Checking majority of the Systematic Theologies , Their theology proper started with Person and nature of God, mess that up, and all theology is messed up!
-
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
bump
That is not what the verse says. In fact, that is not what the Bible says either.
This is the point of the thread. You need to explain how you get from point A (Scripture) to point B (what you say Scripture means).
Again, this is not what the Bible says. The Bible says that it was God's will to crush Him. You are adding the rest of it and not saying why.
atpollard
Well-Known Member
Was Jesus really a man and was He really tempted?
If not, then to say that He was tempted as we are is a farce. If He was, then God really becoming a man and being tempted IS BREAKING THE RULES. In this case that does not mean that temptation won, but rather that God defeated the curse of being a flesh and blood man ... the temptation that Adam fell to, Christ shattered.
In exactly the same way ... what does it mean for Christ to be a "sin offering"? If it means that Jesus was an empty symbolic symbolic gesture thinly painted to resemble sin, then it was as big a NOTHING-BURGER as a dead lamb or two dead doves and a fist full of grain. But what if Christ became sin (as he became "man") only God, being God became "Sin" without the "evil" even as Christ became a tempted man without original sin. Then the "sin offering" is more than a symbolic NOTHING-BURGER, rather the GOD-MAN-SIN OFFERING was actually able to take, absorb, become OUR sins and make the REAL (not symbolic) sacrifice of actually being "forsaken".
God does not LIE, rather God is the exception that proves the rule.
He was a man, and He was tempted. But He was not, IMHO, tempted by sin. Sin (per James) is the result when we give into our temptation.
Christ being a "sin offering" is not an empty symbolic gesture. Isaiah says specifically that Jesus was a sin offering. So does the Psalms. So does Isaiah.
I disagree that Scripture is a "nothing burger". The difference is I believe Paul is saying the same thing here - NOT introducing a new idea to Scripture but saying what has been said for centuries before Christ - that He would be a "sin offering".
Why do you think Scripture has repeatedly stated that Jesus would be/ was a "sin offering" if that is a "nothing burger"?
God does not lie. There are no exceptions.
atpollard
Well-Known Member
What is the OT sin offering ... something or nothing?
(Does the death of a lamb cover sin?)
Dave G
Well-Known Member
To me, that gets done quite a bit on this forum;
Explaining how one gets from A to B.
With respect to several subjects, some people still dig their heels in and disagree with one another...
Even though the words are right in front of them.
So...
Explaining how one gets from Point A to Point B would be easy if we were talking about a newspaper article written by men, Jon.
But when it comes to the Bible, that book defies ( what is to us as men ) the "normal" way of understanding written texts.
Please see Matthew 13:10-11, 1 Corinthians 2:6-16, 2 Timothy 2:15, 1 Peter 2:2 and 1 John 2:20-27 as examples of what I see being needed in order to completely understand His words and in their proper contexts.
From my perspective, "systematic theologies" simply won't get anyone all the way there in their understanding...
There's an element that is present in some, but not all who profess Christ.
Scripture does not say Christ will be an Old Testament sin offering. Scripture says that God will offer Jesus as a sin offering and that He will lay down His own life as a sin offering. You are the one that say those passages are worthless nonsense, not me.
Why do you believe that Scripture would be so focused on this "sin offering" if it were a "nothing burger"?
This is what Paul says: . 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit...
I believe this is true and Paul was being consistent when he spoke of Christ becoming sin....not introducing a new idea this one time.
I think it should be easy regardless. When I read that God made Christ to be sin I come to the conclusion that Paul was saying exactly what he had already said regarding Christ coming in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin. The reason I believe this is that the language permits that interpretation and I believe that Scripture interprets Scripture. This is consistent with both the OT and NT ideas of Christ.To me, that gets done quite a bit on this forum;
Explaining how one gets from A to B
With respect to several subjects, some people still dig their heels in and disagree with one another...
Even though the words are right in front of them.
So...
Explaining how one gets from Point A to Point B would be easy if we were talking about a newspaper article written by men, Jon.
But when it comes to the Bible, that book defies what is to us as men the normal way of understanding written texts.
Please see Matthew 13:10-11, 1 Corinthians 2:6-16, 2 Timothy 2:15-16, 1 Peter 2:2 and 1 John 2:20-27 as examples of what I see being needed in order to completely understand His words properly.
God making Christ to become sin (literally, an evil, unrighteous act of disobedience) is not, IMHO, Scripture interpreting Scripture because it denies Scripture. We can't say "just this one time God lied".
So that's how I get from point A to point B. We explain our understanding, we don't just pretend that Scripture is our understanding.
37818
Well-Known Member
Show me one Systematic Theology which teaches first thing how to know God Himself. The first step is salvation, believing that God sent His Son to pay for one's sins. And the claim that was actually done, is His Son is risen from the dead. And by trusting in God, by way of His Son, one has eternal life, 1 John 5:9-13, John 17:3. This begins with the presupposition the New Testament document being used is God's word and God cannot lie.
Dave G
Well-Known Member
I agree.
But not everyone who professes Christ has the ability to "connect the dots" the same way.
There are "wheat" and there are "tares".
I agree, but to me there's Something missing...
We can talk about "interpretation" all day long,
but if someone doesn't have the Holy Spirit as Teacher, then there's your disconnect, IMO.
Then the question becomes, "who has the Spirit, and who does not?".
Sai
Well-Known Member
He was tempted in the three areas, the flesh the world and Satan. However he wasn’t tempted to post on forums all day.
Joy unspeakable full of glory
Sin offering means to propitiate the wrath of God in the judgement of sin, so that would mean to have experiencing what lost will in final Judgement!
Theology proper starts with God Himself!
atpollard
Well-Known Member
I am saying that the death of lambs and bulls removed no sins, or Jesus would not have needed to die. Therefore the OT sin offering was a symbolic placeholder ... a nothing-burger ... that actually removed no sin. The sin was not actually or literally imputed to the animal; the animal did NOT become the sin of the people. It was a "sin offering" that innately contained no sin within it.
IF (A GIANT, HUGE, and NOT GIVEN, IF) Jesus is a "sin offering" identical to the OT sin offering (one which contains no actual sin), then why is His offering not just as symbolic as the animal He replaced. Jesus is still "sinless" and we are still owners of our sin.
In contrast, one verse has Jesus crying out that he is FORSAKEN by God, and another verse claims that Jesus "became sin for us". So what does it mean for a sin offering to become an EFFECTIVE sin offering that actually does REMOVE the sins from US and place those sins IN/ON the OFFERING (Jesus Christ).
The "nothing-burger" is a symbolic sin offering. I DO NOT BELIEVE that Jesus was a nothing-burger and I do not believe that his offer to take away our sin was merely symbolic like the lamb in the OT. That is why I bristle with confusion when you confidently state that Jesus did not become sin but was a "sin offering" with no attempt to explain any further. Two doves and a fist full of grain is also a "sin offering" ... Jesus was more than that.
Jesus came as Adam was when first created, as he was not touched by the Fall, as was sinless in nature and in form!
To have Him perish as the sin bearer for His own!
I agree.I agree.
But not everyone who professes Christ has the ability to "connect the dots" the same way.
There are "wheat" and there are "tares".
I agree, but to me there's Something missing...
We can talk about "interpretation" all day long,
but if someone doesn't have the Holy Spirit as Teacher, then there's your disconnect, IMO.
Then the question becomes, "who has the Spirit, and who does not?".
The problem comes in, though, when people are not satisfied with Paul's words that we now see dimly as through a glass. Scripture tells us all we need to know, but not always all we want to know.
God has not revealed to us His mind. I think that some find this disappointing (it is in our nature, after all, to want to be a god).
Over the years God has taught me a very important spiritual truth - Spiritual truths deal with spiritual issues. When it comes to many of the "isms" the issue is knowing about God, how God did this or how God did that. In other words, it is an attempt to acquire human knowledge of divine workings. But spiritual truth is how what has actually been revealed works in our lives. This is not an addition to Scripture (like, for example, saying that Calvinism is the gospel, or that Arminianism is the gospel) but an application of Scripture in the lives of God's children.
Theology starts with Christ. We cannot know God except as revealed in Christ. Even understanding Scripture and the gospel starts with Christ.
- Status