A mistake

[mlqurgw]

The point is this: the fact that Christ experienced the full guilt and burden of sin imputed to him was NEVER the issue in this controversy. We all agree on that. The issue was this: Was Christ MADE a sinner in his person by some sort of mystical infusion that can't be defined in terms of logic or debate? Anyone who was a part of this debate early on KNOWS that this was the issue! It was never an issue of whether the imputation of sin to Christ was REAL vs. legal fiction--we all agree that it was REAL and not legal fiction due to the sovereignty of God's eternal purpose of grace!

I understand, but the issue remains a straw man because it was never said that sin was infused into Christ. I maintain it must be read into what has been said or written.

[harald]

Would you agree that Christ, by taking the guilt and amking it His own, was in obedience to the Father and thereby was being righteous in diong so? (Ron)

Yes. Christ assumed the guilt, the debt, making it His very own. This was the Father's will concening Him. In all this He was perfectly obedient to Him, perfectly righteous. This must be understood as pertaining to His humanity. Man had sinned, and the second man, the Lord from heaven incarnate, the man Christ Jesus, made atonement for the sin/trespasses of the chosen ones of God. But, looking at the context of 2Cor. 5 19-21 one must conclude that specifically speaking the non-articular "world" of v. 19 refers not to all of God's elect of all ages and households, but in context it refers to the body of the Christ, to whom Paul primarily ministered.
In considering the transaction that took place on Calvary many downplay or neglect the role of the union then existing between Christ and His own. The transaction did not take place in a vacuum.

Harald

[harald]

Unless I recall amiss at least Ian Potts at one point here spoke with the import that Christ was "made sin" by a creative act. This may be where the sin-infusion comes into the picture.


Harald

[mlqurgw]

Would you agree that Christ, by taking the guilt and amking it His own, was in obedience to the Father and thereby was being righteous in diong so? (Ron)

Yes. Christ assumed the guilt, the debt, making it His very own. This was the Father's will concening Him. In all this He was perfectly obedient to Him, perfectly righteous. This must be understood as pertaining to His humanity. Man had sinned, and the second man, the Lord from heaven incarnate, the man Christ Jesus, made atonement for the sin/trespasses of the chosen ones of God. But, looking at the context of 2Cor. 5 19-21 one must conclude that specifically speaking the non-articular "world" of v. 19 refers not to all of God's elect of all ages and households, but in context it refers to the body of the Christ, to whom Paul primarily ministered.
In considering the transaction that took place on Calvary many downplay or neglect the role of the union then existing between Christ and His own. The transaction did not take place in a vacuum.

Harald

The unoin of Christ and His people, they being one with Christ the head and them the body, is part of what makes His taking the guilt of sin just.

Edit; You wil have to forgive my typos as i am not a very good typist or guitar player either. My fingers don't work right.

[mlqurgw]

Unless I recall amiss at least Ian Potts at one point here spoke with the import that Christ was "made sin" by a creative act. This may be where the sin-infusion comes into the picture.


Harald

I did read some of his posts but don't recall it. I believe the issue began by Ken building a straw man.

[Brandan]

No one that I know says sin was imparted or infused into Christ.

Check this out Ron....

http://www.predestinarian.net/showth...676&#post32676

This was posted by Ian potts...

Does that mean that our sin in our fallen sinful nature was ‘imparted’ to Christ? Yes. Scripture doesn’t use that word ‘imparted’ but that pretty much describes it. God made him sin. God caused Christ ‘to become’ sin. It was a creative work.