|
Post by prespilot68 on Aug 28, 2007 22:58:34 GMT -5
Again, prespilot, babies are not born "with" sin, they are born "in Adam". Are you telling us Christ was also born in Adam? Christ, according to Scripture, was born "In God". Dan - again its your proof text you need to defend your position. I am asking you to harmonize your proof text with these scriptures as they seem not to harmonize.
|
|
|
Post by Jesse Morrell on Aug 28, 2007 23:01:18 GMT -5
Yes the foundation of TULIP is the T! Admit the T and you must admit the ULIP, deny the T and you must deny the ULIP.
If you admit "Total depravity" as meaning total inability then it follows that:
Unconditional Election:
- If someone is converted it must be soley the work of God since freewill was lost
Limited Atonement:
- If everyone who is saved is saved by force, yet God does not force everyone, then God must not want everyone, so Christ would not need to die for everyone
Irresistable Grace
- If freewill was lost at the fall, and everyone who is saved is saved by the omnipotent force of God, then His grace must be irresistable
Perseverence of the Saints
- Once Saved Always Saved must be true if all of the above is true.
Theology is systematic. One doctrine leads to another doctrine.
Augustine invented an entire system of theology, inventing all 5 points of Calvinism, to combat the teachings of Pelagius, who taught that we could live morally perfect because of freewill.
The whole debate originated in the debate of whether or not we can live free from sin. Pelagius said yes because we have freewill. Augustine said no because we lost our freewill.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Aug 29, 2007 7:32:27 GMT -5
Ok, I've got one more question to slip in... What verse(s) are you referring to?
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Aug 29, 2007 8:27:03 GMT -5
In the NASB concordance that I have on my computer, "sin offering" is only found in the O.T. I did find Romans 8:3,4 though:
"For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."
2 Corinthians 5:21 says, "He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him."
-So what does it mean to "be sin on our behalf"? Does it mean that Christ literally became a sinner? Maybe that is why Christ said, on the Cross, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" Is that in reference to Christ being a sinner and God turning His back on Him? I've heard preachers preach that before...particularly Calvinistic ones. Or does it mean that Christ took sin "out of the camp", per say, as the scapegoats did in the O.T.?
Hebrews 9:28 says, "so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him."
-Same questions for this verse. What does it mean to "bear the sins"? Does it mean He actually became a "sinner" (which I cannot find in reference to Christ at all in the Bible) or that He took "sin" upon Himself?
This is what my Word Studies in the N.T. book said:
Made to be sin (hamartion, heipoisen). Compare a curse, Gal. 3:13. Not a sin-offering, nor a sinner, but the representative of sin. On Him, representatively, fell the collective consequence of sin, in His enduring “the contradiction of sinners against Himself” (Heb. 12:3), in His agony in the garden, and in His death on the cross.
Concerning "sin offering" in the O.T., I looked at the Septuagint and it is a different word altogether then the one found in 2 Corinthians 5:21. The Greek Word translated as "sin offering" in the O.T. is thusiastearion. That is totally different from hamartion.
Maybe Jesse is referring to something else though...
|
|
|
Post by pentecostalpower on Aug 29, 2007 9:22:43 GMT -5
RevK said: This is what my Word Studies in the N.T. book said: Made to be sin (hamartion, heipoisen). Compare a curse, Gal. 3:13. Not a sin-offering, nor a sinner, but the representative of sin. On Him, representatively, fell the collective consequence of sin, in His enduring “the contradiction of sinners against Himself” (Heb. 12:3), in His agony in the garden, and in His death on the cross.
Jesse, here RevK supplied the actual meaning while you only "said" that it meant differently without actually providing any references... yuo gave only what you thought and were taught, without consulting the actual verses.
I believe Christ was both a sin offering as well as becoming sin, without becoming a sinner, exactly as the Scriptural references clearly show.
RevK, thank you for posting; Praise God that we don't need to change the meaning of Scripture!
Christ did in fact become sin, though He never became a sinner, just as Scripture shows.
Amen!
Here are further references to 2 Corinthians 5:21
"sin--not a sin offering, which would destroy the antithesis to "righteousness," and would make "sin" be used in different senses in the same sentence: not a sinful person, which would be untrue, and would require in the antithesis "righteous men," not "righteousness"; but "sin," that is, the representative Sin-bearer (vicariously) of the aggregate sin of all men past, present, and future. The sin of the world is one, therefore the singular, not the plural, is used; though its manifestations are manifold (John 1:29). "Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the SIN of the world." Compare "made a curse for us," Galatians 3:13." (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary)
"He made to be sin (amartian epoihsen). The words "to be" are not in the Greek. "Sin" here is the substantive, not the verb. God "treated as sin" the one "who knew no sin."" (Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament)
|
|
|
Post by joem on Aug 29, 2007 9:55:12 GMT -5
Prosphora 1) the act of offering, a bringing to 2) that which is offered, a gift, a present. In the NT a sacrifice, whether bloody or not: offering for sin, expiatory offering
thysia 1) a sacrifice, victim
anaphero 1) to carry or bring up, to lead up a) men to a higher place 2) to put upon the altar, to bring to the altar, to offer 3) to lift up one's self, to take upon one's self a) to place on one's self anything as a load to be carried b) to sustain, i.e. their punishment
Eph 5:2 And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour.
Hebrews 9:26-28 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was once offered (prosphero) to bear (anaphero) the sins (hamartia) of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.
Jesus, our high priest, carries the burden of our sin into the presence of God, with His own blood as the offering/gift to make atonement for our sin. When Jesus returns or emerges from the presence of God, his hands are no longer bearing the burden of our sin as restitution has been made with God by His intercession.
A good Leviticus study followed by a fresh look at Hebrews will help us to understand the "was made sin who knew no sin" passage in proper context. After all, if Jesus became sin in the sense of becoming guilty of the cumulative sins of the world, he could not be a high priest nor an acceptable sacrifice. The picture we are given is one of a sinless high priest going into the presence of God with His own blood as a sacrifice to atone for the sins of His people and emerging at the end, successfully having made atonement for their sins. Jesus remains in the presence of God the Father, serving as our High Priest even today, making intercession on our behalf as we continually commune with Him. Confession and repentance are the means we give our sin to Christ to be atoned for and our faithfulness to Him is met with the promise of His intercessory work on our behalf.
Grace and Peace, Joe
|
|
|
Post by pentecostalpower on Aug 29, 2007 9:59:26 GMT -5
Joem, the reference in 2 Cor of Christ becoming sin is shown to be the case above, as the reference is to that verse specifically and was commentated on by the above renowned commentators; your post above doesn't add up in light of 2 Cor 5 unless Jesus became both sin and a sin offering without ever, in either instance, becoming a sinner.
|
|
|
Post by Kerrigan on Aug 29, 2007 10:02:40 GMT -5
That's good stuff Joe...not to get off topic...but with all of what you just posted in mind, was Christ then not someone who's God's Wrath or judgment fell upon on the Cross? If you remember the thread on the atonement a while back...has your view changed at all since then? I am still on the Ransom Theory personally...
|
|
|
Post by joem on Aug 29, 2007 10:29:30 GMT -5
Joem, the reference in 2 Cor of Christ becoming sin is shown to be the case above, as the reference is to that verse specifically and was commentated on by the above renowned commentators; your post above doesn't add up in light of 2 Cor 5 unless Jesus became both sin and a sin offering without ever, in either instance, becoming a sinn er. Dan, The question is, "In what sense did Jesus become sin?" He did not cease being a man and become and action, nor did He cease being God and become a sinner, so He had to retain His identity as God and as man all the while becoming "sin" in the context of making atonement. Unless someone can show me how Jesus ceased being God, ceased being a man, ceased being any sort of personal being and was remade into an action without shape or form, I have to believe that 2 Cor is referring to Christ taking on the responsibility of dealing with sin, both as High Priest and as the sin offering. You really got me rethinking my position on the atonement in that thread. It is hard to deny the basic concept of the ransom theory, however it is the one to whom the ransom is being paid that I currently differ from the traditional RT position. I am still studying it all though. Grace and Peace, Joe
|
|
|
Post by pentecostalpower on Aug 29, 2007 11:33:54 GMT -5
Joem, the reference in 2 Cor of Christ becoming sin is shown to be the case above, as the reference is to that verse specifically and was commentated on by the above renowned commentators; your post above doesn't add up in light of 2 Cor 5 unless Jesus became both sin and a sin offering without ever, in either instance, becoming a sinn er. Dan, The question is, "In what sense did Jesus become sin?" He did not cease being a man and become and action, nor did He cease being God and become a sinner, so He had to retain His identity as God and as man all the while becoming "sin" in the context of making atonement. Unless someone can show me how Jesus ceased being God, ceased being a man, ceased being any sort of personal being and was remade into an action without shape or form, I have to believe that 2 Cor is referring to Christ taking on the responsibility of dealing with sin, both as High Priest and as the sin offering. You really got me rethinking my position on the atonement in that thread. It is hard to deny the basic concept of the ransom theory, however it is the one to whom the ransom is being paid that I currently differ from the traditional RT position. I am still studying it all though. Grace and Peace, Joe Who am I to believe? 1- Your interpretation, which lacks Scriptural validation or reference and is only partially true (He did, as you say and as Scripture bears out, become a sin offering; however, it also states He became sin, which you are denying in light of the very meaning of 2 Cor 5:21) 2- The actual meaning of 2 Cor 5:21, which interprets itself Brother, you have asked for Scripture from others, and now I ask the same of you, dear Friend. The meaning of 2 Cor 5:21 "sin-- not a sin offering, which would destroy the antithesis to "righteousness," and would make "sin" be used in different senses in the same sentence: not a sinful person, which would be untrue, and would require in the antithesis "righteous men," not "righteousness"; but "sin," that is, the representative Sin-bearer (vicariously) of the aggregate sin of all men past, present, and future. The sin of the world is one, therefore the singular, not the plural, is used; though its manifestations are manifold (John 1:29). "Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the SIN of the world." Compare "made a curse for us," Galatians 3:13." (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary) "He made to be sin (amartian epoihsen). The words "to be" are not in the Greek. "Sin" here is the substantive, not the verb. God "treated as sin" the one "who knew no sin."" (Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament)
|
|
|
Post by joem on Aug 29, 2007 12:53:37 GMT -5
2Cor 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling (Katallassô ) the world unto himself, not imputing (Logizomai) their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech [you] by us: we pray [you] in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled (katallassô) to God.
Katallassô translated reconcile 1) to change, exchange, as coins for others of equivalent value a) to reconcile (those who are at variance) b) return to favour with, be reconciled to one c) to receive one into favour
Logizomai translated impute 1) to reckon, count, compute, calculate, count over a) to take into account, to make an account of 1) metaph. to pass to one's account, to impute 2) a thing is reckoned as or to be something, i.e. as availing for or equivalent to something, as having the like force and weight b) to number among, reckon with c) to reckon or account 2) to reckon inward, count up or weigh the reasons, to deliberate 3) by reckoning up all the reasons, to gather or infer a) to consider, take into account, weigh, meditate on b) to suppose, deem, judge c) to determine, purpose, decide
This is the context of 2Cor 5:21. I am not denying the text of that verse, I am simply stating that as all other verses we read, it must be placed in proper context. If I said that Peter isn't a man, but a rock, because Jesus said so, I would be taking His words out of context. How do I know Peter wasn't a rock? Because he was a man, not an inanimate object. Was Jesus lying when He said Peter was a rock? No, He was illustrating a point. In the same way, Jesus could not take on the form of something that is formless, such as an action or cumulative lot of sins, and we must therefor seek proper context in order to understand what Paul was trying to convey.
Grace and Peace, Joe
|
|
|
Post by pentecostalpower on Aug 29, 2007 12:58:41 GMT -5
You still, Joem, havenot answered the 2 Cor 5:21 commentary:
Are you saying Christ was not made sin?
Are you saying he was made both a sin offering and sin?
The meaning of 2 Cor 5:21 (commentary you did not yet address) :
"sin--not a sin offering, which would destroy the antithesis to "righteousness," and would make "sin" be used in different senses in the same sentence: not a sinful person, which would be untrue, and would require in the antithesis "righteous men," not "righteousness"; but "sin," that is, the representative Sin-bearer (vicariously) of the aggregate sin of all men past, present, and future. The sin of the world is one, therefore the singular, not the plural, is used; though its manifestations are manifold (John 1:29). "Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the SIN of the world." Compare "made a curse for us," Galatians 3:13." (Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary)
"He made to be sin (amartian epoihsen). The words "to be" are not in the Greek. "Sin" here is the substantive, not the verb. God "treated as sin" the one "who knew no sin."" (Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament)
|
|
|
Post by pentecostalpower on Aug 29, 2007 13:03:41 GMT -5
Joem: Jesus could not take on the form of something that is formless, such as an action or cumulative lot of sins, and we must therefor seek proper context in order to understand what Paul was trying to convey.
Response: God is Spirit and is, in essence, "formless" in the natural realm, and Jesus Christ is the express image of the invisible God, and thus in fact took on the "formless".
Again, the second part of the commentary states the meaning of the word sin in 2 Cor 5:21 : "Sin" here is the substantive, not the verb.
hence, Scripture here clearly teaches sin is not only "an action" (verb) as you say it means.
Sin is also substantive, as the word plainly states in 2 Cor 5:21.
How do you reconcile your doctrine with this, Joem?
|
|
|
Post by joem on Aug 29, 2007 13:25:55 GMT -5
I thought we had covered this pretty well already, but we seem to have regressed.
This is exactly what I have been stating throughout this thread. Sin-bearer is not the same as "sin" yet it is "sin-bearer" that is implied in the verse. If I say, "I repented of my sin" that is far different than saying " I repented of my sin bearer", however the word "sin" in the context that it is being used in vs. 21 is that of sin-bearer and sin-offering.
Again an interpretation that requires words to be added to sin in order to place "sin" in context. I could argue that these commentaries are adding words to scripture because the text doesn't say "treated as sin", which is what I have been accused of doing. I am applying the same methods of interpretation these commentators have used.
I am saying as clearly as I possibly know how, Jesus was made both the sin-bearer and the sin-offering, but never bore any sin of His own as our sin was not made to be His transgression. Jesus bore the burden of our sin, yet He was not made a transgression nor a transgressor.
Grace and Peace, Joe
|
|
|
Post by pentecostalpower on Aug 29, 2007 13:29:01 GMT -5
Joem, I agree that Jesus did (edit) not become a transgression, which is a sin-action.
However, the Greek here states that this word "sin" in 2 Cor 5:21 is not a sin-action/verb but is substantive.
Paul the Apostle specifically inserted the substantive rather than the verb; why do you suppose this is?
|
|
|
Post by pentecostalpower on Aug 29, 2007 13:39:30 GMT -5
ps: above, I meant to say I agree Jesus did NOT become a Transgression.
|
|
|
Post by joem on Aug 29, 2007 13:42:04 GMT -5
God is a being, not an action, and took on the form of man. I can show you the form of man, but can you show me the form of sin? Unless you intend to imply that Jesus (who this verse is speaking of) was not fully human as He suffered and died on the cross, then your contention falters.
In order to show us that Jesus was in fact a sin-bearer and sin-offering which are both of substance and were shown throughout the OT as a shadow of the redemption to come. It was sacrificial language that every first century Jew would understand as sin would immediately bring to mind the sacrifices made for atonement.
Grace and Peace, Joe
(edit double ending)
|
|
|
Post by pentecostalpower on Aug 29, 2007 13:56:32 GMT -5
The substantive word for sin, however, shows sin is not simply an action.
Otherwise, if sin were only an action, and not substantive, only one word could be used for sin.... however, we see this is not the case, as Paul the Apostle lays out so wonderfully to the Corinthians.
Why do you suppose Scripture shows sin as more than only an action?
|
|
|
Post by pentecostalpower on Aug 29, 2007 14:05:46 GMT -5
I need to make a post here on my original thoughts of Christ becoming sin without becoming a sinner.
I want to retract the statement that Christ became sin at all and will agree that He became a sin-bearer and sin offering but never did He become sin.
I have been prompted by the Holy Spirit to refuse to renounce my initial interpretation of 2 Cor 5:21.
Christ did not become sin, as the text states, but a sin offering, as Scripture and the OT Sacrifical System show clearly.
When I initially came to the conclusion to accept the 2 Cor 5:21 verse without consulting other Scriptures, I was convicted by the Holy Spirit that this was error.
So, I would agree that Christ Jesus became a sin bearer and sin offering but did not become sin.
Be it noted, though, that I have never believed Christ became a Transgression or a sin or a sinner as WOF proponents and others do, which is heresy.
|
|
|
Post by pentecostalpower on Aug 29, 2007 14:11:42 GMT -5
Joem I would look forward to a reply on my previous post:
The substantive word for sin, however, shows sin is not simply an action.
Otherwise, if sin were only an action, and not substantive, only one word could be used for sin.... however, we see this is not the case, as Paul the Apostle lays out so wonderfully to the Corinthians.
Why do you suppose Scripture shows sin as more than only an action?
|
|
|
Post by joem on Aug 29, 2007 14:35:57 GMT -5
The substantive word for sin, however, shows sin is not simply an action. Otherwise, if sin were only an action, and not substantive, only one word could be used for sin.... however, we see this is not the case, as Paul the Apostle lays out so wonderfully to the Corinthians. Why do you suppose Scripture shows sin as more than only an action? Most words in the Greek can take on multiple forms and tenses. The form and tense does not change the definition of the word, only the context in which the definition is to be understood and applied. We do the same thing in the English language. Often times the Greek forms indicate the words that the word is relating to within a particular passage and has little to do with the word itself. Greek is hard. Grace and Peace, Joe
|
|
|
Post by joem on Aug 29, 2007 14:44:29 GMT -5
I need to make a post here on my original thoughts of Christ becoming sin without becoming a sinn er. I want to retract the statement that Christ became sin at all and will agree that He became a sin-bearer and sin offering but never did He become sin. I have been prompted by the Holy Spirit to refuse to renounce my initial interpretation of 2 Cor 5:21. Christ did not become sin, as the text states, but a sin offering, as Scripture and the OT Sacrifical System show clearly. When I initially came to the conclusion to accept the 2 Cor 5:21 verse without consulting other Scriptures, I was convicted by the Holy Spirit that this was error. So, I would agree that Christ Jesus became a sin bearer and sin offering but did not become sin. Be it noted, though, that I have never believed Christ became a Transgression or a sin or a sinner as WOF proponents and others do, which is heresy. Praise God! It is always a blessing when God reveals truth or error to us! Grace and Peace, Joe
|
|
|
Post by pentecostalpower on Aug 29, 2007 14:49:10 GMT -5
Lately, the Lord has been quick to correct me on issues without my needing to wait years to learn that I was wrong.... so I want to be quick to publically say I am wrong when I'm wrong, as if I don't, and only try to "save face", then God will no longer be quick to expose error in my theology, if at all. So I want to be quick to repent (turn from) any error the Lord reveals to me.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Parsley on Aug 29, 2007 15:02:52 GMT -5
I don't understand what you are saying. Sin is a noun, not a verb in that sentence. Nouns don't have tenses.
I vote we move this to another thread. I would like to discuss the atonement again, but not here.
|
|
|
Post by joem on Aug 29, 2007 20:47:17 GMT -5
I don't understand what you are saying. Sin is a noun, not a verb in that sentence. Nouns don't have tenses. I vote we move this to another thread. I would like to discuss the atonement again, but not here. Your right, sin is a noun in this passage and in every other passage that I know of. I was speaking more of the individual transgressions that bring us into the condition of being found in sin. I think that we need to define sin so we are all sure what everyone is referring to. There are too many overlapping conversations taking place here, so I started another thread. Hopefully I can better explain myself there. Grace and Peace, Joe
|
|