Twilight II Posted January 6, 2013 Posted January 6, 2013 I am only using this as a source of discussion so that we can examine how we arrive at our conclusions on certain subjects. :-) What is our foundation for this subject and indeed any subject where we are defining our knowledge and presenting it as absolute truth? Whatever ever position we start from, often decides our conclusion. In this discussion, I have found that there are two main starting positions from which to reason from. 1. 1Jo 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. 2. Hbr 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin. Upon these two texts the foundations of the idea Christ having sin in Him or not in Him seem to be built. Why is this important? Because foundations, once assumed, often never get challenged. :-) But foundations should always provide room for every brick to fit, if it doesn't, we should start building again from a different foundation. Over to you... Quote
Robert Posted January 6, 2013 Posted January 6, 2013 1. 1 Jo 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. This is referring to Christ's performance - that is, He was "without sin". The above is not referring to indwelling sin. Christ took our humanity in it's fallen condition. We have indwelling sin and since Christ as God assumed us, He assumed our indwelling bent to self. That's what tempted His mind from day one. The difference is that Christ, as a man, was born with the Spirit of God in control of His mind and therefore our nature never got its way. He lived a perfect life.... Quote
Twilight II Posted January 6, 2013 Author Posted January 6, 2013 Originally Posted By: Twilight II 1. 1 Jo 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. This is referring to Christ's performance - that is, He was "without sin". The above is not referring to indwelling sin. Christ took our humanity in it's fallen condition. We have indwelling sin and since Christ as God assumed us, He assumed our indwelling bent to self. That's what tempted His mind from day one. The difference is that Christ, as a man, was born with the Spirit of God in control of His mind and therefore our nature never got its way. He lived a perfect life.... You have come to that conclusion because this is not the foundational text of your argument Robert. What is the first text you go to when you argue your own position on this issue? Quote
Twilight II Posted January 6, 2013 Author Posted January 6, 2013 Originally Posted By: Twilight II 1. 1 Jo 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. This is referring to Christ's performance - that is, He was "without sin". The above is not referring to indwelling sin. Christ took our humanity in it's fallen condition. We have indwelling sin and since Christ as God assumed us, He assumed our indwelling bent to self. That's what tempted His mind from day one. The difference is that Christ, as a man, was born with the Spirit of God in control of His mind and therefore our nature never got its way. He lived a perfect life.... But I take this as the foundational truth on this issue. John states: "In Him, is no sin." There is not sin in Him. Now one might argue that John was stating Christs condition in His ascended state, but there is no reason to assume that. It seems to me, that this is an absolute statement of truth. And therefore a good position to start from as a foundation when studying this subject. Quote
Moderators Gerr Posted January 6, 2013 Moderators Posted January 6, 2013 Originally Posted By: Twilight II 1. 1 Jo 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. This is referring to Christ's performance - that is, He was "without sin". The above is not referring to indwelling sin. Christ took our humanity in it's fallen condition. We have indwelling sin and since Christ as God assumed us, He assumed our indwelling bent to self. That's what tempted His mind from day one. The difference is that Christ, as a man, was born with the Spirit of God in control of His mind and therefore our nature never got its way. He lived a perfect life.... You keep using the word "assume" about Christ becoming man. What do you mean by it? Do you mean: 4 : to pretend to have or be : FEIGN 〈assumed an air of confidence in spite of her dismay〉 5 : to take as granted or true : SUPPOSE 〈I assume he’ll be there〉 Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc. Are you saying that Christ had a body that was indwelt by sin? Quote
Robert Posted January 6, 2013 Posted January 6, 2013 My favorites? Romans 6:6/7:4/2 Corinthians 5:15 Quote
Robert Posted January 6, 2013 Posted January 6, 2013 There is no sin in Him. Okay, is John referring to Christ as God or Christ as one of us (the son of mankind)? Quote
Robert Posted January 6, 2013 Posted January 6, 2013 You keep using the word "assume" about Christ becoming man. What do you mean by it? Let me reverse this. When you accepted Christ, the 3rd member of the Trinity (God), came to dwell in you, right? You and God became one. Does that mean that the Holy Spirit is you? No! He has assumed your humanity, meaning it is not His humanity. So Christ, as God, assumed our humanity from the womb of Mary. It wasn't His humanity - it was ours. He took us upon Himself in order to redeem us. Quote
Twilight II Posted January 6, 2013 Author Posted January 6, 2013 My favorites? Romans 6:6/7:4/2 Corinthians 5:15 But they do not really deal with the question of whether Christ had sin in Him. So why would they be the foundation for your views on this subject? Quote
Twilight II Posted January 6, 2013 Author Posted January 6, 2013 Originally Posted By: Twilight II There is no sin in Him. Okay, is John referring to Christ as God or Christ as one of us (the son of mankind)? John does not make any distinction here. So we have no reason to assume there was a distinction being made. Quote
Robert Posted January 6, 2013 Posted January 6, 2013 Originally Posted By: Robert My favorites? Romans 6:6/7:4/2 Corinthians 5:15 But they do not really deal with the question of whether Christ had sin in Him. When did your old self (your life from Adam) die? Your life from Adam collectively died when Christ died. Your life from Adam has a sin nature. Paul called it "sin dwelling in me". So Christ had to have assumed you if you died in Him, right? Quote
Robert Posted January 6, 2013 Posted January 6, 2013 ohn does not make any distinction here. So we have no reason to assume there was a distinction being made. No, we cannot assume. The Bible makes that distinction: Romans 1:1 Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God 2 which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, 3 concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, 4 and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. As the Son of mankind Christ was the son of David. David possessed a sin nature. As God, He was God, and didn't possess a sin nature. Quote
Twilight II Posted January 6, 2013 Author Posted January 6, 2013 Originally Posted By: Twilight II But they do not really deal with the question of whether Christ had sin in Him. When did your old self (your life from Adam) die? Your life from Adam collectively died when Christ died. Your life from Adam has a sin nature. Paul called it "sin dwelling in me". So Christ had to have assumed you if you died in Him, right? It does not say Christ took our sin "into Him". It says our old man was crucified "with" Him. So when was our old man placed on Christ? Was it at birth, or on the cross. So whilst I understand your use of this text, I cannot accept it because of the simple fact it states nothing about Christ having sin in Him. It does not deal with the nature of Christs sinlessness, it deals with our nature being placed on Christ. Which is of course concordant with the sacrificial lamb typology. Quote
Twilight II Posted January 6, 2013 Author Posted January 6, 2013 Originally Posted By: Twilight II ohn does not make any distinction here. So we have no reason to assume there was a distinction being made. No, we cannot assume. The Bible makes that distinction: who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, Is this now your foundational text Robert? If so, then it is really arguing that Christ had a human body... Which no one here disagrees with. Only if you presuppose that flesh here means indwelling sin can you come to your conclusion. But there are two possible usages of that word here. So again, it is not a good foundational text as it is open to interpretation. Quote
Robert Posted January 6, 2013 Posted January 6, 2013 It says our old man was crucified "with" Him. Okay, what's our "old man" (some say "old self")? Romans 7:4 makes it plain: "you also died to the law through the body of Christ". Your life from Adam died. Our life contains a sinful nature. Since we were "in Christ" corporately then Christ assumed our human nature bent to self. Quote
Robert Posted January 6, 2013 Posted January 6, 2013 Christ had a human body... No, Christ is God. He took or assumed our humanity (which is composed of a human body). That body is always indwelt with sin (the sin nature). Quote
Twilight II Posted January 6, 2013 Author Posted January 6, 2013 Originally Posted By: Twilight II It says our old man was crucified "with" Him. Okay, what's our "old man" (some say "old self")? Romans 7:4 makes it plain: "you also died to the law through the body of Christ". Your life from Adam died. Our life contains a sinful nature. Since we were "in Christ" corporately then Christ assumed our human nature bent to self. I think that all you can argue from this is that Christ took our sinful nature upon Himself at the cross. It makes no statements about Christ having sin in Him at birth. So I could not accept this as a foundational argument for the view you are presenting Robert. You need something much more concrete than this, if you are going to assert that Christ had sin in Him at birth. I still hold to Johns statement as an absolute. In him is no sin. Quote
Twilight II Posted January 6, 2013 Author Posted January 6, 2013 Originally Posted By: Twilight II Christ had a human body... No, Christ is God. He took or assumed our humanity (which is composed of a human body). That body is always indwelt with sin (the sin nature). I know you assert this Robert. But without a clear statement to support it, it is merely an assertion and cannot be accepted as an absolute statement of truth. Quote
Robert Posted January 6, 2013 Posted January 6, 2013 I think that all you can argue ...that Christ took our sinful nature upon Himself at the cross. Sorry, no....That's not when Christ as God assumed your humanity. Your humanity came from Mary, a sinner. She was a child of David and all came from Adam, after the fall. Christ assumed us in Mary's womb. Quote
Robert Posted January 6, 2013 Posted January 6, 2013 I know you assert this Robert. You mean to tell me that some of us do not have a sinful nature? Please! Quote
Twilight II Posted January 6, 2013 Author Posted January 6, 2013 Originally Posted By: Twilight II I think that all you can argue ...that Christ took our sinful nature upon Himself at the cross. Sorry, no....That's not when Christ as God assumed your humanity. Your humanity came from Mary, a sinner. She was a child of David and all came from Adam, after the fall. Christ assumed us in Mary's womb. Again Robert, you have asserted this. You have not suplied the clear biblical statement to support this. Quote
Twilight II Posted January 6, 2013 Author Posted January 6, 2013 Originally Posted By: Twilight II I know you assert this Robert. You mean to tell me that some of us do not have a sinful nature? Please! Strawman Robert, I never stated anything along those lines whatsoever. Quote
Robert Posted January 6, 2013 Posted January 6, 2013 Again Robert, you have asserted this. You have not suplied the clear biblical statement to support this. Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. What does that phrase mean? Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. In the NT flesh is Sarx in the Greek: "'flesh' denotes mere human nature" [The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon] Quote
Twilight II Posted January 6, 2013 Author Posted January 6, 2013 Originally Posted By: Twilight II Again Robert, you have asserted this. You have not suplied the clear biblical statement to support this. Rom 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. What does that phrase mean? Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. In the NT flesh is Sarx in the Greek: "'flesh' denotes mere human nature" [The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon] Yes, human nature, not sinful nature Robert. Again this does not support your base statement. You have still to provide a rational foundational basis for the idea that Christ was born with a sinful nature. I still present this as an absolute statement of truth: 1Jo 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Quote
Robert Posted January 6, 2013 Posted January 6, 2013 q: Who did Jesus come to save? a: sinners q: From what? a: The curse of the law (2nd death) q: What does the law demand of the sinner? a: the 2nd death q: How did Christ save us from the law without doing away with its just demand? a: By taking sinners into himself. Thus He rewrote our history from one of condemnation to justification of life. 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.