Luther and Sproul taught that Jesus became a sinner!!
If thou wilt deny him to be a sinner and accursed, deny, also, that he was crucified and dead. LutherBut if it is not absurd to confess and believe that Christ was crucified between two thieves, then it is not absurd to say that he was accursed, and of all sinners, the greatest. LutherGod, our most merciful Father, sent His only Son into the world, and laid upon him all the sins of all people, saying, be thou Peter, that denier; Paul, that persecutor, blasphemer, and cruel oppressor; David, that adulterer; that sinner which did eat the fruit in Paradise; that thief who hung upon the cross; and, briefly, be thou the person who has committed the sins of all people; see, therefore, that thou pay and satisfy for them Luther on the Galatians, Gal_3:13The Incarnate Christ who enjoyed intimate personal fellowship with the Father, such as no man had ever enjoyed, was suddenly and completely cut off. Once the sin of man was imputed to Him, He became the virtual incarnation of evil. The load He carried was repugnant to the Father. God is too holy to even look at iniquity. God the Father turned His back upon the Son R. C. SproulJesus was not sinful during the crucifixion according to: Lev. 22:20 blemished offering not acceptableEx. 12:5 the lamb must be without blemish1 Pet. 1:19 Lamb without blemish or spotHeb. 9:14 offered without spot to God1 Pet. 3:18 Christ suffered the just for the unjustHeb. 13:8 Jesus the same yesterday, today, and foreverLk. 23:41 thief on cross admits Jesus did nothing wrong to deserve it 1 Pet. 2:22-23 Jesus was not sinning when on the cross
Jesus was not sinful, or a sinner, in any sense. He did not so take human guilt upon him, that the words sinful and sinner could with any propriety be applied to him. They are not applied to him any way in the Bible; but there the language is undeviating. It is that in all senses he was holy and undefiled. And yet language is often used on this subject which is horrible and only a little short of blasphemy, as if he was guilty, and as if he was even the greatest sinner in the universe. I have heard language used which sent a chill of horror to my heart; and language may be found in the writings of those who hold the doctrine of imputation in the strictest sense, which is only a little short of blasphemy Albert Barnes
If this is a response to the Finney thread then I think it's the wrong way to go. The same point could be made on the Finney thread in dissecting theologies, these men could qualify (my premise is not to debate this). We have people who take issue with Finney and people who defend him. The spirit behind some of these debates are questionable and I don't think it's in good conscience to start a 'heretic war'.
Why is it that when it comes to Finney, Calvinists always misrepresent him in order to try to discred it, but when it comes to the errors of their own favorite theologians they give a blind eye? I have seen Calvinists defend the fact that Calvin burned heretics or that the Synod of Dort was a criminal trial which resulted in Hugo Grotius being sent to prison for life! Why is it that when it comes to Finney it is "fair game". You can slander him and misrepresent him all day long. But when it comes to Calvinist theologians, it is "touch not the Lord's anointed"... The fact that Calvinist theologians, like Luther and Calvin, taught that Jesus Christ became a SINNER must not be overlooked or justified. It it blasphemous.Truth matters.
But let's not sidetract this thread. I really just wanted to discuss these questions:1. Was Jesus ever sinful or a sinner?2. Is it heretical to say that He was sinful or a sinner?
Your question could have been asked on that particular thread. And the truth can be hashed out on the same thread. The emotionalism in this from the last thread to this one stinks. It seems to me that this is more retaliation than a sincere gesture of debate.
Our Lord never sinned nor was a sinner in the sense that he committed transgression against God's law. Perhaps more Biblical language would be the words of Isaiah that our sins were laid upon Him. Paul's words in Corinthians are even stronger: "God made him who had no sin to be sin". I don't want to go farther than the Scripture is any matter, so I would agree that calling Jesus a "sinner" is not Biblical language. I understand what Luther means, but it isn't the language I would have chosen.So, I would disagree with Luther's choice of words on that point, and I'm Reformed.With care in Christ...
Yes He who knew no sin became sin for us. That doesn't mean that Jesus became sinful.According to Adam Clarke, it means that Jesus became a sin-offering. Clarke explained how in Leviticus the same language is used when it is clearly talking about a sin-offering.Jesus was not sinful. Jesus did not become guilty. Jesus was a made a sin-offering. His death was offered to God in lieu of our punishment, it was a replacement for our penalty.
Calvinists always misrepresent him
The Arminians who were present at the Synod of Dort were in chains because they had been arrested as enemies of the state. They were not allowed to debate or even vote at the Synod of Dort. They were simply allowed to present their view, then their views were compared to Calvinism. When it was shown that their views did not line up with Calvinism, or so called Orthodoxy, they were condemned.After the Synod of Dort, Hugo Grotius was sentenced to life in prison. He escaped with the help of his wife and fled the country.But this is all beside the point!! The point is that Jesus was not SINFUL, He did not become a SINNER, and it is a grave error to say that He did!!