"In Christ" - the gospel explained

[miz3]

Why doesn't Christ have to contend with sin in the flesh? Your own quote answers this question: Because He came "to take away our sins".

In the quote you made above you are referring to the Bible in 1John 3:5.

Let me quote the whole text again for you Sonny.

"But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin."

1John 3:5.

Once again Sonny you are lifting a phrase from the context. You are lifting the phrase, "to take away sins" and then using it out of the rest of the context. You are ignoring the rest of the text.

If you go on to the next sentence it says, "And in him is no sin."

That means you have to see the whole picture not just start lifting phrases.

Thus, the full text is saying that Jesus Christ came to take away sins (that is your sin and my sin) but that in Jesus Christ there was no sin!

You see Sonny you appear to have a habit of "lifting a phrase here and a phrase there" and then mixing everything up to make it say what you want it to say.

That is not good Bible study. Good Bible study takes the Bible to say exactly what it says. Not just bits and pieces here and there.

[miz3]

It's a metaphor that implies He united Himself with our humanity that needed redeeming.

Once again Sonny is stuck for an answer so here comes the "dreaded metaphor"!

[Sonny]

And in him is no sin.

If you are going to take this as a pre-cross statement then we have a huge problem. Why?

1] You are a sinner, indwelt with sin

2] You were "in Christ" when you died with Him on the cross

Since Christ assumed you then to say He had no sin in Him would mean that you are without sin.

So you can't have it both ways. To say that there was no sin in Christ is a denial that you died in Christ.

[miz3]

God was talking in “solidarity” language. When he used the word “older,” he was not referring to Esau, but to the Edomites, who were descendants of Esau. When he used the word “younger,” he was not talking of Jacob the individual, but of the Israelites, who were the descendants of Jacob [see Genesis 25:21-23]. It is true that the Edomites, Esau’s descendants, did serve the Israelites, Jacob’s descendants. That is solidarity.

Jack S. is reading into the text things that are not stated. I can now see why you Sonny get the habit of doing this. I can also see why you make everything out to some sort of hocus-pocus metaphor. This method of Bible study is always trying to find some "hidden mysterious meaning" behind every text.

The only reason to do this is to make the Bible complex so that only the "big brains" or the "elite" can figure it out. This makes it too bad for the regular schmuck who needs people like Jack S. and Sonny to figure things out for them.

Such a position is hardly "a simple Gospel". In fact such a theology as Jack S. makes the gospel complex like the Jews of Christ's day made their theology complex and burdensome.

This is definitely one of the reasons why I cannot accept Jack S. and his views.

[miz3]

Christ could not belong to the Levitical priesthood because, according to the law of Moses, he had to be a descendant of Levi. Christ was born under the tribe of Judah. Both Joseph and Mary were of the tribe of Judah, so Christ is said to be the High Priest according to the order of Melchizedek [Hebrews 7:7-10], a priest who existed in the time of Abraham [Hebrews 6:20].

[miz3]

If you are going to take this as a pre-cross statement then we have a huge problem.

I guess then you have a problem with the Bible. Its not me you have a problem with because John the beloved Disciple wrote those words. I didn't write them. I just repeated them.

I guess John the Beloved Disciple is trying to have it both ways. I will stick with John the Disciple.

I am shocked that you deny 1John 3:5 as being truthful!

[John317]

To say that Christ assumed our sinful, fallen nature is not to contradict the verse that says "in Him there is no sin."

There never was any sin in Christ in the sense that Christ chose to sin. There was never in Christ anything that responded to Satan's temptations. Christ condemned sin in the flesh, and what kind of flesh? In the likeness of sinful flesh, the same kind of flesh that you and I and every other child of Adam have.

[miz3]

To say that Christ assumed our sinful, fallen nature is not to contradict the verse that says "in Him there is no sin."

That depends on how you define "sinful nature". If you define it the way Paul does then you are clearly WRONG!

If you have a personal definition that is different from Paul's definition then you might have a point.

However, I believe the Bible as a whole thinks just like Paul and thus I think you are wrong.

[miz3]

John317,

You are using complex contradictory language. An adult would be confused by your twists and turns. The Gospel is not like that. A child can understand the True Gospel. What you have written no child could ever understand. As I said almost all adults would find what you stated confusing, complex, and contradictory!

[miz3]

There never was any sin in Christ in the sense that Christ chose to sin.

Does this mean that in another "sense" Jesus Christ did have sin in Him?

If so what sense was that?

[Sonny]

This is definitely one of the reasons why I can accept Jack S. and his views.

Excellent!

[miz3]

That is funny Sonny!

I obviously made a "typo"!

It should have read, "This is definitely one of the reasons why I cannot accept Jack S. and his views."

I have already edited the post so that it is now correct!

Thanks for pointing out my typo.

[Sonny]

Originally Posted By: Sonny

If you are going to take this as a pre-cross statement then we have a huge problem.

Its not me you have a problem with because John the beloved Disciple wrote those words.

Yes, and either John meant that Christ never sinned or he meant Christ, after the resurrection, no longer had our fallen human nature. I think he meant the latter....

But either way John can't contradict Paul. Paul is clear - your old life died in the humanity of Christ. Hence that humanity had to be indwelt by the sin nature.

[miz3]

Yes, and either John meant that Christ never sinned or he meant Christ, after the resurrection, no longer had our fallen human nature. I think he meant the latter....

No! the full context of the text means that Jesus Christ was born with a "sinless nature". He had that "sinless nature" up to the Cross.

Paul actually agrees with John in this regard.

Therefore you would be wrong in this regard Sonny!

There is nothing in 1John 3:5 that directly or indirectly in any way shape or form says what you are saying!

Sonny we have been over this before. You were wrong then and you are still wrong now!

[John317]

Yes, and either John meant that Christ never sinned or he meant Christ, after the resurrection, no longer had our fallen human nature. I think he meant the latter....

I believe the apostle John meant both. John's statement is in the present tense, "there is no sin in Him." But of course we also know that Christ never sinned during the time He took our sinful, fallen nature. He was like us in every way except that Christ was without sin. He condemned sin in the flesh, proving that it is not necessary for humans to continue sinning. Once we are justified and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, we are at liberty to obey God's will. This is the message of Romans 6 and 8.

[skyblue888]

Glad to see we are in agreement on this John. It is not so difficult to understand.

sky

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

There never was any sin in Christ in the sense that Christ chose to sin.

Does this mean that in another "sense" Jesus Christ did have sin in Him?

If so what sense was that?

Some people might think that saying Christ assumed our sinful nature means there was sin in Him, but they would be wrong.

As Ellen White says, "In taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the last participate in its sin... We should have no misgivings in regard to the perfect sinlessness of the human nature of Christ." 1 SM 256.

Jesus took man's nature in its fallen condition, but He never participated in sin. He did not choose in the way we choose. Jesus was the spotless Lamb of God in a fallen body and nature.

[John317]

:-)

[miz3]

John317,

Exactly what does the term "sinful nature" mean to you when you read it in Paul (Romans)?

[John317]

It's the same as "fallen nature." It's translated literally as "flesh of sin." The flesh meant is our corrupt human nature.

When Phil. 2: 7 says that Christ came "in the likeness of men," does it mean Christ came as an actual man or merely as one who appeared to be a man?

[miz3]

It's the same as "fallen nature." It's translated literally as "flesh of sin."

Did Jesus Christ have this from the Incarnation onward to the Cross?

[John317]

Jesus' heredity didn't change between his conception and his birth, so the only answer would be yes, Christ assumed the fallen nature of man from his conception onward. However, keep in mind that Christ was born born of the Spirit. In other words, Christ never needed to be born again, as we do. He was filled with the Holy Spirit from the moment of conception.

[Sonny]

No! the full context of the text means that Jesus Christ was born with a "sinless nature".

He had that "sinless nature" up to the Cross.

Then He assumed a sinful nature? Then He assumed you, who has indwelling sin? Prove that it was at the cross that God put you into Christ.

[Twilight II]

Paul's Gospel is simple: Jesus Christ was totally pure right from His birth to the Cross. On the Cross God placed (laid, etc.) my sins and your sins on Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ payed the penalty for our sin in total. As a result, we now belong to God as His property and God expects to use us and remake us to be like Jesus as God wants to!

This very simple principle was illustrated by the lamb in the sanctuary service.

The Lamb was bought to the sacrifice without spot or flaw.

The Lamb was perfect.

Then at the point of the sacrifice the sins of the sinner was laid on the Lamb.

The Lamb then became sinful.

It was then put to death for the sin it carried.

That is completely conversant with the point Miz3 is making here.

[Twilight II]

To say that Christ assumed our sinful, fallen nature is not to contradict the verse that says "in Him there is no sin."

There never was any sin in Christ in the sense that Christ chose to sin. There was never in Christ anything that responded to Satan's temptations. Christ condemned sin in the flesh, and what kind of flesh? In the likeness of sinful flesh, the same kind of flesh that you and I and every other child of Adam have.

If Christ had hereditary lusts and desires in Him, in His flesh, then yes that is a contradiction with the plain truth that Christ had "no sin in Him".