SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Was Jesus Sinful? Luther & Sproul

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 Next Page )
PosterThread
Leo_Grace
Member



Joined: 2009/6/14
Posts: 703


 Re:

Quote:

MaryJane wrote:
Greetings

I talked the is over with my children a while ago during one of our Bible studies. I spent a good while explaining to them how Jesus died because of our sin and what that meant to us. My youngest son had a kind of strange look on his face so I asked him if he understood what I was saying about Jesus. He said, "Yes mom. Its like when I lied and got into the cookies before dinner and said I didn't. That was my sin against God cause I told the lie, but Jesus got the punishment for that from God instead of me."
Granted he was a little boy at the time and his understanding was limited but he still knew that it was his sin that Jesus was paying a price for, not Jesus sinning himself or Jesus being turned into his sin.

Sometimes I think as adults we make things way to complicated.

God Bless
mj



This is the best post in this thread. Thank you, MaryJane. Too many wise men spoil the thread ;-)

 2009/10/1 17:26Profile









 Re:

"If Jesus became actaully guilty, then He deserved to die, and His death could have no more merit than that of any other guilty being; and if He was properly guilty it would make no difference in this respect whether it was by his own fault or by imputation: a guilty being deserves to be punished; and where there is desert of punishment there can be no merit in sufferings.
This is truely rediculous to say that Jesus became guilty!

If Jesus became actaully sin its self. Then Jesus became a verb, a transgression of the law (1John 3:4).
Jesus became a literal lack of faith (Romans 14:23).
Jesus became All unrighteousness (1John 5:17)

For Jesus to literal become sin makes no sence at all." logic

I don't see this being said at all logic. Who is saying that Jesus was literally sinful and literally guilty?

Can those who have posted here clarify if Logic is correct in speaking for you? Whoever is saying that Jesus is literally sinful (as in He commited all kinds of sin) and literally guilty (just like we would be) of that sin please speak up.

A spotless lamb was sacrificed for the remission of sin in the OT. Whatever was sacrificed, it was something WITHOUT SPOT OR BLEMISH. This was a type and shadow. God foreknew that His lamb would come and fulfill the law in perfection. Otherwise it's not a type or a shadow. In the NT Jesus was called 'the Lamb of God' meaning the sacrificial lamb for the remission of sins. In order for Him to be spotless, He had to be in perfect obedience and innocent of the sin of humanity just as the OT sacrificial lamb had nothing to do with guilt, as a lamb cannot sin. Something innocent died for the guilty. This is the cross.

The perfect sacrifice that took away the 'sins of the world' was the FINAL SACRIFICE. The cross called for a sacrifice without blemish just as God did in the OT. Therefore the obedience of Christ was not just for Himself, it was a requirement for the innocent lamb, who knew no sin, to be made a sin offering just like the sin offering in the OT. Did the OT lamb know sin when it was sacrificed? These things are indeed relative to the mystery of the cross. If Jesus sins, He is no longer spotless. And if Jesus sins, what blood would cleanse Him of His crime? For 'without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin'. What blood would be good enough to cleanse Christ of a sin that He chose if His blood was foretold to be the blood that atoned for all of us? That's what wouldn't make sense. His obedience wasn't just for His own sake, He knew what was at stake.

 2009/10/1 17:37
Logic
Member



Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


 Re:

Quote:
roaringlamb wrote:
Quote:
For Jesus to literal become sin makes no sense at all.

But that is what the text says.

"God made Him sin who knew no sin..."

It is the same as the lambs and goats of the Old Covenant being made sin for the sinner. That is why the offerer had to place their hand on the head of the animal and identify with the offering.

The animal was not sinful, but was made that person's sin and by that offering propitiation happened.

Do you ever interpret the Bible according to reality?
Your making sin to be something which it is not.

Sin is not a substance for anything/anyone to become.
Sin is a verb; if it is a noun, then it is a description of the verb.

When Paul talks about sin in Romans 7, it is not a substance but a description of the unlawful desires which are in the flesh.

If sin is anything else, it can not be condemnable.
Sin must be repentable in order for it to be called sin.

 2009/10/1 17:40Profile
Logic
Member



Joined: 2005/7/17
Posts: 1791


 Re:

Quote:
ccrider wrote:

"For Jesus to literal become sin makes no sence at all." logic

I don't see this being said at all logic.

It is what roaringlamb is implying, taking the verse at first glance, "Jesus became sin"; literally sin.

Quote:
Can those who have posted here clarify if Logic is correct in speaking for you? Whoever is saying that Jesus is literally sinful

Not "sinful", but sin.

 2009/10/1 17:44Profile
roaringlamb
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California

 Re:

Quote:
Do you ever interpret the Bible according to reality?



I think I do, I mean looking at what the words actually mean and the forms of the words that are used. That's probably reality.

Quote:
Sin is not a substance



I disagree. If I punch someone in the face, they bear the marks of sin(noun) because I sinned(verb). Sin has taken on substance.But that is not what we are talking about here.

Quote:
Sin is a verb; if it is a noun, then it is a description of the verb.



Sorry that's the way the structure of the word is in Greek. It is "hamartian" which is a noun. Which means Christ was made something.

You can't get around it, there is noun there that has to be dealt with.


_________________
patrick heaviside

 2009/10/1 17:49Profile









 Re:

Quote:
Who is saying that Jesus was literally sinful and literally guilty?



Luther said Jesus became a sinner:

…“If thou wilt deny him to be a sinner and accursed, deny, also, that he was crucified and dead.” Luther

Sproul said Jesus became sinful:

"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." Sproul

Calvin said Jesus became guilty:

"Christ’s having been made sin.... What, on the other hand, is denoted by sin? It is the guilt..." John Calvin

 2009/10/1 17:49









 Re:

Luther said Jesus became a sinner:

…“If thou wilt deny him to be a sinner and accursed, deny, also, that he was crucified and dead.” Luther

Sproul said Jesus became sinful:

"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." Sproul

Calvin said Jesus became guilty:

"Christ’s having been made sin.... What, on the other hand, is denoted by sin? It is the guilt..." John Calvin" truefaithdav

Uh huh. And are they on this thread?

 2009/10/1 17:51









 Re:

Quote:
Sin is not a substance



Quote:
I disagree. If I punch someone in the face, they bear the marks of sin(noun) because I sinned(verb). Sin has taken on substance.



If you punch someone and give the a black eye, that doesn't mean that sin is now a substance. A black eye is not sin! You can get a black eye by accident without a punch. It is not the black eye that is a sin, it is the motive of a persons heart who punches you that is sinful!

Sin is a state of the will, a disobedient state. That will manifest into actions, but sin is never a substance or a quality of matter. That is Gnosticism.

Is sin a animal, vegetable, or mineral? Is sin a gas, solid, or liquid? Neither of these. Sin is a choice.

Sin is the violation of God's law. God's law does not tell us what type of substance to have! God's law tells us what type of choices we should make and what type of choices we shouldn't make. The moral quality of sinfulness can only be prescribed to choices, but it cannot be prescribed to substance or matter.

 2009/10/1 17:55
roaringlamb
Member



Joined: 2003/6/11
Posts: 1519
Santa Cruz California

 Re:

logic and truefaithsav,

Here is what I don't understand about your arguments.

Why would you want to rid the Gospel of its sweetest gift? Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, and we should rejoice. All who are poor and weary can rejoice that Christ is their sacrifice and mediator.

But on the other hand it seems that those who would be just because of what they do or their moral record would be offended that a righteousness from outside of them should be given to them.

Again it is like the parable of the Prodigal, the "bad" son is met by the father and showered with affection in spite of his badness while the elder brother was pouting because he thought his moral record should be of value, "all this time I have served you..."

Notice how the one who receives rejoices, but the one who is offended by the receiving of something he didn't deserve is angered and ultimately never comes into the party.


_________________
patrick heaviside

 2009/10/1 17:58Profile









 Re:

Quote:
Luther said Jesus became a sinner:

…“If thou wilt deny him to be a sinner and accursed, deny, also, that he was crucified and dead.” Luther

Sproul said Jesus became sinful:

"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." Sproul

Calvin said Jesus became guilty:

"Christ’s having been made sin.... What, on the other hand, is denoted by sin? It is the guilt..." John Calvin"



Quote:
Uh huh. And are they on this thread



Did you even read the first post?

This thread is about those quotes!

Are those quotes true or false? Are they orthodoxy or heretical?

 2009/10/1 18:00





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy