What is saving faith?

[Dr. Walter]

Greetings again Dr. Walter, The Passover and the sacrifices under the Law of Moses, the Sin Offering, Trespass Offering, Burnt Offering and Peace Offering all pointed forward to Christ and his redeeming work. I do not see how any of these sacrifices and offerings were substitutionary, as each person had to identify with the offering, and hence look forward in faith to Jesus. This teaches me that the offering and sacrifice of Christ is representative.

This is simply not true! Look at the greatests types of the cross in the Old Testament - the offering up of Isaac by Abraham. God provided a SUBSTITUTE for Isaac NOT MERELY A REPRESENTATIVE. Look at Exodush 13:13 and the passover lamb IN THE PLACE OF the firstborn Son in Egypt. God provided a SUBSTITUTE not merely a representative. There is no way you can construe these types as MERELY representative. Indeed, the very nature of a SUBSTITUTE is to act as the persons representative but it not MERELY representation but actual substitution.

These were not simply representative but were clearly and undeniably SUBSTITUTIONARY!

To punish the innocent and let the offender go free is not justice or righteousness.

That is simply not true! Substitution IS REPRESENTATION in the greatest sense of the word but not MERELY representation. Indeed, the voluntary SUBSTITUTION of Christ IN BEHALF of the sinner is the greatest expression of love the world has ever known and there is absolutely no injustice as the substitution was VOLUNTARY.

In a court of law it is the LAWYER that represents the accused and the LAWYER's personal righteousness HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GUILT OR INNOCENSE OR WITH THE PUNISHMENT!

You talk about INJUSTICE! Any judge in any court in America in the world that justified an accused on the basis of His REPRESENTATIVE would be laughed to scorn and kicked off the bench. Only if the representative STOOD IN THE PLACE of the accused could the guilt or righteousness of the representative provide an object of judgment or justification.

Christ did not act as our LAWYER but TOOK OUR SINS UPON HIMSELF not merely as our representative but as our substitute.

2 Cor. 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

As a result of Adam’s sin all his descendants also die, on the principle that like begets like, and God is vindicated in this because mankind sins.

Absolutely false! "ALL SINNED" as they were actually IN ADAM just as Levi paid tithes IN ABRAHAM's loins when he paid tithes to Melchisadek. Adam was more than a mere representative of the human race he was the human race in its totality and every human being that would ever live was genetically, seminally IN ADAM when Adam sinned.

Jesus, as a member of the human race, voluntarily submitted to suffering and death in acknowledgement of the sentence upon Adam that flowed through to his descendants. But Jesus did no sin, and therefore God raised him from the dead.

Look at your own reasoning!! On one hand you claim that Jesus could not act as a SUBSTITUTE because that would be unjust and then on the other hand you claim he "voluntarily submitted" to suffering and death that justice would deny he deserved! Your speaking out of both sides of your mouth but I don't think you realize it!

God through Jesus established a new basis,

Totally false! God did not establish a "new basis" but acted in accord with the "everlasting covenant" (Heb. 13:20) that was signified through SUBSTITIONARY sacrifices from the foundation of the world.

The KJV of Romans 4 translates the same word S#3049 as counted, reckoned and imputeth, while the RV uses reckon. It speaks that when Abraham had faith in God concerning the promise concerning his seed, that God counted, reckoned or imputed that faith for righteousness. This does not teach a substitutionary view, but that God was willing to forgive Abraham his past sins, and justify him on the basis of that quality of faith which Abraham now held.

Totally wrong again! Galatians 3:6-8 tells us that the object of his faith was the gospel or the good news of a promised seed that would come through his own loins. The same promised seed in Genesis 3:15 which Adam and Eve believed in and Abel believed in. Galatians 3:17 tells us clearly that Abraham was "in Christ" by faith 430 years before the law was given.

Therefore it had NOTHING to do with "the quality of His faith" but with the OBJECT of His faith, the object that is presented in the clearest SUBSTITUTIONARY and REPRESENTATIVE way possible when God provided Abraham a SUBSTIUTE ram on Mount Moriah to REPRESENT His Son Isaac instead of killing Isaac.

Salvation is by faith, not a legal transaction that undermines the righteousness of God.

I am sorry, but you have absolutely no concept of the truth in this matter. Salvation/justification is NOT "by" the QUALITY of Faith or mere identification with man BUT by faith "IN" the good news that Jesus died "FOR" the sinner to SATISFY the righteous wrath of God against the sinner and the good news that Christ's righteousness is imputed to the sinner to SATISFY the righteous demands of God to enter heaven as this is the only way that God can justify the "UNGODLY" without works (Rom. 4:5-6).

You are denying the very heart and soul of the gospel as the gospel is not MERELY about representation but about actual SATISFACTION of God's Law in the Person of Jesus Christ as a LEGAL SUBSTITUTIONARY REPRESENTATIVE.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Dr. Walter,

This is simply not true! Look at the greatest types of the cross in the Old Testament - the offering up of Isaac by Abraham. God provided a SUBSTITUTE for Isaac NOT MERELY A REPRESENTATIVE. Look at Exodus 13:13 and the passover lamb IN THE PLACE OF the firstborn Son in Egypt. God provided a SUBSTITUTE not merely a representative. There is no way you can construe these types as MERELY representative. Indeed, the very nature of a SUBSTITUTE is to act as the persons representative but it not MERELY representation but actual substitution.

These were not simply representative but were clearly and undeniably SUBSTITUTIONARY!

I am a little confused as to what you really believe concerning the word “substitutionary”. How do you apply this word to the offering up of Isaac by Abraham? I agree that Isaac did not die, and God provided a ram caught in the thicket, and this ram would have been killed, and was used as the offering.

Firstly note that Abraham was asked to offer up Isaac as a burnt offering:
Genesis 22:2 (KJV): And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
Do you apply the idea of substitution to the lessons of the burnt offering? It is not a sin or trespass offering. Perhaps one definition of the lesson behind the burnt offering is given in:
Mark 12:28-33 (KJV): 28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? 29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: 30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. 31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. 32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: 33 And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
Jesus is the only one who is fully the burnt offering, the only one to fully love God with all his heart, understanding and soul and his neighbour as himself. But Jesus did not dedicate himself instead of us, but we must also respond in love to God and neighbour. I do not understand how you can construe the burnt offering as substitutionary.

We are commanded to love after the example of Jesus:
John 15:9-14 (KJV): 9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. 10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love. 11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. 12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. 13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. 14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

Abraham and Isaac typically enacted the roles of the Father and Jesus in Jesus’ burnt offering, which not only speaks of his death and resurrection, but revealed his love for God and neighbour in his life of dedication and his pouring out this life unto death. Again in all of this I would use the word representation, and I do not understand how Jesus is substituted here instead of us.

Also with the Passover Lamb, I do not see that the lamb simply died instead of the firstborn dying. Jesus our Passover has been offered. The lesson is not that he died so that we do not die, but he set the example that we must follow, of putting to death the things of the flesh and living by faith in Christ.

Jesus connects his impending death with the need for his disciples to also put to death the things of this life:
John 12:24-25 (KJV): 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. 25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
Jesus’ death was not so that we do not die. Jesus died to show the way for us to follow.

TrevorL: To punish the innocent and let the offender go free is not justice or righteousness.

That is simply not true! Substitution IS REPRESENTATION in the greatest sense of the word but not MERELY representation. Indeed, the voluntary SUBSTITUTION of Christ IN BEHALF of the sinner is the greatest expression of love the world has ever known and there is absolutely no injustice as the substitution was VOLUNTARY.

In a court of law it is the LAWYER that represents the accused and the LAWYER's personal righteousness HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GUILT OR INNOCENSE OR WITH THE PUNISHMENT!

You talk about INJUSTICE! Any judge in any court in America in the world that justified an accused on the basis of His REPRESENTATIVE would be laughed to scorn and kicked off the bench. Only if the representative STOOD IN THE PLACE of the accused could the guilt or righteousness of the representative provide an object of judgment or justification.

Christ did not act as our LAWYER but TOOK OUR SINS UPON HIMSELF not merely as our representative but as our substitute.

2 Cor. 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

I do not understand your use of the figure of a lawyer. It was Jesus himself who was being judged by Pilate and Caiaphas, by the Romans and the Jews. Jesus was being tried, and was condemned to death, but God vindicated Jesus by raising him from the dead. We are only involved in this in a secondary sense, in that if we believe in what Jesus firstly accomplished within himself in his dedication and love of God and neighbour, then God will accept us and forgive us our sins.

Absolutely false! "ALL SINNED" as they were actually IN ADAM just as Levi paid tithes IN ABRAHAM's loins when he paid tithes to Melchisadek. Adam was more than a mere representative of the human race he was the human race in its totality and every human being that would ever live was genetically, seminally IN ADAM when Adam sinned.

Jesus is a descendant of Adam, and your formula fails here. I do not believe in the “immaculate conception” taught by the Catholic Church. Jesus and ourselves receive the effects of Adam’s transgression, not the guilt. A son is not guilty for the father’s sin.

Look at your own reasoning!! On one hand you claim that Jesus could not act as a SUBSTITUTE because that would be unjust and then on the other hand you claim he "voluntarily submitted" to suffering and death that justice would deny he deserved! Your speaking out of both sides of your mouth but I don't think you realize it!

He submitted to suffering and death in acknowledgement of the fact that God had placed these upon the descendants of Adam. Consider the death of Abel, the sufferings of Joseph and Job. Was God unjust in allowing these to happen?

Totally false! God did not establish a "new basis" but acted in accord with the "everlasting covenant" (Heb. 13:20) that was signified through SUBSTITIONARY sacrifices from the foundation of the world.

The covenants of promise were established with Eve, Abraham and David, but they were not brought into effective force until the death and resurrection of Jesus.

I am sorry, but you have absolutely no concept of the truth in this matter. Salvation/justification is NOT "by" the QUALITY of Faith or mere identification with man BUT by faith "IN" the good news that Jesus died "FOR" the sinner to SATISFY the righteous wrath of God against the sinner and the good news that Christ's righteousness is imputed to the sinner to SATISFY the righteous demands of God to enter heaven as this is the only way that God can justify the "UNGODLY" without works (Rom. 4:5-6).

You are denying the very heart and soul of the gospel as the gospel is not MERELY about representation but about actual SATISFACTION of God's Law in the Person of Jesus Christ as a LEGAL SUBSTITUTIONARY REPRESENTATIVE.

I agree that “quality of faith” could be better expressed. People believe many things, but these may not be a saving faith. God endorsed the faith of Abraham in Genesis 15:6 as a saving faith. Could I use faith in the true gospel, the whole gospel, the gospel of the kingdom of God and the name Jesus as expressed in Acts 8:5,12, and spoken about in Galatians and Romans. I cannot accept that the Father exercised wrath against Jesus in his sacrifice, or that Jesus took upon himself the wrath of God instead of us. God’s love towards Jesus was sustained at all times, as was also Jesus’ love for the Father. Did God exercise wrath against Joseph and Job in their sufferings?

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Dr. Walter]

Greetings again Dr. Walter, I am a little confused as to what you really believe concerning the word “substitutionary”. How do you apply this word to the offering up of Isaac by Abraham? I agree that Isaac did not die, and God provided a ram caught in the thicket, and this ram would have been killed, and was used as the offering.

Firstly note that Abraham was asked to offer up Isaac as a burnt offering:
Genesis 22:2 (KJV): And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
Do you apply the idea of substitution to the lessons of the burnt offering? It is not a sin or trespass offering. Perhaps one definition of the lesson behind the burnt offering is given in:
Mark 12:28-33 (KJV): 28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? 29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: 30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. 31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. 32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: 33 And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
Jesus is the only one who is fully the burnt offering, the only one to fully love God with all his heart, understanding and soul and his neighbour as himself. But Jesus did not dedicate himself instead of us, but we must also respond in love to God and neighbour. I do not understand how you can construe the burnt offering as substitutionary.

We are commanded to love after the example of Jesus:
John 15:9-14 (KJV): 9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. 10 If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father’s commandments, and abide in his love. 11 These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full. 12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. 13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. 14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.

Abraham and Isaac typically enacted the roles of the Father and Jesus in Jesus’ burnt offering, which not only speaks of his death and resurrection, but revealed his love for God and neighbour in his life of dedication and his pouring out this life unto death. Again in all of this I would use the word representation, and I do not understand how Jesus is substituted here instead of us.

Also with the Passover Lamb, I do not see that the lamb simply died instead of the firstborn dying. Jesus our Passover has been offered. The lesson is not that he died so that we do not die, but he set the example that we must follow, of putting to death the things of the flesh and living by faith in Christ.

Jesus connects his impending death with the need for his disciples to also put to death the things of this life:
John 12:24-25 (KJV): 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. 25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
Jesus’ death was not so that we do not die. Jesus died to show the way for us to follow.

I do not understand your use of the figure of a lawyer. It was Jesus himself who was being judged by Pilate and Caiaphas, by the Romans and the Jews. Jesus was being tried, and was condemned to death, but God vindicated Jesus by raising him from the dead. We are only involved in this in a secondary sense, in that if we believe in what Jesus firstly accomplished within himself in his dedication and love of God and neighbour, then God will accept us and forgive us our sins.

Jesus is a descendant of Adam, and your formula fails here. I do not believe in the “immaculate conception” taught by the Catholic Church. Jesus and ourselves receive the effects of Adam’s transgression, not the guilt. A son is not guilty for the father’s sin.

He submitted to suffering and death in acknowledgement of the fact that God had placed these upon the descendants of Adam. Consider the death of Abel, the sufferings of Joseph and Job. Was God unjust in allowing these to happen?

The covenants of promise were established with Eve, Abraham and David, but they were not brought into effective force until the death and resurrection of Jesus.

I agree that “quality of faith” could be better expressed. People believe many things, but these may not be a saving faith. God endorsed the faith of Abraham in Genesis 15:6 as a saving faith. Could I use faith in the true gospel, the whole gospel, the gospel of the kingdom of God and the name Jesus as expressed in Acts 8:5,12, and spoken about in Galatians and Romans. I cannot accept that the Father exercised wrath against Jesus in his sacrifice, or that Jesus took upon himself the wrath of God instead of us. God’s love towards Jesus was sustained at all times, as was also Jesus’ love for the Father. Did God exercise wrath against Joseph and Job in their sufferings?

Kind regards
Trevor

I am not ignoring you. I just don't have time to answer your objections right now. My wife has alzheimer's and we are on a regiment that requires an every hour treatment. I promise I will answer your post fully and completely. I have answered SBG's post because I started with him before I did you.

 

[Dr. Walter]

How do you apply this word to the offering up of Isaac by Abraham? I agree that Isaac did not die, and God provided a ram caught in the thicket, and this ram would have been killed, and was used as the offering.

The ram was provided by God to TAKE THE PLACE of Isaac who was already bound and on the altar - that is a SUBSTITUTIONARY SACRIFICE and it is THE TYPE of what God did FOR sinners through Jesus Christ ON Calvary.

Firstly note that Abraham was asked to offer up Isaac as a burnt offering:......Do you apply the idea of substitution to the lessons of the burnt offering? It is not a sin or trespass offering. Perhaps one definition of the lesson behind the burnt offering is given in:

Prior to the Levitical laws of sacrifice, the burnt offering was the ONLY offering offered up between Genesis 4 and Leviticus 1. As seen in the case of Isaac and the ram it was SUBSTITUTIONARY in nature as that is precisely the TYPE displayed upon Mount Morriah.

After the Leviticual institution of sacrifices under Moses the offering was expanded into five basic types of sacrifice but all five typical of Jesus Christ. Only from the Levitical perspective does the "burnt" sacrifice take on a distinctive separate from the other four. Previously, all five where represented in the burnt offering as the burnt offering is inclusive of the other four. It was separated to typify something the other four did not emphaize. However, in all the sacrifices the offering represents Christ IN THE PLACE of the offerer. Hence, it is representative in nature but what it represents is SUBSTITUTION of Christ in the place of the sinner.

The law demands from the sinner a life of ABSOLUTE PERFECTION which is inclusive of ABSOLUTE PERFECT DEVOTION. This is impossible for the sinner to EVER fulfill in his own person. It is fulfilled by Christ before the Law as the LEGAL substitute for the sinner - it is imputed to our account as though we lived that total life of devotion from birth to death. No sinner can EVER in this life measure up to the demands typified in ANY of the offerings no more than they can ever measure up to the life of Christ but that kind of life and death is what is demanded to satisfy God's Law to enter heaven and escape hell.

The lesson is not that he died so that we do not die, but he set the example that we must follow, of putting to death the things of the flesh and living by faith in Christ.

If you really believe you can follow the example of Jesus than you believe you are as good as God! Remember the story of the rich young ruler who wished to follow a GOOD example to obtain eternal life? Jesus said "why callesth thou me good, there is NONE GOOD but one and that is God." God's law does not demand merely doing the best you can. It demands ABSOLUTE FLAWLESS moral perfection as Good as God. That is precisely why Jesus told his disciples they had to have a righteousness that EXCEEDS the best of religious people of the day just to enter heaven (Mt. 5:20) and defined it at the end of that sermon on righteousness to "BE ye therefore PERFECT even as your Father in heaven is perfect" (Mt. 5:46).

Are you as Perfect "even as" the Father in heaven is perfect or have you sinned and "come short of the glory" that alone belongs to God????? Think about that if you are trying to follow an example because the example Jesus provided was SINLESS PERFECTION! Do you see why you need a SUBSTITUTE and not merely an EXAMPLE????

Jesus connects his impending death with the need for his disciples to also put to death the things of this life:
John 12:24-25 (KJV): 24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. 25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
Jesus’ death was not so that we do not die. Jesus died to show the way for us to follow.

My friend you have missed the words of Jesus by a mile. He is not talking about following his example but he is talking about SELF-DENIAL and complete dependency upon the Holy Spirit to live the Christian life. You must put SELF to death by denying it to live your life and submit to the indwelling Spirit of God. However, this text is not talking about how to become a Christian but how a Christian can make his life count for Christ and eternal rewards.

I do not understand your use of the figure of a lawyer.

You are making Christ merely our REPRESENTATIVE before God who is our Judge. That is the place of a Lawyer in a court of law not the place of the accused. You are accused of sin and you are condemned to death because of your sin. The condemned cannot justify himself. The lawyer cannot justify the condemned - only the judge can justify the condemned. Neither can the judge cannot justify the condemned on the basis of the life of the lawyer who represents the accused as the lawyer is not on trial but it is the accused that is on trial. Either the accused must pay the penalty or the law must be satisfied another way outside of the person of the accused. That other way is seen in the ram IN THE PLACE of Isaac.

Jesus is a descendant of Adam, and your formula fails here. I do not believe in the “immaculate conception” taught by the Catholic Church.

The immaculate conception has to do with the birth of Mary not the birth of Jesus. Rome believes that Mary was born without sin. That is false. However, do you believe the virgin birth? That is the doctrine that bypasses the inherent sinful nature passed down through Adam - the father. God was the Father of Jesus and Jesus was born without a sinful nature. He had no dispostion to sin but every human born of Adam is born not only as a sinner in Adam, but with a sinful disposition or born "by nature children of wrath" and "children of disobedience" (Eph. 2:2-3). Not so with the birth of Christ or with the disposition of Christ.

Jesus and ourselves receive the effects of Adam’s transgression, not the guilt.[/QUOTE

Not one solitary scripture in the Bible will support that Jesus Chrsit was born with either the effects or the conclusion of Adam's transgression. If you theory were correct than any lamb would do for sacrifice but the law required a lamb WITHOUT BLEMISH because Christ was WITHOUT SIN, without a sinful disposition, without sin's condemnation, without sin's consequences because the consequences are caused by sin. Like I said, if your theory were correct than any lamb would do but that is not the case is it? The TYPE typifies the antitype and therefore if the type demanded a characteristics that typified SINLESSNESS so must the antitype be sinless. The Bible repeatedly denies that sin could be found in Christ or that he did any sin or that he could be charged with sin. He could have lived forever, it is only his love for his people that he chose to lay down his life.

A son is not guilty for the father’s sin.

That is true! However, it is also true that every son is just as guilty as His faither as neither are less than sinners and born as sinners with a sinful nature and equally so even though they may not equally commit the same amount of sins.

He submitted to suffering and death in acknowledgement of the fact that God had placed these upon the descendants of Adam.

Where in God's Word does it ever say such a thing as "He submitted to suffering and death IN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT of the fact that God had placed these upon the decendents of Adam"???? It does not say any such thing ever. What was placed upon Adam and his descendents was JUST PUNISHMENT FOR SIN. They were condemned to death by the JUST LAW of God. Christ did not die because He JUSTLY deserved to die or that he was condemned under the law to die but ALL MANKIND was! He died in order to PAY their JUST condemnation (Jn. 3:18-19). You do not understand the law of God or sin or salvation in any sense of the Biblical view.

The covenants of promise were established with Eve, Abraham and David, but they were not brought into effective force until the death and resurrection of Jesus.

If that were so, then Abraham could not be set forth as the ROLE MODEL or "father" of all who believe or as the role model for justification but He is in both cases (Rom. 4:11-12; Gal. 3:6-7).

The covenant of redemption is an "everlasting covenant" (heb. 13:20) just as God's Law is an everlasting Law and neither conflict with the other. What happened upon Mount Sinai was the PUBLIC RATIFICATION of the law not the first enactment or implimentation of God's Law. What happened on Calvary was the PUBLIC RATIFICATION but not the first application of it to God's people as Romans 3:19-20 ("all" the world "every" mouth) and Romans 3:25-27 clearly teaches ("sins that are past").

The very same gospel we preach today was preached since the garden of Eden except they looked forward by faith and we look back but they received remission of sins, justification, santification, regeneration and heaven at death just as we do (Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:2; Acts 26:22-23; Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12; Rom. 10:16; etc.).

 

[Dr. Walter]

God endorsed the faith of Abraham in Genesis 15:6

How could He accept it IF as you say the everlasting covenant was not put into force before Calvary? How could Abraham be justified IF as you say the everlasting covenant was not put into force before Calvary? How could he walk "by faith" which is a FRUIT OF THE INDWELLING SPIRIT OF GOD if as you say the everlasting covenant was not put into force before Calvary??????? It was because Calvary only gave it PUBLIC RATIFICATION not implementation.

I cannot accept that the Father exercised wrath against Jesus in his sacrifice, or that Jesus took upon himself the wrath of God instead of us. God’s love towards Jesus was sustained at all times, as was also Jesus’ love for the Father. Did God exercise wrath against Joseph and Job in their sufferings?

My friend then you reject the gospel of Jesus Christ and reject Jesus Christ Himself and hold to and preach "another gospel." What do you think the "fire" in the offerings represented? God's "love"? Why don't you roast your wife and children if that is your understanding of "love"? The "fire" represented the wrath of God against sin and sinners and Jesus took their place. What you are embracing is absolute heresy and is a reproach upon God, His Law and his provision for salvation and you need the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth of the gospel to your mind. You may be a saved person, but saved in spite of what you embrace with your mind, but I guarantee you no sinner can be saved if that is the gospel he first trusted in, because he is as lost now as he was then.

You need to consider this very seriously as you are embracing something that will not save anyone who believes it for the saving of their soul.

 

[DHK]

God through Jesus established a new basis, whereby all those that believe in Christ, who voluntarily identify with him as our representative in his death and resurrection, will have their sins forgiven, and wait for the gift of etenal life in the kingdom soon to be established.

Trevor,
Your talk a lot about Jesus being our representative, but not our Savior.
You talk of eternal life in the future but not in the present; the same goes for "sins forgiven."
You say that gift of eternal life will be given in the kingdom soon to be established.

Some frank questions:
1. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is God, the Second Person of the triune Godhead?
2. Do you believe that He came to earth as "God incarnate" (God in the flesh) [John 1:14]?
3. Do you believe that He was born of a virgin?
4. What is your interpretation of:

And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Dr. Walter,

I appreciate the time and effort that you have spent in replying. I was interested in your comments on the burnt offering before the Law. Nevertheless I consider the events of Genesis 22 more fitting to the emphasis associated with the burnt offering, rather than sin offering. I agree that nobody can measure up to the standard fulfilled in Christ. We are called to follow his example.

The ram was provided by God to TAKE THE PLACE of Isaac who was already bound and on the altar - that is a SUBSTITUTIONARY SACRIFICE and it is THE TYPE of what God did FOR sinners through Jesus Christ ON Calvary.

My assessment is that both the offering up of Isaac and the offering of the ram were typical of the sacrifice of Christ. Abraham was commended for offering up Isaac, and this was the basis of God blessing him:
Genesis 22:15-18 (KJV): 15 And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, 16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: 17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

If you really believe you can follow the example of Jesus than you believe you are as good as God!

To follow his example is not a claim that we will reach the perfection in Christ, and it does include self-denial. The following expresses this in clear terms:
Philippians 3:7-14 (KJV): 7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. 8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, 9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: 10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; 11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. 12 Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. 13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, 14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.

The immaculate conception has to do with the birth of Mary not the birth of Jesus.

I appreciate being corrected on this.

However, do you believe the virgin birth? That is the doctrine that bypasses the inherent sinful nature passed down through Adam - the father. God was the Father of Jesus and Jesus was born without a sinful nature.

I believe in the virgin birth, but believe that Jesus inherited our nature through Mary.
Hebrews 2:14 (KJV): Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

My friend then you reject the gospel of Jesus Christ and reject Jesus Christ Himself and hold to and preach "another gospel." What do you think the "fire" in the offerings represented? God's "love"? Why don't you roast your wife and children if that is your understanding of "love"? The "fire" represented the wrath of God against sin and sinners and Jesus took their place. What you are embracing is absolute heresy and is a reproach upon God, His Law and his provision for salvation and you need the Holy Spirit to reveal the truth of the gospel to your mind. You may be a saved person, but saved in spite of what you embrace with your mind, but I guarantee you no sinner can be saved if that is the gospel he first trusted in, because he is as lost now as he was then.

You need to consider this very seriously as you are embracing something that will not save anyone who believes it for the saving of their soul.

I appreciate the strong feeling that you express here. I believe in purification by fire, and this is done by God’s love upon those who respond, not his wrath.
1 Peter 1:6-7 (KJV): 6 Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations: 7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings DHK,
I appreciate your comments and questions.

Your talk a lot about Jesus being our representative, but not our Savior.

I believe very strongly that Jesus is our Saviour.
Matthew 1:21 (KJV): And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Acts 4:10-12 (KJV): 10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. 11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

You talk of eternal life in the future but not in the present; the same goes for "sins forgiven."

I believe in the forgiveness of sins now, and also this will be completed at the return of Christ:
Acts 3:19-21 speaks of sins being blotted out at the return of Jesus. One example of sins forgiven is Paul in:
Acts 22:16 (KJV): And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

You say that gift of eternal life will be given in the kingdom soon to be established.

Concerning eternal life in the future Paul says:
Titus 1:1-2 (KJV): 1 Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness; 2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
Concerning eternal life now, I am conscious of some verses that you may like to quote and explain. How would you reconcile this with Titus 1:1-2? My initial thought on this is:
Romans 4:17 (KJV): (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
but there could also be other explanations.

Some frank questions:
1. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is God, the Second Person of the triune Godhead?
2. Do you believe that He came to earth as "God incarnate" (God in the flesh) [John 1:14]?

I believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God:
Luke 1:35 (KJV): And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
John 1:14 (KJV): 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.
John 10:30 (KJV): I and my Father are one.
John 20:31 (KJV): But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

3. Do you believe that He was born of a virgin?

Yes, Matthew 1, Luke 1.

4. What is your interpretation of:
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:2)

All those accepted will have their sins forgiven through Jesus Christ John 3:16.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Alive in Christ]

What is saving faith?

The scripture informs us...

"It is by grace that you are saved, though faith, and that not of yourself, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast."


Saving faith is choosing to place our entire hope for eternal life on nothing more that Christs promise to save any and all who place thier faith in Him. :godisgood:

 

[Dr. Walter]

Greetings again Dr. Walter,

I appreciate the time and effort that you have spent in replying. I was interested in your comments on the burnt offering before the Law. Nevertheless I consider the events of Genesis 22 more fitting to the emphasis associated with the burnt offering, rather than sin offering. I agree that nobody can measure up to the standard fulfilled in Christ. We are called to follow his example.

All five Levitical offerings are essential to properly convey the atonement provided by Christ. You cannot simply select one and reject the others. There is no doubt that Christ is the EXAMPLE of moral perfection but more than a mere EXAMPLE as the Law of God demands from YOU as much obedience to its precepts as Christ provided in his EXAMPLE or else you come under its WRATH. If Christ was only a mere EXAMPLE then he makes no PROVISION to SAVE you from the WRATH of God's law for failure to MEASURE UP to its STANDARD of Righteousness.

That condemnation by the Law for failing to measure up to the righteousness of God's law is explicitly described by Christ in John 3:18-19 and The Baptist in John 3:36.

Here is your predicament. The mere EXAMPLE of Christ enables no one to measure up to the STANDARD of righteousness demanded by the Law of God which is equal to the MORAL PERFECTION of God or a righteousness that EXCEEDS the best that the best of men can do (Mt. 5:20) and EQUAL to the moral perfection of God (Mt. 5:48). All humans "come short" of that standard which is the glory of God or His moral perfection. Hence, they come under the WRATH of God's law.

So you have TWO problems.

(1)You need to be sinlessly perfect in order to be justified before God and satisfy the righteous demands of God's Law. The mere EXAMPLE of Christ does not provide you with that necessity. Under your theory ONLY YOU can satisfy that demand and therefore YOU must be PERFECT to be justified before God's Law. So either YOU must personally BE PERFECT or someone else's perfection must satisfy the law's demand FOR YOU! ONLY the substitutionary provision of Christ provides you with that necessity as illustrated in the three "sweet savor" Levitical offerings.

(2) You need the condemnation and wrath of God against you satisfied due to breaking his Law. The mere EXAMPLE of Christ does not provide you that necessity. Hence under your theory of atonement YOU must pay the penalty yourself as you have no one to pay it for you. ONLY the substitutionary provision of Christ provides you with that necessity as illustrated in the two "non-sweet savior" Levitical offerings.

My assessment is that both the offering up of Isaac and the offering of the ram were typical of the sacrifice of Christ. Abraham was commended for offering up Isaac, and this was the basis of God blessing him:

The offering up of Isaac on Mount Moriah is a picture of God's provision for His people through offering up His only begotten Son to deliver believers from the consequences of their sin - death. Hence, it is a full and comprehensive type.


1. Isaac being freed from the altar typifies God's people being freed from the consequence of sin - death. However, the Ram was not freed from death but TOOK THE PLACE of Isaac a type of God's people was was freed by REPLACEMENT of the ram.

2. Isaac being offered up by Abraham is a type of God offering up His only begotten Son. The ram represents the death of Christ on Calvary and the freedom of Isaac typifies the resurrection of Christ as one who both died and lived.

To follow his example is not a claim that we will reach the perfection in Christ, and it does include self-denial. The following expresses this in clear terms:

The EXAMPLE of Christ saves NNE! Unless, you can EQUAL that example and then the Law cannot condemn you as it could could not find sin in Christ.

Hence, you have NO SAVIOR from sin if the provision of Christ is merely given to be an EXAMPLE of righteousness or an EXAMPLE of God's love.

Only after one is SAVED from sin does the EXAMPLE of Christ provide a role model to press toward that mark as in Philip. 3:10-14. However, before that is possible one must experience Philippians 3:7-9 where one counts their own life of works as dung and be found "in" Christ's righteousness and not their own. Your mere EXAMPLE atonement cannot do this as it cannot provide you with anything other than an EXAMPLE.

I believe in the virgin birth, but believe that Jesus inherited our nature through Mary.
Hebrews 2:14 (KJV): Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

This scripture does not teach that Jesus received the SIN NATURE but only that he received the HUMAN NATURE or became HUMAN in nature. Adam was HUMAN in nature and yet WITHOUT SIN before the Fall. Jesus is called the SECOND ADAM because he too became HUMAN IN NATURE but without the SIN NATURE.

I appreciate the strong feeling that you express here. I believe in purification by fire, and this is done by God’s love upon those who respond, not his wrath.

There is no one Biblical writer who will agree with you! Jesus will not because he told his hearers that they must "repent or PERISH" (Lk. 13:3,5) and that all humans were born "CONDEMNED ALREADY" (Jn. 3:18-19). John the Baptist taught all humans remain "UNDER THE WRATH OF GOD" (Jn. 3:36) until they repent and believe. Paul said that we were born "children of WRATH even as others" (Eph. 2:3).

You need a Savior to Save you from CONDEMNATION and WRATH and that is precisely what the "fire" in the offerings represented and that is LITERALLY what Gehenna is described as "the lake of FIRE." Christ as a mere EXAMPLE cannot provide the righteousness you need to measure up to the Law's standard to be justified to live and neither can Christ as a mere EXAMPLE satisfy God's condemnation and wrath against you for violating His law. YOU HAVE NO SAVIOR by mere EXAMPLE from either of these demands by God's law (sinless righteousness OR eternal condemnation).

Christ as a mere EXAMPLE saves no one! Either YOU will have to LIVE and BE as SINLESS as Christ, thus LIVE His EXAMPLE in order to be Justified before God OR you will be condemned to eternal death and gehenna forever.

The five levitical offerings REPRESENT Christ as our SUBSTITUTE to SATISFY both demands of God's law FOR US. The sacrificial animal had to be a "SPOTLESS" lamb as the Law required SINLESS PERFECTION to be justified before God and He BECAME OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS IN OUR PLACE BEFORE GOD and that is why we are "justified by faith" whereas an EXAMPLE theory demands we must be JUSTIFIED BY OUR OWN WORKS.

The spotless lamb DIED and DEATH is the consequence of CONDEMNATION for sin. However, Christ had no sin and yet He died FOR OUR SINS. Your mere EXAMPLE atonement saves no one from their sins. Hence, if you reject Christ as YOUR SUBSTITUE in the payment of sin then YOU MUST DIE for YOUR SINS as they certainly are not the sins of Christ unless He BECOMES SIN FOR US (2 Cor. 5:21).

You need to seriously consider what I have said because your EXAMPLE atonement theory cannot and will not save you as your EXAMPLE theory provides no Savior to satisfy God's standard of righteousness but YOUR OWN righteousness and no Savior to satisfy sin's penalty but YOUR OWN DEATH.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Trevor,

Salvation is represented in Scripture in three tenses (1) Past tense - saved; (2) present tense - being saved; (3) Future tense "shall be saved"

I believe salvation is designed for our whole person which is also three parts (1) spirit; (2) soul; (3) body - 1 Thes. 5:23

In regard to those three aspects of our human nature there are three corresponding aspects of salvation

1) The human spirit - "that which is spirit is born of the Spirit" - regeneration/justification/conversion. past tense "saved"

2. the human soul - the progressive salvation of the life for as a man thinketh so is he - present tense sanctification - being saved

3. the human body - future tense glorification - future tense - "shall be saved"

When we ask are you "saved"? We are not talking about the glorification of their body nor are we talking about sinless perfection in their life/soul but rather we are talking about the initial aspect of salvation - have you been born again and converted to Christ by faith in the gospel. That is a past tense completed action that is never repeated again. It pertains not merely to your person (regeneration) but to your position before God in heaven (justification) at initial conversion.

Paul speaks of "redeeming the time" (Eph. 5:17) or making YOUR DAILY LIFE count for Christ. The means for accomplishing this on a DAILY basis is to be filled or under the controlling influence of the Spirit (Eph. 5:18) so that your mind, heart and will, words and actions come under "submission" (Eph. 5:20) to God on a daily basis. The time under His control is being saved for God's glory, for present blessings and eternal rewards. The time not under His control is LOST. Hence, we are commanded to set our afffections on things above (Eph. 5:1-2) as our external life [psuche] will mirror what our internal soul [psuche]embraces. The Greek term "psuche" is translated in some passages "life" and in other passages "soul" but the same term. What occurs within the "soul" is expressed outwardly in the "life" and it is that outward "life" that either is being saved or lost for the glory of God. The life of works can be lost or saved but the inward "soul" is not lost (1 Cor. 3:14-15). The saving and losing of our daily life is the theme of 1 Cor. 3:11-15. The "foundation" in 1 Cor. 3:11 represents the past tense conversion experience to the gospel but 1 Cor. 3:12-15 represnets the progressive building of our life upon that foundation of either good or bad works.

As a man thinketh IN HIS HEART so is he in his outward life IF his heart is empowered by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 7:14-25).

I know many will not agree with me here but what I am saying will stand up to God's Word and will help you understand the difference between the three tenses of salvation found in the scriptures.

Entrance to heaven is secured "saved" by the past tense regeneration/justification conversion experience with the gospel - OUr spirit

Redeeming our time is being accomplished "being saved" by the present tense progressive sanctification. - Our Soul

Fitness to enter heaven is obtained by glorification "shall be saved" the future tense aspect of salvation - Our body

 

[DHK]

I believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God:
Luke 1:35 (KJV): And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
John 1:14 (KJV): 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.
John 10:30 (KJV): I and my Father are one.
John 20:31 (KJV): But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Thanks for your reply.
But the question is: Is Christ God, the second person of the triune Godhead? Is he deity?

Saving faith means nothing if the object of your faith is in the wrong God.
If Christ is not God, not simply the Son of God, but God himself, then you are worshiping a false God. It is not so much the nature of faith that is important but rather the object of faith that is important. I exercise faith in my wife almost daily. But my wife cannot save, except perhaps physically in some occasions. Only Christ can save my soul and give me eternal life. Only he can be my Savior. Therefore He (not my wife) must be the object of my faith. And that Christ must be defined according to the Bible--God manifest in the flesh. There is no other.

 

[billwald]

>Heb. 11:1 ¶ Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

The statement is a very tight tautology

tau·tol·o·gyNoun/tôˈtäləjē/
1. The saying of the same thing twice in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style (e.g., they arrived one after the other in succession).
2. A statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form. More »
Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster - The Free Dictionary

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Dr. Walter,

The EXAMPLE of Christ saves NNE! Unless, you can EQUAL that example and then the Law cannot condemn you as it could could not find sin in Christ.

Hence, you have NO SAVIOR from sin if the provision of Christ is merely given to be an EXAMPLE of righteousness or an EXAMPLE of God's love.

If we are judged from a legal point of view, then yes we will be condemned. But we are considered righteous from a faith point of view, like Abraham in Genesis 15:6, and God forgives our sins. Question: If two people stand in front of me, and one of these owes me $2. If the other person says, here is $2 in payment of the debt. Could I then turn to the original debtor and say: I forgive you of your debt? Where in your legal scheme of things is there room for forgiveness? We are under grace, not law.

However, do you believe the virgin birth? That is the doctrine that bypasses the inherent sinful nature passed down through Adam - the father. God was the Father of Jesus and Jesus was born without a sinful nature.

TrevorL: I believe in the virgin birth, but believe that Jesus inherited our nature through Mary.
Hebrews 2:14 (KJV): Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

This scripture does not teach that Jesus received the SIN NATURE but only that he received the HUMAN NATURE or became HUMAN in nature. Adam was HUMAN in nature and yet WITHOUT SIN before the Fall. Jesus is called the SECOND ADAM because he too became HUMAN IN NATURE but without the SIN NATURE.

I am interested in your response to this because my belief in the reason and effectiveness of the sacrifice of Christ largely hinges upon the idea that Christ inherited the effects of Adam’s transgression through Mary. Are you imposing your theology upon Hebrews 2:14, or can you prove that Hebrews 2:14 unequivocally teaches that Jesus did not receive the sin nature, but only human nature similar to Adam before the fall? Where do you prove your conclusion on this aspect? If you can prove me wrong here, then I will need to readjust, as I view Hebrews 2:14 and a few other Scriptures as a foundation of my belief. Are you saying that Christ is in some sense different to us? Yet Hebrews 2:14 has a series of words, three additional words in fact, that emphasise his sameness as us: “he also himself likewise took part of the same.”

My understanding of this is also based on other Scriptures. For example, another phrase in the immediate context is “the captain of their salvation”, and this speaks to me that Christ is our leader, he leads, we follow, he is our representative. It also speaks that he was made “perfect through sufferings”, implying that it was a process that he had to go through for his own benefit as well as mediating on our behalf:
Hebrews 2:10 (KJV): For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

A passage that is important and complements Hebrews 2:14 is:
Romans 8:3 (KJV): For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Jesus “condemned sin in the flesh”, and this indicates that he overcame the impulses to sin within himself, which were there as a result of his inheritance from Adam.

Hebrews 5:7-9 (KJV): 7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; 8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; 9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
This also indicates his weakness, and striving against sin, and suffering, and had to learn obedience, all of this indicating that he was a partaker of the nature resulting from Adam’s transgression.

Hebrews 1:3 (KJV): Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Hebrews 9:12 (KJV): Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. (RV/ASV: “redemption”)
I understand that “by himself” could better be rendered “in himself” as it is in the middle voice, implying that his sacrifice was not instead of us, but firstly within himself, so that it might be for us as well. Similarly “having obtained eternal redemption”, the AV “for us” is excluded by the middle voice.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again DHK,

Thanks for your reply.
But the question is: Is Christ God, the second person of the triune Godhead? Is he deity?

Saving faith means nothing if the object of your faith is in the wrong God.
If Christ is not God, not simply the Son of God, but God himself, then you are worshiping a false God.

I certainly agree with the importance of a correct faith on this subject. You claim that believing that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God is not sufficient, but I believe that this is the best summary of who Jesus is, and what he accomplished for our salvation.

As well as the earlier quotations, I would also like to add a few more Scriptures that could be considered in regard to this important subject:
1 Corinthians 8:6 (KJV): But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
John 17:3 (KJV): And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Matthew 1:23 (KJV): Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
John 20:28 (KJV): And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV): And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

The subject is large and must be treated with care, basing it upon the full range of the Scriptures.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Dr. Walter]

If we are judged from a legal point of view, then yes we will be condemned. But we are considered righteous from a faith point of view, like Abraham in Genesis 15:6, and God forgives our sins.

It is not that we "WILL" be condemned but we come into this world condemned ALREADY. We are born UNDER SIN and thus UNDER LAW and condemned ALREADY (Jn. 3:18-19). We are not born or come into this world under grace! There is no under grace until first you come out from "UNDER LAW" and "UNDER SIN" and that is by JUSTIFICATION based upon the PROVISION that satisfies the righteous demands and wrath of God's Law.

Rom. 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

19 ¶ Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. 20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Your problem is that you have no basis to be justified because you believe only that Christ provided a mere example rather than a complete satisfaction FOR us.

Question: If two people stand in front of me, and one of these owes me $2. If the other person says, here is $2 in payment of the debt. Could I then turn to the original debtor and say: I forgive you of your debt? Where in your legal scheme of things is there room for forgiveness? We are under grace, not law

No sinner can pay the debt of another sinner. Two things are required to be justified by God's Law - sinless perfection is required by the law to be justified as fit to enter heaven and eternal penalty of sin must be paid to get out of hell. Faith does not justify anyone unless that faith is in the provision by God that satisfies both - Jesus Christ.

No human is under grace coming into this world and no human can be under grace until they are first justified before God and no one can be JUSTIFIED before God unless they can measure up to God's standard of justice - His Law of righteousness! NO HUMAN BEING CAN BE JUSTIFIED UNDER THAT STANDARD BECAUSE THAT STANDARD IS THE SAME STANDARD AS THE GLORY OF GOD = SINLESS PERFECTION.

Moreover, faith does not justify any sinner. What justifies a sinner is faith in the proper object and you deny the proper object. The proper object is a sinless, spotless substitute provided by God Himself in the Person of His Son.This is the essence of the "good news" or gospel of Jesus Christ. The gospel is not about Christ being an EXAMPLE - you will not find one scripture to teach that! The good news is what Christ did "FOR" sinners not what sinners do for God. Christ is the propitiation for sin - the satisfaction (Rom. 3:24-26) which is the object of faith "in him" and "in his blood." Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin before God. Beleive all you want but it will be a "vain" faith if that faith is not in the right object.

Are you saying that Christ is in some sense different to us? Yet Hebrews 2:14 has a series of words, three additional words in fact, that emphasise his sameness as us: “he also himself likewise took part of the same.”

First, Romans 5:15-19 and 1 Corinithians 15:43-45 explicitly states that Jesus is the "second Adam" and stands in the same position as did Adam BEFORE THE FALL. If he did not, then he could not be called the "second" Adam nor could he be a proper representative. If Christ had a sin nature that would disqualify him as a "second" Adam because Adam in his representative capacity did not have a sin nature until AFTER the fall and AFTER the fall he no longer served in the capacity as a representative because he failed in that capacity BY THE FALL.

Second, the Scripture is clear that there is an exception to Christ taking upon the form or likeness of flesh (humanity) and that exception is that in him there is no sin:

1Jo 3:5 And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.

Note the bold underlined preposition and present tense STATE OF BEING verb. The preposition defines the sphere "IN" him and the STATE OF BEING verb "IS" the continuous present tense. John did not say "BY" him he "did" not sin (ACTION VERB) but rather is denying in the clearest language possible that Jesus possessed a sin nature.

For example, another phrase in the immediate context is “the captain of their salvation”, and this speaks to me that Christ is our leader, he leads, we follow, he is our representative. It also speaks that he was made “perfect through sufferings”, implying that it was a process that he had to go through for his own benefit as well as mediating on our behalf:

Hebrews 2:10 (KJV): For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

If we take these texts at face value with your interpretation in view then they demand he did sin and by a process of learning obedience he progressively became "perfect" or "sinless". However, that interpretation contradicts many other scriptures that vehemently deny he ever did sin. Other scriptures say he "knew no sin" and "he did no sin" yet your interpretation demands that he did as it was a PROCESS of learning obedience which means he was disobedient before he "learned" it. Hence, your interpretation must be wrong.

All that your proof texts demand is that he took part of the human nature and that he grew in knowledge and wisdom as a human and during his period as a man he suffered due to sin's consequence already in this world and at work due to the actions and attitudes of sinful human beings around him. He suffered at their hands for being different from them.

He is the "captain" or "author" of our salvation in that he is the one who fought and won victory over "DEATH" as the context defines "death" as the foe and defeated it "FOR" us. WE took no part in this battle. We didn't but HE did. Hence, no grounds for mere example or following a mere example.

Jesus “condemned sin in the flesh”, and this indicates that he overcame the impulses to sin within himself, which were there as a result of his inheritance from Adam.

You are reading into this text something it does not say explicitly - you infer it. It does not say he God sent his own Son "in sinful flesh" but rather in "the likeness" of sinful flesh. If your interpretation was the point of the author then he would have dropped the term "likeness" and just said he was sent "in sinful flesh" but John denies that sin existed "in" him and thus denies your interpretation of this text.

Hebrews 5:7-9 (KJV):....indicates his weakness, and striving against sin, and suffering, and had to learn obedience, all of this indicating that he was a partaker of the nature resulting from Adam’s transgression.

The term "feared" means "respect" or "reverence" as in a God fearer. He learned obedience in that he grew in knowledge and wisdom not that he learned by trial and ERROR thus making him a sinner and by process he became righteous. Again the idea of "captain" of our salvation is defined in that he became the "author" of our salvation not that WE can follow his example and become CAPTAINS and AUTHORS of salvation but this was one thing He did FOR us. As a consequence of a completed work we "follow" him, we don't "follow" him in order to complete his work for us as "we" are not involved in doing that work (2 Cor. 5:21).

Hebrews 1:3 (KJV): Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

The Greek preposition translated "by" is not "en" but "dia" and the KJV has it correctly. It is an action performed "by" Christ that purges us from sin as your next text below describes and that Hebrews 10 teaches in detail. We were "purged" by his blood NOT BY HIS EXAMPLE and NOT BY OUR FOLLOWING such an example. Your interpretation would have us FOLLOW that example as it is that action that purged us. Your interpretation is wrong.

The middle voice simply denies anyone outside of himself was involved or responsible for his actions. It also denies it was a mere example for us to follow but something ONLY HIMSELF could do "FOR" us.

Hebrews 9:12 (KJV): Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. (RV/ASV: “redemption”)

The same Greek preposition "dia" is found translated here "by"! Would you also translate it "in" his blood? Hebrews 1:3 has in view Christ's redemptive work of purging "our sins" and Hebrews 9:12 explicitly describes this as "by his own" equal to "by himself" in Hebrews 1:3 - same thing. However, here it is explicitly stated to be "FOR" us rather than something we participate in by following a mere example. Your atonement theory simply makes Christ the "captain" by mere example for us to follow, well, are you going to follow this example and SHED YOUR BLOOD or will you by faith in his provision believe he shed his blood "FOR US."

 

[DHK]

Greetings again DHK,
I certainly agree with the importance of a correct faith on this subject. You claim that believing that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God is not sufficient, but I believe that this is the best summary of who Jesus is, and what he accomplished for our salvation.

As well as the earlier quotations, I would also like to add a few more Scriptures that could be considered in regard to this important subject:
1 Corinthians 8:6 (KJV): But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
John 17:3 (KJV): And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
Matthew 1:23 (KJV): Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
John 20:28 (KJV): And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV): And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

The subject is large and must be treated with care, basing it upon the full range of the Scriptures.

Kind regards
Trevor

John 20:28 (KJV): And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV): And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

When you quoted these verse did you note that Thomas recognized Christ as Lord and God?
Then Paul stated that Christ was God manifest in the flesh, a clear reference to his deity. Thus he is not just the Son of God, but God himself.
--According to these Scriptures would you agree with that.

In John 1:1,14 we see the same thing:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)
--It is clear, that whoever the Word is, the Word is God.

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. (John 1:14)
--The Word (God) was made flesh and dwelt among us (according to John), and we beheld his glory.
--John saw God. He saw the Word (God) full of grace and truth). He saw Jesus, and testifies that Jesus is God. This is one of the greatest proofs in the Bible that Christ is God.

The prophecy in Isaiah 9:6 is also quite compelling.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Dr. Walter and DHK,

I appreciate your replies and have carefully considered what you have said. I feel that to continue would cause me to repeat much of what I have stated. To me this indicates that to some extent I seem to be out of my depth, not able to simply state my overall view on the subjects raised, and to satisfactorily answer in detail some of the things that you have stated.

I would like to restate a few things in summary of my present views.

In response to Dr Walter: I still consider Hebrews 2:14 and Romans 8:3 to teach that Jesus was a partaker of our human nature, and as such this was inherited from Adam through Mary. I do not believe that this would make Jesus a sinner. I believe very strongly that Jesus never sinned. I need to have a closer look at Hebrews 1:2.

In response to DHK: I believe that the simplest and most accurate Scriptural definitions are that there is One God, the Father and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God and some of these Scriptures I have quoted. Other Scriptures, some of which you have mentioned, must be considered in the light of these primary Scriptural definitions. These additional Scriptures add to an understanding of the full status and role of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Dr. Walter]

\

In response to Dr Walter: I still consider Hebrews 2:14 and Romans 8:3 to teach that Jesus was a partaker of our human nature, and as such this was inherited from Adam through Mary.

There is no question he partook of "our human nature" and I certainly do not deny that. However, if by that you mean he partook of our "sin nature", which is entirely different than merely our "human nature" as it was something that was ADDED to the "human nature" by the fall of Adam then you have very serious problems not only with other scriptures but with other New Testament teachings. 1 John 3:5 flatly denies the existence of the sin nature within him.

You don't seem to understand the significance of the virgin birth. If your position was right there would be no need of a virgin birth.

Also, you seem to be very hesitant to admit what John 1:1 plainly and unequivocally states and that The Word "was God" manifested in the flesh (Jn. 1:14,18). The fact that he was God in flesh also denies that the sin nature could be found in his being as God and the sin nature are incompatible with each other.

I don't know how much Greek you understand or if you have had any training in Greek but note the imperfect verb repeatedly used in John 1:1 in contrast to "ginomai" used in John 1:14. "In the beginning The Word was existing [en] and the Word was existing [en] equal with [pros]God and the Word was existing [en] God"

The term "beginning" describes the origin of the first created thing as God is without "beginning" and yet The Word was already existing when the first created thing came into being. This is explicitly stated in verses 2-3 so that NOT ONE THING that came into being, came into being apart from The Word. This is strongest declaration that The Word was "God" in Genesis 1:1 Who created all things.

There are three phrases in Verse 1 that have significant meaning in regard to who the Preexistent Jesus Christ was:

1. In regard to creation - He Prexisted it
2. In regard to the plurality of Persons within the Godhead - He Coexisted equally with God - thus demanding a plurality of Persons within one Divine Essence called "God"
3. In regard to the Nature of God - He is God

Verses 2-3 add and reaffirm to these things that He coexisted with God as The Word that spoke into existed everything created so that not one thing that can be described as created came into existence apart from Him.

In addition verse 4 attributes to him the souce of life and light which can have no other souce than the very nature of what makes God to be God.

However, in contrast to "en" or the imperfect verb of continual existence in past time is the use of "ginomai" which means to "become" in verse 14. God The Word "became" flesh and "tabernacled" among us.

I do not believe that this would make Jesus a sinner. I believe very strongly that Jesus never sinned. I need to have a closer look at Hebrews 1:2.

The possession of a sinful nature unites a person with Adam as his REPRESENTATIVE IN THE FALL and therefore does make that person a sinner BY BIRTH. This is the explicit argument by Paul in Romans 5:12-19;

19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners,

Note the careful language! By how many men's disobedience? "by ONE man's disobedience." How many were "made sinners" by ONE MAN'S DISOBEDIENCE? "MANY" What were they made by ONE MAN'S DISOBEDIENCE? "SINNERS"

If Jesus Christ partook of the FALLEN NATURE of Adam then he was a sinner by birth as all who partake of the fallen nature of Adam equally partake of the Representative act of disobedience by Adam and by representation are constituted as "sinners" not merely "sinful". When Adam sinned by one act of disobedience, all in Adam sinned with him by REPRESENTATION thus making them all guilty and that is precisely why Christ said that men are "condemned already" and are subject to death and that is precisely why INFANTS who have not PERSONALLY committed any sin still DIE as death is the consequence of sin and the only sin dying infants are guilty of is "one man's disobedience"

16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
17 For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation;

Adam acted as the representative man for the whole human race and what he did was imputed to all his posterity "in" Him and therefore the infant is condemned to death because the infant is a sinner by birth "already condemned" in Adam.

Jesus Christ was not a sinner by birth "already condemned" in Adam but was virgin born by ANOTHER FATHER other than Adam who was WITHOUT SIN and therefore through Mary partook of the human nature without partaking of the sin nature obtained through the representative act of Adam. This virgin birth made it possible for Christ to be the "SECOND Adam" or a NEW REPRENTATIVE man or as Adam was BEFORE HIS FALL so that BY ONE MAN'S OBEDIENCE his satisfaction of the Law of God could be imputed to all those "in him" by representation:


19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.

Your present position is a repudiation of the gospel of Jesus Christ in the strongest possible language. You repudiate both the Person of Jesus Christ as well as His redemptive substitutionary work. This is not something to take lightly but is of the utmost seriousness in regard to your own eternal welfare.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again Dr. Walter,

I appreciate your response. I intended my last post to be my final one on this thread, but a brief response to your latest. I find it difficult to appreciate how another person views their overall picture of teaching concerning God and the gospel in its many parts. Also from my standpoint, I do not think that you appreciate how I view things. I feel reticent to answer each minor item, because my view is based on a larger picture, and I do not feel qualified to simply and clearly share all of this. Thus my answers will not be comprehensive, nor satisfy how you think on these subjects.

There is no question he partook of "our human nature" and I certainly do not deny that. However, if by that you mean he partook of our "sin nature", which is entirely different than merely our "human nature" as it was something that was ADDED to the "human nature" by the fall of Adam then you have very serious problems not only with other scriptures but with other New Testament teachings. 1 John 3:5 flatly denies the existence of the sin nature within him.

You don't seem to understand the significance of the virgin birth. If your position was right there would be no need of a virgin birth.

Yes, I believe Jesus partook of our nature, inherited like us, from Adam after the fall. Our nature possesses lusts that left unchecked, will lead to sin. Jesus also had this nature, but at all times overcame these tendencies by the Word of God, and therefore he never sinned, but overcame sin in the very area in which, with all others, led to sin. The virgin birth was a necessary element in this process.

Also, you seem to be very hesitant to admit what John 1:1 plainly and unequivocally states and that The Word "was God" manifested in the flesh (Jn. 1:14,18). The fact that he was God in flesh also denies that the sin nature could be found in his being as God and the sin nature are incompatible with each other.

I don't know how much Greek you understand or if you have had any training in Greek but note the imperfect verb repeatedly used in John 1:1 in contrast to "ginomai" used in John 1:14. "In the beginning The Word was existing [en] and the Word was existing [en] equal with [pros]God and the Word was existing [en] God"

The term "beginning" describes the origin of the first created thing as God is without "beginning" and yet The Word was already existing when the first created thing came into being. This is explicitly stated in verses 2-3 so that NOT ONE THING that came into being, came into being apart from The Word. This is strongest declaration that The Word was "God" in Genesis 1:1 Who created all things.

There are three phrases in Verse 1 that have significant meaning in regard to who the Preexistent Jesus Christ was:

1. In regard to creation - He Prexisted it
2. In regard to the plurality of Persons within the Godhead - He Coexisted equally with God - thus demanding a plurality of Persons within one Divine Essence called "God"
3. In regard to the Nature of God - He is God

Verses 2-3 add and reaffirm to these things that He coexisted with God as The Word that spoke into existed everything created so that not one thing that can be described as created came into existence apart from Him.

In addition verse 4 attributes to him the souce of life and light which can have no other souce than the very nature of what makes God to be God.

However, in contrast to "en" or the imperfect verb of continual existence in past time is the use of "ginomai" which means to "become" in verse 14. God The Word "became" flesh and "tabernacled" among us.

I view “The Word” in John 1:1 as not describing a pre-existent Jesus, but a personification of God’s wisdom, character, similar to the personification of the woman “Wisdom” in Proverbs 8.

Your present position is a repudiation of the gospel of Jesus Christ in the strongest possible language. You repudiate both the Person of Jesus Christ as well as His redemptive substitutionary work. This is not something to take lightly but is of the utmost seriousness in regard to your own eternal welfare.

I am very conscious of the need to prove all things, and hold onto that which is good.

Kind regards
Trevor