Yes that is what you did. I believe that was the implication by this statement Sorry, fail to see the difference.
Here is the diffference. I was not accusing you of believing what I believe but accusing you for not believing in what I believe. You do not believe that Christ in his own person satisfied the full demands of God's righteousness as our representative. Instead, you believe that is not satisfied apart from in our own person.
No you don't and your next statement proves you don't and I will explain that in response to your next statement.
But I don't hold to the view that God just needed a substitute to beat up on because he was mad.
Neither do I because I make a distinction between just recompense for sin and mere anger. The wrath of God is based totally upon JUSTICE and the just recompense of sin is JUST CONDEMNATION and the JUST PENTLATY of the Law. - "the WAGES of sin is death" "he that beleiveth not is CONDEMNED already"
Rather, I hold that he made not only satisfaction to his justice but joined himself to humanity raising those in him above sin and death.
Mere union with humanity satisfies NO JUSTICE AT ALL! The incarnation only provides the proper vehicle so that justice may be satisfied ON THE CROSS.
Jesus Satisfies the demand as our brother and the first of all those who in him will recieve eternal life. Unlike all those who are born in Adam and remain in their sins will receive death.
First, we as gentiles are not his "brother" ethnically or spiritually but rather "enemies" of Christ. Reconciliation occurred on the cross and by his death received through faith and not at the incarnation not during his life but by his sacrificial representative substitutionary death as a spotless = sinless lamb of God.
Well, the Jews certainly believed the incarnation was impossible. But there you have it. Maybe you can hang out with Caiaphas and say about the same event
Oh please, you know I am not talking about either Christ or the incarnation at all. I am talking about sinful human beings. It is IMPOSSIBLE for sinners to satisfy either demand of the Law - what it demands to be regarded righteous before God or its demand for eternal punishment for falling short of its righteous demand - that is IMPOSSIBLE! That is impossible through "spiritual union" or through Holy Spirit progressive sanctification as neither satisfies either demand in the person of the believer.
Contrarily, I understand it well. Only God could bring man out of sin and death by taking on humanity and suffering and die so that we might be raised up. I think you fail to understand what ends God will go to in order to bring us back to him.
You understand nothing about it at all but completely distort and pervert it and I mean NOTHING! The incarnation neither brings man out of sin or death. The incarnation only made that possible but not actual. It is the cross that made it actual and without the cross the incarnation is WORTHLESS!
I haven't and I explained it.
You have not! What you have done is completely perverted and distorted it when you say the imperfection is found in the Old Testament sacrifice being an "animal"! God designed the animal to be the sacrifice but never designed the animal sacrifice to take away sin. Instead he designed the animal sacrifice to be PEFECTLY what he designed it to be - A TYPE. The animal did not fail to be what God designed it to be but performed that design PERFECTLY. Hence, there was no imperfection at all as the type was never designed to be the antitype and it is the antitype that is by design what literally removes sin.
You are confusing yourself. Can a man be born a sinner? Can this same man avoid committing a particular sin? But again that isn't what I was even speaking of. I was speaking that everything is representative to you and without actuality in reality.
You cannot compare those born sinful with those who came into this world sinless (Adam and Second Adam). You cannot compare those who were not born to represent others with Adam and the Second Adam who did come into this world to represent others. Neither Adam or the Second Adam could be justly charged with sin or its consequences apart from sinning in their own person. Christ was not made sin in his own person as he did not commit sin in his own person - "knew no sin" experientially. He was made to be sin the same way the animal sacrifice was made to be sin - by legal representation and imputation.
I think you are having a hard time understanding what I'm saying.
On the contrary, I perfectly understand what you are saying and completely repudiate it. You are denying that Christ was "made to be sin" by legal substitution and imputation. The only other alternative is IMPOSSIBLE as that requires sinners in their own person to satisfy the righteous demands of God IN THEIR OWN PERSONS and BY THEIR OWN ACTIONS regardless if those actions are results of grace or the internal work of the Holy Spirit NEITHER of which can satisfy the righteous demands of God as it is IMPOSSIBLE for sinners (1 Jn. 1:8-10) to satisfy EITHER demand at all.
Yes, and that is the crux of our whole dispute. God demanded that any sacrfice "for sin" had to meet certain qualifications or it could not be received by God. The sacrificial lamb must be without spot or blemish which typically declares the antitype must be SINLESS in his own person or else He could not be received as an acceptable sacrifice "for sin." Hence, it was impossible to "make him to be sin" IN HIS OWN PERSON without invalidating the acceptability of the sacrifice. Both the type and antitype were "made to be sin" only by lawful substitution and imputation.
He could not atone for us if he were not sinless and by necessity the action of being Made sin for us requires sinlessness. But I'm not arguing Jesus was a sinner and that is where your red herring lies.
You are arguing for that when you insist that IN HIS OWN PERSON he was made to be sin as that changes sinlessness in his own person to sinfulness in his own person and no sinless person can be sinful in his own person without also sinning in his own person. Impossible for Christ as it was for Adam and Christ is the Second Adam.
Actually I can. You're using KJV and as I updated the post I showed that it was counted for righteousness was the meaning of that passage as all other translations will point out.
it is the very same Greek term translated "counted" as "imputed" and so no difference at all. Verse 6 clearly demonstrates and declares that Paul's use of David is to reinforce righteousness through IMPUTATION by faith! You simply do not understand that righteousness cannot be imputed without remission of sins as one without the other in regard to Abraham, David or any other sinner is oxymoronic!
again David's statement about the forgiveness of sins is to support Pauls point about the primacy of faith over trying to obtain forgiveness by adherence soley to the mitzvot.
No, it is not! First, Abraham is PRE-Law and thus his "works" have nothing to do with "Law." Second, the value of faith in this context is in regard to what it obtains - righteousness - by imputation not by impartation through regeneration or progressively by sanctification as Romans 4:9-11 proves beyond doubt as it restricts justification by faith to "IN UNCIRUCMISION" as an Aorist completed action rather than including "CIRCUMCISION" and a continous incompleted action.
Oh no. I don't have the problem with that at all. I understand and believe that entirely. My contention with your view is that you hold this one verse out alone from its context to show that Justification is forensic which I say it isn't.
You fail to use proper hermeneutics or exegesis with this passage.
1. Statement concerning Abraham - Romans 4:1-3
2. Statement reinforced by Principle - Romans 4:4-5
3. Statement reinforced by Example - Romans 4:6-7
4. Final application to Abraham and his seed - Romans 5:9-12
5. Statement concerning Mosaic Law - Romans 4:13
6. Statement reinforced by prinicple - Romans 4:14-17
7. Statement reinforced by Example - Romans 4:18-20
8. Final application to Abraham and his seed - Romans 4:21-25
9. Conclusion and resultant applications - Romans 5:1-11.
Do you see the pattern and line of argument? Your conclusion are based on a failure to recognize and/or understand his line of argument. He is not teaching multiple justifications or two types of justification but one type which is completed at the point of faith based upon imputation of righteousness and non-imputation of our sins to us - that is justification.
The second line of argument in Romans 4:13-25 explains the nature of justifying faith as summarized in Romans 4:21 in the application aspect of that line of argument.
