PDA

View Full Version : The "made sin" or "infused sinfulness" Heresy



Brandan
08-09-05, 01:12 PM
Do you believe Christ was literally evil? Even for a speck of time? Then you believe an awful heresy. I am taking a stand right now against this evil doctrine that Christ was more than made sin by imputation but that he was actually made a sinner! I'm taking a stand against the notion that a "righteous man could not die for sinners." Christ was our substitution in death, but not our substitution in evil! I'm taking a stand against the notion that Christ was actually "created evil" and became a "sink" or "sewer" on the cross.

I have read the Sermon by Mark Daniel, and the highlights by Ken Wimer in it will make your stomach crawl. It truly is an evil heresy and I can no longer fellowship with those who hold or promote such teaching. Sorry, but my conscience is bound to the word of God, not any friendships or bonds I have with others.

I will not be attending the Danville Conference this year because I don't want to listen to this awful doctrine ever again. It is heresy. It is damnable. And I don't want anything to do with the "infused sinfulness doctrine" of Mark Daniels. How any true Christian could defend what is written in this attached document is beyond me.

See attached document with foreword by Ken Wimer:
Dear Friends,

It is truly with a heavy heart that I send out this email. Some consider me as a 'busy-body' provoking trouble in the camp, however, as I increasingly hear of people throwing their support behind a preacher, who in my consideration, is preaching heresy, I wonder whether you have the full picture. Many have said that they listened to the message that Mark Daniel preached in Albany, GA in February before being dismissed by the congregation there, and have told me that they saw nothing wrong with the message. Because it is easy to forget exactly what was preached, the further removed from the actual message, I thought it profitable to put it into writing, verbatim, so that any who wonder about the seriousness of what is being preached under the banner of 'Absolute Substitution,' can see the transcript for themselves. Is this what you profess to be the Gospel, 'God making Christ sinful or creating sin in Him' at the cross? I know that many have said to me, "It says, He made Him sin," However, the Bible also says, 'God so loved the world,' and world means 'world,' so that means everyone. Or how about how the Catholic Church interprets Christ's statement regarding the bread and wine, 'This is my body...and blood.' Will we then say that it means that the bread and wine actually become His body and blood. No! Context means everything.

This is particularly bothersome to me when I hear that Eager Avenue Grace Church congregation is being maligned both in pulpits, in writing, and in private conversations, as 'evil and wicked,' for taking the stand they have. I also have been thrown in the mix for speaking up. Nonetheless, in defense of the truth, I am persuaded that I cannot remain silent, having myself talked with Mark at length right after he preached it, but without being able to persuade him of the grave danger of such a doctrine. Know that this is particularly grievous to me in light of the separation this has caused between us, Mark being a long time friend.

Nevertheless , because this matter has been made public as it has, I must at least speak up. It is what I consider a doctrine that perverts the very character of Christ, and perverts the Scriptural teaching of Christ as Substitute, all with the view of setting up another righteousness IN the sinner, that must complete what he calls 'INSUFFICIENT' at the cross. I can only speak my conscience before those for whom I have a great love and concern. If I have time, I will transcribe also the follow up message he preached on 'Believing Saints,' where he develops further the idea of the necessity of inherent or imparted righteousness, as what truly makes one righteous before God, the imputed righteousness of Christ not being sufficient.

If after reading this transcript, you tell me that you are still in full agreement, then at least I will have had the opportunity, for my own conscience sake, to know that I have done what I could, by God's grace. Nonetheless, the verse that the Lord has impressed upon my mind is, " Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?" I Corinthians 5:6.

May the Lord grant discernment to any and all who read this transcript.

Prayerfully submitted,
Ken

Brandan
08-09-05, 01:15 PM
More from Ken - see attached document:
Attached is the follow-up transcript of a message preached by Mark Daniel in Albany, GA in March, 2005, which culminated in his dismissal from the Eager Avenue Grace Church. It is important to read this attached transcript in light of the first that I sent a few days ago, wherein he reinterpreted 2 Corinthians 5:21, stating that Christ was made sinful (a sinner by the implantation of the sin of His people in His flesh), and stating that the inverse (i.e.being made the righteousness of God) takes place only at regeneration, by the Spirit implanting the very sinless nature of Christ into the believer. This message is the follow up to that, and must be read in that context. As you will note in reading this word for word transcript, Mark endeavors to show that he is not talking about an infused or imparted righteousness, but by definition that is what he describes.

Some may ask, 'Why all this trouble?'

1. Knowing what I know of the situation in Albany, and the men that are being maligned there as evil and malicious by a number of preachers, I cannot stand by and remain silent, knowing what they were being forced to endure under the guise of the Gospel. I believe by getting the very transcript into as many hands as possible, that everyone can judge for themselves, where they stand or fall on this most important Gospel issue.

2. For the record, I want to reaffirm that I have talked at length with Mark Daniel about these very matters, so I am not violating any confidence between us. He is well aware of my concerns and prayers for him, and those who have followed him to begin another work there in Albany.

3. I suppose my greatest surprise has been with those who do support his preaching of Christ being made a sinner, and that as he shows in this message, the death of the Lord Jesus merely guaranteed the holiness of His people, but that it is not accomplished UNTIL regeneration. I believe that this is a total confusion of the work of Christ FOR His people (redeeming, justifying, and sanctifying them at the cross), and the work of the Spirit IN regenerating, and calling them out of their sin and darkness to SEE and REST in the Righteousness accomplished by Christ at the cross ONCE FOR ALL. We were justified and sanctified by His blood, and it is the Spirit of God who comes and quickens dead hearts, making them alive, and directing those hearts to the ONLY righteousness that God has ever accepted, that of Christ imputed at the cross. To draw my thoughts away from the cross, even to some inward work of the Spirit, is to be drawn away from the ONLY Holiness and Righteousness that God has ever accepted and approved on behalf of sinners. If my holiness is that of some inward holiness, even though it is attributed to the Spirit, no matter how you package it, it is not that of the cross which was done ONCE for all, Hebrews 10:10. Again, I remind you of what one old writer wrote: "One day as I was passing into the field . . . this sentence fell upon my soul. Thy righteousness is in heaven. And me thought, withal, I saw with the eyes of my soul Jesus Christ at God's right hand; there, I say, was my righteousness; so that wherever I was, or whatever I was doing, God could not say of me, he wants [=lacks] my righteousness, for that was just before him. I also saw, moreover, that it was not my good frame of heart that made my righteousness better, nor yet my bad frame that made my righteousness worse, for my righteousness was Jesus Christ himself, "The same yesterday, today, and forever." Heb. 13:8.

I admit that this transcript is a bit laborious, however, I simply transcribed what was preached. Nonetheless, I believe that everyone needs to read it carefully. Depending on what version you have of Word, you will find annotations of my comments throughout. For some, these will appear as balloons off to the right. For others, there may simply be a notation such as [KW1] etc. If you double-click where you see the notation, it will open a window below for you to see all of my comments. However, if you want to simply read the comments without opening them, you should simply hover the mouse over them and a screen will pop up. I apologize for having to insert so many comments, but I have prayerfully weighed these in light of what I know of the Word and the Gospel, and I have added them only because I am persuaded that there needs to be clarification regarding the error of what Mark is teaching.

I am the last to want such a controversy, and would willingly see it put to rest, and praying for that to be, that we might all be truly united in THE FAITH. However, I cannot in good conscience go against what I know to be the truth of the cross, and it is to that end that I prayerfully submit this transcript and my comments. As the old adage goes: "Error will go around the world many times, while truth is putting its boots on."

May the Lord Himself graciously teach us all.


Ken

Brandan
08-09-05, 01:19 PM
More from Ken against Don Fortner's article:
Attached is a message by Don Fortner, posted on his website as a result of what took place in Albany, GA regarding Mark Daniel's message there stating that Christ was actually made sinful as the substitute for His people. I would not be making this a matter of importance did I not believe that it is a perversion and a going beyond of what the Scriptures teach regarding the Person and Work of our Lord.

Some of you, after reading Mark's message that I sent last week, have asked me if any of the other preachers with whom we are acquainted would support Mark in his position of Christ actually being made a sinner at the cross. Sadly, yes. Some do not say it as plainly, but they are essentially saying the same thing. This distresses me greatly, but I must stand where I believe the Scriptures to stand, in the light that the Lord has given me, but I believe that the attached by Don Fortner should leave no doubt as to his identification with Mark's 'Christ Made Sinful' message which was part of the ground of his dismissal in Albany, and any who continue to support him, rather than call him to repentance.

I felt impressed to include comments throughout Don Fortner's commentary, because of the way he simply keeps restating 'Christ was made sin,' but as you will see by the end, what he really means is that Christ was actually made a sinner. My comments are designed to simply help you weigh carefully what he is stating in light of the Word.

Prayerfully submitted,

Ken

lionovjudah
08-09-05, 01:44 PM
I still do not understand the need to make this literally mean what they are implying. I will have to read it closer. I must be missing something.

How could a sinner, a mere sinful man, atone for the sins of others. Scripture constantly stresses the spotless Lamb without blemish. I do nto believe a substitute has to equal the one he takes place for. Is this what they say? That in order to atone for sinful man, Christ had to literally become sinfull Himself? Am I understanding it corectly?

Brandan
08-09-05, 01:48 PM
Scripture constantly stresses the spotless Lamb without blemish. I do nto believe a substitute has to equal the one he takes place for. Is this what they say? That in order to atone for sinful man, Christ had to literally become sinfull Himself? Am I understanding it corectly?Yes Joe, they are saying exactly that. Read the highlights in Mark Daniel's Sermon! It's as plain as day.

lionovjudah
08-09-05, 01:52 PM
Yes Joe, they are saying exactly that. Read the highlights by Mark Daniels Sermon! It's as plain as day.

Wow, this is some different stuff here to swallow. I will read it much closer tonight.

L-Today
08-09-05, 04:58 PM
Brandan,

Thank you for taking stand against this evil. I know it is not easy for you because there are people involved in this matter whom you used to be friends with and whom you admired. I cannot see how a Christian can make any other choice.

Luba.

wildboar
08-09-05, 05:30 PM
It's just plain silly anabaptist nonsense, taking a verse of Scripture and making it say something it was never intended to say regardless of how the interpretation contradicts the rest of Scripture. Just like all the anti-oath, anti-war, anti-alcohol, anti-human blooded Jesus, and successionists.

Dee Dee Warren
08-09-05, 06:30 PM
The Word of Faith movement consistently teaches this type of stuff.

Bob Higby
08-09-05, 06:51 PM
Very true, Dee Dee. There is a difference--some of these teachers who affirm high grace predestination (like Don Fortner) are affirming more of a 'mystery' teaching of Christ's being made sin. I'm sure that they would condemn the word-faith movement in no uncertain terms. However, that does not excuse the agitation of this controversy they want to engage in and I will never support it. The Lord has LAID UPON HIM the iniquity of us all (impuation from Isa. 53)--that is ALL that 'made sin' is referring to--Christ's fulfillment of prophecy in this regard!

Brandan
08-09-05, 07:08 PM
I found the benny hinn mp3 file in my sound archives (attached) that teaches something very similar to this heresy.

Eileen
08-09-05, 08:19 PM
It is a ‘mystery’ teaching this being made sin and I can relate to the congregation in Albany, GA as in my own reading of the article in the New Focus magazine. Because they don’t say plainly what they are actually teaching, it is very misleading. If the article in the New Focus magazine had, for instance, said in plain language……Christ was made a sinner, do you think there would have been an uproar from 99% of the readers, I do.

Thank you for the full realm of this teaching, for if you think for even but a moment that Christ, the spotless Lamb of God, was made a sinner, the hope is gone and the light becomes darkness.

Eileen

Mickey
08-09-05, 09:19 PM
You cannot make one 'person' of the Trinity a sinner. If so then we no longer have the Triune God head.

L-Today
08-10-05, 07:31 AM
Mike is right - there is no God if Christ was a sinner.

But how many people still believe this rot, blindly following their teachers because they don't see what Christian loyalty means? What about the teachers themselves of this ''gospel of sinful Jesus Christ''? Clearly, they are not preaching the gospel of the Scriptures but another gospel which Paul called ''accursed''. And the implications of such preaching and believing?

WB, I cannot accept that turning Jesus Christ into evil should be compared and put on the same level with other arguments inside all possible groups of Baptists or anybody else. Yes, they use the same confused method when twisting the Scriptures, but this one is a thing apart, whether they meant it to be so or not.

This specific matter of turning Christ into abomination is about whether we have God at all, and not about to drink or not to drink beer on a Saturday. Of course, there are people who would like to mix these issues together and thus remove the magnitude of the ''made into literal sin'' blasphemy. And that is the cleverest way of sneaking false doctrines onto the believers - blend and bunch together heresies and blasphemies with trivialities and treat them alike. And maybe that is why we have all missed the horror and madness of this teaching before - because we thought it is ''one of those misunderstandings''. IT IS NOT.

Eileen is right - THEY don't come out and state straight that they actually mean: ''Christ Jesus was a sinner like us, only far worse'', because if they did they would not have as many listeners and readers left as they have now.

When camouflaged in between highly devout and loud pronouncements 'Lord! Lord!', this, the worst possible slander upon this very Lord, slips in almost unnoticed into believers' minds, making it a sort of uneasy OK that Jesus Christ became evil for three hours. Now, according to the proponents of this theology, WE get rid of our sins for sure, because now our different kinds of the substance ''sin'', folowed by sins and then by their offspring are really and finally incinerated on the burning cross outside the camp in the sinful body and sinful soul of Jesus Christ. If this is not a bright example of the false prophecy which should be a serious and very useful warning to us all on how to heed what we read and listen to, then I don't know what is.

lionovjudah
08-10-05, 07:52 AM
In the OT shadows or figures of atonment. Did the sacrafice, the lamb or scapegoat actually become sinfull? Or were the sins of the people just laid on them and the Lord accepted this?


Joe

Brandan
08-10-05, 07:53 AM
I think the answer to your question Joe is fairly obvious. How in the world can a lamb (the animal) become sinful?

lionovjudah
08-10-05, 08:02 AM
I think the answer to your question Joe is fairly obvious. How in the world can a lamb (the animal) become sinful?

Ask Fortner.

I do not know.

melted
08-10-05, 08:14 AM
What can it mean that Christ was actually and really made to be sin?

Sin is transgression of the law of God. Was Christ made to be a transgression? That makes no sense.

There is the nature of sinfulness that resides in man and demons. Was Christ made to be a sin nature? Was Christ made to have a sin nature? Surely this is blasphemy, as to be God by definition requires the fully righteous and holy nature of sinless perfection. To claim otherwise is to remove the very idea of God from such a being.

The act of sin comes and goes; it is an action accounted to an individual. The man sins many times, but these sins themselves are not retained. They do not "live on". There is no substance of a sin. What does live on is the shame of the sin. The wrath that is due on account of the sin. The DEBT of sin is built up and retained by the sinner.

I brought up this passage before, and I think it prudent to do so again:
Act 2:36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ--this Jesus whom you crucified."

The same word is used here as in 1 Cor 5:21, yet it does not mean that Christ was in substance made to be something different than what He has always been.

lionovjudah
08-10-05, 08:32 AM
Here are some random thoughts.

1) Jesus voluntarily suffered for our sins. He was not punished.

2) Punishment means one is guilty.

3) Suffering for His elect is nto punishment.

4) The Scriptures NEVER say Christ was punished, it always says he suffered.

5) Therefore, he cannot be sinful on the cross because He was not punished.

Heb. 10:4

“it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.” If they preach/teach that Jesus literally became sin, they misrepresent all of Scripture and say these were effectual offerings becausethey transferred sin. ( Mike Steele)



Too many believe that God was punishing Christ on the Cross, that he was actually displeased with His Son, and was throwing lightening bolts at Him in wrath. This is not the case. The cross represxents the Trinity working out the salvation of the elect because of His eternal love for them. This love of God caused Christ to suffer the most extreme pain as a subsitute for the punishment due the elect.( John Miley)


Jesus is the substitute for those given to Him before the foundation of the world. A substitute to suffer, not to be punished because He was, is, and always will be the spotless lamb.


The cross had no seperation of the Trinity.

2 Cor. 5:19.
"God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself."

Larry Brown
08-10-05, 10:20 AM
Brandon,

In 1984 I accompanied Missionary Bill Clark to Ivory Coast, West Africa. I have no reservations in saying that he was with one of the “greatest” Missionaries of the century (if not history). He was going there to visit another young missionary named Ken Wimer. We spent nineteen days traveling dirt roads in a Mazda pickup truck. You can get to know someone when you are that close to one another. That “vacation” was to change my life and daily routine for years after.

When I returned home, I began sending Ken audio tapes expounding the free, sovereign grace of Christ by men like Henry Mahan, Maurice Montgomery, Don Fortner, and others. Those tapes (apparently) resulted in Ken changing his message and preaching the same free grace at his sponsor church in Michigan while on furlough. He was immediately excommunicated (I think he had to leave by a side door!) and his support was withdrawn.

Being the first person he called, I remember vividly the trembling voice and the question “What am I going to do?” Though I invited him and his family to my house, he untimately wound up in Ashland, KY where the congregation at Thirteenth Street provided him with support and housing until he returned to Africa. The whole ordeal resulted in a near family relationship with Ken, Mary and his family. To his daughter, I was “Uncle Larry.” The very thought of it make me smile to this day.

On his return to the mission field, I became his Power of Attorney receiving his support from numerous churches, converting it, sending it, filing his tax returns, and talking to him via Ham Radio once a week for 10+ years. His support came from congregations with whom you are all familiar. Those congregations at one time or another included those of Pastors Henry Mahan, Maurice Montgomery, Don Fortner, Daniel Parks, Gary Shepard, Donnie Bell, Gene Harmon, Tim James, Jim Byrd, Jack Shanks, Todd Nibert, and others to numerous to mention.

I said all that to say this. I am not giving this response to Kens machinations with any light consideration. His relentless attacks upon the gospel of Christ and those who preach it, his determined efforts to divide brethren, and his wilful, deliberately deceitful and often openly false slander of men who have done nothing but seek to assist him over the years, makes it obvious that his only goal is the same as that of Diotrephes, the promotion of Ken Wimer.

I realize your “forum” professes that it does not condone personal attacks. But Don Fortner is my pastor and it is clear that he is no longer invited to this party. Since you have allowed the attacks to be levied, perhaps you will be fair enough to allow one for Don’s defense as well as others whom Ken will only name cowardly in “confidential” conversations out of loving concern for their souls. It was not Don or any of the other named pastors who made this a public issue. The sermon from which the article was written was preached at Cherokee, NC and in Danville last October (2004) and the article itself was written in November 2004 and then published in New Focus Magazine, before Mark Daniels ever went to Albany. It was also sent out as Bulletin articles during Feb-April this year. It was only then that Ken perceived it as “support of Mark” and openly attacked it in writing and in preaching. It then became Ken’s perfect vehicle for politicing the dark halls of deceit ruining the lives of two faithful gospel ministers and to organize a pack faithful to himself.

Ken has credited Don with believing doctrines that he knows emphatically Don does not believe and has never preached. (I have been listening to Don preach for 26 years, and have read practically everything he has written or published.) Ken has had virtually no contact with Pastor Gene Harmon for years. Then so that Ken and Gene might “have fellowship in this glorious truth” (justification at the cross only),”. . .He emailed Gene “alarmed by a strong reaction by a number of preachers promoting 'Eternal Justification.” He then offered his "loving" declaration that Don and Todd Nibert do not believe the death of Christ was and is necessary to the salvation of God's elect. Do you think for a minute, that Ken thought he was telling the truth? It was a bald/bold-faced lie

I will not bore you with other such examples.

Christ himself cries in Psalm 69&c, “Save me, O God! for the waters are come in unto my soul. I sink in deep mire where there is no standing. I am come into deep waters, where the floods overflow me. I am weary of my crying: my throat is dried: mine eyes fail while I wait for my God. They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, being mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored that which I took not away. O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee.” Do any of you have a problem with my sin becoming so much a part of Christ that he speaks of it being his very own. Does that sound like my sins was merely pasted on Him?

In Psalm 22&c Christ said “I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. LORD, rebuke me not in thy wrath: neither chasten me in thy hot displeasure.” Does that describe my sin as being merely draped over his body?

In Psalm 38&c Christ mourned “thine arrows stick fast in me, and thy hand presseth me sore. There is no soundness in my flesh because of thine anger; neither is there any rest in my bones because of my sin. For mine iniquities are gone over mine head: as an heavy burden they are too heavy for me. My wounds stink and are corrupt because of my foolishness. I am troubled; I am bowed down greatly; I go mourning all the day long. My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.”

Could some of you explain all those to me?

Concerning the current “controversy,” where have any of you, including Ken, found where Don or any of these other men have said that “Christ was made a sinner.” The scriptures say that “Christ was made sin.” That is all these men have said. Nowhere have they tried to remove the mystery of that great transaction! Ken admits in another of his many emails circulated to those whom he assumed to be faithful followers that “because of the way he (Don Fortner)simply keeps restating 'Christ was made sin,' but as you will see by the end, what he really means is that Christ was actually made a sinner.” Oh really! Can any of the rest of us get into another’s mind? Slick, Slick, Slick.

I’ll tell you what I think. I think, It is the mystery of Godliness. It is one of the most assuring things of Christ in the Gospel All of that, that I might be made righteous. Now are we the Sons of God!!

If Christ being made sin is your issue, then put your fists in God’s face, not my pastor’s or the face of other faithful pastors.

I have heard nor seen anyone of the realm in which I associate go past such describing Christ as having being made sin.

Suffice it to say, Ken has been trying to pick a fight with Don over virtually everything he has written or published in the past three years, beginning with Don’s writings on Eternal Justification,then Fourfold Justification, and now Christ being made sin. Don makes an easy target both physically and theologically. After all, everything he has written or preached is available in his books or on our website. Have any of you really read them to know if what Ken is saying is true? Really read them? Its easy to pick a line here and a line there to lift out of context. Ken speaks above that his “greatest surprise has been with those who do support his (Mark’s [and I suppose Don’s as well]) preaching of Christ being made a sinner.” He has also been asked “if any of the other preachers with whom we are acquainted would support Mark in his position of Christ actually being made a sinner at the cross. Sadly, yes. Some do not say it as plainly, but they are essentially saying the same thing.”

Do I support Mark in his belief that Christ was actually made a sinner at the cross? Well, . . . . . . I believe that “Christ was made sin.”

Mark Daniels, Don Fortner, Henry Mahan, Daniel Parks, Tom Harding, Marvin Stalnaker, Jack Shanks, Milton Howard, David Pledger, Tommy Robins, Drew Dietz, Jim Byrd, Gary Shepard, Paul Mahan, Donnie Bell, Greg Elmquest, Chris Cunningham, Joe Terrell and a multitude of others are all men of faithful character and proven devotion to the local church and the cause of Christ in the comforting of God’s people. None of these men should be the subject, or inferred subjects, of “novices,” “internet christians,” and “conference freeloaders,” the majority of which know nothing of belonging to a local church, and have no firsthand knowledge of these minister’s work and ministry. They deserve our respect.

I do regret that firsthand knowledge of Ken’s recent attempts to sully Don and Mark’s name, and to divide other brothers has drawn me into the same sewer pit into which Ken has jumped headlong. Now I know how it feels when someone kicks your dog.

I am sincerely sorry that you will not be attending our conference this year. That is exactly what Ken was hoping. Another notch in his gun.

Larry Brown

Ivor Thomas
08-10-05, 11:06 AM
The scriptures are clear on this matter He was made to be sin for us, our Substitute the thouroughly Exchanged life, the lamb of God took our sins in is body on the tree, what exactly took place in my sin being took down into death, I dont know but I do know my my sin was dealt with once for all by a real Saviour, the word sinner is not or ever could be used to describe what Christ went through, The Holy Spirit says He was made sin and I take it has Gospel, And I believe Brother Fortner to be along with Brother Brown here to be men of Integrety and standing on the Word.. we must hold to what scripture says, and God be my Judge this is where he stands me.. Ivor Thomas...

lionovjudah
08-10-05, 11:16 AM
I found this article.

http://www.eschatology.com/sinsofchrist.html

Larry, this appears to be in line with what you espouse.

The major issue I have is does this belief logically conclude that Christ needed redemption from the pit?

The article states this;
It seem to correspond with the fact that Christ was made sin and a curse for us and therefore needed redemption and deliverance from the pit and He needed the Father to not hide His face from Him. Christ cried, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" This seems to be the hiding of the Father's face from Christ. Christ looked for pity from His disciples but found none according to this Psalm. The NT agrees when it teaches that all His disciples forsook Him. The loneliness and separation from the Father and His friends seemed to have produced this sobering prayer.


There is definately messianic references in Psalm 69. The other two are messianic also, but 69 does offer the best allegory of being made sin. 22 and 38 lack this and simply speak of suffering.


Joe

Mickey
08-10-05, 11:44 AM
Do I support Mark in his belief that Christ was actually made a sinner at the cross? Well, . . . . . . I believe that “Christ was made sin.”

Larry, until you and your cohorts learn how to answer this very question straight up, it will be assumed that you believe Christ became a sinner, making all of you heretics. Its a simple yes or no question.

Brandan
08-10-05, 12:06 PM
Here are some quotes from Mark Daniel's sermon on the topic at hand.
Paul using this very passage from Deuteronomy as his reference point for his statement in Galatians 3:13, is showing that one thing Christ became, that He was not before is that He became a sinner. He became a man in whom was sin!

He had to be equally as sinful, equally as guilty and equally as accursed as me in order to take my place.

He became sinful that I become righteous.

He became the equal sinner that I am, he became the same sinner that I am before God.

It’s as incomprehensible for me to be a sinner and a saint, at the same time as He could be the Son of God, pure and holy, and be a sinner, just like me.

He had to be made the identical substitute for their sin. A righteous man could not die for my sin! God would have never killed Him. If He was a righteous man, no sin in Him, God would have been unjust to kill him.

It says, God somehow, took a being, who had never known sin before and actually made him to be sin.

On the cross, Christ actually became as sinful as I. Something He had never been, could not have become, and did not want to happen, and prayed for that it might let it pass, and yet became a reality IN HIS VERY BEING.

And somehow then, I’m made to understand, unthinkable thoughts, of how that his Son, purely, holy and righteous could be made as sinful as I.

And probably the most blasphemous quote:
You know, its no wonder that He prayed in the garden until His sweat literally became great clots, ugly clots of blood dripping to the ground. Because here was a being who had never known sin, he’d never thought a sinful thought, He never had a sinful desire, had never had an ill intention, had never had any sin come across His mind, His heart, His will, or His being. And yet He knew He was facing becoming just as sinful as His people. No wonder He prayed, ‘Lord couldn’t we do this some other way? Is there not some other arrangement that we can make (snicker)? I don’t mind the dying part, but Lord is there not some way that I could escape being made like THESE people. He prayed until He couldn’t pray anymore. He prayed until His sweat turned to blood because it was unfathomable to Him to think about becoming sinful in the place of His people.

These quotes by Mr. Daniels are revolting, disgusting, and ought to be condemned as false doctrine. It is flat out blasphemy. I don't care who said it; I would say the same thing if Mr. Fortner said them, if my friend Bob Higby said them or if Ken Wimer said them. I don't need to know who said them to know that they are blasphemous!

Yet a person whom I have admired for a long time defended Mark Daniels. He wrote the following:
They simply called a pastor who would not buckle under to their intimidation. Mark is a faithful man. I have known him for a long time. And I was present in Albany at Eager AV Church for a meeting just a few days before the Church removed him from the pulpit specifically for saying what the Word of God clearly says, that "he who knew no sin was made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." It is both unwise and contrary to everything taught in the Scriptures to make accusations against any man based upon the reports of others.

I agree with Don that it is unwise to make accusations against a man based on the reports of others. But now I have the full words of Mark Daniels sitting in front of me and they have been posted for the whole world to see. If these statements by him are not to be condemned and he as a preacher is endorsed, then what am I to think?

Look, I can overlook some errors of others. But there are two things I will not bend on. 1. The person and the work of Christ. 2. The Sovereignty of God. These two issues are absolutely essential for fellowship. I refuse to believe my Lord, my precious Savior became a sinner. I consider such a notion to be insulting, disgusting, and worthy of reproach against the one who spewed this crap!

But then, what do I know, I'm just a "novice" and a "conference freeloading internet Christian!"

Brandan

melted
08-10-05, 12:20 PM
If our sin is imparted to Christ, and His righteousness is imparted to us, then we have no more need of Christ! If I, as a regenerated child of God purchased by Christ, have obtained Christ's righteousness in me, then when I stand before Him at the throne of judgment I will declare "I AM RIGHTEOUS".

God forbid!

I will stand with my brethren on that wonderful day and declare that Christ is righteous, and I in Him.


If Christ were truly made to be sin; if Christ were made to have our sin nature upon the cross; if Christ were made to be a sinner on the cross. What turned Him back from being a sinner? By what means did He escape that which He was made to be? By the wrath of God? Does God's wrath change one, who was once a sinner, to be a sinner no longer? Did God crush Christ such that the sin was stamped out of Him and He could resume being our righteous, blameless lamb of God? Was it by an act of God the Father that the second Person of the Godhead was able to RESUME His position as GOD? Was it by wrath and suffering that Christ reclaimed His position of righteousness?

If we are saved by the grace of God in Christ - who saved Christ from His sin?

lionovjudah
08-10-05, 02:10 PM
More thoughts if I may.

Lamentations 5:7 Our fathers have sinned, [and are] not; and we have borne their iniquities.

Ezekiel 4:4 Lie thou also upon thy left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it: [according] to the number of the days that thou shalt lie upon it thou shalt bear their iniquity.

These people did not bear the guilt they were only suffering the results of their iniquities.

.H. Thayer opts for an alternate meaning, yet one still consistent with the sinless nature of the Lord. He saw the metonymy as a use of the “abstract for the concrete,” with the sense being: Though Jesus knew no sin, i.e., he was sinless, nonetheless God allowed him to be treated as if sinful

“Him [Christ] who knew no sin he [God] made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him” (2 Corinthians 5:21). The expression “made to be sin,” likely signifies, “made to be a sin-offering,” in harmony with the common Old Testament idiom.

I am not a language expert, but I have learned that these instances in Biblical Hermeneutics are called a "metonymy.”

In 2 Corinthians 5:21 the word “became”[sin] in the Greek is Metonym, means He became a sin offering, He did not become sin himself. He was made to be sin for us in a JUDICIAL sense. As a vicarious atonement; as a substitution He suffered in our place and took our penalty of judgment. In the Old Testament typology in the substitution motif, the priest would lay his hands on the offering to symbolize the transfer of his sin and guilt to the animal as a substitution (Leviticus 4:4, 24,33 also the scapegoat motif in chapter 16). The sacrificial animal did not become sin itself; sin was symbolically charged to it. If it became blemished, having sin, it was worthless. Jesus was the sin bearer; He carried it, He did not become it. To say such things goes against all the Bible teaches and distorts the act and the nature of the sinless Son of God.


I do nto see any way the Triune, immutible, omniscent impassible God head could be seperated during the most crucial hour.

To think the Trinity is eternal, and the Father could have left His Son at the most important time in His life is not supported at all.

My God My God.... why have you forsaken me?

Their is no possible way that Christ could have been caught off guard by what was happenining here. He could not have been in some weakened state of no hope. I believe the reason for these words is only to full fill the prophecy spoken about him from Psalm 22. Christ was ratifying He is the Messiah spoken of every time he quotes from the OT.


John 19:28-30
"After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.
Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.
When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

I dont know, but I cannot believe we can seperate God from Christ on the cross. That God incarnate was abandoned when he most needed it.

Yes their was some sort of forsaking, but it was because He paid the penalty of our sinsand a Holy God cannnot look at iniquity.

To be literally made sin in His flesh, and then have to be redeemed from this sin is a question I am not prepared or find any scriptural support to answer.

I will definately study this more.

Joe

Tobias Crisp
08-10-05, 02:21 PM
Larry,

I'm saddened that you seem to want to make this a personality issue. What matters most is what is being taught and not necessarily about Ken Wimer, Don Fortner or even Mark Daniel. The problem became apparent to me when several preachers were indicating that the imputation of the elect's sin to Christ was not enough, that it was something more than that. The same for righteousness, these preachers would rarely if ever mention the imputation of Christ's righteousness, instead a strong emphasis was made on the impartation/implantation of Christ's righteousness/holiness at regeneration. This impartation/implantation was said to be just as important if not more so than legal imputation. In fact some of them played down imputation as if it wasn't real.

It appears to me that the thought behind all of this is that 1) Christ being "literally" made sin is somehow more "real" than "mere" imputation and that 2) this is true "Baptist" theology in contrast to the inferior "Reformed" theologians Covenant Theology as expressed in it's view of imputation, especially that dreaded view of "active obedience". This isn't about true "Baptist" or "anabaptist" theology verses Reformed theology perse, it's about how one is made right with God, the very nature of the Work of Salvation. The very idea that Christ is made sin or the believer is made righteous by something other than imputation smacks of heresy.

These are fundamental issues, I don't care who it is that teaches it, it still still wrong, it is deadly error.


I said all that to say this. I am not giving this response to Kens machinations with any light consideration. His relentless attacks upon the gospel of Christ and those who preach it, his determined efforts to divide brethren, and his wilful, deliberately deceitful and often openly false slander of men who have done nothing but seek to assist him over the years, makes it obvious that his only goal is the same as that of Diotrephes, the promotion of Ken Wimer.I'm not here to necessarily defend Ken, I do not know him personally nor have we directly communicated with each other. But I would like to know how he has attacked the gospel of grace? Can you demonstrate his "false slander"?


Ken has credited Don with believing doctrines that he knows emphatically Don does not believe and has never preached. (I have been listening to Don preach for 26 years, and have read practically everything he has written or published.) Ken has had virtually no contact with Pastor Gene Harmon for years. Then so that Ken and Gene might “have fellowship in this glorious truth” (justification at the cross only),”. . .He emailed Gene “alarmed by a strong reaction by a number of preachers promoting 'Eternal Justification.” He then offered his "loving" declaration that Don and Todd Nibert do not believe the death of Christ was and is necessary to the salvation of God's elect. Do you think for a minute, that Ken thought he was telling the truth? It was a bald/bold-faced lieWhat you are saying above is all about personality and not about the issues. When Brandan posted the material from Ken it wasn't to bring up personality, nor to personally discredit either Mark or Don, but to bring out the issues being taught. It has been shown that Mark Daniel did claim that Christ became a sinner when he "was made sin" and that Don has defended his views.


Christ himself cries in Psalm 69&c, “Save me, O God! for the waters are come in unto my soul. I sink in deep mire where there is no standing. I am come into deep waters, where the floods overflow me. I am weary of my crying: my throat is dried: mine eyes fail while I wait for my God. They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, being mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored that which I took not away. O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee.” Do any of you have a problem with my sin becoming so much a part of Christ that he speaks of it being his very own. Does that sound like my sins was merely pasted on Him?

In Psalm 22&c Christ said “I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. LORD, rebuke me not in thy wrath: neither chasten me in thy hot displeasure.” Does that describe my sin as being merely draped over his body?

In Psalm 38&c Christ mourned “thine arrows stick fast in me, and thy hand presseth me sore. There is no soundness in my flesh because of thine anger; neither is there any rest in my bones because of my sin. For mine iniquities are gone over mine head: as an heavy burden they are too heavy for me. My wounds stink and are corrupt because of my foolishness. I am troubled; I am bowed down greatly; I go mourning all the day long. My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.”

Could some of you explain all those to me?Two things, 1) I'm always a little cautious about taking too literally some of the Old Testament statements about Christ because they are viewed from the perspective of "shadow" and not the substance/reality of the New Testament; 2) many of these statements can easily be understood as referring to imputation.


Concerning the current “controversy,” where have any of you, including Ken, found where Don or any of these other men have said that “Christ was made a sinner.” Ken has pulled the relevant citations from Marks messages stating specifically that Christ was a sinner and Don has only defended him.


The scriptures say that “Christ was made sin.” That is all these men have said. Nowhere have they tried to remove the mystery of that great transaction! The issue is what does this mean? How does Christ being made sin by imputation any inferior to your view of Christ being made sin by implantation/impartation? If you claim that a child of God is made righteous at regeneration because of the impartation/implantation of Christ's rightousness/holiness, then how is that any different than Christ being made a sinner through implantation?


I’ll tell you what I think. I think, It is the mystery of Godliness. It is one of the most assuring things of Christ in the Gospel All of that, that I might be made righteous. Now are we the Sons of God!!This is only done by imputation and not implantation/impartation. To say otherwise falls right into the hands of Catholicism. Unfortunately you and the others do not and refuse to not see this point.


If Christ being made sin is your issue, then put your fists in God’s face, not my pastor’s or the face of other faithful pastors.This is simply nonsense and an offense to myself, Brandan and others.


Do I support Mark in his belief that Christ was actually made a sinner at the cross? Well, . . . . . . I believe that “Christ was made sin.”Come now, do some real exegesis of the passage and not just quote the verse as if it's meaning is so obvious that context doesn't need to be consulted.


None of these men should be the subject, or inferred subjects, of “novices,” “internet christians,” and “conference freeloaders,” the majority of which know nothing of belonging to a local church, and have no firsthand knowledge of these minister’s work and ministry. They deserve our respect.First of all you presume to know things that you obviously don't and want to paint with a broad brush. Secondly, this is nothing more than the old clergy/laity nonsense that I rejected several years ago. Ministry is in the hands of the entire church, everyone is a minister. You again sound like a Catholic. You can have your hierarchical "ministry" of preacher popes, I for one will stick with the Word of God and will continue to meet with the people that God has sovereignly and graciously placed me with.


I am sincerely sorry that you will not be attending our conference this year. That is exactly what Ken was hoping. Another notch in his gun.

Larry BrownActually I brought these issues to the forum before Ken's emails got to most of the people who have read them here. See the following thread:

http://www.predestinarian.net/showthread.php?t=2176

I decided sometime back that I wasn't going because of these Biblical/theological issues.

L-Today
08-10-05, 05:34 PM
Brandan, Anthony, Mike, Joe, thank you, dear brothers, for standing firm in defense of the honor of our Lord Jesus Christ!

Christianity is about faithfulness to our God and our Savior and not about loyalty to our pastors no matter what heresies they preach. Haven't there been false preachers and teachers in the whole history of Christianity? Why do some people act as if their churches are exempt from falsehood?

Personal histories and who paid what to whom have nothing to do with this matter: was Christ literally made into sin? If yes, there is no Christianity, for sinful Savior is not a savior, and there is no God if God-Man was turned into sin. And whoever preaches, teaches and believes in this abomination are perverting and twisting the Scriptures concerning Triune God and the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. They are preaching another gospel and another christ, and we know what it means.

And who said that ALL Psalms are necessarily about Jesus Christ? I personally don't see them this way at all. Read all 150 of them and it will be obvious that they cannot be all about Christ. Some of them are about David's and other Psalm writers' trials and joys and all else. Where does the Bible say that every single Psalm is about Christ? And even the Messianic Psalms are often typical, pointing to the coming of our Redeemer as God's servant and of His suffering for His people's sins.

Ah, how frightening is the alacrity with which the adherents to this vile heresy are clinging on to it! Aren't these people TERRIFIED of the thought that they will have to face the very Judge Himself whom they slander so despicably!?

The more I think about this matter, the more I wonder: how is it possible to be a Christian while believing in this abomination? It is utterly beyond me and beyond all true Christians I know, of all denominations. I asked many, and they are all appalled and can hardly believe that such horrid rotten heresies exist.

Luba.

Larry Brown
08-10-05, 05:53 PM
Ok guys.

First off, I have read the transcriptions of Mark’s sermons. Great pain has been endured that Ken might justify himself before men. I assume they are accurate, but such was not the case when Ken requested permission to publish and then edited an article which Gene Harmon wrote. I see quotes lifted completely out of their context, which if read for what they say without the mind of a contentious lawyer are comforting to one who needs a great Savior.

I’m not assuming that I know anything. I am stating what I know and have neither the time nor the inclination to prove anything to any of you. This is the first time that I have ever involved myself in any thing which resembles a theological controversy or debate. I see now that it is as I have always thought. It accomplishes nothing.

Am I addressing personalities. If I did, I didn’t mean to. But, I am reminded of a church party which a friend attended one time. When he arrived, the pastor was not there nor was he invited because the host had a little rip going with him. My friend said, “Well, if my pastor wasn’t invited this I have no business being here.” Call it personalities if you will. My friend just knew his pastor as well as he knew the host.

I have no axe to grind concerning a clergy/laity scheme. Call me what your will, Catholic or Baptist, I was merely expressing my respect for the men who have been appointed of God to spend their life in the word studying to comfort God’s people as Isaiah commanded. Thank God he has made that provision for us who must spend all of our time striving with family and work in this world. In comforting us, I am confident that God will use the foolishness of that preaching to save others. I am convinced that it will not be debates over whether we are all ministers or not.

What I read on this site is totally devoid of any heart or desire to comfort or be an assurance to God’s people. Everything is either black or white. When I said, “Christ was made sin,” one has chided me to “come now, do some real exegesis here.” Exegesis? let me see now. Does that mean that I am supposed to explain by some human logic such a great mystery of God?

Exegesis of Christ made sin? = Maybe an old friend named Scott Richardson can help us out. When Christ made the water wine at the marriage feast, did he just make the water look like wine? Or did he just make the water grapejuice? Or . . . was it made wine? I can tell you that it was made wine. You know how I know it was? Because they had all “well drunk” and were amazed that the best of the wine had been saved till the last when usually no one would notice the difference. How’s that for exegesis? Not so logical or reasonable but true none-the-less.

Exegesis of Christ made sin? = I credit Scott again. When God became a man or “the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us,” was he really made flesh? Or, did he just cover himself with silly puddy or something that looked like flesh, camouflage so-to-speak. I can tell you that God was made flesh. Not so logical or reasonable sensually or scripturally, but true none-the-less.

The Scripture says that “Christ was made sin.” To deny it is anti-Christ. To deny it is to deny the glory in our salvation due only to him. Kick at it and wrestle with it all you want, but if Christ was made sin, God was justified in forsaking him. If God was justified in the death of his Son, it means that he is just in justifying me. This criminal died in Christ because He was made to be what I am. If He was not made sin, then God killed an innocent , and I am still in my sin.
But, that is not the case. He was made sin. The issue is not what “that” means. The issue is what think ye of Christ? He was made sin. Does that make your skin crawl? It does mine. I almost freeze midbreath when I read where He cries in Psalm 69 & 38, of “my foolishness” “my sins,” “mine iniquities,” My wounds,” “my foolishness.” Call it a shadow if you want, but what that means to me is that:

Christ took my sins and my sorrows,
and made them his very own.
He bore my burden at Calvary
and suffered and died alone.

And that means they are gone. He made them His own, and this time the sacrifice consumed the fire walking out the other side. They are gone . . .forever. Never to be remembered. Why won’t they ever be remembered? God’s memory is better than ours isn’t it? I tell you why, Because God cannot call to remembrance something which no longer exists. I’m free.

I notice that one has even denied that all of the Psalms even speak of Christ. God help him. Christ said “Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.”

Guys, it has not taken me long to discover that there is nothing in this harange called a forum which follows after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. You will not be hearing from me again. I will be slipping back into anonymity as best I can.

But this I confess . . . , that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets.

Larry Brown

L-Today
08-10-05, 06:08 PM
Soon enough, Larry Brown, we are going to stand before God when all shall be revealed.

Luba.

Tobias Crisp
08-10-05, 06:26 PM
I am disappointed that just as quick as Mr. Brown jumps in he makes a few jabs, gets challenged and then wants to silently bail out. Unfortunately this is pretty typical of these preachers and their followers, just make statements and accept what they say and don't challenge them, if you do, then you are just ignorant. I would have liked to correspond with him more on these issues, but alas, he doesn't want discussion, he just wants to sit and let a preacher tell him what to believe.

L-Today
08-11-05, 03:51 AM
Anthony, how right you are! That is the typical tactics of the false prophets - jab and run, insulting the opposition on their cowardly way out.

It is, of course, because God's Truth is obvious and clear to those who have ears to hear and eyes to see, but if the exchange went on for longer, their evil slandering of our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ would have been exposed even more for the whole world to see. So it is natural for them after jabbing to retreat quickly back to their ''loyal'' circles where all nod in agreement while God Himself is presented as evil.

Luba.

Brandan
08-11-05, 06:05 AM
Guys, it has not taken me long to discover that there is nothing in this harange called a forum which follows after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another. You will not be hearing from me again. I will be slipping back into anonymity as best I can. I have a name for people like you! You're a "hit and run" poster! I've seen it many times.

Anyway, it's a shame that you take this route as opposed to actually discussing the issue. I'm forced to believe Anthony's assumptions about you.

Brandan

melted
08-11-05, 07:22 AM
Here are some choice excerpts from a sermon from my pastor:

Jesus Christ who knew no sin was made sin for the elect who did not know the righteousness of God. This was in order that the elect might be made righteous in Him. The term “made sin” is viewed in the abstract (conceived apart from reality) rather than the concrete. The Christ who “knew no sin” was the Person who became a representative of sin. Who made Christ to be sin or a sin offering? Isaiah gives the answer—“But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand” (Is. 53:10 NASB). Peter’s famous sermon on the day of Pentecost states, “Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:36 NASB). The verb “has made” is poieo, meaning to make, accomplish, perform, declare, or appoint. Christ was appointed by the Father to suffer as a sinner, even though He was absolutely perfect. Imputation does not mean transference of character. Therefore, the Father made Christ to be sin for the elect not by perpetration (to commit a crime), but by imputation (placed on Christ’s account). Jesus Christ became the sin offering on behalf of the elect of God (I Pet. 2:24; Is. 53:6; II Cor. 5:21). That took place at Christ’s first coming. Christ’s second coming will be without a sin offering. “So Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him” (Heb. 9:28 NASB). This verse means without any reference to judgment for sin for the elect. Sin was judged for the sheep at Calvary. Christ’s second coming will not be related to His work of redemption at Calvary, but it will be for the consummation of what He began at His first coming.

What does it mean for the absolutely holy Christ to be made sin? It means that the eternal Son of God was appointed by the Father to bear sin’s penalty on behalf of His chosen ones. “And He Himself bore [anaphero, to bring or take up] our sins in His body on the cross [xulon, tree or cross], that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls” (I Pet. 2:24, 25 NASB).

How did Paul guard against the idea that Christ was made a sinner? In II Corinthians 5:21, the apostle added, “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin…” (NASB). James said, “…God cannot be tempted by evil…” (James 1:13 NASB). Christ said to the Jews who were unable to answer His questions, “Which one of you convicts Me of sin? If I speak truth, why do you not believe Me? He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God. The Jews answered and said to Him, Do we not say rightly that You are a Samaritan and have a demon?” (John 8:46-48 NASB). The verb elegcho means to convict, convince, or prove guilty. The word means more than to be accused of sin. It is not who of you convicts Christ of “sinning,” but who of you convicts Him of “sin”? The inherent purity of Christ could not be disproved by perjured witnesses to the satisfaction of a prejudiced court. Therefore, the Christian does not demand further documentary evidence of a truth so explicitly stated and so implicitly believed. The One who knew not sin became a representative of imputed sin on behalf of the elect.

What is the difference between poieo and ginomai in II Corinthians 5:21? The verb poieo is used several ways in the New Testament—make, cause, perform, provide, and appoint. The verb ginomai is translated become, be, come into being, and enter a new mode of existing. In II Corinthians 5:21, Christ was “appointed” a sin offering on behalf of the elect. This was in order that the elect may become—enter a new mode of existing—the righteousness of God in Jesus Christ. The elect becoming righteous in Christ cannot be God’s inherent righteousness. The righteousness which we obtain through grace even when perfected in heaven is similar to, but not identical with, God’s inherent righteousness. One is the unaltered character of God, but the other is the communicated character by the Spirit to the chosen in Christ.

Preached by W. E. Best on Jan 5th 2003
http://www.kaoc.org/Sermons/2003-01-05%20What%20Is%20Imputation--Part%202.htm

Brandan
08-11-05, 07:48 AM
This issue has brought about a separation. Ian Potts says those who do not hold to his understanding that Christ was a sinner on the cross believe a false Gospel. I can no longer have fellowship with him, and I do not consider him to be a brother in the Gospel of Grace. Anyone who believes Christ was a sinner must be rejected.

The line in the sand has been drawn. Where do you stand?



Brandan,

I am truly saddened to see your latest thread on 'made sin' and your awful accusations against many faithful brethren and preachers of the Gospel whom you previously claimed to be in agreement with. What a downgrade I have witnessed on 5Solas!

You wrote to Larry Brown:

"I have a name for people like you! You're a "hit and run" poster! I've seen it many times.

Anyway, it's a shame that you take this route as opposed to actually discussing the issue. I'm forced to believe Anthony's assumptions about you.

Brandan"

That's a nice, gracious, way to attack Larry. I thought you folks didn't like personal attacks? Luba's recent posts are full of them, as was Anthony's here.

I don't blame Larry one iota for leaving. The thread already set out to declare our beliefs as 'heresy' and 'blasphemy' and all the prior posts to Larry's heaped scorn on his and Fortner’s beliefs. Larry posted in defence of Fortner but I see no reason for him to persist in 'discussion' with such a hostile audience. Would you? The thread is massively one-sided in a very scornful manner. Do you really think anyone would be inclined to ‘politely discuss’ the issues with you in that sort of environment? I’m surprised Larry even bothered posting in the first place, but glad he did because someone should counter your false claims of heresy and personally I’ve said enough already in other threads and be duly dismissed for standing up for the truth.

Anthony claims to want to discuss the issues.

Well, in Anthony's previous thread I posted several times. Did I 'hit and run'? It's true that I said several times over that I lacked the time to discuss in depth, which I did, but because of questions I did my best to answer them all. Did I 'leave' the thread? No, you closed it…

So... now, apparently you all want to 'discuss' the issue, do you? Really? Or do you just want to expose what folk like Larry and Fortner say as being 'heresy'?

You, Luba, Anthony, Wimer, and others err greatly. You've picked the wrong men to condemn as teaching heresy. The wrong men Brandan.

I came to 5Solas originally because I thought you held to 'Sovereign Grace'. You professed a liking for Don Fortner and similar teachers and the Gospel they teach. I agree with them and their preaching, hence I thought you and I had some agreement.

I have since found that you don't agree with them, at least not on this vital subject, and I leave your board, condemned as a heretic for no other reason than that I continue to teach the very same truths which I believed before I ever first posted here. I haven’t changed. If you look back through my earlier posts you'll probably find myself making references to Christ being made sin.

Don has held these truths for 30 years. So have most of his fellow preachers (Bell, Nibert, Mahan etc.). There is nothing 'new' here. It is the Gospel as revealed in the scriptures. Every true Gospel preacher alive today whose preaching I have found to come across in power and in much assurance and in the Holy Ghost, as opposed to in word only, has held these truths. Fortner, Mahan, John Metcalfe and others. They are men of God.

But frankly it doesn’t matter what Fortner says, or what Daniel says, or what Ian Potts says. We’re all nothing. But it does matter what Christ says, what scripture says, what the truth is. THAT is what you have heard from myself and these other Sovereign Grace preachers. The Truth.

You have rejected a clear and faithful testimony. You have condemned the truth as it is in Jesus Christ as being 'heresy' and vile.

You stand in unbelief and in absolute rejection of Christ and His Gospel. And you have rejected that truth in public.

May God judge between us.

And may God honour, bless, and vindicate the one true Gospel as preached by His apostles, and all those preachers whom he has sent to the church through the ages, who like their Master and the prophets before Him are persecuted, despised and rejected.

Let me repeat one thing. NO ONE, not even Mark Daniel when he used the phrase that Christ was 'made a sinner' has implied or said that CHRIST HIMSELF SINNED. If so, THAT would be heresy. But none of us said that. You might 'read it in' to those words but that isn't what Mark meant. All Mark meant was that God caused Christ to exchange places with His people and made Him to be sin - their sin. Hence He was full of their sin, and hence in Mark's words 'a sinner'. But Mark did not mean that Christ was a sinner because He sinned Himself. And Mark made that clear in that sermon, if you’d bother to post those extracts and not just your ‘choice’ bits.

But why was Christ made sin? To judge it and destroy it, to blot it out.

Read Galatians 2:20. I AM CRUCIFIED WITH CHRIST.

The whole point is our UNION with Christ. We become the righteousness of God in Him, not simply by imputation but by union, because we are IN HIM, and He is IN US. It is this reality of Christ indwelling the believer by His Spirit following regeneration which Mark Daniels was trying to describe when he preached about righteousness being imparted. Our righteousness is Christ, but that righteousness isn’t merely imputed, Christ dwells within the believer. Does He not Brandan?

Now, if we became united to Christ at His death (which we did, Galatians 2:20), if we were 'in Him' there, then our sin was in Him. We became one, united. So God destroyed that sin, He slew Christ and He slew me in Him. “I am crucified with Christ”. If we were united in that death, if I really died in Him, then all that I am was in Him – all my sinful nature. To deny that is to deny the fact that we died together which is clearly taught in many places such as Gal 2:20 and Romans 6. For it was my flesh, the body of sin, which was crucified with Christ – Romans 6:6.

When Christ was ‘made sin’ it was because of this being united to His bride. If they became one in death then all that she is, He became. Why? In order to blot out her transgressions and purify her whiter than snow.

Gary Shephard has a good article called “Christ the Savior of Sinners” which is on the from page of www.donfortner.com (http://www.donfortner.com/). Go read it. It makes the same point about Christ’s death that I have. God cannot die, but Christ died. How? In His human nature. God cannot be made sin, but Christ was made sin. How? In His human nature.

Reject the truth of Christ being made sin and you also reject the truth that Christ died. That is where your logic gets you. A complete denial of the Gospel.

The fact is, despite what Luba claims, that we DO have a mighty Saviour - Christ our Lord – and God whom we worship and adore because of His wonderful redemption. If you reject what He did to save sinners by destroying sin in the flesh of Christ upon the cross then YOU DON’T have a Saviour.

Luba is right. We believe different Gospels. But my gospel is the Gospel of Christ as revealed in His word. If you continue to reject these truths as ‘heresy’ then truly you follow another gospel.

I'm sad to write all this to you. I'm sad to see you come to the point of calling these things heresy. I am for peace, but alas, when I speak, it seems you are for war. Psalm 120.

In Christ,
Ian

“I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.”

Ian specifically defended the comments of Mark Daniel. He thinks Christ is a sinner. I am apalled and disgusted at Ian's comments. He is worthy of scorn and shame. I hope for his sake that he repents of this evil doctrine. I posted all of Mark's sermon. It says Christ was a sinner. Whether he committed these sins or not, it does not matter. Evil has been attributed to my precious Saviour's name.

Nothing has been left out. All has been revealed. All the comments and thoughts of these men has been put on public display. The sermon of Mark Daniel has been made public thanks to Ken Wimer who took the time to transcribe it. Read it and come to the conclusions on your own.

If you believe Christ was a sinner, you will not be welcome with brotherly love at this site. You will not be welcomed with brotherly love in our homes, and you will not be welomed with brotherly love in our hearts.

If you believe Christ was a sinner, then you believe a different god than me!

The line in the sand has been drawn. Where do you stand?

Brandan

Ivor Thomas
08-11-05, 08:57 AM
Brandan for some time The Lord has been opening my eyes to the way you surround yourself with Notionalist, you are a Notionalist Brandon and you are being drawn further in, you have not got a vague idea about Experimental Christianity, you bring your own ideas and discard scripture and dont we see it plainly here, He Hath Made Him sin,THE Word has written, but you would even dare speak scornfully of some of the finest Saints in our day, one of your moderators even says she cant see Christ in the PSALMS, DOESNT THIS RING ANY BELLS with you,She will answer to God for the Vitriol of her posts. Has for me I stand with my Brother Ian Potts and Fortner, Mahan,etc, who you already knew believed this Truth, Brandon if Christ was not made sin for you and the others who agree with you,then you are still in your sin. Ivor Thomas...

Brandan
08-11-05, 09:00 AM
Great way to skirt the issue Ivor. DO you believe Christ was a sinner? I hope not, for your sake!

Ivor Thomas
08-11-05, 09:05 AM
Great way to skirt the issue Ivor. DO you believe Christ was a sinner? I hope not, for your sake! Tell me what I have skirted please, and tell me how you think God veiwed and acted toward Jesus when He hung on the cross, and dont you skirt it..Ivor

lionovjudah
08-11-05, 09:08 AM
What is a notionalist? I am telling you, since coming to 5 solas, my list of labels is HUGE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ivor, one quick question.

You stress that you are LITERALLY reading made sin to mean EXACTLY that. Does this also mean that Christ was made out of wood because He said is is the door? Or literally made out of iron because He is the gate?

Of course I am being sarcastic, but what method do you use to determine if a word is to be taken 100% literally, or a metonomy or symbolic?

Tobias Crisp
08-11-05, 09:14 AM
Brandan for some time The Lord has been opening my eyes to the way you surround yourself with Notionalist, you are a Notionalist Brandon and you are being drawn further in, you have not got a vague idea about Experimental ChristianityIvor, I'll let Brandan answer for himself. But my question is what do you mean by "notionalist"? and how is this different from "experimental Christianity"? how do you define "experimental Christianity"? Please don't assume these are self-evident ideas that any moron should understand.


one of your moderators even says she cant see Christ in the PSALMS, DOESNT THIS RING ANY BELLS with you,She will answer to God for the Vitriol of her posts.This is just arrogance on your part. Not everyone has come to understand the relationship between the old and new testament and what parts of the OT directly speak of Christ and what speaks of him through types and shadows. And not every verse in the OT was meant to speak of or picture Christ. For example in Isaiah there are several prophecies of coming judgment against several nations (Assyria for example) that took place within the time of the OT, how do these speak of Christ? That is, without allegorizing them. Besides, she didn't say that Christ couldn't be seen in the Psalms, she mentioned "some" you insinuate "all".


Brandon if Christ was not made sin for you and the others who agree with you,then you are still in your sin.Brandan, myself, Luba and others on this forum who disagree with you DO believe that Christ was made sin for us. If he wasn't then yes, we would still be in our sins. The issue is HOW was He made sin. We believe as Paul thoroughly exponded in several passages that this was by IMPUTATION. But, it seems that you only see imputation as "mere" only secondary to impartation/implantation through union and regeneration.

Brandan
08-11-05, 09:15 AM
I believe that Christ suffered under the weight of the sins of His people. He suffered and took a penalty that was of infinite worth to the Father. They were done away with on the cross. The Father was always pleased with His Son and always loved Him. But the Father did not infuse sins into Christ's person which has been proposed by Ian Potts, Mark Daniel, and others. Christ did not hang on the cross as a vile sinner, but He hung on the cross as the glorious and spotless lamb of God. This is essential to understand. The passage in 2 Corinthians (http://bible.5solas.org/bible.php?view=1&version=kjv&book=47&chapter=5&verse1=21&verse2=&ascdesc=&abrv=1&strip=0&converge=0&footnotes=0&createchaps=1&compare=0&andor=0&restrict=&startbook=&endbook=&references=&highlight=1&chaplinks=1&remove=) which says he was "made sin" only implies that the sins of His people were imputed to him as John Gill says! They were charged to His account. But He did not commit them, and they were not transfused into his personhood!

Ivor Thomas
08-11-05, 09:19 AM
What is a notionalist? I am telling you, since coming to 5 solas, my list of labels is HUGE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ivor, one quick question.

You stress that you are LITERALLY reading made sin to mean EXACTLY that. Does this also mean that Christ was made out of wood because He said is is the door? Or literally made out of iron because He is the gate?

Of course I am being sarcastic, but what method do you use to determine if a word is to be taken 100% literally, or a metonomy or symbolic? IS YOUR SIN REAL, IS THE SAVIOUR REAL , DID HE COME TO SAVE YOU FROM REAL SIN, YES-YES-YES, the cross was made out of wood Joe , are you just a notionalist Joe or are you a living new Creation in Christ, do you hear His voice or is it just read words, I HOPE He his a Real Saviour to you Joe.. Ivor

lionovjudah
08-11-05, 09:28 AM
IS YOUR SIN REAL, IS THE SAVIOUR REAL , DID HE COME TO SAVE YOU FROM REAL SIN, YES-YES-YES, the cross was made out of wood Joe , are you just a notionalist Joe or are you a living new Creation in Christ, do you hear His voice or is it just read words, I HOPE He his a Real Saviour to you Joe.. Ivor

I still dont know what a notionalist is Ivor, so I cannot comment.

But I will tell you that it is easier for me to understand John Lennons words for "I am the Walrus" than your answer to my question here.

I am he as you are he as you are me
and we are all together
See how they run like pigs from a gun
see how they fly
I'm crying
Sitting on a cornflake
Waiting for the van to come
Corporation T-shirt, stupid bloody Tuesday
Man you've been a naughty boy
you let your face grow long

I am the eggman
they are the eggmen
I am the walrus
Goo goo g' joob


Please be more clear than this Ivor...

Joe

Ivor Thomas
08-11-05, 09:41 AM
I believe that Christ suffered under the weight of the sins of His people. He suffered and took a penalty that was of infinite worth to the Father. They were done away with on the cross. The Father was always pleased with His Son and always loved Him. But the Father did not infuse sins into Christ's person which has been proposed by Ian Potts, Mark Daniel, and others. Christ did not hang on the cross as a vile sinner, but He hung on the cross as the glorious and spotless lamb of God. This is essential to understand. The passage in 2 Corinthians (http://bible.5solas.org/bible.php?view=1&version=kjv&book=47&chapter=5&verse1=21&verse2=&ascdesc=&abrv=1&strip=0&converge=0&footnotes=0&createchaps=1&compare=0&andor=0&restrict=&startbook=&endbook=&references=&highlight=1&chaplinks=1&remove=) which says he was "made sin" only implies that the sins of His people were imputed to him as John Gill says! They were charged to His account. But He did not commit them, and they were not transfused into his personhood!Brandon He hung on the cross accursed for us, the Father turned His Face from Him, all that we deserved was poured out on Him, this really happened it was not some symbolic thing,In His body CHRIST took our sin in His perfect human nature down into death, has the PERSON of THE SON OF GOD He never sinned He cannot sin, but has it was written a Body was prepared for HIM, Which He laid down for sinners, the body which was made sin, which carried our sin down to death,. Ivor

Tobias Crisp
08-11-05, 09:55 AM
Brandon He hung on the cross accursed for us, the Father turned His Face from Him, all that we deserved was poured out on Him, this really happened it was not some symbolic thing,In His body CHRIST took our sin in His perfect human nature down into death, has the PERSON of THE SON OF GOD He never sinned He cannot sin, but has it was written a Body was prepared for HIM, Which He laid down for sinners, the body which was made sin, which carried our sin down to death,. IvorIvor, what you have written is exactly what we believe. The problem is that you do not take imputation seriously, you believe it's only make believe, not real, only symbolic, but this is not the case. Imputation is very REAL. The arguments being used against imputation are the very ones that RCC used against the Reformers: imputation was legal fiction, you need Christ's righteousness implanted.

Ivor Thomas
08-11-05, 10:14 AM
Ivor, what you have written is exactly what we believe. The problem is that you do not take imputation seriously, you believe it's only make believe, not real, only symbolic, but this is not the case. Imputation is very REAL. The arguments being used against imputation are the very ones that RCC used against the Reformers: imputation was legal fiction, you need Christ's righteousness implanted. Your last words here are the point, my sin was exchanged in Christ at the cross, in away only known to God, but told to us like this He was made sin, Imputation in the way you say it and hold to it is legal fiction, and you will find, that there are many former Saints of God that hold to made sin the same way I do, Robert Hawker for just one. and even he has been maligned here.. Ivor...

Tobias Crisp
08-11-05, 11:21 AM
Your last words here are the point, my sin was exchanged in Christ at the cross, in away only known to God, but told to us like this He was made sin, Imputation in the way you say it and hold to it is legal fictionIf imputation in the way that I explained it is legal fiction, then pray tell me, what type of imputation is not? My hope is in justification by the imputation of Christ's righteousness, that is enough for me, that was enough for Paul. It is apparent that the basis for our justification is different, yours is based in the implantation of Christ's holiness in the believer at regeneration, so that is where your hope lies. It is something done in the believer. My hope is in Christ, in what he did outside of me. The pure righteousness is always an alien righteousness, it is never mine except by God's accounting, God's imputation. My righteousness is nothing, Christ's is all.

So, we now see where each of us base our hope.

lionovjudah
08-11-05, 11:37 AM
If imputation in the way that I explained it is legal fiction, then pray tell me, what type of imputation is not? My hope is in justification by the imputation of Christ's righteousness, that is enough for me, that was enough for Paul. It is apparent that the basis for our justification is different, yours is based in the implantation of Christ's holiness in the believer at regeneration, so that is where your hope lies. It is something done in the believer. My hope is in Christ, in what he did outside of me. The pure righteousness is always an alien righteousness, it is never mine except by God's accounting, God's imputation. My righteousness is nothing, Christ's is all.

So, we now see where each of us base our hope.

I am still not clear on the differemnce/distinction between imputed vs imparted. Can you please offer a laymans understanding example.

Does imputation mean our righteoussness is not actually ours, but Christs? So when God looks at His elect, He actually sees Christ and not the believer?

And does imparted mean that we actually become righteous ourselves as a transformed person because of Christ? So when God looks at these, He sees the actual person as being righteous?



Was Adams condemnation/sin, imputed or imparted to his posterity?


Does Scripture allow both to be part of the believer this side of the grave?

Imputed for justification, imparted for sanctification?

Jeremiah 31:33-34 "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”"

2 Corinthians 3:18 "And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit."

the 2 Cor scripture appears to point to this.

All this is done by the power of the Holy Spirit working in the believer.

Ivor Thomas
08-11-05, 11:59 AM
If imputation in the way that I explained it is legal fiction, then pray tell me, what type of imputation is not? My hope is in justification by the imputation of Christ's righteousness, that is enough for me, that was enough for Paul. It is apparent that the basis for our justification is different, yours is based in the implantation of Christ's holiness in the believer at regeneration, so that is where your hope lies. It is something done in the believer. My hope is in Christ, in what he did outside of me. The pure righteousness is always an alien righteousness, it is never mine except by God's accounting, God's imputation. My righteousness is nothing, Christ's is all.

So, we now see where each of us base our hope. No we dont see you turned this around I believe in Imputed Righteousness that makes me just, The Imputed sin at the cross is what i was refering too as a fiction, the Bible does not use the word Impute here,made sin in no way fits the meaning of Imputed, and Bore our sin in his body on the tree, how do you explain IN HIS BODY??. Ivor....

lionovjudah
08-11-05, 12:06 PM
No we dont see you turned this around I believe in Imputed Righteousness that makes me just, The Imputed sin at the cross is what i was refering too as a fiction, the Bible does not use the word Impute here,made sin in no way fits the meaning of Imputed, and Bore our sin in his body on the tree, how do you explain IN HIS BODY??. Ivor....

I do not believe Peter could have meant Christ actually became a sinner, or literal sin because in the same book, 1:19, he speaks of Christ as the Lamb without blemish.

May I also add the Luther believed this also;

“that Christ should become the greatest transgressor, murderer, adulterer, thief, rebel, and blasphemer, that ever was or could be in the world.” He alleged that the Lord lost his innocence at Calvary, and died as a sinful being (Luther on Galatians, Chapter 3:13



I will have to read more to see if this statement needs clarification from Luther himself.

I believe Charles, WB has Luhers works, perhaps he can shed some light on this.

Tobias Crisp
08-11-05, 12:06 PM
I am still not clear on the differemnce/distinction between imputed vs imparted. Can you please offer a laymans understanding example.In essence to impart/implant sin or righteousness into someone means that it becomes a part of them so that in the case of Christ having sin impart/implanted means that he takes on the nature of sin, he becomes a sinner (even if he doesn't actually do any sinning Himself). In the case of the believer having righteousness imparted/implanted into them means that take on the nature of being righteous, they are in fact righteous in themselves. On the other hand imputation means they legally are accounted by God either as a sinner or as righteousness. They are not righteous in themselves but are accounted, declared, or imputed with righteousness.


Does imputation mean our righteoussness is not actually ours, but Christs? So when God looks at His elect, He actually sees Christ and not the believer?Correct, righteousness is not ours, it's always Christ's. It's not so much that when the Father looks at us he only sees His son, but when He looks upon the elect He looks upon them as righteous because of His Son.


And does imparted mean that we actually become righteous ourselvesCorrect.


as a transformed person because of Christ? So when God looks at these, He sees the actual person as being righteous?I don't think Ian, Ivor and others would say its a "transformation" but yes in essence it means that the elect would actually be righteousness in themselves. For example Todd Nibert takes Revelation 7:14 where it talks about the believer's robes being washed in the blood of the lamb as being the believer's own righteousness (robes of righteousness?) that they receive at regeneration through implantation. I can only see the believer's robes as being Christ's righteousness that was imputed to them.


Was Adams condemnation/sin, imputed or imparted to his posterity?This is also an important issue that hasn't been mentioned in this discussion. They (Fortner and others) would emphasize the impartation/implantation of Adam's sin to his posterity over the imputation. Whereas I would say that imputation of Adam's sin is what's in focus.


Does Scripture allow both to be part of the believer this side of the grave?I deny that this is so. Others would say that both impartation/implantation and imputation (if they even hold to it) are equally important. Some would go further and say that implantation is more important or even primary.


Imputed for justification, imparted for sanctification?I have no problem with this as the principle of sanctification/holiness is indeed implanted in the believer at regeneration, but we deny that this is righteousness.

Tobias Crisp
08-11-05, 12:13 PM
No we dont see you turned this around I believe in Imputed Righteousness that makes me justIf you then believe that imputed righteousness makes you just, then why is it so hard to believe that imputation "made Christ sin"??


The Imputed sin at the cross is what i was refering too as a fiction, the Bible does not use the word Impute here,made sin in no way fits the meaning of Imputed, and Bore our sin in his body on the tree, how do you explain IN HIS BODY??. Ivor....Ivor you are begging the question. In the context of 1 Cor. 5:18-21 imputation is there, Christ being "made sin" is contrasted with beleivers receiving the "non-imputation of sin". Can you see it? The elect did not get sin imputed to them because it was imputed to Christ. Sin and righteousness are contrasted in that passage just as they are in Romans 5 and both are by imputation.

cih92
08-11-05, 12:18 PM
I am still not clear on the differemnce/distinction between imputed vs imparted. Can you please offer a laymans understanding example.

Does imputation mean our righteoussness is not actually ours, but Christs? So when God looks at His elect, He actually sees Christ and not the believer?

And does imparted mean that we actually become righteous ourselves as a transformed person because of Christ? So when God looks at these, He sees the actual person as being righteous?



Was Adams condemnation/sin, imputed or imparted to his posterity?

To be imputed with the righteousness of Christ means to be counted as righteous even though you do not have your own righteousness. When Christ's righteousness is credited to our account, we are counted as righteous. Paul says in Phil. 3:9 that we do not have a righteousness of our own. Believers have a right standing before God because someone else's (Jesus Christ) righteousness has been credited to their account. Roman Catholics think that this is legal fiction because they believe that one is justified on the basis of your own obedience or changed life. They deny that God justifies His elect on the basis of another person's righteousness.

An imparted righteousness has to do with your transformed life that Christ gave you. An imparted righteousness cannot be the basis on which a person has a right standing before God because we still sin and we deserve to be condemned.

lionovjudah
08-11-05, 12:21 PM
To be imputed with the righteousness of Christ means to be counted as righteous even though you do not have your own righteousness. When Christ's righteousness is credited to our account, we are counted as righteous. Paul says in Phil. 3:9 that we do not have a righteousness of our own. Believers have a right standing before God because someone else's (Jesus Christ) righteousness has been credited to their account. Roman Catholics think that this is legal fiction because they believe that one is justified on the basis of your own obedience or changed life. They deny that God justifies His elect on the basis of another person's righteousness.

An imparted righteousness has to do with your transformed life that Christ gave you. An imparted righteousness cannot be the basis on which a person has a right standing before God because we still sin and we deserve to be condemned.


I do not know if the RCC actually believe what you say. Dont both parties confess that whether imputed or imparted, it is all done by Christ? Where imputed remains Christs, but imparted actually becomes ours literally ? I have yet to see ANYONE claim this righteoussness is within ourselves and manifested by the man alone.

lionovjudah
08-11-05, 12:23 PM
I have no problem with this as the principle of sanctification/holiness is indeed implanted in the believer at regeneration, but we deny that this is righteousness.

The irony, is this is what Wesley proposed in some degree!!!!!!

Imputation for justification, Impartation for sanctification. OHHHHHHHH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!


I will read more Tobias before I am labeled a Wesleyan!!!!!!!

Tobias Crisp
08-11-05, 12:32 PM
The irony, is this is what Wesley proposed in some degree!!!!!!

Imputation for justification, Impartation for sanctification. OHHHHHHHH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!


I will read more Tobias before I am labeled a Wesleyan!!!!!!!Joe, there is a fundamental difference between what I, Brandan, and even Fortner believe and what Wesley taught. He taught that entire sanctification was a practical reality in the believer's life, that in essence a believer could go throughout their life with very little if any sin. What I believe is that sanctification is positional and relates to our state before God and is very closely related to justification. See the recent thread on Sanctification where I posted links to several articles on this issue. Here's a link to the post:

http://www.predestinarian.net/showpost.php?p=35221&postcount=5

Ivor Thomas
08-11-05, 12:33 PM
Anthony Whats this you have no problem with Holiness being inplanted at Regeneration, well now let me see Inplanted is the term you used, I say you would not disagree with Inplanted meaning Imparted or Infused, but you cannot stretch Inplanted to mean Imputed, Imputed does not mean Made sin, I rest my case in His Body He took my sin. Ivor..

cih92
08-11-05, 12:34 PM
I do not know if the RCC actually believe what you say. Dont both parties confess that whether imputed or imparted, it is all done by Christ? Where imputed remains Christs, but imparted actually becomes ours literally ? I have yet to see ANYONE claim this righteoussness is within ourselves and manifested by the man alone.

The RCC teaches that one's good works can increase or preserve the justification that one has received from God. Moreover, the RCC teaches that as long as Christ causes you to do good works, those good works are part of the basis upon which God justifies you. Hence, according to Rome, justification is partially merited by us.

I stand corrected. A life transformed by Christ should not be called an imparted righteousness.

Tobias Crisp
08-11-05, 12:40 PM
Anthony Whats this you have no problem with Holiness being inplanted at Regeneration, well now let me see Inplanted is the term you used, I say you would not disagree with Inplanted meaning Imparted or Infused, but you cannot stretch Inplanted to mean Imputed, Imputed does not mean Made sin, I rest my case in His Body He took my sin. Ivor..There is a fundamental difference between sanctification and justification, although closely related. I do not believe in progressive sanctification, I believe it is positional, referring to one's state. This doesn't justify what you believe or claim regarding the nature of sin being imputed to Christ. If you are resting your case on the arguments you have made then it would appear that the jury will not side with you. :D

Brandan
08-11-05, 01:05 PM
I actually believe in positional sanctification from eternity and at the cross. At regenerate, we are set apart experimentally, that is we have been given the gift of faith and the Holy Spirit resides in us epistemologically.

Tobias Crisp
08-11-05, 01:25 PM
I actually believe in positional sanctification from eternity and at the cross. At regenerate, we are set apart experimentally, that is we have been given the gift of faith and the Holy Spirit resides in us epistemologically.Brandan, I agree with you on the issue of positional verses progressive sanctification. Maybe I was too quick to through out the word implantation of holiness/sanctification before I have thought through these issues more thoroughly. I think Bill Parker may have used the term "implantation" in reference to sancification at regeneration. Either way, I think we agree more than we disagree on the subject and Ivor had no foundation to justify his theology because I used that term.

lionovjudah
08-11-05, 01:40 PM
Joe, there is a fundamental difference between what I, Brandan, and even Fortner believe and what Wesley taught. He taught that entire sanctification was a practical reality in the believer's life, that in essence a believer could go throughout their life with very little if any sin. What I believe is that sanctification is positional and relates to our state before God and is very closely related to justification. See the recent thread on Sanctification where I posted links to several articles on this issue. Here's a link to the post:

http://www.predestinarian.net/showpost.php?p=35221&postcount=5

I was just joking Anthony. Wesley concluded somethign unbiblical according to the writ, but in the onset of what I quoted, that is where he started. That imputation was for justification, and impartation was for sanctification. How is ended uop where he did is between him and the Lord.

I was not painting you as such.

Tobias Crisp
08-11-05, 01:43 PM
I was just joking Anthony. Wesley concluded somethign unbiblical according to the writ, but in the onset of what I quoted, that is where he started. That imputation was for justification, and impartation was for sanctification. How is ended uop where he did is between him and the Lord.

I was not painting you as such.Hey Joe, no problem. :D

lionovjudah
08-11-05, 01:45 PM
I actually believe in positional sanctification from eternity and at the cross. At regenerate, we are set apart experimentally, that is we have been given the gift of faith and the Holy Spirit resides in us epistemologically.


I need a dictionary to see what this means now. Isnt this what Riesenger states in the article I posted?

The elect were 'sanctified' in eternity in the sovereign purpose of God when they were placed into the covenant and given to the Shepherd. They were then 'sanctified' by being legally purchased and paid for in the blood shedding work of the Shepherd. They were then individually 'sanctified' when they were found and brought safely into the fold. They were each given the Holy Spirit and as the Vicar of Christ he began to 'sanctify' each sheep day by day. The Great Shepherd will one day come again and totally finish his 'sanctifying' work as described in Ephesians 5:25–27. All of this began in a sanctification that took place before we were born.


I totally agree that Scripture speaks in this way

ray kikkert
08-11-05, 01:50 PM
one of your moderators even says she cant see Christ in the PSALMS, DOESNT THIS RING ANY BELLS with you,She will answer to God for the Vitriol of her posts. ..

Ivor, who and where does one say that Christ is not evident within the Psalms?

lionovjudah
08-11-05, 02:02 PM
The RCC teaches that one's good works can increase or preserve the justification that one has received from God. Moreover, the RCC teaches that as long as Christ causes you to do good works, those good works are part of the basis upon which God justifies you. Hence, according to Rome, justification is partially merited by us.

I stand corrected. A life transformed by Christ should not be called an imparted righteousness.

Chi Chi, lets get it right from the horses mouth. Which is always the best way..

The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus' proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."[38] Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. `Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man

Justification establishes cooperation between God's grace and man's freedom. On man's part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent: "When God touches man's heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God's grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God's sight."


The Holy Spirit is the master of the interior life. By giving birth to the "inner man," justification entails the sanctification of his whole being: Just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification.... But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life.



the section on justification confuses justification with sanctification, so the section on grace does the same. Grace is correctly defined as God's favor. Unfortunately, "grace of Christ" is further defined as that which is infused in us to sanctify us, which is said to be baptismal grace! Once again the CCC wrongly focuses all attention on what is going on INSIDE of the person, instead of where it should be: OUTSIDE. Certainly the Scriptures do speak of being "full of grace" (John 1:14; Acts 6:8). But saving grace is something OUTSIDE of us, it is God's undeserved kindness or favor by which he saves us for Christ's sake by faith.6 (http://users.rcn.com/tlclcms/rccatech.html#Anchor6) 2 Corinthians 5:17, a beautiful justification verse, is quoted by the CCC as a sanctification verse! Ultimately, one gets the impression that for the CCC, grace is something inside us that enables us to work out our own salvation. According to Scripture, grace is the total opposite of anything in or about us that might lead us to rely on our performance (Romans 11:6).



Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.

I would agree with the above, but notice what comes next....

The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism. It is in us the source of the work of sanctification: Therefore if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself.

The last phrase is ok also..How they get there is ridiculous.


Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions


The Gospel is preached in some paragraphs, in ways that would make Martin Luther rejoice! But in other paragraphs and in the Catechism as a whole, the Biblical Gospel is perverted and turned into another gospel that turns the sinner inward and tells him to focus on what is going on inside him: on his keeping of Christ's commandments, on his own love, his own merits, his own progressive renewal, etc. The real Gospel focuses our attention not on ourselves but on Jesus Christ, on His perfect, death, and resurrection -- on His saving work for us.

Pastor Richard P. Bucher, Th.D



THE RCC combines justification and sanctification as the same experience. They utylize ROmans 8 because it is nto in the Golden Chain, but I believe Riesenger explains that biblically.

lionovjudah
08-11-05, 02:06 PM
Ivor, who and where does one say that Christ is not evident within the Psalms?

Ivor made this statement about Luba. THis is another type of atrgument to deflect one owns issues.

For instance, my wife will tell me, "You never pay the bills on time."

I will respond with, "well, um, but nicholas,(our son) does not scrub the bottom of his feet good enough.

Tobias Crisp
08-11-05, 02:14 PM
I will respond with, "well, um, but nicholas,(our son) does not scrub the bottom of his feet good enough.This confirms my suspicion about you, NON washed feet. You definitely are a heretic!! :D

Ivor Thomas
08-11-05, 02:14 PM
Ivor, who and where does one say that Christ is not evident within the Psalms? Ray the post is number 28 and some more which i will look up the numbers,not only Christ in all of the Psalms, but also spitefull in content posts toward Brothers because of lack of understanding or something. Ivor...

Brandan
08-11-05, 02:26 PM
This confirms my suspicion about you, NON washed feet. You definitely are a heretic!! :D
Now now, we can't have any humor!

lionovjudah
08-11-05, 02:32 PM
Now now, we can't have any humor!


Oh NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anthony does crack me up.:D

Brandan
08-11-05, 03:24 PM
Here is a quote from Chris Cunningham, a pastor who I sat next to in KY, a preacher who preached a sermon at the Redeemer conference. He e-mailed me earlier today about my website....
I just wanted to express my fond wish that your website didn't exist...He has not however dealt with this issue that Christ supposedly was made a sinner. Because nobody in pastoral positions are stepping up to the plate to deal with this publicly; and believe me - they do know about this thread - I will make it public - and in a way bigger than just this little thread on the internet. Mr. Cunningham, you don't like this forum? Well you're definitely not going to like what comes next.

Brandan

L-Today
08-11-05, 05:02 PM
Ray, thank you for asking the question who is this ''she'' who ''cant see Christ in the PSALMS''. Did you get the answer? Of course, you did not. Joe, are you satisfied with the answers you got? Or does Lennon still come to mind?

That is the problem of having a discussion with Ivor. Nobody is asking him to acquire a sudden ability to express himself clearly, but isn't quoting our opponents' statements truthfully a basic prerequisite to any honest debate? But instead we are accused, of course, of not wanting to discuss things with them.

Did I ever think or state that Christ is not in the Psalms? No, I did not - never. I believe that there are Messianic Psalms and that they are pointing to our coming Savior and His suffering for His people. I asked WHERE does the Bible tell us that ALL Psalms without one exception are necessarily speaking about Christ Himself? Ivor's reply was John 5.39, which verse has nothing to do with my question.

And, as it was pointed out again to Ivor (no responce from him), there are hundreds of pages in the Bible that do not speak directly about Jesus Christ. Although the whole Bible is about Him, there was need for much of the necessary background in preparation for our Redeemer's Incarnation, His actively righteous life and his actively righteous death - His victory and His overcoming the world which was triumphantly finished at the Cross. But not every verse in the Bible speaks directly about Christ, and searching the Scriptures diligently will not change this fact.

Well, I was not upset with Ivor before, when he was offended that a woman dares to criticise writers and preachers whose views he adopts wholesale, and I am not upset now over him misquoting and misrepresenting what I wrote, nor am I surprised that he did it. He (and others) can call me any name they wish, it is fine with me.

The only thing that does upset me very much is that so many pastors, preachers, their congregations, readers and listeners of their material believe that God was made into evil. I cannot imagine a matter of equal magnitude in the whole of Christianity, although there is no lack of abominable heresies around, which will stop only with the coming of the Judge of the universe and the King of Glory. Without EVERLASTING Holiness of Jesus Christ, from beginning to the end of His life on earth, there is no God and no Savior, no matter how believers in sinful Christ twist and wrest 2Cor5.21 and some of the Psalms out of recognition and out of the whole counsel of God.

Ian said something about discussing these matters peacefully. Well, whoever wishes may read past threads re: Christ turned into evil, Christ needing faith as people need it, Christ's passive obedience, impartation and infusion of both sin and righteousness, which subjects are also very dear to the Roman Catholic and Charismatic mindsets. And what will the reader of these past threads see? He will see that ''discussion'' for Ian means hammering his party line RELENTLESSLY in every thread, whatever the topic, wherever and whenever he could. There is always the same persistent indoctrination: this mysterious substance ''sin'' being fused into passive Christ and then Him, now the vilest of heaving abominations, burned, incinerated to cinders outside the camp.

Never did Ian give us one verse from the New Testament about this BURNING.
When our Lord Jesus spoke about Him becoming sacrifice for His people, where did He ONCE mention anything about BEING INCINERATED? He spoke about suffering for His people, as prophesied in the Old Testament (including some of the Psalms), but He never described that the sacrifice will be by incineration.

Nowhere in the OT's Messianic passages are we told that our Savior will be BURNED. Before leaving Egypt, were the Israelites' homes passed by and not destroyed because there was BLOOD on their doors or not? Of course, they ate each family their lamb with bitter herbs (we too have to eat the Word who is the Lamb of God and the Bread of Life in order to have spiritual life), and the Jews were girded and ready to be led by God, but it was the BLOOD OF LAMB on their doorposts that saved them from destruction. Or not?

Nor Paul, nor Peter, no any other of the apostles and writers of the New Testament have mentioned anywhere about FIRE AT THE CROSS and Christ turned to ashes. Instead, everybody spoke and wrote about Christ's BLOOD and DEATH as the atonement, and how it is ENOUGH for God (for life is in the blood) for the reconciliation with His people. The Scripture speaks how our Savior went through unimaginable agonies paying for (not in) the sins of His people, and how He died the perfect and obedient to His Father death - INNOCENT DYING FOR (not in) THE GUILTY.

Christianity is: INNOCENT AND RIGHTEOUS LAMB OF GOD SHEDDING HIS BLOOD AND DYING FOR HIS GUILTY PEOPLE, NOT A SINNER BEING INCINERATED FOR SINNERS, and then rising from ashes. Where is Christ resurrected from ashes in the Bible?

Why are these people so angry? Why are Ian and others fuming? Is it in defense of God's honor and glory - because we have offended our Savior and our Lord by insisting on His ETERNAL and INFINITE RIGHTEOUSNESS AND PURITY? Ah, what an offence we have given to the Incarnate Second Person of the Godhead by calling Him FOREVER HOLY, SPOTLESS AND BLAMELESS, IMPECCABLE AND INNOCENT, PURE AND EVER RIGHTEOUS Lamb of God! Criminals, aren't we for insisting on our God-Man's uninterrupted Righteousness and Holiness? Unforgiveable! Worthy of condemnation, are we now, for our insistence that our Eternal Creator and Savior and the Lord of Glory is yesterday, today and forever HOLY - and NOT HOLY MINUS THREE HOURS - when His people needed Him most! Or are people so angry with us because we refuse to worship invented by them pile of heaving evil on the cross?

Luba.

Ivor Thomas
08-11-05, 05:37 PM
Luba when you posted number 28 ,WHERE DID I QUOTE JOHN 5;39 to you,has for me not expressing myself very well, its better than sulking for 4 weeks because you could not get your way, how about this for expression you have another Gospel, and not the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, post 28 is there for everybody to read, and has for Ian fuming the only person who is fuming is you Luba. Ivor Thomas..

GraceAmbassador
08-11-05, 06:24 PM
I was just telling Brandan that I had no desire to enter this discussion. However I will post this short note here to add more fuel to the fire and LET IT BURN:

"...made sin=to be a sinner is their argument right?"

then:

Peter says that we have been made to be partakers of the divine nature: ARE WE GODS?

When Paul uses "made" about himself, he says: To the weak became I AS the weak... I am made all things to ALL men... - WAS PAUL SAYING THAT HE WAS ALL THINGS? DOES NOT THE FIRST CLAUSE SATATES "AS", OR, ALIKE, AND NOT EXACTLY OF THE SAME SUBSTANCE AND COMPOSITION, WITH THE SAME BEHAVIORS, PERCEPTIONS, UNDERSTANDINGS, FRAME OF MIND, CULTURE AND BEING?

Paul also says that God "made us" sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus... IS PAUL SAYING THAT I AM NOT ALONE HERE IN THIS COMPUTER SCREEN, BUT TOGETHER WITH ALL OF YOU SAINTS IN HEAVENLY PLACES?

You got the point... My rather simplistic way to find out what is going on. How they can exegete "made sin" as "became a sinner, of the same substance, behavior, frame of mind, desrving of God's wrath and punishment, and blah, blah, blah... when in the other scriptures that state things that God "made us" they don't use the same pattern of interpretation?

It is called NOVELTY! Novelty when propagated as the truth with no biblical consistency and support becomes HERESY!

That's all I have to say... and for you deep theologians out there: yes, I am a simple man with simple solutions who questions variances of and selective interpretations of biblical terms when the "selection" is made only to develop that which the Bible is not speaking of.

Milt

L-Today
08-11-05, 07:04 PM
Congratulations to Mr Thomas on his imparted and infused divine vision - he obviously knows better than I the reasons for my being away from the forum; and also for counting the weeks (days? hours?) of my absence. No suspicion that it was due to missing me. I wonder why such watchfulness over my movements?

Unfortunately, Mr Thomas' rudeness remains the same - earthy.

No answer, of course, to where in the Bible can we find a burning cross?

L-Today.

Brandan
08-11-05, 07:19 PM
Luba when you posted number 28 ,WHERE DID I QUOTE JOHN 5;39 to you,has for me not expressing myself very well, its better than sulking for 4 weeks because you could not get your way, how about this for expression you have another Gospel, and not the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, post 28 is there for everybody to read, and has for Ian fuming the only person who is fuming is you Luba. Ivor Thomas..
BOO ON YOU IVOR!

GraceAmbassador
08-11-05, 09:26 PM
Well, I read almost this thread entirely! I feel sorry for the division this issue is causing not because of the issue itself neither because of the people who are now dividing themselves from the other's fellowship. I feel sorry because this division is caused by an aspect that I have encountered since my early days, when I still thought that one day I would be a theologian who would say things that people would discuss 600 years later:

Most of it is because some brethren CANNOT be satisfied with what the Bible reveals and worst, THE WAY it reveals. I explain: The Bible, Paul in it, says that Christ was MADE SIN. There is room for interpretation here? Perhaps. But God reveal to us something precious and holy, which through all generations will be the motive of joy, peace and Glory-giving on the part of the believer: JESUS WAS MADE SIN!

I am fully satisfied with this simple truth which is the basis of my knowledge: Christ was made sin. The pursuit of theologization of this text, can and will, and it is obvious that did, cause more separation than, perhaps, any other quest for the "how's" and "why's" would in our modern days.

Some just could not resist the temptation; they decided that they would explain us all, mortals, plebeians, theological peons, pew warmers, that they would just tell us how "Christ was made sin". The route they took to explain "how" when Paul did not because God did not authorize him to do, explained, was a very simple one: If Christ was made sin, then He must have been a sinner at the cross. Of course they will not say bluntly and out loud that Christ or Jesus sinned, but they will say that He became a sinner, as if, the overwhelming silent MINORITY of us would not say to our buttons (since we're not all Amish): Huh! If they're saying that Christ or Jesus (the man Jesus) became sinner, then of course He must have sinned and in fact, although they claim that they don't teach the Jesus (or Christ, them Lamb of God) sinned, in fact that's what their teaching state. Otherwise, why would they teach that Jesus Christ (no separation here!) became a sinner at the cross without sinning?

I am probably just writing what I am thinking and what I am concluding in respect to the teaching that Jesus Christ (no separation here) became a sinner in the cross. But let me say that I feel that it is just as bad to say that He became a sinner at the cross without sinning as it is to admit that He sinned. After all, to "become a sinner" means that Jesus Christ (no separation here!) had to incorporate the acts, the behavior and the nature of a sinner, or else He could not have become a sinner.

Again, I am satisfied with what the Bible tells me: He was made sin, He who KNEW NO SIN, before, DURING, and after the cross! The promise about Jesus Christ (no separation here!) was that He would bore my sins and my iniquities and by His stripes (not His being made into a sinner) I would be healed.

Am I right? Am I reading into what those teachers teach? Can they separate "becoming a sinner" from incorporating the acts, the behavior and the nature of a sinner? I guess not!

Comment if you want, but I don't think this post is worthy any comment. It is just the way I see things.

Milt

L-Today
08-12-05, 03:58 AM
Milt, you are absolutely right. They have detailed the exact WAY in which God the Father afflicts His Son - by creating this substance called ''sin'' which is separate from sinners, and having this substance, together with the actual sins of elect sinners, infused into the Holy Body and Soul of Jesus Christ - to have Him burned outsdie the camp. And then, from the remaining ashes - if they faithfully stick to the OT's burnt offering procedure outside the camp - their christ resurrects. Nowhere in the Bible can we find such blasphemy! And nowhere in the Bible God tells us exactly HOW He was afflicting His Son who was ''made sin for us''.

These people want to have their cake and eat it. They want their sin and their sins (two different substances) incinerated in the body and soul of Christ, but they are reluctant to state OPENLY that he then must be a vile sinner himself - for how can one have sins in his body and soul and not be a sinner? But they prefer having their eaten already cake for later again too, so that people don't run away in horror from them at the first sound of a preaching: ''And now, dearly beloved brethren, we want you to know that Jesus Christ was a horrible sinner''.

It should be clear to every little kid that a sinful god is a contradiction in terms, such a being is not possible. But, apparently, it is OK with this group of people who are happy with their sinful god and savior. I wonder, do they stop worshipping their christ for the three hours when he was an abomination, or do they still worship this heaving mass of sin? When they cast their glances at the cross (as all Christians must do to reassure themselves that their sins are WASHED away in the Lamb's holy blood), and as they see this ''sewer'' hanging on the cross, do they worship this sewer or do they wait until he rises from the ashes?

Ask anybody whether God the Creator of the universe equals a heaving mass of sin, and see the reaction of even pagans who know very little of the Bible - everybody is visibly shocked! Why? Because it is the most horrible blasphemy to call God evil. Well, now we know that not all church-goers are shocked and horrified at the notion of a sinful God! On the contrary, they think themselves highly devout, and it is those who defend the obvious holiness of God, that are anathemized. Truly, the times have come when good is evil, when sweet is bitter - and we are witnessing the truth of our holy God's Word with our very eyes.

Luba.

Tobias Crisp
08-12-05, 06:43 AM
Milt, you are absolutely right. They have detailed the exact WAY in which God the Father afflicts His Son - by creating this substance called ''sin'' which is separate from sinners, and having this substance, together with the actual sins of elect sinners, infused into the Holy Body and Soul of Jesus Christ - to have Him burned outsdie the camp. And then, from the remaining ashes - if they faithfully stick to the OT's burnt offering procedure outside the camp - their christ resurrects. Nowhere in the Bible can we find such blasphemy! And nowhere in the Bible God tells us exactly HOW He was afflicting His Son who was ''made sin for us''.This whole business of being burned to ashes and then resurrecting sounds like the story of the Phoenix.

lionovjudah
08-12-05, 08:58 AM
Could these verses have any significance?


For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh (Romans 8:3).


Philippians 2:7: (Christ) made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.


And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:14).

Tobias Crisp
08-12-05, 09:09 AM
Could these verses have any significance?


For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh (Romans 8:3).


Philippians 2:7: (Christ) made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.


And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:14).



Joe, maybe you could explain each passage and show how they are relevant to the discussion. Hey, you can't leave all of the home work for me and others to do. :D

lionovjudah
08-12-05, 09:35 AM
Joe, maybe you could explain each passage and show how they are relevant to the discussion. Hey, you can't leave all of the home work for me and others to do. :D


Well the word that sticks out to me is "likeness".

homoioma {hom-oy'-o-mah}


1) that which has been made after the likeness of something
a) a figure, image, likeness, representation b) likeness i.e. resemblance, such as amounts almost to equality or identity


1) like, similar, resembling
a) like: i.e. resembling b) like: i.e. corresponding to a thing


homou {hom-oo'}

1) together: of persons assembled together


There you go Anthony. This is how our sins were imputed to Him on the cross.

In their likeness.

I did my OWN research!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Brandan
08-12-05, 09:43 AM
Our sins were imputed to Christ in the court of God. It was a legal transaction. Christ only suffered the penalty due unto them. Anything that departs from this is heresy. I condemn all teaching that denies and fights against this.

There is a war between Gospel believers and the forces of darkness. It seems at times there is little light in this world, and I'm not going to allow damnable lies to be promoted here... Look out pastors and "theologians", you can't keep the pew-ons from speaking up!

The forces of darkness today will be confronted with a battle this weekend and in the coming years. I'm prepared to help bring it to them!

lionovjudah
08-12-05, 09:57 AM
Our sins were imputed to Christ in the court of God. It was a legal transaction. Christ only suffered the penalty due unto them. Anything that departs from this is heresy. I condemn all teaching that denies and fights against this.

There is a war between Gospel believers and the forces of darkness. It seems at times there is little light in this world, and I'm not going to allow damnable lies to be promoted here... Look out pastors and "theologians", you can't keep the pew-ons from speaking up!

The forces of darkness today will be confronted with a battle this weekend and in the coming years. I'm prepared to help bring it to them!


Please pray how you handle this Brandan. I think Saul/Paul had the same tone and concerns on the way to Syria. Do not be extremely rash on this. These same men you are declaring as heretics, were once held high on your pedestal of Gospel teachers.

Lord willing, I hope the truth shines brightly for all in regards to this matter.


Joe

Bob Higby
08-12-05, 12:37 PM
I have stated before but will mention it again: I do not want to reduce the atonement to a law-court transaction (forensic event) only, since biblical impuation is both forensic AND real. This still means, however, that Christ experienced the guilt and penalty of sin but in no way experienced or knew sin itself.

The reason I state this is to separate myself from those Lutherans, Arminians, and Semi-Pelagians who reduce the atonement to a forensic-only event. In doing so they deny that it is a real justification for God's elect determined in the foreknowledge of God and reduce to a general, legal, and universal transaction in a divine law court.

Brandan
08-12-05, 12:40 PM
I don't know any Sovereign Grace believer who would deny that Christ actually experienced the penalty of sin.

lionovjudah
08-12-05, 01:55 PM
Here is one scripture that I believe poses a serious problem for the "literal made sin " proponents.

Hbr 9:14 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Hbr&chapter=9&verse=14&version=kjv)How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

lionovjudah
08-12-05, 02:28 PM
Hebrews 9:14 (http://www.freegrace.net/kjv/Hebrews/9.html#14) Gill

Ver. 14. How much more shall the blood of Christ,.... Which is not the blood of a mere man, but the blood of the Son of God; and the argument is from the lesser to the greater; that if the ashes of the burnt heifer, which was a type of Christ in his sufferings, mixed with water, typically sanctified to the purifying of men externally, in a ceremonial way, then much more virtue must there be in the blood of Christ, to cleanse the soul inwardly:

who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God; Christ is a priest, and the sacrifice he has offend up is "himself"; not his divine nature, but his human nature, soul and body, as in union with his divine person; which gives his sacrifice the preference to all others; and is the reason of its virtue and efficacy, and is expressive of his great love to man: and this sacrifice was offered up "to God", against whom his people had sinned, and whose justice must be satisfied, and which is of a sweet smelling savour to him; besides, he called him to this work, and engaged him in it, and is well pleased with this offering, as he must needs be, since it is offered up "without spot"; which expresses the purity of Christ's nature and sacrifice, and the perfection of it, which is such, that no fault can be found in it by the justice of God; and hence, the saints, for whom it is offered, are unblamable and irreprovable, There is an allusion in the clause, both to the priests and to their sacrifices, which were neither of them to have any spot or blemish on them; and this unblemished sacrifice was offered unto God by Christ,

L-Today
08-12-05, 02:37 PM
Joe, it is not that Brandan wants to attack people, nor do I think that he will go for personalities, guessing their thoughts and intentions, in the manner our opponents in this matter are behaving. We are upset that our God and our Lord is turned by these people into evil, and this TEACHING must be exposed for what it is. It is anti-God and anti-christ - for it is against God and against Christ.

It is so important because for quite some time all of us listened to ''made literal sin'', thinking to ourselves: ''No, this good, godly, pleasant and friendly pastor cannot mean what my ears are hearing; it cannot be; it is my fault; it is me hearing what is not there''. All these excuses were wrong! Because these very nice people whom we loved and thought godly, did mean, and still mean and defend the heresy that Christ was not only a sinner like ourselves but an utmost and real and tangible abomination on the cross.

So, what Brandan wants to do is: not to abuse people gratuitously, but to announce and proclaim that we (whoever wishes to do it) totally reject this blasphemy of Jesus Christ made into a literal sin. We don't have to call people names, even if they call us names, but we have to take a firm stand - for or against Christ Jesus. To make Christ into a sinner is, obviously, against Him, which can mean nothing else but that it is an anti-Christian heresy. If Christ is a sinner, then we don't have the object of our faith, and might as well pack our bags and go into the nations full of sinful idols-saviors and their worshippers.

Do you, Joe, think that we should preserve peace at any cost and say nothing, lest we upset some preachers, pastors and their followers? Or do you think that we might recant later, come around and admit that our Lord of Glory is a sinner after all and we were wrong and the teachers and believers of this blasphemy were right? Do you think such a possibility exist? Can one even seriously think about such a possibility - God equals evil?

What course of action would you advise us, those who are horrified at this heresy, to take? What would you do in Brandan's place? Or maybe Christ tuned into evil does not horrify you? Maybe it seems to you as one more of the usual disagreements between Christians, not worth making a big deal out of?

Please, note, Joe, that I am only ASKING, not accusing you.

L-Today.

L-Today
08-12-05, 02:40 PM
Anthony, indeed, like Phoenix the bird - burned to ashes - risen, burned - risen. Several of Christians who heard about this burning outside the camp said the same thing, wondering how it was possible to construct such a doctrine.

InChristAlways
08-12-05, 02:43 PM
In the OT shadows or figures of atonment. Did the sacrafice, the lamb or scapegoat actually become sinfull? Or were the sins of the people just laid on them and the Lord accepted this?


JoeThere is no escaping the fact that Paul says Christ was made "sin/curse" for us/jews by being hung on a "tree". The sin and curse was a result of the LAW, as the LAW exposed the jews unrighteousness by condemening an innocent man, so in essence, God used Jesus to nail the LAW to the Cross forever to show the LAW was indeed sin and death. Isaiah 27 appears to show complete atonement could not come until the destruction of their Altars and city was destroyed. The LAW/covenants applied to the jews only.

The only ones I see as cursed in the bible are the jews in Malachi 3. They almost appear to be double cursed.

These people were literally "burned" in the destruction of Jerusalem in the first century where most of the bodies were thrown into a "fire pit" outside the city after the cleanup which I heard took about 7 months.

Just my own view of scriptures so take it with a grain of salt LOL and I really don't know how to express my views on it without using OT scripture. Jesus came to the jews first and they had Him crucified, so why would gentiles be punished for it as they actually tried to free Jesus, but then how could the prophecies be fulfilled if Christ didn't suffer, die and resurrect? Blessings.


Mala 3:8 "Will a man rob God? Yet you have robbed Me! But you say, 'In what way have we robbed You?' In tithes and offerings. 9 You are cursed with a curse, For you have robbed Me, [Even] this whole nation.

Malachi 4:1 "For behold, the day is coming, Burning like an oven, And all the proud, yes, all who do wickedly will be stubble. And the day which is coming shall burn them up," Says the LORD of hosts, "That will leave them neither root nor branch.
Isaiah 27:9 Therefore by this the iniquity of Jacob will be covered; And this all the fruit of taking away his sin: When he makes all the stones of the altar Like chalkstones that are beaten to dust, Wooden images and incense altars shall not stand. [I]10 Yet the fortified city [will be] desolate, The habitation forsaken and left like a wilderness; There the calf will feed, and there it will lie down And consume its branches. Galatians 3:13 Christ, hath redeemed, us, out of the curse of the law, having become, in our behalf, a curse;--because it is written--Cursed, is every one that hangeth upon a tree;--

(Young) 2 Corinthians 5:21 for him who did not know sin, in our behalf He did make sin, that we may become the righteousness of God in him.




After their return from the Babylonian exile, the Jews turned the Hinnom Valley into the city dump where garbage and anything deemed unclean (including the bodies of executed criminals) was incinerated. For that purpose, a fire was kept constantly burning there. Even though it was no longer used for evil worship, with all the filth and thick smoke it remained a very dark and dreary place. The name Hinnom when translated into greek is gehenna, from which the word and concept of hell originated. By the time of Jesus Christ (http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/christ.htm), the deep, constantly-burning Valley of Hinnom was also known as the Valley of Gehenna, or Hell, and had taken on a popular image as the place "down there" where the wicked would eventually be cast into the flames for destruction.

lionovjudah
08-12-05, 07:13 PM
Joe, it is not that Brandan wants to attack people, nor do I think that he will go for personalities, guessing their thoughts and intentions, in the manner our opponents in this matter are behaving. We are upset that our God and our Lord is turned by these people into evil, and this TEACHING must be exposed for what it is. It is anti-God and anti-christ - for it is against God and against Christ.

It is so important because for quite some time all of us listened to ''made literal sin'', thinking to ourselves: ''No, this good, godly, pleasant and friendly pastor cannot mean what my ears are hearing; it cannot be; it is my fault; it is me hearing what is not there''. All these excuses were wrong! Because these very nice people whom we loved and thought godly, did mean, and still mean and defend the heresy that Christ was not only a sinner like ourselves but an utmost and real and tangible abomination on the cross.

So, what Brandan wants to do is: not to abuse people gratuitously, but to announce and proclaim that we (whoever wishes to do it) totally reject this blasphemy of Jesus Christ made into a literal sin. We don't have to call people names, even if they call us names, but we have to take a firm stand - for or against Christ Jesus. To make Christ into a sinner is, obviously, against Him, which can mean nothing else but that it is an anti-Christian heresy. If Christ is a sinner, then we don't have the object of our faith, and might as well pack our bags and go into the nations full of sinful idols-saviors and their worshippers.

Do you, Joe, think that we should preserve peace at any cost and say nothing, lest we upset some preachers, pastors and their followers? Or do you think that we might recant later, come around and admit that our Lord of Glory is a sinner after all and we were wrong and the teachers and believers of this blasphemy were right? Do you think such a possibility exist? Can one even seriously think about such a possibility - God equals evil?

What course of action would you advise us, those who are horrified at this heresy, to take? What would you do in Brandan's place? Or maybe Christ tuned into evil does not horrify you? Maybe it seems to you as one more of the usual disagreements between Christians, not worth making a big deal out of?

Please, note, Joe, that I am only ASKING, not accusing you.

L-Today.

Luba, I know this talk has honestly pushed you past the dialogue limit. Anything short of me bringing the matches or throwing more gas on the fire will come across as me espousing some extreme tolerance of this teaching.

If ytou look at my post, I only asked Brandan to prayerfully consider how the Lord is leading him to confront this teaching.

This issue is deeper than what one may see on the surface. I believe it centers around the glorious Atonement our Lord made for His sheep. So I do not think this is a minor issue. That said, you asked me what I would do, so here goes:

1) We must counter the principles, not the people. The people do advance the thinking and behavior. But to be effective, one must attack the principles they propose. Stick to the issues, stand firm for the truth, but resist the temptation to savagely attack the people.

1Peter 3;8-15 sums it up...


8Finally, be ye all likeminded, compassionate, loving as brethren, tenderhearted, humbleminded: 3:9not rendering evil for evil, or reviling for reviling; but contrariwise blessing; for hereunto were ye called, that ye should inherit a blessing. 3:10For,

He that would love life,
And see good days,
Let him refrain his tongue from evil,
And his lips that they speak no guile:
3:11And let him turn away from evil, and do good;
Let him seek peace, and pursue it.
3:12For the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous,
And his ears unto their supplication:
But the face of the Lord is upon them that do evil. 3:13And who is he that will harm you, if ye be zealous of that which is good? 3:14But even if ye should suffer for righteousness' sake, blessed are ye: and fear not their fear, neither be troubled; 3:15but sanctify in your hearts Christ as Lord: being ready always to give answer to every man that asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you, yet with meekness and fear: 3:16having a good conscience; that, wherein ye are spoken against, they may be put to shame who revile your good manner of life in Christ. 3:17For it is better, if the will of God should so will, that ye suffer for well-doing than for evil-doing. 3:18Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;


Before GIVING THE DEFENSE of the truth, look at what Peter says...


Joe

Bob Higby
08-12-05, 11:32 PM
Stick to the issues, stand firm for the truth, but resist the temptation to savagely attack the people.

It has become clear to me that one cannot defend the truth without also being accused of savagely attacking those who do not defend it! As much as I regret it, that is the inevitable outcome and no man can stop it.

Brandan
08-13-05, 06:11 AM
Stick to the issues, stand firm for the truth, but resist the temptation to savagely attack the people.

It has become clear to me that one cannot defend the truth without also being accused of savagely attacking those who do not defend it! As much as I regret it, that is the inevitable outcome and no man can stop it.
What kills me is LoJ thinks I'm being tempted to savagely attack people! Nope, I just hate the concept of my Lord being called a sinner, that He became like me. Mark Daniels said, "A righteous man could not die for my sin." That when Christ was in the garden, he prayed, "I don’t mind the dying part, but Lord is there not some way that I could escape being made like THESE people."

Any person that does not condemn these statements does not understand who my Lord is! He never knew sin - he never came to know what it is to be a sinner - he remained perfect, spotless, and His suffering is of infinite value to the Father, and to me! I do not need a Saviour that needed to be a sinner also. I need a Saviour who stayed perfectly righteous because I'm vile and need a substitute in righteousness - NOT SINFULNESS!

Again, I'm going to quote Mark Daniel, the man who Don Fortner defended, the man who dozens of men have defended, the man who uttered some awful blasphemies from the pulpit that caused him to be fired by those brothers and sisters of ours at Eager Ave. Church, an firing that Mr. Fortner calleld, "wicked".


Paul using this very passage from Deuteronomy as his reference point for his statement in Galatians 3:13, is showing that one thing Christ became, that He was not before is that He became a sinner. He became a man in whom was sin!

He had to be equally as sinful, equally as guilty and equally as accursed as me in order to take my place.

He became sinful that I become righteous.

He became the equal sinner that I am, he became the same sinner that I am before God.

It’s as incomprehensible for me to be a sinner and a saint, at the same time as He could be the Son of God, pure and holy, and be a sinner, just like me.

He had to be made the identical substitute for their sin. A righteous man could not die for my sin! God would have never killed Him. If He was a righteous man, no sin in Him, God would have been unjust to kill him.

It says, God somehow, took a being, who had never known sin before and actually made him to be sin.

On the cross, Christ actually became as sinful as I. Something He had never been, could not have become, and did not want to happen, and prayed for that it might let it pass, and yet became a reality IN HIS VERY BEING.

And somehow then, I’m made to understand, unthinkable thoughts, of how that his Son, purely, holy and righteous could be made as sinful as I.

You know, its no wonder that He prayed in the garden until His sweat literally became great clots, ugly clots of blood dripping to the ground. Because here was a being who had never known sin, he’d never thought a sinful thought, He never had a sinful desire, had never had an ill intention, had never had any sin come across His mind, His heart, His will, or His being. And yet He knew He was facing becoming just as sinful as His people. No wonder He prayed, ‘Lord couldn’t we do this some other way? Is there not some other arrangement that we can make (snicker)? I don’t mind the dying part, but Lord is there not some way that I could escape being made like THESE people. He prayed until He couldn’t pray anymore. He prayed until His sweat turned to blood because it was unfathomable to Him to think about becoming sinful in the place of His people.

If you don't stand with me right now and condemn these statments, you are aiding and abetting this crime. You must stand with me and stand for truth. To fail is to fail your brothers and sister and our Lord. Who do you care more about, offending some stupid men, or offending the Lord who bought you?

Brandan

Grace
08-13-05, 06:59 AM
Of course all brothers and sisters IN CHRIST stand with you:) Have no fear of that! Christ is in us and we are in Christ. So dont worry about the elect not standing with you for one second.. you can rest in peace in our Lord.. knowing he is showing us... his beautiful elect...the truth.

Brandan
08-13-05, 07:35 AM
Thank you my Sister Grace. Thank you for standing with me.

Folks, where is the outrage?

GraceAmbassador
08-13-05, 07:56 AM
Thank you my Sister Grace. Thank you for standing with me.

Folks, where is the outrage?

I am with you on that one. I am outraged perhaps for other "underlying reasons". I lived among "famous" preachers and I know a little bit of their motivation to come up with these new "revelations". I am outraged with the "Jesus was a sinner at the cross" issue, but I am all the more outraged with what I perceive to be their motivation for teaching it. To be outraged at their motivation makes me a judgmental person. I admit it. However it is more than pure and simple judgment; I believe that when Jesus told us "you shall know them by their fruit" He did it in context of teaching; false teaching. Thus I applied the proverbial "fruitmeter" and now I KNOW them.

Milt

EnglishRose
08-13-05, 08:11 AM
I'm a newbie! Only joined today! Have read some of these mails about Christ being made sin for us. I also have the magazine "New Focus" and I read the article by Don Fortner only about an hour or so ago. An alarm bell rang at what he said. Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever, and always God very God. He was made sin, but never became a sinner!
Forgive me if I have anything wrong, I struggle with illness, and do not always understand things. EnglishRose

harald
08-13-05, 08:19 AM
It is clear from 2 Cor. 5:21 that Paul was not teaching that God the Father made Christ a sinner. If anyone says he taught so they are lying. Nor yet did Paul here teach *sin* being infused into the personage of Christ. The word *sin* (Gr. hamartia) in this verse corresponds to the Hebrew word in Isa. 53. What Paul does say in this verse is that God the Father caused Christ to be, for a single moment in time, SIN-GUILTINESS, which is the exact opposite of the "righteous-ness" of this verse. The verb poieoo (to make, to do, to cause to be, etc.) is not identical to the verb "to create" (Gr. ktizoo). So, to say that God made Christ sin by some creative act is to err greatly with respect to the Greek. Besides, the Scripture nowhere teaches sin-infusion as touching Christ on the cross, not even remotely. Nor yet does it teach He was a sinner (Gr. hamartolos, or, hamartanoo in the present participle form) there.


Harald

Lammy
08-13-05, 08:31 AM
Here is one scripture that I believe poses a serious problem for the "literal made sin " proponents.

Hbr 9:14 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/popup.pl?book=Hbr&chapter=9&verse=14&version=kjv)How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?


Forgive me if i do not understand all the details of this controversy, but doesn't the above verse pretty much settle the matter?

It says Christ offered himself to God WITHOUT SPOT. When he offered himself to God, he was without spot, without sin. He bore the punishment for our sins, but he did not become a sinner himself.

In any case, how can God make someone a SINNER if that person has never sinned? Is that not manifest injustice on God's part? Christ bore the punishment for our sins and in that sense bore our sins, but he never became guilty of our sins as if he had actually committed them. Gen 18:25; God cannot treat the righteous the same way as the wicked.

Tobias Crisp
08-13-05, 08:39 AM
In any case, how can God make someone a SINNER if that person has never sinned? Is that not manifest injustice on God's part? Christ bore the punishment for our sins and in that sense bore our sins, but he never became guilty of our sins as if he had actually committed them. Gen 18:25; God cannot treat the righteous the same way as the wicked.Lammy,

1 Cor. 5:21 does say that Christ was "made sin" but he was made sin by imputation, a legal declaration. This legal declaration had real consequencies: Christ had to die. If Christ is made sin by any other method than imputation then His very nature is corrupted and we can no longer worship a God who can be corrupted.

Yoder
08-13-05, 09:29 AM
Brandon,

The teaching that Christ became a sinner is disgusting. I understand why God blinds those who are not his but it amazes me nonetheless that people who are otherwise orthodox in their beliefs and doctrines fall into false teaching.

Why make statements that the bible does not make? Why teach this belief that is based on a verse that isn't clear? Why do these "pastors" feel compelled to stray from the truth?

It reminds me of what I read of Luther. That he believed that Christ body was present in the communion bread because Christ said "this is my body". And whenever someone would try to argue different, he would point to those words again. He could not grasp that Christ was not teaching that the bread was his literal body. I fear these men are falling into the same line of thinking.

Keep up the good work!

Dave

InChristAlways
08-13-05, 10:16 AM
I'm a newbie! Only joined today! Have read some of these mails about Christ being made sin for us. I also have the magazine "New Focus" and I read the article by Don Fortner only about an hour or so ago. An alarm bell rang at what he said. Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever, and always God very God. He was made sin, but never became a sinner!
Forgive me if I have anything wrong, I struggle with illness, and do not always understand things. EnglishRose

Lammy,

1 Cor. 5:21 does say that Christ was "made sin" but he was made sin by imputation, a legal declaration. This legal declaration had real consequencies: Christ had to die. If Christ is made sin by any other method than imputation then His very nature is corrupted and we can no longer worship a God who can be corrupted.Wasn't Jesus vindicated by His resurrection from the dead? I don't really understand the imputed part but please forgive me if I don't discuss that particular subject. The jews nor Jesus's own disciples could grasp what was to come after the Cross.

It was the corrupt jewish rulers/priests who declared Jesus as a blasphemous sinner, so in their eyes he was a man of sin. He was a sinner in their eyes, not God's eyes, for declaring Himself their King and Savior. This is one way to view it and still harmonize it with what Paul said and I really can't explain it any other way.

John 19:15 But they cried out, "Away with [Him,] away with [Him!] Crucify Him!" Pilate said to them, "Shall I crucify your King?" The chief priests answered, "We have no king but Caesar!" 10 Then Pilate said to Him, "Are You not speaking to me? Do You not know that I have power to crucify You, and power to release You?" 11 Jesus answered, "You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one[high Priest] who delivered Me to you has the greater sin."

Jeremiah 17:1 "The sin of Judah [is] written with a pen of iron; With the point of a diamond [it is] engraved On the tablet of their heart,..... 4 And you, even yourself, Shall let go of your heritage which I gave you; And I will cause you to serve your enemies In the land which you do not know; For you have kindled a fire in My anger [which] shall burn forever."

Galatians 3:13 Christ, hath redeemed, us, out of the curse of the law, having become, in our behalf, a curse;--because it is written--Cursed, is every one that hangeth upon a tree;--

(Young) 2 Corinthians 5:21 for him who did not know sin, in our behalf He did make sin, that we may become the righteousness of God in Him.

Romans 1:4 [and] declared [to be] the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.


Hebrews 10:5 Therefore, when He came into the world, He said: "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, But a body You have prepared for Me.

L-Today
08-13-05, 10:32 AM
Dear believers in the innocence and purity of the Lamb of God! Thank you for proclaiming publicly your faith, and for your rejection of the teaching that our Savior and our Lord Jesus Christ was made into a literal vile sinner at the cross! Thank you for standing firm with Brandan in his faithful desire to expose the evil of the heresy of a sinful christ. Thank you all who exposes and explains the dangers of this wickedness!

Bob, I agree with you totally - the doer cannot be separated from his acts. Our Lord Himself was called names for His life-giving words and deeds, and we should be ready for the same, rejoicing with our Redeemer's disciples when we are insulted, for they knew for Whose Name's sake they were hated.

We too should not be afraid when we use God's sword and it causes offence - that is the work of God's Truth and of His Light - it offends the lies of the false prophets and they react! As yet we in our countries don't know anything about real persecution for our faith in Jesus Christ. But offend we must - by God's Word only - when our Lord's honor is at stake. Brandan said it well: it is better to offend a man than to offend our Savior and our Lord.


Joe, if you want to talk about matches, ignition and fire, go to those who know all about burning of a sinner on a cross.

For us who know from the Scriptures that our Savior's blood and His death was enough for His people's salvation, no fires, no heaps of ashes are required; they are not in the Bible. The fire in the OT was a symbol, same as the fat on the kidneys of a sacrificial animal, fine flour, oil, spices, etc, are symbolic for our understanding and discernment, but we don't have to pile these literal items up and burn them on the cross.

Your advice to me is to calm down. Did you give similar admonitions to Messrs Potts, Thomas and others? Hope so, in the name of fairness. I remember you getting overexcited for much lesser matters than the one we are dealing with now. How can anything be more important than the Object of our faith? Who do we have outside of Jesus Christ? How can you, Joe, remain so unoffended by our Lord being slandered? You should ask me to be even more offended than I am, for our very salvation for eternity depends on Jesus Christ's holiness at the cross! We have no God without Him being holy throughout! Why don't you e-mail your friends all over the world this Biblical truth? Be furious, be indignant, be mad and loud, Joe, when your God and Savior is slandered! Tell everyone that it is impossible for Christ to be sinful! It is easy to say: ''Lord, Lord'', but when this Lord is offended in the most horrible of all possible manners, you are calming me down! I don't want to be calm about this matter, nor lukewarm. I want to be very intolerant to our Lord being insulted. Please, Lord, help all of Your children to be highly volatile when we hear lies about You, even from our favorite pulpits!

Luba.

Lammy
08-13-05, 11:15 AM
Lammy,

1 Cor. 5:21 does say that Christ was "made sin" but he was made sin by imputation, a legal declaration. This legal declaration had real consequencies: Christ had to die. If Christ is made sin by any other method than imputation then His very nature is corrupted and we can no longer worship a God who can be corrupted.

Tobias, yeah that was what i was trying to say that he was made sin in a legal way, and not in the way of actually becoming a sinner.

Eileen
08-13-05, 11:52 AM
Brandan,

I think brother, that we much each come to our own understanding and that is perhaps partly the reason there hasn’t been more ‘outrage’ shown, it doesn’t necessarily mean that there hasn’t been ‘outrage’, ‘grief’ and ‘sorrow’ in our hearts. I cannot condemn simply because someone else does, I must know what exactly I am condemning. And I think that maybe Joe is the same way, searching to understand this in his own mind, in his own way and time.

The terminology ‘made sin’ is not offensive because that is exactly what the scripture does say…..and yet we must come to terms with what that means and that is the whole crux of the matter. It can sound reasonable at first that Christ was made sin until you begin to dig a bit deeper and then a bit deeper and find out exactly what those who use this term are teaching, which is namely that Christ became a sinner like you and I.

The statement has been made in the Daniel sermon that ‘a righteous man could not die for my sin’ and yet that is exactly what God required, the righteous man Christ Jesus to die for my sin, not to become it.

Isa. 53:11 “He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. (not become them)

Isa 53:12 “Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; (he didn’t’ become one) and he bare the sins of many, (he bore them, he didn’t become them), and made intercession for the transgressors (he didn’t become a transgressor)

Heb 7:26 “For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the angels.

Isa 53:3-5 “He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, (He didn’t become our transgressions) he was bruised for our iniquities, (he didn’t become our iniquities), the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Jesus Christ, the Holy, spotless Lamb of God did not become my sin, He bore the wrath of God in His body and soul on the tree for my sin.

I stand with you!

Eileen~

Mickey
08-13-05, 01:23 PM
I really don't think one needs to look to far or deep into the teaching that Jesus became a sinner to see that this is plain blasphemy. These men have made more than just random assertions. They have brought proof texts to that table to persuade that their view is truth. But they go even further by condemning the discussion and debate of God's word. They believe it should be left to the elite cemetery graduates. I know, why don't they just speak Latin so none of us novice, rebels can challenge their views.

I guess they think they have some sort of right or privilege to assert anything they want and not be challenged. They say that our Lord and God became a sinner, what do they expect! They email Brandon, Larry registers so he can speak for the cowards that can't speak for themselves, he says what he wants to say then tucks tail and leaves. I can only hope that he goes back and tells all his buddies about what we are saying, and now they are reading everything we post.

If any of you are reading this I want you to know that in the same way that Hymenaeus and Philetus will forever be remembered for swerving from the truth so to you will be remembered for this perversion until, Lord willing, you repent.

So go ahead and slip back into anonymity all you who love a sinful god. Read our words, scoff and turn up you noses in pride. For those of you who call yourselves 'Pastors' look out into your congregations and be proud that those who pay your salary have bought into your lies like a bunch of mindless sheep. Indeed your day will come.

harald
08-13-05, 01:36 PM
Whereas I am against the notions that Christ was made a sinner on Calvary, and that sin was infused into him, I forgot to add that such also deny Paul's gospel who deny that God's converted elect have an internal righteous principle in them. They deny Paul's gospel just the same as such do who say Christ was made a sinner or that sin was infused into Him. Don Fortner is right when he says that God's elect do have an "imparted righteousness", but if indeed he teaches that Christ was made a sinner, or that sin was infused into Him (as some claim of him), he gives (in this matter) no evidence of personally being one of the said elect of God. Such as claim to be of God's elect but who deny that God's elect have an internal righteousness are most apparently yet in the flesh till this moment. And said internal righteousness, taught by Paul and other uncircumcision apostles, as well as by the circumcision apostleship, is by no means the same as the justifying righteousness of Christ wherewith He justified His Body before God.


Harald

harald
08-13-05, 01:52 PM
To digress a bit. But this habit on the part of would-be "pastors" of self-labeling themselves as "Pastor" (capital P most often) this or that is un-scriptural, un-Pauline. It is a sign of carnality. The same goes for such as label themselves "Elder", "Bishop", "Reverend/Rev.", "Doctor/Dr." etc. etc.
The thing of a fixed monthly salary for "the pastor" is also un-Pauline, unscriptural. True assemblies of Christ have more than one teacher-shepherd (mark well, teacher-shepherd, NOT sermonizing pastor). One-pastor "churches" are not what Paul mandated by Divine authority. And true God-made teacher-shepherds are no "full-time pastors" who do no regular work for living.


Harald

Eileen
08-13-05, 03:52 PM
Mike,

And while I would agree with your statement here:

I really don't think one needs to look to far or deep into the teaching that Jesus became a sinner to see that this is plain blasphemy.

Nevertheless, the original article I read in the New Focus magazine never stated this blasphemy, that Jesus became a sinner, and so you had to dig a little deeper to discover exactly what it was that they were teaching. Many don't even know what it is they are being taught! That has been accomplished here in this thread and I for one am going to continue to go to the scripture in search of the Truth with whatever I am faced with.

Sola Scriptura!

Eileen~

L-Today
08-13-05, 04:36 PM
Dear Mike, you said it all, brother, together with the brothers and sisters who came forward (may there be more of them) and loudly proclaimed their protest at ''sinful christ''! This heresy is intolerable and does not need too deep a digging into - for it stands on its own as a particular madness apart from all other insanities abounding in this generation of extreme irrationality. Sinful christ! If this is not a contradiction, then I don't know what is.

Yes, the Bible says ''made sin'' (for those who are still doubting), but a regenerate reader will understand the impossibility of the literal translation of this proposition, especially considering that the whole Bible teaches that our Triune God is Holy and so is His Incarnate Son, and it can never be otherwise. This truth is impossible to untruth. This is the very foundation of Christianity - our Holy Triune God and His Holy Christ, Savior of His Bride.

I think it is because people in churches have learned to accept paradox - same as our post-modern world does: your truth is yours and mine is mine, that such insanity passes as a special brand of piety.

It is basic lie number one (began in Eden): that there is no one absolute truth. Upon this basic lie one can build any sort and variation of fibs, inventions and contradictions, provided the masses were indoctrinated into distrusting logic. Some pastors make statements that they believe in absolute truth, God, but then in the same breath they speak against logic - as if this absolute truth is possible without logic! They also separate God's logic from man's, which makes it easy for a pastor to feed his audience with any type of nonsense. And the more domineering personality a pastor has got, the more blindly loyal following he will have, and these followers will defend him tooth and nail even if there is an irrefutable Biblical proof that their pastor is wrong. For they were taught for years to accept nonsense and contradictions, and that is what they are doing.

As this anti-intellectual irrationality is praised and lauded in churches, the congregations readily accept god who is both holy and a sinner at the same time. They don't even realize that they believe in a glaring impossibility. It happens because of the mistrust of logic and its first law of non-contradiction. There is no end to chaos where One Truth does not reign, and Truth can reign only when based on the law of non-contradiction, and if the truth reigned supreme in the churches it would not have allowed a statement that God-Man can be a sinner. God does not speak nonsense, nor commands us to do it, and so ''made sin'' is to be understood as an imputation of our sins into our Savior's account and Him paying agonizing penalties for them.


Yoder has mentioned Luther's believe in consubstantiation. Well, believing that Christ spiritually is in the bread at Lord's Supper is very bad, of course, but even this error cannot be compared to sinful christ. What is worse: Christ's Spirit in the bread or Christ a literal heaving heap of sin? I am not defending Luther at all on this one, God forbid, but at least there are several straight statements by our Lord Jesus (and other writers of the Bible) that He is the bread of life. Luther, having been brought up in the RCC, having hammered into him from childhood this teaching about bread and wine, at least had some mitigating circumstances speaking for him.

But what excuse teachers and believers in sinful christ have? Who forced them into this heresy from childhood or at any other time? Why do they want to teach people to believe in such an impossibility as sinful christ if nowhere in the Bible does Christ Himself say that He is a sinnner, or is going to become one and be burned as such?
Where is their excuse?

ugly_gaunt_cow
08-13-05, 04:50 PM
Folks, where is the outrage?

The outrage is within me - precisely aimed at this horrible, puke-warm slop being spewed from the mouths of these "professing" believers.

Before anyone goes off on a tangent about my little tangent - let's get one thing clear; I'm not Jesus. I don't possess the ability (yet) to be compassionate 100% of the time, much less 10%. I'll love my neighbor and try as hard as I might not to repay evil with evil.

BUT

People should do themselves a favor and keep their philosophical babble in check until they've had a chance to think things through. It sure would help the situation a whole bunch, and I would be less apt to pray to the LORD to avenge His Name on their sorry @$$.

Think about what they are saying!! How grotesque! It's a sickly perversion of the worst kind. I can't think of anything else that would lend to the depraved minds of men opportunity to justify sin than making the claim that JESUS, the SPOTLESS LAMB, BROTHER LORD, who OPEN NOT HIS MOUTH was, for however brief of a moment, just like them - or perhaps worse.

blech! Yuk! Must have been the rancid meat, out of season, I ate earlier. :mad:

Mickey
08-13-05, 05:18 PM
Luba:
Some pastors make statements that they believe in absolute truth, God, but then in the same breath they speak against logic - as if this absolute truth is possible without logic! They also separate God's logic from man's...

Very true sis! My response to those who say such a thing is, "So if man's logic is seperate from God's logic, did you use that 'man logic' to come to that conclusion? And if so then why would I want to listen to your opinions if they are coming from that type of 'logic'?"

Pure slop indeed! A typical Vantilian lie. Sean Gerety adresses this very issue in the latest Trinity Review, The Evisceration of the Christian Faith: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/latest.php

What an appropriate title for what these people are doing. They are gutting out Christianity.

ray kikkert
08-13-05, 07:11 PM
Stick to the issues, stand firm for the truth, but resist the temptation to savagely attack the people.

It has become clear to me that one cannot defend the truth without also being accused of savagely attacking those who do not defend it! As much as I regret it, that is the inevitable outcome and no man can stop it.

That brother Bill is very truth.

ray kikkert
08-13-05, 07:22 PM
Be furious, be indignant, be mad and loud, Joe, when your God and Savior is slandered! Tell everyone that it is impossible for Christ to be sinful! It is easy to say: ''Lord, Lord'', but when this Lord is offended in the most horrible of all possible manners, you are calming me down! I don't want to be calm about this matter, nor lukewarm. I want to be very intolerant to our Lord being insulted. Please, Lord, help all of Your children to be highly volatile when we hear lies about You, even from our favorite pulpits!

Luba.

I am glad your back Luba and in time to yet again witness the vain philosophy of a creature. To make Jesus Christ, the Lamb slain before the foundations of the earth a sinner.

You know I was just reading the Trinity Foundations Horror file. Check out this pathetic babble and filth that was exposed by John Robbins. Fight the good fight with the sharp, polemical two edged sword.

Steve Schlissel: "God lies" (http://www.trinityfoundation.org/horror_show.php?id=39)July 2005Dear Friends,
Speaking earlier this month at the 2005 Christian Worldview Student Conference sponsored by the Calvary Reformed Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Hampton, Virginia, pastored by Pete Hurst and Byron Snapp, Steve Schlissel, who has been preaching lies for years, emphatically claimed that his God lies, too. His exact words were:

"God freely chose to lie to Ahab [in 1 Kings 22] by an appointed surrogate. He did not wince, did not squeal, did not seek to shift responsibility. In fact, he boasted about it to Ahab and Ahab's colleagues.... Someone says, 'God lies.' Yes, He does."

Of the many PCA Elders who were present at this conference of several hundred students, apparently only one, Calvin Beisner of Knox Seminary, objected to Schlissel's lies.

Schlissel said that God lies, and God is responsible for his lies: "Consider the facts. God solicited the plan [to deceive Ahab], God had his choice of plans, God approved THIS specific plan, and authorized it, and commissioned the lying spirit. According to the Word of God, presiding judges are responsible for their decisions and commanding generals are directly responsible for their instructions."

Not only does Schlissel directly contradict the explicit statements of Scripture when he says that God lies (see Titus 1:2: "God...cannot lie"; Hebrews 6:18: "impossible for God to lie"; 1 John 2:21: "no lie is of the truth"; Number 23:19: "God is not a man that he should lie"), Schlissel also regards God as a man and thus compares him to a presiding judge or a commanding general. Schlissel has no grasp of the distinction between the Creator and the creature, and he makes God subject to the same rules that apply to mere men, who are held accountable by God.

God is not responsible to anyone, especially not to Steve Schlissel. The concept of responsibility, as Dr. Gordon Clark pointed out 70 years ago to those who have ears to hear, implies that one is legitimately required to give a response, to give an account, to a superior. God has no superior, especially not Steve Schlissel. No one can require God to give an account of his actions. God, therefore is not responsible to anyone for anything. When Schlissel says that God lies, Schlissel lies. When Schlissel says that God is responsible for his lies, Schlissel lies.

Furthermore, Schlissel says that some lies are good. He seems to have learned this lie from the Reconstructionists (or perhaps it was the situation ethicist Joseph Fletcher), who have taught the virtue of lying for decades. So when God lies, he is doing good. And presumably Schlissel thinks that when he lies, he is also doing good. He is deceived and a deceiver.

Question: What heresies, what blasphemies, what lies have to be told in PCA churches before the members rise up and throw out the liars? The Elders of Calvary Reformed Presbyterian Church, who invited Schlissel to speak to the students, stand by his remarks. They have issued no statement contradicting him, and do not intend to do so. What heresies, what blasphemies, what lies do PCA pastors and Elders have to endorse before Presbyteries remove them from office?

Calvary Reformed Presbyterian Church is a member of the James River Presbytery in the PCA. Will the Presbytery take any action against Schlissel and the Session of Calvary? Don't hold your breath.
John Robbins
The Trinity Foundation
July 29, 2005
www.trinityfoundation.org

Tobias Crisp
08-13-05, 08:27 PM
Luther, having been brought up in the RCC, having hammered into him from childhood this teaching about bread and wine, at least had some mitigating circumstances speaking for him.Luba, not to change the subject but I don't see this as an excuse for Luther simply because he had Zwingli and the Anabaptists on the issue of the Lord's supper, Luther rejected their views and concocted his consubstantiation.

lionovjudah
08-14-05, 02:16 PM
Stick to the issues, stand firm for the truth, but resist the temptation to savagely attack the people.

It has become clear to me that one cannot defend the truth without also being accused of savagely attacking those who do not defend it! As much as I regret it, that is the inevitable outcome and no man can stop it.

Bob: This is exactly what the post modernistic world confesses.

Who I am = What I say or do..

This is why liberals accuse the West and Christians of being intolerant. Obviously Christ is able to speperate what I do(sin) with whom I am (Elect believer). And we should do the same.

lionovjudah
08-14-05, 02:36 PM
Bob, I agree with you totally - the doer cannot be separated from his acts. Our Lord Himself was called names for His life-giving words and deeds, and we should be ready for the same, rejoicing with our Redeemer's disciples when we are insulted, for they knew for Whose Name's sake they were hated.

Again as mentioned to Bob, this is nto a cut and dry statement. I certainly do not want the Lord or believers to define me 100% by what I do or say at times. They would conclude I am a terrible withness to Christ.





Joe, if you want to talk about matches, ignition and fire, go to those who know all about burning of a sinner on a cross.

For us who know from the Scriptures that our Savior's blood and His death was enough for His people's salvation, no fires, no heaps of ashes are required; they are not in the Bible. The fire in the OT was a symbol, same as the fat on the kidneys of a sacrificial animal, fine flour, oil, spices, etc, are symbolic for our understanding and discernment, but we don't have to pile these literal items up and burn them on the cross.

I do nto know what this is in reference to.


Your advice to me is to calm down. Did you give similar admonitions to Messrs Potts, Thomas and others? Hope so, in the name of fairness. I remember you getting overexcited for much lesser matters than the one we are dealing with now. How can anything be more important than the Object of our faith? Who do we have outside of Jesus Christ? How can you, Joe, remain so unoffended by our Lord being slandered? You should ask me to be even more offended than I am, for our very salvation for eternity depends on Jesus Christ's holiness at the cross! We have no God without Him being holy throughout! Why don't you e-mail your friends all over the world this Biblical truth? Be furious, be indignant, be mad and loud, Joe, when your God and Savior is slandered! Tell everyone that it is impossible for Christ to be sinful! It is easy to say: ''Lord, Lord'', but when this Lord is offended in the most horrible of all possible manners, you are calming me down! I don't want to be calm about this matter, nor lukewarm. I want to be very intolerant to our Lord being insulted. Please, Lord, help all of Your children to be highly volatile when we hear lies about You, even from our favorite pulpits!

Luba.


Luba, you asked for where I was in the way I addressed issues like this. I quoted the Apostle Peter, and it is BIBLICAL advice. What did the Lord do when He was accused? Did He snap like a maniac? NO!!! WHat about when Peter cut the guards ear off, what did our Lord say or do? I do not believe that Christ was a sinner, I do not agree with this teaching, and I have told Ian this, but I am not rolling out the rack or the faggots of wood and gas. If you find biblical evidence to act this way, it must be missing in my bible. Maybe I have the WCE translation ( Whimpy Chrisitan Edition).

You assume this is something new, when in fact it is not. Luther, Calvin and others have eluded to teh SAME thing. I will provide the quotes. Not that this makes it right at all, but it should make you realize Ian, and Fortner et al: have not created some NEW doctrine. This whole Idea is what the RCC accussed the reformers of teaching 500 years ago Luba.

Praying that we become highly volatile over a situation will not settle anything other than patting ones own back!!!!

The case has been presented, I do nto believe made sin means anythign other than bore our sins, or "sin- offering" Thats it Luba. But reasearch this teaching and you will see it is nto new at all.


I also asked that you look back at my post to brandan, I only asked him to pray for the Lord to lead him in this issue.

We must confront false teachers, stand firm inthe faith once delivered. But we shoudl do it as Scripture tells us. Exactly as Peter does for us



Joe

lionovjudah
08-14-05, 05:01 PM
Here are some quotes from Luther:

He found Himself in a state of condemnation and abandonment . . . He actually and in truth offered Himself to the eternal Father to be consigned to eternal damnation for us. His human nature did not behave differently from that of a man who is to be condemned eternally to hell. On account of this love of God, God at once raised Him from death and hell, and so He overcame hell.
[Grisar, ibid., vol. 1, 239-240; from Commentary on Romans (1515-1516); edition of J. Ficker, Leipzig: 1908, 218 ff.)

But Christ took upon Himself all of our sin, and thus He died upon the cross. Therefore he had to become that which we are, namely a sinner, a murderer, evildoer, etc. . . . For insofar as he is a victim for the sins of the whole world, He is not now such a person as is innocent and without sin, is not God's Son in all glory, but a sinner, abandoned by God for a short time; Psalms 8:6.
[Detailed Explanation of the Epistle to the Galatians, part 2, fourth argument, Walch edition, vol. 8, p. 2165, nos. 321-324; cf. Commentary on Galatians, , ed. J.P. Fallowes, London: 1850; reprinted by Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, MI, 1979, 164-165]

The popish sophisters do spoil us of this knowledge of Christ . . . when they separate Him from sins and sinners . . . But we must wrap Christ, and know Him to be wrapped in our sins, in our malediction, in our death, and in all our evils, as He is wrapped in our flesh and blood . . . if it be not absurd to confess and believe that Christ was crucified between two thieves, then it is not absurd to say also that He was accursed, and of all sinners the greatest [he then cites 2 Cor 5:21].
[Commentary on Galatians, , 165; on Gal 3:13]


Christ . . . did put upon Himself our person, and laid our sins upon His own shoulders, saying, I have committed the sins which all men have committed . . .

We must not then imagine Christ to be innocent, and as a private person who is holy and righteous for Himself alone, as do the schoolmen, and as nearly all of the fathers have done. True it is that Christ is a person most pure and unspotted; but thou must not stay there: for thou hast not yet Christ, although thou know Him to be God and man . . .
. . . He putting off His innocency and holiness . . .
[cites 2 Cor 5:21] And although these sentences may be well expounded after this manner: Christ is made a curse, that is to say, a sacrifice for the curse; and sin, that is, a sacrifice for sin: yet, in my judgment, it is better to keep the proper signification of the words, because there is a greater force and vehemency in them. For when a sinner cometh to the knowledge of himself indeed, he feeleth not only that he is miserable, but misery itself: not only that he is a sinner, and accursed, but even sin and malediction itself. For it is a terrible thing to bear sin, the wrath of God, malediction and death. Wherefore that man who hath a true feeling of these things (as Christ did truly and effectually feel them for all mankind) is made even sin, death, malediction, etc. . . . guilty of all our malediction, our sins, and all our evils . . .
[Ibid., 174-175]


Although death remained in that flesh on our account, the leaven of sin was nevertheless purged out, and it became the purest flesh, purified by the Holy Spirit and united with the divine nature in one Person. Therefore it is truly human nature no different from what it is in us . . . The Holy Spirit wanted Him to sink into sin as deeply as possible. Consequently, He had to be besmirched with incest and born from incestuous blood.
(Luther, Commentary on Genesis, 1544, footnote 81: Luther's Works 7:13)

ng these lines, John Calvin writes, in his Institutes:

But we must seek a surer explanation, apart from the Creed, of Christ's descent into hell. The explanation given to us in God's Word is not only holy and pious, but also full of wonderful consolation. If Christ had died only a bodily death, it would have been ineffectual. No -- it was expedient at the same time for him to undergo the severity of God's vengeance, to appease his wrath and satisfy his just judgment. For this reason he must grapple hand in hand with the armies of hell and the dread of everlasting death . . . No wonder, then, if he is said to have descended into hell, for he suffered the death that God in his wrath had inflicted upon the wicked! . . . he paid a greater and more excellent price in suffering in his soul the terrible torments of a condemned and forsaken man.
([I]Institutes of the Christian Religion, II, XVI, 10, vol. I, 515-516, in the edition edited by John T. McNeill and translated and indexed by Ford Lewis Battles, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960)
Here certain untutored wretches, impelled more by malice than by ignorance, cry out that I am doing a frightful injustice to Christ. For they hold it incongruous for him to fear for the salvation of his soul . . .
Our opponents, refuted, jump to another misrepresentation: although Christ feared death, he did not fear God's curse and wrath, from which he knew himself to be safe.
(Ibid., II, XVI, 12, vol. 1, 517, 519)

Mickey
08-14-05, 05:24 PM
If Christ was a sinner on the cross, then those who crucified Him are not guilty of sin. He was not then an innocent man, making His crucifixion legal.

Brandan
08-14-05, 05:25 PM
Tell me Joe, how many of these quotes were sent to you from Ian by e-mail?

GraceAmbassador
08-14-05, 05:55 PM
Tell me Joe, how many of these quotes were sent to you from Ian by e-mail?

Also Joe, if you don't mind, please, state your position in the issue in a way that matches ONLY your thinking and not private emails and phone calls. Your posts seem to have been improved greatly, but they would be of no value if they do not represent your own thinking.

Now, just as Jesus was not "nice" to some Jews and declared them "children of the devil, white washed sepulchers, generation of vipers" and just as Paul denounced some of his detractors and ultimately called us to "reprove" the works of darkness (expose heresies and heretics), please, don't expect that Luba, Brandan or any other of the moderators will be nice with people who are exhuming cadavers of past errors that if not completed obliterated by the effect of rottenness, they should remain buried with their promoters... and NEVER again taught by novelty bearers. Since when a quote from Luther is enough to endorse false teaching?

Check the footnote of your own posts! What we are doing here as we defend that which we perceive is error, is indeed a virtue and not something to be rebuked as if it is worse than the error itself.

Milt

L-Today
08-14-05, 08:24 PM
Joe, although the Bible uses very strong language against false teachers, I do understand your concern lest we fight the opposition with unbiblical weapons. And if your concerns are genuinely about our conduct being Christian, we are grateful to hear and if we are wrong heed them and correct the way we defend our Lord's honor. So please continue voicing your worries, we are listening and appreciating your views on our Christian walk and warfare. If we fight with unbiblical weapons, we'd be defeating the purpose of our battles.

At the same time, it would have been helpful if you showed us where and how we have treated the propagators of ''sinful christ'' unbiblically. We have called their theories 'another gospel', 'heresy' and 'blasphemy' among other similar names, because that is how the Scriptures name slandering of our Lord Jesus Christ and His Holy Work.

What would you like our reaction to be when our Rock, our Cornerstone is pronounced worse than the sinking sand? When the Head of the Body is made into a heaving heap of rot? When our Bridegroom is accused to have gone ahoring for three hours of darkness? What do you think the apostles would have said in our place? This is not an 'ordinary' insult directed at our God and our Lord Jesus. This is the utmost offence for there is nowhere worse to go after that.

There are countless insults heaped upon our Beloved Savior and Lord when the pure gospel of Jesus Christ is supposed to be preached. For the most part the receivers of these ''good'' news don't mind these abuses, often not even realizing what they are taught. All of us are guilty of this deafness and blindness to a lesser or larger degree. But now that our merciful Divine Teacher has exposed this blasphemy for what it is, why and how should we keep quiet? We cannot, of course.

As this matter is beyond important, it is bound to generate a lot of heat - how else? And yet, as far as I know, nobody from the forum went on an insulting the opposition spree. Or did we? Where?

I am not saying that the people who believe, hold on tight and spread this abomination, necessarily see clearly what they are doing. But since now they have glanced into the pit where their selective literalness leads, we hope and pray that they will repent, recognize that their teaching is a lethal heresy, and proclaim publicly and loudly for all to hear that their ''sinful christ'' is not only wrong but an utter impossibility, and that Triune God and His Son was, is and forever will be holy and righteous. We don't wish these people anything bad, on the contrary, we wish them, our Lord God willing, for the good of the Body of Christ, to stop believing and propagating this lie.

It was stated on this forum many times before, much as we value and treasure the works of the proven Christian saints from the past and present, it does not mean that they are infallible, and we are allowed to differ from them on whatever we deem they are wrong. Reading lots (not a citation there and a quote here) of Luther and Calvin will prove to any child of God that these men did not believe in a sinful christ.

It is fine, Joe, IF there is someone advising you on this and other matters. Nothing wrong if this person helps you to streamline your thoughts sometimes for clarity's sake. I, for one, don't mind it at all, although it would have been interesting if this helper wished to come forth and introduced himself/herself. But, of course, we would never dream of insisting on it.

Luba.

L-Today
08-14-05, 08:33 PM
Mike, very true - if 'sinful christ' was true, then his crucifixion would have been justified, and his accusers would have been right - all of them from beginning to the end of the Bible. No end to horrid consequences of this heresy. Why not believe God's Holy Truth?

L

L-Today
08-14-05, 08:53 PM
Anthony, you are absolutely right re consubstantiation - it is unacceptable and awful, because our Lord Jesus is not in the physical bread. That is why I made clear that I do not defend Luther on this one, God forbid me doing that.

Mitigating circumstances are not excusing nor whitewashing a wrong-doer. I only thought that childhood brainwashing is often ingrained more firmly in our mind (I am talking about myself, although IT IS NO EXCUSE, NONE AT ALL for holding on to our errors), while nobody instilled 'sinful christ' heresy into its proponents from their childhood.

L

Mickey
08-14-05, 09:09 PM
Jude 4: For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Mickey
08-14-05, 09:18 PM
John Robbins mentions this verse in his article: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=207

Gal 2:4-5

Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in--who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery-- to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.

"Paul did not put up with (“yield submission” to) error or those teaching error on the Gospel “even for an hour.” He was quick to recognize error and quick to correct it, so that “the truth of the Gospel might continue with you.” While his concern was doctrinal, it was not academic, for he did not tolerate those who were teaching error in the churches. He understood error, and he refused to tolerate the men who were teaching or abetting error in the churches.
Paul explained further how Christians ought to respond to those who obscure the Gospel: “But from those who seemed to be something – whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man – for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me” (Galatians 2:6). Paul was not impressed by a person’s status in the church. God is no respecter of persons, and neither was Paul. Church status, church office, educational credentials afford no immunity. In fact, the Biblical rule is just the opposite: To whom much is given, much shall be required. The greater the office, the greater the responsibility in the churches. That is why Paul told Timothy: “those [elders] who are sinning rebuke in the presence of all” (1 Timothy 5:20)." (John Robbins-Why Heretics Win Battles)

lionovjudah
08-15-05, 03:04 AM
Tell me Joe, how many of these quotes were sent to you from Ian by e-mail?


Not one, I found them myself on the NET brandan. Now I have not read them all in context, and I dont have all of Luthers works. But I did read them i Calvins institutes.

I believe they need to be read in context , but this is what they were accused of by the RCC.

Joe

lionovjudah
08-15-05, 03:11 AM
Also Joe, if you don't mind, please, state your position in the issue in a way that matches ONLY your thinking and not private emails and phone calls. Your posts seem to have been improved greatly, but they would be of no value if they do not represent your own thinking.

Now, just as Jesus was not "nice" to some Jews and declared them "children of the devil, white washed sepulchers, generation of vipers" and just as Paul denounced some of his detractors and ultimately called us to "reprove" the works of darkness (expose heresies and heretics), please, don't expect that Luba, Brandan or any other of the moderators will be nice with people who are exhuming cadavers of past errors that if not completed obliterated by the effect of rottenness, they should remain buried with their promoters... and NEVER again taught by novelty bearers. Since when a quote from Luther is enough to endorse false teaching?

Check the footnote of your own posts! What we are doing here as we defend that which we perceive is error, is indeed a virtue and not something to be rebuked as if it is worse than the error itself.

Milt


Milt, my only point in posting the quotes was to show this is not a NEW teaching. That is it.

I believe it is false, because scripture speaks of a spotless Lamb. "offered Himself without spot...to the Father".

Again I also stated that Luther/Calvin are not some infallible magesterium, and if thee quotes mean what the look like they mean, I blieve they were wrong also.

Defending the truth, exposing false teachings is a great virtue, but I believe must be done with humility, and prayer for repentace and reconcilition with those in error.


I have expressed my OWN thinking on this subject throught the threads milt.

lionovjudah
08-15-05, 03:15 AM
It is fine, Joe, IF there is someone advising you on this and other matters. Nothing wrong if this person helps you to streamline your thoughts sometimes for clarity's sake. I, for one, don't mind it at all, although it would have been interesting if this helper wished to come forth and introduced himself/herself. But, of course, we would never dream of insisting on it.

Luba.


NOONE is advising me as some "Cerino in the bushes" I have personally told Ian that I disagree, and am very disturbed by this teaching. All I said is I am not asking for his head on a platter Luba.

Again the internet does not allow one to see the other person, and my perception was a volitile hatred of these people and not their ideas. If I am wrong, then so be it.

melted
08-15-05, 06:51 AM
The best way to combat this false teaching is to continue to display the wrong conclusions one would need draw from it.


Let's assume for a moment that "sin" is a tree, "sins" are the fruit, and "debt" is aquired by partaking of the fruit.

If Jesus Christ became the tree, the fruit, and the debt 2000 years ago, and rid us of these things, then why have I sinned so many times? If this were the case, Christ failed miserably in His mission. When one destroys a tree, it no longer produces fruit. If one destroys the fruit, the fruit can no longer be partaken of. If there is SUBSTANCE to sin, and Christ took on the SUBSTANCE of sin, then that substance MUST be gone. If it were not COMPLETELY GONE, then CHRIST IS STILL A SINNER. If it is COMPLETELY GONE, then I HAVE NEVER SINNED.

If, on the other hand, we rightly acknowledge that Christ did not become the tree, nor the fruit, but rather that He bore the DEBT of our sins, we are forced to conclude that the debt is COMPLETELY GONE. Christ was successful in utterly destroying forever the debt of sin. We rightly conclude that this debt DOES NOT EXIST TODAY.

So, on the one hand, we have an unsuccessful Savior who did not rid us of what He attempted to. On the other we have a successful Savior who exterminated the penalty of sin.

bgamall
08-15-05, 10:33 AM
"The line in the sand has been drawn. Where do you stand?"

Brandon part of this is semantics. If we define sin as separation from God, then in some sense we must admit that Christ, as bearing the sins of the elect, was separated from God. Otherwise it makes no sense for Him to ask the father "Why Have you forsakened me." Now, I don't claim to understand this mystery. I don't know if it means that as Diety, Christ was separated from the Father and the Spirit on some other level or not. But clearly, as a man, Christ was separated from the Father in some way. I am open to discussion about this.

It is sort of like trying to understand what it means for God to be three persons. I don't believe it is within the grasp of man to understand this relationship apart from what is revealed. I just think that we should take the scriptures for what they are and leave it at that.

Also, as I posted in the topic modified covenant theology, the elect are cut to the heart by the gospel (Acts ch 2). Indeed, they are killed by this cutting and raised by the same power that raised Jesus from the dead. In some sense, Jesus was separated from God, as the elect are at this spiritual circumcision that begins the process of regeneration. I am not sure if the spiritual circumcision which elicits repentance is a result of being in the Kingdom at that point, or if the actually repentance is the time at which the elect enter the kingdom. Again, I am open to any other ideas on this subject.

But clearly as Christ died the elect are cut to the heart by the gospel, and as He was raised from the dead, the elect are delivered from this misery through faith in Him. Notice none of this comes through law. It all happens through the gospel.

InChristAlways
08-15-05, 10:35 AM
The best way to combat this false teaching is to continue to display the wrong conclusions one would need draw from it.


Let's assume for a moment that "sin" is a tree, "sins" are the fruit, and "debt" is aquired by partaking of the fruit.

If Jesus Christ became the tree, the fruit, and the debt 2000 years ago, and rid us of these things, then why have I sinned so many times? If this were the case, Christ failed miserably in His mission. When one destroys a tree, it no longer produces fruit. If one destroys the fruit, the fruit can no longer be partaken of. If there is SUBSTANCE to sin, and Christ took on the SUBSTANCE of sin, then that substance MUST be gone. If it were not COMPLETELY GONE, then CHRIST IS STILL A SINNER. If it is COMPLETELY GONE, then I HAVE NEVER SINNED.

If, on the other hand, we rightly acknowledge that Christ did not become the tree, nor the fruit, but rather that He bore the DEBT of our sins, we are forced to conclude that the debt is COMPLETELY GONE. Christ was successful in utterly destroying forever the debt of sin. We rightly conclude that this debt DOES NOT EXIST TODAY.

So, on the one hand, we have an unsuccessful Savior who did not rid us of what He attempted to. On the other we have a successful Savior who exterminated the penalty of sin.And we sure don't want to call JTB a "fibber" either concerning the Pure "Lamb of God".:)

Micah 3:8 But truly I am full of power by the Spirit of the LORD, And of justice and might, To declare to Jacob his transgression And to Israel his sin.

John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

Zechariah 13:1 "In that day a fountain shall be opened for the house of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness.

Brandan
08-15-05, 10:43 AM
See my latest article: http://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=421

This will be going out by e-mail to a lot of people soon...

InChristAlways
08-15-05, 11:15 AM
Brandon part of this is semantics. If we define sin as separation from God, then in some sense we must admit that Christ, as bearing the sins of the elect, was separated from God. Otherwise it makes no sense for Him to ask the father "Why Have you forsakened me." Now, I don't claim to understand this mystery. I don't know if it means that as Diety, Christ was separated from the Father and the Spirit on some other level or not. But clearly, as a man, Christ was separated from the Father in some way. I am open to discussion about this.



See my latest article: http://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=421

This will be going out by e-mail to a lot of people soon...
Hi bm. And thanks Brandon for that article.
Everything Jesus did had to fulfill the prophecies of the OT Scriptures and it was to Israel and the jews He came to first. We may have to use "OC jewish" eyes to view a lot of the bible in order for it to become more clear sometimes?

I also had a problem with that passage and like Brandon, I wanted to harmonize it with the rest of the Bible. I believe Jesus said that for the jews sake, because they had no understanding of Jesus's real mission and especially His resurrection. This site I believe also does a good job of explaining it and translation is of course another essential part of it. Blessings.

http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=160
These words that Jesus cried out as he was hanging on the Cross have been a source of much confusion and debate among Christians through the years. Some teach that Jesus became sin, God cannot look on sin, and thus God forsook His Son. Others, citing the following verses, say that God did not forsake His Son when he needed Him the most:.....................

Many Bible commentators and teachers have promoted the idea that Jesus became sin for us and therefore the holy God had to forsake him because God cannot stand sin. This idea comes from 2 Corinthians 5:21, which in the NIV reads, "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that we might become the righteousness of God." But an accompanying note indicates that another way to translate the phrase "be sin for us” is “be a sin offering."

The NIV translators recognized that because of the semantic range of the Greek word for "sin," hamartia, it can be used (by the figure of speech Metonymy) to mean "a sin offering." Thus, they translate hamartia in Romans 8:3 as follows: "For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man/FLESH to be a sin offering.

To whom did Jesus come? Israel. To whom was this Psalm written? Israel. Look how he is reminding them of their spiritual heritage, which included the Messiah.

GraceAmbassador
08-15-05, 12:05 PM
See my latest article: http://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=421

This will be going out by e-mail to a lot of people soon...

This is a quote that denotes lack of research that ultimately makes one come to a conclusion, and based on it, develop an argument that it was not there in the first place, and is totally unrelated:



You know, its no wonder that He prayed in the garden until His sweat literally became great clots, ugly clots of blood dripping to the ground. Because here was a being who had never known sin, he'd never thought a sinful thought, He never had a sinful desire, had never had an ill intention, had never had any sin come across His mind, His heart, His will, or His being. And yet He knew He was facing becoming just as sinful as His people. No wonder He prayed, ' Lord couldn't we do this some other way? Is there not some other arrangement that we can make (snicker)? I don't mind the dying part, but Lord is there not some way that I could escape being made like THESE people. He prayed until He couldn't pray anymore. He prayed until His sweat turned to blood because it was unfathomable to Him to think about becoming sinful in the place of His people


In my "preacher's" life the fact that Jesus sweat-ed drops of blood always puzzled me. Finally I decided that I was going to ask, not one, not two, but a few doctors to find out if and how is it possible that one can have blood mixed with his sweat and what are the conditions for this to happen and how rare is it. Basically I had the same type of answer:

In deep cases of anguish one may be so physically affected by such anguish that they can shed blood with their sweat. It is unclear why, but totally possible. When such dripping happens is what answers the questions as to why Jesus prayed "Not my will but thine". Jesus would NEVER, EVER pray against God's will! He knew His mission and mentioned it since He was 12 at the temple as He discussed the Law with the Lawyers:

One will drop sweat and blood at the same time when they are at the verge of dying; Blood and sweat together pre-announced DEATH.

Jesus was in the garden suffering the anguish of death as He himself declares it: My soul is anguished unto death! He was dying there in the garden, at least that's the way He felt and the evidence of the blood dripping with sweat proved to Him!

Jesus knew about the way He should die! It was NOT to be caused by anguish and in that part of the garden! So He prayed THE WILL OF GOD AND IN THE WILL OF GOD that God would PRESERVE Him, according to His will, to die as planned and prophesied: IN THE CROSS!

To use the argument that Jesus was becoming wobbly about dying because He was to become a sinner thus asking God, outside of the known God's Will, that God would spare Him from dying is a denial that Christ was fit to be our sacrifice and can be heretical as it is heretical to say that He was a sinner without "sinning".

In Luke chapter 4 we see the devil offering "all kinds of ways" for Christ to avoid crucifixion at the same time that He would gain glorification and repossess the worlds. Jesus denied them all and preferred the course established by God in eternity and die "bearing our sins" upon Himself, suffering the shame and agony of the cross.

The point of the "mercy and truth met together, righteousness and peace of God "kissing each other" (Ps 85:10) and the point that "God proved His Love toward us in that Christ died for us while WE WERE YET SINNERS" is that God was willing to SACRIFICE His son for us. NOT BY MAKING CHRIST TO BE A SINNER!

IF CHRIST, OR JESUS (since they like to separate the two) WAS A SINNER, THEN HE DESERVED TO DIE. EVEN IF HE BECAME A SINNER FOR A SPLIT SECOND ON THE CROSS, HE DESERVED TO DIE. THEN IT WOULD BE NO LONGER A SACRIFICE!

How could Christ communicate freely with God in the cross if He was a SINNER?

Jesus' death was a SACRIFICE in the part of God; THE JUST DYING FOR THE UNJUST!


I have made up my mind: Jesus was made sin; sin was imputed on him who had no sin so that I who was unrighteous could have the righteousness of God imputed on me! No, He was not a sinner! NEVER, EVER!

Milt

ugly_gaunt_cow
08-15-05, 01:03 PM
[Originally Posted by From one of Mark Daniel's excerpts

You know, its no wonder that He prayed in the garden until His sweat literally became great clots, ugly clots of blood dripping to the ground. Because here was a being who had never known sin, he'd never thought a sinful thought, He never had a sinful desire, had never had an ill intention, had never had any sin come across His mind, His heart, His will, or His being. And yet He knew He was facing becoming just as sinful as His people. No wonder He prayed, ' Lord couldn't we do this some other way? Is there not some other arrangement that we can make (snicker)? I don't mind the dying part, but Lord is there not some way that I could escape being made like THESE people. He prayed until He couldn't pray anymore. He prayed until His sweat turned to blood because it was unfathomable to Him to think about becoming sinful in the place of His people


The guy is obviously way off base on this; I mean, how came someone claim to be called of God to teach from the pulpit if he can't even get the most simplest of ideas down right?

Lk 22:44, (KJV), And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

Heb 4:15, (KJV), For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Heb 12:4, (KJV), Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.

bgamall
08-15-05, 01:20 PM
Brandon, I can say with confidence two things. First, Jesus never sinned. He never committed a sin. That is obviously true from scripture. Anyone who says that Jesus committed sin is preaching a false gospel.

Second, we can say that in some sense Jesus was separated from the Father prior to going to be with God. If you do not agree with this point in any way please post it here. If you have any scripture that would help me to understand how he was not separated from the father, then let me know. I see the scripture that may mean he became a sin offering. However Paul said He was CURSED. That is not symbolic in my view. It means that Jesus was without blessing. The absence of blessing may mean that He was separated from the Joy of the Father and the Spirit and the strenght of faith. Whether that means that He was actually separated from the Father and the Spirit is not fully understood by me. I just don't know.

However, if Jesus were separate from the Father and Spirit, it would then be possible for him to become sin, unjustly of course, for He never sinned. That is if sin is defined as separation from God. On the other hand, He never ceased to possess the divine nature. So again, a mystery. I do not claim to understand this. I think that it is a subject that can only be understood in part. Again, Brandon, if you have something to add to this reasoning please do so.

Brandan
08-15-05, 01:29 PM
Jesus was God, so how could He be separated from Himself?

Brandan
08-15-05, 01:39 PM
1 Pet 1:19, (KJV), But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

bgamall
08-15-05, 01:42 PM
I believe that He was separated from the blessing of God. But He had the divine and human nature, so that divine nature never ceased. If He continued to be God, then on a divine level there was no separation. On a human level there was a separation. I would think that both must be true although I could be wrong. I view this as a very frustrating topic. If you say, for example, Brandon, that Jesus did not become a curse, then it is you who are wrong. So, the definition of curse is the issue.

L-Today
08-15-05, 02:32 PM
Joe, are you now satisfied that we are not viciously attacking people instead of their false doctrines?

Now, for example, you met two people; one of them loves Jesus Christ and the other hates our God and our Lord. Would you treat both men the same? And would your whole attitude toward them be the same? Would you invite both of them to your home as your brethren?

Why would anybody in the whole world call drops of blood ''ugly clots''? Anybody's blood? But especially the drops of Blood of our Blessed and Adored Savior? What was ugly in them? How do such adjectives come into a supposed Christian's mind when he think of the Son of God? I guess our Lord's Blood is not the only ugly thing for Mark Daniel. Otherwise why would he verbalize the imagined by him dialogue between the persons of Godhead in such obnoxious and flippant tone?

So, although we would never attack Mark Daniel and other professors of 'sinful christ', nor use vulgar language were we to meet them, it is very hard to have warm fellowship with people capable of slandering and mocking our Lord. As you see, Joe, it is not easy at all to separate a person from his words and deeds. So don't be surprised if our indignation at these people's propaganda spills over on their persons. If people utter blasphemies aren't they called blasphemers? And thus it is: although we wish to vigorously attack heretical teachings about our Lord, the professors of these heresies are called heretics, whether you want it or not. And then we are accused of attacking people. What would you recommend us to do?

Luba.

L-Today
08-15-05, 03:02 PM
The whole false doctrine of 'sinful christ' was based on 2Cor 5.21 and on the claim that all Psalms are about Jesus Christ.

Well, what about Ps 51? If it is about our Lord Jesus Christ, then all doctrines of Christianity fall apart, including the virgin birth of Christ (v 5). There are many Psalms that cannot be messianic. So we are left with only 2Cor 5.21. And even this 'made' is proven to be impossible in a literal sense. What would a Christian do if all his Biblical proofs proved to be wrong?

That is what is so surprising to me: how could pastors and their followers believe and embrace this dangerous idea based on such insubstantial evidence, considering the gravity of the subject?

bgamall
08-15-05, 04:11 PM
"Gary Shephard has a good article called “Christ the Savior of Sinners” which is on the from page of www.donfortner.com (http://www.donfortner.com/). Go read it. It makes the same point about Christ’s death that I have. God cannot die, but Christ died. How? In His human nature. God cannot be made sin, but Christ was made sin. How? In His human nature."

Brandon, you did not deal with this view. The part I agree with is the obvious. Christ as a human being died. His essence as God did not die, yet He died as a human. That human nature of Christ was separated from God and suffered the penalty of separation from God, in some way. Brandon, you must come to terms with the fact that the God of this universe died. So, since one person of God died in human form, it is true that in some sense He became sin, He became separated from God. I agree with you that as God, He never ceased being God. But I think to throw one side of Christ's nature out or the other side out is wrong. People are taking sides regarding what is in essence maybe the greatest mystery of all. I don't think that this mystery is fully revealed as to its understanding. In fact I know it isn't.
i

L-Today
08-15-05, 04:53 PM
Here is the iron-proof case of 'sinful christ' propagandists: Christ could not have died if He was not a sinner. In the same breath these people inform us that the whole atonement is a mystery. OK, so if it is a mystery, according to your own words, then how come you know with such precision that God could not afflict His Innocent Son Who was paying the penalties for the imputed sins of His people? Who told you that it is impossible? PROVE IT! Prove that Christ could not die in stead of His people! Mystery means that you don't know, that is why it is a mystery to you, so how come you know in detail what God could and could not do? Why do you people make such (and many other) unsubstantiated statements? Find in the Bible one verse refuting imputation of our sins to Christ, and His righteousness to us. But then why would you search the Scriptures if you prefer turning God-Man into a sinner like yourself. You people will only rest when you have made the Son of God unclean - as yourselves. Aren't you afraid? Do you know Who you are calling a sinner - without one single solid proof in the whole of Bible!

Bob Higby
08-15-05, 06:56 PM
bgamall: God cannot die, but Christ died. How? In His human nature. God cannot be made sin, but Christ was made sin. How? In His human nature.

A false analogy in my view; one which is completely unsubstantiated by scripture. The first observation is very true: it was the humanity of Christ that really and truly died. The second observation is absolutely false; sin is not an essence of human nature--it is a perversion and corruption. The fact that Christ died physically in his human nature is absolutely proven by scripture. The fact that Christ was absolutely sinless and pure in the HUMAN NATURE that veiled his Deity is equally and absolutely proven by scripture.

lionovjudah
08-15-05, 07:11 PM
Joe, are you now satisfied that we are not viciously attacking people instead of their false doctrines?

Now, for example, you met two people; one of them loves Jesus Christ and the other hates our God and our Lord. Would you treat both men the same? And would your whole attitude toward them be the same? Would you invite both of them to your home as your brethren?


How did Christ treat sinners? Did not the pharasses accuse Him and gave Him the title "Friend of sinners and publicans"? When Christ ate with matthew, Zaccheaus, what was the reaction? When he sat with the woman at the well, what was going thriugh the Apostles mind? Now you may say, "Well He knew them to be elect, but that is not the example Christ gives because WE do not know. I would not invite them to my home as brethren, but I would invite both to my home.



So, although we would never attack Mark Daniel and other professors of 'sinful christ', nor use vulgar language were we to meet them, it is very hard to have warm fellowship with people capable of slandering and mocking our Lord. As you see, Joe, it is not easy at all to separate a person from his words and deeds. So don't be surprised if our indignation at these people's propaganda spills over on their persons. If people utter blasphemies aren't they called blasphemers? And thus it is: although we wish to vigorously attack heretical teachings about our Lord, the professors of these heresies are called heretics, whether you want it or not. And then we are accused of attacking people. What would you recommend us to do?

Luba.


I know it is not easy, but Christ obviously has for His sheep. I dont know, I thought the whole idea for exposing false teachers was to lead them to repentance. If not, then as a last resort, they are to be dealt with as Paul commands. But we should NEVER come out of the gate with the rack Luba.

I already told you, well the Apostle peter told you. I see absolutely nothing wrong with his inspired advice. Obviously much better than mine.

Lammy
08-15-05, 07:18 PM
Dear Brandon and all,

Let me state for the record my complete agreement with you. Jesus Christ was never a sinner in anyway shape or form. He bore our sins, but never became a sinner himself. I commend and admire you for your courage to stand up personally against heresy as well as your zeal that will not allow you to sit back idly as the Lord is slandered.

However, can i ask how do you interprete the passage where Jesus cries 'My God, My God Why have you forsaken me?' Was there any real seperation between father and son? I have never really thought about this seriously until now.

ugly_gaunt_cow
08-15-05, 07:33 PM
0.

However, can i ask how do you interprete the passage where Jesus cries 'My God, My God Why have you forsaken me?' Was there any real seperation between father and son? I have never really thought about this seriously until now.

It's something I've struggled with too. Maybe it's a mystery. :D

Brandan
08-15-05, 07:41 PM
Hi Lammy, Christ was quoting Scripture back to the Jews and proclaiming that He is the Messiah - that he had fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament - in this case Psalm 22.


Ps 22:1, (KJV), My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?
This is describing Jesus' feelings in his humanity...

Ps 22:6, (KJV), But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.
He definitely felt like a worm as he was being treated like one! This does not mean he WAS one though.

But we know that there was never true separation from the Father as vs. 24 states

Ps 22:24, (KJV), For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.
And of course we have the Gospel testimony:

Lk 23:46, (KJV), And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.
There was never any separation from God the Father.

Bob Higby
08-15-05, 07:42 PM
The atonement as taught by Anselm and most Catholics/Protestants demands the notion that God the Son was separated from God the Father for these reasons:

1. Even one act of sin (i.e., Adam's) is an infinite act of rebellion against an infinite God which is as evil as (in theory) the act of destroying all worlds (if a creature had the power to do so).

2. Infinite sin demands infinite punishment for atonement. Therefore, the rebels against God's government will be punished with infinite suffering for infinite time in the future.

3. In order to atone for infiinite sin without suffering for infinite ages it took the sufferings of God, not man. Hence the real meaning of the atonement is contained in that magical, mysterious moment when the infinite Son was separated from the infinite Father in his Deity, thus experiencing infinite suffering.

4. Therefore, Christ could not have atoned for sin merely by the sufferings of his human nature. He had to suffer infinite separation from God the Father in his Deity; this is the real meaning and mystery of the atonement.

I, of course, oppose this theology and have made that very plain again and again. Others (i.e., Charles Hodge) have also seen the fallacy of it but not many.

lionovjudah
08-15-05, 08:00 PM
Christ spoke these words to fullfill what was spoken of Him in the scriptures. Psalm 22. Ans Isaiah We we in Him at the corss , it was US who was should have been forsaken in Christ as the head of the elect. He stood in our place. He was forsaken in the sense that all the elects iniquities were laid on Him, all of our sins.

bgamall
08-15-05, 08:59 PM
"The fact that Christ died physically in his human nature is absolutely proven by scripture. The fact that Christ was absolutely sinless and pure in the HUMAN NATURE that veiled his Deity is equally and absolutely proven by scripture."

You aren't trying Bill. I specifically stated that Christ never committed sin.I said that it is a false gospel that teaches that Christ committed sin. Now, it is very true as well that Christ, as to his physical nature was separated from God, because He said He was! He said He was being forsaken.

Unless you can refute that scripture and say it means something else, it means that as to His physical nature Christ was separated from the Father, but of course as to His divinenature that is impossible. Now it just seems that the error is to say that Christ committed a sin. He never did. That is the issue that seems to be driving some of these other guys, unless I am misunderstanding them.

Mickey
08-15-05, 09:30 PM
Brandon, I agree with your exegeses here.

What is all of this talk about Jesus being separated from God? What does that mean anyway? Are we saying that Jesus was saying, “My God, My God why hast Thou separated Thyself from my flesh?" This is nonsense.

God gave His Son over to suffer for the sins of His people. This meant that Christ had to endure suffering like many of us could not imagine. In the midst of his pain Christ calls out to the Father quoting Psalm 22, revealing to us the meaning of this cry. Christ was referring to His being handed over to suffer not some type of separation.

bgamall
08-15-05, 09:57 PM
Hello Doc, regarding your point, I am just saying you need to respond to the scripture that says that Jesus said He was being forsaken. We all here agree for the most part that Christ retained His divine nature. He never once ceased being God! However, as a man He was forsaken. I would just say that if you have some interpretation to shed on this scripture it would be helpful.

Mickey
08-15-05, 10:02 PM
I thought I did respond.:)

Christ was referring to His being handed over to suffer not some type of separation.

In other words, "Why hast thou handed me over to suffer" I'm not a greek scholar though so I don't know if the Greek or Aramaic allows that.

bgamall
08-15-05, 10:07 PM
I am prepared at this point to say this following statement. 1. I know that Christ was separated from the blessings of the Father through the Spirit. 2. I know that Christ as to His being was never separated from the Father, that is, He never ceased to be God. 3. Christ never sinned and never committed a sin, on or off the cross.

Now, what I don't fully understand is if His human nature was separated from God. I ask this in the context of Paul saying He was made a curse and if that implies a separation.

Mickey
08-15-05, 10:13 PM
1. I know that Christ was separated from the blessings of the Father through the Spirit.

I think I agree. :p

There was a time of suffering where Christ was fulfilling His role as our substitute. During that time I think it is safe to say the Father wasn't showering down blessing so to speak. In the big picture though God was taking pleasure in the suffering of His Son as it was a blessing to us. "By His stripes we are healed."

Bob Higby
08-16-05, 02:34 AM
Let us return to the main issue of this thread. No one here is denying that Christ experienced the guilt and sufferings due to sin in his human nature. The fact that he did experience these realities is the essence of the doctrine of atonement. Christ suffered the full extent of the wrath of God toward human sin. However, the consequences of sin are never equal to sin itself. Jesus totally experienced the wrath of his Father toward sin and rebellion; of that we all agree. But the experience of sin’s consequential guilt and suffering is in no way equivalent to experiencing sin.

The proponents of the doctrine we are discussing are not satisfied in the least with the doctrine that Christ MERELY experienced the guilt and sufferings of sin and rebellion in his human nature. They insist that unless we believe that sin was transfused into Christ, we deny the gospel. There can be no question about this! Go back and read the evidence. The ‘made sin’ doctrine of the present time ridicules the notion that sin was MERELY laid upon Christ, transferred to his account, and as a result caused him to experience its guilt and misery. The false teaching insists that we must accept a doctrine of TRANSFUSION OF SIN INTO CHRIST!

The essence of the current departure from apostolic teaching is not different from the Ebionite and Irvingite heresies on Christ’s person. Proponents can talk about all the technical differences. But NONE of these views ever propose that Jesus actually committed sin. What they have in common is that Jesus IN SOME MANNER experienced the reality of sin in his person. The imputation of sin to Christ is not enough, it must somehow be IMPARTED to him or tranfused into him in order to qualify him as savior. It is THIS false teaching that we oppose, not the biblical truth that Christ in his human nature really and truly experienced the guilt and sufferings of sin–that which is the just consequence of God’s wrath against evil.

lionovjudah
08-16-05, 07:41 AM
I am prepared at this point to say this following statement. 1. I know that Christ was separated from the blessings of the Father through the Spirit. 2. I know that Christ as to His being was never separated from the Father, that is, He never ceased to be God. 3. Christ never sinned and never committed a sin, on or off the cross.

Now, what I don't fully understand is if His human nature was separated from God. I ask this in the context of Paul saying He was made a curse and if that implies a separation.

I like what Tony Warren has to say on this. IT is long, but very good

http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/images/o.gifne of the more puzzling things for many Christians is the plaintive question that Christ uttered on the cross in His cry of, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Matthew 27:45-46
"Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"There are some critics who suggest that in these three hours of darkness, Christ had a moment of weakness where "as a human" He succumbed under the weight of His terrible suffering. Others surmise that Christ had lost all hope, and that His human soul was unable to fully understand why the father had abandoned Him. But none of this speculation has any sound support in the scriptures. They are all theories that are at odds with the Biblical facts. And this can be easily proven by a myriad of clear passages where Christ foretold His suffering. When we read "the whole" of scripture in context, not concentrating on a few select verses, we can see very quickly that Christ never faltered for one moment, and He knew perfectly well what He had to do and why He had to do it. He knew He had to suffer the wrath of God that He was forsaken and die for the elect. These things were not hid from Him. So these ideas that He was surprised make no sense, considering all that Christ Himself declared of His mission.

John 16:6-7
"But because I have said these things unto you, sorrow hath filled your heart.
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you."Christ knew that He had to go to the cross to suffer the wrath of God, and if He didn't, the election would not be comforted of the Holy Spirit. It was not a secret to Him that man would be healed by His stripes, indeed it was this knowledge that brought Him to Jerusalem. The nature of the "required" atonement wasn't a mystery to Him, it was a mystery to the people of Israel. For they (much like the Premillennialists today) expected a political king, an earthly kingdom, and a physical rather than spiritual deliverance. But Christ knew exactly what the nature of the sacrifice was, and how the true deliverance of Israel would take place. It would take place by Him drinking the bitter dregs of the judgment in the cup of His fury, which we deserved.

John 18:11
"Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?"It's a rhetorical question. Yes, it's a bitter cup that Christ knew that He had to drink for the sake of the elect. Even as the bitter vinegar that Christ drank signified, He "completed" or "finished" the task that He willingly went to the cross to accomplish.

John 19:30
"When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."Indeed, He certainly knew the cup He had to drink to accomplish His task, and He willingly drank it. And you will note that when they offered Him that vinegar "before the time" of completion, He would not drink of it (Matthew 27:33-34). The reason that He would not drink at this time is because it was the beginning, and His work was not yet "finished." This is what His "receiving" the cup of Vinegar just before saying it is Finished signified. It was a sign of the completion of His work and the accomplishment of the cross.

So if this is all true, then how do we answer the objection of why Jesus prayed, "O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me." And why did He cry, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me" when He already knew perfectly well? The answer is that all these things were said and done of God for "man's benefit." He wasn't complaining as an eternal example of His own unusually weak (for God's people) fortitude or His delicate nature, or His frail humanity. He said these things as a reference key for us to unlock the words of the prophets and the psalms that spoke of these things. Christ is revealing to us by these comments that "He" was the God-Man prophesied to come as the Saviour of Israel. In other words, God is exhorting His people to search the scriptures and compare scripture with scripture. And therein we will "see" what these words He spoke signifies and pertains to.
Psalms 22:1
..My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?"When Christ called out to God in this manner, clearly He was consciously quoting this Psalm as an illustration to all that would come after, that He was fulfilling this Old Testament prophecy. This is the key to understanding why the Lord would say this. Jesus Christ, as the living "Word of God" in the flesh, is the application of God's revealed will concerning the atonement for sin by the wrath of God poured out upon man. And His question in Psalms 22:1 of, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me," is answered in Psalms 22:3.

Psalms 22:3
"But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel."That is why God had forsaken Him. Because to a holy God, that sin is abhorrent to, this is a great offense. And as Christ hung on the cross, He was laden with our sins. So in Christ quoting this Psalm, He was revealing that it prophesied of Him and how He would atone for the sins of man against a holy God. These words make manifest the agony and suffering that Christ was under as He is intimately and personally identified with the judgment of God upon man for sin. To suppose that He was rebuking God by this comment, or complaining, or that He was unaware of the meaning of the words of that Psalm, is to completely ignore all His teachings on these subjects. He surely knew what these scriptures "actually" meant concerning His suffering.

John 5:36-39
"But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.
And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
And ye have not his word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."The works were not completely finished until He died on the cross. For us to think that Christ was unable to understand fully His abandonment by God the Father as the sacrifice for us, is to completely convolute his entire ministry. For Christ knew and spoke of the work of the atonement, He knew He had to die for sins, He knew He had to suffer for the iniquity of many, and He knew that the Father had to administer that judgment. In short, He knew the cup was handed to Him of God, thus to say anything less makes a mockery of the doctrine of Christ.

Mark 8:31-33
"And he began to teach them, that the Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, and be killed, and after three days rise again.
And he spake that saying openly. And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him.
But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men."Since Peter had just confessed that Jesus was the Messiah (Mark 8:29) that was prophesied to come, it was incumbent upon Christ to take the opportunity to correct their conceptions of Him as an earthly king who would deliver them from literal subjection by the Romans. He explained to the Apostles the true nature of His Kingdom, purpose, suffering, atonement and resurrection.

Matthew 12:39-40
"But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." John 2:19

"Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."So those who say that Christ lacked the divine knowledge because He "emptied" Himself and was merely human, are wrong. His words are in no way meant to convey the idea that the Father, the first person of the Trinity, had left the Son in any sense except in judging sin. For God is three in one inseparable, immutable and omniscient. Christ knew perfectly God was with Him (He said so) and He knew perfectly well what He had to suffer, why He had to die, and why He would rise again. Of course He suffered in the flesh, and of course God was His help. This is the divine mystery of the trinity. But are we to suppose that Christ didn't understand what the scripture really meant in saying, "by His stripes we are healed?" Christ was the greatest teacher of law that man has ever seen, and yet some believe because He was fully human He didn't understand His true mission of death and resurrection. This is their conclusion because He speaks as a man would and cried, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" The fact is, Christ said these things that we would know that Old Testament scripture was being fulfilled in the man Christ. In fact, He often told us this "point blank." For example, just before He died on the cross we see a vivid illustration of this.

John 19:28-30
"After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.
Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.
When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."Clearly, Christ did these things because He knew the plan, and He wanted us to know that He was the Saviour that was fulfilling scripture. It was not because He was weaker than most other mortal men were, this cry of thirst was part of the Messianic psalms being fulfilled.

Psalms 69:21-22
"They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.
Let their table become a snare before them: and that which should have been for their welfare, let it become a trap."This whole belief that Christ was physically weak because of his humanity and had no divine knowledge of what the cost was or what He was saying, is antithetical to the gospel message. Of course He understood this. Of course He understood His lot was to suffer. For this hour was He born.

John 10:17-18
"Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father."He knew what was coming, and He knew what was required. And yet He went to the cross to accept the cup "willingly" because He was not a mere man like everyone else, He was a superior man who understood fully the bitter dregs of the cup He must drink. He was fully God and fully man, yet superior in all aspects in order that He might endure the wrath of God "for us."

Isaiah 53:4-6
"Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all."Of course He understood this prophecy. Indeed, it was for "this hour" that God became flesh to fulfill this prophecy.

1st Peter 2:24
"Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed."He sacrificed Himself of His own free will knowing that is the only way that man could be made righteous. Isaiah 53:4 is fulfilled because Christ consciously put Himself in our place, bore our sins, and suffered the punishment for them that we deserved. So there is no need to minimize the inseparable nature of the Father with the Son, or trivialize the deity of Christ by implying He cried out to God because He didn't know what the extent of His suffering would be. We should not speculate or surmise that He didn't understand things, that scripture show He "quite obviously" did understand. Christ's cry wasn't because He was a man, or because He was dejected, or had a lack of faith and felt some failing of God. It was because He understood the Psalms perfectly, and thus He knew the ties the prophecy had to His suffering. He referenced it, not for Himself, but "for the benefit" of the faithful who would read it. These comments are guideposts, keys and bookmarks to the faithful, even as they are simultaneously a snare to the faith-less. As Christ they can be a precious stone to one, and a stone of stumbling to another. Christ was Himself, in the flesh, made sin for us. He was made a curse wherein God's wrath was called down upon Him "for our" sakes. i.e., we were under the curse of the law, thus in order to redeem us from that curse, God became flesh that He might take it upon himself, be forsaken "in our stead," a vivid illustration of God forsaking God, the supreme mystery of the gospel.

Galatians 3:13
"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:"This is the mystery of God forsaking God. And to try and separate God from the man Christ who hung on the cross, is like confessing that God was made flesh, but then abandoned it when needed most. Christ suffered as a divine-human, yet in the sense of payment for our sins, Christ was separated from God. Forsaken, He was literally suffering the pangs of hell for us, an atonement that is beyond our comprehension. He did not cry out over mere human suffering or despair. Would we really believe that the prophets of old and the martyrs who were mere men, have gone triumphantly to torture without crying out as Christ did? They went to the cross, to the stake, to be burned in fires, eaten by lions, every form of torment and punishment, and are we to believe that Christ couldn't do this without crying out as if He'd lost all hope? God forbid! Why then did God cry, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" The very question implies there truly was a forsaking in some sense. Christ spoke these words not because of His humanity as many suppose, but because God is illustrating that in essence, we were in the body of Christ (Romans 6:6-11). And it was "we" who deserved to be forsaken of God, and to suffer thus. Our Saviour God was taking that suffering as a substitute for us. i.e., He's "speaking on our behalf" as our stand in. So the answer to the rhetorical question of "why," is because He had the body of the iniquity of us all. He had become sin for us (2nd Corinthians 5:21). He was forsaken in the sense that God allowed Him to suffer and die upon the cross for the sins of man. Holy God could have stopped His wrath at any time, but then the elect would have been condemned with the rest of the world, and His promise to Abraham abrogated. God is faithful, so that could never be. So He had to forsake Him for the sake of the elect. Search the Messianic psalms, particularly chapter 22, and also consider the prophecy of Isaiah. Because Christ had the sin of all the elect laid upon Him. And that is why God had forsaken Him. His wasn't a cry of despair because He was a man, but of pointing out, "that the scripture might be fulfilled," that God had prophesied this. It is a verbal key that directs and unlocks other passages "when we" compare scripture with scripture. Just as the Apostle John directs us to this same Psalm when testifying of the death of Christ. He records:

John 19:23-24
"Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.
They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did."These things were done for a specific reason, and it was for our benefit. It was so that scripture could be fulfilled that spoke of Christ. This is the same key that is pointing us to the very same Messianic psalm chapter 22.

Psalms 22:18
"They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture."In Psalms 22 is revealed God's rejection of Christ because He stands in as representative for man as the second Adam (1st Corinthians 15:22,45) laden with our sins. Christ asserts that He has been forsaken and rejected by both God and man. Yet in the psalms we see the "faith of Christ" as He still trusts "His God," and continues His faithfulness. He is sure that in the end God will be His help and his faith will be justified. And Christ quotes these Psalms and other scriptures that we might search them out and consider them wisely.

Luke 24:44-46
"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.
Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,
And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:"From these scriptures we know that Christ was aware what He was getting into. But He uttered these phrases that the scriptures might be "seen" to be fulfilled. Thus the mystery is revealed. When our Lord said, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me," He was directing us to the magnificent Messianic truths of Psalms chapter 22. He said it that we might understand that He was forsaken for us. In His eternal love for the elect, Christ took upon Himself the judgment that we deserved for our sins. So that when the great darkness fell across Calvary for three hours, it illustrated the purpose of Christ in absorbing the darkness of Hell that we deserved in God forsaking us. The glory of these things are revealed through searching out the matter.

Proverbs 25:2
"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter."He who hath an ear, let him hear. So what comfort might be drawn from the question of, "My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken me?" Chiefly, that we are comforted in knowing that by faith Christ was forsaken of God, that we would never have to fear being forsaken. Because of His finished work, we know God will never leave or forsake us.

Hebrews 13:5
"Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee."He was forsaken for our sins, for our iniquities, for our transgressions. And because we know the answer to His plaintive question "why," we have full assurance of our completed redemption. Joyfully, our hearts may be comforted, being knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgement of the mystery of God, and of the Father, and of Christ (Colossians 2:2).

May the Lord, who is gracious above all, grant us wisdom and understanding in the knowledge of His blessed word. Amen!

L-Today
08-16-05, 08:29 AM
Some people are not interested nor are influenced by any amount of clear and unmistakable exposure of their heresies concerning the Person and Work of Jesus Christ. They'd rather cling on to their pastors' teachings, who, in turn cling on to some writers' and each other's erroneous views. Tragic but fascinating to watch this subborn loyalty to heresies because the Scriptures are being fulfilled in front of us.


Joe, Christ was a friend of elect sinners only because He knew their hearts. For stubborn rejecters of God He had different vocabulary throughout the Bible. He taught us to differentiate who is who by the fruits, which, of course, means all people's words and deeds.

Joe, WHY does Scripture warn us so seriously, starting with Satan's lies in Eden, continuing with Israel's coddling and loving their false prophets while hating and killing the true ones, then on to the whited sepulchres Pharisees, and finishing with the severest threatenings against false church full of false teachers and believers in lies in the Book of Revelation? What do we do with these warnings? Are they in the Scriptures for us to love and treat everybody the same indiscriminately? What do you think is the correct way of reacting to all the warnings against false prophets and their believers in the Bible? I am not saying that we should go around hating and bashing anybody. Far from it. But how do we apply all these many warnings? Also we get again sidetracked from the theme of this thread. If you are interested in this subject, maybe there are other threads for it?


While I disagree with Bob's views on the nature(s) of sin(s) - (threads elsewhere), his summary of what and why 'sinful christ' proponents believe in is excellent, and, hopefully, of use to the believers in this heresy too. May they repent, denounce this lie and believe in the saving Truth of the Righteous Jesus Christ.

I agree with Mike's understanding of the meaning of Jesus crying to His Father. Loving blessings were not lavishly bestowed on God's Son at the cursed tree. Our Redeemer's heel was being severely bruised for our sins. He was very sorely afflicted for our uniquities. God spared not His own Son for the forgiveness of our sins. Do we know what the outpour of God's wrath on His Innocent but treated AS IF a criminal Son means? None of us creatures can ever begin to grasp the AGONY our Lord had to go through paying the penalties which we the sinners fully and justly deserve! In comparison with His reign in heaven, the Holy and Spotless Lamb's shame and pain before the whole world ARE those of a worm, although to assert that He became a literal worm is a lie for the Bible says that people saw Jesus Christ on the cross and not a real worm. So ''forsaken'', I think as Mike does, is the cry of unimaginable and utterly extraordinary pain and shame our Innocent Savior had to go through. The rest of the Bible, the whole counsel of God, does not teach separation at any point between the Father and His Incarnate Son, nor should we build our own unbiblical elaborate structures on one word ''forsaken'' or ''made sin''. Had the Father really forsaken Jesus Chist (as someone mentioned before), into Whose hands did our Savior commend His spirit?

lionovjudah
08-16-05, 08:48 AM
Joe, Christ was a friend of elect sinners only because He knew their hearts. For stubborn rejecters of God He had different vocabulary throughout the Bible. He taught us to differentiate who is who by the fruits, which, of course, means all people's words and deeds.

But we are not Christ,we do not know who is elect. He never once said," I am saving you and loving you matthew/ Zacheaus even though the rest despise you because I chose you from the foundations of the world. " So your answer is not in line with Christs actions. I am not classifying the proponents of this interpretaion of made sin being stubborn haters of God. Let us look who God "chose"

Moses= muderer
Noah=drunk
abraham=foreignor
david= youngest, smallest
Saul/Paul= Christian hater!!!!!!
LEVI?MATT= hated by the jews
WOman at well= sinner
the blind, the poor the oppressed!!!!!! The outcasts Luba!!!!! Christ did nto send a messenger to these people, He personally ate with them, saved them, and the others could nto figure out why.

The children, whom the apostles stood between them and Christ. And what was His rebuke to them? Does a millstone ring a bell?


Joe, WHY does Scripture warn us so seriously, starting with Satan's lies in Eden, continuing with Israel's coddling and loving their false prophets while hating and killing the true ones, then on to the whited sepulchres Pharisees, and finishing with the severest threatenings against false church full of false teachers and believers in lies in the Book of Revelation? What do we do with these warnings? Are they in the Scriptures for us to love and treat everybody the same indiscriminately? What do you think is the correct way of reacting to all the warnings against false prophets and their believers in the Bible? I am not saying that we should go around hating and bashing anybody. Far from it. But how do we apply all these many warnings? Also we get again sidetracked from the theme of this thread. If you are interested in this subject, maybe there are other threads for it?

We must be wise as serpents and gentle as doves. There is another answer for you to put with Peters answer. Why do you continue to ask ME. I dont have the answers, but scripture does Luba. I have not said, Joe Kinney says this, so and so says that!!!!!!

When Christ wrote to the seven churches in rev, what was His goal? Repentance and truth.



While I disagree with Bob's views on the nature(s) of sin(s) - (threads elsewhere), his summary of what and why 'sinful christ' proponents believe in is excellent, and, hopefully, of use to the believers in this heresy too. May they repent, denounce this lie and believe in the saving Truth of the Righteous Jesus Christ.

Well this is very "tolerant" of you Luba. That is all I do. Look at the WHOLE of a persons writings.

I found this somewhere, saved it, but forgot who wrote it. But I agree:

The sacrificial victim had to be "without defect" (Leviticus 4:3, 23, 32). A hand would be laid on the unblemished sacrificial animal as a way of symbolizing a transfer of guilt (4:4, 24, 33). Note that the sacrificial animal did not thereby actually BECOME sinful by nature; rather, sin was IMPUTED to the animal and the animal acted as a sacrificial substitute. In like manner, Christ the Lamb of God was utterly unblemished (1 Peter 1:19), but our sin was imputed to Him and He was our sacrificial substitute on the cross of Calvary. Simply because our sin was imputed to Him does not mean He changed in nature. Christ was not sinful personally; He was made to be sin substitutionally.


Joe

bgamall
08-16-05, 10:50 AM
The last post is missing something. Christ died to reconcile the elect to God. They were unreconciled. If Christ did not in some sense become unreconciled, ie separated, we are still in our sins. The atonement has to be substitutionary, therefore in place of our irreconcilliation He became irreconciled, ie separated. On what level this occurred I do not know. But in some sense Christ had to become separated so that we who are elect could become unseparated. No He did not cease to be God, and no He did not do sin!! But in some sense He had to suffer the separation that was to be the punishment of the elect. Otherwise the atonement is not substitutionary. He took the place of those separated from God!

Brandan
08-16-05, 11:06 AM
Christ didn't have to do anything to satisy some sort of eternal law! He did what God appointed was pleasing to Him. I've heard too many times an appeal to eternal law philosophy to describe the motivation of the actions that God the Father and Christ have taken!

God does not send men to hell for eternity because His honor was infinitely offended, but because that is what He has determined is pleasing to Him.

Christ's dying on the cross and suffering in agony was of infinite worth to the Father because that is what the Father decreed would give Him pleasure. Christ's suffering is of infinite worth to us because it pleased the Father, not because it completes an unbiblical mathethematical formula.

Christ did not have to be separated from the Father in order to answer eternal law principle. He did not have to go to hell either as vain theologians have speculated. No, He had to suffer on the cross according to the pleasure of God. This was the agreement that was made in the eternal covenant of redemption between the members of the Godhead. And Christ fulfilled it, and in doing so, HE SAVED His people from their sin. Sin was imputed to Christ, and Righteousness was imputed to the elect - right there on the cross according to God's eternal decree.

lionovjudah
08-16-05, 11:55 AM
There was NO seperation. Paul gives evidence of this in his letter to Corinth

2cor 5;19.....“. . . God was in Christ reconciling a world unto Himself ”

And In Collosians 2;9...in him dwelleth all the fullness of
the Godhead bodily ”

The reason He was not seperated nor forsaken is because of our triune Godhead!!!!!

The trinity is the answer. The Trinity was and is involved in the redemption of mankind for history, and now at the final moment, the Father Denies the son? How can this be?

Egkataleipõ, translated forsaken:

To leave in a place or situation
To leave behind, among, leave surviving
To forsake, abandon, leave in straits, or helpless


So Christ was left alone, but not alone during this time on the cross. He was left alone because only the God-man could do what He did.

IF the triune Godhead was NEVER seperated in eternity, this can not be the only time, because : God is One! (Deuteronomy 6:4; I Corinthians 8:6).
God cannot deny Himself (II Timothy 2:13

bgamall
08-16-05, 12:14 PM
"So Christ was left alone, but not alone during this time on the cross. He was left alone because only the God-man could do what He did.

IF the triune Godhead was NEVER seperated in eternity, this can not be the only time, because : God is One! (Deuteronomy 6:4; I Corinthians 8:6).
God cannot deny Himself (II Timothy 2:13"

Again, what does this mean? You say Christ was left alone. What do you mean? All I said was that in some sense Christ was left alone, forsaken. I don't claim to understand how this took place. Do YOU know? There is no one here that knows, but it did happen. It is a mystery.

While we are at it, Brandon, and everyone, why don't we thrash out what it means to be the triune God? How can three people be one? Maybe we could grasp that mystery as well. :rolleyes:

lionovjudah
08-16-05, 12:19 PM
"So Christ was left alone, but not alone during this time on the cross. He was left alone because only the God-man could do what He did.

IF the triune Godhead was NEVER seperated in eternity, this can not be the only time, because : God is One! (Deuteronomy 6:4; I Corinthians 8:6).
God cannot deny Himself (II Timothy 2:13"

Again, what does this mean? You say Christ was left alone. What do you mean? All I said was that in some sense Christ was left alone, forsaken. I don't claim to understand how this took place. Do YOU know? There is no one here that knows, but it did happen. It is a mystery.

While we are at it, Brandon, and everyone, why don't we thrash out what it means to be the triune God? How can three people be one? Maybe we could grasp that mystery as well. :rolleyes:

He was left alone in the sense of finishing redemption within the triune Godhead. The father and the spirit did not suffer for our sins. it was Christ alone finishing what the trinity worked for eternity.

If God was IN Christ reconciling the world, this can only mean there is no seperation.

The problem arises when one does not differ between seperate vs distinct. I personally do not like when one defines the trinity using the word seperate. They are 3 distinct persons in one essence of God.'

For instance, look at the Covenant of Redemption. The Father Christ, and Spirit all have distinct roles in this "agreement" The Father Elects, Christ redeems/dies, the Spirit regenerates and calls the elect and applies.

Brandan
08-16-05, 12:20 PM
The trinity is not a mystery.

lionovjudah
08-16-05, 12:21 PM
The trinity is not a mystery.

I was waiting for that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You are slipping brandan, you let him use that word for a while now!!!!!!!!!!!

bgamall
08-16-05, 12:29 PM
That is right Brandon, because Paul said it was possible to understand all mysteries, and the trinity is beyond understanding. Three minds or one Brandon? Or both?

But alas, we are off topic. I just believe that some sort of separation occurred in that Christ had a real experience of abandonment. Of course, the Father was not going to abandon him. However if He became a curse, then the Father had to turn away in some sense according to his nature. In my view He withheld blessing, which a holy God had to do.

Brandan
08-16-05, 01:06 PM
That is right Brandon, because Paul said it was possible to understand all mysteries, and the trinity is beyond understanding. Three minds or one Brandon? Or both?This is the last post on this topic concerning the Trinity. If anyone wants to discuss the idea of "mystery", please start a new thread. We have a couple older ones that you can check including a blog entry:

Is the Trinity a Mystery?
http://www.5solas.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2194

Beware of those who teach "Mystery"
http://www.5solas.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2194

From the discussion:
Three branches yet one government. Five players yet one basketball team. Two pieces of bread yet one hamburger bun. Three parties yet one coalition.

I don't see it as being difficult to understand. A lot of people seem troubled that the Trinity seems to be mathematically "3=1." Yet there is only an appearance of contradiction in "3=1." The law of contradiction says that a cannot be both a and non-a at the same time, and in the same sense, or relationship. Obviously we do not hold that The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one at the same time and the same sense. They are one at the same time, but not in the same sense. Three separate persons make up one Godhead. In this sense they are one.

Some people seem to think that the Trinity presents us with such an equation: "3 persons = 1 person." But so much is not true. The Son cannot say, "I am the Father," and the Father cannot say, "I am the Son." Yet all of the persons in the Godhead are equally divine, so they can say, "we are one." This makes it "3 persons = 1 God."

If this much is a contradiction, we must conclude that any sort of football team is a contradiction because it involves the equation: 4 players plus one goalie = 1 team.

bgamall
08-16-05, 01:27 PM
"Christ didn't have to do anything to satisy some sort of eternal law! He did what God appointed was pleasing to Him. I've heard too many times an appeal to eternal law philosophy to describe the motivation of the actions that God the Father and Christ have taken!"

But they have to act according to their nature. So if Christ is become a curse for the elect hanging on a tree, then in some way the Father must withhold something from Him and turn away because a holy God cannot love that which is cursed. So in some sense there was a withholding of grace. If God says that counts as a separation I would not be one to argue. I just don't claim to understand it as some say they do but don't really. At least they have not taken all the scriptures into account and have not covered all the bases.

Is anyone here calling Paul a liar when He said that Christ was made a curse? Just wondering.

InChristAlways
08-16-05, 01:50 PM
That is right Brandon, because Paul said it was possible to understand all mysteries, and the trinity is beyond understanding. Three minds or one Brandon? Or both?

But alas, we are off topic. I just believe that some sort of separation occurred in that Christ had a real experience of abandonment. Of course, the Father was not going to abandon him. However if He became a curse, then the Father had to turn away in some sense according to his nature. In my view He withheld blessing, which a holy God had to do.When God mentions hiding His face for a moment in Isaiah 54, wasn't this to Israel of the "flesh"?
Jesus became in everyway as His people of the flesh, just as Moses was of the flesh. How would Israel be redeemed from "Death" without the curse of the flesh being put to death?

Isaiah 54:8 In a little wrath I hid My face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting[#05769] kindness will I have compassion on thee, saith the LORD thy Redeemer.

Hosea 13:14 "I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. O Death, I will be your plagues! O Grave, I will be your destruction! Pity is hidden from My eyes.

Isaiah 28:17 Also I will make justice the measuring line, And righteousness the plummet; The hail will sweep away the refuge of lies, And the waters will overflow the hiding place. 18 Your covenant with death will be annulled, And your agreement with Sheol will not stand; When the overflowing scourge passes through, Then you will be trampled down by it.

It is interesting to note that both Stephen and Jesus gave up their Spirit, Jesus to God and Stephen to Jesus just different wording is used which I haven't really studied yet.

Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, "Father, 'into Your hands I commit/set before[#3908] My spirit.' " Having said this, He breathed His last.

Acts 7:59 And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on [God] and saying, "Lord Jesus, receive[#1209] my spirit."

Bob Higby
08-16-05, 03:21 PM
Christ was forsaken by the Father in the very sense that he bore our sins in his suffering and dying humanity. In no way does this imply separation; he was in the presence of the Father at all times. Neither will the wicked be separated from God when they experience the final wrath of God upon their sin. The torment is IN his presence, not AWAY FROM his presence--I know some disagree but we have gone over this a lot in other threads.

Reprobates are certainly separated from the presence of God's love and grace but not from the presence of God! No one from the beginning of time to eternity future can ever escape him.

cprwc
08-19-05, 12:05 PM
Greetings!
All of God's holiness, goodness, justice, mercy, truth, and sovereignty are in complete harmony as God truly is God. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the great "I Am" who reveals Himself as the only God and who is one in all of His perfections which include His sovereignty and His majesty and His justice. God is complete as God and Jesus, the eternal Son of God, is this holy "I Am" come in our flesh to be the propitiation for our sins. Remember this as your peace and joy.
This will be my one post on this thread and addresses the heart of this discussion:


1.
Heidelberg Catechism

"IV. LORD'S DAY. (http://www.prca.org/hc_index.html#LDIV)


Question 9 (http://www.prca.org/hc_index.html#Q9). Doth not God then do injustice to man, by requiring from him in his low, that which he cannot perform?

Answer. Not at all; [a] (http://www.prca.org/hc_text1.html#LDIVa) for God made man capable of performing it; but man, by the instigation [c] (http://www.prca.org/hc_text1.html#LDIVc) of the devil, and his own willful disobedience, [d] (http://www.prca.org/hc_text1.html#LDIVd) deprived himself and all his posterity of those divine gifts.
[I]Question 10 (http://www.prca.org/hc_index.html#Q10). Will God suffer such disobedience and rebellion to go unpunished?

Answer. By no means; [e] (http://www.prca.org/hc_text1.html#LDIVe) but is terribly displeased [f] (http://www.prca.org/hc_text1.html#LDIVf) with our original was well as actual sins; and will punish them in his just judgment temporally and eternally, and he hath declared, [g] (http://www.prca.org/hc_text1.html#LDIVg) "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things, which are written in the book of the law, to do them."
Question 11 (http://www.prca.org/hc_index.html#Q11). Is not God then also merciful?

Answer. God is indeed merciful, [h] (http://www.prca.org/hc_text1.html#LDIVh) but also just; therefore his justice requires, [j] (http://www.prca.org/hc_text1.html#LDIVj) that sin which is committed against the most high majesty of God, be also punished with extreme, that is, with everlasting [k] (http://www.prca.org/hc_text1.html#LDIVk) punishment of body and soul.
[a]: Eccl. 7:29 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Eccl+7:29)
[B]: John 8:44 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=John+8:44); 2Cor. 11:3 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=2+Cor+11:3)
[c]: Gen. 3:4,7 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Gen+3:4,7)
[d]: Rom. 5:12 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Rom+5:12)
[e]: Psa. 5:5 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Psa+5:5)
[f]: Rom. 1:18 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Rom+1:18); Deut. 28:15 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Deut+28:15); Heb. 9:27 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Heb+9:27)
[g]: Deut 27:27 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Deut+27:27); Gal. 3:10 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Gal+3:10)
[h]: Ex. 24:6 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Ex+24:6)
: Ex 20:5 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Ex+20:5); Job 34:10,11 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Job+34:10,11)
[j]: Psa. 5:5,6 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Psa+5:5,6)
[k]: Gen. 2:17 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Gen+2:17); Rom. 6:23 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Rom+6:23) [B][I]THE SECOND PART--OF MAN'S DELIVERANCE

V. LORD'S DAY. (http://www.prca.org/hc_index.html#LDV)


Question 12 (http://www.prca.org/hc_index.html#Q12). Since then, by the righteous judgment of God, we deserved temporal and eternal punishment, is there no way by which we may escape that punishment, and be again received into favor?

Answer. God will have his justice [a] (http://www.prca.org/hc_text1.html#LDVa) satisfied; and therefore we must make this full satisfaction, either by ourselves, or by another.
[I]Question 13 (http://www.prca.org/hc_index.html#Q13). Can we ourselves then make this satisfaction?

Answer. By no means; [c] (http://www.prca.org/hc_text1.html#LDVc) but on the contrary we [d] (http://www.prca.org/hc_text1.html#LDVd) daily increase our debt.
Question 14 (http://www.prca.org/hc_index.html#Q14). Can there be found anywhere, one, who is a mere creature, able to satisfy for us?

Answer. None; for, first, God will not [e] (http://www.prca.org/hc_text1.html#LDVe) punish any other creature for the sin which man hath committed; and further, no mere creature can sustain the burden of God's eternal wrath against sin, so as to [f] (http://www.prca.org/hc_text1.html#LDVf) deliver others from it.
Question 15 (http://www.prca.org/hc_index.html#Q15). What sort of a mediator and deliverer then must we seek for?

Answer. For one who is very man, [g] (http://www.prca.org/hc_text1.html#LDVg) and perfectly righteous; and yet more powerful than all creatures; that is, one who is also very [h] (http://www.prca.org/hc_text1.html#LDVh) God.
[a]: Ex. 20:5 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Ex+20:5)
: Deut. 24:16 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Deut+24:16); 2Cor. 5:14,15 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=2+Cor+5:14,15)
[c]: Job 9:2,3 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Job+9:2,3); Job 15:14,15,16 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Job+15:14,15,16)
[d]: Mat. 6:12 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Mat+6:12); Isa. 64:6 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Isa+64:6)
[e]: Ezek. 18:20 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Ezek+18:20)
[f]: Rev. 5:3 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Rev+5:3); Psa. 49:8,9 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Psa+49:8,9)
[g]: 1Cor. 15:21 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=1+Cor+15:21); Rom. 8:3 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Rom+8:3)
[h]: Rom. 9:5 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Rom+9:5); Isa. 7:14 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Isa+7:14)

[B]VI. LORD'S DAY. (http://www.prca.org/hc_index.html#LDVI)


Question 16 (http://www.prca.org/hc_index.html#Q16). Why must he be very man, and also perfectly righteous?

Answer. Because the justice of God requires that the same human nature which hath sinned, should [a] (http://www.prca.org/hc_text1.html#LDVIa) likewise make satisfaction for sin; and one, who is himself a sinner, cannot satisfy for others.
[B]Question 17 (http://www.prca.org/hc_index.html#Q17). Why must he in one person be also very God?

Answer. That he might, by the power of his Godhead [c] (http://www.prca.org/hc_text1.html#LDVIc) sustain in his human nature, the burden of God's wrath; and might [d] (http://www.prca.org/hc_text1.html#LDVId) obtain for, and restore to us, righteousness and life.
Question 18 (http://www.prca.org/hc_index.html#Q18). Who then is that Mediator, who is in one person both very God, and a real righteous man?

Answer. Our Lord Jesus Christ: [e] (http://www.prca.org/hc_text1.html#LDVIe) "who of God is made unto [f] (http://www.prca.org/hc_text1.html#LDVIf) us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption."
Question 19 (http://www.prca.org/hc_index.html#Q19). Whence knowest thou this?

Answer. From the holy gospel, which God himself first revealed in Paradise; [g] (http://www.prca.org/hc_text1.html#LDVIg) and afterwards published by the patriarchs [h] (http://www.prca.org/hc_text1.html#LDVIh) and prophets, and represented by the sacrifices and other ceremonies of the law; and lastly, has fulfilled it [j] (http://www.prca.org/hc_text1.html#LDVIj) by his only begotten Son. [a]: Rom. 5:12,15 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Rom+5:12,15)
[B]: 1Pet 3:18 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=1+Pet+3:18); Isa. 53:11 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Isa+53:11)
[c]: 1 Pet. 3:18 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=1+Pet+3:18); Acts 2:24 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Acts+2:24); Isa. 53:8 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Isa+53:8)
[d]: 1John 1:2 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=1+John+1:2); Jer. 23:6 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Jer+23:6); 2Tim. 1:10 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=2+Tim+1:10); John 6:51 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=John+6:51)
[e]: Mat. 1:23 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Mat+1:23); 1Tim. 3:16 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=1+Tim+3:16); Luke 2:11 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Luke+2:11)
[f]: 1Cor 1:30 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=1+Cor+1:30)
[g]: Gen. 3:15 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Gen+3:15)
[h]: Gen. 22:17,18 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Gen+22:17,18); Gen. 28:14 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Gen+28:14); Rom. 1:2 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Rom+1:2); Heb. 1:1 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Heb+1:1); John 5:46 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=John+5:46)
[I]: Heb. 10:7,8 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Heb+10:7,8)
[j]: Rom. 10:4 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Rom+10:4); Heb. 13:8 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?version=KJV&passage=Heb+13:8)"


2.

Canons of Dordt
"SECOND HEAD OF DOCTRINE
Of the Death of Christ, and the Redemption of Men Thereby

Article 1 (http://www.prca.org/cd_index.html#head2). God is not only supremely merciful, but also supremely just. And his justice requires (as he hath revealed himself in his Word), that our sins committed against his infinite majesty should be punished, not only with temporal, but with eternal punishment, both in body and soul; which we cannot escape, unless satisfaction be made to the justice of God.
Article 2 (http://www.prca.org/cd_index.html#head2). Since therefore we are unable to make that satisfaction in our own persons, or to deliver ourselves from the wrath of God, he hath been pleased in his infinite mercy to give his only begotten Son, for our surety, who was made sin, and became a curse for us and in our stead, that he might make satisfaction to divine justice on our behalf.
Article 3 (http://www.prca.org/cd_index.html#head2). The death of the Son of God is the only and most perfect sacrifice and satisfaction for sin; and is of infinite worth and value, abundantly sufficient to expiate the sins of the whole world.
Article 4 (http://www.prca.org/cd_index.html#head2). This death derives its infinite value and dignity from these considerations, because the person who submitted to it was not only really man, and perfectly holy, but also the only begotten Son of God, of the same eternal and infinite essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit, which qualifications were necessary to constitute him a Savior for us; and because it was attended with a sense of the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin.
Article 5 (http://www.prca.org/cd_index.html#head2). Moreover, the promise of the gospel is, that whosoever believeth in Christ crucified, shall not perish, but have everlasting life. This promise, together with the command to repent and believe, ought to be declared and published to all nations, and to all persons promiscuously and without distinction, to whom God out of his good pleasure sends the gospel.
Article 6 (http://www.prca.org/cd_index.html#head2). And, whereas many who are called by the gospel, do not repent, nor believe in Christ, but perish in unbelief; this is not owing to any defect or insufficiency in the sacrifice offered by Christ upon the cross, but is wholly to be imputed to themselves.
Article 7 (http://www.prca.org/cd_index.html#head2). But as many as truly believe, and are delivered and saved from sin and destruction through the death of Christ, are indebted for this benefit solely to the grace of God, given them in Christ from everlasting, and not to any merit of their own.
Article 8 (http://www.prca.org/cd_index.html#head2). For this was the sovereign counsel, and most gracious will and purpose of God the Father, that the quickening and saving efficacy of the most precious death of his Son should extend to all the elect, for bestowing upon them alone the gift of justifying faith, thereby to bring them infallibly to salvation: that is, it was the will of God, that Christ by the blood of the cross, whereby he confirmed the new covenant, should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and language, all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation, and given to him by the Father; that he should confer upon them faith, which together with all the other saving gifts of the Holy Spirit, he purchased for them by his death; should purge them from all sin, both original and actual, whether committed before or after believing; and having faithfully preserved them even to the end, should at last bring them free from every spot and blemish to the enjoyment of glory in his own presence forever. Article 9 (http://www.prca.org/cd_index.html#head2). This purpose proceeding from everlasting love towards the elect, has from the beginning of the world to this day been powerfully accomplished, and will henceforward still continue to be accomplished, notwithstanding all the ineffectual opposition of the gates of hell, so that the elect in due time may be gathered together into one, and that there never may be wanting a church composed of believers, the foundation of which is laid in the blood of Christ, which may steadfastly love, and faithfully serve him as their Savior, who as a bridegroom for his bride, laid down his life for them upon the cross, and which may celebrate his praises here and through all eternity."


Again, for your comfort.

"Question 17 (http://www.prca.org/hc_index.html#Q17). Why must he in one person be also very God?

Answer. That he might, by the power of his Godhead [c] (http://www.prca.org/hc_text1.html#LDVIc) sustain in his human nature, the burden of God's wrath; and might [d] (http://www.prca.org/hc_text1.html#LDVId) obtain for, and restore to us, righteousness and life."
-CPRWC

Tobias Crisp
08-19-05, 12:17 PM
Greetings!
All of God's holiness, goodness, justice, mercy, truth, and sovereignty are in complete harmony as God truly is God. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the great "I Am" who reveals Himself as the only God and who is one in all of His perfections which include His sovereignty and His majesty and His justice. God is complete as God and Jesus, the eternal Son of God, is this holy "I Am" come in our flesh to be the propitiation for our sins. Remember this as your peace and joy.
This will be my one post on this thread and addresses the heart of this discussionCraig,

I guess I fail to understand how your brief comment and quote adds to the discussion of the issue of Christ being "made sin". Can you help me out?

lionovjudah
08-19-05, 12:29 PM
Craig,

I guess I fail to understand how your brief comment and quote adds to the discussion of the issue of Christ being "made sin". Can you help me out?

Me too. I am looking within the "one" post, but are you sure you meant to quote the 55 pages of the HC for this thread?

Brandan
08-21-05, 12:49 PM
Scott price handed me a CD of Mark's sermon when Scott and Anthony visited me yesterday. I ripped it to mp3 format, and I am uploading it for those interested. You can download it here: http://www.5solas.org/mp3/Abolutesubsitition.mp3

GraceAmbassador
08-21-05, 02:00 PM
This will be my one post on this thread and addresses the heart of this discussion

Thank you! Now please, keep your promise!

Milt

InChristAlways
08-21-05, 03:03 PM
Originally Posted by bgamall
I am prepared at this point to say this following statement. 1. I know that Christ was separated from the blessings of the Father through the Spirit. 2. I know that Christ as to His being was never separated from the Father, that is, He never ceased to be God. 3. Christ never sinned and never committed a sin, on or off the cross.

Now, what I don't fully understand is if His human nature was separated from God. I ask this in the context of Paul saying He was made a curse and if that implies a separation.
Hi. Isn't Paul saying that it was to the Jews of Israel that he redeemed from the curse of The Law, while bringing LIGHT to the gentiles/nations.

So why would the "curse" be related to those outside the law? Paul was also a jew under the Law until Christ made him a "slave" for Him to bring LIGHT to both gentiles and "jews under the law".

In fact, Israel was the only one under a curse from what I have read. This is why those calling themselves "jews" have no idea what "redemtion" means in the OT and NT.

Malachi 3:9 You are cursed with a curse, For you have robbed Me, [Even] this whole nation.

Galatians 3:13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed [is] everyone who hangs on a tree"), 14 that to the nations the blessing of Abraham may come in Christ Jesus, that the promise of the Spirit we may receive through the faith.
Galatians 3:13 cristoV <5547> {CHRIST} hmaV <2248> {US}exhgorasen <1805> (5656) {RANSOMED} ek <1537> {FROM} thV <3588> {THE} kataraV <2671> {CURSE}tou <3588> {OF THE} nomou <3551> {LAW,} genomenoV <1096> (5637) {HAVING BECOME} uper <5228> {FOR} hmwn <2257> {US} katara <2671> {A CURSE,} gegraptai <1125> (5769) gar <1063> {FOR IT HAS BEEN WRITTEN,} epikataratoV <1944> {CURSED} paV <3956> { EVERYONE} o <3588> {WHO} kremamenoV <2910> (5734) {HANGS} epi <1909> {ON} xulou <3586> {A TREE,}

Here in Gal 4:5 it just says "law", not "the law" so I am a little confused on this.

Galatians 4:5 to redeem those who were under law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

Revelation 22:3 And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him.

[I]Ephesians 5:15 Look therefore carefully how ye walk, not as unwise, but as wise; 16 redeeming the time, because the days are evil. 17 Wherefore be ye not foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.

col 4:2 Continue earnestly in prayer, being vigilant in it with thanksgiving; 3 meanwhile praying also for us, that God would open to us a door for the word, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in chains, 4 that I may make it manifest, as I ought to speak. 5 Walk in wisdom toward those [who are] outside, redeeming the time.

exagorazo (Strong's 1805) occurs 4 times in 4 verses:

1805 exagorazo ex-ag-or-ad'-zo from 1537 and 59; to buy up, i.e. ransom; figuratively, to rescue from loss (improve opportunity):--redeem. 1537ek ek or ex ex a primary preposition denoting origin (the point whence action or motion proceeds), from, out (of place, time, or cause; literal or figurative; direct or remote):59 agorazo ag-or-ad'-zo from 58; properly, to go to market, i.e. (by implication) to purchase; specially, to redeem:--buy, redeem.

harald
08-21-05, 03:40 PM
Steve,

As for Gal. 3:13-14. The "redeemed us from the curse of the law" (v. 13) is connected to "to the nations the blessing of Abraham may come in Christ Jesus" by the "that" of v. 14. Which "that" is HINA in the Greek, lit. "in order that", "to the end that". The "come" is a mistranslation, the GR. has "ginomai", therefore it should read "should come to pass" (aorist subjunctive). Here is my literal rendering

13 Christ bought us out from under the curse of the law, having by himself become a curse for us, for it has been written: ”Cursed is every one suspending himself on a piece of wood.”,
14 To the end that for the gentiles the said blessing of *Abraham should come to pass in Christ Jesus, to the end that the promise of the Spirit we would obtain through the faith.

So, it seems to me that somehow, in some sense, the (Galatian) gentiles were (had been) under the curse of the law. But Christ cancelled it in their case through His redemptive work.

As for Gal. 4:5 you're right that it says not "the law", but "law", anarthrous. Paul here specifically talks about the Galatian gentiles, they had not been under "the law", but under "law". I believe here NOMOS ("law") is carrying the sense of "a conditional regimen". In context Paul further defines this "law" as "the rudimentary principles of the world".

Harald

InChristAlways
08-21-05, 04:49 PM
So, it seems to me that somehow, in some sense, the (Galatian) gentiles were (had been) under the curse of the law. But Christ cancelled it in their case through His redemptive work.

As for Gal. 4:5 you're right that it says not "the law", but "law", anarthrous. Paul here specifically talks about the Galatian gentiles, they had not been under "the law", but under "law". I believe here NOMOS ("law") is carrying the sense of "a conditional regimen". In context Paul further defines this "law" as "the rudimentary principles of the world". Hi harald. Thanks and I agree. Btw, what is your favorite translation? How about a form of "Adam" perhaps as "law"?

I do a lot of word studies and harmonzing, and this "curse" in revelation appears to be a little different from the "curse" of the Law or on the jews but that is a different topic.
I still have a lot to learn and thanks for helping me out on that. I love reading the Bible most of all!!! Blessings.

Revelation 22:3 And there shall be no more curse[#2652], but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him.

There is one verse containing the word katanathema (Strong's 2652) .

Romans 9:1 I tell the truth in Christ, I am not lying, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Spirit, 2 that I have great sorrow and continual grief in my heart. 3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed[#331] from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites,

2652 katanathema kat-an-ath'-em-ah from 2596 (intensive) and 331; an imprecation:--curse.2596 kata kat-ah' a primary particle; (prepositionally) down (in place or time), in varied relations (according to the case (genitive, dative or accusative) with which it is joined):--about, according as (to), after, against, (when they were) X alone, among, 331 anathema an-ath'-em-ah from 394; a (religious) ban or (concretely) excommunicated (thing or person):--accused, anathema, curse, X great.394 anatithemai an-at-ith'-em-ahee from 303 and the middle voice of 5087; to set forth (for oneself), i.e propound:--communicate, declare.

2671 katara kat-ar'-ah from 2596 (intensive) and 685; imprecation, execration:--curse(-d, ing).

Galatians 3:13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse[#2671] of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed [is] everyone who hangs on a tree"), 14 that to the nations the blessing of Abraham may come in Christ Jesus, that the promise of the Spirit we may receive through the faith.

Here in Gal 4:5 it just says "law", not "the law" so I am a little confused on this.

Galatians 4:5 to redeem those who were under law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.

harald
08-22-05, 10:53 AM
Steve, you're welcome. At present I cannot say that I have any favourite (official) translation. Most often I have the e-Sword running and when need be I check/compare the English translations it has, mainly the formal equivalence versions, like Darby, YLT, ALT, WEB, UPDV etc. Some times one of them may be more literal than the others, another time another. Frankly, in those instances where I have made my own translation I prefer it, because even though it is often more awkward English it is nonetheless more literal.

You said

How about a form of "Adam" perhaps as "law"?


I'm afraid I lost you on this one. Could you explain what you meant?


Harald

Tobias Crisp
08-22-05, 10:57 AM
It looks like the specific topic of Christ being "made sin" has died down and that the last few posts have really been off topic. I would suggest that any other discussions, especially the one regarding Christ being "separated" from the Father, be taken to a new thread.

Thanks

Calvinator
08-25-05, 08:10 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the sin nature that is in all of us is past down through the male. Jesus did not have a earthly father and then did not have the sin nature. There is a difference from being made sin for us then being a sinner. Jesus became sin for us by have our sin imputed to Him. He became sin who knew no sin. He did not have the sin nature nor did He commit sin, so He was not a sinner.

Tobias Crisp
08-25-05, 08:28 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the sin nature that is in all of us is past down through the male. Jesus did not have a earthly father and then did not have the sin nature. There is a difference from being made sin for us then being a sinner. Jesus became sin for us by have our sin imputed to Him. He became sin who knew no sin. He did not have the sin nature nor did He commit sin, so He was not a sinner.John, two things here 1) the whole issue of this thread is to counter those who have espoused a view that says Christ was made sin by something more than imputation, they in fact hold that sin was in some sense implanted into the person of Christ. 2) Prior to coming to this forum I had pretty much held to the view that you mention about Adamic sin coming through the male and that explains the reason for the virgin birth of Christ. I came to realize that I couldn't biblically defend that position. I would suggest reevaluating your view.

Calvinator
08-25-05, 08:36 PM
John, two things here 1) the whole issue of this thread is to counter those who have espoused a view that says Christ was made sin by something more than imputation, they in fact hold that sin was in some sense implanted into the person of Christ. 2) Prior to coming to this forum I had pretty much held to the view that you mention about Adamic sin coming through the male and that explains the reason for the virgin birth of Christ. I came to realize that I couldn't biblically defend that position. I would suggest reevaluating your view.
Well, I did asked to be corrected if I was wrong. I will do that.:)

Calvinator
08-25-05, 09:03 PM
Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

This is through imputation, is it not?

How am I misunderstanding?

Tobias Crisp
08-25-05, 09:18 PM
Isa 53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

2Co 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

This is through imputation, is it not?

How am I misunderstanding?It IS by imputation but for some this is not enough. I would suggest you read the thread that got this discussion going and then read through this one from the beginning. You then should have a thorough understanding of the issues and of it's importance. Here is the link to the original thread, it's in the archive:

http://www.predestinarian.net/showthread.php?t=2176

lionovjudah
08-30-05, 09:12 AM
I found this article. I do not endorse the site, but found this article well written.

http://www.letusreason.org/Wf23.htm


A.T Robertson states He made to be sin (hamartian epoie&#244;sen). The words “to be” are not in the Greek.
“Sin” here is the substantive, not the verb. God “treated as sin” the one “who knew no sin.” But he knew the contradiction of sinners (Heb 12:3). We may not dare to probe too far into the mystery of Christ’s suffering on the Cross, but this fact throws some light on the tragic cry of Jesus just before he died: “My God, My God, why didst thou forsake me?” (Matthew 27:46). (Robertson's Word pictures)
Robertson’s comment,” We may not dare to probe too far into the mystery of Christ’s suffering on the Cross.” Meaning its depth is left to God alone. But this is exactly what the faith teachers do, and because of this they come to the wrong conclusions. By going beyond what the Scripture states!
I John 3:5 says, “And you know he appeared to take away our sins, and in him, THERE IS NO SIN,” literally meaning that he had no sin before, during, nor after the cross. While many shift the atonement event to after the cross, there are some who may not understand that they are saying that there is NO salvation in the cross! But Paul states in 1 Corinthians1 that there is no salvation apart from the cross


Isaiah 53:5 tells us that the chastisement of our peace was laid “upon” Him. Isaiah 53:6 say’s the Lord laid our iniquity “on” him, not “in” him; there was no change in nature. Our sin was laid to his account. He bore its penalty as a punishment, as our substitution; he carried it away (fulfilling the typology of the scapegoat in Lev.16), not becoming sin or crushed by it. As it says in v.10, it pleased the Lord to bruise him. How? By being a lamb led to the slaughter. V.12 tells us he made intercession for the transgressors, which would be hard to do if you became one of them. Since God does not hear the prayer of a sinful man, especially the sin fullest human that ever lived. (the faith teachers he became worse than all having every sin imaginable).


Paul warns in 1 Cor. 12:3 “Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, (anathema) and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit. “ Anathema meant a thing devoted to God without being redeemed, doomed to destruction (a sinner, satanic being). If Christ became sin he is accursed, which is exactly what the faith teachers are saying. This would be different than the curse of the law in Gal. 3:13-14 “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree”) this shows he took the law away that made one guilty when they did not keep it perfectly. It also shows it occurred on the cross.( Col.2:14-15)

ugly_gaunt_cow
08-30-05, 04:30 PM
Is it me or are people missing the real crux of the verse...

2Co 5:21 "...For He has made Him who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."