mind (even though
the flesh is still there) can serve the law of God.
Rom 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ
Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the
Spirit.
Note, the flesh is still there. The force is still there, but when
walking according to the Spirit, the flesh is crucified. The law
of sin and death is VANQUISHED!
verse 2
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from
the law of sin and death.
So somehow because of Jesus, this person can walk in the Spirit and
be free from this terrible law of sin and death.
How so?
verse 3
For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh...
that is...we could not obey the law while burdened with sinful flesh.
(how can he who is born of a woman be righteouss? How?)
Let us see how...
verse 3 contd.
God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on
account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh.
That is...He condemned the law of sin and death which is in sinful
flesh. How? By taking that flesh (by being sent in the likeness of
sinful flesh, by being _born of a woman, born under the law_) and by
being victor over this awful law. By crucifying the flesh every moment
of His earthly life, "He condemned sin in the flesh." And it must have
been sinful flesh wherein He condemned it because only sinful flesh
contains this law.
verse 4
that the righteouss requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us
who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Somehow...what Christ did is proof that His law can be fulfilled in
us even though we have this flesh wherein this law of sin and death
exists. Obviously, this is so because of what is said in verse 3.
In other words, because He rendered perfect obedience while encumbered
with precisely that same flesh in which the law of sin and death
exists. And because we can do as He did. "To him who overcomes even
as I overcame" (Rev 3) "Follow Me."
I'd like someone to quote this same set of scriptures and (holding to
the context) clearly explain how God accomplished what is said here
were Jesus to come in a flesh within which the law of sin and death
did not reside.
And I'd also like someone to precisely point out just what I am
'wresting' and what my 'mosaic' is.
Tony
|
| 80.84 | | MIMS::CASON_K | | Fri Apr 08 1994 17:26 | 9 |
| Tony,
Help me understand here. If the genetic makeup of Adam and Eve were
different from ours, i.e. they did not have "sinful flesh", and the
draw to sin resides in the flesh then what was it that "pulled" them
to sin in the garden?
Kent
|
| 80.85 | External Temptation Too! | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Fri Apr 08 1994 17:29 | 7 |
| Hi Kurt,
They were tempted from without. I am not saying there is
not also _external_ temptation. I'm just saying that in our
case there is another (in fact more powerful) temptation.
Tony
|
| 80.86 | | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Fri Apr 08 1994 17:35 | 15 |
| Glen,
"guilt" is a feeling, "guilty" is a state of being.
One can commit a crime and therefore be "guilty", but may or may not
feel any "guilt".
Conversely, one may have committed a crime, confessed it to the L-rd,
and be totally forgiven; he is "innocent". But then he may be tempted
to *feel* "guilty".
These examples (both very realistic, FWIW) are reasons why we are not
to trust our emotions above the Word of G-d.
Steve
|
| 80.87 | | CHTP00::CHTP04::LOVIK | Mark Lovik | Fri Apr 08 1994 17:39 | 18 |
| This one line catches my eye:
> This is our physical body which exerts this awful force. Who will
> deliver me???
Tony, I believe you will find disagreement by many in the conference
that it is "our physical body which exerts this awful force". Paul
says "But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of
my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in
my members." (Rom 7:23). It is not the physical body, but *the law of
sin* that exerts the awful force. And, to fall prey to the law of sin
can be much more than to sin in the mind.
And, Jesus Christ *did not* have the law of sin working in His members.
He did *not* have the conflict of Romans 7, because He had only *one*
desire: "to do Thy will, O God."
Mark L.
|
| 80.88 | reply: steve | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Fri Apr 08 1994 17:50 | 77 |
| 80.89 | John 5:30/6:38 | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Fri Apr 08 1994 18:03 | 24 |
| Hi Mark L.,
But, the law of sin is in the members!
And you say that Jesus only desired to do His Father's will?
That is in direct conflict with what the word says.
At least twice in the gospel of John, Jesus says,
"Not Mine will, but Thine will be done."
No offense Mark, but it is EXACTLY replied like yours that
strengthen the conviction that we are all encumbered with
false beliefs that it is SO VERY HARD to unlearn.
We sometimes stress things and hold them up to the world
as proof positive for a fundamental doctrinal position.
And then the word stares us right in the face and tells us
something different.
"Not Mine will, but Thine will be done" John 5:30/John 6:38.
Tony
|
| 80.90 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Fri Apr 08 1994 18:11 | 11 |
| >Two, because I cannot believe Adam and Eve had a sarx that has such
^^^^^^^^
This does not a good doctrine make, Tony. We must believe the Bible as
it is written and quit trying to read in between the lines. By doing
so we open ourselves up for hypocrisy and loss of salvation, for then
we can reason away anything written in the Bible.
Tony, where does faith fit into your spirituality?
In His Love,
Nancy
|
| 80.91 | last one for me on this topic... | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Fri Apr 08 1994 18:12 | 39 |
|
re: born of a woman (.57/.58)
Tony - what do you think is meant by "born of a woman" and what is
different about all of our births compared with that of Yeshua's?
There is nothing special about his (and our) being born of woman and the
Scriptures you quote simply speak of the "earthiness" of being human. That
he was born of a woman means he is a human. The specialness is who His
*Father* is!
If Yeshua's father was just a man, then his being born of a woman (i.e.,
being *only* human) would indeed mean he could not be righteous.
Yet you know he *is* righteouss (don't you?). He *is* the Son of G-d.
That's what's different.
> Rom 7:23
> But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my
> mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in
> my members
>
> I submit to you that our fallen flesh contains a LAW, a force if you
> will that exerts itself on the mind. To be captive to this law is
> to sin in the mind.
Fine - there is something that *resides in* our members. I reside in my
house but I am not my house. Sin seeks to take up residence in my members,
but sin is not me nor am I he. My members are *neutral* and they
themselves exert no "pull". The power of sin exerts the pull, suggesting
to me to act in a way to meet the needs of my flesh in a way contrary to
faith. If I yield to that, I've sinned.
It is from this basis where we obviously part ways. We see this *very*
differently. My understanding of the neutrality of the flesh colors my
thinking as does your understanding of the sinfulness of flesh.
I think I've said (and repeated) all I can (or want to) say on the topic.
Steve
|
| 80.92 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Fri Apr 08 1994 18:38 | 37 |
| > Finally Mark...I'd like you to be more specific. What to you mean
> by 'mosaic'? Was my _likeness_ analysis flawed? Was it flawed for
> me to cite Hebrews 2? In exactly what way?
You take a piece here and a piece there and voila - out comes your view.
I don't care to be more specific (AGAIN) than this on this subject that I've
already been through with you probably a half a dozen times over the last
few years in this conference, as moderator and as participant.
Like others, I share the admiration for your zeal and tenacity, but your
conclusions (out of orthodox doctrines) are... oh, how about the word
fantastical. When you have tried to describe how you arrived at your
conclusion, the journey is through oblique references to Scripture that
you claim say such-and-such that leave the critical observer shaking his
head as to how you got that out of that scripture and how on earth you
linked it with this other scripture to draw your conclusion. And to top
it off you claim that this circuitous means is so very simple to understand
(often in 100+ lines of mind-bending twists and turns), and for those
who don't see it,all they need is a little closer look, a little more
study, and little more time with the Word. I've made some sincere and
dilligent attempts to understand where you are coming from, to decode the
jargon, and to see how you came up with these, but no more. I'm sorry.
It isn't a matter of not interpreting what you're trying to say because
even when that's been interpreted, it is still rejectable as incorrect
about the [lack of] "sinful nature" of Christ. It isn't a matter of
seeing what the Scripture is saying, either, because there are many in
here who are more than capable of dividing the Word of Truth (and
so it isn't just that *I* don't understand, either).
The fact is that Scripture *is* simple and the simple interpretation supports
the orthodox view in opposition to what you have proclaimed as the truth.
I used the phrase "immature theology" or some such in referring to those
of the orthodoxy as you may see our view as a kind way of saying that
the views are incompatible and therefore one is in error (and hint: it ain't
us).
Mark M
|
| 80.93 | | CHTP00::CHTP04::LOVIK | Mark Lovik | Fri Apr 08 1994 18:39 | 63 |
| > But, the law of sin is in the members!
Do you believe that the Lord Jesus had the law of sin in His members?!
I think you're getting hung up on a technicality here. Consider:
Romans 7:5 For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which
were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto
death.
Also note what else is referred to as "members":
Colossians 3:5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the
earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil
concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry:
"Members" does not equate to the physical body, but is often used to
refer to the actions of the body.
> And you say that Jesus only desired to do His Father's will?
>
> That is in direct conflict with what the word says.
>
> No offense Mark, but it is EXACTLY replied like yours that
> strengthen the conviction that we are all encumbered with
> false beliefs that it is SO VERY HARD to unlearn.
Tony, I think you have some unlearning to do. The Lord Jesus could do
nothing other than the Father's will.
John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I
say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth
the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth
the Son likewise.
John 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my
judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of
the Father which hath sent me.
John 8:29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me
alone; for I do always those things that please him.
Hebrews 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith,
Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou
prepared me:
6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no
pleasure.
7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written
of me,) to do thy will, O God.
8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings
and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure
therein; which are offered by the law;
9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away
the first, that he may establish the second.
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the
body of Jesus Christ once for all.
> And then the word stares us right in the face and tells us
> something different.
So what does the word say?
Mark L.
|
| 80.94 | The Brass Serpent: = Likeness of Flesh of Sin | LEDS::LOPEZ | A River.. proceeding! | Fri Apr 08 1994 18:41 | 52 |
|
re.58
Tony,
Speaking for myself, I'm in agreement about our having fallen
nature/sinful flesh, the experience of the cross releasing us from the flesh
experientially, etc. The major point of disagreement is whether the Lord has the
same sinful flesh. You think He did. I don't think He did. I think He was like
Adam in his humanity before the fall. The Bible indicates that He was without
the flesh of sin. Fully human, the perfect man, not tainted with the indwelling
the urge to sin, but with a freewill to obey or disobey God, an emotion to love
or not love God.
"LIKENESS OF THE FLESH OF SIN": Romans 8:3: "God sending His own Son the
likeness of the flesh of sin".
Tony, the Bible does not say "God sending His own Son in the flesh of
sin". If it said this, I would believe like you. But it doesn't. If God meant
the flesh of sin there was no need to add the word "likeness". The context
doesn't either. The context of Romans 7 is " Bondage in the flesh under the law
by the indwelling sin unto death and wretchedness". This is our experience, this
was Paul's experience, but this was not Jesus' experience. No where in Romans 7
is Paul indicating that Jesus experienced Romans 7. The context of Romans 8 is
"Freedom in the Spirit without Law by the indwelling Christ unto Life and
Peace". This is also our experience (subjectively requires our cooperation). Our
Emancipater led the way before us. He did not need to experience the pull of sin
to led us this way. He is the rightful Captain of our salvation by God's decree.
It is not our place to decide who is qualified to be our Savior. The verdict is
in already. God has decided. It was His Son who came in the "likeness of the
flesh of sin" not "the flesh of sin". This was Paul's writing.
THE BRASS SERPENT: The Lord also indicated the same thing when He portrayed
Himself as the fulfillment of the Brass Serpent. John 3:14 "And as Moses lifted
up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that
everyone who believes in Him may have eternal life." ( ref Num 21) This is a
picture of the Lord Jesus' flesh. It had the likeness of a serpent but was not a
serpent. It lacked the poison of a serpent and it lacked the serpentine nature.
Brass signifies judgement in the Bible. This brass serpent in Numbers was lifted
up on a pole as a prefigure of the Lord as the Son of Man was lifted up on the
cross. From this we see that the Lord had the form of a serpent (a fallen man
with the serpentine nature) but lacked the nature of a serpent in that it was
made of brass. There are many wonderful aspects to this picture but the the one
that pertains to this conversation is the nature of the Lord's flesh. It is
clear from this that He had no serpentine nature but only the form. He did not
possess the fallen nature of man only the form. This is the Lord's teaching
about Himself.
Regards,
ace
|
| 80.95 | Metaphor | KAHALA::JOHNSON_L | Leslie Ann Johnson | Fri Apr 08 1994 18:56 | 37 |
| RE: <<< Note 447.54 by STRATA::BARBIERI
>> And yet...scripture calls something sinful flesh. It obviously
>> does not refer to sin as in something the mind chooses to do
>> because the Bible never describes sinful flesh as becoming sinless
>> when the mind walks in the Spirit...it describes sinful flesh as
>> being _crucified_.
When I read what you wrote in the above extract, Tony, it made me think of
something I'd learned in a class on the understanding the prophets taught by
Dr. Marvin Wilson from Gordan-Conwell Seminary. Later, I read similar things
in a few different books by different authors, both Christian and Jewish
scholars. Biblical Hebrew (and I think modern Hebrew) does not have words to
describe conceptual or abstract ideas. There is an emphasis on the observable
and on action. Conceptual or abstract ideas are only expressed secondarily
and then often through metaphor. Some examples are:
To look is to "lift up the eyes" in Genesis 22:4
To be angry is to "burn in one's nostrils - Exodus 4:14
To reveal something to another is to "unstop someone's ears" - Ruth 4:4
To be determined to go is to "set one's face to go" - Jeremiah 42:15
Stubborn is "stiff necked" - Acts 7:51
The last example is from Acts which was probably written in Aramaic, but the
idea is the same. So I'm not sure your logic in the statement I extracted
has led to an accurate conclusion.
>> Leslie and any others, do you understand the distinction I am
>> trying to make between sin as in the mind consenting to sin and
>> sinful flesh as in a force that tries to draw the mind to sin?
No, Tony I don't :-}. You know, in the above statement it almost sounds like
our muscles, blood, body, etcetera have a collective intelligence (mind of its
own) which is skillfully engaged in trying to tempt our minds and will into
doing something that would be disobedient to God.
Leslie
|
| 80.96 | Replies | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Fri Apr 08 1994 19:14 | 78 |
| Where does a statement like yours come from Nancy?
Faith is everything. It is faith that allows Christ to
indwell me and work His righteoussness through me.
Ace, your own reasoning leads to the following...
Phil 2:7
"was made in the likeness of men..."
Jesus was sent "in the likeness of sinful flesh", so it wasn't
sinful flesh...not really.
Jesus was made "in the likeness of men..." so He wasn't made
a man...not really. Just an image of a man.
Mark,
I do not see how this is hard to understand at all. I do not
see the notion that flesh exerts a pull to sin and that Jesus
took that flesh and rendered a perfect obedience and thus
"condemned sin in the flesh" as hard concepts. I can much
better appreciate Steve's reply because he seems to understand
what I'm saying, but he sees how our paths diverge.
Steve,
Thanks...we understand each other.
Mark L.
The difference I see I believe harmonizes the scripture more fully
than your position. I see that Jesus took sinful flesh wherein
this pull resides and that because of this, His will was sometimes
contrary to His Father's (as John states twice and which I believe
is absolutely in contradiction to what you stated previously). So
how was it, He couldn't sin? Because of His perfect faith which
subsequently allowed His Father's love to work perfectly through
Him - in spite of any 'faulty' equipment.
Nancy,
Again...man, your statement came out of left field! What a drag
to have to hear junk like that.
To All,
To summarize. Something in our physical selves is not the best
of equipment. But, God's love is so powerful, so constraining
that He sent His Son Jesus with one difference. Though being
fully God, His divine attributes were veiled. He must walk as
a man. He must do as we can. But, He started out perfectly
connected to His Father. (And we can be too.)
And in spite of this awful depraved physical flesh which is ours,
He demonstrated the perfect righteoussness that results...yea
that must result when perfect faith depends wholly upon the
infinitely constraining love of God.
That's why the Romans 7 or the Job experiences were not His. Not
because His humanity was different, but because His FAITH was
different.
Perfect faith relying on that perfect love of God just totally
obliterates any law which resides in our members.
Jesus came (in part) to demonstrate that God's grace >>>>>>>>>
sinful flesh.
And that's where I see that Rom 7 need not apply to Christ, not
to insist that He therefore had a different flesh, but rather to
suggest that He had a different faith.
I believe in righteoussness by faith which works by God's love
Tony
|
| 80.97 | Intelligence Really Required??? | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Fri Apr 08 1994 19:20 | 21 |
| re: .70
EXCELLENT reply!!
That merits consideration. Thank you.
I do suggest though that it is possible that our flesh can be
completely void of intelligence and yet perhaps exert a pull
to sin. Appetite and sexual attraction are obvious examples.
Our hormonal balances play a part. WE know that adolescents
can be especially vulnerable to sexual temptation because of
hormonal concentrations where perhaps a couple years previously
they may not have had sexual thoughts or nearly as powerful ones.
And yet...these hormones are devoid of intellect.
I honestly suggest that such things as envies, perverted sexual
desires, perverse appetites, etc. may have as partial origin
sinful flesh (as in genes, hormones, etc. etc.)
Tony
|
| 80.98 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Fri Apr 08 1994 19:20 | 11 |
| Tony,
it appears to me that your zeal for knowledge of God is an unquenchable
thirst...a thirst that lacks in so many of us. I am awed consistently
at this quality in you... but this thirst also seems to be your
achilles heal... [imho]. This thirst has also created a need of
quenching, fulfillment in order to gain momentum for the next thirst...
:-) :-) And by doing so, you are reading into the Bible things that
I believe requires no explanation, but faith in God.
It appears as though your faith needs proof. :-(
|
| 80.99 | Likeness of men | LEDS::LOPEZ | A River.. proceeding! | Fri Apr 08 1994 19:30 | 25 |
|
Tony,
>Ace, your own reasoning leads to the following...
Hate to break the news pard' but you better take up your arguement with
Paul about Romans 8:3 and the Lord about John 3:14. 8*) My reasoning doesn't
"lead to the following", you're reasoning led you there.
RE: Phil 2:7 LIKENESS OF MEN
You're a context man aren't you? 8*) Let's read the context..
Phil: 2:6-7 "Who subsisting in the form of God did not regard equality
with God a thing to be grasped but emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave,
becoming in the likeness of men.
Here we see that the form of God implied the inward reality of Christ's
deity; the likeness of men denotes the outward appearance of his humanity. He
appeared outwardly to men as a man, but inwardly He had the reality of deity. No
conflict with Romans 8:3 or John 3:14. Different contexts and contrasts are
being made. Same reality.
Ace
|
| 80.100 | I Hear Ya, But... | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Fri Apr 08 1994 19:33 | 16 |
| re: -1
It does need some evidence. Faith is perfected by evidence.
When my faith is made perfect, its demonstration will be in
the complete absence of signs.
Abraham argued with God over the impending destruction of Sodom.
I suspect that rather than saying, "We can't understand" God
longs for us to 'argue' with him (if I may say so in a 'righteouss'
way).
He longs for us to fathom (I believe) things we now say are
infathomable.
Tony
|
| 80.101 | But, I Won't Label Your Position 'Fantastical' | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Fri Apr 08 1994 19:34 | 5 |
| re: -1
Don't see it Ace, but that's ok!
Tony
|
| 80.102 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Fri Apr 08 1994 19:59 | 3 |
| .75
What does God mean when he speaks of Fearing Him?
|
| 80.103 | fantastical was the kindest word I could find | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Fri Apr 08 1994 20:00 | 6 |
| > I do suggest though that it is possible that our flesh can be
> completely void of intelligence and yet perhaps exert a pull
> to sin.
Do tall and fat people have more pull then skinny and short people?
If flesh has sin in it, then more flesh is more sinful, no?
|
| 80.104 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Fri Apr 08 1994 20:01 | 5 |
| .78
:-) :-)
In that case, I'm a lost cause!
|
| 80.105 | Oh NO! More! | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Fri Apr 08 1994 20:26 | 35 |
| I don't know Mark! I tend to doubt it. I really don't know.
Look...really...I simply believe that sinful flesh really is
the physical part of us and it does exert a force on the mind.
Ludicrous as it may sound to you. I kind of think the hormone
example is some rational support. I mean...hormones don't think,
but suddenly adolescents are tempted in ways they were not before
and much of the reason is changes in the physical, no?
And all I'm doing is applying this simple concept and stating
that this force is one Jesus took to lovingly be our Example.
And that He rendered a perfect obedience because of His perfect
faith.
That's all. I don't really think its that fantastical...though
I'm sure in my mangled ability to communicate, other things have
come out that way!!! ;-)
Nance, as far as fear is concerned. I've given a LOT of thought
to that. NO...you don't want to know!!! Seriously...maybe it
means reverence, but maybe it also means being scared. If so...
it makes sense to me to be scared in the sense that if sin is in
our heart, if we have any clue as to what it must mean to stand
before God unveiled, to see that purity...MAN WE WOULD CRY FOR
ROCKS TO FALL ON US.
But, if we're perfect in love...fear is cast out.
Have a good one...
Love to you Mark and the rest of ya.
Ace...give me a holler if you're ever in Whitinsville. I can see
you. I'd love to see you again!!
Tony
|
| 80.106 | maybe it's selective gravitational pull | FRETZ::HEISER | Clinton Impeachment: 14.4M+ signatures | Fri Apr 08 1994 20:27 | 1 |
|
|
| 80.107 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Fri Apr 08 1994 20:28 | 2 |
| What do you about the verse that says, "The fear of the Lord is the
beginning of wisdom?"
|
| 80.108 | Why Ask Why? | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Fri Apr 08 1994 20:59 | 5 |
| What does who do about it?
What do you do about it?
nance, why don't you answer some of your own questions?
|
| 80.109 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Fri Apr 08 1994 21:01 | 4 |
| Tony, I have an understanding, I'm just asking for yours as it is
relevant to your thought process. Methinks anyway.
Sorry if my questions have hurt you.
|
| 80.110 | Abbey Normal | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Fri Apr 08 1994 21:27 | 9 |
| Do you REALLY want to bring my thought processes into this?
Whose brain did the hunchback get in 'Young Frankenstein' anyway!!!
It was Abbie something I think!
I'm not hurt. I'm ok. Thanks though.
Tony
|
| 80.111 | whats the problem? or is it me? | DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR | | Mon Apr 11 1994 10:19 | 20 |
|
It's a little difficult (for me anyway) to discern what the objection is
to Tony's (or what is perceived as Tony's) theorem.
That Jesus possesed "Sarx" shouldnt be an issue.
Was He a "real" man ? Did He have testosterone flowing in His veins?
If He did then we would probably find a scripture that says something like
"He was tempted in *every* way, just like us"
He was a real man, The law of sin and death worked in His members.
He never once yielded to it. (and thats the rub against our grain).
What a MAN !
He was made sin who knew no sin.
|
| 80.112 | Hang In There Hank/Hope This Accurately Summarizes Things | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Mon Apr 11 1994 12:46 | 86 |
| re: -1
Hi Hank,
Well...its at least you and me!
I've not encountered the idea that sinful sarx (flesh) speaks
of something other than the physical part of us and in fact
many scriptures point to sinful sarx as drawing a pull on that
which I would consider to encompass all that is not the physical
part of us (the mind). Galatians brings this idea to mind as
does Romans. The texts speak of the Spirit motivating the mind
to obey and sinful flesh motivating the mind to do what is wrong.
Clearly there is no overlap between the Spirit and our minds; i.e.
no 'subset' of our mind (no part of it) is the Holy Spirit. I
would also say that no part of our mind is sinful flesh and I find
it unusual to assert that sinful flesh really refers to the non-
physical. That would be like saying...
The flesh draws the mind to sin and the Spirit draws the mind to
obey
to equate to...
Part of the mind draws the mind to sin and the Spirit draws the
mind to obey.
The scriptures that speak of sinful flesh/mind/Holy Spirit seem
to point to three altogether distinct things. Here, I am not
saying that the mind which indulges the flesh is not in itself
sinful.
But, anyway...some of the brethren (and 'sistren' ;-) ) here
seem to be of the posture that sinful flesh refers not to the
physical flesh at all but rather to the mind (or a subset of the
mind). Here I refer to mind as that which encompasses all of our
conscioussness.
(I thought my inputs on genetic diseases as well as my illustration
of a change in _temptations_ due wholly to physical [i.e. fleshly]
changes where I mentioned adolescents being tempted differently
were significant points, but these ideas have garnered a silent
response. I gather their position remains that Adam's prefallen
physical flesh is identical to our own and thus God created man
with the potential for Huntington's chorea, spinal bifida, cystic
fibrosis all while man was in a prefallen state.)
The only other point of debate I saw was with the idea of what
constitutes the blemish as Christ must have been without blemish.
One side says that that which would produce more tempta-
tions (and not sins) is part of the blemish meant by the O.T.
reference. My position is that blemish refers _exclusively_ to
Christ's character. (I see more overall harmony with that.)
Of course the idea that Christ was tempted in all points like as
we are and this is why He was taken from among us (really a man
as man in terms of temptation is _after the fall_) is an idea
whose position you and I take as the crux of the issue. I know
not what our brothers do with texts like Hebrews 2.
Finally, I find Brother Ace's position to be the most perplexing
for he acknowledges that sinful flesh speaks of the physical part
of us, but maintains that Christ's flesh was not sinful. All the
while Romans 1:3 says Christ was of the seed [sperma] of David,
Hebrews 2 says He was of the seed [sperma] of Abraham, Hebrews 2
says He had the flesh and blood of the 'children' of men, Hebrews
2 says in all points He was made like His brethren.
I do not know of a single text that refers how Jesus was made in
terms of His humanity which says He wasn't made like His _brethren_.
(And I'm His brother!)
Hang in there Hank. You see exactly the position of Christ's post-
fallen humanity for exactly the scriptural reason. He was placed
in this world and fought the battle we have to fight with exactly
our shortcomings and with exactly the same benefits we may enjoy
which is faith relying on perfect love.
In short, Christ demonstrated that grace is greater than sinful
flesh. That God can even put sinful flesh unto subjection to Him.
God Bless,
Tony
|
| 80.113 | Likeness | MIMS::CASON_K | | Mon Apr 11 1994 13:18 | 79 |
| Tony,
You have extensively used as a basis for your argument the relationship
between Romans 8:3 and Philippians 2:7 but these verses themselves
refute your thesis. I agree that the same word, "likeness", is used in
both places and this is significant but not for the reasons you
indicate.
The word "likeness" is translated from the Greek word homoioma which
means to be made like to, to resemble or to be in the similitude of.
The exact same word is used in Romans 1:23; 5:14; 6:5; and Revelation
9:7. Consider Revelation 9:7 where John says that the locusts were
homoioma horses prepared unto battle. He is not saying that they were
horses prepared for battle but that they appeared, they were made like
or resembled horses. In fact, it's not certain what the locusts "are"
but it is certain what they "appear". Homoioma is a derivative of the
Greek word homoioo which essentially has the same definition. Jesus
used this word extensively in his parables. See Matthew 6:8; 7:24;
7:26; 11:16; 13:24; 18:23; 22:2; 25:1; Mark 4:30; Luke 7:31; 13:18;
13:20; Acts 14:11; Romans 9:29; and Hebrews 2:17. By taking that word
alone the two verses say that Jesus resembled man and sinful flesh but
that there was some distinction between man/sinful flesh and Jesus. Am
I suggesting that Jesus was not human but mereley an apparition. No,
but there was a critical distinction between our humanity and Jesus'
humanity. Romans 8:3 and Philippians 2:7 tell us what that distinction
is.
"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."
"But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a
servant, and was made in the likeness of men:"
Jesus, who is God, made himself of no reputation. The Greek words here
are tapeinoo, which means to humble, humiliate or abase, and kenoo,
which means to make empty. So, Jesus humbled himself and poured out of
himself something. The question is what? Jesus took upon himself the
form of a servant, in the Greek, doulos. He became as a slave or a
bondservant. Was he a bondservant to man? No. If you read the
introduction to nearly every epistle you will see the same phrase,
"Paul, a bondservant", "Peter, a bondservant", "John, a bondservant".
The reference is to their positional relationship to God. Over and
over scripture talks about how we, the believers, are more than
conquerers, seated in heavenly places with Christ Jesus. Galatians
makes it clear that we are no longer slaves but we are heirs and
joint-heirs. But Jesus and the writers of scripture humbled
themselves, giving up all rights to their own will, glory and position
to subject themselves to the Father as a slave to a master. Jesus
poured out His glory, rights and position as God to take on the form of
the slave and placed himself subservient to the Father. In doing so he
clothed himself in humanity to become the perfect sacrifice, without
spot or blemish. The distinction is not in what he poured out.
Because if he had only poured out His Godhood and come AS a man then
your theory would be essentially correct but there was an imperative
element which separates Jesus' manhood from ours. Romans 8:3 says "God
sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh". The word I want
to key on here is his own "Son". The Greek word there is huios. In
the Greek there are primarily three words which can denote a child.
One is teknon, which was used to emphasize the lineage, the fact of
physical descendancy. The second is pais, which was used also of a
servant who had been taken into the household. The third is huios
which emphasizes the passing on of the nature and character of the
father to the child. John was so particular about the use of these
words that in his epistles, where he talks extensively about sons and
children, he never uses the word huios to denote mankind's relationship
to God and he always uses it to denote Jesus' relationship to God. The
part that separates our humanity from Jesus can be delineated by a
single hyphen. Where we are men, he is God-man. Whereas we are sinful
flesh redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ, Jesus was God clothed in
flesh.
Given the above disertation, this example may seem pretty lame but when
I first read this I thought of the "Prince and the Pauper". Although
the prince could put on the clothes of the pauper and walk in his world
and feel the pain of his people he never ceased to be the prince.
Kent
|
| 80.114 | Likeness | DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR | | Mon Apr 11 1994 13:49 | 22 |
|
Re in the "likeness" of siful flesh...
I take this to mean that since Jesus came in sinful flesh then His mannerisms
were those of any other man, he looked to be a defeated sinner like the rest
of us and dwelt among as such. Where He differed is that every single
temptation was met with successful resistance. Later in His ministry, He
asked "which of you can convict me of sin?"
and now He says to His children
"Fear not I have overcome the world"
How could He have asked this question had He not met sin head-on and done
battle where every single one of us since Adam had failed?
The He put sin in the flesh to death and has become our sympatheic High Priest
knowing full well the power of sin and our weakness against it.
Halelluia, what a SAVIOUR!
Hank
|
| 80.115 | | CHTP00::CHTP04::LOVIK | Mark Lovik | Mon Apr 11 1994 14:46 | 15 |
| Often when the scriptures refer to "flesh" and our members, it is in
reference to the direct results of sin in mankind, i.e., the sinful
nature that every one of us (*EXCEPT CHRIST*) inherited as a result of
Adam's fall. The reason I take a strong stand against some of the
implications in this note is because I see that to suggest that Christ
posessed the desire toward sin that we have is to suggest that Christ
had the same sinful nature that we have. I see this as at best as a
*very* dangerous teaching, and more likely as being blasphemous.
Yes, I believe that the Lord Jesus possessed a physical body with a
physiology like ours. He ate, slept, grew weary, etc., like we do.
However, His nature was not tainted by the results of sin. Remember,
He was very man of very man, BUT HE WAS VERY GOD OF VERY GOD!
Mark L.
|
| 80.116 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | It will be worth it all | Mon Apr 11 1994 14:51 | 3 |
|
AMEN!!
|
| 80.117 | More... | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Mon Apr 11 1994 16:24 | 69 |
| Hi,
As far as likeness, I wouldn't want to give too much
significance to its use in parables or Revelation
because both are obviously _symbolic_. Paul in Romans
and Phillipians is not being symbolic.
A key point was touched on; that being Jesus was/is
100% divine. I tend to think this is why 'likeness'
was used. Not to take away from His humanity, BUT to
stress a difference - He is still God.
I hesitate to use the term nature. I like using flesh
and citing the KJV since the NIV contains one of the
worst examples of interpretation I have ever seen in my
life. That being not differentiating 'phusis' from 'sarx.'
The NIV translates sarx as nature which is ok with today's
terminology EXCEPT that it fails to differentiate from
phusis (see Romans 2:14/Ephesians 2:3).
In fact Ephesians 2:3 in the KJV is very illuminating...
Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past
in the lusts of our flesh [sarx], fulfilling the desires
of the flesh [sarx] and of the mind; and were by nature
[phusis] the children of wrath, even as others.
The NIV failed to differentiate sarx from phusis. Notice by
the way how Paul in this passage clearly differentiates
sarx from mind, i.e. "fulfilling the desires of the flesh
AND of the mind."
I fail to see how the position that sinful flesh is not
referring to flesh (than must be of the mind) can harmonize
with scripture. Clearly Paul distinguishes sinful flesh from
the mind (in several places most notably in Eph 2:3).
I came from believing in the prefallen idea to having someone
show me the postfallen idea. Initially, my reaction was
resentment. However, "What saith the Word?" Seed of David
ACCORDING TO THE FLESH (Rom 1:3). Seed of Abraham. Flesh and
blood of the CHILDREN of men. Its everywhere.
Finally, my response to the label of "blasphemy." Well, 1 John
4:2,3 labels the Spirit that sees not that Chrit came in the
flesh (sarx) as that spirit of anti-Christ.
I believe the spirit that 'inspired' the prefallen flesh idea
is none other than the spirit of anti-Christ. The letter of
1 John uses sarx in one single other place...
1 John 2:16
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the
lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father,
but is of the world.
God manifest in sinless flesh would not be a mystery, but God
manifest in sinful flesh...now THAT'S a mystery!!
Jacob's ladder reached all the way from divinity to the humanity
that needed redeeming. Jesus is the perfect Mediator representing
both God and man being both God and man. When Jacob saw that
ladder, it was not one rung higher than he could reach. The bottom
rung did not condescend to prefallen Adam; it reached even Jacob.
Just as the top rung reached all the way to God.
God Bless,
Tony
|
| 80.118 | Sarx In 1 Peter... | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Mon Apr 11 1994 16:48 | 51 |
| Hi,
I thought the use of [sarx] in 1 Peter to be illuminating...
By the way, I'll skip some verses in between...not to try to
ignore context...just so as not to have to type too much!
All 1 Peter...
1:24
For all flesh [sarx] is as grass, and all the glory of man as
the flower of grass. The grass withereth and the flower thereof
falleth away:
3:18,21
For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the
unjust, that He might bring us unto God, being put to death in
the flesh [sarx], but quickened by the Spirit:...
...The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save
us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh [sarx], but
the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection
of Jesus Christ:
Notice here the mention of Christ being put to death in the flesh
and then being called A LIKE FIGURE.
4:1-6
Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh [sarx]
arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered
in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh [sarx]
to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.
For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the
will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lascivioussness, lusts, excess
of wine, revelings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries:
Wherein they think it strange that ye not run with them to the same
excess of riot, speaking evil of you:
Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and
the dead.
For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead,
that they might be judged according to men in the flesh [sarx], but
live according to God in the spirit.
Notice the context as verse 1 floats right into verse 2. Christ
suffering in the flesh and the exhortation to us to be of the same mind
and referring to not living henceforth in the flesh _to the lusts of
men_, but to the will of God.
Also notice (once again) differentiation between flesh and mind.
Tony
|
| 80.119 | | MIMS::CASON_K | | Mon Apr 11 1994 16:57 | 13 |
| Tony,
Likeness seemed to be very important when you wanted to use it to prove
your point. You can not redefine the word to fit a predisposed
postion. Here it means this and here it means something else. This is
exactly what you were accusing others of doing on that verse. Use it
all or don't use any of it but be consistent. I used the issue of the
parables to clarify what the word means. I was initially impressed by
your diligence in the Word but as I begin to see you offhandedly
desregard specific evidence which is contradictory to your position I begin
to question whether you defend truth or your opinion. I would
appreciate a more scholarly response.
|
| 80.120 | He's not necessarily wrong | DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR | | Mon Apr 11 1994 17:36 | 19 |
|
Hi Kent,
Tony is not altogether wrong by redefining a word whilst going from one
place to another in the Scripture, especially when different authors are
being cited, what is necessary however (usually upon demand) is proof,
from the syntax and/or context that this redefining is necessary to bring
forth the concept which the author is trying to get across. In addition
there are subtle differences in koine which are impossible to cross-over
into English and again in such cases the burden of proof would be on Tony
to explain.
"...for by grace have you been saved through faith...not of works"
"...a man is justified by works and not by faith..."
These scriptures are both in the Bible using the same words.
Hank
|
| 80.121 | I'm Sorry You Took It That Way | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Mon Apr 11 1994 17:36 | 64 |
| Hi Kent,
I'm sorry I disappointed you. I re-read your reply and the
only exception I took is that your major case for use of
likeness was parable (symbolic) and symbolic prophecy. Even
should likeness mean something other than the same as in those
texts, I hesitate to say that it means other than the same as
in the Romans Phillipians texts.
As I reread you reply, as you applied likeness to Christ, I
actually agree with you 100% except for one thing. You seem to
require that God cannot clothe Himself with sinful flesh.
That for Him to be the "God-man" He cannot be 100% God and 100%
man as man is postfallen (according to the flesh - NOT according
to the mind).
I agree with you about the term likeness. I also believe it
points to Christ still being different in _some_ way and that
way being He is the 'God-man', we are not.
What I fail to see is how Christ being both God and man prevents
Him from being clothed with sinful flesh.
Does Christ being God prevent Him from being a man? (referring to
Phillipians 'likeness' verse)? If you say He was still 'man', how
do you necessitate taking Romans 8:3 and stating that He was not
God clothed with sinful flesh?
If you can apply likeness to Phillipians and still maintain He was
God AND man, why can you not apply likeness in Romans 8:3 and
say (as a PERFECT parallel) He was God AND clothed Himself with
sinful flesh?
I'm really not trying to force an opinion here!
In your analysis Kent, would you be willing to bring Romans 1:3
as well as Hebrews 2 to the table???
Romans 1:3
Concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the
seed [Greek: SPERMATOS] of David according to the FLESH [SARX].
Can you appreciate that what would seem to be a very simple
rendering of this text (and several others) would lead me to the
belief I have without stretching? Before God as my witness, I
consider myself to stretch Romans 1:3 if I tried to say it referred
to prefallen flesh.
I have already painstakingly supported why I believe sinful flesh
refers to the physical part, i.e. flesh and bone.
How in the world is it a wresting of scripture to believe such and
to believe that according to David's genetic makeup (His sperm),
Jesus was made of that flesh?
Can you at least appreciate that I cannot honestly read Romans 1:3
and conclude He took the flesh of Adam before the fall?
Look, what you believe is one thing...I just don't want you to
come away thinking I'm trying to wrest scripture. I honestly
don't know how to read Romans 1:3/Hebrews 2 and other texts any
other way!
Tony
|
| 80.122 | Getting Out of My League!!! | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Mon Apr 11 1994 17:40 | 8 |
| re: .95
You guys are getting out of my league!
I've used the Greek, but my study is predominantly 'line
upon line, precept upon precept, ...'
Tony
|
| 80.123 | | MIMS::CASON_K | | Mon Apr 11 1994 17:55 | 13 |
| Tony,
My apologies for the ballistic tone of my reply. It did appear that you
were allowing yourself a certain latitude that you afforded noone else.
I do have a reply in 423 regarding Isaiah 53 that you have not yet
responded to. Regarding what scripture will I allow brought to the
table, we can not have a true dialogue unless all scripture is
admissable. I don't have time for a longer entry but in the interest
of not allowing the sun to go down on anyone's wrath I felt it
necessary to enter this much.
Kent
|
| 80.124 | Ok Kent/Isaiah 53 It Is | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Mon Apr 11 1994 17:57 | 6 |
| Yeah Kent, I gotta stop too but I'll reply to Isaiah 53.
Maybe tommorow or the next day?
Thanks for your kind reply.
Tony
|
| 80.125 | | CHTP00::CHTP04::LOVIK | Mark Lovik | Mon Apr 11 1994 18:07 | 20 |
| > Romans 1:3
> Concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the
> seed [Greek: SPERMATOS] of David according to the FLESH [SARX].
Tony, following this reasoning, Jesus would have been born by a natural
union between a man and a woman. We know that this is far from the
truth. (Also note that Genesis 3:15 says that Christ was to come from
the seed of the woman!)
Matthew 22:41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked
them,
42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto
him, The son of David.
43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord,
saying,
44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I
make thine enemies thy footstool?
45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
Mark L.
|
| 80.126 | The Incarnation: Its A Miracle! | LUDWIG::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Mon Apr 11 1994 19:37 | 15 |
| re -1
God can work miracles. I do not reason away the omnipotence
of God. He does not require that Mary 'knew' Joseph or any
other man for Jesus to be made of the seed of David according
to the flesh.
God is quite capable.
He could have made Jesus of the seed (genetic material) according
to the flesh even without Mary's involvement if He wanted to.
Nothing is too hard for the Lord!
Tony
|
| 80.127 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Mon Apr 11 1994 19:39 | 27 |
| Temptation <> sin
Temptation = desire
sin = misuse or wrongful of the good
Sex is neutral.
Desire for sex is neutral (natural).
The temptation for sex is natural.
God defines the context of good and evil regarding sex.
Insert other desires and apply.
Now, to Jesus, temptation, and sin:
Jesus was tempted like all of us.
Jesus experienced desire.
Jesus did not go out of the context of good in regards to anything.
Jesus never sinned. Jesus never had sin in him. Jesus never had sinful
flesh. None of this precludes Jesus desiring and being tempted because
that's a built-in part of human nature and Jesus was fully human.
But Jesus was also fully God and his Spiritual nature overruled the
desires of his human nature.
I think too many people equate desire and temptation with the sinful nature
and all too often with sin itself. This is not so, and we should understand
it better.
Mark
|
| 80.128 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Mon Apr 11 1994 19:43 | 19 |
| > God can work miracles. I do not reason away the omnipotence
> of God. He does not require that Mary 'knew' Joseph or any
> other man for Jesus to be made of the seed of David according
> to the flesh.
But God didn't, and that's an important point. The Bible says
specifically that the Holy Spirit is the father:
Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his
mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found
with child of the Holy Ghost.
Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come
upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also
that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
The miracle is not as you suggest in this postulation.
MM
|
| 80.129 | Can Have It But Be Obedient | LUDWIG::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Mon Apr 11 1994 19:58 | 46 |
| Hi Mark,
Not enough scripture! That's ok...I know (really) that you're
willing to supply some.
The basic problem that I have with your reply are all the texts
that I am aware of that mention sinful flesh. Such as Galatians
5:16-26 and Romans 7,8. These texts apply sinful flesh completely
within the context of it being the source of a pull and NOT of it
requiring sin as the conduct of one who 'has' sinful flesh.
Galatians 5:24
And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with all
affections and lusts.
(Check out Galatians 5:19-21 for some of the affections and
lusts of the flesh...that which are manifestations of sinful
flesh)
In other words (and please correct me if I am wrong), your
posture of sinful flesh leaves no allowance for one to HAVE IT
and live an obedient life. If one is not sinning (I hear your
posture say) one does not have sinful flesh, i.e. one who is
sinning has sinful flesh and one who is obedient has sinless
flesh. Is that your posture Mark?
I believe the Bible states that one may have lusts whose source
is what it calls _sinful flesh_ and which lusts are not what
you would term 'natural' (see Galatatians 5:19-21).
And yet...
Galatians 5:16,24
This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the
lust of the flesh...
...And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the
affections and lusts.
In other words, when one walks in the Spirit, that SAME flesh is
still there, but it is crucified (not transformed from sinful to
sinless, but rather submitted to the Spirit).
And again Mark, your list of desires are in some ways unlike that
list which is found in Galatians 5. Why?
Tony
|
| 80.130 | Both Scripturally and Scientifically Suported | LUDWIG::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Mon Apr 11 1994 20:06 | 29 |
| re .103
I don't understand Mark. Are you saying that it is impossible
that Mary provided Christ with the see of David (genetic info
that was David's?)
Just for an example...David could have had brown eyes and this
'genetic information'could have passed on to Mary and Jesus could
have had brown eyes too! (Exact same genetic information that
David had...passed down from Mary.)
I know that I got genetic information that my ma's dad had...and
I know it came from my ma! Not my dad!
Perhaps I was wrong about how it was Jesus could have had David's
seed, but then again...Mary only had x chromosomes...still Jesus
was a man. I believe those y chromosomes He had were human chromo-
somes. I don't think God has chromosomes.
These are deep waters and I'm not sure real important. The main idea
I want to convey is that it is FACT that a mother can pass on to
her child traits that may have come from one of her paternal
ancestors.
We know this from science and in the case of Jesus...we know this
from Romans 1:3 without having to know exactly how.
Tony
|
| 80.131 | Lust and temptation are very different. | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Mon Apr 11 1994 20:20 | 18 |
| Note 447.104 LUDWIG::BARBIERI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The basic problem that I have with your reply are all the texts
> that I am aware of that mention sinful flesh. Such as Galatians
> 5:16-26 and Romans 7,8. These texts apply sinful flesh completely
> within the context of it being the source of a pull and NOT of it
> requiring sin as the conduct of one who 'has' sinful flesh.
>
> And again Mark, your list of desires are in some ways unlike that
> list which is found in Galatians 5. Why?
(1) For starters, Tony, I did not list desires.
(2) I stated that desires do not sin that it is only temptation.
(3) Lust is sin because it is a desire gone wrong. There is nothing
wrong with desiring sex with one's wife - that's not lust;
that's not sin; desiring sex is NOT lust, either.
Lust is the mental ownership of another. That's not desire.
Lust does not equal temptation.
|
| 80.132 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Mon Apr 11 1994 20:22 | 4 |
| >I don't think God has chromosomes.
God the Son did.
|
| 80.133 | how do you know? | FRETZ::HEISER | no D in Phoenix | Mon Apr 11 1994 20:23 | 2 |
| > was a man. I believe those y chromosomes He had were human chromo-
> somes. I don't think God has chromosomes.
|
| 80.134 | Wow! | LUDWIG::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Mon Apr 11 1994 20:32 | 22 |
| Wow!
God the Son did, but were those chromosomes His humanity or
His divinity.
I believe they were His humanity!
Hey, I'll tell ya...no offense...but if you guys really think
Jesus might have had divine rather than human chromosomes, I'm
barking up the wrong tree!
In that case, I care not to continue (seriously). Its just that
the divergence in how we understand is too vast.
Mark...about lusts...this is almost getting philosophical for me...
I guess I would say that if it is a lust to sin, its a temptation.
If its a desire to sin, it would be temptation. Maybe temptation
is a subset of desire?
I believe Galatians 5 speaks of lusts, desires that are temptations.
Tony
|
| 80.135 | final authority - What does God's Word say? | FRETZ::HEISER | no D in Phoenix | Mon Apr 11 1994 20:55 | 3 |
| We only know of God's image, not his exact physiological
characteristics. To assume he did or didn't have chromosomes is pure
speculation.
|
| 80.136 | Fully Man/Fully God | LUDWIG::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Mon Apr 11 1994 21:01 | 7 |
| re -1
I believe He was 100% man and 100% God. I believe that that
which is of man was fully man (arms, legs, feet, cells) and
that which is of God was fully God.
Tony
|
| 80.137 | fear not, I have overcome the world | DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR | | Tue Apr 12 1994 10:40 | 25 |
|
Then Jesus came with them to a place called Gethsemane and said to His
disciples "Sit here while I go and pray over there".
...and He began to be sorrowful and deeply distressed.
And He went a little farther and fell on His face and prayed saying
"O my Father if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me,
*nevertheless not as I will*, but as you will
Again a second time He went away and prayed saying
"O My Father, if this cup cannot pass from me unless I drink it
your will be done"
Abba, Father, all things are possible for you,
take this cup away from me (imperative)
nevertheless, not what I will but but you will
and being in agony, He prayed more earnestly, then His sweat became like
great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
If Jesus isnt struggling with His flesh here then the Agony is a charade.
|
| 80.138 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Tue Apr 12 1994 14:04 | 59 |
| > Mark...about lusts...this is almost getting philosophical for me...
> I guess I would say that if it is a lust to sin, its a temptation.
> If its a desire to sin, it would be temptation. Maybe temptation
> is a subset of desire?
>
> I believe Galatians 5 speaks of lusts, desires that are temptations.
"If it is a lust to sin..." It is a sin to lust. -> identify what list is.
"...its a temptation." ? [its = lust] therefore lust is a temptation?
Look, temptation and lust are NOT the same thing. Desire and lust are
NOT the same thing. Lust is a sin; temptation and desire are not sins.
Jesus was tempted; Jesus had desires; Jesus did NOT lust or sin.
Now, if you're having trouble distinguishing between the desires of the
flesh (natural) and the lusts of the flesh (mental ownership of something
that doesn't belong to us, be it sexual, or coveting, etc), then it may
explain a bit better why you think sin is in the actual "earth-suit"
(to borrow this phrase, if I may).
From Galatians 5 (for those who don't know by reference)
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery,
fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife,
seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which
I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do
such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
Look here what Jesus says:
Matthew 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt
not commit adultery:
28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her
hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
It's not looking on a woman, or even finding her attractive, but looking
on a woman TO LUST after her. Finding a woman attractive is not lust, nor sin.
Lusting after a woman is sin on the order of adultery (Gal. 5:19).
Please understand the difference between desire, attraction, temptation, and
lust before declaring that there is sin in our earth-suit (which there
is not). The sinful nature is the INCLINATION to [mentally own what is
not ours] sin; to put ourself ahead of everything else. Inclinations
do not mean being in a state of sin - it is yielding to that inclination
that puts us in the state of sinfulness. The Bible says, "for all have sinned"
which means everyone at some point yields to their inclination and at
the point of [willful] yielding - sin enters - up to that point, not.
Mark
Caveat: sin is defined differently (as I understand the positions between
Calvinists and Wesleyans. Wesleyans define sin as a transgression against
a known law of God. Calvinist define it a bit more liberally in that sin
is anything outside of God's perfect will, which may include not spending
less on a meal so that you could donate more to a needy cause, for example.
Notwithstanding these definitions, sin does still NOT equate to temptation
or desire.
|
| 80.139 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Tue Apr 12 1994 14:22 | 21 |
| > If Jesus isnt struggling with His flesh here then the Agony is a charade.
Hank,
Jesus indeed would have preferred to bypass the cross, knowing the agony
it would bring. Jesus could not be tempted to do something that was not
attractive to him (eat while he is hungry and fasting, become a hero and become
a ruler and bypassing the cross). But His divine nature overruled his
human nature such that "not my will but Thine be done" is the end of the
matter.
I have no problem whatsoever understanding Jesus to be tempted in every
way we have been tempted. I have a BIG problem with the idea that Jesus
had sinful flesh, or that the idea that temptation itself is lust or some
other indicator of sinful desire. Temptation is the pull TO lust and TO
engage in sinful desire, but it is not the lusting or the sinful desire
itself.
We can flee from temptation and not sin. This is a biblical promise.
Being tempted is not sinning! WHAT YOU DO WITH THE TEMPTATION -MAY-
be sin, or you may overcome it with God's help and grace within you.
Mark
|
| 80.140 | | CHTP00::CHTP04::LOVIK | Mark Lovik | Tue Apr 12 1994 14:31 | 12 |
| An interesting verse:
2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious
promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature,
having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
I do not believe that the Lord Jesus had the fallen, sinful human
nature that we have. His was the divine nature, and by becoming
partakers of His divine nature, we can escape the corruption that
resulted from the fall.
Mark L.
|
| 80.141 | pull <> sin | DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR | | Tue Apr 12 1994 15:03 | 34 |
|
Hi Mark,
yes, "not my will, but thine be done" is indeed the end of the matter
(though He prayed twice more, He chose death (for us) rather than go against
His Fathers will - dont you just love Him?)
I think rather than say sinful we should say fallen or Adamic flesh,
which is the way I remember (long time ago) this string starting off.
Though some may have a problem with even this designation.
Agreed : flesh without blood or a spirit to energize it is amoral being a
"thing". Sin originates in the heart, of which Jesus said
"he (satan) has found nothing in me".
His flesh apparently had the adamic pull toward sin that you and I have.
to over indulge at anyone's expense, obviously Jesus the person was incapable
of doing this though His flesh demanded to live "take this cup away from me"
His Spirit-deity (as you have said) overcame "not what I will but what you
will".
Just for the record, please give your exegesis (or whatever) of
II corinthians 5:21 (not a trick question-I want and value your opinion)
For He hath made Him sin who knew no sin, that we might be made the
righteousness of God in Him.
[to be] : after the first "Him" is not in the koine.
Hank
|
| 80.142 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Tue Apr 12 1994 16:59 | 55 |
| > His flesh apparently had the adamic pull toward sin that you and I have.
Hank,
Question: What caused Adam to sin if before he sinned he had uncorrupted
flesh?
Temptation is a concept in and of itself. Adam was not made with the
sinful nature. The sinful nature was not instilled in the flesh, but it
did corrupt the flesh. Temptation occurs outside of the sinful nature as
we see clearly with Adam and Eve. That is to say further that Jesus was
tempted without the sinful nature as Adam was tempted without the sinful
nature.
Temptation and the pull toward sin are not to be confused with the
INCLINATION to sin (the sinful nature). We have the INCLINATION TO SIN
in us. We are selfish; put self ahead of everything else. It causes us
to sin when we are tempted because we have no check-point against
temptation.
Adam and Jesus had check-points against temptation. Adam's pre-fallen
flesh did not have the sinful nature in it, did it? Yet Adam and Eve
were tempted. Likewise, Jesus also was tempted but did not have flesh
with the sinful nature in it. Temptation occurs with or without the
sinful nature. Of course, we know the outcomes: Adam yielded to the
temptation and sin entered the world. Jesus did not yield to the
temptation and sin was atoned for the world (to all who will believe on
Him).
What caused Adam to sin without the sinful nature? Choice. Come to
think of it, Eve was lured, but Adam seems to have made a graver decision
(but that's speculation).
Do we have a choice not to sin? No, we do not have the choice not to sin
because the selfishness of sin has been passed down to us when sin
entered the world. We have a choice to be freed from our sin, but we
have no choice but to sin until we are reborn.
Did Jesus have a choice not to sin? Yes, he had the choice because He
had the divine nature in Him and not the sinful nature.
After we are born of the Spirit, we have that choice not to sin. Why?
Because God promises us that He will allow no temptation that we cannot
bear *and* that he will provide a way of escape.
So, in the sinful nature (born of Adam), we have no choice but to sin. In
the divine nature (born of the spirit), we have the choice to yield to
temptation (sin) or lean upon God to overcome temptation. Temptation
will happen whether you are born of Adam, or also born of the Spirit.
Temptation will occur until you put off the corruptible and put on the
incorruptible. But temptation is not sin and neither is temptation the
sinful nature. Temptation merely reminds us of our lineage to Adam and
dependence upon God to feed the spiritual life and put to death the
nature of selfishness within us.
Mark
|
| 80.143 | That's What He Took To Walk Our Steps | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Tue Apr 12 1994 18:31 | 8 |
| re -1
What you call the "nature of selfishness" that is within us,
I (and I believe the Bible) would call sinful flesh and this
is a source of temptation which Adam (prefallen) did not have
and which I have and my Elder Brother took "yet without sin."
Tony
|
| 80.144 | Galatians 5:16...lust <> sin | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Tue Apr 12 1994 18:47 | 37 |
| re: .113
In Galatians 5, it is said that the flesh "lusts" against the
Spirit.
Galatians 5:16
I say then: Walk in the Spirit and you shall not obey the lust
of the flesh.
According to this verse, if one walks in the Spirit, the lust of
the flesh _is still there_. The verse does not say, "Walk in the
Spirit and there will be no lust of the flesh", it says that if
one walks in the Spirit one _will not obey_ the lust of the flesh.
Obviously, if one is walking in the Spirit, one is not sinning
and just as obvious (from this passage), while one is walking in
the Spirit, there still are 'lusts of the flesh', they just happen
to be 'not obeyed'...they are still there.
It then follows that (at least in this case) the scriptural use of
'lust of the flesh' cannot equate to sin, but rather to temptation
which (as the verse states) need not be obeyed.
In addition...for there to be a 'lust of the flesh' which is not
sin and which (when one walks in the Spirit), one needs not obey,
means there is a 'pull' in the flesh which then is something other
than a temptation from outside to sin that Adam and Eve gave in
to.
To summarize, Galatians 5:16 speaks of a lust of the flesh that
cannot equate to sin, but equates to some form of temptation. It
is a lust that one need not obey.
I believe Jesus took a kind of flesh from which resides this lust,
but He always walked in the Spirit.
Tony
|
| 80.145 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Tue Apr 12 1994 19:12 | 10 |
| > What you call the "nature of selfishness" that is within us,
> I (and I believe the Bible) would call sinful flesh and this
Dead wrong. Jesus did not take on the "nature of selfishness" or "sinful
flesh." Jesus emptied himself of self and is the archtype for selflessness.
We may have a terminological dispute, but these definitions (Jesus having
-sinful- flesh) are not biblical.
MM
|
| 80.146 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Tue Apr 12 1994 19:15 | 16 |
| > In addition...for there to be a 'lust of the flesh' which is not
> sin and which (when one walks in the Spirit), one needs not obey,
> means there is a 'pull' in the flesh which then is something other
> than a temptation from outside to sin that Adam and Eve gave in
> to.
Again, did Adam and Eve have the lust of the flesh before their fall?
If not, then how did they have "the pull?"
> I believe Jesus took a kind of flesh from which resides this lust,
> but He always walked in the Spirit.
Jesus had the same flesh as Adam prior to Adam's fall. This is not
SINFUL flesh.
Mark
|
| 80.147 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Tue Apr 12 1994 19:55 | 70 |
| > In Galatians 5, it is said that the flesh "lusts" against the
> Spirit.
>
> Galatians 5:16
> I say then: Walk in the Spirit and you shall not obey the lust
> of the flesh.
A lesson on parsing.
What kind of lust is this speaking about?
The lust of the flesh.
Are there other kinds of lust?
Yes, the lust of the mind. (Rom 1:27; see Strong's p. 69 and #3715)
Point being: you have equated the "lust of the flesh" with the "sinful
nature" but have made no sense as to how this equates to sin being in
our flesh, part of our flesh, as if big people must be more sinful than
small people because they have more flesh (therefore more sinfulness).
Lust exists not only in the flesh, as I will demonstrate below. The fact
that one of the kinds of lusts is one of the many possible attributes
or nature (i.e. physical/chemical/biological makeup; flesh) does not
mean that flesh (itself) is sinful.
So what is lust in its various meanings in Scripture?
Hebrew-chaldee
-- 183 -- wish for, covet, (greatly desire), be desirous,
long, lust (after)
-- 2530 -- to delight in: beauty ... (things)
-- 8082 -- greasy, i.e.gross; fig. rich: fat, lusty, plenteous
-- 8307 -- in the sense of twisted, i.e. firm; obstinancy:
imangination, lust
-- 8378 -- a longing, by imp. a delight (...)
Greek
-- 1937 -- to set the heart upon, i.e. long for (rightfully or
otherwise): - covet, desire, would fain, lust
-- 1939 -- a longing (espcially for what is forbidden): concupiscence,
desire, lust after
-- 1971 -- to dote upon, i.e. intensely crave possession (lawfully or
wrongfully) (...)
-- 2237 -- sensual delight; by imp. desire: lust, pleasure
-- 3715 -- excitement of the mind, i.e. longing after, lust
-- 3806 -- from the alt. of 3958; prop. suffering ("pathos"), i.e. (subj.)
a passion (espec. concupiscence): inordinate affection, lust
----------------------------------------------
Galatians 5:16 This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil
the lust (1939) of the flesh.
17 For the flesh lusteth (1937) against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the
flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the
things that ye would.
> According to this verse, if one walks in the Spirit, the lust of
> the flesh _is still there_. The verse does not say, "Walk in the
> Spirit and there will be no lust of the flesh", it says that if
> one walks in the Spirit one _will not obey_ the lust of the flesh.
(BTW, does this mean the Spirit lusteth against the flesh, Tony? Isn't what
verse 17 saying is that the "spirit [lusteth] against the flesh?")
I have no problem with your statement "will not obey the lust of the flesh"
but I do have a problem with you saying that sin abides in the flesh.
Now, evidently some lust = sin and some lust <> sin according to the authors
or the texts which Strong's illuminates for us. Jesus had in him NO SIN.
This is uncompromisable. You want to use some definitions for
"lust of the flesh", do so carefully, but do not apply these to
the Savior in whom no sin was found.
Mark
|
| 80.148 | Closing Remarks...Hope Some of You Read (Please) | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Tue Apr 12 1994 20:09 | 134 |
| Mark,
I don't think they did.
What did you make of my 'lust' discussion? Do you still
insist that lust <> temptation (after the discussion on
Gal. 5:16)?
I think the problem is largely terminology and I happen to
think your terminology doesn't square with scripture.
If I understand you correctly Mark, your definition of sinful
flesh is flesh that a person has while he is actually sinning.
Like while a person is obedient, he has sinless flesh and
while he is disobedient, he has sinful flesh. In other words,
the flesh doesn't change, its what the person _does_ with it.
I see it that Adam and Eve's flesh changed and this flesh draws
on the mind. And while a person is walking in the Spirit, the
flesh doesn't change from sinful to sinless, it changes from 'alive'
to 'crucified.'
****************************************************************
While I think this is important, I am getting tired of this
discussion.
My original reason for bringing this up was Romans 7. I truly
believe that the reason Job can say in verses 9:20,21 that even
if he was perfect, he would not know his soul, he would despise
his life is because of sinful flesh.
I truly believe that as one see God's love more deeply, even
should (hypothetically) one be sinless, one sees the sinfulness
of sin more deeply via that sinful flesh.
And if one 'reaches behind the veil' and sees God 'without a
Mediator', one sees the full sinfulness of sin and 'dies' in
the sense of Romans 7, i.e. feels he is that sinner and suffers
the pain that ensues. This cannot happen to a sinless person
_unless_ sinful flesh has the effects mentioned above.
And this is how I believe Jesus bore the sin of the world. He
progressively saw His Father's love and via the flesh He took,
progressively saw how bad sin is and felt to be the sinner and
thus endured the pain.
I continue to see God's character shine better and better. I do
not see the Father needing to kill His Son in the sense of because
His law (and thus Him) demanded it judicially. I see that there
is a spiritual reality He cannot circumvent, our deliverance is
from sin, and He must prove that death is inherent to sin and
life is inherent to righteoussness. And when Jesus 'died' the
death of sin (endured the pain intrinsic to a full revelation of
seeming to be that awful sinner) and overcame by faith (did not
despair, but rather believed His Father still loved and accepted
Him) He demonstrated that even in the midst of 'death', righteouss-
ness is life (inherently).
When the last generation is delivered completely from sin, God
will permit them to undergo the same experience Christ did. He
will permit them to see behind the veil. He will permit them to
thus receive a full revelation of sin and feel to be that sinner.
One crucial difference is that they FOLLOW Him. (They could never
do this without their Forerunner, their Example, i.e. "Take up
the cross and FOLLOW Me.")
This is the time of the judgment. All issues are decided for all
time. The unsaved are permitted to see all of God. They undergo
exactly the same pain, but without faith, they despair and the
psychic pain destroys them.
Satan who told Eve "sin is not death, but enhanced life" is
unmasked. Note how the judicial model is consistent with Satan's
claims. Satan could say: "God if you would leave me alone and
let me live my life of sin, I'd be ok!" I believe the truth is:
"Satan, my veil keeps you alive. Sin itself is death and My love
will activate it"
I don't know if you guys are following this. Its all based on
the spiritual reality of Romans 7. It weaves in a great contro-
versy and explains why a last generation must be perfected. It
explains why the wait has been so long for God MUST have a people
willing to allow Him to feed them with the full gospel.
This was my purpose in discussing sinful flesh. The spiritual
reality of Romans 7 has as one feature, the effects of sinful
flesh.
Take away sinful flesh and how Christ bore sin flip flops from
being inherent to the flesh He took and His growing in seeing
His Father's love to being the Father having to artificially
just massacre His Son cause otherwise He just won't be able to
save man.
God has to settle issues. And once that last generation is
ready to be used by God to forever settle the great controversy,
He will simply shine His unveiled love throughout the universe.
And when He does that, all in whom sin resides will be destroyed.
Judgment will be accomplished. All issues will be forever settled.
Inherent to righteoussness is life (even in the midst of the death
caused by sin) and inherent to sin is death and without righteouss-
ness, in the presence of the consuming fire of God's love, nobody
can live for it reveals to one's inner core how bad sin is and
without faith which relies on God's love, one despairs and is
consumed by that awful ordeal.
Song of Solomon 8:6,7
Set me as a seal upon your heart,
A a seal upon Your arm;
For love is as strong as death,
Jealousy as cruel as the grave;
Its flames are flames of fire,
A most vehement flame.
Many waters cannot quench love,
Nor can the floods drown it.
When God's people are prepared to endure the fiery furnace of
God's unquenching love as (in a physical type) Daniel's friends
did, the end is very near.
I expect that most will look at this and think it crazy.
I just hope people can see how this explains the gospel from
several perspectives and just lifts His awesome character to the
skies.
I care not to discuss this any further.
Tony
|
| 80.149 | I'll Let It Go Mark | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Tue Apr 12 1994 20:15 | 7 |
| Hi Mark,
I read .122 after making my reply. I'll not reply to it
only because I can pretty much tell that the time is past
in terms of the discussion being profitable (edifying).
Tony
|
| 80.150 | the seed of the serpent | DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR | | Wed Apr 13 1994 11:18 | 8 |
|
>Did Adam and Eve have the lust of the flesh before the fall ?
>If not, then how did they have the "pull"?
The serpent awakened or instilled it in her "is it not good for food?"
Then apparently Adam "desired" Eve over Elohim.
Hank
|
| 80.151 | He Was Made Sin | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Wed Apr 13 1994 13:14 | 65 |
| Hi,
This thought occured to me last night while at home and
while I said my 'last thoughts', I wanted to add this
because I think it helps to clarify the two positions.
It is so important to acknowledge the scriptural truth
that SIN is used in two very different ways. In one way,
sin is an act, a choice of the mind. It is a state of
unbelief for "whatever is not of faith is sin."
In another way, it is a characteristic of something. This
thing called sinful flesh, whatever it is, is something
different than sin as in the previous paragraph. When Paul
says in Romans 7 "Who shall deliver me from this body of
sin and death", he refers to this other 'sin.' And when Paul
points to the means of obedience, he never implies that the
body of sin and death (sinful flesh) no longer is a body of
sin and death, he implies that it is crucified.
With that in mind, it is also true that Jesus was MADE sin.
2 Corin 5:21
For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might
become the righteoussness of God in Him.
This text delineates both uses of the word sin. Christ could
be MADE sin (second use of the two I mentioned, I believe) and
yet not KNOW sin (first use).
[As an aside, I never noticed before, but this text also shows
us why Jesus was made sin...no mention of a judicial price being
satisfied (I'm not surprised), but mention of being made righteouss
in Jesus. Just a sidenote.]
One position would say that Jesus was made sin on the cross and
"being made sin" equates to God the Father making Jesus feel all
of the punishment He must dole out for all of the sins of the world.
The position I believe in is that Jesus was MADE SIN at the incarnation
when He was born of a woman, born under the law. And that being
made sin refers to taking the body of sin and death.
In a sense, I believe Jesus was made sin at the cross. I just happen
to believe that Jesus began to bear the cross at the incarnation;
again the spiritual reality of Romans 7. And He hadn't borne it fully
until the physical cross event.
Finally, we cannot be made the righteoussness of Christ in Him without
our Forerunner paving the way and providing that tremendous love
demonstrated during His earthly life. WE have an Example we can follow
who was made sin in the same sense we are, but rendered a perfect
obedience even though laden with the body of sin and death (as Paul
calls it). And we could never live a righteouss life apart from Jesus
doing the same and with the same set of conditions. That being the same
obstacles we have and only the same provision we have (faith working by
love).
So either way, we believe Jesus was made sin. Just what that means is
perhaps the big point of departure.
Let's all cry AMEN over our agreement though. And that is that we all
agree that though He was made sin, He KNEW no sin.
Tony
|
| 80.152 | | CHTP00::CHTP04::LOVIK | Mark Lovik | Wed Apr 13 1994 14:53 | 13 |
| > One position would say that Jesus was made sin on the cross and
> "being made sin" equates to God the Father making Jesus feel all
> of the punishment He must dole out for all of the sins of the world.
Close, but one thing I would add. I believe that on the cross, our
*sins* were laid on Him. Not just "feeling the punishment", but
actually bearing our sins and the punishment for them.
1 Peter 2:24 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.
Mark L.
|
| 80.153 | Flesh of sin and the soul-life... | LEDS::LOPEZ | A River.. proceeding! | Wed Apr 13 1994 18:51 | 23 |
| re.125
Hank,
> The serpent awakened or instilled it in her
By it I assume you mean sin was already in her. Are you suggesting that God
created Adam and Eve that way? There is no scriptural ground to base that on.
But hey, that never stopped this discussion before! 8*)
I would say that the stirring up in Eve that the fruit was good for food was not
sin in her flesh but rather her soul-life (mind, emotion and will). Before the
fall the sin was outside of them in the form of the serpent. The poisonous
element of Satan was injected into Adam and Eve once they disobeyed. After the
fall the sin element was present with always in their flesh. Things got worse
over time. It is passed on to all who are of Adam.
As I said before, I believe that all in Adam inherit the flesh of sin. I do not
believe that the Lord Jesus had this sinful flesh for the reasons previously
stated.
Regards,
ace
|
| 80.154 | Re: .123 | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Wed Apr 13 1994 20:24 | 22 |
| > I don't know if you guys are following this. Its all based on
> the spiritual reality of Romans 7. It weaves in a great contro-
> versy and explains why a last generation must be perfected. It
> explains why the wait has been so long for God MUST have a people
> willing to allow Him to feed them with the full gospel.
You should know by now that we have not followed it, because it is wrong and
scripturally unsound to do so.
> This was my purpose in discussing sinful flesh. The spiritual
> reality of Romans 7 has as one feature, the effects of sinful
> flesh.
The "spiritual reality" is nothing less than the gospel that has existed
since the foundation of the world and the "new view" doesn't cut it, even if
you called it an old view.
> I care not to discuss this any further.
Neither have I cared to discuss it any further... but here I am again.
Mark M.
|
| 80.155 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Wed Apr 13 1994 20:26 | 5 |
| Hank,
Any reply to Ace's note in .128?
Did God make Adam and Eve with "dormant" sin in their flesh?
Mark
|
| 80.156 | "instilled" | DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR | | Thu Apr 14 1994 11:10 | 24 |
|
Hi Ace,
where have you been? or have you just been being quiet? :-)
Well, I dont mean that Our Father created them evil, innocent is a better
word.
I did use the word "instill"
Awakened or instilled : two concepts, one that the ability to lust was
already there in them dormant, the other that the serpent gave birth to it
in them. My inclination is "the seed of the serpent" he spiritually seduced
and impregnated them, (well Eve was deceived) Adam was not deceived, but
probably wanted to be as "Elohim" after being presented with the concept.
In either case, there was a positive act of the will in faith to the serpent.
This doesn't solve the problem however of the origin of sin. It simply
moves it back a notch to Satan.
Where did He get it?
Hank
|
| 80.157 | one step further | DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR | | Thu Apr 14 1994 11:51 | 28 |
|
OK, I'll grow some horns and play the Devil's advocate
Re the question : where did sin originate?
BTW this is a favorite game of theology profs.
If we say sin was "found in him" (Lucifer), the question remains unanswered
If we say it originated in Satan Himself then the next question is
where did He get this ability ?
You know where this is headed.
Answer this question :
Let us say I'm a Mafia Don, but I dont like the messy work of eliminating
my competition and I hire a thug to do my dirty work.
Am I guilty of murder?
Before you accuse me of blasphemy, have you ever demanded of God "WHY?"
when some terrible thing has happened to you or someone you love?
Arn't we saying God is responsible?
So, how would you answer me (with my horns)?
Hank
|
| 80.158 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Thu Apr 14 1994 13:18 | 24 |
| Hank,
Satan sinned because he chose to. Sin was not implanted in him, but choice
was.
Adam and Eve sinned because they chose to. Sin was not implanted in
them, but choice was.
That which was instilled in these creations was the power to choose.
The power to choose is NOT sin, nor does it make one sinful, in flesh or
in being. And choosing is also not a sin; choosing the wrong is the sin.
So sin was not awakened in them, it was embraced BY them. They chose it
to be like God (even Lucifer) instead of choosing to live as God would
have them to live.
By our first parents' choice, they instilled in us the inclination to
choose ourselves over God. And this is the essence of sin, for it breaks
the first and the greatest commandment. Breaking any commandment breaks
the first and greatest commandment, even being free from the [letter of the]
law.
We also have the choice between self and God, between evil and good, and
we invariably choose self (by the nature that was passed down to us) when we
are old enough to make that choice.
One may speculate that given a choice, EVENTUALLY one will choose self,
so perhaps giving a choice is not a wise thing to do. But remember, without
choice to love, there can be no love.
Mark
|
| 80.159 | | CHTP00::CHTP04::LOVIK | Mark Lovik | Thu Apr 14 1994 14:17 | 25 |
| I realized that I was mixing topics in one of my replies to Tony
yesterday, so I'm copying the note from topic 423 to here. This note
was in response to Tony's note 423.105.
Mark L.
================================================================================
Note 423.112 WHAT ARE WE DELIVERED FROM??? 112 of 116
CHTP00::CHTP04::LOVIK "Mark Lovik" 14 lines 13-APR-1994 18:08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I hope you can see how the position I have labored to present is
> retained with perfect harmony to the word of God.
Tony,
When we haven't even established that the word of God says that Jesus
took on "sinful flesh", this is a pretty far-fetched statement. Once
again, my Bible only uses the term "sinful flesh" in *one* place, and
there it *does not* say that Jesus took on "sinful flesh". Why do you
suppose that the Holy Spirit was careful to state so specifically that
it was in *the likeness* of sinful flesh? Does the term "likeness of"
mean nothing to you?
Mark L.
|
| 80.160 | | CHTP00::CHTP04::LOVIK | Mark Lovik | Thu Apr 14 1994 14:32 | 19 |
| As I was studying Philippians 2 for tonight's Bible study, the term
"likeness" once again struck me. "But made himself of no reputation,
and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness
of men:" (Philippians 2:7) I was curious as to more of what the term
"likeness" carries, so I got out my W.E. Vine's "Dictionary of New
Testament Words" to see what he had to say:
likeness - denotes that which is made like something, a
resemblance. ... Phil 2:7 "The expression 'likeness of men' does
not itself imply, still less does it exclude or diminish, the
reality of the nature which Christ assumed. That...is decleared
in the words 'form of a servant'. 'Paul justly says
'_in_the_likeness_of_men_', because, in fact, Christ, although
certainly perfect Man (Rom 5:15; 1 Cor. 15:21; 1 Tim. 2:5), was,
by reason of the Divine nature present in Him, not simply and
merely man...but the incarnate Son of God'" (Gifford, quoting
Meyer).
Mark L.
|
| 80.161 | "Instilled" / "Injected" are about the same thing... | LEDS::LOPEZ | A River.. proceeding! | Thu Apr 14 1994 17:00 | 33 |
|
>where have you been? or have you just been being quiet? :-)
Aww, you know me, quiet and shy type. 8*)
We agree. Satan instilled or injected them with his serpentine nature. Which
gets us back to the former point that Adam and Eve were created by God with the
ability to choose to obey or disobey Him (the will/volition) but not the
indwelling sin nature. In this regard, Christ (the last Adam - implying same
type of humanity) was like Adam in His humanity before the fall, not with the
indwelling sin nature. Like the brass serpent in Numbers 21 and fulfilled in
John 3, Christ had the form of the serpent, but not the serpentine nature.
>Adam was not deceived, but
> probably wanted to be as "Elohim" after being presented with the concept.
Actually Hank, according to somewhere in the new testament, Adam
disobeyed because he loved Eve, not because he wanted to be like God. Though
Satan tempted Eve with those words (you'll be like God knowing good and evil),
Adam only did it because he loved Eve. It's important to this point because this
indicates that Adam's fall was also related to his soul-life (emotion) not the
pull of indwelling sin in his flesh. But by Genesis 6:3 we do see mankind
following his flesh to the uttermost but that was developed over time and after
the fall.
As far as the origin of sin, why that's a separate discussion since it didn't
originate with Adam neither was he created such.
Regards,
ace
|
| 80.162 | oh well, one more time | DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR | | Thu Apr 14 1994 18:20 | 62 |
|
origin of sin...
Jesus to the pharisees :
"you are of your father the devil and the desires (lusts) of your father
"you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning. John 8:44 NKJV
But Our Heavenly Father did not create him this way :
"When he speaks a lie he speaks from his own (resource), for he is a liar
and the father (originator) of it".
When he came into being there was no evil for him to choose, He saw,
he desired, he yielded. (then came the five "I wills") Thus he *fathered*
sin in himself.
Perhaps there was a window of opportunity for him, I dont know.
Re: in the likness of sinful flesh :
In the likeness of "sinning" flesh would be an interpretive translation.
If we Compare this passage to "the Word was made flesh"
then this passage probably means that He looked to be a "sinning" member
of Adam's race.
In other words;
This could mean (and what I believe it means) is that though the Logos
was made sarx (adamic or fallen flesh) He himself never yielded to its
demands (sexual, etc) though for all appearances there was nothing about
Him that would indicate this and unless you lived with Him on a day to day
basis, there was nothing outwardly special nor a "holy countenence" about
Him to lead you to suspect His sinlessness.
If the "pull" was not there and a "real" dichotomy of choice : His own will
versus Our Fathers will, then all of His Temptations were charades.
His human flesh gave input to the mechanism of His will "take this cup away
from me", "who in the days of His flesh when He had offered up prayers and
supplications with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him
from death (the 2nd death) and was heard because of His godly fear..."
His Spirit also giving input "not what I will, but what you will"
I dont understand what is so hard about this.
Sarx is a hellenistic term, Jesus was NOT DEFILED by this sarx, neither
could He be. There is a sense in which He had to prove Satan to be the liar
that he is. Jesus incarnation (well the Logos-to be proper) proved that
even if God were to become an Adamic man He couldn't sin.
Even if this sarx became flesh of His flesh and bone of his bone
He could't/wouldn't sin. Even in the face of the unending second death
He couldn't sin.
If this is blasphemy then I'm guilty. Just about everyone else has
excommunicated me anyway.
Thus, Satan beholding the Word made flesh (a descendant of Adam) said
"If thou be the Son of God...
|
| 80.163 | | CHTP00::CHTP04::LOVIK | Mark Lovik | Thu Apr 14 1994 18:39 | 12 |
| You have to look at the context of the passages of Scripture to
understand the meaning that the word "flesh" is carrying. Take a look
at the word "flesh" (sarx) in a W. E. Vines "Expository Dictionary of
New Testament Words". There, you will find that the word "sarx" is
used in *many* different ways in the New Testament. Some refer to
"flesh and bones", i.e., our bodies. However, in many other passages
"flesh" refers to the fallen nature, the sinful nature, the direct
effects of sin in our lives, etc. To apply some of these latter
meanings to the person of the Lord Jesus amounts, in my opinion, to
blasphemy.
Mark L.
|
| 80.164 | Thanks | STRATA::BARBIERI | God can be so appreciated! | Thu Apr 14 1994 20:17 | 7 |
| re: .137
Hank, I won't excommunicate you!
Beautiful good news brother!
Tony
|
| 80.165 | | LEDS::LOPEZ | A River.. proceeding! | Thu Apr 14 1994 20:32 | 17 |
|
Hank,
re.137
>If the "pull" was not there and a "real" dichotomy of choice : His own will
> versus Our Fathers will, then all of His Temptations were charades.
No, not a bit Hank. Not anymore than Adam's temptation was a charade.
The tempter was outside of them both. Adam fell, the last Adam didn't.
Let me ask you a question: Are you concerned that if Jesus didn't have
the same sinful flesh as you that He would be unqualified to deliver you from
your sinful flesh?
ace
|
| 80.166 | think about it | DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR | | Fri Apr 15 1994 11:12 | 29 |
|
Balsphemy OH NO!
Hope you didnt ruin any good shirts :-)
OK, Ive thought about this and how to show exactly what SARX as it applies
to Jesus Christ means and I think we cant see the forest because of the
trees.
Sarx simply means MORTAL flesh subject to death.
If Jesus did not have mortal flesh then no one could have put Him to death.
Mortal flesh is ADAM'S flesh which is subject to death because of his sin
in the garden. Jesus flesh was post-fall or His death was meaningless.
The wages of sin is death.
He made Him sin who knew no sin.
He was undefiled by this flesh.
He (Our wonderful Saviour) could/would not sin under any condition or
circumstance.
Can we leave it at that?
Hank
Hank
|
| 80.167 | question for Hank... | POWDML::SMCCONNELL | Next year, in Jerusalem! | Fri Apr 15 1994 13:42 | 14 |
| Hank - to be sure I'm sure of what you're saying (huh?)
sarx = mortal (i.e., subject to death) flesh. I have no problem with
that statement.
I understand Tony to be saying that sarx = *sinful* flesh. I do have a
problem with that; not only because of the implications of that on
Yeshua, but for all believers.
Hank - in your view, is the physical body itself sinful or neutral
(or something else I haven't offered here)?
Steve (who still has nothing more to add to this discussion, but would
like clarification on your point of view, Hank...)
|
| 80.168 | | CHTP00::CHTP04::LOVIK | Mark Lovik | Fri Apr 15 1994 13:47 | 12 |
| Mike -- good illustrations!
Hank -- I have absolutely *NO* problem with saying that the Lord Jesus
had mortal flesh in His incarnation. Definitely flesh, bone, and
blood, like these humble bodies we now have. He fully understands the
frailty and weakness (physical) that accompanies such. Where I must
object is when the term "in the likeness of" has been ignored so often
in this string, and replaced with "in sinful flesh".
Indeed, He could not and would not sin. He was God!
Mark L.
|
| 80.169 | Show a little effort | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Fri Apr 15 1994 15:32 | 35 |
| > If we Compare this passage to "the Word was made flesh"
> then this passage probably means that He looked to be a "sinning" member
> of Adam's race.
Sorry. Sarx, in Strongs concordance says: 4561
"prob. fromthe base of 4563; flesh (as stripped of the
skin), i.e. strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by ext.) the
body (as opposed to the soul [or spirit], or as a symbol of what is
external, or as the means of kindred), or (by impl.) human nature (with
its frailties [phy. or mor.] and passions), or (spec.) a human being
as such): - carnal(-ly; -ly minded), flesh([-ly])"
And by the way: carnal simly means flesh and point back to this number
with no implication of SIN ANYWHERE IN THIS WORD!!!!
We have applied "sinfulness" to these terms: flesh, carnal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, for payment:
1 Peter 1:18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible
things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition
from your fathers; 19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb
without blemish and without spot:
1Corinthians 19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy
Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For
ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your
spirit, which are God's.
If you can't see payment in this, then you haven't done you're homework well.
Mark
|
| 80.170 | Payment/Mark's Title/Flesh | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Fri Apr 15 1994 15:47 | 45 |
| Hi,
Is the payment part applied to me?
Mark, I have stated several times that payment was required.
I have not one single time tried to imply there is not a
payment.
My whole effort was to point to a position that the payment
was for something other than satisfying a judicial payment.
If you perused through my replies, I do not believe you'll see
a hint of my suggesting payment was not necessary.
I just think payment was required _for something else_.
I do not think it is possible for Christ to deliver my heart
from sin outside of the payment of the cross.
Payment still stands.
You know Mark...I'm trying to be real gentle here...its things
like the title: "Show a little effort" that (to me) is indicative
of more than gently in the Spirit of love trying to support some-
thing you believe in which is very important to you. Things like
your title (to me) is a turning of the knife and has no place
so far as Christlikeness is concerned.
As far as sinful flesh...after it was mentioned that the phrase
sinful flesh only occurs once in the scriptures, I am open to the
possibility that sinful flesh refers to the flesh one has when one
is sinning, but I still believe Jesus took postfallen flesh and
that there was a change in flesh after sin. I suppose the
following does not relate to the realm of morality, but I do not
believe God's perfect work of creation including providing Adam
with genetic information that included the potential for many of
the awful genetic diseases we know today (cystic fibrosis, etc.)
I still maintain that our flesh did change, that this flesh exerts
pulls on the mind that prefallen flesh did not, and that Jesus took
this flesh.
Tony
|
| 80.171 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Fri Apr 15 1994 15:50 | 8 |
| prefallen flesh... hmmmm
If you are saying then that prefallen flesh was immortal.. I'd agree
with that. I do not however believe that Christ had prefallen flesh,
he had mortal flesh so that he could be our sacrifice. Yet with
fallen/mortal flesh he remained sinless.
Where's the pull?
|
| 80.172 | | CHTP00::CHTP04::LOVIK | Mark Lovik | Fri Apr 15 1994 15:54 | 14 |
| Tony,
I don't believe that I have opposed the idea that a change
(physiologically) took place as a result of Adam's fall. I believe
that it *is* quite possible. (As an aside, I have heard several
*strong* Biblical expositors say that they believed that Adam and Eve
were clothed with light prior to their sin, and the reason they
"realized" they were naked is bacause this covering of light was gone.
Thus their feeble attempt to cover their nakedness, which God undertook
for in a more substantial way.) And yes, I believe that the physiology
of the Lord Jesus in His incarnation was like ours, yet there was a
difference: His body never saw corruption. Quite a thought!
Mark L.
|
| 80.173 | flesh of sin | DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR | | Fri Apr 15 1994 16:00 | 62 |
|
Mortal flesh is the common ground of ageement.
Likness of sinful flesh... I checked this passage out again and
it says what i thought I remembered it to say.
literally its says in the crucial phrase...
in the likeness of flesh of sin. (genetive case).
This means in the likeness of sinning flesh or in the likeness of
flesh which practices sin or is in the state of fulfilled sin. Not that
mortal flesh in and of itself is intrinsically sinful. It is subject to
death because of the result of Adam's sin and as such is equated with
that sin.
This is a very difficult concept, if mortal flesh were intrinsically evil
then babies who die before accountability would perish (which some indeed
believe). Innocent babies do indeed die because of "original sin" they do
however have eternal life. (which some dont believe).
Each of us sooner or later will put our stamp of approval on Adam's choice.
Our Heavenly Father knows that infants who die before "the age of
accountability" had they lived long enough would have followed in their
fathers footsteps, yielded to the lust of the flesh and been accounted
"dead in trespasses and sins", but to fulfill all righteousness, He
regenerates them.
The "flesh of sin" is flesh past the age of accountability which has
yielded to its desires and therefore inherits Adam's state as a sinner
along with its end result: death.
Jesus had the appearance of this sinning flesh and the Pharisees, seeing
that He was mortal and subject to death, assumed Him to be a sinner such
as they were.
Did Jesus ever lust ?
lust is an unfortunate word, in english it always implies the fulfilment
of a *desire* not so in koine,
Lets put it this way and we've come full circle.
was Jesus ever sexually tempted?
was there testosterone in his veins?
If the sexual *suggestion* came from satan
and Jesus had no corresponding "pull" from His flesh then there was no
real temptation.
I believe He was *tempted* in every way just like us,
but He didnt yield to it - ever.
The essence of sin is if we let the desire go from our flesh into the
playground of our heart (kardia) and do what the world calls "fantasize"
thereby fulfilling the lust of the flesh.
This Jesus never did though He was tempted in every way as we are.
fin, I'm weary of this.
Hank
|
| 80.174 | Just A Final Clarification | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Fri Apr 15 1994 18:09 | 38 |
| re -1
Hi Hank,
I agree 100%
I know its a weird concept, but I happen to believe that
part of the reality of the change of our flesh is a 'haven'
of pulls that the prefallen flesh did not have.
I don't want to get into a deep study with this anymore.
Suffice to say that I believe such phrases as "body of sin
and death", "law of sin in our members", etc. I believe
refer to this pull.
Its like I honestly believe our fallen brain might press
a temptation to the mind that an unfallen brain might not.
I can't prove this, but as an example...
If someone was eating a really good meal, I believe that
sinless flesh would not have introduced thoughts to the
mind to eat to the point of gluttony. That no such temptation
would present itself. But, sinful flesh just might. It might
EXPLODE the mind with the temptations "Eat some more! Keep on
eating! I WANT MORE!!!"
With this example of appetite, that is ALL I'm saying.
And Jesus took such a flesh. And even though His mind was
barraged in such a way...He still did not submit.
I don't want to prove this position. I'm tired!! ;-)
Just wanted to clarify it.
God Bless,
Tony
|
| 80.175 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Fri Apr 15 1994 20:13 | 66 |
| So at least we have wrested this agreement:
o Jesus had flesh
o the flesh (sarx) is not sinful in an of itself
o the flesh has desires; desire does not mean sin
and the english word lust is not always in a sinful connotation
o Jesus was tempted (was attracted by) as we are
o A payment is required (Tony diverges by saying it is required
"_for something else_" while we have maintained the blood is
substitution for our own condemnation.)
------------------
Left unresolved - whether a "judicial model" exists
> You know Mark...I'm trying to be real gentle here...its things
> like the title: "Show a little effort" that (to me) is indicative
> of more than gently in the Spirit of love trying to support some-
> thing you believe in which is very important to you. Things like
> your title (to me) is a turning of the knife and has no place
> so far as Christlikeness is concerned.
The title was more for all (which in this conversation concerned Hank,
most recently, as well as you continually). And how is this different,
Tony, from the implications you have made about people who would understand
your position if they only dug deeper and saw how simple things were (to you)?
In fact, I only recant that title on thinking it out, now, because I know
that you have expended much effort on your position - though I don't know
how much Hank has expended. I did not expend much effort in checking out
the language in question in pulling my Strong's Concordance down from the
shelf and submitting the actual definition as opposed to attempting to
wrestle definition (which I was guilty of in this string; but satisfied
that the orginal language supported the definition I wrestled over with you).
So I would revise my title from "show a little effort" to "take stock in
the effort you're making before forming a doctrine." Whenever my belief
is challenged, I must go back and check to see if I have done my homework.
If the study does not bear me out, then I yield to it. Truth supercedes
doctrine.
I think that probably you may think (Tony) that I am your lesson in agape;
a possibility I find curiously disappointing because I never once have the
desire to put a slam on Tony Barbieri. I have been frustrated at what seems
to me a discounting of sound study in favor of a predisposition (but even
these words fail on the basis of charge and countercharge).
> I still maintain that our flesh did change, that this flesh exerts
> pulls on the mind that prefallen flesh did not, and that Jesus took
> this flesh.
No one has disputed this thought, by the way, as Mark Lovik put so well.
However, it is mere speculation as to how it changed. Pulls and desires
may have existed before the fall, but if everything was done within the
context of obedience and fellowship with God, then it didn't matter.
Disease and other ravages of our bodies may be more a result of our
choices (external) than of the internal workings of our flesh. Dead people
have flesh; comatose people have living flesh, yet there is NO PULL.
The flesh is without animation and life without the mind, spirit and soul.
Therefore, the flesh by itself has no intrinsic morality but is a network
of biochemical reactions to sensory input. (Blind men are not tempted
by pictures of naked women. That is, because the sensory input is missing to
fire the reaction. Of course, even blind men have other sensory input.)
Think about it.... (er, please).
Mark
|
| 80.176 | Christ's perfect humanity is now available to us... | LEDS::LOPEZ | A River.. proceeding! | Fri Apr 15 1994 22:16 | 36 |
|
It's hard to say but perhaps some progress may be being made here....
NAH! WHAT AM I THINKING! 8*) 8*)
There is a bigger truth beyond this discussion. On the cross the Lord
not only made atonement for us, cleansed us with His precious blood, etc. In
addition, He *terminated* old Adam.
IN the universe God recognizes two great corporate men. Adam and Christ.
The first man Adam, though created sinless but with the ability to choose God,
nevertheless fell under Satan's beguiling bringing the entire creation into a
fallen state. In addition we inherited his sinful and fallen nature as we are
merely extentions of the life of Adam. All who are of Adam are condemned
already. A human being need not do anything to experience God's condemnation
because all born of Adam are born under the sentence of condemnation. Adam
failed. God is not trying to repair Adam, or mend the fallen man. No, God's
solution is to terminate old Adam and create another Adam. The last Adam,
Christ. For in Him we find the perfect Man, one who is able to satisfy God's
righteous requirements.
There is only One who is able to satisfy God's righteous requirements.
That is God Himself. But in order to be applicable to us He had to become a man.
Not a man with sinful flesh, but a man just the same. This One fulfilled God's
law and fulfills God's eternal purpose. His atonement is wonderful. we are lost
without it. However, we must go on to see just how wonderful this God-Man really
is. It's more than just salvation from our sins. Much more. On the cross Adam
died in Him. From God's viewpoint, old Adam is finished. All who believe into
the Son are transferred into Christ. We then become members of the new man, the
corporate Christ as members of His Body. We share the life of the new man. We
not only experience God's life, but we experience His perfect humanity. All His
experiences in the human life, all His overcoming ability, are available in Him.
All this great power is to the church.
Regards,
Ace
|
| 80.177 | I did it again | DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR | | Sat Apr 16 1994 13:32 | 18 |
|
Re 447.150
Hi Mark,
I sense that I have to some degree offended you, I was unaware of this.
Probably when I said something to the effect "I dont see why this is so
hard...". A totally inappropriate statement.
If I have anything valid to say/teach then its from the Lord and
and not me and therefore He has opened my understanding (that is if it is
indeed from Him) and I need to remember He said "feed my sheep" not
"beat them up".
I'm sorry.
Hank
|
| 80.178 | | CSC32::J_CHRISTIE | Most Dangerous Child | Sun Apr 17 1994 03:03 | 2 |
| .152 Don't lose too much sleep, Hank.
|
| 80.179 | Correction: Atonement | LEDS::LOPEZ | A River.. proceeding! | Tue Apr 19 1994 16:25 | 20 |
|
re.151
>On the cross the Lord not only made atonement for us,
> His atonement is wonderful. we are lost without it.
Actually, this is not really correct. Atonement in the Hebrew means "to
cover up". In the Old Testament, the blood of bulls and goats could only cover
up sins but never take away sins. Atonement was acceptable in the Old Testament
because God saw the day when the real cross and real sacrifice would be
accomplished, that is the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus as the spotless Lamb and
His redemptive work on the cross. This is why atonement doesn't really apply to
the Lord's work of redemption in the New Testament, for He does not cover up
sins, rather He removes sins.
My, my, can't believe you guys would let me wander around confused like
that... 8*) 8*)
ace
|
| 80.180 | Please Understand... | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Wed Apr 20 1994 15:27 | 26 |
| Hi,
I just got in today and I can't reply to the topic due
to lack of time.
Just a quickie.
Mark, you've brought up our 'interplay' (for want of a better
term) and let me just say that for me I don't believe its the
content of your position that bothers me, its things like the
title of .144, i.e. "Show a little effort". By the way, I don't
know who that reply was to.
But, anyway, my take from your last reply (.150) is that you
perceive our difficulties to be essentially a result of differing
beliefs. Just understand that that is not my problem at all.
The source of what I find unnerving is exactly like the title of
your reply of .144. And that really has nothing to do with
doctrinal position.
It has everything to do with how that position is shared.
Lastly, I by no means am trying to imply that I don't often fail
to write in a tender, loving, and noncritical way.
Tony
|
| 80.182 | Correction: Isaiah 33/Flesh | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Tue Feb 14 1995 19:26 | 32 |
| Hi,
I meant to say Isaiah 33, btw, regarding who inhabits the
everlasting fire (its the saved who do, not the unsaved).
Clearly, my number 1 priority will be to furnish the judgment
stuff. I predict one to two weeks.
On sinful flesh, we certainly see things differently. Paul
admonishes us to not walk "after the flesh" and speaks of the
"lusts of the flesh."
My interpretation is that the flesh of man changed after the fall
and is presently a resorvoir of "lusts" (as Paul puts it) and the
physical flesh itself is something we are admonished not to "walk
after."
I would think if the domain of lusts to sin lay exclusively in the
mind, Paul would admonish us to not walk "after the mind" and would
speak only of "lusts of the mind."
But, he consistently does refer to flesh as a resorvoir wherein
there are lusts. I think tobacco smokers or alcoholics could
appreciate this and some scientific studies suggest other
tendencies to have at least some fleshly origin. Homosexuality
being one. (In respect to a tenet of this Conference, I will not
attribute any morality to the latter.)
Again, just a drawing force, not sin itself, imo of course.
Tony
|
| 80.183 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Tue Feb 14 1995 19:42 | 48 |
|
The flesh has appetites. Appetites for food, water, sex, comfort.
It is not wrong to want food. It is wrong to overindulge or eat foods
sacraficed to idols. It is not wrong to satisfy hunger; that's how we
were made. But it is wrong to give oneself over to gluttony.
It is not wrong to drink; but it can be wrong to drink even water if
God says so in certain contexts. Thirst is a natural appetite of the
flesh.
It is not wrong to want sex. It is wrong to have sex outside of the
context that God has established. Sex is a fleshly appetite.
It is not wrong to want comfort. It is wrong to be selfish and hoard
comfort and wealth.
"Walking after the flesh" means nothing more than serving the natural
appetites to the disregard of the spiritual commandment of righteousness.
"The lust of the flesh" is only one possible [mis]use of the flesh.
The passion of the flesh is to be rejoiced between husband and wife.
The hunger of the flesh is to be satisfied with food.
The thirst of the flesh is to be satisfied with drink.
The lust of the flesh is to be conquered through the spiritual appetites.
The spiritual appetite comes from being reborn by the Spirit. When this
occurs, we have two natures: a fleshly nature with fleshly appetites and
a spiritual nature with spiritual appetites. ACTIONS MAY BE SHARED BY
BOTH NATURES. Sexual union in the context of God's love between the
"one-flesh" husband and wife satisfied BOTH the fleshly appetite AND the
spiritual appetite. In performing this act, we can't say that we're
"walking after the flesh" because we are ALSO walking after the spirit.
They are in harmony BECAUSE OF THE CONTEXT.
Lust is an appetite of sexuality that seeks to raise itself above the
moral code of God. I can have intense passions for my wife and not
enter into lust. Why? Context. Beating the body into submission of
the spirit is putting the fleshly appetites into subjection to the
appetites of the Spirit; that is the desire to put God first and over
any natural appetites that urge for priority placement.
Drink, food, sex, and comfort are not sins unless they take priority over
God and His will. When God is first, these things will assume their
proper role and be very fulfilling.
Mark
|
| 80.184 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Tue Feb 14 1995 19:47 | 13 |
| > I would think if the domain of lusts to sin lay exclusively in the
> mind, Paul would admonish us to not walk "after the mind" and would
> speak only of "lusts of the mind."
Tony,
What is "lust"?
Is it an uncontrollable urge?
How does lust occur?
What contributors do the body make towards "lust"?
Thanks.
MM
|
| 80.185 | More on flesh... | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Wed Feb 15 1995 18:56 | 82 |
| Romans 8
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit
of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is
none of his.
Note Romans 8:9 where Paul says "YE ARE NOT **IN** THE FLESH"
Who is not in the flesh? Those who are spiritually quickened
(made alive). Those who are "in the Spirit."
However, clearly because we're here, we still have our earth suits
on and have flesh. So what is Paul talking about? Let's read
on.
--------------------------------------------------------------
1Corinthians 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living
soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural;
and afterward that which is spiritual.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from
heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the
heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the
image of the heavenly.
*50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom
of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
In the Corinthians passage, Paul says in verse 48 that there are
different natures for those who have not been quickened by the
Spirit and those who have been quickened by the Spirit. We who
are "in the Spirit" and not "in the flesh" have a different
nature; the spiritual nature - which we know wars with the
appetites of the flesh which, if left uncontrolled, would lead us
into selfish sin. (Redundant I know. There is no selfless sin.)
In verse 50, the flesh cannot inherit eternal life in God's
kingdom. Why? because it is evil? No. because it is
*corruptible*; it can be corrupted, but it does not mean it is or
has to be corrupted. Look a few verses farther:
1Corinthians 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and
this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible shall
have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on
immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written,
Death is swallowed up in victory.
Corruptibility and mortality are two different things. We can have
holy flesh that can be corrupted. But there will come a time when
we cannot be corrupted and we cannot die. It is at this time the
earth suit will be remade.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Galatians 2
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ
liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the
faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the
law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Note in verse 20: "THE LIFE WHICH I **NOW** LIVE --IN THE FLESH--
I LIVE BY THE FAITH OF THE SON OF GOD..." How can Paul live in
corrupted flesh and uncorrupted flesh through the spirit? He
doesn't because these are mutually exclusive modifiers of "flesh."
Flesh of a sanctified person is given over to God and it becomes a
holy temple of the Holy Spirit.
Christ lives IN ME; in my flesh, now. Christ does NOT inhabit
sinfulness; he cleans it up and makes it holy and righteous.
I realize that if you see Christ as possessing sinful flesh, this
concept doesn't bother you. (And I maintain that your definition
of "sinful flesh" is therefore inadequate.) Flesh is flesh is
flesh. When you modify it you have "sunburned flesh, frostbitten
flesh, scarred flesh, crawling flesh, sinful flesh, and righteous
flesh." Paul declares that life in the flesh can be lived now for
God as a "living holy sacrifice" presented to Him.
Mark
|
| 80.186 | Moderator Question? | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Wed Feb 15 1995 19:08 | 7 |
| I believe we already have a "flesh" topic as it seems every
discussion with my dear friend, Tony ends up with sarx all over it!
:-) :-) Shall I move these last few notes?
Nancy
|
| 80.187 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Wed Feb 15 1995 19:26 | 12 |
| > :-) :-) Shall I move these last few notes?
Hmmm.... maybe; maybe not. It starts at note .150 where I comment on what
we are saved from, to, by, and through. This led to the consequences
of sin and not sin itself. The flesh part of this comes in as part 2
in reply .154 distinguishing the sinful nature *from* the flesh.
If Tony agrees, maybe 154 is the divergence from the topic. Maybe
we'd better just leave it here with a pointer in the flesh topic to .154
et al.
MM
|
| 80.188 | Quick Rambling/Yeah, Can We Move It? | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Thu Feb 16 1995 11:53 | 52 |
| Yeah, can we move it?
The reason being, while it is relevent to this topic, it is
not the main point of the topic and I don't want overemphasis.
What topic # was sarx anyway.
Mark, I skimmed your stuff. My only chance for writing is before
work and during lunch, so I can't really give a thoughtful reply.
The summary point of my stance is simply that the physical component
of man underwent a change for the worse after the fall. And that a
characteristic of this flesh is that it poses to the mind "lusts"
which prefallen flesh did not (lusts = temptations).
I realize I posed a couple examples that referred to propensities
partly developed as a result of sin that had been repeatedly done.
BUT, it at least suggests that flesh can tempt the mind to do wrong
in other areas - that flesh has a factor.
A cigarette smoker suffers a 'pull' whose residence is in the flesh.
Somehow or another the flesh itself sends signals to the mind. There
is some form of communication. There is a lust in the flesh.
Cigarette smokers feel irritable, they have a craving in their lungs,
their physical selves scream for that activity.
What I see from your replies is _commentary_ on what scripture means.
I simply don't agree with your interpretation. Paul says there is
a certain dynamic which he calls 'the law of sin and death' and he
says this thing resides in the flesh.
I don't see how your commentary accomadates this very well or for
that matter, how it would accomadate what Paul calls the works of
the flesh (and he then goes on to list a nasty set of sins). Its
not a reach to suggest that the works of the flesh are sins which
the mind submits to and whoe origin of temptation (or lust) is
the flesh.
I heard that Dahmer's father had some of the same kinds of violent
thoughts his son had. Did his son get those same thoughts from
nature or nurture? I believe nature played a part. That somehow,
the physical part of his father was such that it had a 'bent' or
'lust' to craving the performance of violent acts.
The above is a small example of what I am talking about and how
I believe postfallen flesh differs from prefallen.
Ultimately, I believe, our flesh craves life itself. It will always
want to save its own hide. Even if it has to hang God on a cross
to do it.
Tony
|
| 80.189 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Thu Feb 16 1995 14:24 | 50 |
| >551.167 YIELD::BARBIERI
>
> The summary point of my stance is simply that the physical component
> of man underwent a change for the worse after the fall. And that a
> characteristic of this flesh is that it poses to the mind "lusts"
> which prefallen flesh did not (lusts = temptations).
What's the scriptural basis for this change? Let me guess, "in the
day that ye eat of it ye shall die."
Clearly, Adam and Eve did not die physically that day. So some speculate that
their flesh changed from uncorrupted flesh to a new kind of flesh. I think that
this is a major stretch of the imagination.
(a) God did not say that in the day ye eat of it, ye shall surely begin
dying. He said "ye shall die."
(b) So then what death is God talking about? Clearly, it MUST be a
spiritual death. Death is *separation* and sin brought a separation
from the relationship with God - the RELATIONSHIP CHANGED. They
also clearly had a relationship with God after the sin, but they
were evicted from Paradise and the relationship changed to an
atoning system for sin.
> What I see from your replies is _commentary_ on what scripture means.
> I simply don't agree with your interpretation. Paul says there is
> a certain dynamic which he calls 'the law of sin and death' and he
> says this thing resides in the flesh.
He also SAYS thet WE (born of the Spirit Christians) reside in the
flesh. (What do you think this means?) Don't ignore these passages
merely to support your "interpretation."
Also please answer the questions I had in .163.
> What is "lust"?
> Is it an uncontrollable urge?
> How does lust occur?
> What contributors do the body make towards "lust"?
(Or was the "Dahmer" paragraph addressing this?)
Lust of the flesh CANNOT exist without the mind. Karen Anne Quinlan
could not lust, yet her flesh was living without life support for
12 years in a comatose state. Lust of the flesh happens in the
mind and will of people. It CANNOT be controlled without the
indwelling of the Holy Spirit. But, ***by the renewing of our minds,***
we are not conformed to this world but are TRANSFORMED.
Mark
|
| 80.190 | Flesh Topic? | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Thu Feb 16 1995 15:01 | 4 |
| Where's the flesh topic?
I'll answer there, but it is slightly peripheral and if I let
it wait in line, it would probably be at least a couple weeks.
|
| 80.191 | The great spin-off note (1995) | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Thu Feb 16 1995 16:04 | 52 |
| Yes, this is the flesh topic. I started back at .0 and got to .5 (so far)
and see that we've gone nowhere in two years.
To the readers of this conference: rather than rehashing the issue again,
you can read this string. I can bow out now because it has been said and
would be said all over again in the SAME WAY if Tony and I continue to discuss
this issue.
In regards to the Two Crosses topic in 551.*, it is my opinion that the way
that Tony perceives sin is pivotal to how he perceives the efficacy of the
Cross. It is imperative that we understand the nature of sin before we can
discuss the need for Calvary. If we do not understand it, or confuse it,
we also obscure the need for Calvary.
I know that Tony does NOT dispute the need for Calvary, but the way I see
his understanding of Calvary's role is not orthodox, and in my opinion, is
drawn from his understanding of sin, the sinful nature, flesh and sinful flesh.
There is only one verse that even uses the phrase "sinful flesh" in
Romans 8:3 but those of you with an online Bible should do a search of
the word "flesh" (oh, say from Acts to Revelation). Don't read them all
as "sinful" but as "earth suits" or "mortal being" and see what you get.
For example:
Romans 6:19 speaks of *yielding* your members to uncleanness and this is the
*cause* for "infirmity of your flesh." No inherent infirmity nor evil in
the flesh until it is yielded up to iniquity.
There are plenty more just in Romans.
We know that we cannot get away from our flesh while we live here on earth
and perhaps this is what drives a belief of never being able to be righteous,
without sin, and holy in this life; but this contradicts the commandment and
work of God in our lives. We cannot be righteous EXCEPT that He *makes* us
righteous. We cannot be holy except that He sanctifies us. It is His
accomplishment in us. I live in the flesh, YET NOT I BUT CHRIST IN ME.
Christ enables me to live in the flesh but not in subjection to its
nature which is towards self-indulgence.
Self-indulgence is not a characteristic wholly owned by the flesh. The
flesh *influences* self-indulgence. Chemical reactions in the body, such
as the lowering of inhibitions by alcohol consumption, CONTRIBUTE to the
(rebellious) attitude of self-indulgence. But, every one is a responsible,
free moral agent to choose right or wrong and the choice is not made
BY the flesh; it is made BY you listening to the urges of nature ABOVE
and in CONTRADICTION TO God's moral law. Again, sex is an urge that is
RIGHT and MORAL in the context of the marriage setting, for example. If
the URGE for sex was wrong, then it would be wrong no matter the context!
Therefore, it is NOT the urge but it is whether or not we PUT GOD FIRST,
ahead of our self-indulging desires.
Mark
|
| 80.192 | A Quick Reason for My Position | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Thu Feb 16 1995 20:06 | 70 |
| Hi,
Yeah, I reread some of this string as well. It is noteworthy
that sinful flesh appears only once. (I'll check that with
logos.)
Not that this would be my only support, but in Romans 8, it says
of Christ that He was made in the _likeness_ of sinful flesh. It
says in Phil. 2 that He was made in the _likeness_ of men.
Because the same author, under inspiration, utilizes the exact
same grammar, I conclude that 'likeness' has the same meaning
in the two verses, i.e. either Jesus came 'clothed' with sinful
flesh and as a man OR He did NOT come 'clothed' with sinful flesh
and he did NOT come as a man.
1 John 4:3 says that the Spirit that says that Jesus did not come
as a man is the spirit of antiChrist. So I believe the first of
the above two options.
To repeat my logic, 1 John 4:3 tells me Jesus came as a man. Phil
2 tells me that 'likeness' does not have the power to say that
Jesus did not come as a man. Phil. 2 tells me that likeness
must have the same meaning as with Rom. 8:3. Therefore, I conclude
that Jesus came clothed with sinful flesh.
Job says that any man that is born of a woman is "full of trouble"
and another text equates being born of a woman to being a "worm."
Gal. 4:4 says Jesus was "born of a woman, born under the law." I
believe this law includes the law of heredity. He truly entered
the stream of humanity according to the flesh.
I don't believe that God created Adam and Eve with the genetic
information that could result in Huntington's chorea or cystic
fibrosis or a myriad of other diseases. Hence, I believe the flesh
_changed_.
One of those changes, I believe, are the lusts of the flesh that
Paul speaks of rather explicitly. And because this flesh has such
lusts, I believe it is referred to as sinful flesh; not because the
flesh in and of itself is sin (sin resides only in the conscious/
nonphysical part of us), but because it exerts a drawing force on
the mind to sin.
I am open to the possibility that I err by saying Jesus took
_sinful_ flesh, but as I see it, I believe He came as a man and
with the argument I posted above, I can't see how scripture can
say he came as a man, but not having taken sinful flesh, i.e. the
Romans 8:3/Phillipians 2/1 John 4:3 comparison.
But, anyway, I'm not saying sinful flesh is sin. I'm just saying
it introduces temptations to the realm of the consciousness (some-
how). I don't think thats a reach because our consciousness is
effected by the physical. If the brain lacks oxygen, we won't
think too well! My point: the physical part of us impacts the
conscious part of us while still not being the conscious part of
us.
But, with my belief, I simply believe that the flesh of Christ was
crucified - something I don't believe prefallen flesh would have
had to be. Or at least not to the extent as postfallen.
Jesus resisted the drawing of the flesh, always perfectly walking
in accordance with the Spirit.
Thats my general position.
God Bless,
Tony
|
| 80.193 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Fri Feb 17 1995 15:25 | 87 |
| >Note 80.192 YIELD::BARBIERI
> Because the same author, under inspiration, utilizes the exact
> same grammar, I conclude that 'likeness' has the same meaning
> in the two verses, i.e. either Jesus came 'clothed' with sinful
> flesh and as a man OR He did NOT come 'clothed' with sinful flesh
> and he did NOT come as a man.
You missed an option. Jesus did not come "clothed" in sinful flesh
but did come as a man. "Sinful" flesh is a description of a TYPE
of flesh, like "sunburnt" flesh, etc.
Because you miss or ignore this option, your logic misses accuracy
of intepretation, friend.
> Job says that any man that is born of a woman is "full of trouble"
> and another text equates being born of a woman to being a "worm."
> Gal. 4:4 says Jesus was "born of a woman, born under the law." I
> believe this law includes the law of heredity. He truly entered
> the stream of humanity according to the flesh.
We are born with "original sin" and the "sinful *nature*" but this
is not the meat and protoplasm. The meat and protoplasm are only
vehicles THROUGH WHICH these things are expressed. They are not
in and of themselves inherently sinful.
> I don't believe that God created Adam and Eve with the genetic
> information that could result in Huntington's chorea or cystic
> fibrosis or a myriad of other diseases. Hence, I believe the flesh
> _changed_.
This is subjection, Tony. I believe that God did make flesh with the
ability to catch disease, or go haywire. BUT in Eden, there was no
CAUSE or REASON for the capability to be realized UNTIL sin twisted,
perverted, distorted, damaged NOT JUST FLESH but the entire tripartite
man. "The soul that sins, it shall die." The whole of man is
corrupted by sin - not just the flesh and not merely through the flesh.
The flesh is only one instrument through which sin is expressed.
The flesh is also an instrument through which righteousness is expressed.
> One of those changes, I believe, are the lusts of the flesh that
*> Paul speaks of rather explicitly. And because this flesh has such
*> lusts, I believe it is referred to as sinful flesh; not because the
*> flesh in and of itself is sin (sin resides only in the conscious/
*> nonphysical part of us), but because it exerts a drawing force on
> the mind to sin.
...
*> But, anyway, I'm not saying sinful flesh is sin.
Starred portion: then where's the beef? If the flesh in and of itself
is not sin(ful) than why should all flesh be sinful?
> But, anyway, I'm not saying sinful flesh is sin. I'm just saying
> it introduces temptations to the realm of the consciousness (some-
> how). I don't think thats a reach because our consciousness is
> effected by the physical. If the brain lacks oxygen, we won't
> think too well! My point: the physical part of us impacts the
> conscious part of us while still not being the conscious part of
> us.
Have we been beating our heads over JARGON again!?
We AGREE that the flesh has *appetites* which are prone to the
temptation of satisfaction outside of God's moral code.
We may or may not agree on whether these "appetites" are in and of
themselves sinful - making sinful flesh. I contend that the natural
appetites of the flesh are NOT sinful unless applied sinfully. To
this end I have submitted examples, such as sex, being ordained of
God in a specific context, and condemned of God in other contexts.
The sexual urge is an appetite of the flesh. It can be controlled
because of the Spirital nature winning the battle over the carnal
nature. The carnal nature seeks to satisfy self at all costs as
priority number 1. The Spiritual nature seeks to satisfy God at all
costs as priority number 1. Sin occurs when the carnal nature
wins the battle.
The *nature* is present in us but is not limited to the flesh, but
is present in the entire man - without the mind (to impact, as you
have put it) - the flesh has NO OUTLET for sin.
> Jesus resisted the drawing of the flesh, always perfectly walking
> in accordance with the Spirit.
We agree on this. God bless you too.
Mark
|
| 80.194 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Fri Feb 17 1995 16:13 | 55 |
| Let's get down to some "fearfully and wonderfully made" stuff.
The urges and desires of the flesh work in concert with the mind.
I think we agree on this. We also have seen through medical science
that some genetic [pre]dispositions can be altered. For example,
my friend Cheryl (yes that's her real name) has suffered from
excruciating migraine headaches. Some doctors didn't help her
at all, but she's found one whose put her on a different medication
and she is living what many would call "normally" now. If she goes
off the medication, she's back to banging her head on the floor because
of the pain.
Now, clearly we would never consider a migraine to be a sin. It
*happens* to a person. So, too, happen the natural urges of the flesh,
such as hunger, thirst, comfort, and pleasure. I am aware that we
can't call a migraine an urge... but maybe we can; it is an urge for
relief (comfort).
We also know that we can prescribe (and buy over the counter) appetite
suppresents, modifying the chemical makeup of the body to diminish or
neutralize certain urges.
This brings up an interesting thought: if the urges themselves are
sinful, then can we pop a pill to suppress "sinful" desires?
This is one reason why it is very important that we understand that
the nature of sin is not even in the powerful urges of the body, but
in the attitude towards these urges.
Sin is an attitude of rebellion against God's moral code.
Sin is not merely satisfying the urge because God has given us
a *context* in which all of these urges can be or may be satisfied.
The dilemma that is introduced by the notion that sin is a condition
inherent in the flesh is that medical technology can prevent (and
maybe absolve) sin.
Next, we need to understand that God holds those people responsible
for sin who are responsible for sin. Knowledge brings responsibility.
Adam and Eve *knew* (remember what the fruit of the tree was).
Responsibility brings consequence.
What about those who are not responsible? I would counter with the
question: who is not responsible? We cannot judge the resposibility
of another, but we can inform. The Great Commision says to go, teach,
and make disciples. "Go" is my responsibility. "Teach" is my responsibility;
it is not my responsibility who receives instruction. "Make disciples" is
a shared responsibility between teacher and pupil.
God said that He desires obedience rather than sacrafice. We might say, "huh?
but isn't sacraficing in obedience?" Here we see that God wants our attitude
to be in tune with His moral code (obedience because we love Him). God
sees the heart and will hold each person responsible for the knowledge
they have received and in the measure that they received it.
|
| 80.195 | At Least Some Jargon Problems!! (I Think) | YIELD::BARBIERI | | Fri Feb 17 1995 16:36 | 57 |
| Hi Mark,
I think we do argue over jargon more so than anything else!
Just a couple quick points.
1)I did miss the logic that likeness could carry different
meanings in the two verses I mentioned - or did I miss
something else? I thought you said Jesus could come as a
man, BUT need not have been clothed with sinful flesh. But,
I didn't see how the force of your reasoning included confronting
my 'likeness' argument. Again, did I miss it?
2)This is KEY.
It occured to me that your interpretation of what 'SINFUL flesh'
means had to be "flesh that sins" or perhaps "the flesh one has
WHEN the mind is sinning."
We both agree that flesh does not sin. That the realm of tempta-
tion is the mind. So we would exclude the first of the two defi-
nitions I posed above. BUT, the second doesn't really make sense
either! The adjective 'sinful' in 'sinful flesh' is describing
THE FLESH AND NOT THE MIND even given the reality that the flesh
does not sin.
Do you see what I'm saying? The term sinful flesh is not
describing the mind; it is describing the flesh (even though the
flesh doesn't sin).
In fact, Jesus was 'made' the flesh He was made at Mary's concep-
tion (I believe) which then implies that it was a flesh at a time
when Jesus (or anyone else for that matter) could not sin. No
fertilized egg has the consciousness to make moral decisions!
And yet, WHEN HE WAS MADE, at the point He was made (as man), He
was made "in the likeness of sinful flesh" all the while the mind
could not have been sinning at the time "He was made" (in terms of
the incarnation).
This leads me to the conclusion that sinful flesh (whether or not
Jesus had it) says nothing about whether or not the mind is
sinning; its description is of the flesh only.
And this leads me to the final big point...
3)Just a suggestion that sinful flesh, if describing only the flesh
(and not the state of the mind while clothed with such flesh), still
has some quality pertinent to the realm of the spiritual which is
unlike prefallen flesh.
And my suggestion is that this quality is simply that of a flesh
which draws on a mind to sin more than does prefallen flesh.
God Bless, Friend,
Tony
|
| 80.196 | | TOKNOW::METCALFE | Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers | Fri Feb 17 1995 17:35 | 31 |
| > Do you see what I'm saying? The term sinful flesh is not
> describing the mind; it is describing the flesh (even though the
> flesh doesn't sin).
What I see in your logic is an interpretation of all flesh based on
a single verse. And I also see that when the verse is taken in the
context of the surrounding passages, the surrounding book, the surrounding
books, and the entire Bible, it shows that sinful is not NEARLY the only
quality of flesh, and that flesh is not NEARLY the only thing that is
sinful.
One verse in isolation should never a doctrine make. I know you
bring other verses to somehow support it but that's where I think
its a stretch.
For example, we have seen in this conference a debate about what saves
someone. If we go by Acts 2:38 alone, it is repentance and baptism.
If we go by Romans 10:9-10 alone it is confession and belief. We also
know that faith alone saves, yet faith without works is dead and we
can work our salvation. All have scriptural basis for an argument as
to what saves a person. AND each of these in isolation have the
proclivity towards error. So, do we take all the verses and make a
list such as repentance, baptism, confession, belief, faith, and works,
mixing them into a bowl to obtain salvation... or can we distill each
of these verses and find the nugget of Truth that is essential to
salvation? Mind you, I'm not debating salvation here - if anyone wants
to they can clip this paragraph and move it to the appropriate topic.
I am attempting to demonstrate how an interpretation can miss the mark
if it is viewed with a narrow focus.
Mark
|