Nature of the Atonement

[trustitl]

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:

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.

You say sin is not a force, yet you use the term "sinful nature". This is an improper translation (it is actually an interpretation) of the Greek work "sarx". Paul is talking about the flesh in the section of scripture Romans, chapters 6-8. Until we see that Christ came in the flesh to deal with sin in the flesh, the gospel, and Romans 6-8 in particular will not make any sense.

The deity of Chirst is a worthy issue to defend, but the humanity of Christ is actually a bigger concern.

I John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

This is not some demon that is floating around, but rather a doctrine. Christ came into the world in the flesh for a very important reason. His was flesh like yours and mine. It was how he "condemned sin in the flesh".

Col. 2:11 "In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ"

Gal. 5:24" And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts."

Romans 6:18 "Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. "

HOW?

Romans 6:3 "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7 For he that is dead is freed from sin."

 

[Andre]

While I still lean towards believing that Paul sees sin as a "force", an independent "thing", I do not think that this position is really all that central to what I was hoping to explore.

I have stated that God used Torah to "lure" sin - whatever kind of thing sin is - into Isreal and then finally into Jesus where sin was condemned. I will now begin to make the Scriptural case.

Consider the always enigmatic Romans 5:20:

The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more

I think Paul means what he says - God uses Torah to make Israel more sinful.

And then we get this in Romans 7:

Did that {Torah, by context} which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful

The "in order that" and the "so that" (both the same greek word) indicate divine intent. God has, as per Romans 5:20, given Torah to Israel with the intent of bringing sin to its full height of expression in Israel.

Why would God do such a thing? I think that one looks to Romans 8:3 one can glimpse the solution - He (God) is luring sin out "into the open", concentrating in one "place" (Israel)before it is finally concentrated into the flesh of one man - Jesus - and then condemned on the cross.

Remember: Romans 8:3 tells us that it was sin that was condemned on the cross.

For those who do not share this view, precisely what sense do you make of Romans 5:20 where Paul could not be more clear - Torah was given to make sin increase in Israel. How do you accomodate this is in your theology?

 

[swaimj]

Why would God do such a thing? I think that one looks to Romans 8:3 one can glimpse the solution - He (God) is luring sin out "into the open", concentrating in one "place" (Israel)before it is finally concentrated into the flesh of one man - Jesus - and then condemned on the cross.

But again, your argument hinges on the concept of sin being a living entity or a creature or a personality.

The idea that the law increased sin in nothing new. Two of the most recent major evangelical commentaries on Romans--those of Schreiner and Moo--present this concept quite clearly.

I think you need to spend some time reading theological works that are already available. Brilliant men have spent their lifetime wrestling with the issues in Romans that you are raising. They do not always agree with each other, but if you read, you will see that, by and large, they are wrestling honestly with the questions. Wrestle with the things they have wrestled with and you may eliminate some of the theories you are holding now. You will find that it is not necessary to re-invent the wheel.

 

[Andre]

But again, your argument hinges on the concept of sin being a living entity or a creature or a personality.

Not really. Sin does not have to be a force to have the property of being "concentrated" - it can be any kind of "commodity". I use the word "lure" in the context a supposition that sin is a force - a supposition that I still think is probably correct. But the proposition of sin being specifically a force is not necessary to the argument. As long as it can be concentrated and localized, I suggest the argument still works.

I think you need to spend some time reading theological works that are already available. Brilliant men have spent their lifetime wrestling with the issues in Romans that you are raising.

I have spent lots of time doing this very thing. 99 % of the ideas I am putting forward come from theological works. I only wish I could up with such insightful ideas.

They do not always agree with each other, but if you read, you will see that, by and large, they are wrestling honestly with the questions. Wrestle with the things they have wrestled with and you may eliminate some of the theories you are holding now. You will find that it is not necessary to re-invent the wheel.

Yes, but what do you think is the reason why God used Torah to increase sin? There must be some reason, and any complete theology cannot really leave this issue hanging.

 

[swaimj]

Seems like we are now addressing a question that is completely different from the questions you raised at the beginning of the thread. My major disagreement at the opening was that you said Jesus was not punished for our sin, but was merely a lure so that sin could be destroyed. I gave scripture to refute your position and you allowed that those scriptures fit my position. At this point, you are not even defending your own proposition, rather, you are going on to other speculative ideas.

In the OT, the sacrificial lamb bore the sins of the people and was slain. The lamb was killed for the sins of the people. Jesus is our sacrificial lamb who bore the punishment; who suffered death in our place. To deny this, you have to argue with almost every passage in the Bible that speaks of the atonement. You have found one passage that conveys a different aspect of the atonement and you are trying to use it to creater a whole new theological position.

 

[Andre]

My major disagreement at the opening was that you said Jesus was not punished for our sin, but was merely a lure so that sin could be destroyed. I gave scripture to refute your position and you allowed that those scriptures fit my position.

Somehow I am not succeeding in communicating the fact that just because a scripture "A" is consistent with your position, that does not mean that your position is right - other scriptures are sometimes needed to disambiguate between 2 competing interpretation of scripture "A", both of which are consistent with that first scripture.

I tried to explain through the example of the "you cannot put too much water on the nuclear reactor" example, but apparently, we still do not understand each other.

Jesus is our sacrificial lamb who bore the punishment; who suffered death in our place. To deny this, you have to argue with almost every passage in the Bible that speaks of the atonement.

I have not denied this - I have tried to give a picture of the mechanics of this that is true to the scriptures. I am saying - or rather I am suggesting that Paul is saying - that sin is a quantity that can be localized, first in Israel, and then in Jesus. This does not deny the basic idea that the cross is the place where sin is dealt with. Instead, it gives a model of what that process actually was all about.

If I understand you properly - and perhaps I do not - you are suggesting that Jesus was in some sense "punished" or condemned on the cross. Romans 8:3 seems to rule that out. It is sin that is condemned on the cross, not Jesus. But this does not mean that Jesus' death does not fully and sufficiently procure our justification:

For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, 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,...

Please tell us what you think God was up to in giving Torah to Israel to make sin increase.

 

[swaimj]

Somehow I am not succeeding in communicating the fact that just because a scripture "A" is consistent with your position, that does not mean that your position is right - other scriptures are sometimes needed to disambiguate between 2 competing interpretation of scripture "A", both of which are consistent with that first scripture.

I gave you three scriptures that align with one another and support my position. You have given one scripture and promises of more to come. Still waiting....

Please tell us what you think God was up to in giving Torah to Israel to make sin increase.

Paul says in Romans 7:7 "Yet if it had not been for the law I would not have known sin". So the law defines what sin is.

Paul says in Romans 7:13 "It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure." So the law, by stirring up our sinful nature, incited us to sin even more.

Paul says in Romans 7:24 "O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from the body of this death." Ultimately, God uses the law to show us that we are utterly sinful and cannot please God at all. This is how the law worked in Paul's life. It brought him to the point of realizing he was sinful beyond hope. He found the solution to sin, both judicially and practically, in Jesus Christ. Judicially, we are declared righteous through faith in Christ. Practically, we produce works that please God through life in the Spirit.

 

[Andre]

I gave you three scriptures that align with one another and support my position. You have given one scripture and promises of more to come. Still waiting....

I will keep trying to explain this. Those texts, while consistent with your position are also consistent with other positions that are at odds with your position. Let me ask you a question and please do not take this as condescending. If a witness to a crime says "the killer was over 6 feet tall", this statement is consistent with both of the following:

1. The killer is Fred, who is 6 feet 6 inches;
2. The killer is Joe, who is 6 feet 4 inches.

Obviously, at least one of the above statements is false. The texts you provided have this same feature. While they are workable within your interpretive scheme, they are also workable in mine. I do not think think the same is true of Romans 8:3, which seems to clearly speak against the view that "Jesus was punished in our place". Why? Because Romans 8:3 clearly states that it was sin that was condemned on the cross, not Jesus.

Ultimately, God uses the law to show us that we are utterly sinful and cannot please God at all.

But you are not being entirely faithful to what the Romans 7 text says (at least in part). And your interpretation here is at odds with Romans 5:20.

Romans 5:20 says that the Torah made sin increase or abound. And in Romans 7, Paul says that Torah does not merely show us sin, he clearly indicates that "sin would become utterly sinful" - the Youngs literal version has sin becoming exceedingly sinful.

The Romans 5 text is clear - the sin not only is shown to be sin, it is increased. And while there may be some slight ambiguity, the Romans 7 text makes the same claim. Over and above "shining a spotlight" on sin, the Torah increases sin. This is a distinct, although related point.

I politely suggest that your exegesis does not take Paul seriously enough. While it is indeed true that Torah, as you say, exposes how sinful we are, the language in Romans 5 and 7 is clear that something more is being asserted - sin is actually increasing and growing in national Israel.

 

[Andre]

One of the questions that I want to explore is this: Do the scriptures teach a fundamentally different thing about the nature of the atonement than what appears to be the mainstream position? I understand the mainstream position to be consist in the idea that there is some of universal "law" or principle that requires that someone must be punished in order for sin to be forgiven. And Jesus is uniquely qualified to serve in that role because He led a sinless life. This position seems to be grounded in notions of moral culpabilty and the demands of a morally rooted system of justice, where the demands of this system do not allow God to forgive sin without someone paying the price. Of course, it does seem odd to many that God cannot simply decide to forgive sin - why must someone die? Can't God forgive our sin the way we forgive each other's sin. When my friend sins against me, I do not need to "punish" him (or anyone) in order to forgive him. So why can't God do this?

This is a very abstract model of atonement. We have the moral category of sin and we have the abstract idea that sin cannot be forgiven unless punishment is meted out to somebody. I am not saying that this idea is absurd. However, we really have a hard time making sense of it - we have no sense of why things are this way. In other words, we have a hard time making sense of the idea that someone's death 2000 years ago is connected to my sin of today. Again, this mystery alone does not render the concept unworkable, although I do think it should stimulate us to explore other possibilities.

And it simply will not do to declare that "that's the way it is - that is what the scriptures say". I will point out again that the scriptural texts about this matter should not be assumed to unambiguously drive one to such a conclusion. Let me try again to make this point. Suppose we all forget the tradtional ideas about this and assume that the only scripture about the atonement is this: "Man will die because of his sin but Jesus rescues man from this fate by dying on the cross". Does this force us to the kind of system as described in the first paragraph?

No it does not. This hypothetical atonement text indeed works with such a view. But it also works with the "disease-cure" interpretation - that sin is like an infectious virus that would ensure our ultimate death, but on the cross, Jesus defeats this virus and hence cures us". This model - this interpretation - works perfectly well with the text in question. We do not need to think in terms of "moral culpabilty" and "justice", we can think in terms of "disease" and "cure".

At the end of the day, either view is a model - it is a metaphor that we use to make sense of what happened at Calvary. I am inclined to think that the "disease" - "cure" metaphor fits better with the overall scriptural picture, not least with Romans 8:3 in particular which does great damage to the standard view by its clear assertion that it is sin, not Jesus, who is condemned at Calvary.

This is a complex question and I am not suggesting a black and white answer. I suspect that there are elements of both these models, if not others, at work.

In future posts, I plan to argue for the notion that sin has the property of being subject to localization and concentration. First, God concentrates sin in national Israel through the strange action of Torah. And then sin is further concentrated down to the point where it is localized in the flesh of one person - the faithful Messiah Jesus.

 

[Marcia]

Romans 5:20 says that the Torah made sin increase or abound. And in Romans 7, Paul says that Torah does not merely show us sin, he clearly indicates that "sin would become utterly sinful" - the Youngs literal version has sin becoming exceedingly sinful.

The Romans 5 text is clear - the sin not only is shown to be sin, it is increased. And while there may be some slight ambiguity, the Romans 7 text makes the same claim. Over and above "shining a spotlight" on sin, the Torah increases sin. This is a distinct, although related point.

...While it is indeed true that Torah, as you say, exposes how sinful we are, the language in Romans 5 and 7 is clear that something more is being asserted - sin is actually increasing and growing in national Israel.

The Law made sin increase because people were convicted of their sins through the Law. The Law reveals the character of God which is uttlerly good and righteous, a standard too high for man. The more we know of God's character (in this case, through the Law/Torah), the more sinful we realize we are and the more we recognize how much sin we commit.

Yes, sin was increasing because the awareness of it increased. This is what the text is saying. Romans 7 explains this and how it happens; as Paul became aware of the Law and what it meant, the more he was aware of his sin.

The Law brought death because there was no hope of overcoming the sin that was exposed through the Law until one realizes the grace through Christ of being set free from this.

 

[Andre]

Yes, sin was increasing because the awareness of it increased.

I do not see how this works. Mere awareness of the sin, by itself, does not increase sin. If Fred commits 100 sins on Monday and is unaware of this, and then on Tuesday Fred is made aware of his sin, his sin does not actually increase unless he commits more than 100 sins on Tuesday. I am only taking Paul at his word. And in Romans 5 and 7 he says that sin increased through the action of Torah.

No doubt, Torah also makes us aware of sin. But that is a conceptually distinct matter. When I become aware of 5 deer on the lawn, this awareness has no influence on the number of deer on the lawn. Same thing here. Torah both makes Israel aware of her sin and it actually increases her sin.

I politely suggest that one should give Paul - an educated Pharisee - the benefit of the doubt re being able to say what he means. And in Romans 5:20, he does not say that Torah makes us aware of sin - although that is indeed true - he tells us that Torah made sin increase or abound.

 

[swaimj]

I do not think think the same is true of Romans 8:3, which seems to clearly speak against the view that "Jesus was punished in our place". Why? Because Romans 8:3 clearly states that it was sin that was condemned on the cross, not Jesus.

But I have already cited passages like Galations 3:10, I Peter 2:24 and 3:18 which clearly teach substitutionary atonement. Romans 8:3 either fits in with these verses in some way or it contradicts them. If it contradicts them, then the gospel is flawed and it is not worth discussing. However, 8:3 can certainly teach a unique aspect of the gospel without requiring us to do away with substitutionary atonement which you seem to be doing.

The Romans 5 text is clear - the sin not only is shown to be sin, it is increased. And while there may be some slight ambiguity, the Romans 7 text makes the same claim. Over and above "shining a spotlight" on sin, the Torah increases sin. This is a distinct, although related point.

First, Romans 7:13 agrees with what you are saying here. I quoted it and explained "So the law, by stirring up our sinful nature, incited us to sin even more." I have no argument with you on the fact that the law increases sin.

Those texts, while consistent with your position are also consistent with other positions that are at odds with your position.

This is impossible. If all the witnesses say that the killer was six-four and both Bob and Jim are both six-four, that does not mean that both of them are the killer. It doesn't mean that everyone who is six-four is the killer. It doesn't mean that either of them are the killer. YOu have to way all of the facts to arrive at a conclusion, not just some of them. You are trying to build a complete theology on one verse, Romans 8:3, even though your interpretation contradicts other clear scriptural statements. You need to show that all of the scriputes fit your view, not just a few.

The texts you provided have this same feature. While they are workable within your interpretive scheme, they are also workable in mine. I do not think think the same is true of Romans 8:3, which seems to clearly speak against the view that "Jesus was punished in our place". Why? Because Romans 8:3 clearly states that it was sin that was condemned on the cross, not Jesus.

Please explain how Galations 3:10, and I Peter 2:24 and 3:18 fit your scheme.

 

[swaimj]

Of course, it does seem odd to many that God cannot simply decide to forgive sin - why must someone die? Can't God forgive our sin the way we forgive each other's sin. When my friend sins against me, I do not need to "punish" him (or anyone) in order to forgive him. So why can't God do this?

This question probably deserves its own thread. I will address it here, but if multiple answers start coming, I think this thread will become quite confusing because two different topics (at least) will be being addressed.

Andre, if, for instance, Jack, is married and someone killed his wife, do you think Jack would just simply forgive the murderer? No trial, no guilty verdict, no sentence either of life or death? And I ask not only, would he forgive the murderer, is he obligated to forgive the murderer?

 

[Andre]

Please explain how Galations 3:10, and I Peter 2:24 and 3:18 fit your scheme.

I assume that the ground rules are that that we take the text and consider whether it can be made to work with my interpretation. I assume that you understand that it is entirely possible that a single text can indeed work with 2 interpretations. All that this means is that there is some ambiguity - the text needs other texts to disambiguate it.

If you are going to argue that it is simply not possible for a single isolated text to be consistent with 2 different and competing interpretations, then you misunderstand the very nature of language and we have a bigger problem to deal with.

Here is the block from Galatians 3:10-14

All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law."[c] 11Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith."[d] 12The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them."[e] 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree

Does this text require us to conclude that Jesus is being personally ascribed the guilt of all our sins and then specifically punished by God in order to satisfy some judicial framework that requires someone to be punished?

Of course it does not. In fact, this particular text, while indeed perhaps consistent with such a view - the view that Jesus is punished in our place - is more consistent with the view that I am proposing.

Suppose that God is interested in de-activating or otherwise "blasting" sin to smithereens. And suppose that the only way this can occur is for the sin of the world to be "collected" into one human being. God then blasts sin but in the process cannot help but also kill the human being who has courageously stepped forward.

This is entirely consistent with the statement that Jesus "became a curse for us".

As I have already pointed out, note how the word "curse" is used in Genesis 3:

Cursed is the ground because of you;

What happens to the ground? It gets cursed. What does it mean for the ground to get cursed? Is God telling us that the ground is being held judicially responsible for Adam's sin? Not likely. Instead we are being told that the ground - the very fabric of creation is damaged because of sin.

What happens to Jesus as per the Galatians text? He is cursed.

We need to let scripture interpret scripture. The use of the term "curse" naturally sends us back to this original sin passage where it is clear that "to be cursed" is not to be "ascribed blame" or punished, but rather to be damaged or broken.

And that is what happens at Calvary. Jesus is broken or damaged unto death as God attacks the thing he really wants to condemn - sin. Again, I repreat Romans 8:3 which shows that it is sin that is the target of God's wrath, not Jesus:

For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature,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

 

[Marcia]

I do not see how this works. Mere awareness of the sin, by itself, does not increase sin. If Fred commits 100 sins on Monday and is unaware of this, and then on Tuesday Fred is made aware of his sin, his sin does not actually increase unless he commits more than 100 sins on Tuesday. I am only taking Paul at his word. And in Romans 5 and 7 he says that sin increased through the action of Torah.

No doubt, Torah also makes us aware of sin. But that is a conceptually distinct matter. When I become aware of 5 deer on the lawn, this awareness has no influence on the number of deer on the lawn. Same thing here. Torah both makes Israel aware of her sin and it actually increases her sin.

I politely suggest that one should give Paul - an educated Pharisee - the benefit of the doubt re being able to say what he means. And in Romans 5:20, he does not say that Torah makes us aware of sin - although that is indeed true - he tells us that Torah made sin increase or abound.

And I politely suggest you read Romans 7 again, and the whole book of Romans for context, as well as Galatians, especially chapter 3. What Paul is saying is that the Law makes people aware of their sin, so sin increases. You don't put your meaning into the text but read the text for how it defines "increase." The text itself explains what it means.

 

[Amy.G]

And I politely suggest you read Romans 7 again, and the whole book of Romans for context, as well as Galatians, especially chapter 3. What Paul is saying is that the Law makes people aware of their sin, so sin increases. You don't put your meaning into the text but read the text for how it defines "increase." The text itself explains what it means.

That's right.

If Fred commits 100 sins on Monday and is unaware of this, and then on Tuesday Fred is made aware of his sin, his sin does not actually increase unless he commits more than 100 sins on Tuesday.

If you asked Fred on Monday how many sins he'd committed, he would have said zero. But Fred becomes aware of his Monday sins on Tuesday and so his sin count went from zero to 100 in the moment of awareness, even though the 100 sins were always before God, Fred didn't know about those sins until he was made aware. The only thing that really increased was Fred's awareness.

 

[swaimj]

As I have already pointed out, note how the word "curse" is used in Genesis 3:

This is irrelevant to the meaning of the word "curse" in Galations 3. The word's meaning in Galations 3 is determined by the context. In the context, "cursed" is everyone who does not obey what is in the law; likewise Christ was cursed for us. When a person defied God's law, what happened to them? Well, Achan did not obey the command not to partake of the pagan goodies and he was cursed. Literally, he was put under The Ban so that he was stoned by the Israelites and sent to hell by God. That is punishment. I conclude that when Jesus became a curse for our sins, he was punished.

Please show in the verses from I Peter how your derive your interpretation from them.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: The only thing that really increased was Fred's awareness.

HP: Joh 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

How does this verse fit into your understanding of sin? Would not this verse appear to be saying that if in fact one had absolutely no knowledge of what is required tht God would not impute sin in that case? Do not the Scriptures make it clear that knowledge is a prerequisite of sin? Jas 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

 

[Amy.G]

HP: Joh 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

How does this verse fit into your understanding of sin? Would not this verse appear to be saying that if in fact one had absolutely no knowledge of what is required tht God would not impute sin in that case? Do not the Scriptures make it clear that knowledge is a prerequisite of sin? Jas 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

Yes. There comes a day when a person is held accountable for their sins.

 

[Andre]

And I politely suggest you read Romans 7 again, and the whole book of Romans for context, as well as Galatians, especially chapter 3. What Paul is saying is that the Law makes people aware of their sin, so sin increases. You don't put your meaning into the text but read the text for how it defines "increase." The text itself explains what it means.

Increase means what it means - to get larger in magnitude. If you re-define increase to mean that "become aware", then you are really saying that awareness of X makes X increase. This is simply not true. When something increases, it increases. Being made aware of something achieves something, of course, but it does not cause the thing you are being made aware of to increase.

The Law does make people aware of their sin. But we need to take Paul at his word - it also makes sin abound or increase.

Consider a bathroom scale. You weight what you weigh whether you know it or not. Suppose that you weigh 150 pounds and do not know it. You then buy a scale and step on it. You discover that you weigh 150 pounds - you become aware of your weight. But the purchase of the scale and what you learn by stepping on it does not make your weight increase.

No one would write - paralleling Romans 5:20 - "the scale was added so that your weight will increase".