A mistake

[mlqurgw]

Hi ml. That is not a bad analogy of the Atonement sacrifice. Can an "animal" sin? I don't think so, and is why Christ had to be the "passover" Lamb [a symbolic animal] of God who takes away the sin of the world.

His sacrifice was more than symbolic. An animal cannot be a sinner in any sense because it is an animal. The symbolism is in the picture of Christ's one great sacrifice. It stops there. Christ is the object pointed to in the picture. His sacrifice wasn't symbolic and therefore was a real atonement for sin.

What is ironic is the fact that he was still symbolically "sacrificed" by the "High Priests" to atone/cover over their sins according to Levitical law, though they used the hands of the romans to complete it.
Steve

Matt 27:12 And while He was being accused by the chief priests and elders, He answered nothing....... 25 And all the people answered and said, "His blood [be] on us and on our children."

John 19: 11 Jesus answered, "You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin."....... 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!"

Again, they didn't symbolically sacrifice Him they actually sacrificed Him.

There appears to be yet one more sacrifice left in Zeph 1.

Not according to Hebrews. I believe that passage is referring to Christ's sacrifice on the cross.

[InChristAlways]

What then do we learn from them concerning our question? Let’s just take one sacrifice, that one on the great Day of Atonement, and see what we can find. The High Priest lays his hands upon the head of the animal to be sacrificed picturing imputation of sin. The animal’s blood is shed and it dies. Did the animal become a sinner? Of course not, because the blood of bulls and goats can never take away sin. The whole scene is a picture to teach us how Christ bears our sin and dies under the penalty of it.
But when the king heard, he was angry. And he sent out his armies and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city. Then he said to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they who were invited were not worthy. Therefore go into the exits of the highways, and as many as you shall find, invite them to the marriage. So the servants went out into the highways and gathered together as many as they found, both bad and good. And the wedding was filled with reclining guests. And the king coming in to look over the guests, he saw a man there who did not have on a wedding garment. And he said to him, Friend, how did you come in here without having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.

Then the king said to the servants, Bind him hand and foot and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness. There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. For many are called, but few chosen."

Hi ml. There appears to be yet one more sacrifice left in Zeph 1

Not according to Hebrews. I believe that passage is referring to Christ's sacrifice on the cross.

I don't believe so as it is a "punishment" on the Day of the Lord I believe. [We can discuss this on the Eschaton board if you are interested]

Isaiah 61:2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, And the day of vengeance of our God;

The same silence in Zeph 1 appears to be the same "half hour of silence" in revelation at the 7th seal. The "lake of fire", in a view I have, might be "symbolic" of the Altar of burnt offerings, which burned day and night, inside the Court outside the Sanctuary as revelation does resemble a "type/shadow" of the OT Camp of the Tabernacle in the Wilderness. [I just brought this up for interest.]
Steve

Zeph 1:7 Be silent in the presence of the Lord GOD; For the day of the LORD [is] at hand, For the LORD has prepared a sacrifice; He has invited His guests. 8 "And it shall be, In the Day of the LORD's sacrifice, That I will punish the princes and the king's children, And all such as are clothed with foreign apparel.[Note wedding feast parable in the NT]

Revelation 8:1 When He opened the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour.

I don't want to get into "eschatology" here, but have you ever looked closely at Ezekiel 28:10 and "dying the deaths of the "uncircumcized"? I notice this awhile back when studying on Paul and the "circumcision" and "uncircumcision" and could be that "sacrifice"?

Ezekiel 28:10 Thou shalt Die the Deaths of the "uncircumcised", by the hand of strangers: for I have spoken [it], saith the Lord Jehovah.

[mlqurgw]

I don't believe so as it is a "punishment" on the Day of the Lord I believe. [We can discuss this on the Eschaton board if you are interested]The same silence in Zeph 1 appears to be the same "half hour of silence" in revelation at the 7th seal. The "lake of fire", in a view I have, might be "symbolic" of the Altar of burnt offerings, which burned day and night, inside the Court outside the Sanctuary as revelation does resemble a "type/shadow" of the OT Camp of the Tabernacle in the Wilderness. [I just brought this up for interest.]
SteveI don't want to get into "eschatology" here, but have you ever looked closely at Ezekiel 28:10 and "dying the deaths of the "uncircumcized"? I notice this awhile back when studying on Paul and the "circumcision" and "uncircumcision" and could be that "sacrifice"?

Ezekiel 28:10 Thou shalt Die the Deaths of the "uncircumcised", by the hand of strangers: for I have spoken [it], saith the Lord Jehovah.

Honestly, I am not interestd in Eschatology. I believe it relys far to much on opinions. I do not believe it is ours to look into future thing so much. I believe we have enough to deal with in the present. I do look to the future in the respect that I look for His coming at any time. That is as far as I will take it.

[mlqurgw]

'Heretic' is a word thrown around loosely and we should define it properly; is it:

1. A person teaching any wrong doctrine.
2. A person teaching enough wrong doctrine to prove himself unsaved.
3. A schismatic person.
etc.

On the issue of Christ made sin by impartation, I think that what the moderating staff came to agreement on is that such a DOCTRINE is heresy. Heresy being defined in this instance as a departure from apostolic teaching on the person and work of Jesus Christ. But the entire content of individual opinions expressed about DF himself are not necessarily representative of every moderator here.

We never received an answer from any proponent of the 'made sin' view (including DF) on how the reality of Christ made sin is logically defined. The proponents of the view stated that we were unsaved unless we believed the doctrine as essential to the gospel--yet they could not state the doctrine logically and propositionally. The response to my demanding a propositional defense was that the truth is spiritual and goes beyond any propositions that man can state on how Christ was made sin by impartation. That response will never be acceptable to us and should not be acceptable to anyone. So we can't recommend persons as sound teachers who are not committed to a logical defense of the gospel.

After re-reading this I thought I might respond in more detail. If I understand what I believe to be the teaching you call heresy it is truly a mystery in how it happens. Saying that some things are mysterious is not denying that anyone is committed to a logical defense of the Gospel. I would ask if you can logically explain how Christ is both God and man? I would also ask if you can explain how God exists in three persons and is yet one? These are mysteries that are beyond our finite minds to truly comprehend. Logic is a great tool but it isn't the end all be all of truth. I do not want you to take this the wrong way as though I am putting words in your mouth but it would seem by your statement that if you can't understand it logically it simply can't be true. I do not believe that is the case.

[ugly_gaunt_cow]

These are mysteries that are beyond our finite minds to truly comprehend.

Yes. They are concepts that are beyond the level of thinking man is accustom to exercising. However, in my estimation, their complexity does not disqualify them from being logical and thus need to be summed up to a mystery of sorts, but qualifies them as being a higher form of logic.

I am also of the opinion we should be reluctant to label ideas that may be seemingly incomprehensible as "mysterious". Rather, we should "seek wisdom" and "gain understanding" which inevitably brings us to a closer understand to the person of God. This is not to say that man will ever be able to fully comprehend the essence of God inexhaustibly, seeing how He is infinite is all His ways.

We do need to take heed to the fact that God Himself has chosen to reveal to His saints, in this day and age, His Will and Person-hood in the simplest of manners - a book. It would serve us well to keep ourselves from slipping into error by learning what this book teaches about God that we may also keep ourselves from creating false "images" in our minds, which would ultimately be "another god" to whom we would subsequently end up "bowing down" to. An idol of the mind, if you will...

Although the language of the Scriptures is simple and the message conveyed in terms easy to grasp, the "big-picture" - the sum of the parts - is not laid out in the open for us to readably understand. If this were the case we not search and study Holy Writ daily to ascertain that which is Truth against that which is a lie.

And this is the whole point of every matter concerning areas of sound biblical doctrine; that we are diligent in "testing all things" and "holding fast to what is good" understanding that "no lie is part of the truth".

Scott.

[mlqurgw]

Yes. They are concepts that are beyond the level of thinking man is accustom to exercising. However, in my estimation, their complexity does not disqualify them from being logical and thus need to be summed up to a mystery of sorts, but qualifies them as being a higher form of logic.

I am also of the opinion we should be reluctant to label ideas that may be seemingly incomprehensible as "mysterious". Rather, we should "seek wisdom" and "gain understanding" which inevitably brings us to a closer understand to the person of God. This is not to say that man will ever be able to fully comprehend the essence of God inexhaustibly, seeing how He is infinite is all His ways.

We do need to take heed to the fact that God Himself has chosen to reveal to His saints, in this day and age, His Will and Person-hood in the simplest of manners - a book. It would serve us well to keep ourselves from slipping into error by learning what this book teaches about God that we may also keep ourselves from creating false "images" in our minds, which would ultimately be "another god" to whom we would subsequently end up "bowing down" to. An idol of the mind, if you will...

Although the language of the Scriptures is simple and the message conveyed in terms easy to grasp, the "big-picture" - the sum of the parts - is not laid out in the open for us to readably understand. If this were the case we not search and study Holy Writ daily to ascertain that which is Truth against that which is a lie.

And this is the whole point of every matter concerning areas of sound biblical doctrine; that we are diligent in "testing all things" and "holding fast to what is good" understanding that "no lie is part of the truth".

Scott.

I wouldn't disagree with any thing you have said in this post. As I said before logic is a great tool. I only wished to point out that we simply cannot declare something heretical because someone can't give a sufficient, at least to you(I mean that in the generic sense not the personal), logical explantion of all the intricacies(sp?) involved. As far as the question of Christ being made sin it seems that while I can't expalin in detail all that was involved I do know the Scriptures seem to indicate very clearly it was more than just a symbolic transfer. Every translation I have checked says the same thing in 1Pet. 2:24. They all say in His body not on His body. Couple that with the Scriptures repeatedly teaching His bearing sin. Add to that the righteous character of God who cannot in righteousness pour out wrath on the undeserving. If we take Psa. 40:12 as Christ speaking, which I do, He calls iniquities His. Though you may disagree with the view it does seem to be a legitimate Scriptural view. One's disagreement does not make it heresy.

[ugly_gaunt_cow]

I wouldn't disagree with any thing you have said in this post. As I said before logic is a great tool. I only wished to point out that we simply cannot declare something heretical because someone can't give a sufficient, at least to you(I mean that in the generic sense not the personal), logical explantion of all the intricacies(sp?) involved. As far as the question of Christ being made sin it seems that while I can't expalin in detail all that was involved I do know the Scriptures seem to indicate very clearly it was more than just a symbolic transfer. Every translation I have checked says the same thing in 1Pet. 2:24. They all say in His body not on His body. Couple that with the Scriptures repeatedly teaching His bearing sin. Add to that the righteous character of God who cannot in righteousness pour out wrath on the undeserving. If we take Psa. 40:12 as Christ speaking, which I do, He calls iniquities His. Though you may disagree with the view it does seem to be a legitimate Scriptural view. One's disagreement does not make it heresy.

If think if we look at this in a logical way, we can see that Jesus Himself "knew no sin".

Firstly because the bible teaches this, secondly, because the wages of sin is desth, and Jesus is alive and ruling the universe. Hence the resurrection. Death had to give Him up because He wasn't guilty of any transgression. It had no claim on Him.

So, what can we deduce, base on these facts, from statements such as "He bore our sins in His body"?

There's a contrast here. Our sins/His body...

[mlqurgw]

If think if we look at this in a logical way, we can see that Jesus Himself "knew no sin".

Firstly because the bible teaches this, secondly, because the wages of sin is desth, and Jesus is alive and ruling the universe. Hence the resurrection. Death had to give Him up because He wasn't guilty of any transgression. It had no claim on Him.

So, what can we deduce, base on these facts, from statements such as "He bore our sins in His body"?

There's a contrast here. Our sins/His body...

But he did die. Death has no longer a hold on Him because His death was a full atonement for the sin of His people. Justice was spent on Him and satisfied to its fullest extent. The very nature of His being God made it so. He rose again because righteous wrath and the due penalty was sufferd by Him to the extent that it is completely spent. There is nothing left of it. That is what it means when it says He purged our sins, taken them out of the way, made an end of sin, put it away. The sin of God's elect are gone because Christ actually did something with them. It it was only symbolic the sin remains. That is the difference between the sacrifices of the Old Testament and Christ's one great sacrifice. For it to be real it had to be actual not symbolic.

[mlqurgw]

I also wanted to point out that your logic of He knew no sin doesnt necessarily make it impossible for Him to have never known sin. It could just as easily be viewed as He didn't know sin up until He was made sin.

[ugly_gaunt_cow]

But he did die. Death has no longer a hold on Him because His death was a full atonement for the sin of His people. Justice was spent on Him and satisfied to its fullest extent. The very nature of His being God made it so. He rose again because righteous wrath and the due penalty was sufferd by Him to the extent that it is completely spent. There is nothing left of it. That is what it means when it says He purged our sins, taken them out of the way, made an end of sin, put it away. The sin of God's elect are gone because Christ actually did something with them. It it was only symbolic the sin remains. That is the difference between the sacrifices of the Old Testament and Christ's one great sacrifice. For it to be real it had to be actual not symbolic.

Well, if He's still alive then how dead could have He been? Why did He resurrect?

Obivously there was a physical death, as we can clearly see on the cross but what actually takes place beyond our frame of perception? What takes place in hell? Do sinners blink off into nothingness? Or do they experince an eternity of God's wrath?

If God's wrath was spent on Christ, and the grave was forced to give Him up, then what does this say about Chirst "being made a sinner"?

[mlqurgw]

Well, if He's still alive then how dead could have He been? Why did He resurrect?

Death, in my view, is seperation from life. True death is seperation fron Him who is life. Did He not cry, "My God, my God why has thou forsaken me?" Is that what Rev. calls the second death.

Obivously there was a physical death, as we can clearly see on the cross but what actually takes place beyond our frame of perception? What takes place in hell? Do sinners blink off into nothingness? Or do they experince an eternity of God's wrath?

I think I answered this above.

If God's wrath was spent on Christ, and the grave was forced to give Him up, then what does this say about Chirst "being made a sinner"?

That He no longer bears sin. He has put it away. If Christ were just a man He would still be in the grave because a man can never satisfy justice. The fact that He is the God-Man makes His death of infinite value. It is sufficient to accomplish(sp?) the atonement required for the sin of the elect.

[ugly_gaunt_cow]

I also wanted to point out that your logic of He knew no sin doesnt necessarily make it impossible for Him to have never known sin. It could just as easily be viewed as He didn't know sin up until He was made sin.

Yes, is can be easily seen, or misconstrude as such. But it is in correct.

Let's look at exactly what the bible says on the matter...

[1Pe 2:22] "...He who did no sin, nor was guile found in His mouth,"

[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."


If He "did no sin", and "knew no sin" in the sense that His actions, thoughts we prue in all their ways, then the sin He knew could have only been by imputation, and not impartation. Jesus was without "spot" or "blemish".

[Exo 12:1-6] "... And Jehovah spoke to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, This month shall be to you the beginning of months. It shall be the first month of the year to you.

Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth of this month they shall take to them each man a lamb for a father's house, a lamb for a house. And if the household is too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbor next to his house take according to the number of the souls, each one, according to the eating of his mouth, you shall count concerning the lamb.

Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year. You shall take from the sheep or from the goats.

And you shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month. And the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening."


[Lev 1:10] "... And if his offering is of the flocks, of the sheep, or of the goats, for a burnt offering, he shall bring a male without blemish."


[Lev 3:1] "... And if his offering is a sacrifice of peace offering, if he offers from the herd, whether it is a male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before Jehovah."


[Psa 40:7-8] "...Then I said, Lo, I come, in the volume of the Book it is written of Me; I delight to do Your will, O My God; and Your Law is within My heart."

[mlqurgw]

Yes, is can be easily seen, or misconstrude as such. But it is in correct.

Let's look at exactly what the bible says on the matter...

[1Pe 2:22] "...He who did no sin, nor was guile found in His mouth,"

[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."


If He "did no sin", and "knew no sin" in the sense that His actions, thoughts we prue in all their ways, then the sin He knew could have only been by imputation, and not impartation. Jesus was without "spot" or "blemish".

[Exo 12:1-6] "... And Jehovah spoke to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, This month shall be to you the beginning of months. It shall be the first month of the year to you.

Speak to all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth of this month they shall take to them each man a lamb for a father's house, a lamb for a house. And if the household is too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbor next to his house take according to the number of the souls, each one, according to the eating of his mouth, you shall count concerning the lamb.

Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year. You shall take from the sheep or from the goats.

And you shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month. And the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening."


[Lev 1:10] "... And if his offering is of the flocks, of the sheep, or of the goats, for a burnt offering, he shall bring a male without blemish."


[Lev 3:1] "... And if his offering is a sacrifice of peace offering, if he offers from the herd, whether it is a male or female, he shall offer it without blemish before Jehovah."


[Psa 40:7-8] "...Then I said, Lo, I come, in the volume of the Book it is written of Me; I delight to do Your will, O My God; and Your Law is within My heart."

What makes it incorrect? He is the spotless Lamb of God but that doesn't at all mean that He reamined spotless when sin was laid on Him. If the guilt was not His, in whatever manner, then why did he die?

[ugly_gaunt_cow]

Death, in my view, is seperation from life. True death is seperation fron Him who is life. Did He not cry, "My God, my God why has thou forsaken me?" Is that what Rev. calls the second death.

I think I answered this above.

That He no longer bears sin. He has put it away. If Christ were just a man He would still be in the grave because a man can never satisfy justice. The fact that He is the God-Man makes His death of infinite value. It is sufficient to accomplish(sp?) the atonement required for the sin of the elect.

With all due respect, I've heard these exact same phrases, almost word for word, used in the past. I'm not trying to negate from the truth of them, but could you provide the thead with passages of scripture by which we can frame them.

Apart from verses/passages, they have a tendency to come off as abstract reasoning. We need to solidify them with concrete principles. This can only be done by clearly outlining in the bible how these things can be so.

[ugly_gaunt_cow]

What makes it incorrect? He is the spotless Lamb of God but that doesn't at all mean that He reamined spotless when sin was laid on Him. If the guilt was not His, in whatever manner, then why did he die?

The lamb of God, that takes away the sins of the world...

Do you see the reasoning behind this? In order for Him to have taken away the sins of the world HE had to BE SPOTLESS. This is clearly outlined in the precepts of the verses I posted above. A spotless lamb was required of God to be a propitiation. This is atonement 101.

Nowhere does the bible teach that He was spotless momentarily, only to have become a sinner like every other man. His perfect righteousness is what made Him spotless. To take away from that takes away from the clear teaching of Him being God in the flesh.

At what point does God sin?

[mlqurgw]

With all due respect, I've heard these exact same phrases, almost word for word, used in the past. I'm not trying to negate from the truth of them, but could you provide the thead with passages of scripture by which we can frame them.

Apart from verses/passages, they have a tendency to come off as abstract reasoning. We need to solidify them with concrete principles. This can only be done by clearly outlining in the bible how these things can be so.

I am not sure what you want. I am sure the fault is mine. I have not read any of the threads that have tried to deal with this actually. Once I got to the point of some calling my pastor a heretic I quit. Of course it didn't take very long. My arguments are mine and I will be happy to give Scripture for them as I believe I have already done. I must say that so far it seems to me that the basis of disagreement is more an emotional thing in it being abhorant(sp?) to even consider than one based in logic.

[ugly_gaunt_cow]

I am not sure what you want. I am sure the fault is mine. I have not read any of the threads that have tried to deal with this actually. Once I got to the point of some calling my pastor a heretic I quit. Of course it didn't take very long. My arguments are mine and I will be happy to give Scripture for them as I believe I have already done. I must say that so far it seems to me that the basis of disagreement is more an emotional thing in it being abhorant(sp?) to even consider than one based in logic.

This is what I want...

For anyone claiming that Christ was made a sinner to show me in the Old Testment where God required a imperfect lamb, with spots and blemishes, as a sin offering.

[mlqurgw]

This is what I want...

For anyone claiming that Christ was made a sinner to show me in the Old Testment where God required a imperfect lamb, with spots and blemishes, as a sin offering.

Of course that is impossible but it has nothing to do with whether Christ was made sin. His spotlessness is what made him a proper sacrifice but does not necessarily preclude His being made sin.

[mlqurgw]

I have to leave now as I have a prior commitment. I will return and do my best to answer any posts.

[ugly_gaunt_cow]

His spotlessness is what made him a proper sacrifice but does not necessarily preclude His being made sin.

Like I said...

Anyone who can prove to me that God accepts imperfect substitutions as a means to atone is welcomed to do so.

Here's the rules for playing the game...

They must;

1) Prove this in the OT;

2) And back it up with the NT.

Or,

3) Vice Versa.