Twilight II Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 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". This simple error is due to the misuse of James 1, where the discussion of our condition is then applied to Christ in error. It is that single mistaken use of that text that causes all of these problems. What ensues is some mental gymnastics to try to bring everything else into line with it, rather than keep it simple. 1. We have sin in us. 2. Christ had no sin in Him. 3. We have a flesh. 4. Christ had a flesh. 5. We are overcome when the lusts and desires in our flesh are pulled on by Satan. 6. Christ would have been overcome if He had chosed to do His own will, which was a mental decision, powered by free will, not powered by the Flesh. 7. We are overcome when we try to meet temptation on the grounds of post fall temptation. 8. Christ was not overcome because He met temptation on the ground of pre fall temptation, with the added inhibiting factor of a human body subject to human weakness. Quote
Twilight II Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Originally Posted By: Sonny 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. You did not answer the question John317. Is there "sin in Him" in any sense whatsoever? Quote
Twilight II Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Glad to see we are in agreement on this John. It is not so difficult to understand. sky Christ had no sin in Him Sky. Yet you quote Jones stating Christ did have sinful lusts and desires in His flesh. Which means He did have sin in Him. So what is easy to understand about these two points: 1. Christ had no sin in Him. 2. Christ had sin in Him. Now you have obviously at this point not noticed what Jones had to do to reconcile these, but you claim understanding. But you have to do the very same thing. You have to believe two contradictory positions. That should tell you plainly that something is wrong with your theology. What Jones did was this. He divided Christ into two "entities". He argued that Christ had no sin in His "spiritual nature". But had sin in His "human nature. That way he could switch between the two truths. But John does not allow for this. His statement is absolute: "in Him is no sin". John does not place sin in Christ's Human nature and no sin in His divine. The only reason that Jones does this is because he has misunderstood James 1. In fact he has to do this. ------------------- But Christ is not "sinless" in His divine nature, yet "sinful" in His human nature. Christ is and was "sinless" entirely. He had to be, to be the lamb. ------------------- So your comment about "understanding a simple thing", should be held up to the light a little more I think... Mark :-) Quote
Twilight II Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Glad to see we are in agreement on this John. It is not so difficult to understand. sky Christ had no sin in Him Sky. Yet you quote Jones stating Christ did have sinful lusts and desires in His flesh. Which means He did have sin in Him. So what is easy to understand about these two points: 1. Christ had no sin in Him. 2. Christ had sin in Him. Now you have obviously at this point not noticed what Jones had to do to reconcile these, but you claim understanding. But you have to do the very same thing. You have to believe two contradictory positions. That should tell you plainly that something is wrong with your theology. What Jones did was this. He divided Christ into two "entities". He argued that Christ had no sin in His "spiritual nature". But had sin in His "human nature. That way he could switch between the two truths. But John does not allow for this. His statement is absolute: "in Him is no sin". John does not place sin in Christ's Human nature and no sin in His divine. The only reason that Jones does this is because he has misunderstood James 1. In fact he has to do this to allow for James 1 to be reconciled with John. ------------------- But Christ is not "sinless" in His divine nature, yet "sinful" in His human nature. Christ is and was "sinless" entirely. He had to be, to be the lamb. ------------------- So your comment about "not difficult to understand", should be held up to the light a little more I think... Mark :-) Quote
Twilight II Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 So what we end up with is this: 1. Christ had no sin in His divine nature. 2. Christ had sin in His human nature. Totally contradictory. Either Christ (the human and divine) had sin in Him, or He didn't. Splitting Christ into two parts to apply two contradictions is something that we should avoid at all costs. It is confusion. Quote
Twilight II Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 And you will notice that Sonny has to do this to make his theology work. He has to take Johns statement: 1Jo 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. And make this statement applicable after the crucifixion. But it has a "time indicator" in the verse already, which being His "manifestation". That is the only indicator in this text. So Christ was manifested to the world. At that very point, there was no sin in Him. When Christ was manifested there was "no sin in Him". Quote
Twilight II Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Skys theology demands that Christ had two aspects to His nature (he quotes Jones as his authority). 1. The human nature of Christ had "sin in Him". 2. The divine nature of Christ had "no sin in Him". Thus splitting Johns statement to only apply to the divine. Yet: 1Jo 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. John does not make such a distinction but refers to Christ as a "whole being", by statement of "individuality". He, Him. This references the complete person of Christ, not just the divine. Quote
Twilight II Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 John317's theology is a softer variation of Sky's I believe. Whereas he tends to equate Christ having human inclinations that were not sinful, but I am not completely clear this is his position. Quote
Twilight II Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Miz3, however is correct on these points I believe. By treating the statement "in Him is no sin", as an absolute truth, covering the entirety of Christ's divinity and humanity. Quote
Twilight II Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 That is my summation of everyones position so far. Reading Jones understanding was very illuminating, in that it helped me to see the mistaken ideas in some of the arguments here. Quote
Sonny Posted June 28, 2011 Author Posted June 28, 2011 Then at the point of the sacrifice the sins of the sinner was laid on the Lamb. The Lamb then became sinful. Sorry, Lambs don't become sinful...sins can't be transferred to them. This is so, so, so silly! Quote
Sonny Posted June 28, 2011 Author Posted June 28, 2011 So what we end up with is this: 1. Christ had no sin in His divine nature. Quote
Sonny Posted June 28, 2011 Author Posted June 28, 2011 But it has a "time indicator" in the verse already, which being His "manifestation". You know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. It doesn't say, "You know that WHEN He appeared".... It simply says that He came to earth to take away our sins and in Him is no sin. The bottom line is John is not going to contradict Paul and Paul is very clear. That's why you want to migrate to John, because it's unclear, and then you can make a mountain out of a mole hill. I'm not so sure what John is speaking of. It could mean that Christ came to take away our sins and He wasn't a sinner. It's not the clearest. Bottom line, go to the clear stuff - Paul. He was set aside to bring the gospel to the Gentiles. That's you and me.... Quote
Sonny Posted June 28, 2011 Author Posted June 28, 2011 "in Him is no sin" Here's what Paul said: Romans 1:1 Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, 2 which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh (Greek: Sarx), 4 who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead.... Okay, Paul was God ordained to expound on the gospel. The other writers wrote of Christ's life, Paul was set aside to explain the mechanics of the gospel. Back to Romans 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. How did the Spirit of God, in Christ Jesus, set us free from the sin nature and the 2nd death in Christ? Verse 3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did.... Did you get that? What we can't do because of the weakness of our flesh (humanity indwelt with sin), God did!!! What can't we do? Gal 3:21 For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. 22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin... Answer: We can't keep the law. So where we have failed Jesus, thru the Spirit of God, kept that law where we have failed, that is, in human flesh: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and due to sin, He condemned sin in the flesh Where did Christ defeat sin? In human flesh. He defeated indwelling sin at its source - i.e., in our humanity! Quote
Sonny Posted June 28, 2011 Author Posted June 28, 2011 He condemned sin in the flesh Where did Christ, as the Son of Man, defeat sin? In the flesh. In our humanity. Keep in mind the man of Romans' 7 problem: 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it (sins outwardly), but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. ....22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God--through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. Where we have failed, Jesus defeated sin at its source - i.e., in human flesh. Quote
Sonny Posted June 28, 2011 Author Posted June 28, 2011 That is my summation of everyones position so far. You need to worry about your position because it is contrary to Pauls.... Quote
Twilight II Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Originally Posted By: Twilight II Then at the point of the sacrifice the sins of the sinner was laid on the Lamb. The Lamb then became sinful. Sorry, Lambs don't become sinful...sins can't be transferred to them. This is so, so, so silly! You don't accept the teachings of the sanctuary service then Sonny? That the lamb (Christ in figure), would have the sins of the world placed upon Him. I find it strange that you are willing to accept the sins of the world were placed in Christ at the incarnation. But the same figure you reject when it is placed at the cross instead... Quote
Twilight II Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Originally Posted By: Twilight II So what we end up with is this: 1. Christ had no sin in His divine nature. Never has, never will.....Christ is God. Quote: 2. Christ had sin in His human nature. You mean what He was made as one of us? Sure, it goes without saying. Quote: Totally contradictory. Not at all...it's you and those who follow your twisted logic who find it contradictory. Quote: Either Christ (the human and divine) had sin in Him, or He didn't. You have ears, but you cannot hear. You have eyes, but you cannot see. You have sin in you, right? If not you have holy flesh. When you believed the Holy Spirit, in the form of Christ, came to dwell in you. The Bible states this. Does that mean that the Holy Spirit has sin in Him because He dwells in your polluted humanity? Yes Sonny, I have sin in my flesh, that Christ is dealing with and putting to death. But we are not talking about me, we are talking about Christ. The fundamental point stands. For your view to work you have to maintain two contradictory positions. 1. That Christ had sin in Him. 2. That Christ had no sin in Him. To then just accuse me of "blindness" and "twisted logic" in response to my pointing out of this obvious logical fallacy, is not really conducive to good biblical discussion... The "you are wrong because I say so" argument holds no water with me Sonny. Mark :-) Quote
Twilight II Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 I'm not so sure what John is speaking of. It could mean that Christ came to take away our sins and He wasn't a sinner. It's not the clearest. Quote
Twilight II Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 He condemned sin in the flesh Where did Christ defeat sin? In human flesh. He defeated indwelling sin at its source - i.e., in our humanity! He condemned sin in His flesh on the cross. That is what Miz3 has been arguing and I agree with him. The rest of your posting did not really deal with the point I was making. Sin was placed on Him at the cross. As per the sanctuary teaching. Quote
Twilight II Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Originally Posted By: Sonny He condemned sin in the flesh Where did Christ, as the Son of Man, defeat sin? In the flesh. In our humanity. Keep in mind the man of Romans' 7 problem: 17 But now, it is no longer I who do it (sins outwardly), but sin that dwells in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find. ....22 For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 I thank God--through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin. Where we have failed, Jesus defeated sin at its source - i.e., in human flesh. Christ overcame Satan. Produced a perfect righteousness which we receive as a gift. Christ met every temptation from Satan and did not give in. Nowhere does it state that Christ had "sin in Him" that He had to overcome. Hebrews says He was tempted in all points as we are, yet with sin. That is not saying He had sin "in Him". It was saying He was tempted thoroughly on every point, which we can see in the wilderness and at Gethsemane. James 1 talks about how we have sin in our flesh, which causes us to succumb to Satans temptations, it is not dealing with Christ having indwelling sin, it does not reference Him once. So I disagree with your assertion because Hebrews and James is being used incorrectly here. Mark :-) Quote
Twilight II Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Originally Posted By: Twilight II That is my summation of everyones position so far. You need to worry about your position because it is contrary to Pauls.... If that is the case, then you need to show me that from scripture. I have not seen in your scriptural arguments so far, any reason to change my own position. Quote
Sonny Posted June 28, 2011 Author Posted June 28, 2011 You don't accept the teachings of the sanctuary service then Sonny? Symbols....Christ is the reality. Quote
Sonny Posted June 28, 2011 Author Posted June 28, 2011 The "you are wrong because I say so" argument holds no water with me Sonny. It's not because I say so...it's because Paul says so... Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.