Forgiveness of sin

[Robert]

This is pretty good:

http://www.gotquestions.org/John-20-23.html

[Robert]

Now, on this same website, they bring up the immaculate conception.  Here's what it stated:

The Roman Catholic Church argues that the Immaculate Conception is necessary because without it, Jesus would have been the object of His own grace. The thought goes like this – for Jesus to have been miraculously preserved from sin, which itself would be an act of grace, would mean God essentially “graced Himself.” The word grace means “unmerited favor.” Grace is giving someone something he or she does not deserve. God performing a miracle in preserving Jesus from sin is not “grace.” In no sense could Jesus possibly be infected with sin. He was perfect and sinless humanity joined with sinless divinity. God cannot be infected or affected by sin, as He is perfectly holy. This same truth applies to Jesus. It did not take “grace” to protect Jesus from sin. Being God incarnate, Jesus was in His essence “immune” from sin.
 

 

Okay, that's a Protestant's view, but it's not the gospel.  So neither this website (which is Protestant)  or Catholics teach and preach the everlasting gospel.  Paul, if alive, would argue it is then no gospel at all.

Was Jesus, as God, sinless?  Yes.

Was Jesus, as the son of man, sinless?  Yes, in obedience, but not in nature.

Now, immediately both the Catholic and the Evangelical would accuse me of making Jesus a sinner.  They would say having a sinful nature makes one a sinner.  

Yes, since we are born without God's presence (the Holy Spirit) our fallen natures and minds are in complete harmony and we therefore naturally sin.  

Jesus was born spiritually alive, meaning He, as the son of man, was born with the Spirit of God in control of His assumed nature.  I say "assumed" because it wasn't His nature, it was ours.  He, as God, assumed us in our fallen state in order to legally redeem us from under law to under grace.

Now, is having a sinful nature sin in itself.  Yes.  Is it transgression?  No!  The law deals with both the outward performance and the motive.  So it's not transgression of the law to have a sinful nature.  Therefore we aren't guilty, before the law, for being born with a sinful nature.  However, we are born disqualified from heaven for having a sinful nature. In other words we are born condemned, not guilty, for having a sinful nature.

Jesus, as the son of man, in assuming our fallen humanity, indwelt with a sinful nature, came under condemnation, not guilt.  Why?  Because He never allowed that nature to control His mind.  

So "yes", Jesus as the son of man was born condemned because He assumed our nature, but it wasn't born guilty.  Guilt requires volition and Jesus never sinned, not even by a thought.

 

 

Edited September 20, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

More on this subject:

"For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with" Rom 6:6

"You also died to the law through the body of Christ" Rom 7:4

Note who died:  Our old life from Adam.  That's after the fall.

Notice that you died in Christ.  If your life was "in Christ" when He died the 2nd death, then at the incarnation Christ, as God, assumed you after the fall. Remember Adam & Eve didn't have children until after they were infected by sin.

 Now another argument in favor or Christ assuming our nature after the fall.

Believers are sinner who have accepted the gospel.  For that Christ send the Holy Spirit, who is God, to dwell in our body.  Believers sill retain a sinful nature. Doesn't that make the Holy Spirit a sinner because He is in us?  No!  He remains Himself and we remain ourselves.

Like Jesus is God, yet He assumed the life of Adam in the person of the son of man.  Did that make Jesus as God a sinner?  No!

 

 

Edited September 20, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

Sorry, getting sidetracked.

Let me make some corrections:

"Now another argument in favor of Christ assuming our nature after the fall:

Believers are sinners who have accepted the gospel.  Believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, who is God.  Believers sill retain a sinful nature. Doesn't that make the Holy Spirit a sinner because He is in us?  

No!  He remains Himself and we remain ourselves.

Likewise Jesus is God, yet He assumed our life in the person of the son of man.  Did that make Jesus as God a sinner?  No!

[pnattmbtc]

Hi Robert.  I'm a bit curious as to why the thread was named "forgiveness" as it seems to be dealing more with the nature of Christ, but this is a minor point.  I agree in general with what's being presented, but would like to clarify a point.

Now, is having a sinful nature sin in itself.  Yes.  Is it transgression?  No!  The law deals with both the outward performance and the motive.  So it's not transgression of the law to have a sinful nature.  Therefore we aren't guilty, before the law, for being born with a sinful nature.  However, we are born disqualified from heaven for having a sinful nature. In other words we are born condemned, not guilty, for having a sinful nature.

Where does the law teach that having a sinful nature disqualifies us from heaven? (assuming this is what's being asserted here, which is how I am reading this).

[Robert]

Where does [the Bible] teach that having a sinful nature disqualifies us from heaven? 

Romans chapter 5:12-21

[pnattmbtc]

Romans chapter 5:12-21

A couple of problems with this response.  First of all, the assertion was made, as I read the comment, that the law states that our sinful nature disqualifies us from heaven, so an adequate answer would have to be from the Old Testament, where the law is being referenced.

A second issue is that I can't think of a single commentary that interprets this passage in this way, including ours, so while it's possible that every commentary is wrong, one would think that at least some sort of argument would be in order.

Finally, just for grins, I looked through the Spirit of Prophecy, and saw that the understanding there was the same as mine, failing to find a single comment that fallen human nature disqualifies us for heaven, or, conversely, that a sinless nature would qualify us for heaven.  Instead I read this:

He dispensed with all pomp, demanding that faith that works by love and purifies the soul, as the only qualification required for the kingdom of heaven. (FE 398)

 which is along the lines of what I was thinking, but better stated.  I can think of many places in Scripture which would support this idea, but none that would support the idea that a fallen nature disqualifies one for heaven, or, even worse, the converse, that a sinless nature would qualify one for heaven.

[Robert]

 

A couple of problems with this response. First of all, the assertion was made, as I read the comment, that the law states that our sinful nature disqualifies us from heaven

If you are going start your hogwash I'll not respond.  Got it?

I clearly said, "Therefore we aren't guilty, before the law, for being born with a sinful nature."

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned-- 13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam,

Edited September 22, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin (our bent-to-self, i.e, our sin nature) entered the world (the human race) through one man (Adam), and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned (in Adam)-- 13 for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam....

The folks from Adam to Moses (where the law was given) were dying, but not because they were guilty of transgression.  They were dying because they shared Adam's fallen life, indwelt by his sinful nature.  

Therefore we stand condemn because of our natures. We aren't guilty of transgression because of our natures.  

Edited September 22, 2015 by Robert

[pnattmbtc]

The folks from Adam to Moses (where the law was given) were dying, but not because they were guilty of transgression.  They were dying because they shared Adam's fallen life, indwelt by his sinful nature.  

Therefore we stand condemn because of our natures. We aren't guilty of transgression because of our natures.  

Why couldn't you say there were dying because they have bodies which aren't perfect, but grow old, cells imperfectly reproduce, etc., and eventually die?  I don't see anything in Scripture, certainly not the law, which attributes our growing old and dying as being condemned because having a fallen nature, unless "condemn" simply means as a natural consequence, in which case I certainly agree we die as a natural consequence of having a mortal nature.  And, of course, having a mortal nature would have to be changed to an immortal one, in order to inhabit heaven.

[Robert]

Why couldn't you say there were dying because they have bodies which aren't perfect, but grow old, cells imperfectly reproduce, etc., and eventually die? 

Because I quoted Paul and his statements are of God.....

[pnattmbtc]

Paul says that by the act of one came condemnation upon all men, and that by the act of another came justification upon all men.  If we stand condemned because of what Adam did, then it would stand to reason we stand justified by what Christ did, correct?

[Robert]

Paul says that by the act of one came condemnation upon all men, and that by the act of another came justification upon all men.  If we stand condemned because of what Adam did, then it would stand to reason we stand justified by what Christ did, correct?

You are jumping ahead to verse 18.  Back up to the subject:

As I said, "The folks from Adam to Moses (where the law was given) were dying, but not because they were guilty of transgression.  They were dying because they shared Adam's fallen life, indwelt by his sinful nature.  Therefore we stand condemn because of our natures. We aren't guilty of transgression because of our natures. "

[pnattmbtc]

You are jumping ahead to verse 18.  Back up to the subject:

As I said, "The folks from Adam to Moses (where the law was given) were dying, but not because they were guilty of transgression.  They were dying because they shared Adam's fallen life, indwelt by his sinful nature.  Therefore we stand condemn because of our natures. We aren't guilty of transgression because of our natures. "

I'm going to respond to what you wrote here, but please respond to my question.  We need to consider Paul's argument as a whole, and this is just a part of it.  If we are understanding the argument as a whole correctly, this part should fit into that.

I think Paul's argument, in a general sense, is that as Adam's one act of disobedience brought devastating consequences which involve all, so Christ's act of righteousness brought devastatingly good consequences which involve all, but what Christ did is even greater in its scope than what Adam did.

[pnattmbtc]

Robert: As I said, "The folks from Adam to Moses (where the law was given) were dying, but not because they were guilty of transgression.  They were dying because they shared Adam's fallen life, indwelt by his sinful nature.  Therefore we stand condemn because of our natures. We aren't guilty of transgression because of our natures. "

The argument is going like this:

1.They were dying because they shared Adam's fallen life, indwelt by his sinful nature.
2.Therefore we stand condemned because of our natures.

There are a couple of things to consider.  First of all, does this argument work?  Secondly, is it 
what Paul is saying?

Regarding the argument working, here's the argument:

1.A person dies because that person shares Adam's fallen life, indwelt by his sinful nature, which is
evidenced by the fact that people between Adam and Moses died (the point being that they didn't die because
they transgressed the law given by Moses, since it hadn't been given yet.)
2.Therefore a person stands condemned because of having a sinful nature.

Regarding Paul's actual argument, it seems to me it is this:
1.By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin, death, which has impacted all.
2.By one man grace has superabounded to much greater impact for all.

Now one thing that stands out is that Paul at no point here says anything about a sinful nature.  So why bring this into the argument?  Paul didn't.

Secondly the phrase "stand condemned" seems odd.  Paul didn't say that we "stand condemned" but that what Adam did brought condemnation upon all, which is not the same thing.  For one thing, to "stand condemned" would imply that nothing was done to take away the condemnation, which seems to be directly opposed to what Paul is saying - as condemnation came upon all, so justifiection came upon all, so how can it be said that we "stand condemned"?

So, to sum, these are my two questions for now:
1.Why speak of our sinful nature, since Paul didn't.  What in Paul's argument implies we are condemned because we have a sinful nature?
2.Why say we "stand condemned", given Paul's statement that as condemnation came upon all, so justification came upon all.

[Robert]

Now one thing that stands out is that Paul at no point here says anything about a sinful nature.  So why bring this into the argument?  Paul didn't.

"Sin" singular is indwelling sin (i.e., the sin nature).  Sin entered the human race through one man, Adam.

In another place Paul states that "[agape] is the fulfillment of the law" (Romans chapter 13).  This means that agape is the ingredient that is takes to fulfill the law.  Without agape the law cannot be kept.  

Self-love can't fulfill the law.  "Sin" therefore is, according to Romans chapter 7, "sin living in me" (verse 20) or "the law of sin" (verse 23). 

The people between Adam & Moses (where the law was posted) were dying because they were polluted self-love (the sin nature). Hence "sin" singular brings condemnation.  Guilt, on the other hand, is associated with transgression of the moral law.

So while Christ, as the son of men, stood condemned for taking our sinful nature, He wasn't guilty of transgression for assuming it.

Edited September 23, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

Why say we "stand condemned", given Paul's statement that as condemnation came upon all, so justification came upon all.

That isn't what I am discussing. I'm not dealing with Christ's justification of the human race.  I'm dealing with why taking our sinful nature upon Himself (His Deity) didn't make Him a sinner.  Follow?

[pnattmbtc]

"Sin" singular is indwelling sin (i.e., the sin nature).  Sin entered the human race through one man, Adam.

In another place Paul states that "[agape] is the fulfillment of the law" (Romans chapter 13).  This means that agape is the ingredient that is takes to fulfill the law.  Without agape the law cannot be kept.  

Self-love can't fulfill the law.  "Sin" therefore is, according to Romans chapter 7, "sin living in me" (verse 20) or "the law of sin" (verse 23). 

The people between Adam & Moses (where the law was posted) were dying because they were polluted self-love (the sin nature). Hence "sin" singular brings condemnation.  Guilt, on the other hand, is associated with transgression of the moral law.

So while Christ, as the son of men, stood condemned for taking our sinful nature, He wasn't guilty of transgression for assuming it.

I agree with the general point that Christ can take our sinful nature without being a sinner by so doing, but the explanation I would give is much simpler, which is simply that we are not condemned, or made guilty (either one) because of having a sinful nature.  There are some issues I see here in this explanation, of which I will deal with just one here, which is that the people between Adam & Moses were dying because "they were polluted self-love (the sin nature)."

There is some confusion as to what "sinful nature" is.  Sinful nature must be in our DNA, don't you agree?  How else could it passed on from generation to generation?  Now it makes perfect sense to say our DNA was corrupted by Adam's sin, and we all die because of that (first death).  It also makes sense to say that we are "condemned" in the sense of "destined to die" because of this act of Adam's.  However, it doesn't follow from this that we "stand condemned" because we have corrupted DNA.

Also, it doesn't make sense to say that the people before Moses died because they were polluted with self-love, because this is confusing cause and effect.  The cause of *both* the self-love and death (the first death) is the fallen nature inherited from Adam; it's not the case that their being polluted with self-love caused their death.  An obvious way to see this is by considering Christ; would Christ have gotten old and eventually died had He not been crucified (assuming no miracle took place)?  He would have, right?  Why?  Because He was polluted with self-love?  No; because He took our fallen nature.

[pnattmbtc]

Why say we "stand condemned", given Paul's statement that as condemnation came upon all, so justification came upon all.

Robert: That isn't what I am discussing. I'm not dealing with Christ's justification of the human race.  I'm dealing with why taking our sinful nature upon Himself (His Deity) didn't make Him a sinner.  Follow?

Regardless of what you intended to be focusing on, the claim that we "stand condemned" because of our sinful nature is what I'm taking issue with, and the question I've been asking you regarding vs 21 is dealing with this.  Actually, I'm not necessarily against saying we "stand condemned", depending upon what specifically is meant by this.  If this means "destined to die" (the first death), that's fine, I could agree with that.

Here's a problem with saying that our having a sinful nature means we are not qualified for heaven. Christ took our sinful nature, so by the same logic, Christ would not have been qualified for heaven.  It sounds really odd to say that, don't you think? 

[Robert]

.... the explanation I would give is much simpler, which is simply that we are not condemned, or made guilty (either one) because of having a sinful nature.

But that's wrong.   If we aren't condemned then why are we "changed" at the 2nd coming?  "Flesh (Sarx) and blood" cannot be taken to heaven.  Our old life from Adam is not redeemable.  

Clearly, in Romans chapter 5, we stand condemned for having a humanity that is permeated with the love of self.

Paul:  "For I know that in me (that is , in my flesh,) dwelleth nothing good" (Rom 7:18)

Ellen White:   "Through sin the whole human organism is deranged, the mind is perverted, the imagination corrupted. Sin has degraded the faculties of the soul."

[Robert]

Here's a problem with saying that our having a sinful nature means we are not qualified for heaven. Christ took our sinful nature, so by the same logic, Christ would not have been qualified for heaven.  

Christ as the son of man took our nature, a condemned nature, and thus His assumed humanity had to die, eternally. God the Father left sin, our condemned humanity (indwelt with our bent), in the grave resurrection morning. 

Proof:  2 Cor 5:16 Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh (instead Paul saw them "in Christ"); even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer. 17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature (some versions say "new creation")....

Christ was raised a "new creation".  The old life "according to the flesh" was not raised.  That life died the 2nd death. Sunday morning Christ was no longer "according to the flesh", but rather a "new creature."  Since our humanity is "in Him" we, by faith, are too a new creation in Him.

 

 

Edited September 24, 2015 by Robert

[Robert]

Hi Robert.  I'm a bit curious as to why the thread was named "forgiveness" as it seems to be dealing more with the nature of Christ,...

 Because on that same website the "immaculate conception" came up....

[pnattmbtc]

.... the explanation I would give is much simpler, which is simply that we are not condemned, or made guilty (either one) because of having a sinful nature.

But that's wrong.   If we aren't condemned then why are we "changed" at the 2nd coming?  "Flesh (Sarx) and blood" cannot be taken to heaven.  Our old life from Adam is not redeemable.  

Why would you think that because we need to be changed that means we are condemned?  You seem to be assuming the only reason we would need to be changed would be because of condemnation.  We need to be changed because we're mortal!  Mortality must put on immortality.  Mortality does not imply condemnation (unless by "condemnation" one means something like "condemned to die", in which case its simply a synonym).

 

Clearly, in Romans chapter 5, we stand condemned for having a humanity that is permeated with the love of self.

First of all, even if this were true, being permeated with the love of self is not incumbent upon one's nature, which Christ showed by taking our nature.  Christ, although having take our fallen nature, was not permeated with the love of self. 

Paul:  "For I know that in me (that is , in my flesh,) dwelleth nothing good" (Rom 7:18)

Ellen White:   "Through sin the whole human organism is deranged, the mind is perverted, the imagination corrupted. Sin has degraded the faculties of the soul."

Ellen White was very clear that it is the act of sin that degrades one, not having a fallen nature.  I can present evidence for this fact if you wish.  But the fact that Christ took our nature should make this clear. 

[pnattmbtc]

Here's a problem with saying that our having a sinful nature means we are not qualified for heaven. Christ took our sinful nature, so by the same logic, Christ would not have been qualified for heaven.  

Robert: Christ as the son of man took our nature, a condemned nature, and thus His assumed humanity had to die, eternally. God the Father left sin, our condemned humanity (indwelt with our bent), in the grave resurrection morning. 

Proof:  2 Cor 5:16 Therefore from now on we recognize no one according to the flesh (instead Paul saw them "in Christ"); even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him in this way no longer. 17 Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature (some versions say "new creation")....

Christ was raised a "new creation".  The old life "according to the flesh" was not raised.  That life died the 2nd death. Sunday morning Christ was no longer "according to the flesh", but rather a "new creature."  Since our humanity is "in Him" we, by faith, are too a new creation in Him.

It appears you are making the case that Christ was not qualified for heaven, until the resurrection.  I don't want to be putting words into your mouth.  This is what you are arguing, isn't it? 

[pnattmbtc]

Hi Robert.  I'm a bit curious as to why the thread was named "forgiveness" as it seems to be dealing more with the nature of Christ,...

Robert: Because on that same website the "immaculate conception" came up..

Ok, thx.