atpollard
Well-Known Member
Scripture (and I) keep using the word "sin" ... Christ became sin ... and you keep substituting the word "evil". Are "sin" and "evil" identical in scripture? I thought they were not.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Philosophy of Calvinism
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
- Status
Wow, you're one of the best copy and pasters I ever saw.
atpollard
Well-Known Member
I agree.
I also believe that God breaks the rules. By which, I do not mean that God "violates" the rules, but rather when the rules come up against the Rule Maker, they shatter like shards of pottery against an iron rod. Thus there is a rule that each man must pay for his own sin, and another rule that the wage of sin is death and yet another rule that God is not a man (that he should lie) or a son of man (that he should change his mind).
But God ...
- Became a man.
- Gave ETERNAL LIFE to those dead in sin.
- Became sin for us that we might become the righteousness of God.
- When Christ became a man ... He was tempted as all men are tempted, but temptation shattered against the Rule Maker and Jesus was without sin.
- When Christ died to ransom His sheep ... death itself shattered against the Rule Maker and the resurrected Jesus led us into a rebirth of our life.
- When Christ became sin and cried out "My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?" ... He became sin, but sin itself shattered against the Rule Maker and evil never touched the ever obedient Jesus.
That is how I view the CREATOR and the events.
Sin is "an act of disobedience, an evil act".
Sin is disobedience to God. It is "missing the mark", falling short of God's righteousness.
Scripture says Christ was obedient (the opposite of sin).
atpollard
Well-Known Member
That is called "quoting scripture" ... the Vulgate in this case.
You are very determined to provoke me to anger by deliberately misrepresenting a 16th Century doctrine that I have no desire to discuss with you and interjecting it into every OTHER topic that you can. I have asked you to leave me alone via PM and you continue to TROLL for a reaction. Is placing you on IGNORE really the only option to avoid this unChristian harassment?
Scripture relies on God NOT breaking the rules. God is not bound by man's rules but He is righteous.
That is how (per Scripture) we know God. His word is everlasting. He does not lie.
If God literally became sin (became an unrighteous, evil, act of disobedience) then He is a liar who cannot be trusted.
If you redefine "sin" to mean anything other than "evil, disobedience, missing the mark, unrighteous" or "a sin offering, a guilt offering" then you are interpreting the passage to mean something other than the passage states.
There are only two literal ways of interpreting the passage. God becane sin (evil, unrighteous) or God became sin (a sin offering). Both are within the range of the words. But your your choice is outside the range of Biblical doctrine.
atpollard
Well-Known Member
[Matthew 22:37-40 NASB] 37 And He said to him, " 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' 38 "This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 "The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' 40 "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."
There is a wide gap between performing "an evil act" and loving God with less than your WHOLE heart, soul and mind, yet all of that is "sin" (missing the mark). However, on this we will just need to agree to disagree.
On the point that Christ was obedient ... we can agree to agree.
Actually it's NOT 'every other topic', it's the same topic which is your contradictory posts. First you say one thing thing and then you'll thoughtlessly contradict yourself later, and you seem to be totally unaware of it. I'm guessing what it boils down to is the commentators that you're copy and pasting are contradictory and you're not catching it because, well, it's not your thoughts. You're parroting other men's thoughts.
Nah, I'll back off, it's obvious you can't handle the criticism.
2 Corinthians 5:21
For he hath made him to be sin for us
Christ was made of a woman, took flesh of a sinful woman; though the flesh he took of her was not sinful, being sanctified by the Spirit of God, the former of Christ's human nature: however, he appeared "in the likeness of sinful flesh"; being attended with infirmities, the effects of sin, though sinless; and he was traduced by men as a sinner, and treated as such. Moreover, he was made a sacrifice for sin, in order to make expiation and atonement for it; so the Hebrew word (hajx) signifies both sin and a sin offering; see ( Psalms 40:6 ) and so (amartia) , ( Romans 8:3 ) ( Hebrews 10:6 ) . But besides all this, he was made sin itself by imputation; the sins of all his people were transferred unto him, laid upon him, and placed to his account; he sustained their persons, and bore their sins; and having them upon him, and being chargeable with, and answerable for them, he was treated by the justice of God as if he had been not only a sinner, but a mass of sin; for to be made sin, is a stronger expression than to be made a sinner: but now that this may appear to be only by imputation, and that none may conclude from hence that he was really and actually a sinner, or in himself so, it is said he was "made sin"; he did not become sin, or a sinner, through any sinful act of his own, but through his Father's act of imputation, to which he agreed; for it was "he" that made him sin: it is not said that men made him sin; not but that they traduced him as a sinner, pretended they knew he was one, and arraigned him at Pilate's bar as such; nor is he said to make himself so, though he readily engaged to be the surety of his people, and voluntarily took upon him their sins, and gave himself an offering for them; but he, his Father, is said to make him sin; it was he that "laid", or "made to meet" on him, the iniquity of us all; it was he that made his soul an offering for sin, and delivered him up into the hands of justice, and to death, and that "for us", in "our" room and stead, to bear the punishment of sin, and make satisfaction and atonement for it; of which he was capable, and for which he was greatly qualified: for he
knew no sin;
which cannot be understood or pure absolute ignorance of sin; for this cannot agree with him, neither as God, nor as Mediator; he full well knew the nature of sin, as it is a transgression of God's law; he knows the origin of sin, the corrupt heart of man, and the desperate wickedness of that; he knows the demerit, and the sad consequences of it; he knows, and he takes notice of too, the sins of his own people; and he knows the sins of all wicked men, and will bring them all into judgment, convince of them, and condemn for them: but he knew no sin so as to approve of it, and like it; he hates, abhors, and detests it; he never was conscious of any sin to himself; he never knew anything of this kind by, and in himself; nor did he ever commit any, nor was any ever found in him, by men or devils, though diligently sought for. This is mentioned, partly that we may better understand in what sense he was made sin, or a sinner, which could be only by the imputation of the sins of others, since he had no sin of his own; and partly to show that he was a very fit person to bear and take away the sins of men, to become a sacrifice for them, seeing he was the Lamb of God, without spot and blemish, typified in this, as in other respects, by the sacrifices of the legal dispensation; also to make it appear that he died, and was cut off in a judicial way, not for himself, his own sins, but for the transgressions of his people; and to express the strictness of divine justice in not sparing the Son of God himself, though holy and harmless, when he had the sins of others upon him, and had made himself responsible for them. The end of his being made sin, though he himself had none, was,
that we might be made the righteousness of God in him;
not the essential righteousness of God, which can neither be imparted nor imputed; nor any righteousness of God wrought in us; for it is a righteousness "in him", in Christ, and not in ourselves, and therefore must mean the righteousness of Christ; so called, because it is wrought by Christ, who is God over all, the true God, and eternal life; and because it is approved of by God the Father, accepted of by him, for, and on the behalf of his elect, as a justifying one; it is what he bestows on them, and imputes unto them for their justification; it is a righteousness, and it is the only one which justifies in the sight of God. Now to be made the righteousness of God, is to be made righteous in the sight of God, by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. Just as Christ is made sin, or a sinner, by the imputation of the sins of others to him; so they are made righteousness, or righteous persons, through the imputation of his righteousness to them; and in no other way can the one be made sin, or the other righteousness. And this is said to be "in him", in Christ; which shows, that though Christ's righteousness is unto all, and upon all them that believe, it is imputed to them, and put upon them; it is not anything wrought in them; it is not inherent in them. "Surely in the Lord have I righteousness and strength", says the church, ( Isaiah 45:24 ) and also, that the way in which we come by this righteousness is by being in Christ; none have it reckoned to them, but who are in him, we are first "of" God "in" Christ, and then he is made unto us righteousness. Secret being in Christ, or union to him from everlasting, is the ground and foundation of our justification, by his righteousness, as open being in Christ at conversion is the evidence of it.
2 Corinthians 5:21 - Meaning and Commentary on Bible Verse
For he hath made him to be sin for us
Christ was made of a woman, took flesh of a sinful woman; though the flesh he took of her was not sinful, being sanctified by the Spirit of God, the former of Christ's human nature: however, he appeared "in the likeness of sinful flesh"; being attended with infirmities, the effects of sin, though sinless; and he was traduced by men as a sinner, and treated as such. Moreover, he was made a sacrifice for sin, in order to make expiation and atonement for it; so the Hebrew word (hajx) signifies both sin and a sin offering; see ( Psalms 40:6 ) and so (amartia) , ( Romans 8:3 ) ( Hebrews 10:6 ) . But besides all this, he was made sin itself by imputation; the sins of all his people were transferred unto him, laid upon him, and placed to his account; he sustained their persons, and bore their sins; and having them upon him, and being chargeable with, and answerable for them, he was treated by the justice of God as if he had been not only a sinner, but a mass of sin; for to be made sin, is a stronger expression than to be made a sinner: but now that this may appear to be only by imputation, and that none may conclude from hence that he was really and actually a sinner, or in himself so, it is said he was "made sin"; he did not become sin, or a sinner, through any sinful act of his own, but through his Father's act of imputation, to which he agreed; for it was "he" that made him sin: it is not said that men made him sin; not but that they traduced him as a sinner, pretended they knew he was one, and arraigned him at Pilate's bar as such; nor is he said to make himself so, though he readily engaged to be the surety of his people, and voluntarily took upon him their sins, and gave himself an offering for them; but he, his Father, is said to make him sin; it was he that "laid", or "made to meet" on him, the iniquity of us all; it was he that made his soul an offering for sin, and delivered him up into the hands of justice, and to death, and that "for us", in "our" room and stead, to bear the punishment of sin, and make satisfaction and atonement for it; of which he was capable, and for which he was greatly qualified: for he
knew no sin;
which cannot be understood or pure absolute ignorance of sin; for this cannot agree with him, neither as God, nor as Mediator; he full well knew the nature of sin, as it is a transgression of God's law; he knows the origin of sin, the corrupt heart of man, and the desperate wickedness of that; he knows the demerit, and the sad consequences of it; he knows, and he takes notice of too, the sins of his own people; and he knows the sins of all wicked men, and will bring them all into judgment, convince of them, and condemn for them: but he knew no sin so as to approve of it, and like it; he hates, abhors, and detests it; he never was conscious of any sin to himself; he never knew anything of this kind by, and in himself; nor did he ever commit any, nor was any ever found in him, by men or devils, though diligently sought for. This is mentioned, partly that we may better understand in what sense he was made sin, or a sinner, which could be only by the imputation of the sins of others, since he had no sin of his own; and partly to show that he was a very fit person to bear and take away the sins of men, to become a sacrifice for them, seeing he was the Lamb of God, without spot and blemish, typified in this, as in other respects, by the sacrifices of the legal dispensation; also to make it appear that he died, and was cut off in a judicial way, not for himself, his own sins, but for the transgressions of his people; and to express the strictness of divine justice in not sparing the Son of God himself, though holy and harmless, when he had the sins of others upon him, and had made himself responsible for them. The end of his being made sin, though he himself had none, was,
that we might be made the righteousness of God in him;
not the essential righteousness of God, which can neither be imparted nor imputed; nor any righteousness of God wrought in us; for it is a righteousness "in him", in Christ, and not in ourselves, and therefore must mean the righteousness of Christ; so called, because it is wrought by Christ, who is God over all, the true God, and eternal life; and because it is approved of by God the Father, accepted of by him, for, and on the behalf of his elect, as a justifying one; it is what he bestows on them, and imputes unto them for their justification; it is a righteousness, and it is the only one which justifies in the sight of God. Now to be made the righteousness of God, is to be made righteous in the sight of God, by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. Just as Christ is made sin, or a sinner, by the imputation of the sins of others to him; so they are made righteousness, or righteous persons, through the imputation of his righteousness to them; and in no other way can the one be made sin, or the other righteousness. And this is said to be "in him", in Christ; which shows, that though Christ's righteousness is unto all, and upon all them that believe, it is imputed to them, and put upon them; it is not anything wrought in them; it is not inherent in them. "Surely in the Lord have I righteousness and strength", says the church, ( Isaiah 45:24 ) and also, that the way in which we come by this righteousness is by being in Christ; none have it reckoned to them, but who are in him, we are first "of" God "in" Christ, and then he is made unto us righteousness. Secret being in Christ, or union to him from everlasting, is the ground and foundation of our justification, by his righteousness, as open being in Christ at conversion is the evidence of it.
2 Corinthians 5:21 - Meaning and Commentary on Bible Verse
Dave G
Well-Known Member
Perhaps I'm jumping to conclusions,
but:
In the spirit of Christian conduct,
should we be criticizing with the intent to see if someone can handle it?
I think not, my friend.
One thing that I'm still learning over the years is the difference between "constructive criticism" and "destructive criticism";
And that is far preferable to be guilty of the first, and not the second.
May God bless us all with His wisdom and grace.
37818
Well-Known Member
That is a presupposition in and of itself. How did you come to that presupposition? Personally I was saved first.
Yes, you are. But no worries, my skin is thick, and I have at least in part the Baptist Board over the years to thank for that. Everyone's skin thickens if they stick around long enough.
Last edited:
I think we agree more than we may admit.[Matthew 22:37-40 NASB] 37 And He said to him, " 'YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.' 38 "This is the great and foremost commandment. 39 "The second is like it, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' 40 "On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets."
There is a wide gap between performing "an evil act" and loving God with less than your WHOLE heart, soul and mind, yet all of that is "sin" (missing the mark). However, on this we will just need to agree to disagree.
On the point that Christ was obedient ... we can agree to agree.
You are not taking that God "became sin" to be literal either (sin is literally an act of disobedience to God). You are also interpreting the passage. What we have to rely on is context. What did Paul mean by using "became sin" since we all agree Christ did not literally "become sin".
I believe this is pointing to the Father laying our iniquities upon the Son (God taking our sin, the "curse", upon Himself), and becoming a curse for us. Christ literally became a sin offering (a Propitiation for our sins, a Mediator, turning aside the wrath towards us that was to come).
I do not know if will be literal flames or not, but do kn ow will be eternally separated from presense of God
Jesus suffered what we deserved in order that we do not have to!
Jesus never became actually sinner, but the father treated Him to save us as if he was Sin!
The Father crushing the Lord Jesus for our sins and judging Him in our stead is not evil, but grace!
- Status