1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Orthodox Christians

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Anastasia, Oct 31, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Alive in Christ

    Alive in Christ New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2008
    Messages:
    3,822
    Likes Received:
    1
    Michael Wrenn...


    Honestly, I dont understand why some folk seem to want to throw the "heritic" card out at the drop of a hat. Just for the littlest thing???

    I usually bend over backwords..over and over again..to give the person every chance to convince me that they ARE NOT holding to heresy..

    I get the impression that some on here are literally LOOKING for heresy.

    That aint right.
     
  2. Anastasia

    Anastasia New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2010
    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    0
    Baruch HaShem!

    Park kez Der Azdvadz mer! Praise be to the Lord our God!

    Don't worry. Chances are, I shan't be here (on this board) long.
     
    #62 Anastasia, Nov 3, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 3, 2012
  3. Anastasia

    Anastasia New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2010
    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    0
    James 1:27 [NKJV] Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit [and help] orphans and widows in their heresy, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world's heresy.
     
    #63 Anastasia, Nov 3, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 3, 2012
  4. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    They are. That's what some do here.

    No, it's not right.

    And if I may repeat what I've said before: I'm glad God is in charge and not some Christians I know.
     
  5. zara

    zara New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2012
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0

    ONE GOD .... EVERYTHING FROM NOTHING.

    Christianity has jealously guarded its ear to both God & Jesus/Christ over others (Christians & Non-Christians). Why does it seem to drift to fire and brimstone instead of "Love one another" ???

    zara
    ....:1_grouphug:
     
    #65 zara, Nov 3, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 3, 2012
  6. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Not a single word I said was based upon assumption.

    1. Ordinary flour was not used:

    Lev. 2:1¶ And when any will offer a meat offering unto the LORD, his offering shall be of fine flour; and he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense thereon:


    2. It was a sweet savor offering:

    Lev. 2:9 And the priest shall take from the meat offering a memorial thereof, and shall burn it upon the altar: it is an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.


    3. It was to be unleavened bread

    Lev. 2:4 And if thou bring an oblation of a meat offering baken in the oven, it shall be unleavened cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil.

    Lev. 2:11 ¶ No meat offering, which ye shall bring unto the LORD, shall be made with leaven: for ye shall burn no leaven, nor any honey, in any offering of the LORD made by fire.


    4. There was no blood in this sacrifice

    The term "meat" simply means "food" and the food described is a cake or wafer with oil and frankincense with fine flour.

    5. It was to contain the "salt of the covenant"

    Lev. 2:13 And every oblation of thy meat offering shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat offering: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.


    Leaven is a well known Biblical symbol for sin and thus unleavened is to be without sin.

    Oil is a well known Biblical symbol for the Holy Spirit

    Salt of the covenant identifes this offering with the covenant of redemption and the salt is a well known Biblical symbol of preservation

    Frankincense is a well known Biblical symbol of acceptance as it gives a sweet aroma = sweet smelling savor

    Bread is a well known Biblical symbol for Christ

    The sacrifices are symbols/types (Heb. 10:1-4) as many scriptures teach this well known Biblical truth.
     
  7. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    2 Cor. 5:21 teaches substutitutionary atonement and imputation clearly and is no red herring. The term "made" in 2 Cor. 5:21 means the same thing in both of its uses in this verse = made by substitutionary representation.

    1. Christ was "MADE" to be sin for us who "knew no sin" = There was no experientially sinfulness in Christ and thus to be "made sin" was by substitutionary representation and thus the non-imputation of sin to us because he satisfied our sins in our behalf.

    2. We were "MADE" righteousness in Christ = There was no experiential righteousness in us and thus "made righteousness" was by substitutionary represenation and thus HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS must be imputed.

    These two aspects represent "imputed righteousness" in Romans 4:5-6 and non-imputation of sin in Romans 4:7-8 which together constitute JUSTIFICATION and any man thus justified is the "blessed" man.



    Wrong for several reasons!

    1. The animals sacrifices were not imperfect in regard to TYPE as all types in Scripture convey the truths they are designed to convey when administered properly.

    2. Their imperfection was in regard to their literal nature not their typical nature.

    3. The act of incarnation did not constitute any sacrifice whatsoever and therefore is no basis for imputation one way or the other. The cross is the altar of sacrifice and not before.

    4. The incarnation only provided for the proper antitype of all the previous types but was no sacrifice in any form.






    What do you mean by "stand for"? Do you mean "represent"? Do you mean "act in behalf"? It is clear from the TYPES that the Antitype would be "stand for" in the sense of substitutionary/representative as the sacrifice was killed "in the place" of the people it represented and the high priest placed his hands upon the animal on the day of atonement and confessed the sins of the people while doing it. There are several clear examples in the OT where God was actually killing Israelites until such a sacrifice was offered up and his wrath upon the people stopped when the sacrifice was offered showing a direct correlation between the sin and wrath upon sinners and the sacrifice.

    It is clear from the New Testament language "for us" "made to be sin" that the type of personal substitution was performed also in the antitype.



    Your argument is rediculous as the incarnation was no sacrifice at all and had nothing to do with the sacrifice as the sacrifice IS THE SHEDDING OF BLOOD, without which there is no remission of sins. The incarnation simply provided the body that would be offered up on the cross as a BLOODY sacrifice.

    Another rediculous statement! The incarnation has nothing to do with imputation at all and neither does the incarnation have anything to do with Romans 4:1-6! As 2 Corinthians 5:21 and many other Biblical scriptues clearly and explicitly teach the sacrifice of Christ was on the cross and it is on the cross that the lamb "without spot or blemish" made satisfaction unto God (Isa. 53) IN BEHALF of sinners.

    1 Pet. 2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
    23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:
    24 Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.
     
    #67 The Biblicist, Nov 3, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 3, 2012
  8. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    Look, you are not understanding what I meant. You said, "If you would give some serious study to the offerings in Leviticus..." What I meant was that you were assuming that I had not done that -- and you were wrong.
     
  9. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is no clearer evidence than this post that what I have been saying is true: People who believe like this compartmentalize and isolate the atonement from other aspects of Jesus's life and work, including the very thing that makes the Christian faith different from all other religions -- the bodily resurrection. This theory of what Jesus did is legalistic; it was unknown and untaught for 1500 years.
     
    #69 Michael Wrenn, Nov 4, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 4, 2012
  10. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Again, this is proof you have never really studied the sacrifices in Leviticus chapters 1-8 in any substantive detail.

    You don't understand the sacrifices at all! All five are in fact different aspects of the same atonement provided by Christ. All five provide essential truths to understand the atonement of Christ.

    God cannot justify anyone who is coming short of the glory of God and so the atonement cannot be provided by anyone who comes short of the glory of God.

    The unleavened finely sifted meal offering PICTURES the complete sinless humanity of the Christ which did not come short of the glory of God. The burnt offering pictures the complete devotion to the will of God by the life of Christ. The tresspass offering pictures complete payment of our sins by Christ on the cross (1 Pet. 2:14). The sin offering pictures the complete payment of the Adamic sin nature by Christ (Rom. 5:12-19). The Peace offering PICTURES the offerer partaking of the reconciliation provided by Jesus Christ on the cross by his satisfaction of God's righteousness against sin.

    You don't understand the abc's of the gospel of Jesus Christ found in the simple words "for our" (1 Cor. 15:4-5) but war against it.
     
    #70 The Biblicist, Nov 4, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 4, 2012
  11. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    You are right, I did think you were claiming that my statements and understanding of the meal offering was merely assumption when it was not assumption but the clear teaching of scripture.

    However, your clarification really is mystifying. The nature and content of your responses directly contradict this clarification. Your responses declare you have absolutely no understanding of even the simpliest aspects of these sacrifices in Leviticus chapters 1-8. Anyone who had done any serious study of these sacrifices would not make such unstudied statements. If you have studied them was it with your eyes closed?
     
  12. Michael Wrenn

    Michael Wrenn New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    4,319
    Likes Received:
    0

    I'd be willing to bet I've studied all of this more than you ever have or will. But I'm tired of defending myself against your ignorance and insults. You can have the last word.
     
  13. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    It is pretty obvious you would lose that bet. You are very quick to claim that you are being insulted and attacked. I simply stated what was obvious. Your responses to the scriptures I presented were self-evident that you failed to comprehend the simple truths of these sacrficial types. If that is insultive then demonstrate a better response.

    Anyone who would deny the sacrificial system clearly approved of by God in Genesis 4:4 as demonstrated in Hebrews 11:4 is a heathen invention has not done his homework or has such bias that they cannot even comprehend what they are reading.

    Anyone who would take a handful of scriptures that IN CONTEXT condemn ONLY HYPOCRITICAL worship by sacrifice and then PIT them against the MASS of scripture that clearly and unmistakenly have God as the author of the Leviticual sacrificial system is living in a fantasy world.

    Anyone who would take the clear and explicit command and approval of Christ of the sacrificial system (Lk. 5:12-17) and then PIT his words were he is condemning ONLY HYPOCRITICAL practice of sacrificial worship has really thrown intellectual honesty with scriptures under the bus and out the window.

    The real motivation behind this eisgetical mess is the false doctrine of Christus Victor that repudiates any necessity for the cross at all. Hence, it is heresy at the bottom of this total abuse of the God ordained and God commanded sacrificial system that is constantly reaffirmed from Genesis to Revelation
     
    #73 The Biblicist, Nov 5, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 5, 2012
  14. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Again you are wrong. The red herring to which I was referring as it is clear in my post is your suggestion that I said that Jesus took on our sins and death by acting on those sins or as you phrased it "by his own actions". I never suggested such a thing therefore you built up a straw man to tear it down. Therefore your reply is a red herring. 2nd of all 2 Cor 5:21 is clearly in line with what I have said that Jesus being Joined with humanity has offered himself up as sin for us thus "he became sin for us that knew no sin" He wasn't just someone God could beat up on because he was mad at humanity which your view holds but rather became joined to humanity taking on humanities evils onto himself for all humanity not as a substitute but as a brother thus all those in him can be free of sin as all in Adam are under sin. Jesus satisfied God's Justice.

    I think you have a problem with the word "made" as it is used in scriptures. Jesus took on to himself (not by virtue of sinning) our sin. You're stuck in representation. You hold to nothing in actuality. Being sinless Jesus took on that sin to his person.

    Romans 4:5-6 isn't speaking about "imputed" righteousness but the primacy in faith for Righteousness. The term imputed in the King James version. Is the old way of saying what the ESV states that one is "counted" as righteous. You're taking Romans 4 out of context. Faith in this chapter is first because it leads to righteousness which is why Hebrews and James choose two different periods in Abrahams life to say that He is Justified. Thus at each point Abraham is Justified. Which show the process of Justification. Rather than it being forensic.

    First of all I understand a type and foreshadowing. But my point remains that they were an imperfect substitute (and you can look at it as) foreshadowing Jesus' attoning work. However, as they were used to convey sin. Or did you not read the scripture where the Priest would lay a hand on the one making the sacrifice and on the animal to convey sin from one to the other? They were an imprefect substitute which sufficed as and relied on the Coming of Jesus Christ. What made that sacrifice work was not the death of the animal but it's relation to what Jesus would do on the cross.

    Their imperfection is in regard to they're animals and we are human. An animal sacrifice can never be sufficient for reconciling humanity. And since they were a type which points to Jesus their function was to lead us to hold the proper view of Calvary. As the scriptures say God doesn't require the blood of animals.

    In this you are entirely wrong. God becoming man is a sacrifice. Does not scripture say
    The incarnation is tied inseparablyto the crucifixion. If you can't see that then you need to study more.

    The rest of your post is re-itteration of what I've just dealt with.
     
    #74 Thinkingstuff, Nov 5, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 5, 2012
  15. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    I suggested no such thing! That was not a suggestion about your own belief that was an accusation against what you believe. Jesus by his own actions in his own person satisfied both aspects of God's righteous demands in behalf of those He represented.

    It is IMPOSSIBLE for sinners to satisfy either demand. They cannot satisfy it by "spiritual union" with Christ as they are still in their own person sinful (1 Jn. 1:8-10) and neither can they satisfy it in their own person by the work of the Holy Spirit through progressive sanctification as they continue to be sinful in their own person.


    That also is IMPOSSIBLE! You fail to understand the simplistic reality of God's standard of righteousness. David expressed his continuing sinfulness in Psalm 32 thus proving that the righteous standard of God was not, could not, and never will be satisfied by anything done in his own person whether with God's grace or without his grace as he never ceases in his own person to be anything more than a sinner but the law reqires sinlessnes to be satisfied or eternal condemnation to be satisfied which David could supply neither. The "blessedness" of justification is that both are supplied not by David but in the person of David's substitute -"Jehovah said unto my Lord".

    Furthermore, you are ignoring the whole basic purpose of the sacrificial system and its antitype.


    So are you saying one can be a sinner in regard to his own person without sinning by his own person? Was Adam a sinner by his own Person without sinning by his own person? Remember Christ acted as the Second Adam! Remember Christ came to the cross as a sinless being not like us who come into this world as sinners by nature.

    He was not "made" to be a sinner but "made to be sin FOR us" or in our place. The wrath belonging to us was poured out on him as our Second Adam, our representative man.

    Think about this. He could not be "made sin for us" if he were not SINLESS in his own Person or else the condemnation poured out upon Him would be just in regard to him alone and thus worthless to us or anyone else. The lamb to be sacrificed must be "without spot or blemish" which is a TYPE of sinlessness. Satisfaction of the Law's righteousness is WORTHLESS if the one dying deserves the Law's wrath IN HIS OWN PERSON!


    Jesus was not "made" a sinner in regard to his own person any more than the sacrificial goat on the day of Atonement was "made" a sinner in regard to is own being.

    Can't read to well can you or selective reading.

    Rom. 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
    6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,


    Note that verse 6 is designed to introduce David as further evidence ("even as") that righteousness is by IMPUTATION not works.

    What you fail to grasp is that satisfaction of God's righteousness in regard to those condemned as "ungodly" (v. 5) must remove sin or else no justification can be possible as the law cannot justify sinners but only condemn them. Hence, Justification requires remission of sins or that standard of righteousness (sinlessness) is not obtained and thus no justification occurs.


    You obviously do not understand it at all or you would have never made the rediculous response that the imperfection was in their "animal" nature as that is not where the imperfection resides. The imperfection is that the type can never be the antitype. However, the essence of type resides in the specified qualifications for the use of the animal as sacrifice "spotless and without blemish" and the selected animals perfectly fulfilled that design.

    You have no point at all because the type was not affected by their animal nature. The only imperfection is found in BEING A TYPE as a TYPE cannot be the Antitype as well as the type. They fulfilled the TYPE perfectly due to the qualifications for being the type.

    Again you distort and ignore the type. Laying on of hands and confessing the sins of the people over the goat signified of the New Testament counterpart of the meaning of IMPUTATION. The type had no flaws because it satisfied the design for the type.

    The value of a type is that it correctly provides the characteristics necessary to convey the TRUTHS God designed it to convey.

    Laying hands on the head of the goat and confessing the sins of the people prior to its death CORRECTLY PROVIDED THE CHARACTERISTICS necessary to convey the truth of IMPUTATION!


    Absolutely and completely false! The imperfection is in regard to the fact they are a TYPE and not the ANTITYPE! As a TYPE they were perfect in that they conveyed exactly what they were designed by God to convey but the "shadow" is not the substance which casts the shadow and that is where their imperfection existed.

    God never designed animal sacrifices to literally reconcile humans to God!! He designed animals sacrifices to be a "shadow" or a TYPE or a SYMBOL of what would reconcile sinners to God and they performed that function PERFECTLY!
     
    #75 The Biblicist, Nov 5, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 5, 2012
  16. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Yes that is what you did. I believe that was the implication by this statement
    Sorry, fail to see the difference.
    I hold to that view. But I don't hold to the view that God just needed a substitute to beat up on because he was mad. Rather, I hold that he made not only satisfaction to his justice but joined himself to humanity raising those in him above sin and death.


    Jesus Satisfies the demand as our brother and the first of all those who in him will recieve eternal life. Unlike all those who are born in Adam and remain in their sins will receive death.

    Well, the Jews certainly believed the incarnation was impossible. But there you have it. Maybe you can hang out with Caiaphas and say about the same event
    Contrarily, I understand it well. Only God could bring man out of sin and death by taking on humanity and suffering and die so that we might be raised up. I think you fail to understand what ends God will go to in order to bring us back to him.

    I haven't and I explained it.

    You are confusing yourself. Can a man be born a sinner? Can this same man avoid committing a particular sin? But again that isn't what I was even speaking of. I was speaking that everything is representative to you and without actuality in reality.

    Of couse! Didn't I in fact point that out? I did.
    Yes and he became sin for us. How hard is that to understand.

    I think you are having a hard time understanding what I'm saying. Just go back to 2 corinthians and see what Paul says. Also what it says Rom 5:19. and Isa 53:10-12.


    We differ about this. He could not atone for us if he were not sinless and by necessity the action of being Made sin for us requires sinlessness. But I'm not arguing Jesus was a sinner and that is where your red herring lies.

    Actually I can. You're using KJV and as I updated the post I showed that it was counted for righteousness was the meaning of that passage as all other translations will point out. It was the old way of saying something. The passage isn't directed to a consept of forensic Justification but that the primacy of faith Justifies. As does following through in faith as both Hebrews and James points out. You want to take one verse and make it stand alone outside of the context in which it was written and that always leads to a misunderstanding. So, I can read just fine. You just didn't bother with my update.

    again David's statement about the forgiveness of sins is to support Pauls point about the primacy of faith over trying to obtain forgiveness by adherence soley to the mitzvot. or the law. and you mixed up translations by using a modern translation four the previous verse and the King James for the latter verse when internal consitancy we can see in the modern translation counted is used in both verses as Imputed is used in both verses for the King James.

    Oh no. I don't have the problem with that at all. I understand and believe that entirely. My contention with your view is that you hold this one verse out alone from its context to show that Justification is forensic which I say it isn't. Faith first or in primacy but faith doesn't end with belief as you believe as we can see from the scriptures as they point out different times which Abraham was justified. In Romans 4 we see that Paul is stating that Abraham was Justified when he believed God. That refers to Abrahams life recorded in Genesis 15 when God promises him a son
    However we see in Hebrews chp 11 Abraham is Justified at another point in his life
    referring to Genesis 12 unless you don't believe he was justified at this point in his life. And James says yet again Abraham was justified at another point in his life.
    referring to Genesis 22. At all three points in his life Abraham is being Justified or called justified thus showing from the NT that Justification isn't simply forensic. As you are attempting to make Paul say in Romans 4.

    I do understand it. So much so that I clearly stated that an Animal sacrifice cannot attone for human sin. Which is what you want me to believe. But I suggested that they are a type or foreshadowing of that which actually atones for sin which is Calvary. The animal is imperfect because it can not stand in the place of something of greater value which is a man. You are trying to get me to believe that it can. It cannot.
     
  17. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Here is the diffference. I was not accusing you of believing what I believe but accusing you for not believing in what I believe. You do not believe that Christ in his own person satisfied the full demands of God's righteousness as our representative. Instead, you believe that is not satisfied apart from in our own person.


    No you don't and your next statement proves you don't and I will explain that in response to your next statement.

    Neither do I because I make a distinction between just recompense for sin and mere anger. The wrath of God is based totally upon JUSTICE and the just recompense of sin is JUST CONDEMNATION and the JUST PENTLATY of the Law. - "the WAGES of sin is death" "he that beleiveth not is CONDEMNED already"




    Mere union with humanity satisfies NO JUSTICE AT ALL! The incarnation only provides the proper vehicle so that justice may be satisfied ON THE CROSS.


    First, we as gentiles are not his "brother" ethnically or spiritually but rather "enemies" of Christ. Reconciliation occurred on the cross and by his death received through faith and not at the incarnation not during his life but by his sacrificial representative substitutionary death as a spotless = sinless lamb of God.

    Oh please, you know I am not talking about either Christ or the incarnation at all. I am talking about sinful human beings. It is IMPOSSIBLE for sinners to satisfy either demand of the Law - what it demands to be regarded righteous before God or its demand for eternal punishment for falling short of its righteous demand - that is IMPOSSIBLE! That is impossible through "spiritual union" or through Holy Spirit progressive sanctification as neither satisfies either demand in the person of the believer.


    You understand nothing about it at all but completely distort and pervert it and I mean NOTHING! The incarnation neither brings man out of sin or death. The incarnation only made that possible but not actual. It is the cross that made it actual and without the cross the incarnation is WORTHLESS!

    You have not! What you have done is completely perverted and distorted it when you say the imperfection is found in the Old Testament sacrifice being an "animal"! God designed the animal to be the sacrifice but never designed the animal sacrifice to take away sin. Instead he designed the animal sacrifice to be PEFECTLY what he designed it to be - A TYPE. The animal did not fail to be what God designed it to be but performed that design PERFECTLY. Hence, there was no imperfection at all as the type was never designed to be the antitype and it is the antitype that is by design what literally removes sin.


    You cannot compare those born sinful with those who came into this world sinless (Adam and Second Adam). You cannot compare those who were not born to represent others with Adam and the Second Adam who did come into this world to represent others. Neither Adam or the Second Adam could be justly charged with sin or its consequences apart from sinning in their own person. Christ was not made sin in his own person as he did not commit sin in his own person - "knew no sin" experientially. He was made to be sin the same way the animal sacrifice was made to be sin - by legal representation and imputation.



    On the contrary, I perfectly understand what you are saying and completely repudiate it. You are denying that Christ was "made to be sin" by legal substitution and imputation. The only other alternative is IMPOSSIBLE as that requires sinners in their own person to satisfy the righteous demands of God IN THEIR OWN PERSONS and BY THEIR OWN ACTIONS regardless if those actions are results of grace or the internal work of the Holy Spirit NEITHER of which can satisfy the righteous demands of God as it is IMPOSSIBLE for sinners (1 Jn. 1:8-10) to satisfy EITHER demand at all.


    Yes, and that is the crux of our whole dispute. God demanded that any sacrfice "for sin" had to meet certain qualifications or it could not be received by God. The sacrificial lamb must be without spot or blemish which typically declares the antitype must be SINLESS in his own person or else He could not be received as an acceptable sacrifice "for sin." Hence, it was impossible to "make him to be sin" IN HIS OWN PERSON without invalidating the acceptability of the sacrifice. Both the type and antitype were "made to be sin" only by lawful substitution and imputation.


    You are arguing for that when you insist that IN HIS OWN PERSON he was made to be sin as that changes sinlessness in his own person to sinfulness in his own person and no sinless person can be sinful in his own person without also sinning in his own person. Impossible for Christ as it was for Adam and Christ is the Second Adam.

    it is the very same Greek term translated "counted" as "imputed" and so no difference at all. Verse 6 clearly demonstrates and declares that Paul's use of David is to reinforce righteousness through IMPUTATION by faith! You simply do not understand that righteousness cannot be imputed without remission of sins as one without the other in regard to Abraham, David or any other sinner is oxymoronic!



    No, it is not! First, Abraham is PRE-Law and thus his "works" have nothing to do with "Law." Second, the value of faith in this context is in regard to what it obtains - righteousness - by imputation not by impartation through regeneration or progressively by sanctification as Romans 4:9-11 proves beyond doubt as it restricts justification by faith to "IN UNCIRUCMISION" as an Aorist completed action rather than including "CIRCUMCISION" and a continous incompleted action.



    You fail to use proper hermeneutics or exegesis with this passage.

    1. Statement concerning Abraham - Romans 4:1-3
    2. Statement reinforced by Principle - Romans 4:4-5
    3. Statement reinforced by Example - Romans 4:6-7
    4. Final application to Abraham and his seed - Romans 5:9-12

    5. Statement concerning Mosaic Law - Romans 4:13
    6. Statement reinforced by prinicple - Romans 4:14-17
    7. Statement reinforced by Example - Romans 4:18-20
    8. Final application to Abraham and his seed - Romans 4:21-25

    9. Conclusion and resultant applications - Romans 5:1-11.

    Do you see the pattern and line of argument? Your conclusion are based on a failure to recognize and/or understand his line of argument. He is not teaching multiple justifications or two types of justification but one type which is completed at the point of faith based upon imputation of righteousness and non-imputation of our sins to us - that is justification.

    The second line of argument in Romans 4:13-25 explains the nature of justifying faith as summarized in Romans 4:21 in the application aspect of that line of argument.
     
    #77 The Biblicist, Nov 5, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 5, 2012
  18. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    No you were accusing me in short that I believe Jesus sinned. That was never my contention.

    This is not true. I think you don't understand there are differing views of atonement. My view is called the satisfaction view. Your view is called the Penal Substitution view. Therefore when you say that I don't believe that Jesus Christ "Satisfied" the full demands of God's righteousness you are wrong. I hold that view as it is in the Satsifaction view. What I don't hold to is your penal substitution view which is summerized by me saying you believe God is such an imputent child that he just has to beat up on something because he got mad at it. Which is how I view penal substitution. Satisfaction is similar but not quite the same thing.

    See you are mixing up words and consepts. Satisfaction I hold to. Penal Substitution I don't. So if you use Satisfaction I agree. But if your claim is only that Jesus is only a substitute and ignore the incarnation principle. Then I will have to disagree with you.

    I believe that you do. But I am willing to hear your explanation of how the atonement works.

    It looks like from this statement you are playing with several theological perspectives and attempting to combine them. I would agree that God's Justice must be satisfied. However, I think with regard to atonement you focus on God's anger whereas I would focus on God's love. I would quote the Catholic Encyclopedia which said
    by relying on God's anger you simply treat the Crucifixion as vicarious punishment. Rather in God's love he joined himself to humanity by suffering and dieing he took on all sin and death for all humanity that all those who are in Christ are raised in him. On Calvary, Sin and death died. Jesus truelly emerged victorius rising from the dead. Where I see God's Justiced satisfied you see consequence of sin handed out.

    As man can only be in sin because of the first man man cannot be restored save by the Man (who is also God) Jesus Christ. The incarnation is thus very important. Jesus didn't acheive this apart from Joining to man.

    I agree but when you see Satisfied you are actually seening consequence of sin being delt out vicariously on Jesus to assuage God's anger.

    First God isn't a racist. I know many baptist who would disagree with me but I don't think that group is represented on this board. Jesus is our brother by virtue of his incarnation. Jews or gentile are at emnity with God when they sin as Paul points out.
    Thus to seperate all of humanity in the atonement would be not correct. Paul would say something entirely different from your proposal.

    I would disagree because the incarnation is inseperable from the Crucifixion with regard to our atonement.

    But Jesus does it as a sinless man. The incarnation is key to the atonement.

    Disagreeing with you is not the same as not knowing or understanding something. Without the incarnation there is no redemptive act at calvary. Period.

    You are so stuck in linear thinking that you have lost the congruity of the life of Jesus Christ. The incarnation is essential for atonement. With out Christ's obedience to become man and follow up to the cross the purpose of the incarnation would be lost. But its a shame that you see the incarnation as worthless. But it certianly reveals your view of atonement as focused on the anger of God rather than his love. Which means you certainly hold that the only reason Jesus became man was to take out God's anger on someone who could take it without sin. Rather than joining himself to humanity in love truely making us his children in christ.

    Big difference because in the 1600 imputed was used to mean counted in the sense I mentioned however the conotation that you always apply to it beyond the scope of the text which you imply the theological protestant imputation rather than what it really means which is counted. See you want people to believe God only covers your sin but doesn't in fact renew you. Ie Like Luther's "snow covering dung" rather than changing the dung and making it something entirely different like snow. Which is vindicated by the obedience of the person. When the real context is clearly read in Romans 4 that faith in primacy of Abraham over law counts as righteousness just as David remarks that the man is blessed who's sin is not counted towards him. Rather than faith creates a legal fiction at one point in time in which one is ok with God. You forget Atonement is to Make at One two parties. Thats where the word derives from.

    You clearly haven't read Romans properly. Because it is. Just read the context. Romans 4 isn't alone in the book it follows from chapters one and two and three. Its not a seperate discourse but a logical flow from the previous chapters.

    See you're making Pauls point
    which is in the greater context of his discourse with the Jewish Christians because he had said to them previously
    Because Faith is first as Paul pointed out using the example of Abraham in Genesis 15. Which is the point of his discussion.

    What is clearly noted is you start in Romans 4 when it was part of the larger discouse started in Chapter 2. Thus you play on peoples ignorance of the scripture because they don't realize chapter numbers and verses were not originally written into the text but a later development thus contextually his discourse about the primacy of faith started before chapter 4. Which then causes me to question your Hermeneutics.
     
  19. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    It may not have been your intention (and I believe you) but it was the conclusion of your interpetation of 2 Cor. 5:21 and the word "made sin" whether you intended it or not. Unintended consequences! Neither Adam, the first or second could be "made to be sin" in their person without first sinning by their person. Your interpretation demands the impossible. Both acted as representatives "by ONE man...many were made". Both acted as SINLESS men but one became a sinner due to sinning IN HIS PERSON while the other did not and could not be regarded as sinful "in his person" because he never sinned by his person.
     
  20. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Christ could not satisfy the honor of God without satisfying the justice of God as they are inseparably united one to the other. His justice demands the righteousness of His law be satisfied by the life of Christ as much as by the death of Christ as the former satisfies its demand for righteousness while the latter is CONSEQUENTIAL only if the former comes short and satisfies its demand for sin.

    Your view, (anselm's view) is actually a repudiation of Jesus Christ and His righteousness rather than a satisfaction.

    I am sorry but theological positions that simply use the term "satisfaction" are worthless unless they harmonize with the Biblical meaning of satisfaction and your theory does not. You do not believe in Biblical satsifaction of God's righteousness because your views make that impossible. Christ cannot satisfy the Law without satisfying both its penal demands for sin as well as its righteous demands for perfection.

    Believers do not cease to be sinners in their own person regardless of imparted grace, regeneration and the progressive work of the Holy Spirit in and through them. Hence, no theory of impartation or progressive justification can acheve what the law of God demands.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...