Christ's Nature

[BobRyan]

Isaiah 53:5

5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.
6
All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.
…
8
By oppression and judgment He was taken away;
And as for His generation, who considered
That He was cut off out of the land of the living
For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?
9
His grave was assigned with wicked men,
Yet He was with a rich man in His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.
10
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.
11
As a result of the anguish of His soul,
He will see it and be satisfied;
By His knowledge the Righteous One,
My Servant, will justify the many,
As He will bear their iniquities.[/b]
12
Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great,
And He will divide the booty with the strong;
Because He poured out Himself to death,
And was numbered with the transgressors;
Yet He Himself bore the sin of many,
And interceded for the transgressors.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

That is indeed a wonderful prophetic passage.

 

[BobRyan]

It shows that we owed specifically for sin. It shows that "Strokes were due" to us because of that sin. It shows that he took what was due to us - that we might be saved from it. The suffering due to us - fell upon Him.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: It shows that we owed specifically for sin. It shows that "Strokes were due" to us because of that sin. It shows that he took what was due to us - that we might be saved from it. The suffering due to us - fell upon Him.

HP: I agree with all of that, but how does that establish the literal payment theory you espouse or the notion that Christ could not have sinned if He would have so chose, or the false notion of imputed guilt?

 

[BobRyan]

#1. I have never made the argument that "Christ could not sin" - I simply argue that Lucifer, Adam, Eve, Christ were all sinLESS and had no "bent" toward sin - no warped nature that desired sin. Rather they all had perfect sinless natures in perfect harmony with God.

#2. How is it that the literal stroke "DUE" for the sins committed is not showing suffering DUE for sin? Col 2 speaks of it as a "certificate of debt". Luke 12:50-54 shows it has that which is required of us in hell of some "MUCH is required" and of others LITTLE. Matt 18 speaks of it as paying up to the very last amount OWED.

#3. I am not arguing the imputed guilt problem as much as I am arguing the Rom 3 -- ALL have sinful natures -- problem. And I claim that the Gospel solves that problem.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: #1. I have never made the argument that "Christ could not sin" - I simply argue that Lucifer, Adam, Eve, Christ were all sinLESS and had no "bent" toward sin - no warped nature that desired sin. Rather they all had perfect sinless natures in perfect harmony with God.

BR from an earlier post: Now, if He could of just went off any way then He would have to lie

.

HP: Possibly you would desire to rectify these two statements for the list? Your former statement clearly is at antipodes with what you now say. One does not ‘desire sin.’ One simply fulfills selfish desires which in turn are deemed as sin. When are you going to realize the distinction between temptation and sin, and if you feel you already do, when are you going to introduce that clear distinction into your posts? One does NOT have to have a ‘bent towards sin’ to have a selfish desire that if yielded to will constitute sin. A selfish desire is not sin. Eve had selfish desires without sin. It was not until she yielded her will in the direction of those desires that sin came into fruition. Have you ever read the passage in James? Jas 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
15 Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death.
16 Do not err, my beloved brethren.

The author places added emphasis in verse 16. Read it with carefully and heed it’s warning.

BR#2. How is it that the literal stroke "DUE" for the sins committed is not showing suffering DUE for sin? Col 2 speaks of it as a "certificate of debt". Luke 12:50-54 shows it has that which is required of us in hell of some "MUCH is required" and of others LITTLE. Matt 18 speaks of it as paying up to the very last amount OWED.

HP: Did I miss the word ‘literal’ in the text? Furthermore, the penalty for sin, literally, is nothing short of eternal separation from God. Eternity has no ‘specific bounds’ as you desire to place upon the penalty of sin.

BR: #3. I am not arguing the imputed guilt problem as much as I am arguing the Rom 3 -- ALL have sinful natures -- problem. And I claim that the Gospel solves that problem.

HP: Now if the sinful nature is that which ‘causes’ man to sin, and Adam and the angels that fell had no such sinful nature, what caused them to sin? Furthermore, if the sinful nature and temptation are one in the same as your argumentation proves out, can a believer sin? If the gospel solves the problem of a sinful nature as you describe it, a bent towards sin, and that bent is ‘solved’ by salvation, how is it that a believer sins? (If in fact you believe he does or still can) If the desire is solved and taken care of by salvation, I believe I could assume then that our nature would be restored back to that of Adam,………. who sinned, which places us in an unending circle of sin that you offer no consistent answer to, why did Adam sin, or Satan and a third part of the angels sin?

A bent to sin, or a proclivity to sin indeed makes the temptation to sin a stronger force or influence, but that is not ‘why’ men sin. Men sin, not to sin, but to satisfy a selfish desire which in itself is NOT sin, but rather only a influence to sin.