Pristine Grace
Page 1 of 2 1 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 34

Thread: An examination of Don Fortner on Christ being made Sin - Compared to Rushton

  1. #1
    Abraham Juliot
    Guest

    An examination of Don Fortner on Christ being made Sin - Compared to Rushton

    I find myself agreeing with Fortner as he is merely highlighting that the guilt of our sins was transferred to Christ and not just the punishment of our sins. I don't find Fortner saying that the lust or desire for sin was transferred to Jesus (as he is often accused of teaching), but rather the guilt of our sins. You will find that William Rushton highlights the same point as he came against Fuller's view of only the punishment of our sins being transferred to Christ. I'd appreciate your thoughts in this subject. Am I missing something here which could imply that Fortner is teaching that the lust for sin was transferred to Christ?

    (I made bold the phrases which highlight the point being made. I made red the subject of our sin and guilt being transferred.) Fortner writes in a recent posts...

    "He hath made Him to be Sin for Us!
    2 Corinthians 5:21

    This is a plainly stated and clearly revealed point of gospel truth. It is both a matter of great importance and great consolation. It sets before us the mysterious wonder of redemption and the wisdom and glory of God in accomplishing it. Yet, as clearly revealed, as honoring to God our Savior as it is, many violently oppose this plain declaration of Holy Scripture: — “He hath made him to be sin for us.” Why? What possible reason can they give? What is their motive?

    Either Or

    Those questions I cannot answer; but I ask you to consider for a moment the horrid possibility that the thing here revealed by God the Holy Spirit is not true, that Christ Jesus our Lord was not made sin for us…

    Either the Lord Jesus was made sin for us and our sins were transferred to him, or he did not bear our sins in his body on the tree, as the Book says he did, but only the consequences and effects of them. — Either the Lord Jesus was made sin for us and our sins were transferred to him, or he did not really bear the consequences and effects of them.

    I mean by that, either he was made sin for us and our sins were transferred to him, or he did not bear the penalty of them. The shame and spitting, the beating and buffeting, the meanness and mockery our holy Savior endured at the hands of the Jews and Roman soldiers, the cross, the nails and the thorns were a very small part of the reward of our transgressions. The principal part of the punishment of sin consists in a sense of guilt and of divine wrath: but neither of these could Immanuel have endured, unless he was made sin, unless he bore our sins themselves.

    Either the Lord Jesus was made sin for us and our sins were transferred to him, or our sins are still our sins and justice finds them upon us still! The infinite justice of God still finds guilt upon us and upon the saints in glory, too, and must find them upon us forever. If that were the case, justice would still require satisfaction and mercy could be bestowed only at the expense of righteousness. But, thank God, that is not the case!

    His Glory

    Here is the great glory of God revealed in the salvation of his elect, as it is set forth in this Book. — The guilt of our sins, and our sins themselves were forever put away by the sacrifice of his darling Son, washed away completely by the blood of the Lamb!

    Here is the glory of his righteousness: — Not only that that he removed the curse, but the cause of the curse too. — “For as far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.” Our Savior was made sin for us, and our sins were so completely transferred to him, that if he had not conquered and destroyed them, they would have destroyed him. His resurrection is proof that both he and all for whom he died are freed from sin (1 Peter 4:1-2).

    Don Fortner"

    the article can be found here:

    http://donfortner.com/bulletin_artic...20for%20Us.htm

    It is currently on the Home page list of "recent posts" on today's date.


    Andrew Fuller is quoted in Rushton's Defense of Particular Redemption as saying,

    "A voluntary obligation to endure the punishment of another is not guilt, any more than the consequent exemption from obligation in the offender, is innocence. Both guilt and innocence are transferable in their effects, but in themselves, they are untransferable. To say that Christ was reckoned or counted in the divine administration as if he were the sinner, and came under an obligation to endure the curse or punishment due to our sins, is one thing; but to say he deserved that curse, is another. Guilt, strictly speaking, is the inseparable attendant of transgression, and could never therefore for one moment occupy the conscience of Christ." -Fuller

    "That the Scriptures represent believers as receiving only the benefits of the effects of Christ’s righteousness in justification, is a remark of which I am not able to see the fallacy: nor does it follow that his obedience itself is not imputed to them. Obedience itself may be, and is imputed, while its effects only are imparted, and consequently received. Neither sin nor righteousness are in themselves transferable." -Fuller

    "I apprehend, then, that many important mistakes have arisen from considering the interposition of Christ under the notion of paying a debt. * * Sin is a debt only in a metaphorical sense: properly speaking it is a crime, and satisfaction for it requires to be made not on pecuniary, but on moral principles. The reason of this difference is easily perceived. Debts are transferable, but crimes are not. A third person may cancel the one, but he can only obliterate the effects of the other: the desert of the criminal remains." -Fuller

    William Rushton responds to Fuller's view on imputation in these words,

    "...I cannot pass by the very exceptionable manner in which Mr. Fuller has explained himself on the subject of imputation. I have quoted his words in my first letter, to which I beg leave to refer you, and also to the original. We are there informed what the term signifies: we are also told that, like many other words, it has a proper and an improper meaning. We are informed, moreover, that the word, in a proper sense, means so and so; and in an improper sense, it means so and so; the conclusion of all which is, that when the Scripture speaks of the imputation of sin to Christ, or of righteousness to the sinner, the term is to be taken not in a proper, but in an improper sense. Now, all this sounds very philosophically; but what real instruction or comfort can such a detail communicate to a sincere, inquiring soul? Such a one, on meeting with this explanation of Mr. Fuller, would immediately start, and say, "Alas! I did indeed think that all my sins were imputed to the Lord Jesus, and this was the ground of my comfort; but Mr. Fuller tells me that this was so only in what he calls an improper sense. And I have comforted myself with the thought that Christ’s righteousness was mine, being truly imputed to me; but Mr. Fuller has perplexed and distressed me, for he says this is not properly the case." In this manner would Mr. Fuller’s philosophy be worse than thrown away. But his whole statement on this subject is badly illustrated, and essentially deficient.

    In the first place, then, the statement itself is liable to be misunderstood, owing to the indistinct and confused manner in which he has attempted to illustrate it. To give an instance or two. The proper sense of imputation, we are told, is, "the charging, reckoning, or placing to the account of persons and things THAT WHICH PROPERLY BELONGS TO THEM." And the very first instance of the imputation in a proper sense, which Mr. Fuller has adduced, is the case of Eli charging Hannah with drunkenness. "Eli thought she had been drunken." Now there is reason to think that many of Mr. Fuller’s readers would not clearly comprehend his meaning here; and if they did not understand the deep metaphysical sense of the word "proper," they wouldbe weak enough to imagine that Eli’s imputation was an improper imputation. But even amongst those who are more expert in the meaning of words, there may be some, who, being aware that Eli charged Hannah unjustly, would perhaps not find it so easy to understand how he imputed to her "that which properly belonged to her." Equally at a loss would some readers be to find that the Lord’s not imputing iniquity to men, is to be understood in a proper sense; that is, he does not properly impute iniquity to his people. They would be still more at a loss, on reflecting that Mr. Fuller understands the imputation of sin to Christ in an improper sense, and might naturally conclude that, as the Lord does not properly impute sin to his people, nor yet to Christ, that their sin is never properly imputed at all. It is truly a pity to find so important, and yet so simple a subject darkened as it is in Mr. Fuller’s explanation. Indeed, the artificial distinctions and scholastic phrases are sometimes worse than useless, and often good for nothing but to increase the importance of the teacher, and to serve the same purpose in divinity as a barbarous kind of Latin is made to answer in law and in physic.

    But Mr. Fuller’s explanation of this important subject is not only confused and indistinct, but it is essentially deficient. In short, the imputation of sin to Christ is explained away. According to Mr. Fuller, sin was not really, or, as he terms it, properly imputed to Christ, but only in appearance. He was treated as though sin were really imputed to him; he suffered as though he were guilty; but yet, according to Mr. Fuller, guilt itself was not truly imputed to him. Not to dispute about words, the subject may be illustrated by transactions among men. When one man imputes sin or crime to another, this is the same thing as charging him with that crime. Thus Saul imputed treason to Ahimelech, when he charged him with it. But such imputation may be real, or it may be only in appearance; an imputation may be just, or it may be unjust. When Nathan charged David with sin in the matter of Uriah, the imputation was both real and just. When Joseph imputed bad motives to his brethren, he charged them not really, but only in appearance, for he knew they were not spies; and when Eli imputed drunkenness to Hannah he did so really, but he did so unjustly. Now, when God imputed sin to Christ he charged him either really, or only in appearance, justly or unjustly. With respect to justice we shall not now inquire; but the question relates to the former, namely whether God really imputed sin to Christ, as a sinner’s surety, or whether he did so only in appearance. Mr. Fuller denies that he did so really, or that Christ suffered real and proper punishment; and although he does not say, in the very words, that this imputation was only in appearance, yet this is his meaning. He tells us that the imputation of sin to Christ is to be understood in an improper sense. By imputation in an improper sense, he understands "charging, reckoning, or placing to the account of persons and things that which does not properly belong to them, as though it did." As an instance of this improper imputation, he gives us the complaint of Job, "Wherefore hidest thou thy face and holdest me for thine enemy?" Now the Lord did not really count Job for an enemy; he imputed enmity to him only in appearance, or he dealt with him as though he were an enemy. Yet in this very sense does Mr. Fuller understand the imputation of sin to Christ. "He was counted," says he, "in the divine administration, as if he were, or had been the sinner, that those who believe in him might he accounted as if they were, or had been righteous." The plain meaning of which is, that God gave his Son to suffer, as though sin had been found upon him, or, in other words, that Christ bore the punishment of guilt, but not guilt itself. Now, for Christ to suffer instead of theguilty is one thing, but to have guilt itself imputed to him is another. The difference is so manifest that it scarcely needs the following illustration. A certain man is found guilty of high treason, and condemned to die. His brother, from mere compassion, offered to die in his stead. The ransom was accepted, and the innocent man underwent the penalty of the law as a voluntary substitute for his guilty brother. Now, in this case, the innocent man bore the punishment of his brother’s guilt, but not the guilt itself. He underwent, indeed, the sentence of the law, but treason was not imputed to him—justice forbade that it should. He was treated .as though he were guilty, and that is one thing, but to lie under the imputation of guilt is another. Thus Mr. Fuller explains away the doctrine of imputation. By denying the transfer of our guilt to Christ, he admits of no real imputation of our sins to him, but only a transfer of punishment. Imputation of sin, therefore, in Mr. Fuller’s improper or figurative sense, means no real imputation at all." -William Rushton

    I'm not suprised that Peter Meney and George Ella published and forwarded a version of Rushton's book. Rushton appears to have made the same (or a similar) argument that Fortner has made. Any thoughts?

  2. #2
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,672
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    73
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    119
    Thanked in
    65 Posts

    Re: An examination of Don Fortner on Christ being made Sin - Compared to Rushton

    If the issue were only the transfer of guilt by imputation, there would be no controversy. Fortner is clear in other places (maybe not what he stated here) that 'Christ made sin' is more than imputation, that it is indeed infusion. Now he can deny that this means Christ had impulses to sin. But he still teaches that sin was internal to Christ's person on the cross.
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  3. #3
    Abraham Juliot
    Guest

    Re: An examination of Don Fortner on Christ being made Sin - Compared to Rushton

    Hey Robert, thanks for your insight. These are some questions I have as i pondered the subject a bit.

    Could Fortner mean that the guilt of sin was experienced in Christ as opposed to the lust for sin?
    I wonder how he would define the imputation of our sins to Christ?
    Is he merely making a distinction between the charge of our sins to Christ (imputation from eternity) and the transfer of our guilt to Christ (when he was manifested in the flesh, made sin, and made a curse for us)?
    Is it proper to make this distinction if he is? Is the transfer of our guilt to Christ and the charge of our sins upon Him the same thing?
    Was our guilt transferred to Christ before he was made flesh or was it necessary that he should be made flesh for the transfer of our guilt to his person?

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Woodlake, CA 93286
    Posts
    25
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: An examination of Don Fortner on Christ being made Sin - Compared to Rushton

    I have read Fortner, I am in complete agreement with him. Jesus could never have cried "My God, My God ..." w/o bearing my sin. Need I say "actual sin"? If so I say it.

  5. #5
    Abraham Juliot
    Guest

    Re: An examination of Don Fortner on Christ being made Sin - Compared to Rushton

    ...Jesus could never have cried "My God, My God ..." w/o bearing my sin...
    I find myself agreeing with Fortner as I understand him. I would just clarify that Christ experienced the guilt of our sins, not the lust for our sins.

    This scripture teaches something very significant about the body of Christ and our sins.

    1 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.

  6. #6
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,672
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    73
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    119
    Thanked in
    65 Posts

    Re: An examination of Don Fortner on Christ being made Sin - Compared to Rushton

    The interpretation of 'bearing actual sin' is what we are discussing. Neither side denies that Christ bore the guilt of actual sin.

    Abraham: Could Fortner mean that the guilt of sin was experienced in Christ as opposed to the lust for sin?

    No. Not a single one of us denies that Christ experienced the guilt of sin to the fullest and that this is an aspect of imputation (i.e., imputation is REAL and not an 'as if' legal transaction only).

    I wonder how he would define the imputation of our sins to Christ?

    AS IF legal fiction. He states that sin was IMPARTED to Christ and not MERELY imputed.

    Is he merely making a distinction between the charge of our sins to Christ (imputation from eternity) and the transfer of our guilt to Christ (when he was manifested in the flesh, made sin, and made a curse for us)?

    Absolutely not. I believe that he will CONFIRM that this is not his distinction if you ask him.

    Is it proper to make this distinction if he is? Is the transfer of our guilt to Christ and the charge of our sins upon Him the same thing?

    They are the same thing. Where is the scriptural mandate for proposing a difference?

    Was our guilt transferred to Christ before he was made flesh or was it necessary that he should be made flesh for the transfer of our guilt to his person?

    Our guilt was transferred to Christ transcendent of all time ('eternal justification'). In the events of His passion Christ experienced what was declared AND REAL in the realm of the infinite and transcendent God. There is no separation of time and eternity.
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Woodlake, CA 93286
    Posts
    25
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: An examination of Don Fortner on Christ being made Sin - Compared to Rushton

    Lust is sin. He took all my sins, lust & all, to himself; he did not sin "on his own".

  8. #8
    Abraham Juliot
    Guest

    Re: An examination of Don Fortner on Christ being made Sin - Compared to Rushton

    Quote Originally Posted by Dahlseide View Post
    Lust is sin. He took all my sins, lust & all, to himself; he did not sin "on his own".
    Hey Dahlseide,

    I'm in agreement that Christ experience the guilt for all my sins (which would include my lust). But, I would clarify that he didn't experience the desire for any of my sins (which would primarily be defined as lustful desires).

    "...AS IF legal fiction..."
    Hey Robert,

    Is he defining his view of imputation or another's view of imputation? Is their a sermon, article, or quote that might show his understanding. (I'll look around and see what i find)

    ...They are the same thing. Where is the scriptural mandate for proposing a difference?
    i understand that they are the same in that they must be linked together, but can we make a distinction between the charge of our sins to Christ and the experience of our guilt in the flesh of Christ? Did Christ even experience the guilt of our sins or was our sin and guilt only charged to Him?

    If He did experience our guilt in the flesh:

    Can we say that Christ experienced our guilt from eternity?
    Can we say that Christ was "manifested in the flesh" and that God "condemned sin in the flesh" from eternity?
    Can we say that Christ bore our sins "in His own body on the tree" from eternity?
    Can we say that Christ was "wounded for our transgressions" from eternity?
    Can we say that Christ' "tasted death" for us from eternity?
    Can we say that Christ "washed us from our sins in His own blood" from eternity?

    In light of these questions, how are we to understand that Christ is the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Has this happened already from eternity, or is this from the divine mind and will of God from eternity?

    I understand that Christ's body of flesh was necessary for the experience of our guilt, though our sin has always been charged to him from eternity.

    Our sins were charged to Christ from eternity and never to us. God's eternal will to not impute our sins to us is the imputation of our sins to Christ. But, Christ could not have experienced the guilt of our sins until he was manifested in the flesh, just as much as He could not have tasted death for our sins until He was manifested in the flesh.

  9. #9
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,672
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    73
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    119
    Thanked in
    65 Posts

    Re: An examination of Don Fortner on Christ being made Sin - Compared to Rushton

    Abraham,

    The charging of sin to Christ is NOT THE ISSUE in Fortner's teaching. We have been through this exhaustively a few years ago. Fortner teaches that sin was REALLY and TRULY imparted to Christ at the cross. Not a MERE extreme sense of guilt because of imputed sin.

    In addition, Fortner has asserted that unless we affirm that sin was REALLY imparted to Christ's person, we do not believe the true gospel.

    Can we say that Christ experienced our guilt from eternity? YES
    Can we say that Christ was "manifested in the flesh" and that God "condemned sin in the flesh" from eternity? YES
    Can we say that Christ bore our sins "in His own body on the tree" from eternity? YES
    Can we say that Christ was "wounded for our transgressions" from eternity? YES
    Can we say that Christ' "tasted death" for us from eternity? YES
    Can we say that Christ "washed us from our sins in His own blood" from eternity? YES

    The reason I answer YES to all of these questions is because the decree and purpose of God IS the sure and certain fulfillment of that decree and purpose in history. While Christ does not subjectively experience suffering and death as eternal God (but 'once' in the incarnation after clothing Himself in human nature), He nonetheless is portrayed in scripture as the slain lamb from eternity to eternity because God's decree IS the absolute guarantee of the fulfillment of that decree in history.

    --Bob
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  10. #10
    Abraham Juliot
    Guest

    Re: An examination of Don Fortner on Christ being made Sin - Compared to Rushton

    The reason I answer YES to all of these questions is because the decree and purpose of God IS the sure and certain fulfillment of that decree and purpose in history. While Christ does not subjectively experience suffering and death as eternal God (but 'once' in the incarnation after clothing Himself in human nature), He nonetheless is portrayed in scripture as the slain lamb from eternity to eternity because God's decree IS the absolute guarantee of the fulfillment of that decree in history.
    I'm in agreement with you here.

    "Fortner has asserted... that sin was REALLY imparted to Christ's person..."

    Are there any notable quotes of Fortner saying this with words that must be understood as "imparted"?

    How should we understand "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." [ 1 Peter 2:24] Specifically , the phrase "bare our sins in his own body"
    How was sin borne "in" the body of Christ? Affirming that it was not an imparted sinful nature, How did Christ bear our sins in His own body?
    And why was this necessary so that "...we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness..."? Is "dead" and "live" speaking of imputation? (I understand it as dead to the guilt of sins, and alive to the hope of righteousness, but perhaps you can expound on that.)

    Blessings

  11. #11
    Abraham Juliot
    Guest

    Re: An examination of Don Fortner on Christ being made Sin - Compared to Rushton

    I did come across this quote... which clearly implies that Fortner means more or something different from bearing the effects of our sin? Could he be reasoning (as Rushton) that Christ was properly treated as a sinner when God cursed Him (meaning He deserved the curse for our sins as our Representative) and not improperly (meaning, He could never deserve the curse)? This seems to be the argument that Rushton was making. Rushton also exposes Fuller's "as if" view of imputation.

    Fortner says, "I am fully aware that natural reason opposes it. And many have endeavored to make the Word of God say something else. We are told that Christ had sin imputed to him, that he bore the guilt of sin, that he was charged with the debt of our sins, that he became accountable for our sins, that he bore all the effects of our sins, and that he was treated as if he were sin. But this plain, straightforward, blessed statement of Holy Scripture is almost universally denied by men. — “He hath made him sin.” But there it stands. — “He hath made him sin.” How can this be? What can it mean?"

    Perhaps he is referring to our sin and guilt actually being transferred to Christ (not Fuller's "as if" view of improper imputation), for he goes on and reasons,

    "In human law and reason, among men, I fully acknowledge that guilt cannot be transferred, but only its effects. Among the sons of men, a third person may cancel my debts but not my crimes. But I am not talking to you about things men can, or may do. I am talking to you about what our God has done. And in this great affair of salvation our great God stands infinitely alone. In this, his most glorious work, there is such a display of justice, mercy, wisdom and power, as never entered into the heart of man to conceive. Consequently, it can have no parallel in the actions of mortals. — “Who hath declared this from ancient time? Who hath told it from that time? have not I the Lord? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me” (Isaiah 45:21)."

    http://www.donfortner.com/sermon_not...Sin%201593.htm

    Notice that he is closely addressing the same issue that Rushton addressed in his response to Fuller's view.

    "A voluntary obligation to endure the punishment of another is not guilt, any more than the consequent exemption from obligation in the offender, is innocence. Both guilt and innocence are transferable in their effects, but in themselves, they are untransferable. To say that Christ was reckoned or counted in the divine administration as if he were the sinner, and came under an obligation to endure the curse or punishment due to our sins, is one thing; but to say he deserved that curse, is another. Guilt, strictly speaking, is the inseparable attendant of transgression, and could never therefore for one moment occupy the conscience of Christ." -Fuller

    Rushton writes, "But it may be inquired, what design had Mr. Fuller to answer by opposing this view of sin and redemption? To this it may be replied, that many Protestant writers, especially when defending imputed righteousness against the Papists and Socinians, have often illustrated the transfer of our sins to Christ, and our entire deliverance from them, by allusion to commercial transactions amongst men. These writers knew well that amongst men crimes could not be transferred, though the punishment of crimes might; and, judging that a transfer of punishment merely came infinitely short of that wondrous exchange which is transacted in the great work of redemption, they have often represented our sins as debts, Christ our great surety and paymaster, and our deliverance from guilt and misery so complete, in consequence of the transfer of our sins to him, that the justice of God demands our salvation, in the same way that justice amongst men requires the debtor to be set free, when the creditor has received payment at the hand of a surety."

    In light of this, can we affirm that Christ actually experienced the guilt of our sins and not the lustful desires for our sins? (affirming that Christ never desired to sin)

  12. #12
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,830
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    147
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    92
    Thanked in
    60 Posts

    Re: An examination of Don Fortner on Christ being made Sin - Compared to Rushton

    Wow, this forum has been very inactive and today I log on and find this nice thread! Thanks Abraham and Bob. I'll have to brush up on this topic to get involved in the discussion. It's been a while since I've studied Fortner's position ....
    This is my signature.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    9
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: An examination of Don Fortner on Christ being made Sin - Compared to Rushton

    I am just new to this forum, so bear with me.
    I stumbled upon the 'old' controversy surrounding the interpretation of II Cor. 5:21 of Jesus having been made sin for us.
    First of all I am not sure that Paul necessarily wrote for theologians or knew in advance that his words would be so scrutinized or interpreted. Still it is scripture of course and inspired.
    Second I believe that some truths come occasionally by revelation- as with Calvin and Luther the nearly forgotten 'Justification by faith only'-surely contradictory to the prevailing Roman catholic doctrines of the time.
    Thirdly, considering what a faithful preacher of the Gospel Br. Don Fortner has been- and still is I heard- this also puts some weight in the balance for me. Not to say he can't be wrong of course, but overall I like his uncompromising stance for the truth wether I agree with him or not. And I am far from being a Baptist or even a Predestanarian...
    Even if Jesus "just" took my place on the cross, this would be enough for me and has been since I got saved in 1964.
    But if there is more to it and He possible also bore my guilty conscience and all the other torments of sin that us humans suffer on a daily basis, that doesn't diminish me worshipping Him as God and Saviour. He is still "without sin" acc. to Hb. 4:15.
    It would make Him though much more relatable to me and would put another strong weapon in my hands against the 'accuser of the saints.'
    Maybe Br. Mark Daniels went a bit overboard and if I had been in the audience (although I am not a regular Sunday church goer)I would also have been a bit shocked at first.
    But then again, I like radical statements and unorthodox teachings as long as they are scriptural.
    To conclude: in my mind both options should be considered and neither make us lose our salvation.
    One thing I do object to is to use of the negatively laden word "snicker" in commenting on Br. Mark Daniels sermon. Maybe he was just nervous? You can't use that to discredit his position.
    Finally I am convinced that there are quite a few mysteries which will be 'unearthed' (...) upon entering the other Realm, as now we do see as through a glass, darkly.
    And remember: I am an ex-theologian, though still remembering my very interesting theological studies under Dr. Henri Blocher, who I thought was always quite balanced and charitable to opponents. A good and honest man, only interested in the truth.
    Aren't we all?

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    9
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: An examination of Don Fortner on Christ being made Sin - Compared to Rushton

    As a reply to post #11 of Br. Juliot I must say that regardless of any theological explanations, I would be very excited if it turns out that Jesus on the cross did not 'just' fulfill some legal transfer of sin or even guilt, but went all the way without actually committing any sin. He surely must have felt like a 'dirty sinner'.
    I don't know about the finer details of imputation or impartation, only that it looks like imputed is used by Paul in regards to us and not to Christ.
    The more complete the actual act of redemption is the more complete is my salvation, if we see salvation not only as something that 'happened a long time ago', but as an ongoing development to where our salvation starts to grow and blossom.
    I know this is all maybe bad theology but comforting nevertheless. Does everything has to be explained?
    I would love it to remain somewhat of a mystery:
    "Been made sin"
    WOW!

  15. #15
    Administrator Greg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,136
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    18
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    15
    Thanked in
    8 Posts

    Re: An examination of Don Fortner on Christ being made Sin - Compared to Rushton

    Quote Originally Posted by ex-theologian View Post
    But then again, I like radical statements and unorthodox teachings as long as they are scriptural.
    You'll find plenty of those here in the archives.

    ...Aren't we all?
    No. Many of the folks that have entered the revolving door here at p-net ave been interested in knowledge, but not the truth.
    Isaiah 45:7, (KJV), I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

  16. #16
    Administrator Greg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,136
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    18
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    15
    Thanked in
    8 Posts

    Re: An examination of Don Fortner on Christ being made Sin - Compared to Rushton

    Quote Originally Posted by ex-theologian View Post
    Does everything has to be explained?
    I certainly hope so, I'm insatiably curious!

    I would love it to remain somewhat of a mystery:
    "Been made sin"
    WOW!
    Christ is the Logos/logic, i.e. it all makes sense.

    The last thing I want to embrace is mystery.
    In fact, I believe that God wants the elect to walk in and understand the truth.
    Isaiah 45:7, (KJV), I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Woodlake, CA 93286
    Posts
    25
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: An examination of Don Fortner on Christ being made Sin - Compared to Rushton

    Quote Originally Posted by Abraham Juliot View Post
    I'm not suprised that Peter Meney and George Ella published and forwarded a version of Rushton's book. Rushton appears to have made the same (or a similar) argument that Fortner has made. Any thoughts?
    Yes many: Read Ella's "Law & Gospel in the Theology of Andrew Fuller". Also Ella's "James Hervey Preacher of Righteousness". & look up Wesley's "Imputed Nonsense" quote on imputed righteousness in his verbally violent objection to Hervey: Especially over Hervey's "Theron & Aspasio". All is documented by Ella.

    In short, Fuller was a fraud & his fraudulent views are still hindering the truth of the Gospel & 2 Cor 5:21.

  18. #18
    Abraham Juliot
    Guest

    Re: An examination of Don Fortner on Christ being made Sin - Compared to Rushton

    Hello and greetings Ex Theologian,

    I know this is all maybe bad theology but comforting nevertheless. Does everything has to be explained?
    I would love it to remain somewhat of a mystery
    The comfort and hope in Christ that we receive from the scriptures is in truth and understanding from the Spirit of God. This peace passes all speculative knowledge and understanding, but it is a peace that understands the hope of the gospel though the Spirit.

    Consider these few scriptures and may the Lord comfort our heart in the truth:

    1 Corinthians 2
    7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

    Ephesians 1:7-9
    7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; 8 Wherein he hath abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; 9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself

    Colossians 1:5-6
    5 For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; 6 Which is come unto you, as it is in all the world; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth.

    Colossians 2:2
    That their hearts might 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;

    Blessings

  19. #19
    Abraham Juliot
    Guest

    Re: An examination of Don Fortner on Christ being made Sin - Compared to Rushton

    Hey Dahlseide,

    ...Also Ella's \"James Hervey Preacher of Righteousness\". & look up Wesley's \"Imputed Nonsense\" quote on imputed righteousness in his verbally violent objection to Hervey: Especially over Hervey's \"Theron & Aspasio\".
    I came across this interesting quote in a PDF article:

    James Hervey and Imputed Righteousness

    At the centre of the third phase of the Calvinistic controversy were the doctrines of
    justification and the imputed righteousness of Christ. James Hervey had asserted
    these doctrines very forcibly in his book Theron and Aspasio published in 1755.
    Wesley is said to have provocatively dismissed the doctrine of the imputed
    righteousness of Christ as ‘imputed nonsense’. He attacked Hervey’s teaching in his
    tract, A Preservative against Unsettled Notions in Religion, which was printed in
    1758.

    An outcome of this protracted phase of the Calvinistic controversy was to make clear
    that Wesley’s Arminian doctrine of justification was similar to that of Richard Baxter.
    Both Wesley and Baxter taught that faith itself, rather than the righteousness of
    Christ, is the ground of justification. Faith is counted for righteousness. The Arminian
    and Baxterian view of justification is that Christ has procured a new law for mankind
    by satisfying the demands of the old one. The new law is the obedience of faith.
    In Wesley’s critique of Theron and Aspasio, he makes some quite startling comments
    that reveal his intense hatred of Calvinism. Hervey had written, ‘The righteousness
    wrought out by Jesus Christ is wrought out for all His people, to be the cause of their
    justification and the purchase of their salvation. The righteousness is the cause and the
    purchase’. This is Wesley’s response,

    ‘“For all His People.” But what becomes of
    all other people? They must inevitably perish for ever. The die was cast or ever they
    had a being. The doctrine to pass them by has:

    Consigned their unborn souls to hell, And damned them from their mother’s womb.
    I could sooner be a Turk, a Deist, yea an atheist, than I could believe this. It is less
    absurd to deny the very being of God than to make Him an almighty tyrant
    ’."

    http://www.middletome.com/microsoftw...ohnwesley1.pdf

    I aslo came across George Ella's article on the subject:
    http://evangelica.de/articles/doctri...ness-saves-us/

    I am still wanting to purchase many of Ella's books. But, for now they are on my imaginary wish list called, "I wish these books were free". Lord willing I will be hired someday soon.

    I cam across this shocking quote from Wesley in my own browsing of his Journal.

    "I had a long conversation with Mr. Ingham. We both agreed, 1. That none shall finally be saved, who have not, as they had opportunity, done all good works; and, 2. That if a justified person does not do good, as he has opportunity, he will lose the grace he has received; and if he “repent” not, “and do the former works,” will perish eternally." - John Wesley

  20. #20
    Abraham Juliot
    Guest

    Re: An examination of Don Fortner on Christ being made Sin - Compared to Rushton

    In short, Fuller was a fraud & his fraudulent views are still hindering the truth of the Gospel & 2 Cor 5:21.
    I cam across this quote by Tobias Crisp which highlights the same truth that Rushton defended.

    "You know that text in Isa. liii, 6, "He hath laid on him the iniquities of us all; and you know that place in
    2 Cor. v. 21, "He was made sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of
    God in him." Now I ask this question, Whose are the sins that believers commit? When Christ became
    their sin, are they not his? and if they are his, are they any longer theirs, that did commit them? 2 Cor. v.
    19, shews plainly, that the Lord reckons them no longer theirs, when he hath made them once to be
    Christ's; God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them;"
    as much as to say, I will never reckon them thine any more; I will never impute them to thee; all that I
    look for in respect of thy sins, I look for at the hands of Christ; "for he was made sin for us," saith the
    text." - Tobias Crisp

    I understand Crisp to be speaking of the real transfer of our sins to Christ (which is a proper reckoning of our sins to be Christ's sins). To deny that they are properly His own (as Fuller did) is to deny real imputation. I affirm that Christ was properly reckoned to be sin for us, but I deny that Christ sinned of Himself. This is the view that Rushton holds and it appears that Fortner may be defending the same view. I've never read or heard Fortner say that our sins were "imparted to Christ" (as if Christ desired to sin).

    If our sins are truly reckoned to be Christ's, he must have experienced guilt for them as He was cursed because of them. Therefore, we experience freedom from guilt as we are assured that He was made sin and a curse for us.

Page 1 of 2 1 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Two Seeds
    By ~JM~ in forum Predestinarian Doctrine Archive
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-12-07, 06:15 PM
  2. Face of the Lord
    By Nicholas Heath in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-29-06, 06:24 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •