Had the Lord Jesus not been obedient to the Commandments, would He still have been obedient to the Father?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Forensic Justification of sinners!
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
- Status
Not any more than we can disobey God's commands yet be obedient to God.
This is, however, the difference. You are presenting a situation where Jesus obeys the Ten Commandments in order to be faithful to the Father. Scripture denounces the idea, and instead places obedience as the result of faith, trust, and love towards God.
It is the reasons. You truly present a works based religion. What you are missing is that the Law as a whole pointed to Jesus, and Jesus fulfilled the Law - not to BECOME righteous but BECAUSE He is righteous.
Again, you have the tail wagging the dog and the dog responds to the name "Heresy".
What a silly question.
I say that Jesus fulfilled the Law because he is righteous, you say Jesus obeyed the Ten Commandments to be righteous... And you ask me which commandment Jesus did not obey???
Do you understand what Jesus means when he said that he came to "fulfill" the Law? He means that the Law is about him. It was ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS about Christ - NEVER about getting men to Heaven by obeying the Ten Commandments, but always about God and His glory.
Last edited:
Yeshua1,
RM said;
tha, erve aworks. bu Frncis hav wht yous tha Wrig ash holds t th sinnr Eithr diefomy
trhink th hae ued Gid t emphasis keptth atonemt fo sns,te e fofeid yo Hos rthe mrit
id FA te fait tha erve cavinist,mirackes tha
RM said;
wonder why he said that?
tha, erve aworks. bu Frncis hav wht yous tha Wrig ash holds t th sinnr Eithr diefomy
trhink th hae ued Gid t emphasis keptth atonemt fo sns,te e fofeid yo Hos rthe mrit
id FA te fait tha erve cavinist,mirackes tha
The point is that you are making a false dichotomy between God and His law. I have already explained that Christ is where the law was always pointing, so I know that it was |ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS about Christ. But Christ must succeed where Adam failed. Adam broke the commandment of God; Christ must keep them, every last one of them in order to be the Last Adam. It is in this way that He fulfils the law and obeys the Father.
It's not a false dichotomy. It is the dichotomy Jesus spoke to the Pharisees. Love God and you fulfill the
No, it is not a false dichotomy at all. It is, in fact, one that Jesus pointed out repeatedly to the Pharisees.
You cannot obey God’s commandments to get into a right relationship with God; Being in a right relationship with God you will obey His commandments.
The “rich young ruler” believed if he obeyed all of the Law, lacking none, he would be saved. Jesus told him he lacked one, selling all and giving to the poor. Jesus was not offering another way into the Kingdom, he was showing the man (and the world) that through the Law that he could not be saved. The deficiency was not in the Law. It was not in the performance (or lack thereof) of the Law. It was in the man.
When the Pharisees tested Jesus by asking which is the greatest command, Jesus said “You shall love the lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind”. This is not one of the Ten Commandments, but one of the commandments God gave to Moses in the giving of “all of the commandments and statutes” (Deut. 5-6). This sums up every command. You don’t have to worry about not killing, stealing, lying, idolatry, etc. if you love God with all of your being. This is the sum of the Law, and failure to which it alludes. Sin is loving ourselves rather than God.
It is interesting that even the Pharisees recognized the truth of Jesus’ words. They did not challenge Him on the declaration. If you love God you will obey His commandments. And that is the key here (and our disagreement).
Obedience to merit righteousness is not obedience out of righteousness; justification by works is not justification by faith; working to earn salvation is not the same as works as the fruit of salvation. Obedience is stressed on both accounts. But the source of the obedience is what makes this a dichotomy.
God's law is an entirely a moral issue whether it takes the form of the ten commandments, civil, ceremonial, conscience,or a specific command (Gen.2:17) or in a covenant framework as it is one and the same bottom line issue at all times and in all places and that is the issue of who is God - my will or thy will. God's will is law and God's will is always at all times the expression of his moral faculty = His heart. However, all the law of God in its entirety could be summarized in one word "love" and that one word could summarize the whole of God's moral being - God IS love. Hence, it is not a matter of WHICH law, but the entirety of God's Law/will is a direct revelation of his moral faculty - His heart - and ALL the law has only ONE bottom line issue - do you love God or self, Is God God or is it you, Is it His will or is it your will? Is it God's Rule or is it Self-rule. This is entirely and totally an issue of morality as it is wholly and entirely an issue of THE HEART and the heart ALONE.
Israel at the time of Christ believed one must be an israelite to be saved (through circumcision) BECAUSE Israel alone was given the Law and the prophets - the whole revealed will of God which they believed eternal life was ultimately obtained by keeping His revealed will = justification by works on judgment day.
They defined the law EXTERNALLY and therefore defined sin EXTERNALLY thus outside were as "whited suplcheres) but inwardly full of dead men bones. The Pharisees threatened other Jews with Gehenna for disobedience to the Law proving they did not believe just being a Jew was equal to salvation, but justification or inheriting eternal life was due to "good works" or doing 'the works of the law."
When the Lawyer and rich young ruler fielded their question about inheriting eternal life unto Jesus they were expecting confirmation by Christ that they were worthy already to inherit eternal life because in the Jewish mind they were already doing all that was required to inherit enternal life - in their minds they were keeping the law, just as Paul thought he had been doing prior to his salvation (Philip. 3:1-7).
My wife and I are away from home on our 43rd honeymoon and her birthday and so I have not been able to respond till now and I won't be able to respond again until we get back home this weekend.
Do you accept the view tat God imputed the rightiousness of Christ life of always keeping the Law of God, or obedience in His entire life to the father, to us now? Declaring that we are ones who kept the Law now fully?
And calvinist/reformed would hold to the Penal substutionary atonement view I do, so would not be either Neo/Hyper cal!
Are you saying "Calvinist" or "Reformed"? One is more narrow than the other.
First off, happy anniversary. We will be celebrating 38 in June, so we're just behind you.
Insofar as my position, I do not think that I can be swayed to view righteousness in terms of moral obedience as opposed to moral obedience being the fruit of righteousness.
Maybe it is that we understand differently, from a different angle. Perhaps you simply possess superior comprehension skills (I never claimed to be the sharpest student). More likely it is a combination of the two. But as it stands, my hope is that we have communicated our positions adequately that we can see both where we agree and disagree.
Calvinist, as I would hold to that view on sotierology, but not whole Covenant theology system...
Jesus is a sin offering, not a guilt offering, correct?
But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand. Isaiah 53:10 (NASB)
Thanks, so Jesus was both guilt and sin offering?
From my understanding, the sin offering is directed towards the sinfulness of man (our "sin nature", or inclination towards the flesh) where as the "guilt" or "trespass" offering is for those sins that are committed (the fruits of that sinful nature).
Sin offering is general. It is for "sin", not for a specific transgression (i.e., breaking the Law). "If the anointed priest sins, bringing guilt on the people, then let him offer to the Lord for his sin which he has sinned a young bull without blemish as a sin offering" Lev. 4:3. The representative (the priest) sins, and guilt is brought upon the people. This is general (no specific sin, and the people are guilty because of their representative - not that they themselves violated a command).
The "guilt" or "transgression offering" is different. "If a person sins in hearing the utterance of an oath, and is a witness, whether he has seen or known of the matter—if he does not tell it, he bears guilt." This pattern continues: "Or if a person touches any unclean thing"; "Or if he touches human uncleanness"...ect. "And it shall be, when he is guilty in any of these matters, that he shall confess that he has sinned in that thing."(Lev 5:1).
This offering is not generalized.
In relation to our conversation here, and those definitions, you lean more to Christ being a guilt offering for the transgressions of the elect. Some lean towards Christ being a sin offering for sin in general (our sinful nature). I believe that Jesus is both a sin offering and a guilt offering (that the entire Law points to Christ and his fulfillment of the Law).
That is our biggest disagreement here. I believe that Jesus' righteousness includes both aspects (a moral aspect based on our behavior in transgressing God's law, but also an ontological aspect that the Law serves to illustrate - we, in our beings, fall short of the glory of God, and our sins are manifestations of our sinfulness). I believe imputed righteousness includes both our "Sin" (our sinful nature) and our sins (disobedience to God's command as a product of our sinful nature).
So....I believe that Christ came as man, remained faithful to God, reliant on the Holy Spirit, trusting God, and seeking God's will rather than his human desires. The fruit of this "walking in the Light" is obedience to God's laws.
He was still God in human flersh, sinless humaity nature, so would he not always be odedient to God, and so His death as sin offering/bearer was him taking on our sins, able to be worthy due to breaking no L:aw, and being God and an?
We have to be careful here unless we get a picture that Jesus was not indeed man. He was no more human than human, and no less God than God.
My point is that we do not lack the power to obey God, but the will (borrowing from Jonathan Edwards). Jesus submitted to the Father. All He did was through the Spirit (not of His own accord but the will of the Father through the power of the Spirit). All this time I am sure that He was tempted by the desires of the flesh. In the wilderness, I am sure he was hungry and thirsty.
In Paul tells us, in Philippians, why the Father glorified the Son. The Son did not regard equality with God a "thing to be grasped" - sound familiar (think about Adam's temptation) - but "humbled himself and became obedient" even to the death of the cross. Jesus was glorified for submitting to the Father through the Spirit. His ministry was not His but the Father's through the Spirit.
This is why I believe that Christ fulfilled not only the guilt/transgression offering but also the sin offering.
The Lord Jesus fulfils all the offerings: He is the burnt offering, the grain offering, the peace offering, the sin offering, the trespass offering, the Yom Kippur, the red heifer, the turtle doves, the two pigeons and any other offerings you can think of. "These are [the Scriptures] that testify of Me" (John 5:39).
Amen!! I add that the Law as a whole testifies to Jesus - the Ten Commandments and the commandments and statutes of His law, the Bronze Altar, the Laver, all point to Christ. The Ark, the Exodus, Moses, and Joshua point to Christ. Creation itself points to Christ, through Whom and for Whom all things are made.
Jesus accepted to becoming Human, God Incarnted, and that was what was limiting Him... He was God in human flesh, so why did he need to have the Holy Spiit empowering Him? If it wasin order to do miracles an iter things, He till as different in hat then you or me, snce he had a sinless nature and was fully God? Think his humblingwas not in His life on earth, but in accepting to being Incarnated itself!
- Status