Christ being made sin Volume 2

[JonC]

Can you give me a chapter and/or page number, please? This is not one of Owen's books that I possess, but it's readily available on line Until I see what Owen actually wrote, I can't really comment on it.

Yep! I kinda knew that.

I can't object to Owen's interpretation of Christ being made sin because I don't know what it is yet. I objected strongly to yours, and still do, because you were using it as part of your argument against the Doctrine of Penal Substitution. Whatever Owen wrote, he did not do that.
You have brought in a pretty big gun to defend your position, but it does not alter my view, which is based solely on the word of God. It is not only the ridiculousness of having two different meanings of the same word close together in the same sentence. There are several other arguments which I have mentioned previously and can repeat if you really want me to.

I gave the reference, but don't have the location. I was reading Owen the other night and stumbled on that explanation.

Basically he says what we all believe (even you) - that Christ did not literally become sin but God laid out iniquity or guilt upon Him and He laid down His life as a sin offering (Isaiah 53). Where I would differ is in the idea of transference.

If you are really interested then read the book referenced. It does not hold that much interest for me to relook it up. I just thought it was funny.

 

[JonC]

The reason we will never get anywhere in a meaningful discussion of the atonement is that I can't understand why you don't realize that your statement above is a direct contradiction of itself. Yes, Christ bore our sins. And the iniquity of us was laid on Him. And in the next sentence you say they can't be transferred from us? It seems like you just said they were.


It becomes an "offense" that I am guilty of. The fact is, unless sin can be transferred, Christ cannot bear it, because he didn't actually do it Himself, and verse 2 Corinthians 5:21 won't apply to you.

There is simply no way to say that sin can be born by Christ and then say that it cannot be transferred to him.

That is not the reason.

For my st of my life I held the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement as being correct. For much of that time I was a Calvinist.

The reason is not that the statement contradicts itself but rather that it does not fit into the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement. That is why you cannot make sense of it.

The Early Church held that Christ died for the "human family". He died for our sins. God laid out iniquity upon Him. He suffered the stroke we were due, the agony we deserved. He became a curse for us. He shared in our infirmities. BUT they did not view sins as being transferred from us.

It is not contradictory at all, but it will not make sense under the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I gave the reference, but don't have the location. I was reading Owen the other night and stumbled on that explanation.

Basically he says what we all believe (even you) - that Christ did not literally become sin but God laid out iniquity or guilt upon Him and He laid down His life as a sin offering (Isaiah 53). Where I would differ is in the idea of transference.

If you are really interested then read the book referenced. It does not hold that much interest for me to relook it up. I just thought it was funny.

I would have thought it was a matter of common courtesy, if one is going to criticize someone's view, to provide a reference. If I am going to read the book I shall have to buy a print version. My eyes won't tolerate reading that much on line.
Never mind.

 

[JonC]

Are you saying that sin could be a 'not so tangible attitude'?



28 but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. Mt 5

15 in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness therewith, and their thoughts one with another accusing or else excusing them); Ro 2:15

14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. Ro 7

27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. Ro 8

12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Heb 4

10 I, Jehovah, search the mind, I try the heart, even to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his doings. Jer 17:10

...lol, just 'lusting to speed' could be a sin... If it weren't for that pesky speed limit law, there'd be no problem:

7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet:
8 but sin, finding occasion, wrought in me through the commandment all manner of coveting: for apart from the law sin is dead. Ro 7

No. I'm saying that sins are the fruit produced by sinners, they are manifestations of our sinful state.

For example, suppose I steal a candy bar and eat it. Can I mail you that sin? No. It is an action (or it could be an attitude). But it will s not a thing to be transferred.

Owen pointed this out when he insisted what is transferred is guilt. But that actually goes against Scripture and the revealed nature of God (it would be impossible for God to ascribe to Christ actual guilt).

 

[JonC]

My understanding of the definition of sin.

Sin is the transgression of the law.

1Jo 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

There is no mystery here.

Ro 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Ro 14:23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Cain murdered Abel and was not charged with murder before the law and was allowed to live.

A man gathered sticks on the sabbath and was put to death under the Mosaic law because the law forbade it.

This kinda illustrates the points if you ask me.

So Jesus Christ our Lord and savior was made the personification of sin and dealt with all transgressions of all men in a one time payment that God the Father, the judge of all the earth, accepted.

Glory to his wonderful name.

What about all of those people Paul said sinned apart from the Law and died for that sin (those who lived after Adam but before Moses)?

 

[DaveXR650]

This is the commutation I mentioned: he was made sin for us, we are made the righteousness of God in him. God is not imputing sin unto us, verse 19, but imputing righteousness unto us, does it on this ground alone that "he was made sin for us." And if by his being made sin, only his being made a sacrifice for sin is intended, it is to the same purpose, for the formal reason of any thing being made an expiatory sacrifice, was the imputation of sin unto it by divine institution.
The Doctrine of Justification by Faith, General Considerations, previous unto the Explanation of the Doctrine of Justification. (On a Kindle reader this is location 43862)
I think that in the above, Owen is just saying that if someone wants to look at the idea of Christ being made sin as no more than being made a "sin-offering" it still has the same meaning because the sin-offering had the sin imputed to it before it could be a sin offering.
I have the work in a Kindle version and can find the location of things by keywords but I still don't see what the controversy is here.

 

[JonC]

I may not phrased that very well, however were not our sins removed and or carried away? What does blood have to do with sin? Were our sins removed and or carried away in or by the blood of Jesus.

Does that mean in the death of Jesus?

What does blood have to do with sin and why?

I believe that is referring to forgiveness (and yes, based on the blood of Christ).

 

[JonC]

I would have thought it was a matter of common courtesy, if one is going to criticize someone's view, to provide a reference. If I am going to read the book I shall have to buy a print version. My eyes won't tolerate reading that much on line.
Never mind.

No problem. I did provide the reference, but I didn't jot down the location. I wasn't criticizing anybody, just making an observation I found humorous.

In the end you would agree with Owen and I wouldn't, he just called your shared definition of sin in that passage a "sin offering" because Christ could not literally be made sin (Owen would say God imputed our guilt to Him...which he equates with a sin offering like his view of the scapegoat).

 

[kyredneck]

God forgives or punishes us for our sins.

'Us', punished, not eternally, ever. We'll reap what we sow in this temporal realm, but our eternal destiny has been secured by Christ's atonement.

That's good news!

 

[kyredneck]

No. I'm saying that sins are the fruit produced by sinners, they are manifestations of our sinful state.

For example, suppose I steal a candy bar and eat it. Can I mail you that sin? No. It is an action (or it could be an attitude). But it will s not a thing to be transferred.

Owen pointed this out when he insisted what is transferred is guilt. But that actually goes against Scripture and the revealed nature of God (it would be impossible for God to ascribe to Christ actual guilt).

7 Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened. For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ: 1 Cor 5

13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and there shall no plague be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt. Ex 12

 

[DaveXR650]

Owen pointed this out when he insisted what is transferred is guilt. But that actually goes against Scripture and the revealed nature of God (it would be impossible for God to ascribe to Christ actual guilt).

Owen, in that section we are looking in said that God ascribed every aspect of our sin to Christ, except he did not mean that Christ had actually became a sinner himself. He pointed out that he was bearing our sins and actually bearing them in a way we would never be able to. He seemed to me at least, to be sort of uncomfortable with the idea of calling this a sin-offering because whenever he allowed that usage he always preceded it by insisting that Christ was made sin and also that in the sacrificial system the sacrifice had to be made sin before it could become a sin-offering. He seemed very concerned to protect the concept of Christ being "made sin" and seemed anxious that the idea of Christ as a sin-offering not infringe on the meaning of the first phrase. At least that's what I noticed. I read where you guys had a dispute over Greek and Hebrew words which was way beyond me so I'm just saying that I noticed that.

But when you say "actual guilt" you are right if you mean that Christ never actually became an evil sinner himself but it was all imputed to Christ - everything involved in the dealing with our sin by God was put on Christ, with the understanding that Christ didn't really do anything wrong. This does include an element of wrath and propitiation as well as a removal of sin or of a satisfaction to God.

The points you bring up do clarify the importance of imputation, of our sin to Christ and of Christs righteousness to us. It also brings out the importance of having a union with Christ. This is all very hard to understand and I am thankful that if you notice we aren't doing anything but are passive in the actually dealing with our sin and guilt.

 

[kyredneck]

we aren't doing anything but are passive in the actually dealing with our sin and guilt.

There's a 'mini-type' to be found in the story of the Passover night in Egypt. The 'firstborn' being totally passive, it was the father who applied the blood for them. Whether or not the firstborn believed that the blood on the lintel and doorpost was going to work, their 'faith' had zilch to do with it's efficacy. However, their 'faith' had everything to do with how they rested on that dreadful night.

 

[JD731]

What about all of those people Paul said sinned apart from the Law and died for that sin (those who lived after Adam but before Moses)?

The death they died was physical.

12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

There goes "original sin" out of the conversation. Adam had a law. Do not eat of the tree. Adam's offspring died physically even though they had transgressed no law. They did not die because they sinned like Adam, they died because they were like Adam. They were "in" Adam, meaning they were in the family of Adam and all those in Adam die, even to this very day, whether they have sinned or not. They did not have eternal life dwelling in them.

Adam is a figure (type) of Jesus Christ, albeit a contrasting type. All men get into the family of Adam through a birth and are sure to die. When someone of Adams family gets into the family of God it is through a new birth, a second birth, and they have eternal life dwelling in them and they will never die. The person of life dwells in them, God. He said he would never leave us or forsake us.

But alas, Jesus Christ did not come until the end of the 4th millennium and the beginning of the 5th millennium and men were dying for all the first 4 Millennia. What about them? Well, God had a solution. If they would believe the light he gave them, no matter how bright or dim, he would count their believing for righteousness and justify them as though they never sinned and when Jesus Christ, the savior arrived, his blood would wash away their sins and they could be accepted into the presence of God.

The righteous judge of all the earth can do that and a justified man can never be charged with sin. After the cross Jesus Christ is made unto us "justification." When we receive him we receive justification.

That was a great question BTW, and I am glad you asked it.

 

[JonC]

The death they died was physical.

Agreed.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I believe that Christ bore our sins (God laid the iniquity of us all on Him). If that's what you mean, then yes. If you mean a transference of our sins from us, then I'd say no as this is not in the Bible.

If Christ bore our sins, to where did He bear them?
'Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.'

Leviticus 16:21-22. 'Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a suitable man.'

 

[JonC]

If Christ bore our sins, to where did He bear them?
'Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.'

Leviticus 16:21-22. 'Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a suitable man.'

You are asking nonsense questions. Christ bore our sins. He takes away the sins of the world.

He does not take sins anywhere (sins are not things to be transported or transferred).

This is what I mean by rejecting what the Bible states - what is written in God's Word, delivered to kan, God breathed - in adding to Scripture. Too many people find that God simply is insufficient, that His Word is not enough.

Even the "scapegoat" comes into question. Many present the sins of men as actually being transferred to a goat. But if you rely on the New Covenant as the fulfillment of the Old Covenant you will realize that the scapegoat foreshadowed a future covenant where our sins will be taken away, forgiven. And possibly even a warning not to return to that sin (repentance).

Instead we see Christians more satisfied with mythology than God's own revelation to man.

This is obvious when we read the Bible and consider the stupidity of the idea that man's sins can be transferred to a goat, that Christ Himself merely expanded upon and made permanent what a goat did for Israel.

 

[percho]

7 Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened. For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ: 1 Cor 5

13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and there shall no plague be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt. Ex 12

The blood??? That above is very good especially when applied to the following in the correct translation: Darby- for the soul of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it (the blood of Christ) to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh atonement for the soul.

Soul = living being = smell, touch, taste, see, hear, memory - of the flesh (of Christ) - in the blood (of Christ) unto death the very opposite of the preceding because of our sin which IMHO went away because of washing of regeneration (of Christ) 1 Cor 15:16,17 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins
To date Christ is the only one to have been raised to die no more, no more to return to corruption Rom 6:9 Acts 13:34

But he is the first-born out of the dead therefore -
and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the first-born out of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth; to him who did love us, and did bathe (wash) us from our sins in his blood,


IMHO the blood of Christ means the very being of, The Christ. The Anointed One, anointed by whom?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You are asking nonsense questions. Christ bore our sins. He takes away the sins of the world.

He does not take sins anywhere (sins are not things to be transported or transferred).

This is what I mean by rejecting what the Bible states - what is written in God's Word, delivered to kan, God breathed - in adding to Scripture. Too many people find that God simply is insufficient, that His Word is not enough.

Even the "scapegoat" comes into question. Many present the sins of men as actually being transferred to a goat. But if you rely on the New Covenant as the fulfillment of the Old Covenant you will realize that the scapegoat foreshadowed a future covenant where our sins will be taken away, forgiven. And possibly even a warning not to return to that sin (repentance).

Instead we see Christians more satisfied with mythology than God's own revelation to man.

This is obvious when we read the Bible and consider the stupidity of the idea that man's sins can be transferred to a goat, that Christ Himself merely expanded upon and made permanent what a goat did for Israel.

Unlike you, I'm just quoting Scripture. Deuteronomy 19:15. 'By the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.'

1. 'Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.'
2. 'And you know that He was manifested to take away our sin.'
3. 'Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a suitable man.'

 

[JonC]

Unlike you, I'm just quoting Scripture. Deuteronomy 19:15. 'By the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.'

1. 'Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.'
2. 'And you know that He was manifested to take away our sin.'
3. 'Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, confess over it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins, putting them on the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a suitable man.'

No. I was referring Scripture. I said Jesus takes away our sin.

You were adding to the Bible by answering your nonsense question "but where does He take our sin?".

The larger issue is you are dealing dishonestly with my response.

I posted that Christ takes away the sins of the world. You don't like that I say He doesn't take them somewhere, but He takes them away from us.

Then you post passages stating exactly what I posted with the pretence I rejected those passages.

Christ takes away our sin. Our sins are forgiven. Sins are not things to be transferred or put somewhere. Christ takes away our sin.

The only reason you have to constantly add to God's Word is your flawed theories. If you would instead trust Scripture then you would have no need to add to it. But you would be faced with leaving your tradition. And that is not a comfortable thing to do, I know.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I believe that Christ bore our sins (God laid the iniquity of us all on Him). If that's what you mean, then yes. If you mean a transference of our sins from us, then I'd say no as this is not in the Bible.

Well I want to know what it means that Christ bore our sins. If, as you say, He didn't bear them away (contra John 1:29, 1 John 3:3, and indeed Colossians 2:14), what happened to them? Where are they now? If God laid all our iniquities upon Him, and He didn't bear them away, are they still on Him? Or back on us?
If they have simply disappeared into thin air, on what basis did that happen? Is whatever it is you believe but don't want to tell us consistent with the justice of God ('by no means clearing the guilty')?

And asking, where does He take our sin' is not a nonsense question, and nor is it adding to Scripture. It is asking you to explain your philosophy.