I would word it more as Christ's humanity submitted to His Divinity, in which He avoided sin. His virgin birth was a fullfillment of prophecy.
In XC
-
Nature of the Atonement
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Andre, Jul 14, 2008.
Page 3 of 9
-
God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,..
Your point about how "sinful" need not qualify Jesus actually has some merit seen as a point about the first clause. Indeed, one could legitimately say that Jesus came in the form of "man" generally, and refer to man as "sinful flesh". You do have a point. I withdraw my earlier argument about "the tall man". However, the issue is not settled. To this point, your view retains plausibility. But mine does as well.
However, I think your position cannot work with what Paul goes on to say after saying Jesus came in the likeness of sinful man. Paul concludes that God condemned sin in sinful man. This resolves the ambiguity - in some sense, Jesus is indeed "full of sin".
Jesus is the place where sin is dealt with. And Paul characterizes this as the condemning of sin in sinful man. I cannot see how one can avoid concluding that, in some sense, Jesus has "sin in him".
If you can, please provide an argument as to why Jesus cannot have sin in him. -
There is something new here, I suggest - but I personally do not take credit for it, I have been clear that these are not my own ideas (at least in essence).
And what you post raises an interesting question. I submit that just as it was before the reformation, the church will say that it respects scripture as the primary authority, but in reality they respect the authority of various traditions. It does not surprise me at all that, just like at the reformation, scripture continues to divulge new things even in the 21st century.
And one of these new things, I suggest, is the notion that sin is a quantity that needs to be localized in one place in order to be neutralized. I have yet to provide the main argument for this. But, it is an idea that I think is true to the Scriptures. And the fact that it may be "new" does not make it incorrect.
I trust that you will agree with me that the Scriptures, and not traditional interpretations of them, are the final authority. -
22Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
1 Pet 2.21-23 -
If I am full of virus for disease X, does this necessitate that I manifest the symptoms of disease X? No, it does not.
I have never stated or implied that Jesus was sinful in the sense of committing sin. I have instead been arguing that sin is a "force" or power that was "lured" into the flesh of Jesus and then condemned on the cross. This is something entirely different. -
1. Jesus "knew no sin"
2. Jesus took on sin (imputation of sin)
3. We are able through this to take on his righteousness (imputation of righteousness)
Just as men are not righteous when they trust God, but righteousness is imputed to them, so in the atonement, sin was imputed to Christ. Having righteousness imputed to us is a legal declaration; we are not actually made righteous (though through sanctification we can take on more Christly qualites). God sees those who have faith in Christ as righteous; we are justified.
And so Jesus was not actually sinful when our sins were imputed to him - i.e., our sins laid on Him at the cross, and He suffered the penalty for our sins. -
20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it
Paul draws an important distinction between himself and sin. You have said that is our nature. I agree that we have a fallen nature. But the world Paul describes is more complicated. Let's be faithful to what Paul actually writes here. He says "it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin..."
This cannot work with the position that the only force at work here is our fallen nature. If that were the case, Paul would not draw such a clear distinction between the "I" - which we all agree is fallen - and sin, which he clearly sees as a force or power of its own right. -
Paul is talking about the weakness of his flesh - how he succumbs to sin even against his will. We are captive to sin (our sin nature - our tendency to sin) and in bondage to it before we are freed in Christ. I can post verses that say this if necessary, but am in sort of a rush now.
We are faithful to what Paul says here by comparing it with other scripture - and it is clear that he is referring to his sinful nature, not to a force. -
In addition to what Marcia said about sin not being a personal entity--I agree with her, I would need to see some support for the idea that sin was "lured" to Jesus or in some way tricked into residing in him. -
Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
Paul is clear - he blames sin, not himself.
I think that Paul shows through his writings that he chooses his words with great care. Why would he clearly set such a strong distinction between "I" and "sin" if he felt that the only player involved was his sinful nature?
I think you might be right if Paul is speaking somewhat metaphorically and loosely - that he uses the notion of a "personal power of sin" as a metaphor for his own fallen nature. That is, of course, a possiblity. But a non-metaphorical reading has Paul clearly absolving himself of blame and blaming sin "living in him".
Perhaps this distinction is not critical to what I think is the most interesting points about the atonement which I think are these:
1. Jesus' act on the cross is directly connected to Israel's history. Its not that God does one thing with Israel and another with Jesus. Israel is God's means for dealing with sin.
2. Torah is given to Israel to make her even more sinful. I have not yet made arguments for this but I will;
3. Israel ultimately cannot fulfll her role. The sin that has built up in Israel is "transferred" to her representative Messiah who, alone, deals with sin. Israel has played the role of being the place where the sin of the world is concentrated. It is finally concentrated to a point in Jesus.
Perhaps sin needn't be a "power" or "force", per se, to work with the above scheme that I think has strong Biblical support. -
Back later -
At no time in all of eternity did Christ ever give up his divinity.
He was God from all eternity, is God, and always will be God.
He was God in the womb--during the full nine month pregnancy, he was God.
However he was fully man at the same time.
He was fully God and fully man at the same time.
Thus the virgin birth was necessary to accomplish this feat and still have a sinless God/man.
God came down from heaven. Christ is the second person of the trinity. In Him all the fulness of the Godhead dwells. How can there be any sin dwelling in God. The Bible specifically says that there is nothing that defiles that can enter into heaven--nothing. There is nothing that defiles in Christ, who is God. Christ is God. God cannot have sin, or else he is not God. To say that sin resides in
Christ is to say that he is less than God. God does not have sin. -
HP: Seem you appear to be so adamant with your Amen’s, may I ask you as to where you receive your information from? Where does Scripture or reason tell us that Christ ‘was born of a virgin was to avoid the sinfulness of man?’ Show us the passage that supports such a conclusion. -
I agree, Christ was fully human, thanks to the Virgin Mary and was fully God, but where we disconnect iss that you seem to think or imply that the man passes on the "sin nature", I don't buy it.
I believe that Christ was born "fully" human in every way that you and I are human. He was tempted in every way possible, just as you and I are, ONLY difference between Christ and the two of us is that Christ has a second nature...His Divinity. Do you understand what I'm saying?
Christ was human...HUMAN...If Christ couldn't sin, then WHY did the Devil even attempt to tempt Him? Christ couldn't sin, only because His humanity perfectly and wholly, submitted to His Divinity.
That's why Christ didn't sin and remained sinless. Christ submitted perfectly to His Divinity.
And this isn't funny business DHK, God didn't need a Virgin to be born sinless. God could've clothed His Son in Human flesh and sent Him a grown man on an ass into Jerusalem, but he chose a Virgin, not to be sinless, but to identify with His fallen creation.
In XC
- -
HP: I believe what you say is in essence truth. :thumbs:
Where I might find exception is in the comment stating why He ‘could not’ sin. If He ‘could not’ have sinned, then temptation is a chimera and He could not have been tempted. I am not certain if we agree or disagree on this point.
-
No one understands this passage to refer to sin as a force. No church fathers, scholars, no one in church history in the past or present, no Greek experts, etc. have ever taken this passage to support a view that sin is a force. And since other scripture also goes against that view as well, the burden is on you to show such a unique reading, and you will need other scripture to support the view that sin is a force.
But you won't find it because such a view is against a biblical worldview. Dealing with this issue is one of the areas of my ministry since I deal with occult issues, and it is an occult view to see evil as a force, not a Christian one. Evil and sin come from the nature and behavior of men. Read Romans 5.
-
HP: I might put it this way. Evil and sin are pronouncements or judgments of God on certain formed intents and subsequent actions of selfishness as opposed to benevolence. -
In the Orthodox Church we Christians are called to, at least attempt (though we fail), to attain this and we call this process Theosis. The Desert Fathers write extensively about Theosis in the Philokalia (I think you would really enjoy these collections of writings and I'd highly recommend these). The Protestant Church would call Theosis, becoming more Christ like.
In XC
- -
HP: Certainly we are trying to understand that which we could only hope to see through a glass darkly in this world, but it would seem to me that Christ had to accept His position as God by faith.
One thing that bothers me is that some on the list confuse absolute knowledge with faith or carelessly treat them as synonymous. I see a world of difference between the two, without which no clear understanding of either is possible. -
Christ is God. He is God incarnate--God come in the flesh:
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
--Christ is God. Christ is the Word. The Word became flesh. The Word is the second person of the triune Godhead. He is our Creator.
John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
You say: "Christ had to accept his position as God by fiath.
That is nonsense. He always God, and never forsook his divinity.
Look at what Paul says:
Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
Faith comes by hearing or learning the Word.
Christ is the Word. Must he learn of Himself, have faith in himself??
What exactly are you saying? Whatever, it makes no sense.
Christ never ceased from being God. He always was, is and always will be.
Page 3 of 9