"His Holiness"?

[jasd]

>>‘Rabbi.’ [or your Holiness]*….12 For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted. …15 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees [& Popes], you hypocrites ! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are!

2] They claim to be blameless (holy).<< [ed.]

…not criticizing, only critiquing…, do you mind expanding upon the interpolations?

*I think Christ may have used the term Rabbi in the sense of Master (Mt 23:8).

>>It is very interesting that the preconverted Paul considered himself blameless with respect to his law-performance (see Phil 3:6), but after his conversion we see a different Paul:

But what things were gain to me [see Phil 3:2-6], those I counted loss for Christ. 8Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss … and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, 9And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, [:"red"]which is of the law[/], but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. [Phil 3:7-9]<< [ed.]

Are you equating [all] works -- to those of the “Law”?

>>Noticed that the converted Paul consider his righteousness (his holiness) as mere dung!<< [ed.]

If we are to consider [all] works (as opposed to those of the Law attaining to a form of righteousness) to be dung, let us look at a few texts, --St Paul’s included…

Mt 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

Gal 6:8 …but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. v9 And let us not be weary in well-doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. v10 As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all [men], [:"red"]especially unto them who are of the household of faith.[/]

(might JP II have been of the household of faith as you or any other person? There doesn’t appear to be a distinguishing ‘this faith’ or ‘that faith’ in this particular passage.

1 Tim 6:18 That they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; v19 Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come that they may lay hold on eternal life.

Jas 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

Jas 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth [it] not, to him it is sin.

1 Pet 2:12 Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: …they may by [your] good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.

2 Pet 1:5 …add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; v6 and to knowledge… v10 Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure:

Jas 2:14 What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? [:"red"]can faith save him?[/]

[:"red"]Can faith save him?[/] The inference drawn from James 2 is in the negative, that is, --No. (I, moreover, believe that ‘faith’, per se, is often conditional and that the perseverance required to sustain it --might legitimately equate to 'works', which, in turn, might equate to a forensic legalism.)

[jasd]

>>So Paul considered himself as sinner…<<

I think one might safely say that except for the aberrant, the Xtian confesses his or herself a sinner, with the RCs probably foremost in that confession…;

>>(the opposite of holy)<<

however, given the number of times the NT calls the saints --holy, and the holy, --saints, I think one must consider how ‘holy’ ought to be parsed.

Inasmuch, as this thread questions whether it is blasphemous that the pope is addressed as “holiness”, or not, let us observe…

Among other definitions, Strong’s defines ‘holy’ as consecrated.

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition defines holy as…

1. Belonging to, derived from, or associated with a divine power; sacred.

3. Living according to a strict or highly moral religious or spiritual system; saintly: a holy person.

…with holiness defined as…

1. The state or quality of being holy; sanctity.

The above describes both the pope and his office. Does ‘holy’ describe you or me? Can ‘holiness’ pertain to you or to me?

>>He also looked at his righteousness (when compared to God) as dung!<<

That is his prerogative. I think that should he have intended that comparison, he ought to have been a bit more circumspect regards the prompting of the HS in the NT temple, if his statement was indeed, resultant of a prompt. Perhaps, he was indulging in hyperbole for effect, you know, St Paul-ever-the-teacher. Then again, I wouldn’t have presumed to make a comparison with Gd, as I believe texts attest that the HS in the Xtian --‘worketh’ --and St Paul denies the quality of that which the HS ‘worketh’; furthermore, he equates it to dung. Effrontery.

(“…even the best and holiest duties of the saints are sinful unless covered by the merits of Christ.” --MLuther)

>>That is the fruit of accepting the genuine gospel.<<

I noticed that you often refer to “the gospel”; St Paul asserted that he taught ‘gospel’, yet he desired to know nothing of others than “Christ and Him crucified”, which, to effect, was his own default gospel. What do you consider to be “the genuine gospel”?

>>The fruit of a perverted gospel (such as Catholicism teaches) produces self-righteous fruit that will condemn the believer in the judgment.<<

Hypothetically speaking, assuming you are correct in your purport (esp that of “self-righteous”), the inference I would derive from the above statement is that the postulations of your own affiliation are infallibly correct. Do I err?

>>So on the one hand we have the humble Paul, but on the other hand we have proud Prelate in his majestic robes!<<

So, you read the heart --where Gd, himself, ponders? Will you describe for me --the attire of the High Priest of Israel? Do you advise that one enter

the presence of Gd in one’s everyday roughs? Is there a reflection of a .Org indictment of ceremony or of ritual in your statement regards the sacramental garments of the functioning dignitaries that serve the church? y’know, the sort of reflection that gives rise to a contumacious refusal to follow Writ in its ensample of designated priests and bishops… You will be --even, priest and king during the millennial rule on earth. Perhaps, a passage from St Paul obtains here and might prove apropos…

Rom 13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute [is due]; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

>>A fitting description of the robes of his own righteousness….<<

It may be more so than you’d realize…

Below are excerpts of righteousness --according to James Strong:

OT righteousness -- rectitude:

Moral uprightness; righteousness.

The quality or condition of being correct in judgment.

The quality of being straight.

NT righteousness -- equitable:

Just and impartial

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines righteous as…

[…wise, prudent.] Doing, or according with, that which is right; upright; equitable; esp., free from wrong or sin; virtuous. …

righteousness

1. The quality or state of being righteous.

3. The state or quality of being rightful or just.

So, can it be stated that JP II was circumscribed within the parameters outlined in Strong’s and various dictionaries? Sacre bleu! mais oui…

>>If a man’s faith is in a perverted gospel,…<<

“perverted gospel” is numinous, as is ‘legalism’ and/or its variants, which have been omitted from Writ --except as a constructive; allowing, that one might make of it what one will.

>>…his fruits will condemn him.<<

Not taking away from belief, and not certain what a “perverted gospel” is, --the righteous will be judged by his or her ‘fruits’. Condemning fruits? Depends…, and what’s a perverted gospel?)

>>The works prove he is in the camp of righteousness by works.<<

How about a plain ‘works of grace’, “Law” be dinked…? You know, cup of water to the thirsty, clothes for the naked, visits to the imprisoned... etc.

>>On the other hand if a man’s faith is in the doing and dying of Christ alone, his fruits will justify (testify) to his faith in genuine gospel. The genuine gospel places the glory of men in the dust! It humbles him….His boast is “in the Lord” and not in himself. (see 1 Cor 1:31)<<

Other than a quizzical “What’s genuine gospel?” and a “Who’s glorying?” I have no brief with the above.

>>Contrast this with the proud Pontiff:<<

I don’t know from “proud”, but did the man leave an 'estate' behind…? I recollect that he had no earthly goods to bequeath, except, perhaps, a few thoughts in print… But, isn’t the below, likewise, --thoughts in print? and,

didn’t its author leave behind… a list of earthly bequeathals to be disbursed?

“…the overbearing pride of this haughty pontiff…”

So, there are others who read the heart?

>>[GC 1888 58]<<

ex cathedra?

[Robert]

• Since the Holy Spirit, who is sinless, can tabernacle in a humanity, which is fallen and sinful, then apparently the two (i.e., the divine & the unholy) can coexist together without one becoming infected by the other!

Here's the subject you need to engage and not those other issues....I can look at those later.

Rob

[jasd]

Robert

I'm not as prolific as you. Though having limitations, I am attempting to address your issues and posts, --in their order (tagma, --for the most part).

I was able to address a post of yours, which had been on the back burner for awhile now, because we had hellacious storms here these past few days. (I could not set up the pump on my field well _for fear of electrical dangers_ so came in and posted...)

As for the indwelling of the HS, I'll try to get to it when able, but for now, consider..., does the HS give? or does it take, ...as does a deveoping child in the womb of its mother might take/absorb --inherit?

>>"...coexist together without one becoming infected by the other!"<<

"coexist", "infected"... ?

[Robert]

Quote:

---

>>"...coexist together without one becoming infected by the other!"<<

"coexist", "infected"... ?

---

You said:

• wasn’t the lamb of Gd to be represented by a spotless lamb or goat, that is, without blemish…? Extending that thought…, isn’t fallen humanity a contradiction of ‘without blemish’?

  I’m assuming that you are referencing the RC solemnity of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. I think church tradition holds that it was the fusion of her own created soul and body that was Immaculately Conceived --that she might provide the unstained earthly vessel for the Lord.

[jasd]

>>"The law righteous person is the worst kind of infidel.: ML<<

"Women...have but small and narrow chests, and broad hips, to the end that they should remain at home, sit still, keep house, and bear and bring up children." --MLuther

"If [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth--that is why they are there." --MLuther, attributed

"We are at fault for not slaying them [the Jews]." --MLuther

These above statements were selected-out of Luther’s catalog of invectives, as among the least offensive, as regarded women and Jews.

>>Look at Paul before his conversion! He was stoning believers....Look at his claims...his pride (as to the law, blameless)<<

I’ve mentioned it before, but St Paul seems to have been a somewhat conflicted man; it might be good that we bear that in mind when parsing him…, per example:

St Paul shaved his head in accordance to law --for a vow (Acts18:18), and again in Jerusalem (Acts 21:26) upon the importuning of others… Was this the same St Paul who preached “Faith” --and (as I am inferring from your posts) “only faith” --will save? Isn’t St Paul submitting to “legalism” in the instances of his shorn head? …Speaking of legalism:

“In 1520 he (MLuther) wrote three pamphlets of great significance.

…

The second, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, clearly put Luther in the ranks of the heterodox, because it attacked the entire sacramental system of the medieval church. Luther maintained there were only two sacraments, baptism and the Lord's Supper, or at most three, with [:"red"]penance possibly qualifying as a third[/], rather than seven sacraments.” [ed.]

“The Babylonian Captivity of the Church”… Is this where you’re leading with your allusions to “Babylon”? a dogma mooched ;-) from MLuther?

>>Look at the Popes when they had the power of the state behind them...they persecuted the faithful. Legalism produces cold-hearted, self-righteous fruit....<<

The actions of the many popes and their church, which engaged in unChristlike behaviour cannot be excused. The period during which they committed abominations are truly stultifying to the senses of the common man. That being said,

the church has since asked forgiveness for their excesses (have you forgiven?). That cannot change the fact that the events did occur; however, I would dwell upon the ‘postmodern’ Protesting .Orgs who are represented

upon many Xtian forums engaging in ‘violence’ of sort against the ‘common man’ --differing only by degree from that laid to the Universal church… I wish to emphasize this ‘matter of degrees’: There is no dogma in Writ, which distinguishes the sins of a little ol’ Achan from that of one having much greater authority (the exception of David noted, but who can explain David?). That which defaces the quid does so equally the tuppence; the difference is ‘perceptively’ that only --of degree.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

They train sinners who are ten times worse than any thief, whore, murderer….

---

There are many similarities between the Popes and the Pharisees of Christ's day:

---

And by our own actions we often emulate that, which we decry --in offending or in causing the weaker brother to stumble…

Rom 14:21 …nor [any thing] whereby thy brother stumbleth,…

2 Cor 6:3 Giving no offense in any thing,…

Re: the RCs and the papacy…

Remember that Gd said of Judah that she did worse than did her sister Israel and worse than those that Gd cast out of the land from before them (…even sacrificing their infants by roasting them alive in the heated arms of Molech), yet, Gd did not divorce Judah.

Who then are we --that we may lay a charge? determining who it is that Gd favors, or no…

All I’m saying is, there’s enough of ‘sinnin-man’ in each of us and in each of our affiliates that we oughta just kinda ease up on each other (Christ's body); whether, it’s another of the list, or LDSs, JWs, RCs, …or whatever. (However, it remains, as I’ve said, “Issues are on the table.”)

If it’s perceived that a wo/man tries to lead a good life, --mebbe, we ought to give that person their due. Everywhere I turn,

I see so much invested in small-minded cr…err, dung. Present company, of course, excluded. :-o

[Robert]

The only debate I am interested in is the one involving the gospel. If I can prove that the Papacy denies that Christ came in our fallen humanity, then I can prove that the Papacy is of "the spirit of antichrist"!

• 1 John 4:1 "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come [:"red"]in the flesh[/] is of God: 3 And every spirit that confesseth [:"red"]not[/] that Jesus Christ [:"Red"]is come in the flesh[/] is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."

The Papacy, by denying that Christ came in the flesh (Sarx), takes the liberty of distorting the gospel into a system of salvation by works.

You see Christ didn't come to save mankind in his holy state...no, He came to save mankind in his fallen state. To legally do this Christ as God had to assume our fallen humanity. That is the first step.

In taking our fallen, sinful humanity into Himself, Christ was not made a sinner. For one Christ didn't become "us"...instead He remained Himself (God) while assuming our fallen life from the womb of Mary.

You say this can't be done because,

1] This would make Christ a sinner and,

2] The Bible calls Christ "that Holy thing".

Number one is easily disproved! When we receive Christ by faith the Holy Spirit becomes one with us. The Bible plainly teaches that He lives in us. That means the Holy Spirit has united His divinity with our fallen, sinful humanity. Does that make Him a sinner? NO! In the same manner Christ didn't become sinful by assuming our sinful, fallen life.

Number two refers to Christ's divinity - hence that Holy Thing. Luke it not talking of the humanity that Christ assumed at the incarnation. Paul makes this distinction in Romans 1:1-4

• Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures,

  concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, and who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord....

Christ is God....He isn't "us" nor did He become us and nothing else....He simply joined Himself with our fallen humanity. He did this so that He could legally redeem mankind from the curse of the law.

[Robert]

"Flesh"...Greek: Sarx

"(by implication) human nature (with its frailties (physically or morally) and passions), or (specifically) a human being (as such): - carnal (-ly, + -ly minded), flesh ([-ly])."

Examples:

"Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh...."

"According to the flesh, is the Christ."

"God was manifest in the flesh...."

[Robert]

• "When we receive Christ by faith the Holy Spirit becomes one with us. The Bible plainly teaches that He lives in us. [:"red"]That means the Holy Spirit has united His divinity with our fallen, sinful humanity.[:"black"] Does that make Him a sinner? NO! In the same manner Christ didn't become sinful by assuming our sinful, fallen life."

The Papacy teaches opposite this truth....Therefore they have the spirit of antichrist. However, not until the leadership fully rejects this truth will they be consider in apostasy. That I cannot judge...but I can tell you that they teach a perverted gospel and are in danger of falling from grace.

You see we are only "Holy" IN CHRIST! We have a glorified life "in Him". Let's look at this:

• Col 1:13 For He [God] delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Please note that "in Him" [Christ] we [i.e., our glorified life] have already been transferred to heaven. Hence, by faith we can claim that we are literally righteousness "in Him"!

• ... verse 19 For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fulness to dwell in Him, 20 and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. 21 And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, 22 yet He [God] has now reconciled you [where?] in His fleshly body through death, [why?]

  in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach— 23 if indeed you continue in the faith ....

Okay, we are only holy and blameless "in Christ"! But that life, our new glorified life, is in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.

Hence, as children of Adam, we are sinful and unholy. Only in connection to Christ can we claim to be righteous by faith.

The Pope apparently rejects this truth for He claims infused righteousness. Like Saul [before he became Paul] once considered himself blameless, the Pope must count all his goodness as dung and be found "in Christ" alone....

[jasd]

>>The only debate I am interested in is the one involving the gospel.<<

Good, good; however, when you say “gospel” is it only a small portion of Writ or do you mean that the entirety of Writ is gospel? Speaking of gospel,

I think it was you that wrote elsewhere that the love we are to emulate is the kind of love willing to give up our place in eternity to another… THAT’s the gospel! ...addressing what one might do for another, not what we can get out of any particular equation. Upon that point, I find I agree with you.

>>If I can prove that the Papacy denies that Christ came in our fallen humanity, then I can prove that the Papacy is of "the spirit of antichrist"!<<

And…, _why?_ might I ask, is it important that you prove that “the spirit of antichrist” and the Papacy are one and the same? …

>>1 John 4:1 "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come [:"red"]in the flesh[/] is of God: 3 And every spirit that confesseth [:"red"]not[/] that Jesus Christ [:"red"]is come in the flesh[/] is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."<<

It sounds as though it is a matter that burdens you. _Why?_ particularly, is that burden with the Papacy and not, let’s say,

with the Zionist Jew?

or with Islam, as they are presently engaged in The Third Jihad --heading to The Fourth Jihad against the infidel (--that includes you, me, and everyone and everything we hold dear)?

or with the dragons of the east?

or…Prince Charles?

or… et cetera?

>>The Papacy, by denying that Christ came in the flesh (Sarx), takes the liberty of distorting the gospel into a system of salvation by works.<< [ed.]

Are you torquing the passage? You know, like the Mobius strip? Where is the antecedent for ‘kinds’ of flesh? And even if the hypothesis is let stand, there are yet the relevant other passages of St John, which constrains that the attributes listed of the antichrist --all be met in the antichrist, and not simply a formulaic construct as pertains to flesh, and isolated. The RCs in their doctrine of transubstantiation (which, interestingly, MLuther withstood Zwingli in defending {or, more a nuanced --consubstantiation}; and interestingly, Zwingli opposed Anabaptists in defending infant baptism) testify to the flesh of Christ moreso than any other .Org. That being said, and reiterating, again,

why? --the burden to lay the onus of antichrist to another (at least currently) of the faith?

Quote:

---

The RC catechism: excerpted…

…

2.

He is justified gratuitously by the pure mercy of God, not on account of his own or any human merit, but purely through the merits of Jesus Christ; for [:"red"]

Jesus Christ is our only mediator of redemption, who alone, by his passion and death has reconciled us to his Father

[/]. [ed.]

---

You’ve not dismissed --that plainly spoken in the above RC catechism, have you? Yet,

what of the text of St Paul’s? following…,

Rom 6:7 To them who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: … v10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

[jasd]

>>You see Christ didn't come to save mankind in his holy state...no, He came to save mankind in his fallen state. To legally do this Christ as God had to assume our fallen humanity. That is the first step.

In taking our fallen, sinful humanity into Himself, Christ was not made a sinner. For one Christ didn't become "us"...instead He remained Himself (God) while assuming our fallen life from the womb of Mary.<< [ed.]

First, I question how one arrives at the legalities of the redemptive plan. Second, I question how far and how definitively one takes “our fallen, sinful humanity into Himself”, as correlate to Christ’s nature. Third, I tentatively agree with the last sentence, if there is no intimation that the sin nature of fallen man was congenitally intrinsic to Christ --from the womb.

Let us not forget that there are many facets to the concept of “fallen humanity”; and, let us also, not forget

that Boaz, in exemplifying the attributes of a kinsman redeemer, was not the redeemer most closely akin, or related, to Ruth. (WDYT? was the ‘water that flowed from Christ’s side upon the cross a blood different from yours and mine? or do you subscribe to a ‘medical’ constructive? such as, a broken heart, or death that separated His blood into derivative parts? Or did He have a unique plasma-- to red blood cell ratio? Or… ;-)

>>You say this can't be done because,

1] This would make Christ a sinner and,<<

I think I said something of the sort that --the doctrine of The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary more seemingly obtains vis-à-vis the nature of Christ, as typified by the antitypical Atoning Goats in the allegorical ordinances of Atonement. And yes,

the Redeemer born of a womb stained with the sinful nature of man --would inherit, as these Xtian forums put it, the sin nature of the fathers. Although Christ, through the auspicious implanting by the HS was spared a direct inheritance of the ‘sins of the fathers’ on the paternal side, He would have received the blemish of spotted sin maternally, that is, via His mother’s womb, unless and upon…, ipso facto, an ‘Immaculate Conception…’

Having made possible a virgin birth for the Redemptor, it can hardly be suggested that it was impossible that the vessel, which gave Christ his ‘flesh’, could not and was not first made sure, --that it be a clean vessel.

>>Number one is easily disproved! When we receive Christ by faith the Holy Spirit becomes one with us. The Bible plainly teaches that He lives in us. That means the Holy Spirit has united His divinity with our fallen, sinful humanity. Does that make Him a sinner?<<

The ready answer to the question, as posed, is no; however, that is assuming there is nothing suggested in the clauses “Holy Spirit becomes one with us” and “Holy Spirit has united His divinity with our…” that is meant to be taken other than as presented. However, there being seeming implications in your statement, questions follow…;

does the HS impart? or does it partake? In other words,

do the believer and the HS have a, more or less, corollary relationship? or might it better be defined as a symbiotic relationship?

I suggest that there is no ‘partaking’ by the HS of “fallen humanity”, but rather it was given to impart -- truth, for the most part. I cannot see the correlation of HS-in-fallen-man to that of Christ in the womb of Mary drawing that, which would form His flesh. The doctrine of ‘Immaculate Conception…’

would seem to more fittingly obtain regards the Redeemer than one bruited, --as the Redeemer having a nature endued with sin --according to the flesh.

[jasd]

>>NO! In the same manner Christ didn't become sinful by assuming our sinful, fallen life.<< [ed.]

I agree that Christ “didn’t become sinful”; however, the seeming purport in your preceding quote above skirts the issue, which is, one cannot have Christ-Redeemer-endued-with-a-nature-that-is-depraved, that is, yours and my nature. The ‘spotless and unblemished’ ascriptions of the two Atoning goats argue against that nature…

>>…concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, and who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord....<<

I see two things being addressed: One, the equation of “holiness” and “Jesus Christ our Lord…”; two, “the Son God” equated to “according to the flesh”.

sarx

1. flesh (as stripped of the skin), i.e. (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food),

2. or (by extension) the body (as opposed to the soul (or spirit),

3. or as the symbol of what is external, or as the means of kindred),

4. or (by implication) human nature (with its frailties (physically or morally) and passions),

5. or (specially), a human being (as such):--carnal(-ly, + -ly minded), flesh(-ly).

Which, of the numbered five above, are you utilizing in your “according to the flesh”?

Rom 1:4 And declared [to be] the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: declared: Gr determined

It is my understanding that the text contains the idea of ‘separate and/or consecrated’ in its use of ‘holy/holiness’, which Christ Gd was. Question: What is it you wish me to infer with the bolded Spirit of holiness in the text?

>>Christ is God....He isn't "us" nor did He become us and nothing else....He simply joined Himself with our fallen humanity.<<

I find myself in agreement.

>>He did this so that He could legally redeem mankind from the curse of the law.<<

This “legally” idea intrigues me; will you expand upon the legal issues of redemption? (my idea of the ‘legalities of redemption’ goes back to “Before there was time, as we understand time to be, there existed the Kingdom of Federations --we now call Gd’s. … Thereafter,

a cessation of general hostilities between the warring coalitions was agreed upon through the instrument of the protocols of The Treaty for the Parole of Secession.

This vehicle of cessation ending the great controversy contained in its preamble…”)

Within such a framework, I can conceive of “legal” issues regarding redemption.

[Robert]

• I suggest that there is no ‘partaking’ by the HS of “fallen humanity”, but rather it was given to impart -- truth, for the most part. I cannot see the correlation of HS-in-fallen-man to that of Christ in the womb of Mary drawing that, which would form His flesh. The doctrine of ‘Immaculate Conception…

This is Roman Catholicism at its best - twist, twist, twist!

The Bible doesn't cast doubt to the Holy Spirit dwelling in us as you do....

• Do you not know that you are a sanctuary of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 1 Corinthians 3:16

Since the Holy Spirit can dwell in our sinful, fallen humanity without becoming sinful Himself, then Christ could have done the same....And He did!

The Roman Catholic Hierarchy denies this truth...hence they have the spirit of anti-Christ.

Rob

[jasd]

>>>I suggest that there is no ‘partaking’ by the HS of “fallen humanity”, but rather it was given to impart -- truth, for the most part. I cannot see the correlation of HS-in-fallen-man to that of Christ in the womb of Mary drawing that, which would form His flesh. The doctrine of ‘Immaculate Conception…<<<

>>This is Roman Catholicism at its best - twist, twist, twist!<<

And, I should respond, “As others wrest, wrest, wrest”? No, I shall not; instead, I’ll lay it to perception, interpretation, and perhaps, mostly, to predisposition. Speaking of which,

why are you burdened with laying a charge against another [brother] of the faith? Is it Xtianly seemly? It may be that

you’d consider explaining yourself…, I mean the whys of it? Mebbe,

one ought to give thought that it might be communist Russia that is the antichrist; you know, city of seven hills, ruler of the north, atheistic, etc… Mebbe, Russia, not singularly antichrist, but as part of an alignment --the antichrist. Well, if it is not the antichrist, then perhaps,

it is the Bear of Daniel 7? …worth an exegetical revisit to the book of Daniel?

>>The Bible doesn't cast doubt to the Holy Spirit dwelling in us as you do....<<

How have I misrepresented the indwelling of the HS? I’ve laid nothing inherently unattributable to Him or to His indwelling...

>>Do you not know that you are a sanctuary of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 1 Corinthians 3:16<<

Gd dwelt with the COI at Shiloh. He imparted. He did not assimilate to either His being or to His nature that same --of the COI, did He?

>>Since the Holy Spirit can dwell in our sinful, fallen humanity without becoming sinful Himself, then Christ could have done the same....

And He did!<< [ed.]

Indeed! in fact, He did not become sinful. Christ, though externally tempted, did not sin, which sin would have earned Him the coin --sinful; however,

‘sinful’ man and ‘sin nature’ aren’t quite the same, are they?

>>The Roman Catholic Hierarchy denies this truth...hence they have the spirit of anti-Christ.<<

Please, as it is undeniable that RCs believe in the flesh of Christ, provide the antecedent or predicate establishing that St John identified the characteristics of antichrist by speaking ‘to a variant flesh’, as opposed to --flesh per se; or, how is it that you purport

--that flesh born without a sin nature cannot be deemed flesh. Otherwise,

I’m going to assume that the construction ‘flesh-not-flesh’ is no more than dogmatic assert, ‘peculiarly’ fashioned out of whole cloth in times past and handed-down as ‘traditions of man’.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

This “

legally

” idea intrigues me; will you expand upon the

legal

issues of redemption?

---

The question that must be asked is, did Jesus come to save a sinless or sinful humanity? The answer can only be sinful humanity....Why? The law doesn't condemn sinless beings...it condemns sinners!

Jesus said, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill."

For Christ to fulfill "the law and the Prophets" he had to establish the following:

• Ez 18:20 The person who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.

What does this mean? Simply that guilt cannot be transferred! Legally no law will permit that...especially God's law. That means that the sinless Christ can't legally die instead of you....You have to die!

Did you die "in Christ"? If not, then you must justify yourself before God's law. That's why the Papacy teaches salvation by faith + works....They teach merit!

In order to save you from the curse of the law, God had to put you into Christ. He did this at the incarnation by uniting our sinful life (under the curse) to Christ's divine, sinless life...This fully qualified Jesus to be our legal righteousness. Any other gospel is false....Hence the Papacy fits into the category of teaching a false gospel.

Now maybe you understand why I am blasting "his holiness"....It is a system that Paul would term "false brethren"...or "wolves in sheep's clothing"...not the people so much, but the hierarchy!

[Robert]

This is a bit long....Happy reading to all!

• The Consecrated Way

  by A.T. Jones

Made of a Woman

By what means was Christ made flesh? Through what means was He partaker of human nature?--Exactly the same means as are all of us partakers: all of the children of men. For it is written: "As the children [of the man] are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same."

Likewise signifies "in the like way," "thus," "in the same way." So He partook of "the same" flesh and blood that men have in the same way that men partake of it. Men partake of it by birth. So "likewise" did He. Accordingly, it is written, "Unto us a Child is born."

Accordingly, it is further written: "God sent forth His Son, made of a woman." Gal. 4:4. He, being made of a woman in this world, in the nature of things He was made of the only kind of woman that this world knows.

But why must He be made of a woman? why not of a man?--For the simple reason that to be made of a man would not bring Him close enough to mankind as mankind is, under sin. He was made of a woman in order that He might come, in the very uttermost, to where human nature is in its sinning.

In order to do this, He must be made of a woman, because the woman, not the man, was first and originally in the transgression. For "Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." 1 Tim. 2:14.

To have been made only of the descent of man would have been to come short of the full breadth of the field of sin, because the woman had sinned and sin was thus in the world before the man sinned.

Christ was thus made of a woman in order that He might meet the great world of sin at its very fountain head of entrance into this world. To have been made otherwise than of a woman would have been to come short of this and so would have been only to miss completely the redemption of men from sin.

It was "the Seed of the woman" that was to bruise the serpent's head; and it was only as "the seed of the woman" and "made of a woman" that He could meet the serpent on his own ground, at the very point of the entrance of sin into this world.

It was the woman who, in this world, was originally in the transgression. It was the woman by whom sin originally entered. Therefore, in the redemption of the children of men from sin, He who would be the Redeemer must go back of the man to meet the sin that was in the world before the man sinned.

This is why He who came to redeem was "made of a woman." By being made of a woman He could trace sin to the very fountain head of its original entry into the world by the woman. And thus, in finding sin in the world and uprooting it from the world from its original entrance into the world till the last vestige of it shall be swept from the world, in the very nature of things He must partake of human nature as it is since sin entered.

Otherwise, there was no kind of need whatever that He should be "made of a woman." If He were not to come into closest contact with sin as it is in the world, as it is in human nature; if He were to be removed one single degree from it as it is in human nature, then He need not have been "made of a woman."

But as He was made of a woman--not of a man; as He was made of the one by whom sin entered in its very origin into the world--and not made of the man, who entered into the sin after the sin had entered into the world; this demonstrates beyond all possibility of fair question that between Christ and sin in this world and between Christ and human nature as it is under sin in the world there is no kind of separation, even to the shadow of a single degree. He was made flesh; he was made to be sin. He was made flesh as flesh is and only as flesh is in this world and was made to be sin only as sin is.

And this must He do to redeem lost mankind. For Him to be separated a single degree or a shadow of a single degree in any sense from the nature of those whom He came to redeem would be only to miss everything.

Therefore, as He was made "under the law," because they are under the law whom He would redeem, and as He was made a curse, because they are under the curse whom He would redeem, and as He was made sin, because they are sinners--"sold under sin"--whom He would redeem, precisely so He must be made flesh and "the same" flesh and blood, because they are flesh and blood whom He would redeem and must be made "of a woman," because sin was in the world first by and in the woman.

It is thoroughly understood that in His birth Christ did partake of the nature of Mary--the "woman" of whom He was "made." But the carnal mind is not willing to allow that God in His perfection of holiness could endure to come to men where they are in their sinfulness. [:"red"]Therefore endeavor has been made to escape the consequences of this glorious truth, which is the emptying of self, by inventing a theory that the nature of the virgin Mary was different from the nature of the rest of mankind[/]; that her flesh was not exactly such flesh as is that of all mankind. This invention sets up that by some special means Mary was made different from the rest of human beings, especially in order that Christ might be becomingly born of her.

If He were not of the same flesh as are those whom He came to redeem, then there is no sort of use of His being made flesh at all. More than this: Since the only flesh that there is in this wide world which He came to redeem is just the poor, sinful, lost, human flesh that all mankind have; if this is not the flesh that he was made, then He never really came to the world which needs to be redeemed. For if he came in a human nature different from that which human nature in this world actually is, then, even though He were in the world, yet for any practical purposes in reaching man and helping him, he was as far from him as if He had never come, for, in that case, in His human nature He was just as far from man and just as much of another world as if He had never come into this world at all.

This invention has culminated in what is known as the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Many Protestants, if not the vast majority of them as well as other non-Catholics, think that the Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Jesus by the virgin Mary. But this is altogether a mistake. It refers not at all to the conception of Christ by Mary but to the conception of Mary herself by her mother.

The official and "infallible" doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, as solemnly defined as an article of faith, by Pope Pius IX, speaking ex cathedra on the 8th of December 1854 is as follows:--

By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception, by a special grace and privilege of Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore is to be firmly and steadfastly believed by all the faithful.

Wherefore, if any shall presume, which may God avert, to think in their heart otherwise then has been defined by us, let them know, and moreover understand, that they are condemned by their own judgment, that they have made shipwreck as regards the faith, and have fallen away from the unity of the Church.--Catholic Belief, page 214.

This conception is defined by Catholic writers thus:--

The ancient writing, "De Nativitate Christi," found in St. Cyprian's works says: Because (Mary) being "very different from the rest of mankind, human nature, but not sin, communicated itself to her."

Theodore, patriarch of Jerusalem, said in the second council of Nice, that Mary "is truly the mother of God, and virgin before and after childbirth; and she was created in a condition more sublime and glorious than that of all natures, whether intellectual or corporeal."--Id., pages 216, 217.

This plainly puts the nature of Mary entirely beyond any real likeness or relationship to mankind or human nature as it is. Having this clearly in mind, let us follow this invention in its next step. Thus it is, as given in the words of Cardinal Gibbons:--

We affirm that the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, the Word of God, who in His divine nature is, from all eternity, begotten of the Father, consubstantial with Him, was in the fulness of time again begotten, by being born of the virgin, thus taking to himself from her maternal womb a human nature of the same substance with hers.

As far as the sublime mystery of the incarnation can be reflected in the natural order, the blessed Virgin, under the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost, by communicating to the Second Person of the adorable Trinity, as mothers do, a true human nature of the same substance with her own, is thereby really and truly His mother.--Faith of Our Fathers, pages 198, 199.

Now put these two things together. First, we have the nature of Mary defined as being not only "very different from the rest of mankind," but "more sublime and glorious than all natures:" thus putting her infinitely beyond any real likeness or relationship to mankind as we really are.

Next, we have Jesus described as taking from her a human nature of the same substance as hers.

From this theory it therefore follows as certainly as that two and two make four, that in His human nature the Lord Jesus is "very different" from the rest of mankind; indeed, His nature is not human nature at all.

Such is the Roman Catholic doctrine concerning the human nature of Christ. The Catholic doctrine of the human nature of Christ is simply that that nature is not human nature at all, but divine: "more sublime and glorious than all natures." It is that in His human nature Christ was so far separated from mankind as to be utterly unlike that of mankind, that His was a nature in which He could have no sort of fellow-feeling with mankind.

But such is not the faith of Jesus. The faith of Jesus is that "as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same."

The faith of Jesus is that God sent "His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh."

The faith of Jesus is that "in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren.

The faith of Jesus is that He "Himself took our infirmities" and was touched "with the feeling of our infirmities," being tempted in all points like as we are. If He was not as we are, He could not possibly be tempted "like as we are." But He was "in all points tempted like as we are." Therefore He was "in all points" "like as we are."

In the quotations of Catholic faith which in this chapter we have cited, we have presented the faith of Rome as to the human nature of Christ and of Mary. In the second chapter of Hebrews and kindred texts of Scripture there is presented--and in these studies we have endeavored to reproduce as there presented--the faith of Jesus as to the human nature of Christ.

The faith of Rome as to the human nature of Christ and Mary and of ourselves springs from that idea of the natural mind that God is too pure and too holy to dwell with us and in us in our sinful human nature; that sinful as we are, we are too far off for Him in His purity and holiness to come to us just as we are.

The true faith--the faith of Jesus--is that, far off from God as we are in our sinfulness, in our human nature which He took, He has come to us just where we are; that, infinitely pure and holy as He is, and sinful, degraded, and lost as we are, He in Christ by His Holy Spirit will willingly dwell with us and in us to save us, to purify us, and to make us holy.

The faith of Rome is that we must be pure and holy in order that God shall dwell with us at all.

The faith of Jesus is that God must dwell with us and in us in order that we shall be holy or pure at all.

The Law of Heredity

"The Word was made flesh."

"When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman." Gal. 4:4.

"And the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all." Isa. 53:6.

We have seen that in His being made of a woman, Christ reached sin at the very fountain head of its entrance into this world and that He must be made of a woman to do this. Also there was laid upon Him the iniquity, in the actual sins, of us all.

Thus all the sin of this world, from its origin in the world to the end of it in the world, was laid upon Him--both sin as it is in itself and sin as it is when committed by us; sin in its tendency and sin in the act: sin as it is hereditary in us, uncommitted by us; and sin as it is committed by us.

Only thus could it be that there should be laid upon Him the iniquity of us all. Only by His subjecting Himself to the law of heredity could He reach sin in full and true measure as sin truly is. Without this there could be laid upon Him our sins which have been actually committed, with the guilt and condemnation that belong to them. But beyond this there is in each person, in many ways, the liability to sin inherited from generations back which has not yet culminated in the act of sinning but which is ever ready, when occasion offers, to blaze forth in the actual committing of sins. David's great sin is an illustration of this. Ps. 51:5; 2 Sam. 11:2.

In delivering us from sin, it is not enough that we shall be saved from the sins that we have actually committed; we must be saved from committing other sins. And that this may be so, there must be met and subdued this hereditary liability to sin; we must become possessed of power to keep us from sinning--a power to conquer this liability, this hereditary tendency that is in us to sin.

All our sins which we have actually committed were laid upon Him, were imputed to Him, so that His righteousness may be laid upon us, may be imputed to us. Also our liability to sin was laid upon Him, in His being made flesh, in His being born of a woman, of the same flesh and blood as we are, so that His righteousness might be actually manifested in us as our daily life.

Thus He met sin in the flesh which He took and triumphed over it, as it is written: "God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh." And again: "He is our peace,...having abolished in His flesh the enmity."

And thus, just as our sins actually committed were imputed to Him that His righteousness might be imputed to us, so His meeting and conquering in the flesh the liability to sin and in that same flesh manifesting righteousness, enables us in Him, and Him in us, to meet and conquer in the flesh this same liability to sin and to manifest righteousness in the same flesh.

And thus it is that for the sins which we have actually committed, for the sins that are past, His righteousness is imputed to us, as our sins were imputed to Him. And to keep us from sinning His righteousness is imparted to us in our flesh as our flesh, with its liability to sin, was imparted to Him. Thus He is the complete Saviour. He saves from all the sins that we have actually committed and saves equally from all the sins that we might commit dwelling apart from Him.

If He took not the same flesh and blood that the children of men have with its liability to sin, then where could there be any philosophy or reason of any kind whatever in His genealogy as given in the Scriptures? He was descended from David; He was descended from Abraham; He was descended from Adam and, by being made of a woman, He reached even back of Adam to the beginning of sin in the world.

In that genealogy there are Jehoiakim, who for his wickedness was "buried with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the gates of Jerusalem" (Jer. 22:19); Manasseh, who caused Judah to do "worse than the heathen;" Ahaz, who "made Judah naked, and transgressed sore against the Lord;" Rehoboam, who was born of Solomon after Solomon turned from the Lord; Solomon himself, who was born of David and Bathsheba; there are also Ruth the Moabitess and Rahab; as well as Abraham, Isaac, Jesse, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah: the worst equally with the best. And the evil deeds of even the best are recorded equally with the good. And in this whole genealogy there is hardly one whose life is written upon at all of whom there is not some wrong act recorded.

Now it was at the end of such a genealogy as that that "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." It was at the end of such a genealogy as that that He was made of a woman." It was in such a line of descent as that that God sent "His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh." And such a descent, such a genealogy, meant something to Him, as it does to every other man, under the great law that the iniquities of the fathers are visited upon the children to the third and fourth generations. It meant everything to Him in the terrible temptations in the wilderness of temptation, as well as all the way through His life in the flesh.

Thus, both by heredity and by imputation, He was "laden with the sins of the world." And, thus laden, at this immense disadvantage He passed triumphantly over the ground where at no shadow of any disadvantage whatever, the first pair failed.

By His death He paid the penalty of all sins actually committed, and thus can justly bestow His righteousness upon all who choose to receive it. And by condemning sin in the flesh, by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, He delivers from the power of the law of heredity and so can, in righteousness, impart His divine nature and power to lift above that law, and hold above it, every soul that receives Him.

And so it is written: "When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons." Gal. 4:4. And "God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for [on account of] sin, condemned sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Rom. 8:3,4. And "He is our peace,...having abolished in His flesh the enmity,...for to make in Himself of twain [God and man] one new man, so making peace." Eph. 2:14, 15.

Thus, "in all things it behooved Him to be made like unto His brethren....For in that He Himself hath suffered being tempted, He is able to succor them that are tempted."

Whether temptation be from within or from without, He is the perfect shield against it all; and so saves to the uttermost all who come unto God by Him.

God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, Christ taking our nature as our nature is in its sinfulness and degeneracy, and God dwelling constantly with Him and in Him in that nature--in this God has demonstrated to all people forever that there is no soul in this world so laden with sins or so lost that God will not gladly dwell with him and in him to save him from it all and to lead him in the way of the righteousness of God.

And so certainly is his name Emmanuel, which is, "God with us."

[Robert]

Quote:

---

...the Redeemer born of a womb stained with the sinful nature of man --would inherit, as these Xtian forums put it, the sin nature of the fathers. Although Christ, through the auspicious implanting by the HS was spared a direct inheritance of the ‘sins of the fathers’ on the paternal side, He would have received the

blemish of spotted sin

maternally, that is, via His mother’s womb, unless and upon…, ipso facto, an ‘Immaculate Conception…’

---

Immaculate Conception

• The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what "immaculate" means: without stain. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings.

[Robert]

After the apostles passed from the scene, the leadership of the early church fell into the hands of the Church Fathers, most of whom were of Greek origin. Being great philosophers one of the first major theological controversy that took place in the history of the Christian church was the Christological Controversy.

This controversy was over the divine/human nature of Christ. How can one person be both God and Man at the same time, they argued? Consequently, some defended only His divinity while others only His humanity. It took two major councils, Nicea (320?), and Chalcedon (450?), for the church to finally agree on the unipersonality of Christ’s dual nature: that He was fully God and fully man at the same time. This, they said, is a mystery, i.e., unexplainable, but a Biblical truth.

While this decision was generally accepted a new argument developed. It was over Christ’s human nature. Was it like Adam’s before the Fall, (i.e., Pre-Fall), or sinful like ours (i.e., Post-Fall)? For the first five centuries, the Church Fathers concluded that Christ could not redeem what He did not assume, therefore, His humanity had to be like ours that needed redeeming. This view, unfortunately, is not held today.

Why does the Christian church today uphold the pre-Fall view? History tells us that this view became dominant because of the church of Rome’s doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. While the Reformation rejected this doctrine, they nevertheless accepted the results of this heresy and taught that Christ Himself was born immaculate, i.e., with a sinless spiritual nature, like that of Adam before the Fall.

This became the established view of the Protestant churches to this day. But this was not the view that our pioneers held. While we as a church have never had an official position, most of our literature — books, Sabbath School lessons, etc. — presented the post-Fall position. That is, until the 1960s when, to gain acceptance by the Evangelicals, we changed our position to the pre-Fall.

This created the great controversy that is raging today over the human nature of Christ. Unfortunately, most of the arguments are not being discussed in the context of the gospel but Christian living. The majority of those who teach the post-Fall view, and these are the independent ministries, do so to defend sinless living: that Christ took on our sinful nature in order to be our EXAMPLE. The result is legalism or perfectionism. No wonder, those who uphold justification by faith rightly defend the pre-Fall view.

But if we are to come to a correct understanding of Christ’s human nature, we must study it in the context of the gospel, because all through the New Testament, this is the emphasis of the Bible writers. In other words, Scripture teaches that Christ became a man for the sole purpose of being the Savior of the World. It is only to those who first accept Christ as their Savior does the Bible present Him as our example.

According to the New Testament, the human nature of Christ is presented in the context of three fundamental truths. They are:

That the gospel constitutes the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Christ.

This gospel redeemed us sinners from every aspect of our sin problem.

All Christian experience must be based on the finished work of Christ.

Any discussion concerning the human nature of Christ outside of these three fundamental facts of Scripture becomes futile and meaningless.

1. The Gospel Constitutes the Birth, Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ.

The birth of Christ plays an important part in our salvation since it qualified Him to be our Substitute and Representative. At His birth, God united the divinity of Christ with our corporate humanity that needed redeeming. This made Christ one with us so that He could rewrite our history and change our status and destiny from that of condemnation to death, which we inherited from Adam, to justification to life [read Rom. 5:18; 1 Cor. 15:21, 22.]

The life of Christ is important to our salvation since He lived a perfect life on our behalf and thus met the positive demands of the law. The law says we have to obey it perfectly in order to live. In this we have all failed. But what we have failed to do Christ did our corporate humanity, which He assumed at birth [read Jn. 3:17; Gal. 4:4, 5; Heb. 10:5-9].

The death of Christ is important because it redeemed fallen humanity from the curse of the law. The same law which says “obey and live” also says “disobey and die.” Since we have all sinned and come short of the laws demands, Christ could not save us only by His perfect life. To redeem us fully He had also to meet the just demands of the law. This He did by His death on the cross [read 1 Pet. 1:18, 19; 2:24; 3:18].

[:"red"]The resurrection of Christ plays a vital part in our salvation because it is in the resurrection that God gave us the eternal life of His Son, in exchange for our condemned life which came to an end at the cross.[/] This made it possible for Christ’s humanity to rise from the dead. This new life is what makes it possible for all who believe in Christ to pass from death to life. This is the good news of the gospel [read Jn. 5:24; 2 Cor. 5:14, 17; 1 Pet, 1:3].

2. The Gospel Redeemed Us from Every Aspect of the Sin Problem

Scripture presents sin as a three-fold problem. In the first place, sin is the transgression of the law which results in the curse. Since all have sinned, we all face the guilt and punishment of sin. But, thank God, Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us [read Gal. 3:10, 13].

But sin is more than the transgression of the law. Secondly, sin is also a force, a principle, or a law which has us in its grips. Because of Adam’s sin, we have all been sold under sin and are slaves to it. This is something we fully discover only after we become Christians and try to live the holy life in our own strength. Christ also came to redeem us from this predicament — the power and slavery to sin. That is why He had to assume our sinful nature in order to be our complete Savior [read Rom. 3:9; 7:14, 24, 25; 8:2-4].

Finally, sin is part or our very nature. In order for Christ to save us from the very nature and presence of sin, He had to deliver us from this evil world and make us sit in heavenly places in Christ. This He did in the resurrection and His ascension into heaven [read Eph. 2:3b, 5,6; Phil. 3:20, 21].

3. All Christian Experience Must be Based on the Finished Work of Christ

Every subjective experience of the believer must be based on what Christ has already accomplished for the fallen human race 2,000 years ago. The peace and assurance of salvation we experience through Justification by Faith, the victory over the flesh and holy living we are experiencing through Sanctification by Faith, and the redemption of our bodes we will experience through glorification at the second coming are all based in the fact that all three experiences have already been obtained for us in Christ. The Holy Spirit does not add anything to this but simply makes it real in our experience [read 1 Cor. 3:11; Eph. 2:10].

The only way Christ could have accomplished these three facts is by assuming the self-same human nature we are born with and which needs redeeming. This is the message of the New Testament. Christ was made what we are so that we might be made in Him what He is [read 2 Cor. 5:21; Heb. 2:14-18].

JS

[jasd]

Quote:

---

This “

legally

” idea intrigues me; will you expand upon the

legal

issues of redemption?

---

>>The question that must be asked is, did Jesus come to save a sinless or sinful humanity? The answer can only be sinful humanity....Why? The law doesn't condemn sinless beings...it condemns sinners!<< [ed.]

I concur that there is something of a much larger picture (than that which our poor understanding can make out), translating into the schema of things redemptive. One then enquires as to the ‘sin/sinless’ state of Enoch? and when, how, and/or by whom his redemption was purchased… as, St Paul declares that he was translated without seeing death, which is the condemnation of sinners. Perhaps, pre-deluge blood sacrifices sufficiently obtained unto translation? On the other hand,

a child might die before drawing a dozen ‘sinless’ breaths…

Enoch pleased Gd; does the child displease Gd? It seems to me that there is more at work than the factor “The law”… mebbe, a Law more universal and timeless in scope? mebbe, one that is bound in an accord with universal provisions, exemptions, and applications…?

>>For Christ to fulfill "the law and the Prophets" he had to establish the following:

Ez 18:20 The person who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son.

What does this mean? Simply that guilt cannot be transferred!<<

And yet guilt is transferred, isn’t it? Recall: the above child that dies… together with a thousand generations of Adam’s progeny; and if guilt wasn’t transferred at the cross, there’s trouble in paradiso. So, what is it that is imputed, if not transferred? And…,

is Ezekiel a prophetic book? if it is, how far are you willing to take it? I mean, when and where do the events of the latter chapters find their fulfillment?

>>Legally no law will permit that...especially God's law. That means that the sinless Christ can't legally die instead of you....You have to die!<< [ed.]

I thought that you eschewed legalism. Perhaps, you’d like to share the predicating passage, which expands upon this legal aspect of Gd’s ‘law’? and didn’t Christ die? for whom? or does it turn upon “legally”? Anyway,

Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt [:"red"]surely[/] die.

Are you one that subscribes to ‘in the day’ equals a thousand years? or do you subscribe to --‘in the day’ has a more literal meaning to those for whom Genesis was written, you, me, those who preceded us, and those that will follow us?

Jn 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

Are you one who rejects the ipsissima verba of Christ? preferring rather, dogmas? such dogmas as that, which asserts John 11:26 to be referencing, --the second death?

I offered Gen 2:17 and Jn 11:26 to show that the matter of the finite definition of Biblical ‘die’ is something more or less willowy…

[jasd]

>>Did you die "in Christ"? If not, then you must justify yourself before God's law. That's why the Papacy teaches salvation by faith + works....They teach merit!<<

And St James, brother[:"red"]*[/] to the Lord, and first bishop of Jerusalem (probably the same St James who presided over the Jerusalem Conference of Acts 15 and the one to whom St Paul deferred-to in Acts 21), teaches that your works of grace _are your faith_.

By implication, in the above quote, it seems that you render moot --the ‘salvation’ of those not having heard of Christ or the doctrine of "in Christ". As per merit and the papacy,

‘merit’, as used in ‘salvation’ terminology, --is condign merit, the promised obligation of Gd to not only extend His grace but to reward your works of grace.

Condign merit:

Rom 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds: v7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour

Gal 6:8 …but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. v9 And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. v10 As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all [men], especially unto them who are of the household of faith.

>>In order to save you from the curse of the law, God had to put you into Christ. He did this at the incarnation by uniting our sinful life (under the curse) to Christ's divine, sinless life...This fully qualified Jesus to be our legal righteousness.<<

And what of Enoch?

>>Any other gospel is false....Hence the Papacy fits into the category of teaching a false gospel.<<

That may be so…, but what do you think of the following text?

Mark 9:40 For he that is not against us is on our part.

Was JP II against Christ? An ‘incorrect gospel’ is open to subjective interpretation. Sometimes, man is susceptible to error in interpreting Writ; that is not to support any purport that the RCs have incontestable doctrines. They embraced an awful lot of pagan beliefs attempting to turn those beliefs into tools for Christ, --kinda like St Paul’s…

1Co 9:22 …I am made all things to all [men] , that I might by all means save some. v23 And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with [you].

Speaking of false, do you stand upon the dates 1843-44 AD? or the .Org engaging in usury? or the same .Org suing the brethren --at law? or…?

>>Now maybe you understand why I am blasting "his holiness"....It is a system that Paul would term "false brethren"...or "wolves in sheep's clothing"...not the people so much, but the hierarchy!<<

If I recollect, the Corinthian church proved difficult in establishing, but note…

1Co 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called [to be] saints {#40}, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

that yet, St Paul declared that they were holy for the reasons he outlined…, I can’t imagine that anyone suggests that JP II did not call upon the name of Jesus Christ Lord. That being said,

English linguistics render it awkward to address ‘his holy’; therefor, ‘his holiness’. And phonetically, it is as awkward to address the pope by the Biblically deserved ‘his saint’ or ‘his saintliness’. As per

hierarchy, it is my understanding that your .Org practices Nicolaity also. Having said all of that,

the RCs are concerned for their church. Purportedly,

it will very shortly succumb to apostasy and heresy, having been infiltrated by its enemies. Yet, it will not be entirely, the antichrist, because St John speaks of antichrist(s) plurally.

[:"red"]*[/]I have a book on genetics containing in addition to its thesis, -- photographs of the offspring of animals, --offspring of the mother --but with different male genitors. For example:

A mare, impregnated by a zebra will throw a partially striped foal. When the mare is bred to a stallion of its own species upon a next estrus, the foal issuing from that breeding will also be --partially striped, --though, more faintly so.

The offspring of a female straight-hair guinea pig bred to a curly-hair male will have a litter of the expected Mendelian averages. Upon its next breeding, the same female straight-hair guinea pig, bred to a like straight-hair male, will still drop some curly-hair offspring.

There is that of the genitor that holds over (abides) --to be passed to the offspring of the second siring genitor. What is that essence?

Extrapolating: Would there have been an ‘essence’ of the HS passed on to a second or other following child(ren) of Mary, mother of Christ, --and Joseph, husband to Mary? Supposing so, would that/those child(ren) have possessed Divinity? Perhaps,

it is best to assume that the brothers and sisters of Christ were the children of Joseph from a prior marriage. The steadiness exhibited by him upon revelation that Mary was with child --suggests an older man, IMHO, angels notwithstanding.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

>>The question that must be asked is, did Jesus come to save a sinless or sinful humanity?

The answer

can only be

sinful humanity

....Why?

The law doesn't condemn sinless beings

...it

condemns sinners

!<<

---

I concur that there is something of a much larger picture (than that which our poor understanding can make out), translating into the schema of things redemptive.

---

"Poor understanding"? I don't think so....Maybe your poor understanding, but not mine!

Quote:

---

One then inquires as to the ‘sin/sinless’ state of Enoch? and when, how, and/or by whom his redemption was purchased… as, St Paul declares that he was translated without seeing death, which is the condemnation of sinners.

---

You really go out of your way to prove your righteousness...or should I say "His Holiness"?

Let me quote Jesus, again:

• "there is none good but one, that is, God" Matt 19:17

  Now Paul:

  "“None is righteous, no, not one" Rom 3:10

Was that too hard for you to understand?

Now to Enoch:

Heb 11:5 By faith Enoch was taken up so that he should not see death...without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him....

Did Enoch go to heaven without seeing the 1st death? It seems so....Now go to 1 Cor 15:22

• "For as in Adam all die"

Verse 51: Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep [die], [:"red"]but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye[/]....

Verse 53: For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

Just like the living at the 2nd coming are changed in the twinkling of an eye, Enoch too was changed! What was changed? Well...his corruptible life was changed to incorruption...his life of mortality...to immortality!

So his old self did die, instantaneously!

Quote:

---

Jn 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

Are you one who rejects the ipsissima verba of Christ?

---

No, but you reject it by taking it out of its context! Not so holy after all, huh?

Let's look at that statement:

• “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live [future tense] even if he dies,

  Very clear statement! If you believe in Christ as your only ticket to heaven (instead of this legalistic, self-righteous junk that comes from the Pope)...then you will live for eternity, even if you die! How? The resurrection!

  verse: 26 and everyone who lives [i.e., doesn't die] and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?

In other words he/she will be translated in the twinkling of an eye....The old dies off instantaneously....Only then are we "holy"!

[jasd]

ATJones

>>Likewise signifies "in the like way," "thus," "in the same way." So He partook of "the same" flesh and blood that men have in the same way that men partake of it. Men partake of it by birth. So "likewise" did He. Accordingly, it is written, "Unto us a Child is born."<<

likewise: -- in like manner (not necessarily ‘in exactitude’)

My friend is a vegetarian. She will often join the rest of us carnivores in ‘partaking’ of a meal. She will not eat of anything that is not strictly vegetarian, yet, there is often enough that she can eat, --that she truly partakes of our meals.

The above quote by ATJones (same Jones of Jones and Waggoner? what happened to them? and are Jones’ quasi-pantheistic promulgations still received?) does not follow. So, ATJones begins with a non sequitur… and

>>But why must He be made of a woman? why not of a man? … To have been made otherwise than of a woman would have been to come short of this and so would have been only to miss completely the redemption of men from sin.<<

advances to declension. Mebbe, Christ was “made of a woman” because it is that the womb is unique to the distaff… is that not so?

>>It was the woman by whom sin originally entered. Therefore, in the redemption of the children of men from sin, He who would be the Redeemer must go back of the man to meet the sin that was in the world before the man sinned.

This is why He who came to redeem was "made of a woman." By being made of a woman He could trace sin to the very fountain head of its original entry into the world by the woman. And thus, in finding sin in the world and uprooting it from the world from its original entrance into the world till the last vestige of it shall be swept from the world, in the very nature of things He must partake of human nature as it is since sin entered.<<

Say What! --Pogo

Rev 13:8 …the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

Might it not have better served ATJones should it have been written, “…the Lamb slain from the deception of Eve…”?

>>But as He was made of a woman--not of a man;<<

I suspect that Galatians 4:4 is meant to convey something other than the esoterica Jones makes of it.

>>… He was made flesh; he was made to be sin. He was made flesh as flesh is and only as flesh is in this world and was made to be sin only as sin is.<<

I am reading Jones as saying that Christ was made sin --from conception or implantation --per the Davidic lament… There are others who read 2 Corinthians 5:21; Isa 53:6; and Galatians 3:13 as having sin laid upon Him at the cross. What is your opinion of the matter?

Anyway, the man isn’t here and I suspect that he is already with the Lord; so… [/disinclined to further deconstruct]

[jasd]

Quote:

---

...the Redeemer born of a womb stained with the sinful nature of man --would inherit, as these Xtian forums put it, the sin nature of the fathers. Although Christ, through the auspicious implanting by the HS was spared a direct inheritance of the ‘sins of the fathers’ on the paternal side, He would have received the

blemish of spotted sin

maternally, that is, via His mother’s womb, unless and upon…, ipso facto, an ‘Immaculate Conception…’

---

>>The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what "immaculate" means: without stain. The essence of original sin consists in the deprivation of sanctifying grace, and its stain is a corrupt nature. Mary was preserved from these defects by God’s grace; from the first instant of her existence she was in the state of sanctifying grace and was free from the corrupt nature original sin brings.<<

The above parallels the concept that Christ was born without spot or blemish. Impossible? only with dogmatists.

Gd does as He purposes, He being Gd.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

The above parallels the concept that Christ was born without spot or blemish. Impossible? only with dogmatists.

---

I have already proved that Christ as God could take our fallen life from Adam and blend it with His deity without becoming sinful. Where have you been?

Quote:

---

Gd does as He purposes, He being Gd.

---

Having spelling problems? Gd? How about "God"!

No, God can't do as He wishes....God can't sin! And if He states that the soul that sins must die, then to LEGALLY save the fallen, human race we had to die "in Him"....Otherwise it's all a lie!

Your poor arguments grow old.

Rob

[Robert]

• Anyway, the man isn’t here and I suspect that he is already with the Lord; so…

No, he is dead...dead...dead! If his faith was in Christ's doing and dying, then he is sleeping...which means someone is going to wake him up! It’s called the resurrection....

This assumption that the believer's soul goes to heaven upon death is just another legalistic, self-righteous works trip invented by "the man of sin". If there's something good in me that lives on after death, then naturally some part of me is sinless.... Poppycock!

Rob