Christ's Death

[Silverhair]

I have honestly never heard any Calvinist or any non Calvinist Christian for that matter claim that we would not still be in our sins if Christ had not risen. Romans 5:10 has both. If we are discussing Christs death on a thread it does not mean that we are against his life, either in the sense of his resurrection or in the sense of his life of obedience and righteousness being imputed to us. It's just that you can't discuss everything at the same time.

By the way. Get a copy of "The Works of G. Campbell Morgan" if you want to read some of the most beautiful writing you will ever see on the subject of our new life with a risen Christ. (And he was not a Calvinist, if that matters).

Two points 1] I was referring to Romans 5:10 in my post & 2] I have G C Morgans commentary in my bible program.
How many times have you seen on this board that we are saved by His atonement or words to that effect. Actually we have seen some claim that they were chosen/saved before the foundation of the world. So when and how do you think one is saved? When is one regenerated/saved and why?

 

[atpollard]

I agree that Christ died for our sins.
I agree that the wages of sin is death.
It is appointed man to die.

I disagree with your conclusion that we or the Lamb must die (I disagree with the "or" part). The reason is that Scripture states that we will all die because of Adam's sin (the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is life in Christ).

Christ's death does not mean we will not die but that in dying we who are in Christ will live (death has lost its sting).

The SECOND DEATH “hung in the balance” on the Cross.
[I just love puns.]

 

[Silverhair]

It did not say "evil". It said "sin". Sin has a literal metaphysical manifestation; it is a tangible "thing" in the spiritual world:

Job 14:17 My transgression is sealed up in a bag, and thou sewest up mine iniquity.

Mic 7:19 He will turn again, he will have compassion upon us; he will subdue our iniquities; and thou wilt cast all their sins into the depths of the sea.

Those are not figures of speech. Those are descriptions of a literal reality in the spiritual world, which, because we cannot understand (Joh_3:12 If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?) we treat as merely symbolic.

Christ was made sin; not "sin offering", not "evil", not anything else: sin.

Logically if Christ was made actual sin then He would not be the sinless lamb would He?
Compare:
2 Corinthians 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him
to this scripture
1 John 2:2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
1Pe_2:24 and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

Propitiation
In theology, the atonement or atoning sacrifice {sin offering} offered to God to assuage his wrath and render him propitious to sinners.

Do you really think that Paul intended to say that Christ was a sinner or that He was a sin offering to appease the wrath of God against sinful man?

 

[DaveXR650]

Two points 1] I was referring to Romans 5:10 in my post & 2] I have G C Morgans commentary in my bible program.
How many times have you seen on this board that we are saved by His atonement or words to that effect. Actually we have seen some claim that they were chosen/saved before the foundation of the world. So when and how do you think one is saved? When is one regenerated/saved and why?

You are correct in what you say people state on this board. If you are asking me personally, I think we are saved when we come to Christ by faith, believing that Jesus is who he claimed to be and believing that he is willing to save us personally and that he is able to do so because of what he did in his life and in his death and resurrection.

As far as the timing, I believe that you can drive yourself nuts over the logic if you wish. I do think that you are probably regenerated or born again before you believe, which is why many of us are just going along and at some point it all seems clear to us and we start being intensely interested in Christ whereas before we were not interested. It's like a light came on. But I do not see why someone who believes faith came before being born again would not be just as much of a Christian. It may surprise you but Owen himself did not like to assert too strongly the order of salvation.

 

[JonC]

Verse. And how does "transcendent" conflict with "tangible"?



I literally quoted your definition. Either way, replace it as you wish, the question stands.



You're the one quoting the Greek, I'm the one quoting Job and Hosea.

Where does Hosea and Job speak of Him who knew no sin being made sin?

 

[JonC]

You are probably stating something wrong that I am unaware of!.

Lol....probably.

So he is the first fruits of the resurrection which gives us hope.

I agree.

When exactly our debt of sin was paid?

Post the verse and let's discuss it.

 

[George Antonios]

Logically if Christ was made actual sin then He would not be the sinless lamb would He?
Compare:
2 Corinthians 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him
to this scripture
1 John 2:2 and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.
1Pe_2:24 and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.

Propitiation
In theology, the atonement or atoning sacrifice {sin offering} offered to God to assuage his wrath and render him propitious to sinners.

Do you really think that Paul intended to say that Christ was a sinner or that He was a sin offering to appease the wrath of God against sinful man?

Paul intended to say what Paul said: Christ was made sin.

He said what he meant and he meant what he said.

Christ's sinlessness is precisely what allowed him to embody the sin of others. There is no contradiction.

 

[George Antonios]

Where does Hosea and Job speak of Him who knew no sin being made sin?

I was talking about sin having a tangible manifestation in the spiritual world.

 

[JonC]

I was talking about sin having a tangible manifestation in the spiritual world.

I was talking about Christ being made sin.

 

[George Antonios]

I was talking about Christ being made sin.

You said it: "sin".

 

[Silverhair]

You are correct in what you say people state on this board. If you are asking me personally, I think we are saved when we come to Christ by faith, believing that Jesus is who he claimed to be and believing that he is willing to save us personally and that he is able to do so because of what he did in his life and in his death and resurrection.

As far as the timing, I believe that you can drive yourself nuts over the logic if you wish. I do think that you are probably regenerated or born again before you believe, which is why many of us are just going along and at some point it all seems clear to us and we start being intensely interested in Christ whereas before we were not interested. It's like a light came on. But I do not see why someone who believes faith came before being born again would not be just as much of a Christian. It may surprise you but Owen himself did not like to assert too strongly the order of salvation.

Now I can agree with much of what you say but the being saved before you believe is a tad to far for me. The bible is quite clear on that point, hear, then believe what you have heard, then you are saved. Ephesians 1:13 and why would someone call on the Lord if they did not think that He could save them Romans 10:13.

I think that the order of salvation is stated quite clearly by Paul
Romans 10:14 How then will they call on Him in whom they have not believed? How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?

Note the order Paul describes here.
1) The saved are those who call on the name of the Lord.
2) They call because they believe.
3) They believe because they heard.
4) They heard because a preacher shared the Gospel.
Working backwards, Gospel → Hearing → Believing → Confession/Calling → Salvation.

What Paul says here is clear. The Gospel is preached, people hear it, believe it, call on God and are saved. Sorry if that doesn’t fit into the Reformed-Calvinist scenario.

 

[Silverhair]

Paul intended to say what Paul said: Christ was made sin.

He said what he meant and he meant what he said.

Christ's sinlessness is precisely what allowed him to embody the sin of others. There is no contradiction.

Then you must have a different understanding of what being made something means.

 

[DaveXR650]

Note the order Paul describes here.
1) The saved are those who call on the name of the Lord.
2) They call because they believe.
3) They believe because they heard.
4) They heard because a preacher shared the Gospel.
Working backwards, Gospel → Hearing → Believing → Confession/Calling → Salvation.

What Paul says here is clear. The Gospel is preached, people hear it, believe it, call on God and are saved. Sorry if that doesn’t fit into the Reformed-Calvinist scenario.

We've talked about this before and I just don't think we have it in us to desire to come to Christ. What changes us on this is something the Holy Spirit does to us. Therefore I lean to a Calvinistic system that allows for that. I will not go along with a system that does not truly make an offer of the gospel to everyone and does not say that anyone who comes will be saved. But a good part of Calvinism does that - but not all by any means.

 

[Alan Gross]

I understand the idea behind 1-8. And I get that those who hold this view use Christ's "death" as a metaphor for 1-7. I get that.

Let me put it this way (a theological hypothetical).

Let's say #8 was missing:

1. The Father laid our sins on on the Son
2. The Father punished our sins laid upon Christ
3. The Father poured out His wrath, the wrath due our sins, on His Son instead of punishing us
4. The Father departed from (forsook) the Son because of our sin
5. In this way the Father satisfied our debt of sin and we were freed from sin

6. After this the Son declared "it is finished"
7. The Son was no longer separated from the Father.

8. The Son stepped down from the Cross instead of dying.


How is this redemption different in application?

As if 7&8 aren't the same, in the previous numbering.

After 6 in this numbering 7&8 must again be Separation of Soul and Spirit, which is Death.

How is this redemption different in application? There is none.

The Surety stepped aside and didn't perform/ which would have been impossible for Christ and the Testator would not execute the Covenant of Grace.

Mercy and truth did not met together; righteousness and peace have not kissed each other.

Again, that would be impossible for the Father's Perfect Surety and Testator.

 

[JonC]

You said it: "sin".

Exactly. But which definition of "sin" was Christ made?

The OT חַטָּאת? But then which definition? "burnt offering" or "disobedience to God's will"?

Or should we use the 8th Century BC Greek definition of "missing the mark" as in losing in a battle?

Or should we use the Jewish Greek definition of "disobedience to God"?

Or should we use the Greek definition in literature of an inner movement leading to death or a tragic event?

 

[JonC]

As if 7&8 aren't the same, in the previous numbering.

After 6 in this numbering 7&8 must again be Separation of Soul and Spirit, which is Death.

How is this redemption different in application? There is none.

The Surety stepped aside and didn't perform/ which would have been impossible for Christ and the Testator would not execute the Covenant of Grace.

Mercy and truth did not met together; righteousness and peace have not kissed each other.

Again, that would be impossible for the Father's Perfect Surety and Testator.

They are the same.

I make the distinction because some misunderstand Christ as paying for our sins by dying a spiritual type of death when He was separated from God. Pointing out that Christ couldn't have been separated from God when He committed His Spirit to the Father means those who view that as our redemption do not believe we were actually redeemed by Christ's death.

Historically Christians viewed the Christ's suffering on the cross as suffering the inflections of the world, but His death as what ultimately redeemed man.

The form of Christianity that took root in the 16th and early 17th Century holds a very different view of God and of the Cross.

 

[Silverhair]

We've talked about this before and I just don't think we have it in us to desire to come to Christ. What changes us on this is something the Holy Spirit does to us. Therefore I lean to a Calvinistic system that allows for that. I will not go along with a system that does not truly make an offer of the gospel to everyone and does not say that anyone who comes will be saved. But a good part of Calvinism does that - but not all by any means.

So if man does not have it in himself to desire to come to Him then why does God tell us to seek Him? Jeremiah 29:13 And note it is not just a casual type of seeking but a diligent one, but it is still the person that does the seeking.

Yes I agree it is something that the Holy Spirit does. He convicts man of His sin. John 16:8-9 Because all man are convicted some will be receptive to the gospel message. But did you notice that He convicts the world, all men, not just some. So all men have the chance to trust in God.

You say that you cannot go along with a system that does not truly make an offer of the gospel to everyone and does not say that anyone who comes will be saved. But that would exclude Calvinism from those that you could go along with. The offer of salvation in Calvinism cannot be a well meant offer for all as it has exclusions built into it. To make an offer of salvation knowing that the vast majority can not respond to it is, in simple terms, dishonest. Are you saying that God is being dishonest in the offer of salvation?

Under Calvinism only those that are included in the Unconditional Election will partake of the Limited Atonement and will be drawn to God by His Irresistible Grace. So all men do not have an equal chance to know or trust in God. Are you saying you do not agree with the TULIP understanding of Sorteriology?

Your last comment raised a question, what part of Calvinism makes a good faith offer and which does not do so in your view?

 

[George Antonios]

Exactly. But which definition of "sin" was Christ made?

The OT חַטָּאת? But then which definition? "burnt offering" or "disobedience to God's will"?

Or should we use the 8th Century BC Greek definition of "missing the mark" as in losing in a battle?

Or should we use the Jewish Greek definition of "disobedience to God"?

Or should we use the Greek definition in literature of an inner movement leading to death or a tragic event?

The verse says "sin"; not "sin offering".

 

[JonC]

The verse says "sin"; not "sin offering".

Yes. But words have meanings.

"Sin" means:

1. Burnt offering (KJV translation of sin")
2. Offense (KJV translation of "sin")
3. Inner movement leading to death or a tragic event (Greek definition of hamartia)
4. Missing the mark, i.e. target (8th Century BC definition of hamartia.
5. Disobedience to God's Law (1st Century Jewish definition of hamartia)
6. Fault (KJV definition of "sin")
7. A Crime (KJV definition of "sin" when against man)
8. Punishment for a crime (KJV translation of sin)

If you do not know what word means then you are unable to offer a meaningful response. We all agree "sin" is a good translation.

 

[George Antonios]

Yes. But words have meanings.

"Sin" means:

1. Burnt offering (KJV translation of sin")
2. Offense (KJV translation of "sin")
3. Inner movement leading to death or a tragic event (Greek definition of hamartia)
4. Missing the mark, i.e. target (8th Century BC definition of hamartia.
5. Disobedience to God's Law (1st Century Jewish definition of hamartia)
6. Fault (KJV definition of "sin")
7. A Crime (KJV definition of "sin" when against man)
8. Punishment for a crime (KJV translation of sin)

If you do not know what word means then you are unable to offer a meaningful response. We all agree "sin" is a good translation.

Again, for the 3rd and last time dear brother, he became a serpent and a worm on the cross once he became the physical embodiment of sin. That (serpent, worm) illustrates what Paul meant by "sin".