Lion – As to project Connie, (LOL) 10-4, she is working in optimal efficiency. And she was very polite about it too, so my concerns, however valid or valuable or redemptive or crummy, are left by the wayside. It’s a big world, and BEL has reached (and is reaching) many, and that is more important that my email being read. BEL is an amazing ministry.
As to
So, your shot about Bob and the money issue is really inaccurate concerning Bob. It is not so inaccurate concerning me and the other elders, (except Knight who wasn’t there), because we see the need for continued income in order to keep BEL on the air.
Wow, them are strong words, strongly humble, and I imagine right on the money. I have to go back and see what you mean about a shot at Bob on the money issue. Thanks for helping me understand the Connie thing.
You must mean this.
And also, support BEL with your time and money, even if its very difficult and scarce, but don’t bother BEL if you don’t have extra time and money to produce your suggestion completely autonomously.
The fact is that if you are a BEL supporter, but don’t have the extra time and cash to produce the suggestion autonomously, it will not happen, the lack of time because of being too busy even precludes a response, so why even read the email if you already know it would negatively impact time and effort. That message was given to me by Connie. All she wanted to know was,
will it cause Bob more work, at first I said, I don’t know because I considered such things as delegation and teamwork and at least hearing out the idea in the mean time until more time might be available for more careful consideration, but none of that was in the picture, she helped me understand by saying, can you or will you produce your suggestion yourself? I said no I can’t since my work leaves me with no spare time and I’m financially deep in the red. I was offering (free) promotional concepts that given the right people and effort (and finances), could make a very positive impact towards financial support for BEL. So, Connie found out that I was not going to handle it myself, and said that Bob can’t be bothered with more work. It was just that simple, and I understood just that quick too, because I know that Bob is an extremely busy man, and has been way more productive in a redemptive sense than probably anyone I’ve ever met.
So I have that, and I have Bob saying, I want to hear from the audience because I am not infallible, Bob wants astute critical feedback. I did not do that, BEL did. Nothings perfect, I have patience, and I wait and hope for the best.
Even if I had a simple and hopefully effective idea that might help build up BEL’s financial support, it still needs hours of work for preparation as well as financial support to get it started, so it will have to wait since I can not do it.
I meant no disrespect by it. If it is troublesome that people without extra money and time are not given more attention, then such is life. I guess both BEL and BEL supporters will just have to get used to it.
So what seems unchallenged and are pretty clear?
Call or write in if you disagree with Bob, but don’t expect a response because he doesn’t have the time. Perhaps Bob needs to make a policy announcement that although He encourages and appreciates our responses, even our disagreements with his bible teaching, he is simply too busy to read them and respond to them, in fact, it might be overlooked.
I know that Bob also lets his audience know that he has an overwhelming job trying to respond to so many emails and letters and calls and such, I’ve heard that message for some 5 plus years or so. So I guess I am frustrated, but also overjoyed from the many blessings derived from BEL.
I still wish BEL would give my concept/suggestion for strengthening BEL’s financial support a decent look over.
As to
My first question is: Did God the Son change when He took on flesh?
I would say yes, he did. He, God the Son, became a New Creation. Man and God, for the first time ever. Never before, in eternity past, had God become flesh. So God the Son did change.
(1)Do you agree with this?
(2a)The second thing is sin itself. You made the statement that sin is not a thing, but rather a concept. I would go a step further and state that sin is an action. (2b)And those actions have true consequences. When we sin, we commit an action against God and others. There is a price to be paid for those actions (in other words consequences). (2c)In your analogy about the rich man that paid off the debts of the world, there really was no consequence.
1 - Sure. The change happened in the person, the person was different before and after the change. It was a real personal change.
2a - Well, my point was that it was not an animate object, sin usually happens in action but not always, sometimes it happens purely in the realm of the mind, - - - but sin is not a material thing, it is a moral thing, and is understood conceptually. In essences sin is going against God, and it starts in the heart or will of a person even before it is ever carried out with action.
2b - Actions, or even non-actions like just sinful thoughts and intents, have consequences. That is “a” crux in this discussion. Sin is one thing, and the consequences of sin is another thing.
2c - You mean if the dept wasn’t paid? I was only focusing on the aspect of the issue that is in contention, as I’m sure we all agree what happens when are sins are not forgiven and our debt is not paid.
I am speaking of the way God attributes righteousness to our behalf, and how I imagine that God declared Jesus as righteous as if that issue was somehow in contention. The Bible is clear that we are not righteous other than Gods accounting Christ’s righteousness on our behalf. Accounting, substitution, it’s all real, but it’s real substitution into our personal account, we ourselves are not changed into perfect righteousness, our sin remains with each and every person, but if we are saved, our sin is simply not condemned by God, hence the sin remains but our account says it is gone, no real change in the person concerning sinlessness, only a change in account.
Yes we are a new creation since Christ lives in us and we are sealed by the HS and so on, but even then we still often sin, and our sin is not translated to someone else, it’s ours because that is the nature of morality, you can not really separate the morality from the moral agent, you can forgive or condemn, but the moral intentions and deeds are connected to it’s agent. Separate the sin from the sinner is a false teaching, and it can’t be done.
As to
It was as if he paid the debt to himself and said, okay all’s forgiven, no problem. And he was still endlessly rich. So the question is was there really a price for the sin of the world? In your analogy I would say no.
Do you agree with this?
Oh, actually, I imagined the dept was paid to someone else, but in the case of Jesus paying the debt to God, I guess it matches. And God is till endlessly rich and righteous even though He paid the ransom and bought every soul an eternal ticket to heaven, if only they would accept.
The ram in the thicket was God’s offering to substitute for the boy’s life and is a foreshadow of what happened at the cross. Jacob stole the birthright and blessing from his brother, another example of substitution which foreshadows what Christ did at his work of redemption by taking on the birthright given to Adam. Jesus died that we might live, direct substitution.
BTW, Lion, you started out by claiming that Jesus Himself really changed when He became sin for us. Remember, Bob said that Jesus changed in Himself, it was a real change, and then He was called, Jesus the righteous. The only way that could possibly be a change would be in Jesus’ righteousness. And since this claim proclaims Jesus as righteous, then prior to this change, He must have been other than Jesus the righteous, implying, Jesus not the righteous, or Jesus less than righteous, or Jesus not righteous. I suggest that if these are not correct, then it was figurative of Jesus’ work of redemption.
If not, then Jesus living a sinless life is not accurate since Jesus really and truly had sin in His life at the cross. Also, the perfect sacrifice, the lamb without blemish (imperfection) did not happen, Christ’s sacrifice was not only blemished with sin, it was the most filthy and disgusting offering ever given to God. God takes not pleasure in sin and wickedness, it makes Him ravenous with contempt and wrath to consider the worlds wickedness, now imagine all the world’s sin was presented to God all at once in Jesus when He died at the cross. Jesus would be filled beyond measure full of murder and strife and perverse heinous wickedness, like rape and incest and malicious torture and theft and lies and on and on. That is what happened at the cross?
I don’t think so. I think Jesus was righteous and loving and good and right and Holy every step of the way.
God says almost as though He is bragging that He hardened Pharaoh’s heart. But God let Pharaoh’s heart do exactly as it wanted to do, He did not violate Pharaoh’s will. Sometimes God states things in nearly contrary ways, and expects the unashamed worker to understand the truth, even if it takes more effort than simply reading a few words that otherwise seem to make it seem like Jesus ever changed in His righteousness.
So come on with the stuff, exactly what sort of change happened IN Jesus when He became our sin?