Made Him to be sin

[pnattmbtc]

Another quote on debt, this one by C. S. Lewis. 

The one most people have heard is the one I mentioned before -the one about our being let off because Christ had volunteered to bear a punishment instead of us. Now on the face of it that is a very silly theory. If God was prepared to let us off, why on earth did He not do so? And what possible point could there be in punishing an innocent person instead? None at all that I can see, if you are thinking of punishment in the police-court sense. On the other hand, if you think of a debt, there is plenty of point in a person who has some assets paying it on behalf of someone who has not. Or if you take "paying the penalty," not in the sense of being punished, but in the more general sense of "standing the racket" or "footing the bill," then, of course, it is a matter of common experience that, when one person has got himself into a hole, the trouble of getting him out usually falls on a kind friend. Now what was the sort of "hole" man had got himself into? He had tried to set up on his own, to behave as if he belonged to himself. In other words, fallen man is not simply an imperfect creature who needs improvement: he is a rebel who must lay down his arms. Laying down your arms, surrendering, saying you are sorry, realising that you have been on the wrong track and getting ready to start life over again from the ground floor-that is the only way out of a "hole." This process of surrender-this movement full speed astern-is what Christians call repentance. Now repentance is no fun at all. It is something much harder than merely eating humble pie. It means unlearning all the self-conceit and self-will that we have been training ourselves into for thousands of years. It means killing part of yourself, undergoing a kind of death. In fact, it needs a good man to repent. And here comes the catch. Only a bad person needs to repent: only a good person can repent perfectly. The worse you are the more you need it and the less you can do it. The only person who could do it perfectly would be a perfect person-and he would not need it.

Remember, this repentance, this willing submission to humiliation and a kind of death, is not something God demands of you before He will take you back and which He could let you off if He chose: it is simply a description of what going back to Him is like. If you ask God to take you back without it, you are really asking Him to let you go back without going back. It cannot hap pen. Very well, then, we must go through with it. But the same badness which makes us need it, makes us unable to do it. Can we do it if God helps us? Yes, but what do we mean when we talk of God helping us? We mean God putting into us a bit of Himself, so to speak. He lends us a little of His reasoning powers and that is how we think: He puts a little of His love into us and that is how we love one another. When you teach a child writing, you hold its hand while it forms the letters: that is, it forms the letters because you are forming them. We love and reason because God loves and reasons and holds our hand while we do it. Now if we had not fallen, that would be all plain sailing. But unfortunately we now need God's help in order to do something which God, in His own nature, never does at all-to surrender, to suffer, to submit, to die. Nothing in God's nature corresponds to this process at all. So that the one road for which we now need God's leadership most of all is a road God, in His own nature, has never walked. God can share only what He has: this thing, in His own nature, He has not.

But supposing God became a man-suppose our human nature which can suffer and die was amalgamated with God's nature in one person-then that person could help us. He could surrender His will, and suffer and die, because He was man; and He could do it perfectly because He was God. You and I can go through this process only if God does it in us; but God can do it only if He becomes man. Our attempts at this dying will succeed only if we men share in God's dying, just as our thinking can succeed only because it is a drop out of the ocean of His intelligence: but we cannot share God's dying unless God dies; and He cannot die except by being a man. That is the sense in which He pays our debt, and suffers for us what He Himself need not suffer at all. (C. S. Lewis; Mere Christianity)

[Robert]

​Where do you see the law saying this?  I've asked you about this several times, I think, without an explanation (my apologies if I missed something you said). 

 

​Saying that Christ fulfilled the law or that the law condemns any failure?  The latter part I have answered.

[Robert]

The law brings death (the 2nd death):

 

Rom 7:4 "you (your life from Adam) died to the law (the law demanded your death) through the body of Christ"

 

Rom 7:10 I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life (blessings) actually brought death.

 

Hence "obey and live", "disobey and die".  Since all have sinned (past tense) and fall short (present continuous tense) of God's agape love (His glory) then all who have reached the age of accountability are "held prisoners by the law," (Gal 3:23) waiting for judgement day.

Edited May 28, 2015 by Robert

[joeb]

 

​Thank you for that quote.  Here's another one:

Sorry for the length here, but it's one of my favorites. 

​And what does your post have to do with us, and Christ, being debtors.  Christ because He willingly took on our debt to pay it, and we humans because we sold ourselves into the slavery of sin?

[joeb]

When you're responding to something, please quote the thing that you are responding to.  The point I was making is that there is a cause and effect relationship between sin and death (the second death).  I said the second paragraph (where you're talking about God's judging some specific sins in this life, leading to death (the first death) didn't have to do with the point I was making, because I didn't see the connection.  I still don't.

Even if we accepted for the sake of argument your premise (about certain sins having a judgment against it and sinners levied by God, where the punishment is death) what does that have to do with my point that there is a cause and effect relationship between sin and death?

Oh, brother, you responded to a post of mine by saying that the second paragraph didn't address the post of yours that I had replied to.  So, I'm unreasonable to think you will know what I'm responding to when I quote your own words? 

[pnattmbtc]

joeb:And what does your post have to do with us, and Christ, being debtors.  Christ because He willingly took on our debt to pay it, and we humans because we sold ourselves into the slavery of sin?

I'm not talking about just one post, and I'm not trying to pick a fight.  What I'm asking is that when you respond to some point, that you include that point that you are responding to.  

Imagine this is happening to you.  You post something, and someone responds to your post, but they don't quote the whole post, but they do quote a part of the post, but the part of the post they quote has nothing to do with the comments they make.  I'm asking that this not be done, which seems to me to be a reasonable request.

 

[pnattmbtc]

joeb, did you respond to the following?  I'm interested in your thoughts:

 

Even if we accepted for the sake of argument your premise (about certain sins having a judgment against it and sinners levied by God, where the punishment is death) what does that have to do with my point that there is a cause and effect relationship between sin and death?

[pnattmbtc]

Robert:Saying that Christ fulfilled the law or that the law condemns any failure?  The latter part I have answered.
 

You wrote this: 
 
"Jesus as God took upon His sinless nature our fallen, sinful nature as our corporate head.  That's basically what Ellen White states.

That corporate life is a shared life that belongs to all of us because we all came from Adam after the fall.  Christ assumed that life and therefore our shared life died in Him and the law is satisfied. "

I'm asking where you see the law stating something which would cause it to be satisfied by the things you wrote here.  Hopefully this is clear.  To elaborate a bit, you have stated "Jesus as God .... our shared life died in Him" and conclude "the law is satisfied".  What is it the law stated that is satisfied by what you wrote?  Are you thinking of Galatians 3:13, or something else?

[Robert]

Rom 4:9 For we have previously charged both Jews and Gentiles that they are all under sin. 

10 As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; ....

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

 

 

What Paul is saying is it doesn't matter if you are a Jew or a Gentile because you are under sin (singular), i.e., the love of self (iniquity) and therefore you are guilty before God.

 

Rom 2:12 "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be condemned by the law..."

Rom 4:15 "the law brings wrath"

Rom 7:10 "The very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death."

 

Clearly the law brings the curse, the 2nd death.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Edited May 29, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

joeb:And what does your post have to do with us, and Christ, being debtors.  Christ because He willingly took on our debt to pay it, and we humans because we sold ourselves into the slavery of sin?

I'm not sure which post you're referring to here, as I posted several things, but I like what you wrote here in your second sentence. 

[pnattmbtc]

Rom 4:9 For we have previously charged both Jews and Gentiles that they are all under sin. 

10 As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; ....

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

 

 

What Paul is saying is it doesn't matter if you are a Jew or a Gentile because you are under sin (singular), i.e., the love of self (iniquity) and therefore you are guilty before God.

 

Rom 2:12 "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be condemned by the law..."

Rom 4:15 "the law brings wrath"

Rom 7:10 "The very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death."

 

Clearly the law brings the curse, the 2nd death.

 

​

I don't see how the texts you are quoting answer my question.  For convenience, I'll repeat what I'm asking here, and then explain why I don't see that my question is being answered.  You wrote, "Jesus as God .... our shared life died in Him" and conclude "the law is satisfied", so, if this is true, there should be something somewhere that says something like "the law demands X" such that X would be satisfied by having our shared life dying in Christ.

The first texts that you quoted I see as establishing the point that we all need Christ, and we need Christ because we are unrighteous.  This is how I understand Paul's argument in the texts you cited, up to but not including Romans 4:15 and Romans 7:10.

These last two texts seem closer to dealing with the question I'm asking.  The first one says, "the law brings wrath", and the second that that which was intended to bring life actually resulted in death.  These are interesting texts.  I'll explain my understanding of them.

How does the law work wrath?  I understand the law works wrath when it is disobeyed.  How this works is explained at length in Deut. 28.  Paul also explains how it works in Romans 1.

In what way was the law intended to bring life?  This is a very interesting question, as, at first glance, it might appear that God gave the law in order that people might obey it to obtain life, but this makes no sense, as God has always known that the only way we can have life is through Christ.  So it must be the case that God gave the law with the intention of leading people to Christ, in whom they could find life.  Why did it actually result in death?  Because people attempted to obtain life by keeping it, but life can only come through faith in Christ as a free gift, so this misuse of the law could only result in death.

None of these texts, as far as I can see, are saying anything that would suggest that the solution to some problem would be that our corporate life died in Christ thus satisfying the law.

[Robert]

In what way was the law intended to bring life?  This is a very interesting question, as, at first glance, it might appear that God gave the law in order that people might obey it to obtain life, but this makes no sense, as God has always known that the only way we can have life is through Christ.  So it must be the case that God gave the law with the intention of leading people to Christ, in whom they could find life.  

​God knows mankind cannot keep the law because he can only produce self-love.  Agape, states Paul, is the fulfillment of the law.  That is, it takes agape to keep the law.

So why then did God give the law?  Because mankind is born egocentric and proud.  So God gave the law to place the glory of mankind in the dust that he might accept Christ and be justified by faith before the law.  Those who chose to remain under law will take the curse of the law, which is God abandonment.  

Edited May 29, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

​God knows mankind cannot keep the law because he can only produce self-love.  Agape, states Paul, is the fulfillment of the law.  That is, it takes agape to keep the law.

So why then did God give the law?  Because mankind is born egocentric and proud.  So God gave the law to place the glory of mankind in the dust that he might accept Christ and be justified by faith before the law.  Those who chose to remain under law will take the curse of the law, which is God abandonment.  

​This looks a lot like what I said, although I would clarify that the "God abandonment" is their choice, not God's.

[8thdaypriest]

Rom 4:9 For we have previously charged both Jews and Gentiles that they are all under sin. 

10 As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; ....

19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

 

 

What Paul is saying is it doesn't matter if you are a Jew or a Gentile because you are under sin (singular), i.e., the love of self (iniquity) and therefore you are guilty before God.

 

Rom 2:12 "For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without the law: and as many as have sinned under the law shall be condemned by the law..."

Rom 4:15 "the law brings wrath"

Rom 7:10 "The very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death."

 

Clearly the law brings the curse, the 2nd death.

​Interesting that Paul wrote "previously charged both Jews and Gentiles that they ARE (present tense) all under sin".  So that would mean they were (in Paul's day) "under sin".  ALL of them.  Those "under the law" were (in Pauls day) - condemned.  And those "without the law" were (in Paul's day) - condemned.  

But there is NO CONDEMNATION to those who are in Christ Jesus  (Rom 8:1).   So - THAT shows a change of condition from "condemned" to "no condemnation" - for those who come into Christ.  And THAT happens at a point in time. 

If every person begins life "in Christ", it follows - there would have been very few condemned persons in Paul's day.  

Edited June 2, 2015 by 8thdaypriest

[8thdaypriest]

I'm surprised that the concept of covenant has not come into this discussion much, or into the one on being "born justified". 

The ancient concept of "blood covenant" was WELL KNOWN in the Ancient Middle East.  That covenant decreed DEATH for the person who BROKE covenant.  Both parties agreed to the covenant.  That was the purpose of a sacrifice.  It said, "This will happen to you.  You will die, if you break this covenant."    I do not know of any Bible story of one man dieing to satisfy the claim of a "blood covenant" - other than Christ of course.  

I have wondered whether Abraham broke covenant with Yahweh in some way, and that he thought Yahweh was demanding Isaac to satisfy the demand of that blood covenant. 

The animal sacrifice was understood by the Israelite sinner, to be dieing in his place.  The second animal sacrificed - the burnt offering - was to renew the blood covenant. 

There was the story of Judah, who offered himself as a slave to Pharoah, so that Benjamin might go home to His father.  I think few realize what courage that would take.  The punishment for "stealing" the cup of Pharoah, would fall on Judah. 

[pnattmbtc]

The animal sacrifice was understood by the Israelite sinner, to be dieing in his place.

Just curious, why do you think this?  That is, why do you think the Israelite sinner would have looked at things in this way?  Are you basing this on something explicitly in Scripture, or on something you've read about what sacrifice meant for the Israelites?

You wrote:

It said, "This will happen to you.  You will die, if you break this covenant."   

Can you provide evidence for this idea?  Are you thinking of a Suzerain covenant? or something else? 

[Robert]

​Interesting that Paul wrote "previously charged both Jews and Gentiles that they ARE (present tense) all under sin".  So that would mean they were (in Paul's day) "under sin".  ALL of them.  Those "under the law" were (in Pauls day) - condemned.  And those "without the law" were (in Paul's day) - condemned.  

But there is NO CONDEMNATION to those who are in Christ Jesus  (Rom 8:1).   So - THAT shows a change of condition from "condemned" to "no condemnation" - for those who come into Christ.  And THAT happens at a point in time. 

If every person begins life "in Christ", it follows - there would have been very few condemned persons in Paul's day.  

​Under sin means controlled by your love of self.  Are you personally free from your bent-to-self?  Are you living Christ's life with no self-interests?  If not, you are not free of sin.  The reason you aren't under condemnation is because you have accepted your corporate death in Christ, i.e., the gospel.

[8thdaypriest]

​Under sin means controlled by your love of self.  Are you personally free from your bent-to-self?  Are you living Christ's life with no self-interests?  If not, you are not free of sin.  The reason you aren't under condemnation is because you have accepted your corporate death in Christ, i.e., the gospel.

​In YOUR opinion Robert. 

[pnattmbtc]

Under sin means controlled by your love of self.  Are you personally free from your bent-to-self?  Are you living Christ's life with no self-interests?  If not, you are not free of sin.  The reason you aren't under condemnation is because you have accepted your corporate death in Christ, i.e., the gospel.

 What do you mean by the last sentence?  Do you mean a an understanding of a concept?  If the concept is something along the lines of what you've been writing, there have been very few people in the history of mankind who have believed what you have been writing.  Have all of the saved had to believe what you've been writing?  If not, how were they saved?

[pnattmbtc]

Under sin means controlled by your love of self.  Are you personally free from your bent-to-self?  Are you living Christ's life with no self-interests?  If not, you are not free of sin.  The reason you aren't under condemnation is because you have accepted your corporate death in Christ, i.e., the gospel.

Is it your understanding that a Christian (one who has believed in Christ and has eternal life) is "under sin", controled by his love of self?

[8thdaypriest]

I always thought the words "under sin" meant "condemned because we have sinned".    To be no longer "under sin" would mean "not condemned". 

[pnattmbtc]

"under sin" isn't a common expression, I think just used in Romans 3:9, where it looks to be meaning just what you said.  "under the law" (or "under law") is much more common, and can mean different things, depending upon the context.

[Robert]

Is it your understanding that a Christian (one who has believed in Christ and has eternal life) is "under sin", controled by his love of self?

​Here's the converted Paul:  1 Tim 1:15 Faithful is the saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief: (ASV)

Question:  "Of whom I am chief", is that phrase present tense or past?

 

[Robert]

In the context of self-love, Paul said:  

I always thought the words "under sin" meant "condemned because we have sinned".    To be no longer "under sin" would mean "not condemned". 

​Gal 3:18 For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise. 19 What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. 

20 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one. 

21 Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not! For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. 

22 But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 

 

 

Also, keep in mind 1 John 1:8 "If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves."

 

This is not to deny we grow in grace, but it does deny that we are measuring up to the spirit of God's law.  Hence, Romans 3:26 F

or there is no difference; 

23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God....  God's glory is defined by His love or goodness (see Ex 33:18,19) So all have sinned and all (even believers) fall short (present continuous tense) to live up to the highest demands of God's agape.

Edited June 3, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

  Have all of the saved had to believe what you've been writing?  If not, how were they saved?

​ "The reason you aren't under condemnation is because you have accepted your corporate death in Christ, i.e., the gospel."

No, but when the gospel is brought home it's best to accept it and not reject it for "another gospel"