Nature of the Atonement

[Agnus_Dei]

He avoided a sin nature through the virgin birth.

I would word it more as Christ's humanity submitted to His Divinity, in which He avoided sin. His virgin birth was a fullfillment of prophecy.

In XC
-

 

[Andre]

Jesus never commited sin.

Agreed. I have never suggested otherwise.

Jesus was sinless.

Agreed. I have never suggested otherwise.

Jesus never had sin residing in him.

This is not what I see Paul as saying, not least in Romans 8:3 if not in the entire sweep of Romans. Paul's entire theology has sin being concentrated in Israel (through Torah) and then ultimatlely concentrated down into one person - Jesus. Romans 8:3 tells it rather clearly:

God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,..

Your point about how "sinful" need not qualify Jesus actually has some merit seen as a point about the first clause. Indeed, one could legitimately say that Jesus came in the form of "man" generally, and refer to man as "sinful flesh". You do have a point. I withdraw my earlier argument about "the tall man". However, the issue is not settled. To this point, your view retains plausibility. But mine does as well.

However, I think your position cannot work with what Paul goes on to say after saying Jesus came in the likeness of sinful man. Paul concludes that God condemned sin in sinful man. This resolves the ambiguity - in some sense, Jesus is indeed "full of sin".

Jesus is the place where sin is dealt with. And Paul characterizes this as the condemning of sin in sinful man. I cannot see how one can avoid concluding that, in some sense, Jesus has "sin in him".

If He had sin in anyway--whether by committng it, or even by having sin residing in him, it would have disqualified him from making an atonement for our sin.

I suggest that you will not be able to defend this from the scriptures. I suggest that you insert an assumption about the nature of the atonement. If the atonement is understood, at least in part, as a force or power being de-actived or broken, then sin might well have to reside in Him so that the de-activation or breaking can actually take place.

If you can, please provide an argument as to why Jesus cannot have sin in him.

 

[Andre]

Jesus bore the sin of the world. He did not become sinful. This doctrine has been established in the church for thousands of years. I think you are trying to state it in a new way. I think you may believe that you have a unique understanding that no one else in the history of the church has arrived at. You do not. There is nothing new here.

First, I have clearly stated that I am leveraging on the ideas of theologian NT Wright - so I am not putting myself forward as someone who has personally discovered a flaw in "standard" Christian theology.

There is something new here, I suggest - but I personally do not take credit for it, I have been clear that these are not my own ideas (at least in essence).

And what you post raises an interesting question. I submit that just as it was before the reformation, the church will say that it respects scripture as the primary authority, but in reality they respect the authority of various traditions. It does not surprise me at all that, just like at the reformation, scripture continues to divulge new things even in the 21st century.

And one of these new things, I suggest, is the notion that sin is a quantity that needs to be localized in one place in order to be neutralized. I have yet to provide the main argument for this. But, it is an idea that I think is true to the Scriptures. And the fact that it may be "new" does not make it incorrect.

I trust that you will agree with me that the Scriptures, and not traditional interpretations of them, are the final authority.

 

[Marcia]

I am interested to know - what texts will you put forward in defence of your claim that sin never resided in Him?

21For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
22Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
1 Pet 2.21-23

 

[Andre]

21For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:
22Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:
1 Pet 2.21-23

This does not address my specific question. There is an important difference between having the power of sin, as a force or agent, somehow "inserted" into your flesh on the one hand and actually sinning on the other. Nothing I have said can (properly anyway) be taken as a suggestion that Jesus sinned.

If I am full of virus for disease X, does this necessitate that I manifest the symptoms of disease X? No, it does not.

I have never stated or implied that Jesus was sinful in the sense of committing sin. I have instead been arguing that sin is a "force" or power that was "lured" into the flesh of Jesus and then condemned on the cross. This is something entirely different.

 

[Marcia]

Sin, I repeat, is a force, an agency, a "thing". It is not an abstract moral category.

This is an extremely challenging subject and one thing I should be more clear about is the distinction between the following:

1. Sin as understood to be a force or agency in the world; and

2. Sin as understood be "acts". When I steal, I commit a sin.

I am not sure how to integrate these two. But that does not undermine what I think is an accurate position on what Paul is saying in Romans 8:3. Whatever else may be going on, on the cross, the agency of sin - the personal evil force of it - is "lured" into Jesus very flesh and is condemned by God.

Sin is not a force and there is no biblical support for that concept, which is a concept closer to an occult view of evil as a force. Sin comes from rebellion against God - in our nature when we are born, and in our actions when they are sinful.

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 2 Cor. 5.21

The verse above says at least 3 things:
1. Jesus "knew no sin"
2. Jesus took on sin (imputation of sin)
3. We are able through this to take on his righteousness (imputation of righteousness)

Just as men are not righteous when they trust God, but righteousness is imputed to them, so in the atonement, sin was imputed to Christ. Having righteousness imputed to us is a legal declaration; we are not actually made righteous (though through sanctification we can take on more Christly qualites). God sees those who have faith in Christ as righteous; we are justified.

And so Jesus was not actually sinful when our sins were imputed to him - i.e., our sins laid on Him at the cross, and He suffered the penalty for our sins.

 

[Andre]

Sin is not a force and there is no biblical support for that concept, which is a concept closer to an occult view of evil as a force. Sin comes from rebellion against God - in our nature when we are born, and in our actions when they are sinful.

If sin is not a force, how do you makes sense of this text:

20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it

Paul draws an important distinction between himself and sin. You have said that is our nature. I agree that we have a fallen nature. But the world Paul describes is more complicated. Let's be faithful to what Paul actually writes here. He says "it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin..."

This cannot work with the position that the only force at work here is our fallen nature. If that were the case, Paul would not draw such a clear distinction between the "I" - which we all agree is fallen - and sin, which he clearly sees as a force or power of its own right.

 

[Marcia]

If sin is not a force, how do you makes sense of this text:

20Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it

Paul draws an important distinction between himself and sin. You have said that is our nature. I agree that we have a fallen nature. But the world Paul describes is more complicated. Let's be faithful to what Paul actually writes here. He says "it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin..."

This cannot work with the position that the only force at work here is our fallen nature. If that were the case, Paul would not draw such a clear distinction between the "I" - which we all agree is fallen - and sin, which he clearly sees as a force or power of its own right.

If sin were a force that invades people, we would not be accountable to God for our sin, but we are.

Paul is talking about the weakness of his flesh - how he succumbs to sin even against his will. We are captive to sin (our sin nature - our tendency to sin) and in bondage to it before we are freed in Christ. I can post verses that say this if necessary, but am in sort of a rush now.

We are faithful to what Paul says here by comparing it with other scripture - and it is clear that he is referring to his sinful nature, not to a force.

 

[swaimj]

I have yet to provide the main argument for this.

We're close to 6 pages, so I don't know you linger without presenting your stronger arguments.

In addition to what Marcia said about sin not being a personal entity--I agree with her, I would need to see some support for the idea that sin was "lured" to Jesus or in some way tricked into residing in him.

 

[Andre]

If sin were a force that invades people, we would not be accountable to God for our sin, but we are.

Can you provide a text that supports your view, to the exclusion of other views. Paul himself seems to repudiate your assertion here. Here it is again:

Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

Paul is clear - he blames sin, not himself.

Paul is talking about the weakness of his flesh - how he succumbs to sin even against his will. We are captive to sin (our sin nature - our tendency to sin) and in bondage to it before we are freed in Christ. I can post verses that say this if necessary, but am in sort of a rush now.

We are faithful to what Paul says here by comparing it with other scripture - and it is clear that he is referring to his sinful nature, not to a force.

This really cannot be reconciled with the Romans 7 text. If, as you say, Paul were referring to his sinful nature, he would not say "it is no longer I who do it".

I think that Paul shows through his writings that he chooses his words with great care. Why would he clearly set such a strong distinction between "I" and "sin" if he felt that the only player involved was his sinful nature?

I think you might be right if Paul is speaking somewhat metaphorically and loosely - that he uses the notion of a "personal power of sin" as a metaphor for his own fallen nature. That is, of course, a possiblity. But a non-metaphorical reading has Paul clearly absolving himself of blame and blaming sin "living in him".

Perhaps this distinction is not critical to what I think is the most interesting points about the atonement which I think are these:

1. Jesus' act on the cross is directly connected to Israel's history. Its not that God does one thing with Israel and another with Jesus. Israel is God's means for dealing with sin.

2. Torah is given to Israel to make her even more sinful. I have not yet made arguments for this but I will;

3. Israel ultimately cannot fulfll her role. The sin that has built up in Israel is "transferred" to her representative Messiah who, alone, deals with sin. Israel has played the role of being the place where the sin of the world is concentrated. It is finally concentrated to a point in Jesus.

Perhaps sin needn't be a "power" or "force", per se, to work with the above scheme that I think has strong Biblical support.

 

[Andre]

We're close to 6 pages, so I don't know you linger without presenting your stronger arguments.

In addition to what Marcia said about sin not being a personal entity--I agree with her, I would need to see some support for the idea that sin was "lured" to Jesus or in some way tricked into residing in him.

Well, I have been busy fielding some very good questions from people. I will now turn to the argument about the "luring". I will use texts from Romans 5, 7, 9, and 11.

Back later

 

[DHK]

I would word it more as Christ's humanity submitted to His Divinity, in which He avoided sin. His virgin birth was a fullfillment of prophecy.

In XC
-

No, the virgin birth is the only way in which Christ could have avoided a sin nature. It was not simply a fulfillment of prophecy. God has a purpose in all things. He doesn't do things "just for fun" as you seem to imply. The virgin birth was more than a fulfilled prophecy. It served a purpose. It was the chosen vehicle by which God entered this world, and he did so in this way because in this way he would be fully and completely man, and at the same time not inherit man's fallen nature.
At no time in all of eternity did Christ ever give up his divinity.
He was God from all eternity, is God, and always will be God.
He was God in the womb--during the full nine month pregnancy, he was God.
However he was fully man at the same time.
He was fully God and fully man at the same time.
Thus the virgin birth was necessary to accomplish this feat and still have a sinless God/man.

God came down from heaven. Christ is the second person of the trinity. In Him all the fulness of the Godhead dwells. How can there be any sin dwelling in God. The Bible specifically says that there is nothing that defiles that can enter into heaven--nothing. There is nothing that defiles in Christ, who is God. Christ is God. God cannot have sin, or else he is not God. To say that sin resides in
Christ is to say that he is less than God. God does not have sin.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Brother Curtis: AMEN !!!!!!

HP: Seem you appear to be so adamant with your Amen’s, may I ask you as to where you receive your information from? Where does Scripture or reason tell us that Christ ‘was born of a virgin was to avoid the sinfulness of man?’ Show us the passage that supports such a conclusion.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

No, the virgin birth is the only way in which Christ could have avoided a sin nature. It was not simply a fulfillment of prophecy. God has a purpose in all things. He doesn't do things "just for fun" as you seem to imply. The virgin birth was more than a fulfilled prophecy. It served a purpose. It was the chosen vehicle by which God entered this world, and he did so in this way because in this way he would be fully and completely man, and at the same time not inherit man's fallen nature.
At no time in all of eternity did Christ ever give up his divinity.
He was God from all eternity, is God, and always will be God.
He was God in the womb--during the full nine month pregnancy, he was God.
However he was fully man at the same time.
He was fully God and fully man at the same time.
Thus the virgin birth was necessary to accomplish this feat and still have a sinless God/man.

God came down from heaven. Christ is the second person of the trinity. In Him all the fulness of the Godhead dwells. How can there be any sin dwelling in God. The Bible specifically says that there is nothing that defiles that can enter into heaven--nothing. There is nothing that defiles in Christ, who is God. Christ is God. God cannot have sin, or else he is not God. To say that sin resides in
Christ is to say that he is less than God. God does not have sin.

Please DHK, stop with the lecture, and tell the class something we don't know, like where in Scripture does it say that it was because of the Virgin Birth that Christ was and remained sinless.

I agree, Christ was fully human, thanks to the Virgin Mary and was fully God, but where we disconnect iss that you seem to think or imply that the man passes on the "sin nature", I don't buy it.

I believe that Christ was born "fully" human in every way that you and I are human. He was tempted in every way possible, just as you and I are, ONLY difference between Christ and the two of us is that Christ has a second nature...His Divinity. Do you understand what I'm saying?

Christ was human...HUMAN...If Christ couldn't sin, then WHY did the Devil even attempt to tempt Him? Christ couldn't sin, only because His humanity perfectly and wholly, submitted to His Divinity.

That's why Christ didn't sin and remained sinless. Christ submitted perfectly to His Divinity.

And this isn't funny business DHK, God didn't need a Virgin to be born sinless. God could've clothed His Son in Human flesh and sent Him a grown man on an ass into Jerusalem, but he chose a Virgin, not to be sinless, but to identify with His fallen creation.

In XC
-

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Agnus Dei: Christ was human...HUMAN...If Christ couldn't sin, then WHY did the Devil even attempt to tempt Him? Christ couldn't sin, only because His humanity perfectly and wholly, submitted to His Divinity.

That's why Christ didn't sin and remained sinless. Christ submitted perfectly to His Divinity.

HP: I believe what you say is in essence truth. :thumbs:

Where I might find exception is in the comment stating why He ‘could not’ sin. If He ‘could not’ have sinned, then temptation is a chimera and He could not have been tempted. I am not certain if we agree or disagree on this point.

 

[Marcia]

Can you provide a text that supports your view, to the exclusion of other views. Paul himself seems to repudiate your assertion here. Here it is again:

Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

Paul is clear - he blames sin, not himself.


This really cannot be reconciled with the Romans 7 text. If, as you say, Paul were referring to his sinful nature, he would not say "it is no longer I who do it".

Well, I think I answered this. The "I" refers to Paul's will. He does not want to sin, but he does. He goes on to explain it:

For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.

He has the desire to do the right thing but the sin nature takes over. It's a battle between trying to do the right thing and yet giving in to evil. There is a an in-house debate as to whether Paul is talking about how he was before Christ or if this is true of believers, but that's another issue.

No one understands this passage to refer to sin as a force. No church fathers, scholars, no one in church history in the past or present, no Greek experts, etc. have ever taken this passage to support a view that sin is a force. And since other scripture also goes against that view as well, the burden is on you to show such a unique reading, and you will need other scripture to support the view that sin is a force.

But you won't find it because such a view is against a biblical worldview. Dealing with this issue is one of the areas of my ministry since I deal with occult issues, and it is an occult view to see evil as a force, not a Christian one. Evil and sin come from the nature and behavior of men. Read Romans 5.

But a non-metaphorical reading has Paul clearly absolving himself of blame and blaming sin "living in him".

Paul is not absolving himself of sin at all. In another passage, he refers to himself as the chief of sinners.

1. Jesus' act on the cross is directly connected to Israel's history. Its not that God does one thing with Israel and another with Jesus. Israel is God's means for dealing with sin.

2. Torah is given to Israel to make her even more sinful. I have not yet made arguments for this but I will;

3. Israel ultimately cannot fulfll her role. The sin that has built up in Israel is "transferred" to her representative Messiah who, alone, deals with sin. Israel has played the role of being the place where the sin of the world is concentrated. It is finally concentrated to a point in Jesus.

Perhaps sin needn't be a "power" or "force", per se, to work with the above scheme that I think has strong Biblical support

But the origin of sin that is atoned for is in man.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Marcia: Evil and sin come from the nature and behavior of men.

HP: I might put it this way. Evil and sin are pronouncements or judgments of God on certain formed intents and subsequent actions of selfishness as opposed to benevolence.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Where I might find exception is in the comment stating why He ‘could not’ sin. If He ‘could not’ have sinned, then temptation is a chimera and He could not have been tempted. I am not certain if we agree or disagree on this point.

Since Christ was fully human, just as you and I, I believe He very well could've sinned, but then again, Christ had a second nature foreign to us...a Divine Nature. Through His Divine Nature, Christ was able to not entertain one temptation of sin...If that makes any sense.

In the Orthodox Church we Christians are called to, at least attempt (though we fail), to attain this and we call this process Theosis. The Desert Fathers write extensively about Theosis in the Philokalia (I think you would really enjoy these collections of writings and I'd highly recommend these). The Protestant Church would call Theosis, becoming more Christ like.

In XC
-

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Agnus Dei: Since Christ was fully human, just as you and I, I believe He very well could've sinned, but then again, Christ had a second nature foreign to us...a Divine Nature. Through His Divine Nature, Christ was able to not entertain one temptation of sin...If that makes any sense.

HP: Certainly we are trying to understand that which we could only hope to see through a glass darkly in this world, but it would seem to me that Christ had to accept His position as God by faith.

One thing that bothers me is that some on the list confuse absolute knowledge with faith or carelessly treat them as synonymous. I see a world of difference between the two, without which no clear understanding of either is possible.

 

[DHK]

HP: Certainly we are trying to understand that which we could only hope to see through a glass darkly in this world, but it would seem to me that Christ had to accept His position as God by faith.

This position is contradictory and illogical. It makes no sense.
Christ is God. He is God incarnate--God come in the flesh:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

John 1:14 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.
--Christ is God. Christ is the Word. The Word became flesh. The Word is the second person of the triune Godhead. He is our Creator.

John 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

You say: "Christ had to accept his position as God by fiath.
That is nonsense. He always God, and never forsook his divinity.

Look at what Paul says:
Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Faith comes by hearing or learning the Word.
Christ is the Word. Must he learn of Himself, have faith in himself??
What exactly are you saying? Whatever, it makes no sense.
Christ never ceased from being God. He always was, is and always will be.