Max Lucado.

As Preach is prone to do when the heat is turned up, he dropped out of the discussion and Aaron has taken the "my belief has to be the correct one b/c that's what I believe" mantle. As both of these brothers have a tendency to do, their arguments are more fluff than sustenence which is why they often drop out of discussions. Here we go:

Aaron's premise is that fear is a result of the Fall and cannot be a part of the unpolluted human nature. Naturally he transfers his own understanding of the Incarnation to Jesus Christ with no biblical support. Since no one can understand the totality of what the Incarnation involved, we can only assume that when the Bible says God became a human that God actually became a human, experiencing the full range of human emotions humans face yet without sin. Any speculation contrary to this biblical truth must be proven by the opponent, which has yet to happen.

Here Aaron employs a tactic Preach uses on occasion. He uses a text to prove a point that has nothing to do with the context or intent of the passage. As I have shown above, quoting Scripture does not make the use of that text legitimate. Stick with context and intent and this discussion can progress easier.

Aaron makes two mistakes here:

1) He associates the word "norm" with the Incarnation and not Christ's humanity. There was nothing normal about God becoming a human, but neither was there anything abnormal about the humanity of Christ. He was fully human.

2) He links all fear to unbelief. Once again, fear is not always a sign of unbelief. If I enter my house at night and suddenly a burglar sticks a gun in my face, my natural reaction is to be startled/express a level of fear. Does that mean I have sinned in that moment or that I am not trusting God? No. It is a natural human emotion. The reason Aaron and Preach have failed to address the real-life situations is b/c their proposal (all fear is sin) is absurd when considering everyday life.

Evidently it is easier for Aaron and Preach to accuse me of violating the text rather than to actually deal with the passage in its context. Notice also how both have failed to address the question (if they are employing just a plain reading) of whether it is only wrong to fear those who are threatening our lives (the plain reading of the text). I am ready to deal with any passage you might suggest. I simply request that we deal with passages in context and intent and not simply as I prefer to read them.

And of course you know that Huss experienced no fear in the process right???

And your evidence that Daniel felt NO fear is ???

When you guys are ready to actually deal with reality on this issue, let me know. Until then ...

 

I'm sure Thomas Bilney, John Huss and a host of other Christians who faced death by torture were frightened somewhat. We are never fully free of sin until we are released by death.

Thomas Bilney was frightened the first time he faced the stake and recanted to save his skin. A natural human response, yet his conscience troubled him so that he repented of his sinful fear and retracted his recantation.

The night before his death his friends tried to console him but he did not need it. In their presence he held the tip of his finger over the flame of the candle until it burned it off and said to his friends, "Whatever is not of Christ will burn."

As he was being led to the stake he ran to embrace it and praised God for the opportunity to die for Christ. No fear.

And what of the host of martyrs whose little children were tortured before their eyes in an attempt to coerce their parents to confess the infallibility of the Pope and other blasphemies? Each would tell you their fear was sinful, though their reason to fear was immenently more valid than the fear described in your soft examples.

Christ is our example, not the natural tendencies of sinners, and I noticed you neglected to repeat that example in your last post.

How one looks at the examples you gave depends on his world view. If one sees every action and reaction that springs from polluted nature as sin—as indeed it is, for so the Bible presents it as such—then he will give one answer. If one sees the natural tendencies of man as good, and only willful and cognizant wrong-doing as sin, he will give another.

But when REAL stories of men and women who faced unspeakable tortures for the testimony of Christ are brought to our eyes, something very different than the ideas you espouse come to view.

 

I think you only say this to make yourself feel better. I will type slowly here: we disagree on a fundamental level as to the nature of fear. Therefore, we will not interpret situations the same. Btw, thinking people see through such statements, so who are you appealing to?

This isn't about calvinism anyone (just had to throw that out so people can breathe easier).

Finally, can you remind me of that passage where Jesus feared anyone or anything (besides of course fearing God which was never argued against in the first place)?

 

Thanks Aaron for reminding me of the Bilney story. It is a great one indeed. As a matter of fact, it illustrates my point exactly. Bilney's original fear caused him to act in a sinful manner (he recanted his faith). His second reaction was a complete dependence upon God, which in turn eliminated the fear factor.

You say: As he was being led to the stake he ran to embrace it and praised God for the opportunity to die for Christ. No fear. This is absolute speculation on your part. Whether he felt any level of fear or uncertainty when the flames actually encapsuled his body we shall never know. What we do know is that his dependence upon God caused him to remain true to the end (with or w/o feelings of fear).

Again you speculate when you aver: Each would tell you their fear was sinful, though their reason to fear was immenently more valid than the fear described in your soft examples. We will never know what level of fear they faced. What we do know is that they trusted God in spite of their fears. My "soft" examples simply illustrate that fear is a natural human emotion in the life of a human being (even when it is as trivial as being startled). To eliminate it from Jesus' experiences requires evidence that he did not experience this natural human emotion. The evidence has yet to be shown.

However great or insignificant you may feel the cause of fear may be, one cannot allude the fact that fear is a natural human emotion.

Christ is our example, not the natural tendencies of sinners, and I noticed you neglected to repeat that example in your last post.

I have asked for a reasonable interpretation of the "remove this cup from me" prayer of Gethsemane and have yet to receive one.

How one looks at the examples you gave depends on his world view. If one sees every action and reaction that springs from polluted nature as sin—as indeed it is, for so the Bible presents it as such—then he will give one answer. If one sees the natural tendencies of man as good, and only willful and cognizant wrong-doing as sin, he will give another.

I have not argued the natural tendencies of humans are good. Don't put words in my mouth. What I have suggested is that the natural human response of fear to an adverse or startling circumstance does not equal committing a sin. But then again, I know it is easier to attack straw men.


BTW, it is usually easier to debate or discuss when you actually deal with the issues the other party raises instead of simply neglecting them. But I shouldn't expect you guys to change your spots, so ...

 

However great or insignificant you may feel the cause of fear may be, one cannot allude the fact that fear is a natural human emotion

well, so is lust. did jesus lust?

 

It is so easy for you to say there is a fundamental disagreement on the nature of fear when you have yet to prove fear in and of itself is sinful.

Thinking people also engage in legitimate arguments and rebuttals instead of making unsupported generalizations and then abandoning the debate.

This is definitely not a Calvinism issue since I am classified by most as Calvinistic.

And can you provide me that passage where Jesus did not experience natural human emotions? The burden of proof still lies in your yard.

 

I have asked for a reasonable interpretation of the "remove this cup from me" prayer of Gethsemane and have yet to receive one.

imo:

as an example to us. notice he finishes with "nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. "

on one level jesus was not looking forward to the excruciating pain of crucifixion. who would? so the prayer was not a lie, there was a real, human desire to not experience it.

but no fear

 

I do not think it was the pain that worried Jesus. After all that is why He came, to be our sacrifice and take our place. I think it was more of the separation from the Father that bothered him. they had never been separated before but when all our sin was placed on Jesus it caused that to happen.

 

I do not think it was the pain that worried Jesus. After all that is why He came, to be our sacrifice and take our place. I think it was more of the separation from the Father that bothered him. they had never been separated before but when all our sin was placed on Jesus it caused that to happen.

a very good point. you've changed my mind, thanks!

 

Im glad to have been a help.

 

Thanks for proving my point.

If it isn't sin, then it's righteousness. You don't have to say the exact words, your intentions are clear.

 

Obviously you guys do not want to really discuss this matter. Maybe at some point I stop getting lured into these facades.

 

I am focusing on the forest. You are sidetracked by the trees.