miz3 Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 I'm sorry, but Jesus isn't the sinner. The law condemns us, not Him. Vicarious substitution is at best unethical. The Bible is clear, "The person who sins, he must die." So you have to die, not Christ. He isn't the sinner. I never ever said Jesus was the sinner. This statement coupled to the statement I made have nothing whatsoever to do anything with each other. However, Jesus Christ did become "sin for us" on the Cross and He suffered our penalty so that we would not have to suffer. As such as Paul points out in Romans Jesus Christ indeed did free us from the slavery to the "sinful nature".
Overaged Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 Originally Posted By: Sonny Never said He was. At the incarnation the Son of Man's mind was made spiritually alive. So His mind was never controlled by the nature that He assumed through Mary. The Bible says nothing about Mary contributing any part of her sinful make up to Jesus Christ and His sinless make up. It should be called "human nature;" rather than "sinful nature." That's what Jesus had. Human nature. Not necessarily the same two things. Jesus was unscathed by the sinful nature part of us, even though he took on our nature. The Bible is quite clear that we cannot understand this fully, and maybe we are straining at gnats trying to figure it all so exacting? All I know is that Jesus died for me; don't matter what nature you say He had; and all I know about that is that "Jesus is enough." I see Adventist doctrines as saying the same thing. "People [rarely] see...the bright light which is in the clouds..." (Job 37:21)"I cannot know why suddenly the stormshould rage so fiercely round me in it's wrathBut this I know: God watches all my pathAnd I can trust""God helps us to draw strength from the storm" - OveragedFaith makes things possible; it does not make them easy, Steps To Christ
Overaged Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 Originally Posted By: Sonny I'm sorry, but Jesus isn't the sinner. The law condemns us, not Him. Vicarious substitution is at best unethical. The Bible is clear, "The person who sins, he must die." So you have to die, not Christ. He isn't the sinner. I never ever said Jesus was the sinner. This statement coupled to the statement I made have nothing whatsoever to do anything with each other. However, Jesus Christ did become "sin for us" on the Cross and He suffered our penalty so that we would not have to suffer. As such as Paul points out in Romans Jesus Christ indeed did free us from the slavery to the "sinful nature". Maybe you need to re-read Isaiah 53, and the Biblical accounts of Jesus in Gesthemane; or when he was whipped almost to death just before His crucifixion? Jesus was obviously "made sin" well before Calvary. "People [rarely] see...the bright light which is in the clouds..." (Job 37:21)"I cannot know why suddenly the stormshould rage so fiercely round me in it's wrathBut this I know: God watches all my pathAnd I can trust""God helps us to draw strength from the storm" - OveragedFaith makes things possible; it does not make them easy, Steps To Christ
Sonny Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 However, Jesus Christ did become "sin for us" on the Cross and He suffered our penalty so that we would not have to suffer. So His sufferings save us? Well, if that's the case, you can thank Satan for your salvation because he inflicted Christ. Look, it doesn't matter if He was made sin at the cross or at the incarnation, sin is sin. Was He, who knew no sin as God, made sin as the Son of Man or not?
Sonny Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 Jesus Christ did become "sin for us" on the Cross How did Christ become sin?
miz3 Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 Overaged, When Jesus Christ was whipped that was not the punishment for sin. Did Christ suffer things before the Cross? YES! However, suffering alone is not the suffering for our sins. Duh! It is far more than just suffering or being whipped. The laying on Christ the sins of the whole world goes far beyond just a whipping or nails in the hands etc. God's wrath for our sins put on Christ came only at the Cross when it actually separated Christ from the Father. Jesus Christ was not separated from His Father when He was whipped, nailed, tortured, in Gesthemane, etc. Only on the Cross did Christ actually experience the "separation from the Father" which is the ultimate penalty.
miz3 Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 Overaged, It is not semantical at all. Human nature is human nature. However, human nature can be sinful, hence the sinful nature! Human nature can also not have any sin, hence sinless nature. The difference is critical. The Bible in fact supports Jesus Christ had a "sinless nature" as His human nature.
Sonny Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 The laying on Christ the sins of the whole world You understand that's a metaphor? How did God lay sin on Christ, who wasn't guilty of sin in the first place?
miz3 Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 Are you asserting that Jesus Christ didn't actually suffer the sins of the whole world? Are you saying that what Jesus Christ did was just "pro forma" pay for our sins?
Sonny Posted June 12, 2011 Posted June 12, 2011 Are you asserting that Jesus Christ didn't actually suffer the sins of the whole world? Are you saying that what Jesus Christ did was just "pro forma" pay for our sins? I'm a saying that Christ isn't the sinner. The law states, "Ez 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him. Guilt & condemnation can't be legally & morally transferred from the guilty to the righteous. The unrighteous must pay the penalty. According to God's law that means you and I must die!
Sonny Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 Since Christ committed no sin, the big question is: how could God punish Him on the cross for our sins? Is He not going against His own law? In other words, how can God justify sinners on the basis of what Christ did and still maintain His integrity to His own law which condemns us to death? This was the main issue fought over the doctrine of justification by faith, in the Counter Reformation. Roman Catholic scholars, like Osiender and Newman, accused the Reformers of legal fiction. If God can justify sinners without first making them righteous, they argued, than He Himself is guilty of breaking His own law. Today, the Muslim scholars are putting forth the same argument and accusing Christianity of being the most unethical religion in the world. How do we solve this ethical problem? Make no mistake, the Reformers were Biblically right in teaching the doctrine of substitution, but where they failed was to show how Christ qualified to be our substitute. Before Christ could be our Saviour He first had to be qualified to be our substitute. And the reason why the Reformers failed here was because they failed to identify the humanity of Christ with the fallen sinful humanity He came to redeem. [Copied from JS]
Overaged Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 Overaged, When Jesus Christ was whipped that was not the punishment for sin. Did Christ suffer things before the Cross? YES! However, suffering alone is not the suffering for our sins. Duh! Isa 53:5 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. "People [rarely] see...the bright light which is in the clouds..." (Job 37:21)"I cannot know why suddenly the stormshould rage so fiercely round me in it's wrathBut this I know: God watches all my pathAnd I can trust""God helps us to draw strength from the storm" - OveragedFaith makes things possible; it does not make them easy, Steps To Christ
Sonny Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 Roman Catholic scholars, like Osiender and Newman, accused the Reformers of legal fiction. If God can justify sinners without first making them righteous, they argued, than He Himself is guilty of breaking His own law. [Copied from JS] At least Roman Catholics see the problem with vicarious substitution. Their solution is that when God justifies someone He actually makes that person righteous. That infers that person is without sin. I believe this is called "infused grace"? Ellen White touches on this: "By His obedience to all the commandments of God, Christ wrought out a redemption for man. This was not done by going out of Himself to another, but by taking humanity into Himself. Thus Christ gave to humanity an existence out of Himself. To bring humanity into Christ, to bring the fallen race into oneness with divinity, is the work of redemption."
Sonny Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 I believe this is called "infused grace"? The Catholic idea (of infused grace) maintains that the formal cause of justification does not consist in an exterior imputation of the justice of Christ, but in a real, interior sanctification effected by grace, which abounds in the soul and makes it permanently holy before God" [The Catholic Encyclopedia 1913] In other works when the Catholic accepts Christ then Christ actually makes that person "permanently holy". He actually makes that person Holy & sinless. This, they say, answers God's law. Well, if that's the case, why do they have confessional? Only sinners did to confess!
Sonny Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 Guilt & condemnation can't be legally & morally transferred from the guilty to the righteous. The unrighteous must pay the penalty. According to God's law that means you and I must die! Okay, so how did God save you and me and still maintain integrity to His law that justly condemns us? Well, we can erase the idea of "infused grace' from the conversation because none of us are Holy as God is Holy. We have all sinned (even after conversion) and we continually fail to live Christ's selfless life. So "infused grace" doesn't answer the law. Then what does? Romans 7:4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law [it demanded your death] through the body of Christ (i.e., in Christ Jesus) 2 Corinthians 5:14 "One died for all, and therefore all died." You see Christ's death (as the Son of Man) was a corporate death. How so? The Bible clearly teaches that all mankind came from one man, Adam. We are the multiplication of Adam's life through pro-creation. Since Adam didn't have children until after the fall the only thing he could pass along was a humanity that had sinned, was enslaved to sin and was indwelt with "the law of sin" (our bent-to- self). So we all share one life - the life of Adam multiplied after the fall. Christ took this life - which is our life from Adam - from Mary's womb. This corporate life died in Him. Hence, Ellen White is correct: "Deity didn't sink and die - humanity died." Whose humanity? Ours! Hence the law has been legally answered!
Overaged Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 Originally Posted By: Sonny Guilt & condemnation can't be legally & morally transferred from the guilty to the righteous. The unrighteous must pay the penalty. According to God's law that means you and I must die! Okay, so how did God save you and me and still maintain integrity to His law that justly condemns us? Well, we can erase the idea of "infused grace' from the conversation One thing that is totally neglected here in the nature of Christ; is that "He is NOT HERE; HE IS RISEN!" (see Mat 28:6) "People [rarely] see...the bright light which is in the clouds..." (Job 37:21)"I cannot know why suddenly the stormshould rage so fiercely round me in it's wrathBut this I know: God watches all my pathAnd I can trust""God helps us to draw strength from the storm" - OveragedFaith makes things possible; it does not make them easy, Steps To Christ
miz3 Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 Quote: Isa 53:5 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. Overaged, This text is only saying that because we humans sinned Jesus Christ suffered these things. These wounds, chastisements, whippings, etc. Jesus suffered but these were not the laying of our sins on Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ payed the penalty only on the Cross when the Father sent Him to hell. Being whipped, wounded, bruised did not take away our sin. Yes, Jesus suffered those things because we sinned. But it was not this suffering that wiped out our sin debt. The two things are completely different entities.
miz3 Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 Sonny, It is not necessary for Jesus Christ to have a "sinful nature" to be our substitute. The Law said that death was the penalty for sin. The Law didn't say anything about whether that death had to come a certain type of being. God made Jesus Christ the Lamb without spot or wrinkle to be our substitute. In the old Jewish system according to your logic instead of a perfect spotless lamb one should have brought a lamb that was filled with all kinds of spots and wrinkles in order to be a perfect substitute. That is not what happened. God demanded that the Lamb to slain in the old Jewish system must be perfect and spotless without any blemish whatsoever. The same is true in the real thing. Jesus was not to be a sullied Lamb like you and I are sullied. He was to be the perfect and unblemished in any way shape or form Lamb. Thus, your logic and analogous attempts are just simply not Biblical either according to the Old Testament or the New Testament/Old Covenant or the New Covenant.
miz3 Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 There was no point at anytime in the Life of Jesus Christ where He was infused in any way shape or form with sin of any kind. The perfect lamb however was punished as if that Lamb was responsible for all the sins of human kind. Just like the the perfect lambs of the Old Covenant were punished for the sins of humanity. These Old Covenant lambs were not in any way "infused" with sin and therefore had to die. They died as perfect innocent lambs paying the price of sin for the real perpetrator of the sin. Thus, since the perfect lamb suffered the penalty of the sin the Law was satisfied and the real sinner gets off scot free. You may not like it but that's the way God made it.
Gustave Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 There was no point at anytime in the Life of Jesus Christ where He was infused in any way shape or form with sin of any kind. The perfect lamb however was punished as if that Lamb was responsible for all the sins of human kind. Just like the the perfect lambs of the Old Covenant were punished for the sins of humanity. These Old Covenant lambs were not in any way "infused" with sin and therefore had to die. They died as perfect innocent lambs paying the price of sin for the real perpetrator of the sin. Thus, since the perfect lamb suffered the penalty of the sin the Law was satisfied and the real sinner gets off scot free. You may not like it but that's the way God made it. Excellent point Miz3!!! ...It's as if they have traded the Saviour for a mere example. ...And by golly we can now be our own Christ's.
Sonny Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 Just like the the perfect lambs of the Old Covenant were punished for the sins of humanity. First of all your are dealing with OT symbols. The perfect lamb pointed to Christ's performance, not the nature that He assumed when He assumed us. Your arguments are extremely weak!
Sonny Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 It is not necessary for Jesus Christ to have a "sinful nature" to be our substitute. There you go again.....How many times to I have to tell you that Jesus didn't HAVE a sinful nature. It wasn't His...it was ours. The humanity that He assumed, as God, was our humanity. He had to assume us in order to legally redeem us, period!
Sonny Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 Jesus Christ payed the penalty only on the Cross when the Father sent Him to hell. Jesus didn't go to hell. That's a bad translation. He went to the grave. He died, but not any death. He died the 2nd death.
Sonny Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 One thing that is totally neglected here in the nature of Christ; is that "He is NOT HERE; HE IS RISEN!" (see Mat 28:6) Yes, this is a very important point. 1 Cor 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body....50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. When the humanity that Christ assumed died, that humanity died forever. That's the 2nd death. To understand the 2nd death read the following: click here The point is our humanity had to die. Humanity had to take the curse of the law. That curse is goodbye to life forever. Sunday morning God raised His son with a glorified humanity - a spirit body just as we will be raised like the angels. Christ, as God, left our sinful humanity in the grave. And the Son of God took with Him our glorified, sinless humanity to heaven where He represents us in Himself: Col 1:13 For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. Eph 2:6 and (God) raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus So you are right. We have a glorified humanity that is "in Christ Jesus" right now! This glorified life we will receive from Christ, the new head of the human race, when He returns: 1 Cor 5:51 Behold, I tell you a mystery ; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet ; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality.
miz3 Posted June 13, 2011 Posted June 13, 2011 First of all your are dealing with OT symbols. The perfect lamb pointed to Christ's performance, not the nature that He assumed when He assumed us. Your arguments are extremely weak! Sonny God is not weak when He made the symbol. The Bible says nothing about the performance of the lamb (OT) just that the lamb must be perfect. In like manner Jesus Christ was perfect in every way! I am afraid it is your position concerning the perfection of the Lamb that is weak.
Recommended Posts