BibleForums Christian Message Board
Bible Talk => Just Bible => Topic started by: journeyman on September 20, 2021, 11:52:48 AM
-
Paul said,
For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. Gal.3:10, Deut.27:26
We all know that our Savior never violated the law in any way, so he could not be cursed by the law, but then Paul says,
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree Gal.3:13, Deut.21:23
Does God truly curse an innocent man by a method of execution? Paul was citing a passage that qualifies being cursed by the law which says,
And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: Deut.21:22
So it isn't being hanged on a tree, but committing sin that brings the curse on an individual. What Paul is teaching here, is that Jesus was falsely accused, wronfully thought of as accursed of God by the people who condemned him and others passing by the cross.
-
Yes, Jesus did not become a sinner to forgive sinners. He appeared to be cursed by dying on a tree like a cursed person. In this way he forgave those who put him on the tree. And he forgave all sinners willing to repent in his name.
But this doesn't mean he didn't suffer the punishment that sinners suffer. He did. He didn't suffer it as one deserving of the punishment, but as one who experienced the very sins that he was to forgive.
-
The punishment that sinners suffer is just. The punishment our Lord suffered was unjust. The death penalty for sins or crimes worthy of death is just, but putting an innocent man to death is unjust. The sins our Lord "experienced" were the sins of rejecting him and all the horrible treatment that went with it.
Theologians misinterpret Gal.3:10 to mean that Jesus was being seen as accursed by his Father. That's not true.
-
The punishment that sinners suffer is just. The punishment our Lord suffered was unjust. The death penalty for sins or crimes worthy of death is just, but putting an innocent man to death is unjust. The sins our Lord "experienced" were the sins of rejecting him and all the horrible treatment that went with it.
Theologians misinterpret Gal.3:10 to mean that Jesus was being seen as accursed by his Father. That's not true.
I agree with you. People describe Jesus' atonement for sins on the cross in different ways, but I think they use flawed language and flawed understanding at times.
Jesus did not take the curse of sin upon himself as one who deserved it, but only in the likeness of one who deserved it. In taking the abuses of sinners he put himself in the position of being able to forgive those kinds of sins.
-
Jesus became sin. God doesn't punish non-sin or innocence.
That is the great theological mystery of the love of Jesus.
He willingly, literally, became the substance of sin... for me, so that I didn't have to suffer the consequences.
Moreover, He became sin for me, so that I could become righteous, in Him.
-
Back in the day, a (scape) goat was to be a "sin offering," symbolically taking on "all" of Israeli sin off into the wilderness and thus, Israel was symbolically cleansed of sin before God. However, Christ took on all (became the) sin of the world, all that mankind personally commits so that mankind can be "spiritually" cleansed and redeemed before God.
As Rabbiknife points out, Christ suffered "for" me (us) so that any how believe in Him, don't have to suffer the consequence of sin (spiritual death/eternal separation from God).
-
I think that has become a language issue. To say Christ "became sin" was Paul's way of saying Christ became "like sin," since it is impossible for Christ to be sin in any way.
It's a simile. To say that person is a "rock" with respect to his faith is not to say that person is a literal rock. It means, as a simile, that he is so like a rock that he becomes virtually identical with a rock. But he is not actually a rock.
Jesus became so like a sinner that he virtually became one. And yet he was *not* one.
The big thing is to know that assuming the guilt of the entire human race Jesus was able to suffer for the whole human race. In suffering their sins he was able to forgive those sins. Any way you want to look at it, he suffered our sins.
-
It is neither a simile nor a metaphor
It is a mysterious reality
And you are correct on this point.
Jesus did not become a sinner, "One who commits sin."
Jesus became sin itself, the sum and totality of offense against God's holiness, and accordingly was obliterated under the wrath of God; but, thanks be to God, the Father raised Him from the dead out of God's great love.
-
It is neither a simile nor a metaphor
It is a mysterious reality
And you are correct on this point.
Jesus did not become a sinner, "One who commits sin."
Jesus became sin itself, the sum and totality of offense against God's holiness, and accordingly was obliterated under the wrath of God; but, thanks be to God, the Father raised Him from the dead out of God's great love.
Sorry, to me it then only makes sense as a simile--not a mystery. But we agree on the most important parts.
-
I agree with you. People describe Jesus' atonement for sins on the cross in different ways, but I think they use flawed language and flawed understanding at times.
There's one right way. If understanding is flawed, that view of atonement is flawed.
Jesus did not take the curse of sin upon himself as one who deserved it, but only in the likeness of one who deserved it.
Jesus didn't take the curse of sin upon himself at all, because,
Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. Gal.3:10
So when Paul says,
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: Gal.3:13
He means Jesus was lied about, falsely accused and wrongfully condemned.
In taking the abuses of sinners he put himself in the position of being able to forgive those kinds of sins.
Yes of course, but all sin is against God, which is why our Lord could say,
Man, thy sins are forgiven thee. And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone? Lk.5:20-21
-
It seems others here don't understand that putting an innocent man to death is "the consequence of sin".
It also seems that when Paul says,
Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 2Tim.3:12
Others here don't understand it's "the consequence of sin".
because they have not known the Father, nor me. Jn.16:3
-
It seems others here don't understand that putting an innocent man to death is "the consequence of sin".
It also seems that when Paul says,
Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 2Tim.3:12
Others here don't understand it's "the consequence of sin".
because they have not known the Father, nor me. Jn.16:3
Seems vailed accusations are slung from behind scripture(s) ??
While I understand your point, we have to view context as well. What are the wages of sin? What are the consequences?
You are correct, in that a wage of sin is the death of Christ, and also the persecution of those who have put faith in Him. And yes, there are some who do not understand these are "some" of the consequences and wages of sin. But to say any lack of understanding by those in this thread, is due to having not known the Father, nor Christ... is a false witness and a fleshly accusation.
If I am in error and have reacted in the flesh, please explain how my view of a vailed accusation equaling a false witness is to see your post in a faulty light, offer correction! Should I find in your words that you are not making accusations and a false witness, I will apologize.
The consequence of sin can be summed up in simple terms, the consequence of sin, it's wage is "death!" Death to Christ, death to mankind (spiritually), death to peace/health on earth, death to relationship (a separation) with God, etc. Paul is led to state this:
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Now, I am not adding this scripture to refute you, I add this for the illumination of context and understanding. You mention only "some" of the consequence of sin, I mention some, why the innuendo that because yours were not mentioned in my post, you raise there is a lack of understanding, is because some do not know the Father, nor Christ?
Let's first reconcile so truth can be pursued... I've placed my gripe before you and should I be wrong, I will apologize in effort to reconcile. Believe me, those who know me, know I am all about reconciliation. I pray it is a simple lack of understanding on my part but "words" hold power.
-
I agree with you. People describe Jesus' atonement for sins on the cross in different ways, but I think they use flawed language and flawed understanding at times.
There's one right way. If understanding is flawed, that view of atonement is flawed.
We live in an imperfect world, and you are as imperfect as the next guy. None of us handles the word of God with perfection. What matters is that we cover the doctrine of Christ's atonement for our sins.
As I said, many Christians may describe how Jesus "became sin" wrongly, and I think you do too. But the important thing is to know that Jesus assumed the curse, or punishment, of sin for us, so that we may be resurrected into perfection in the future.
How else could our punishment be removed unless Jesus suffered that same punishment, and then communicated to us his grace? Saying it perfectly is not the issue. Believing it as fact is what transforms us, and that's what's important.
Jesus did not take the curse of sin upon himself as one who deserved it, but only in the likeness of one who deserved it.
Jesus didn't take the curse of sin upon himself at all, because,
False. Christ, in suffering punishment and death from both God and men, did experience the curse of sin, which is death. God caused this to happen to him not because he deserved it but because it was necessary in order for him to forgive us.
Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. Gal.3:10
So when Paul says,
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: Gal.3:13
He means Jesus was lied about, falsely accused and wrongfully condemned.
No, hanging on a tree is not being lied about. It is the curse of God visited upon a sinner when he is hung upon a tree like one might display one executed for criminal behavior. This was a position Jesus was given, by God, to assume--not because he deserved it but only so that in experiencing it he could forgive us for causing this to happen to him.
In taking the abuses of sinners he put himself in the position of being able to forgive those kinds of sins.
Yes of course, but all sin is against God, which is why our Lord could say,
Man, thy sins are forgiven thee. And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone? Lk.5:20-21
Yes, all sin is against God. And so, God became a man so that in experiencing human sin He could forgive all sin.
-
It seems others here don't understand that putting an innocent man to death is "the consequence of sin".
It also seems that when Paul says,
Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 2Tim.3:12
Others here don't understand it's "the consequence of sin".
because they have not known the Father, nor me. Jn.16:3
I agree with Slug that this is over the top unChristian, accusing Christian brothers of "not knowing the Father" simply because we don't agree with you. Incidentally, I still believe you fall far short of the truth of what it meant for Christ is "become sin."
Nobody would dispute that Jesus bore the consequences of sin when he allowed sinful men to put him to death. Nobody would dispute that righteous Christians, like Jesus, are persecuted.
But saying this falls far short of describing how Jesus' death brought about our redemption. He atoned for our sins by "becoming sin" for us, ie by putting himself in our place, and then forgiving those willing to repent.
-
Seems vailed accusations are slung from behind scripture(s) ??
I'm not making veiled accusations. I cited Jesus's statement that his followers would be persecuted because the persecutors didn't know him or his Father. Do you understand? Jesus wasn't being punished because his Father viewed him as "the substance of sin". He was being punished by people who hate God.
While I understand your point, we have to view context as well. What are the wages of sin? What are the consequences?
The wages of sin is the death of the sinner, not the deathof the innocent.
You are correct, in that a wage of sin is the death of Christ, and also the persecution of those who have put faith in Him.
I never said this. Here's what I'm saying,
they have rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my love.
Psa.109:5
Our Lord suffered because he is the embodiment of God, not the embodiment of sin.
And yes, there are some who do not understand these are "some" of the consequences and wages of sin. But to say any lack of understanding by those in this thread, is due to having not known the Father, nor Christ... is a false witness and a fleshly accusation.
Again, Jesus was referring to people who would persecute his followers, as they persecuted him. But as far as not knowing the consequence of sin where Christ is concerned, you don't know what it means, but neither did I, being indoctrinated with false teaching for many years.
If I am in error and have reacted in the flesh, please explain how my view of a vailed accusation equaling a false witness is to see your post in a faulty light, offer correction! Should I find in your words that you are not making accusations and a false witness, I will apologize.
The consequence of sin can be summed up in simple terms, the consequence of sin, it's wage is "death!" Death to Christ, death to mankind (spiritually), death to peace/health on earth, death to relationship (a separation) with God, etc. Paul is led to state this:
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Now, I am not adding this scripture to refute you, I add this for the illumination of context and understanding. You mention only "some" of the consequence of sin, I mention some, why the innuendo that because yours were not mentioned in my post, you raise there is a lack of understanding, is because some do not know the Father, nor Christ?
Not very well and the proof is in the passage you cited. Who is Paul saying will be paid with death for their sin?
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? Rom.6:16
Paul isn't teaching that Christ's Father paid him with death for mankinds sin. The entire Bible says if you could keep the whole law, you would be paid with blessing by God, not cursing by God.
Let's first reconcile so truth can be pursued... I've placed my gripe before you and should I be wrong, I will apologize in effort to reconcile. Believe me, those who know me, know I am all about reconciliation. I pray it is a simple lack of understanding on my part but "words" hold power.
Your statement, "I will apologize in effort to reconcile", is how reconciliation with God should be viewed, because it was God in human flesh being sinned against who is owed the aoplogy.
-
We live in an imperfect world, and you are as imperfect as the next guy. None of us handles the word of God with perfection. What matters is that we cover the doctrine of Christ's atonement for our sins.
What matters is listening to God's Spirit, which might come from within yourself, or from another person.
As I said, many Christians may describe how Jesus "became sin" wrongly, and I think you do too. But the important thing is to know that Jesus assumed the curse, or punishment, of sin for us, so that we may be resurrected into perfection in the future.
The only way "Jesus became sin" was by people lying about him. And if Jesus assumed the curse of the law (according to what the curse of the law actually says), we would never have heard from him again.
How else could our punishment be removed unless Jesus suffered that same punishment, and then communicated to us his grace? Saying it perfectly is not the issue. Believing it as fact is what transforms us, and that's what's important.
The punishment (death) is removed by asking God for forgiveness. And the mercy of God is that Jesus didn't smash our stupid faces in for sinning against him.
False. Christ, in suffering punishment and death from both God and men, did experience the curse of sin, which is death. God caused this to happen to him not because he deserved it but because it was necessary in order for him to forgive us.
God doesn't punish himself for sin. As a man, he behaved as a godly man, putting his flesh with its desires to death. And he forgave sinners before he born on earth.
No, hanging on a tree is not being lied about.
It was the result (or consequence) of being lied about.
It is the curse of God visited upon a sinner when he is hung upon a tree like one might display one executed for criminal behavior.
In the case of Jesus, it's not the curse of God. And when Christians were crucified by Rome because of their faith, it wasn't because they werebeing cursed by God.
This was a position Jesus was given, by God, to assume--not because he deserved it but only so that in experiencing it he could forgive us for causing this to happen to him.
Jesus forgave sinners before he was crucified.
Yes, all sin is against God. And so, God became a man so that in experiencing human sin He could forgive all sin.
Then this,
But he, being full of compassion, forgave their iniquity, Psa.78:38
Is senseless to you. The truth is, Jesus displayed who he always has been.
-
I agree with Slug that this is over the top unChristian, accusing Christian brothers of "not knowing the Father" simply because we don't agree with you. Incidentally, I still believe you fall far short of the truth of what it meant for Christ is "become sin."
I never said Christian brothers who disagree with me don't know God. I cited Jesus saying people who persecute his disciples don't know God. As fas as believers go, some know the Lord more intimately than others do.
Nobody would dispute that Jesus bore the consequences of sin when he allowed sinful men to put him to death. Nobody would dispute that righteous Christians, like Jesus, are persecuted.
Good. That's the right way to see his sacrifice, as Paul said, he wanted to know the Lord intimately,
That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; Phil.3:10
But saying this falls far short of describing how Jesus' death brought about our redemption. He atoned for our sins by "becoming sin" for us, ie by putting himself in our place, and then forgiving those willing to repent.
Unless sinners repent, they won't be redeemed. And when Paul says God made his Son sin who knew no sin, he means false witnesses accused him,
the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me. Psa69:9
-
Seems vailed accusations are slung from behind scripture(s) ??
I'm not making veiled accusations. I cited Jesus's statement that his followers would be persecuted because the persecutors didn't know him or his Father. Do you understand? Jesus wasn't being punished because his Father viewed him as "the substance of sin". He was being punished by people who hate God.
While I understand your point, we have to view context as well. What are the wages of sin? What are the consequences?
The wages of sin is the death of the sinner, not the deathof the innocent.
You are correct, in that a wage of sin is the death of Christ, and also the persecution of those who have put faith in Him.
I never said this. Here's what I'm saying,
they have rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my love.
Psa.109:5
Our Lord suffered because he is the embodiment of God, not the embodiment of sin.
And yes, there are some who do not understand these are "some" of the consequences and wages of sin. But to say any lack of understanding by those in this thread, is due to having not known the Father, nor Christ... is a false witness and a fleshly accusation.
Again, Jesus was referring to people who would persecute his followers, as they persecuted him. But as far as not knowing the consequence of sin where Christ is concerned, you don't know what it means, but neither did I, being indoctrinated with false teaching for many years.
If I am in error and have reacted in the flesh, please explain how my view of a vailed accusation equaling a false witness is to see your post in a faulty light, offer correction! Should I find in your words that you are not making accusations and a false witness, I will apologize.
The consequence of sin can be summed up in simple terms, the consequence of sin, it's wage is "death!" Death to Christ, death to mankind (spiritually), death to peace/health on earth, death to relationship (a separation) with God, etc. Paul is led to state this:
Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Now, I am not adding this scripture to refute you, I add this for the illumination of context and understanding. You mention only "some" of the consequence of sin, I mention some, why the innuendo that because yours were not mentioned in my post, you raise there is a lack of understanding, is because some do not know the Father, nor Christ?
Not very well and the proof is in the passage you cited. Who is Paul saying will be paid with death for their sin?
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? Rom.6:16
Paul isn't teaching that Christ's Father paid him with death for mankinds sin. The entire Bible says if you could keep the whole law, you would be paid with blessing by God, not cursing by God.
Let's first reconcile so truth can be pursued... I've placed my gripe before you and should I be wrong, I will apologize in effort to reconcile. Believe me, those who know me, know I am all about reconciliation. I pray it is a simple lack of understanding on my part but "words" hold power.
Your statement, "I will apologize in effort to reconcile", is how reconciliation with God should be viewed, because it was God in human flesh being sinned against who is owed the aoplogy.
My final comments were:
Let's first reconcile so truth can be pursued... I've placed my gripe before you and should I be wrong, I will apologize in effort to reconcile. Believe me, those who know me, know I am all about reconciliation. I pray it is a simple lack of understanding on my part but "words" hold power.
Here is what you also stated and failed to address:
Others here don't understand it's "the consequence of sin".
because they have not known the Father, nor me. Jn.16:3
If you won't address your accusation and the innuendo that any lack of understanding is due to those HERE not knowing the Father, nor Jesus... if you can't/won't address this false witness, then just be honest.
I'll wait for your next response and will evaluate your words in any effort to reconcile. If you avoid this... must the leadership of this message board be alerted of your words?
-
If you won't address your accusation and the innuendo that any lack of understanding is due to those HERE not knowing the Father, nor Jesus... if you can't/won't address this false witness, then just be honest.
I'll wait for your next response and will evaluate your words in any effort to reconcile. If you avoid this... must the leadership of this message board be alerted of your words?
I already answered your misunderstaning of how our Savior bore thee sins of man by citing Jn.16:3. Apparently you didn't reat the context. I wasn't accusing you of persecuting believers. Alert whoever you want.
-
If you won't address your accusation and the innuendo that any lack of understanding is due to those HERE not knowing the Father, nor Jesus... if you can't/won't address this false witness, then just be honest.
I'll wait for your next response and will evaluate your words in any effort to reconcile. If you avoid this... must the leadership of this message board be alerted of your words?
I already answered your misunderstaning of how our Savior bore thee sins of man by citing Jn.16:3. Apparently you didn't reat the context. I wasn't accusing you of persecuting believers. Alert whoever you want.
I agree that you did not accuse others here of persecuting believers. I also will not be distracted from what you DID say.
Your accusation is that "others here don't understand it's the consequence of sin:
because they have not known the Father, nor Christ. (then you post a scripture ref)
-
I agree that you did not accuse others here of persecuting believers. I also will not be distracted from what you DID say.
Your accusation is that "others here don't understand it's the consequence of sin:
because they have not known the Father, nor Christ. (then you post a scripture ref)
You're already distracted by the passage I cited, because you took it personally, instead of looking at the context of what Jesus said would cause his suffering.
-
We live in an imperfect world, and you are as imperfect as the next guy. None of us handles the word of God with perfection. What matters is that we cover the doctrine of Christ's atonement for our sins.
What matters is listening to God's Spirit, which might come from within yourself, or from another person.
And I suppose you think *you're* that person? You don't appear to be very mature to me.
The only way "Jesus became sin" was by people lying about him. And if Jesus assumed the curse of the law (according to what the curse of the law actually says), we would never have heard from him again.
This is where you err. Dying does not necessarily lead to eternal death, obviously. The 1st death is not the 2nd death!
And so, Jesus did suffer the curse of sin, which is death, because he died. Yes, he did not die for his own sin. But he died *for our sins!*
And so, Jesus became sin *for us,* and not for himself. But he did "become sin" in the sense of a simile, and even more, as a replacement for us. Literally, he became the replacement for our sin, and died on our behalf, so that when he exercised his divine power to rise from the dead, he could take with him all those who he chooses to go with him.
The punishment (death) is removed by asking God for forgiveness. And the mercy of God is that Jesus didn't smash our stupid faces in for sinning against him.
You are being entirely unbiblical about this. If confession and forgiveness was all that was needed, then Christ didn't need to die at all! But the Bible says he became a kind of atoning passover lamb.
God doesn't punish himself for sin. As a man, he behaved as a godly man, putting his flesh with its desires to death. And he forgave sinners before he born on earth.
You are in the arena of heresy, brother. God did suffer via His Son on the cross, and even before. Although He planned in advance for our redemption, it did not actually take place until after the cross.
In the case of Jesus, it's not the curse of God. And when Christians were crucified by Rome because of their faith, it wasn't because they were being cursed by God.
As far as I know, nobody has said Christian martyrs were cursed by God?
Jesus forgave sinners before he was crucified.
Yes, forgiveness from God was available before the cross. But God deemed it necessary to have Jesus die on the cross, and our acceptance of that necessary act, in order to give us eternal atonement. Before that, all acts of atonement were forms of temporary redemption, and could not result in eternal life.
Is senseless to you. The truth is, Jesus displayed who he always has been.
What is unbiblical to me is your continual denial of the need for Christ to "become sin" for us. He did this not by becoming sin itself, but rather, by becoming the substitute for sinners. It is in grammar a kind of personification of sin, in which Jesus places himself sacrificially and in our stead.
Whether we understand the language or not, the simple fact is that forgiveness before the cross did not win for anybody eternal life. It was only after the cross that final atonement was made, resulting in eternal redemption.
This is what's important to accept because it makes us conform to Jesus' life and to his Father's lordship over our wills. Without this, we are stuck somewhere between God and our own wills, which is not good enough.
-
I agree that you did not accuse others here of persecuting believers. I also will not be distracted from what you DID say.
Your accusation is that "others here don't understand it's the consequence of sin:
because they have not known the Father, nor Christ. (then you post a scripture ref)
You're already distracted by the passage I cited, because you took it personally, instead of looking at the context of what Jesus said would cause his suffering.
You're being dishonest, brother. You said what you said. You just refuse to own it. But that's between you and God. It's best to be honest about it, but I can get past it, if you stop suggesting that those *here* who don't believe what you say "don't know God."
-
You're already distracted by the passage I cited, because you took it personally, instead of looking at the context of what Jesus said would cause his suffering.
I did not "take" your response personal, I weigh words, view the use of scriptures to discern context, or "intent".
This is what you said:
Others here don't understand it's "the consequence of sin".
because they have not known the Father, nor me. Jn.16:3
You specifically identify "who" you are speaking about in the first statement (others here = everyone in the thread BUT you).
Then you manipulate a verse to fit the specificity of your statement and the result is to bear a false witness against all "others here" who don't understand your posts.
Here is the verse brother:
v3 And these things they will do to you because they have not known the Father nor Me.
Why omit a portion and thus lose context of the verse and reveal intent of it's use, instead?
-
I agree that you did not accuse others here of persecuting believers. I also will not be distracted from what you DID say.
Your accusation is that "others here don't understand it's the consequence of sin:
because they have not known the Father, nor Christ. (then you post a scripture ref)
You're already distracted by the passage I cited, because you took it personally, instead of looking at the context of what Jesus said would cause his suffering.
Journeyman, you're making an assumption that all in this thread don't seem to know the Lord Jesus as their personal Savior, best I can tell. Why is that???
-
And I suppose you think *you're* that person? You don't appear to be very mature to me.
Well, our Lord warned about false teachers and I was taught things for many years that weren't true. In prayer, I asked God if he poured his wrath out on his Son and the response I got was, "No, mankind did". Shortly after this, I met a Jewish believer in Jesus who corrected me.
This is where you err. Dying does not necessarily lead to eternal death, obviously. The 1st death is not the 2nd death!
And so, Jesus did suffer the curse of sin, which is death, because he died. Yes, he did not die for his own sin. But he died *for our sins!*
And so, Jesus became sin *for us,* and not for himself. But he did "become sin" in the sense of a simile, and even more, as a replacement for us. Literally, he became the replacement for our sin, and died on our behalf, so that when he exercised his divine power to rise from the dead, he could take with him all those who he chooses to go with him.
Our Lord taught repentance, not replacement.
You are being entirely unbiblical about this. If confession and forgiveness was all that was needed, then Christ didn't need to die at all! But the Bible says he became a kind of atoning passover lamb.
These are not "entirely unbiblical",
He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy. Pro.28:13
I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, Lk.15:18
I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. Lk.13:5
Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: Isa.1:18
And with respect to our Passover Lamb, Peter said,
because Christ also suffered for us 1Pet.2:21
Take a close look at how Peter is using the word "also".
You are in the arena of heresy, brother. God did suffer via His Son on the cross, and even before. Although He planned in advance for our redemption, it did not actually take place until after the cross.
Well, I would be in the realm of heresy if I said God through Christ didn't suffer for us, but that's not what I said. What I did say is....God doesn't punish himself. It's mankind that punished God through Christ and although God is willing to forgive, he also came into this world for judgement.
As far as I know, nobody has said Christian martyrs were cursed by God?
So not everyone who is hanged on a tree is cursed of God. Some Christians were crucified for following Jesus, who was also not cursed of God.
Yes, forgiveness from God was available before the cross. But God deemed it necessary to have Jesus die on the cross, and our acceptance of that necessary act, in order to give us eternal atonement. Before that, all acts of atonement were forms of temporary redemption, and could not result in eternal life.
No, what God shows through his Son is how this world despised him. God didn't need to be abused to forgive. He does need to be asked for forgivness and I already showed that Jesus forgave people who came to him.
What is unbiblical to me is your continual denial of the need for Christ to "become sin" for us. He did this not by becoming sin itself, but rather, by becoming the substitute for sinners. It is in grammar a kind of personification of sin, in which Jesus places himself sacrificially and in our stead.
Whether we understand the language or not, the simple fact is that forgiveness before the cross did not win for anybody eternal life. It was only after the cross that final atonement was made, resulting in eternal redemption.
This is what's important to accept because it makes us conform to Jesus' life and to his Father's lordship over our wills. Without this, we are stuck somewhere between God and our own wills, which is not good enough.
He became sin for us who knew no sin means he was wronged. And eternal life does not belong to anyone who will not acknowledge that he was wronged. And repentance is necessary or else, "evey man will be put to death forhis own sin". Therefore, Jesus is no ones substitute.
-
You're being dishonest, brother. You said what you said. You just refuse to own it. But that's between you and God. It's best to be honest about it, but I can get past it, if you stop suggesting that those *here* who don't believe what you say "don't know God."
What I said was people here don't understand our Lord's suffering was the consequence of sin, that is, sinners inflicting pain on him. Then I cited a passage proving it.
-
I did not "take" your response personal, I weigh words, view the use of scriptures to discern context, or "intent".
Thats exactly what you're not doing, because if you looked at the context, you'd agree with me.
This is what you said:
Others here don't understand it's "the consequence of sin".
because they have not known the Father, nor me. Jn.16:3
You specifically identify "who" you are speaking about in the first statement (others here = everyone in the thread BUT you).
Then you manipulate a verse to fit the specificity of your statement and the result is to bear a false witness against all "others here" who don't understand your posts.
Here is the verse brother:
v3 And these things they will do to you because they have not known the Father nor Me.
Why omit a portion and thus lose context of the verse and reveal intent of it's use, instead?
Because I thought you'd look at it, or might know italready. What I said was, "Others here don't understand it's "the consequence of sin".", and that's true, because the verse I cited is the reason Jesus suffered.
I never said disagreeing over this point means you don't know the Lord at all. You took it that way.
-
Journeyman, you're making an assumption that all in this thread don't seem to know the Lord Jesus as their personal Savior, best I can tell. Why is that???
Because instead of looking at the context of the verse I cited proving why our Lord suffered, people imagined it as a personal attack.
-
Thats exactly what you're not doing, because if you looked at the context, you'd agree with me.
You'll find in post #11, I stated the following:
You are correct, in that a wage of sin is the death of Christ, and also the persecution of those who have put faith in Him.
Because I thought you'd look at it, or might know italready. What I said was, "Others here don't understand it's "the consequence of sin".", and that's true, because the verse I cited is the reason Jesus suffered.
The posting of that half a verse only reveals why Christ's death happens (is actually necessary) and also why, those who believe in Him will be persecuted for their faith in Him. However, your posting of that half verse does NOT answer this specific question:
What "is" the reason WHY, others here don't understand the death of Christ, is a consequence of sin??
-
And I suppose you think *you're* that person? You don't appear to be very mature to me.
Well, our Lord warned about false teachers and I was taught things for many years that weren't true. In prayer, I asked God if he poured his wrath out on his Son and the response I got was, "No, mankind did". Shortly after this, I met a Jewish believer in Jesus who corrected me.
So, you change your biblical beliefs for *one person?" I think it likely that person helped you understand a single aspect of the atonement, and this caused you to dump the entire doctrine of atonement.
Our Lord taught repentance, not replacement.
False, the Lord taught repentance *in the name of Jesus,* which refers to the necessity of his atonement. His work was essential. Repentance is based on his essential work of atonement. That is true Christianity--not repentance without atonement.
Well, I would be in the realm of heresy if I said God through Christ didn't suffer for us, but that's not what I said. What I did say is....God doesn't punish himself. It's mankind that punished God through Christ and although God is willing to forgive, he also came into this world for judgement.
Christian orthodoxy is not based exclusively on the fact that Christ suffered on the cross. This is just a fact of history, just as many Jews and Christians were hung on crosses by the Romans.
What makes for doctrinal orthodoxy is the fact that when Jesus died on the cross he not only suffered the sins of men but he also assumed the place where suffering those sins he could forgive those sins. As the Son of God he held divine authority to forgive what men had done to him. That's what constitutes atonement--not just a simple historical fact, indicating he suffered human abuse.
Denying the essential nature of Christ's forgiveness of what was done to him is what constitutes heresy. Just saying he suffered and died on the cross is not what makes doctrinal orthodoxy.
As far as I know, nobody has said Christian martyrs were cursed by God?
So not everyone who is hanged on a tree is cursed of God. Some Christians were crucified for following Jesus, who was also not cursed of God.
You are giving a false equivalency between Christ and Christians. Both bear the curse of death innocently, but only Christ was sinless. As such, he bore the curse *for us!*
No, what God shows through his Son is how this world despised him. God didn't need to be abused to forgive. He does need to be asked for forgivness and I already showed that Jesus forgave people who came to him.
Again, this is heretical. God did need to suffer abuse from men in order to forgive them. That's the basis of redemption, God forgiving what was done to Him physically, through the suffering and death of Christ.
Jesus' offering forgiveness did not bring eternal redemption until *after the cross.* This is true Christian orthodoxy. You need to admit that you are not orthodox in your Christian beliefs!
You seem to give too much credit to your Jewish friend, perhaps thinking he, as a Jew, holds the key to truth that Christians were unable to comprehend because they were not Jews? But true orthodoxy is based on the Jewish apostles! And their doctrine is *not* what your Jewish friend taught you!
Nobody is denying the need for repentance. What Christian orthodoxy requires is that we repent based on an acknowledgment of the necessity of Christ's atonement. In this way we acknowledge that all our "flesh" must be disposed of *by the power of God* and not by our own works.
We are free to live in the free gift of God's Spirit when we acknowledge that redemption was something only he could do. Thus, we must look to him for spirituality in all we do.
-
God will never say anything in response to "prayer," that is contradictory of the revealed Word.
"No Scripture is of private interpretation," yet that is exactly what a subjective interpretation of a "word from God" is.
-
You're being dishonest, brother. You said what you said. You just refuse to own it. But that's between you and God. It's best to be honest about it, but I can get past it, if you stop suggesting that those *here* who don't believe what you say "don't know God."
What I said was people here don't understand our Lord's suffering was the consequence of sin, that is, sinners inflicting pain on him. Then I cited a passage proving it.
I'll defer to Slug, who originated the point. He indicated that we all acknowledge Jesus suffered the consequences of human abuse. So your claim that we don't "know God" is groundless, as I see it.
-
God will never say anything in response to "prayer," that is contradictory of the revealed Word.
"No Scripture is of private interpretation," yet that is exactly what a subjective interpretation of a "word from God" is.
That's true. But what point specifically are you responding to?
-
God will never say anything in response to "prayer," that is contradictory of the revealed Word.
"No Scripture is of private interpretation," yet that is exactly what a subjective interpretation of a "word from God" is.
Can be a subjective or even an objective discussion about this too. Example, praying to God for any of the spiritual gifts listed in 1 Cor 12. Personal theology (subjectively) can actually dictate the legitimacy of such a prayer, let alone how/should God answer. And if He does answer and the answer is "yes" and the person who prays begins to be used by God and thus, edifies the Body of Christ per Paul's lesson to us all (1 Cor 12-14)... do we respond to what God is doing by amending theology, if we subjectively believe (due to theology), the gifts have ended?
When God defies our theology, our personal interpretation of scripture (subjectively), what then?
I know many brethren stuck in their own box, while God works in defiance to what they hold too, in that box. Objectively, God is never put in a box :-)
-
You'll find in post #11, I stated the following:
You are correct, in that a wage of sin is the death of Christ, and also the persecution of those who have put faith in Him.
The wages of sin is the death of the sinner, not the death of the innocent. Our Lord died for serving his Father,
They repay me evil for good, and hatred for my friendship. Psa.109:5
now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father. But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause. Jn.15:24-25
The posting of that half a verse only reveals why Christ's death happens (is actually necessary) and also why, those who believe in Him will be persecuted for their faith in Him.
The death of our Savior shows the love of God to the uttermost, continuing to love people while enduring terrible abuse, but he and his Father forgave sinners before this,
The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here. Mt.12:41
Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the harlots believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him. Mt.21:31-32
However, your posting of that half verse does NOT answer this specific question:
What "is" the reason WHY, others here don't understand the death of Christ, is a consequence of sin??
I told you when I said,
But as far as not knowing the consequence of sin where Christ is concerned, you don't know what it means, but neither did I, being indoctrinated with false teaching for many years. Post 244
And when God sent a dear believer to correct me, I argued with him for months. I didn't look at the scriptures he showed me. I simply ignored them, repearing the dogma I was conditioned by and that's what's happening here, but once I actually dealt directly with the scriptures I was being shown, instead of posting scripture that seemed contradictory, everything fell iperfectly nto place.
But you're right about citing partial scripture, where the true meaning gets lost. Even Paul saying Jesus became a curse for us is a good example that. Look closely at the OT passage he's referring to. He isn't saying Jesus was accursed by God. He's saying Jesus was thought by to be accursed by the religious leaders who condemned him,
He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him. Psa.22:8, Mt.27:43
In other words, he's accursed of God.
-
So, you change your biblical beliefs for *one person?"
He's not the only one, but I've heard this objection before. Fortunately, the Bible often shows how the minority is right and the majority wrong. And people who think what happened to the scribes understanding of the scriptures couldn't happen to church authority better think again.
False, the Lord taught repentance *in the name of Jesus,* which refers to the necessity of his atonement. His work was essential. Repentance is based on his essential work of atonement. That is true Christianity--not repentance without atonement.
Well Randy, the suffering of Christ is the greatest example of how people have sinned against God, but God forgave sins without suffering in the flesh and not "temporarily" as you assert.
Christian orthodoxy is not based exclusively on the fact that Christ suffered on the cross. This is just a fact of history, just as many Jews and Christians were hung on crosses by the Romans.
What makes for doctrinal orthodoxy is the fact that when Jesus died on the cross he not only suffered the sins of men but he also assumed the place where suffering those sins he could forgive those sins. As the Son of God he held divine authority to forgive what men had done to him. That's what constitutes atonement--not just a simple historical fact, indicating he suffered human abuse.
Denying the essential nature of Christ's forgiveness of what was done to him is what constitutes heresy. Just saying he suffered and died on the cross is not what makes doctrinal orthodoxy.
It goes without saying that to forgive, an offence had to occur. The point is, Jesus was never accursed of God.
You are giving a false equivalency between Christ and Christians. Both bear the curse of death innocently, but only Christ was sinless. As such, he bore the curse *for us!*
An innocent person is under no curse, so you're wrong. People can wrongfully imagine that someone is being cursed by God and that's what you don't get.
Again, this is heretical. God did need to suffer abuse from men in order to forgive them. That's the basis of redemption, God forgiving what was done to Him physically, through the suffering and death of Christ.
Jesus' offering forgiveness did not bring eternal redemption until *after the cross.* This is true Christian orthodoxy. You need to admit that you are not orthodox in your Christian beliefs!
You seem to give too much credit to your Jewish friend, perhaps thinking he, as a Jew, holds the key to truth that Christians were unable to comprehend because they were not Jews? But true orthodoxy is based on the Jewish apostles! And their doctrine is *not* what your Jewish friend taught you!
Nobody is denying the need for repentance. What Christian orthodoxy requires is that we repent based on an acknowledgment of the necessity of Christ's atonement. In this way we acknowledge that all our "flesh" must be disposed of *by the power of God* and not by our own works.
We are free to live in the free gift of God's Spirit when we acknowledge that redemption was something only he could do. Thus, we must look to him for spirituality in all we do.
God didn't need to be murdered as a man before he could forgive sin,
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise. Psa.51:17
But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice Mt.9:13
-
your claim that we don't "know God"
I never said this.
-
your claim that we don't "know God"
I never said this.
In post #247 you said this:
It seems others here don't understand that putting an innocent man to death is "the consequence of sin".
It also seems that when Paul says,
Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 2Tim.3:12
Others here don't understand it's "the consequence of sin".
because they have not known the Father, nor me. Jn.16:3
So the question is, who are those "others here" who "don't understand it's "the consequence of sin?" You quote Jesus as saying these, who you think "don't understand," "have not known the Father, nor me."
Then you must've been referring to non-believers here?
1) All Christians here understand that putting an innocent man to death is the consequence of sin.
2) All Christians here understand that the godly in Christ Jesus suffer the consequences of sin by others.
So perhaps I misunderstood, thinking you were accusing Christians of not knowing the Father?
-
In post #247 you said this:
It seems others here don't understand that putting an innocent man to death is "the consequence of sin".
It also seems that when Paul says,
Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution. 2Tim.3:12
Others here don't understand it's "the consequence of sin".
because they have not known the Father, nor me. Jn.16:3
So the question is, who are those "others here" who "don't understand it's "the consequence of sin?"
Right here,
RabbiKnife said,
Jesus became sin....He willingly, literally, became the substance of sin....post 4
This isn't true.
Slug1 said,
Christ took on all (became the) sin of the world, post 5
This isn't true.
You quote Jesus as saying these, who you think "don't understand," "have not known the Father, nor me."
Then you must've been referring to non-believers here?
In citing that passage, I wasn't referring to anyone here. I was proving that Jesus suffered because he was literally God, not literally sin.
1) All Christians here understand that putting an innocent man to death is the consequence of sin.
It's an act of sin, so when you say,
Christ, in suffering punishment and death from both God and men...
That's not true, because God doesn't commit sin.
2) All Christians here understand that the godly in Christ Jesus suffer the consequences of sin by others.
And when I pointed this out, you said,
You are giving a false equivalency between Christ and Christians. post 12
I never said Christians are sinless. I showed how believers suffer as our Lord did. And Jesus made that equivalency, not me.
So perhaps I misunderstood, thinking you were accusing Christians of not knowing the Father?
You're just not listening. I didn't either for a long time. We've all been brainwashed with the idea that God punished his Son for the sins we committed. We better wake up.
-
1 Cor 5:21:
He made Him who knew no sin to be sin in our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
Please explain that away.
I'll wait.
Can someone bring me a refill on my gargantuan popcorn bucket?
-
So, you change your biblical beliefs for *one person?"
He's not the only one, but I've heard this objection before. Fortunately, the Bible often shows how the minority is right and the majority wrong. And people who think what happened to the scribes understanding of the scriptures couldn't happen to church authority better think again.
You don't need a democratic count--you need proof from the Scriptures. A majority of conservative Christians agree on what heresy is. The "minority" are not to be trusted.
Your view is clearly in the minority, doctrine-wise. You should not trust your friend. He's spouting heresy. He thinks he can explain Jesus' death as something less than divine redemption.
Just an act of forgiveness is less than eternal redemption. Many have been forgiven without receiving eternal life. Final redemption requires final atonement. And that requires more than mere forgiveness.
It requires a complete sacrifice, Christ sacrificed to sin, and ourselves sacrificed to Christ. This is in essence the New Birth--a complete offering to God with a completely new life in Christ.
Well Randy, the suffering of Christ is the greatest example of how people have sinned against God, but God forgave sins without suffering in the flesh and not "temporarily" as you assert.
Again, simple forgiveness did not bring eternal life. Christ's complete sacrifice to sin did, along with our choice to completely sacrifice ourselves to him, spiritually.
It goes without saying that to forgive, an offence had to occur. The point is, Jesus was never accursed of God.
The Bible does *not* say that men solely viewed Jesus as cursed of God, which of course they did. More, it said that Jesus assumed the form of a curse by sacrificing himself to sin.
Nobody is saying that Jesus himself was cursed as a sinner--he was sinless. In saying he "became a curse" Christians, of the orthodox variety, say that Jesus actually was sacrificed to sin, and not *as a sinner.*
What you seem think is a big revelation is purely simplistic. Everybody knows Jesus did not die a sinner! In saying he "became a curse" it is being said that he "took the place of us, who are sinners."
An innocent person is under no curse, so you're wrong. People can wrongfully imagine that someone is being cursed by God and that's what you don't get.
Again, you're being simplistic. Everybody knows that a person is not cursed for doing right! That is a truism!
What is being said is that Jesus positioned himself to suffer *as if he was a sinner!* You simply deny that when that is exactly what the Bible says! Jesus was not pretending to be a sinner, but rather, chose to take the punishment of a sinner.
He chose to take the abuse of sinners that they direct at God Himself. People are often the victims of this "hatred for God" by men. So in Jesus' case, he took on this victimhood from men who hate God in order to forgive them.
We are free to live in the free gift of God's Spirit when we acknowledge that redemption was something only he could do. Thus, we must look to him for spirituality in all we do.
God didn't need to be murdered as a man before he could forgive sin,
I never said he did. My claim is that eternal life is received not purely by forgiveness from God, but more by casting ourselves upon the mercy of God, who showed us that our dependence must be completely on Christ, who cast aside all of the ways of men. If we repent and still sin, how can we obtain eternal life, unless it be by a universal act of atonement?
-
This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Jn.9:16
we know that this man is a sinner. Jn.9:24
He hath spoken blasphemy...He is guilty and deserves death Mt.26:65-66
If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee. Jn.18:30
God made him who had no sin to be sin...2Cor:5:21
And with him they crucify two thieves...And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors. Mk.15:27-28
-
This man is not of God, because he keepeth not the sabbath day. Jn.9:16
we know that this man is a sinner. Jn.9:24
He hath spoken blasphemy...He is guilty and deserves death Mt.26:65-66
If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee. Jn.18:30
God made him who had no sin to be sin...2Cor:5:21
And with him they crucify two thieves...And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors. Mk.15:27-28
Nobody is denying that ungodly Jews and others accused Jesus of being a sinner punished by God. But that isn't what is meant by Jesus "being made sin."
He was put in the place where sinners are punished, even though he did not sin, so that he could feel the hostility men have for God. Then he qualified himself to forgiven that sin, having actually experienced it physically.
This is what "being made sin" means. It means to assume the place of the punished sinner, even though he was not a sinner.
This had nothing to do with others seeing him as a sinner. It had to do with his choice to take the position of a sinner under judgment from God.
This is the nature of the atonement that Jesus made himself to be, so that when he forgave us our repentance could result in our receiving eternal life. Without the atonement, our forgiveness lacks the luster to be acceptable to God. It is only *in Christ* that our works gleam with the work of Christ, which is in fact acceptable to God.
When we receive the life of Christ from him as our atonement, we not only receive forgiveness but we receive his eternal life. Forgiveness without the atonement falls short of Jesus' life.
It is the merry go round of forgiveness, another sin, another repentance, and another apology. That never can result in eternal life unless our life is completely turned over to his life. It is his atoning works, and not something we can accomplish on our own.
-
that isn't what is meant by Jesus "being made sin."
The only way to regard an innocent man as sin, is to bear false witness against him.
....so that he could feel the hostility men have for God. Then he qualified himself....
Our Lord knew all things before he was born on earth and didn't need to be qualified for anything.
...to take the position of a sinner under judgment from God.
An innocent isn't under God's judgement. Only the guilty are.
....so that when he forgave us our repentance could result in our receiving eternal life.
Cart before the horse. Repentant heart first, then forgivness.
When we receive the life of Christ from him as our atonement, we not only receive forgiveness but we receive his eternal life. Forgiveness without the atonement falls short of Jesus' life.
I don't think you understand that in appeasing God, the Son appeased himself.
It is the merry go round of forgiveness, another sin, another repentance, and another apology. That never can result in eternal life unless our life is completely turned over to his life. It is his atoning works, and not something we can accomplish on our own.
Believers should be growing in the knowledge of the Lord. Atonement is being reconciled to God. And how are people reconciled?
-
that isn't what is meant by Jesus "being made sin."
The only way to regard an innocent man as sin, is to bear false witness against him.
Yes, but language is a strange thing, and has to be looked at carefully. As I said, the statement is acting like a simile. If I say, "You're a rock," I'm not saying your actually a rock, but only the epitome of a rock in your fortitude and endurance.
That's how this statement works, when Christ is said to have been made "sin." He is not actually being viewed as an actual sinner, but only being viewed as if he was a sinner being punished for being such. No sense belaboring this. If we disagree, we disagree.
Our Lord knew all things before he was born on earth and didn't need to be qualified for anything.
That is clearly untrue because God Himself required of Himself that a qualification take place.
Heb 2.17 For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.
An innocent isn't under God's judgement. Only the guilty are.
Again, it's a *truism* that only the guilty are punished. But this is a unique situation in which the innocent one is indeed receiving punishment that only the guilty deserve.
Jesus was punished in his innocence as if he was guilty. And this took place by the will of God who informed Jesus that His will must be done and that he must drink his cup.
Cart before the horse. Repentant heart first, then forgivness.
Forgiveness, as I said, does not automatically buy eternal life. Forgiveness must come through Jesus, the only atonement for sin that obtains for us eternal life.
It is the merry go round of forgiveness, another sin, another repentance, and another apology. That never can result in eternal life unless our life is completely turned over to his life. It is his atoning works, and not something we can accomplish on our own.
Believers should be growing in the knowledge of the Lord. Atonement is being reconciled to God. And how are people reconciled?
Growing in the knowledge of the Lord is not necessarily Salvation. Yes, atonement is being reconciled to God--not merely by asking forgiveness, and not merely by growing in the knowledge of God, but more, by repenting in the name of Jesus, through whom we receive eternal life.
If only Jesus' works were qualified to atone for our sins and to give us eternal life, then nothing we do apart from him obtains for us salvation. All that we do, including repentance and spiritual growth, must begin with our embrace of Jesus as our spiritual life, because he alone is the source of eternal atonement for sin.
What I'm saying is that in choosing Jesus as our atonement this is synonymous with embracing his spiritual life alone as our source of living, and rejecting all of our own carnal works and independence of mind. All our spiritual growth, and all of our repentance from here on out, comes through our abiding in his spiritual life. Only in this way do we benefit from his atonement and receive eternal life.
When you say Jesus did not become "sin" for us, you are in effect denying that he became the source of our atonement. He went through suffering and death to make himself available to sinners who repent *in his name.* To repent apart from his name is to deny the necessity of his atonement.
-
Yes, but language is a strange thing, and has to be looked at carefully. As I said, the statement is acting like a simile. If I say, "You're a rock," I'm not saying your actually a rock, but only the epitome of a rock in your fortitude and endurance.
That's how this statement works, when Christ is said to have been made "sin." He is not actually being viewed as an actual sinner, but only being viewed as if he was a sinner being punished for being such. No sense belaboring this. If we disagree, we disagree.
It's all part of the mystery element of Christ's death. Also, we have Jesus' question... "why have you forsaken me?"
Did God the Father forsake His Son for a moment? Jesus clearly "experienced" something from His Father, something we cannot fully understand right now. The same as we can't fully understand why/how Christ was to be sin in that moment ???
-
Yes, but language is a strange thing, and has to be looked at carefully. As I said, the statement is acting like a simile. If I say, "You're a rock," I'm not saying your actually a rock, but only the epitome of a rock in your fortitude and endurance.
That's how this statement works, when Christ is said to have been made "sin." He is not actually being viewed as an actual sinner, but only being viewed as if he was a sinner being punished for being such. No sense belaboring this. If we disagree, we disagree.
It's all part of the mystery element of Christ's death. Also, we have Jesus' question... "why have you forsaken me?"
Did God the Father forsake His Son for a moment? Jesus clearly "experienced" something from His Father, something we cannot fully understand right now. The same as we can't fully understand why/how Christ was to be sin in that moment ???
Fair enough! Thanks.
-
Yes, but language is a strange thing, and has to be looked at carefully. As I said, the statement is acting like a simile. If I say, "You're a rock," I'm not saying your actually a rock, but only the epitome of a rock in your fortitude and endurance.
I have looked at it with care. A proper simile to describe our Lord would be a lamb without blemish. The epitome of of our Savior is not sin.
That's how this statement works, when Christ is said to have been made "sin." He is not actually being viewed as an actual sinner...
He was by the people who accused him and by others who thought his condemnation was deserved. Never was he viewed this way by his Father.
That is clearly untrue because God Himself required of Himself that a qualification take place.
Heb 2.17 For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.
You're omitting the reason. Go back to chapter one. The context is, Jesus is God. So when he says,
For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
He doesn't mean Jesus needed to become something he wasn't to begin with. He means God on earth suffered as an example to us,
For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one....I will declare thy name unto my brethren....I and the children which God hath given me.
Heb.2:11-13
Again, it's a *truism* that only the guilty are punished. But this is a unique situation in which the innocent one is indeed receiving punishment that only the guilty deserve.
It's unique in that he was completely innocent and therefore death had no hold on him, but it's not unique that, "they who are sanctified, his brethren, the children God gave him", have suffered as their Master has.
Jesus was punished in his innocence as if he was guilty. And this took place by the will of God who informed Jesus that His will must be done and that he must drink his cup.
And Jesus said,
Ye shall drink indeed of my cup Mt.20:23
Yes, atonement is being reconciled to God....
Reconciliation comes from believing the gospel, which is that God will forgive anyone who truly wants to be forgiven for the sins committed against him and adopt them as his children.
When you say Jesus did not become "sin" for us, you are in effect denying that he became the source of our atonement...
Atonement occurs as the result of God's longsuffering, perfectly demonstrated by his Son,
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 2Pet.3:15
If God had not patiently endured the sins committed against him, you and I would be damned.
-
It's all part of the mystery element of Christ's death. Also, we have Jesus' question... "why have you forsaken me?"
Did God the Father forsake His Son for a moment? Jesus clearly "experienced" something from His Father, something we cannot fully understand right now. The same as we can't fully understand why/how Christ was to be sin in that moment ???
Our Lord experienced the mocking of the religious leaders and others at the cross, so he quoted the first verse of Psalm 22, where although it may seem like God has forsaken a righteous man who is suffering, the opposite is true.
Jesus was in fact directing the scribes to scripture showing how wrong they were to be mocking him. Read the whole Psalm.
-
Dude, where do you get this alternative reality theology?
Let me see if I can get there this way.
On what basis do you claim that your sins are forgiven?
-
I don't know what "alternative reality theology" is, but forgivness of sin is based on who God is and always has been. It's not based on God changing who he is.
In fact, Jehovahs witnesses use Heb.2 (to make the captain of their salvation perfect)
and Heb.5 (yet learned he obedience) in an attempt to show that Jesus isn't God. They're wrong, because when the Bible says, "he became the author of eternal salvation", he doesn't mean Jesus became someone he wasn't before. He means people became aware of who he always was.
You're reading the scriptures the wrong way.
-
Our Lord experienced the mocking of the religious leaders and others at the cross, so he quoted the first verse of Psalm 22, where although it may seem like God has forsaken a righteous man who is suffering, the opposite is true.
Jesus was in fact directing the scribes to scripture showing how wrong they were to be mocking him. Read the whole Psalm.
I have read that specific Psalm while studying. Your comments do not illuminate why Jesus "is" forsaken, thus the question to His Father. All of God's wrath is inflicted upon Jesus in that moment. To say it's only about mocking by man... is to misunderstand the need for Christ's death.
As for Psalm 22, I will say that Jesus also revealed, yet again in pointing out the OT scriptures, He is the Messiah. Prophetically revealed throughout OT scriptures and Psalm 22 is IDed in that moment, as another.
-
A proper simile to describe our Lord would be a lamb without blemish. The epitome of of our Savior is not sin.
Jesus was the epitome of suffering for sin by God's Son. He was not and never will be "sin" itself. But he was "made sin" in the sense that God, his Father, made him a sacrifice for sin. That is, he was punished as if he was the epitome of all sin in the world.
That's how this statement works, when Christ is said to have been made "sin." He is not actually being viewed as an actual sinner...
He was by the people who accused him and by others who thought his condemnation was deserved. Never was he viewed this way by his Father.
It's beside the point that wicked unbelievers considered Jesus punished *as a sinner.* This was not the point that was made in saying Jesus was "made sin." It was not saying that Jesus was "made to be viewed as a sinner." Rather, it was saying that he was made to be a *sin sacrifice.*
This is where you err. You completely misinterpret the idea that Jesus was "made sin," claiming that this meant Jesus was made to be misinterpreted as a criminal being punished. Clearly, that was not the meaning of the statement! And virtually all Christians I've shared this with agree with me.
You're omitting the reason. Go back to chapter one. The context is, Jesus is God. So when he says,
For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
He doesn't mean Jesus needed to become something he wasn't to begin with. He means God on earth suffered as an example to us,
For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one....I will declare thy name unto my brethren....I and the children which God hath given me.
Heb.2:11-13
I wasn't omitting anything--I was just proving that Jesus was "made sin" in order to "qualify" as redeemer of all men. He wasn't just qualified by identifying with Deity. He was qualified by being "made sin," ie by assuming human form and by suffering the punishment for all of sinful humanity.
If you leave out the qualification for Jesus' suffering and death in his atonement, and only insist that he was a "divine example," then you miss the point of atonement entirely.
He suffered not just as an example to us of righteous living, but more, as a demonstration of his willingness to forgive abuse committed against himself, as Deity!
It's unique in that he was completely innocent and therefore death had no hold on him, but it's not unique that, "they who are sanctified, his brethren, the children God gave him", have suffered as their Master has.
Ye shall drink indeed of my cup Mt.20:23
Reconciliation comes from believing the gospel, which is that God will forgive anyone who truly wants to be forgiven for the sins committed against him and adopt them as his children.
Atonement occurs as the result of God's longsuffering, perfectly demonstrated by his Son,
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 2Pet.3:15
If God had not patiently endured the sins committed against him, you and I would be damned.
This sounds like a combination of Gnosticism and Liberalism, ie the idea that knowledge saves us, as opposed to the exclusive spirituality of Christ. This is Gnosticism.
And the idea that we are saved by following Christ's example as opposed to exclusive reliance on his spirituality is Liberalism. It places salvation in our hands, as we emulate Christ, rather than in the hands of God and His mercy.
We are sold out to carnality, and despite our best intentions we fall short of eternal life. We must rely on Christ's spirituality for both his righteousness and his mercy.
We do not independently take it upon ourselves to make ourselves righteous by copying Christ. We must "abide in him," spiritually. In doing so, we obtain both his virtue and his mercy.
He was "made sin" in order to grant us mercy together with his virtue. He was "made sin" not to be misinterpreted as a sinner, but rather, to be a sin sacrifice, forgiving those who sin against God.
-
I don't know what "alternative reality theology" is, but forgivness of sin is based on who God is and always has been. It's not based on God changing who he is.
In fact, Jehovahs witnesses use Heb.2 (to make the captain of their salvation perfect)
and Heb.5 (yet learned he obedience) in an attempt to show that Jesus isn't God. They're wrong, because when the Bible says, "he became the author of eternal salvation", he doesn't mean Jesus became someone he wasn't before. He means people became aware of who he always was.
You're reading the scriptures the wrong way.
I'll ask again since you didn't answer.
Don't worry about what anyone else says.
On what basis do you claim that your sins are forgiven?
-
I have read that specific Psalm while studying. Your comments do not illuminate why Jesus "is" forsaken, thus the question to His Father.
The Son wasn't questioning his Father. He was pointing his tormentors to Psa.22 because,
All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted on the LORD that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him. Psa.22:7-8
All of God's wrath is inflicted upon Jesus in that moment.
This isn't true. What's true is,
Many bulls have compassed me.....For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. Psa.22:12.16
To say it's only about mocking by man... is to misunderstand the need for Christ's death.
I never said "only". I understand if the Messiah had not patiently suffered the abuse of sinners (not the wrath of his Father), he would have destroyed them,
many a time turned he his anger away, and did not stir up all his wrath. Psa.78:38
As for Psalm 22, I will say that Jesus also revealed, yet again in pointing out the OT scriptures, He is the Messiah. Prophetically revealed throughout OT scriptures and Psalm 22 is IDed in that moment, as another.
Rather, Jesus endured the sins being committed against him as his Father does,
But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Lk.6:35
And as for the false teaching that Christ was forsaken, he said,
Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst deliver them.....I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.....For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard. Psa.22:4,22,24
So Jesus wasn't forsaken by his Father, not for one second. It's only people who didn't know him, or know him very well that thought that.
-
he was punished as if he was the epitome of all sin in the world.
No, but he was punished by people who said he was of the devil,
they have called the master of the house Beelzebub Mt.10:25
it was saying that he was made to be a *sin sacrifice.*
This is where you err. You completely misinterpret the idea that Jesus was "made sin," claiming that this meant Jesus was made to be misinterpreted as a criminal being punished. Clearly, that was not the meaning of the statement! And virtually all Christians I've shared this with agree with me.
Continuing to love the wicked so that they might know God while they heaped abuse on him is a great sacrifice for sin and we've talked about how wrong the majority can be.
He suffered.....as a demonstration of his willingness to forgive abuse committed against himself, as Deity!
This is what I've been saying all along. His sacrifice is at-one-ment with his Father.
This sounds like a combination of Gnosticism and Liberalism, ie the idea that knowledge saves us, as opposed to the exclusive spirituality of Christ. This is Gnosticism.
And the idea that we are saved by following Christ's example as opposed to exclusive reliance on his spirituality is Liberalism. It places salvation in our hands, as we emulate Christ, rather than in the hands of God and His mercy.
We are sold out to carnality, and despite our best intentions we fall short of eternal life. We must rely on Christ's spirituality for both his righteousness and his mercy.
We do not independently take it upon ourselves to make ourselves righteous by copying Christ. We must "abide in him," spiritually. In doing so, we obtain both his virtue and his mercy.
He was "made sin" in order to grant us mercy together with his virtue. He was "made sin" not to be misinterpreted as a sinner, but rather, to be a sin sacrifice, forgiving those who sin against God.
I understand I'm saved by God's mercy. There's nothing merciful about torturing an innocent man, except his response to it.
-
I'll ask again since you didn't answer.
Don't worry about what anyone else says.
On what basis do you claim that your sins are forgiven?
I just told you, forgivness of sin is based on who God is and always has been.
If Jesus had not waited for sinners to repent, we'd be damned.
-
Rather, Jesus endured the sins being committed against him as his Father does,
For me, all you said boils down to (summed up into) your statement in quotes.
Christ endured God's "wrath" of all sin. Goes far beyond your point of view of just endurance of sin. As scripture reveals, Jesus become ALL that sin, experiencing ALL the wrath. Purpose, when God the Father looks at a person, does He see His Son in the person. If He see's His Son, His Son "took" the wrath against sin for that person and God knows the person has been saved (redeemed), by His Son.
-
Purpose, when God the Father looks at a person, does He see His Son in the person. If He see's His Son, His Son "took" the wrath against sin for that person and God knows the person has been saved (redeemed), by His Son.
No Slug1. When God looks at a person, does he see someone who is really sorry for the sins he committed against his Word, his Son?
I and my Father are one. Jn.10:30
So they took him and threw him out of the vineyard and killed him.
Therefore, when the owner of the vineyard comes, what will he do to those tenants? He will bring those wretches to a wretched end. Mt.21:39-41
The owner of the vineyard who is coming is our Lord Jesus.
-
he was punished as if he was the epitome of all sin in the world.
No, but he was punished by people who said he was of the devil,
they have called the master of the house Beelzebub Mt.10:25
it was saying that he was made to be a *sin sacrifice.*
This is where you err. You completely misinterpret the idea that Jesus was "made sin," claiming that this meant Jesus was made to be misinterpreted as a criminal being punished. Clearly, that was not the meaning of the statement! And virtually all Christians I've shared this with agree with me.
Continuing to love the wicked so that they might know God while they heaped abuse on him is a great sacrifice for sin and we've talked about how wrong the majority can be.
He suffered.....as a demonstration of his willingness to forgive abuse committed against himself, as Deity!
This is what I've been saying all along. His sacrifice is at-one-ment with his Father.
This sounds like a combination of Gnosticism and Liberalism, ie the idea that knowledge saves us, as opposed to the exclusive spirituality of Christ. This is Gnosticism.
And the idea that we are saved by following Christ's example as opposed to exclusive reliance on his spirituality is Liberalism. It places salvation in our hands, as we emulate Christ, rather than in the hands of God and His mercy.
We are sold out to carnality, and despite our best intentions we fall short of eternal life. We must rely on Christ's spirituality for both his righteousness and his mercy.
We do not independently take it upon ourselves to make ourselves righteous by copying Christ. We must "abide in him," spiritually. In doing so, we obtain both his virtue and his mercy.
He was "made sin" in order to grant us mercy together with his virtue. He was "made sin" not to be misinterpreted as a sinner, but rather, to be a sin sacrifice, forgiving those who sin against God.
I understand I'm saved by God's mercy. There's nothing merciful about torturing an innocent man, except his response to it.
Yes, Jesus' "sin sacrifice" was a torturous form of granting men mercy. You describe his "sacrifice for sin" not as a "sin sacrifice," but rather, as the Son of God suffering human sin. The Son of God suffering human sin is not a "sin sacrifice" unless it is an actual *payment* for our sins.
-
No Slug1. When God looks at a person, does he see someone who is really sorry for the sins he committed against his Word, his Son?
God doesn't have to look for true repentance, He sees that His Son's blood (His Son is IN the person) has cleansed a person who has repented/believed. There IS NO sin in such a person when they stand before God for the first time face to face, they are already in their glorified body. God isn't even looking for sin, because His Son TOOK it all.
-
Yes, Jesus' "sin sacrifice" was a torturous form of granting men mercy. You describe his "sacrifice for sin" not as a "sin sacrifice," but rather, as the Son of God suffering human sin. The Son of God suffering human sin is not a "sin sacrifice" unless it is an actual *payment* for our sins.
Is it me, or is God's "wrath" inflicted upon Christ, completely missing from Journeyman's theology?
-
He does not believe in penal substitutionary atonement
He believes in “oops, my bad”
-
He does not believe in penal substitutionary atonement
He believes in “oops, my bad”
Ahhh, yeah... the term "propitiation" has always been hard (for me) to say. Such a great term to understand Christ as a sacrifice where God inflicts all His wrath upon His Son, so that mankind can turn too Christ for redemption when any choose to believe unto Him.
-
Yes, Jesus' "sin sacrifice" was a torturous form of granting men mercy. You describe his "sacrifice for sin" not as a "sin sacrifice," but rather, as the Son of God suffering human sin. The Son of God suffering human sin is not a "sin sacrifice" unless it is an actual *payment* for our sins.
Is it me, or is God's "wrath" inflicted upon Christ, completely missing from Journeyman's theology?
You nailed it. I ran his thoughts by other forums to see how other Christians would view this. None of them agreed with Journeyman's idea. Journeyman saw the post elsewhere and indirectly suggested I was slandering him.
This has become a little dishonest or at least a little slippery. He claims that the issue of being "made sin" is simply a matter of others *thinking* Jesus was a sinner. He was, in other words, made to *look like* a sinner to sinners.
That is not and has not been an element that we're concerned with here. Certainly, some sinners viewed Jesus as being punished as a sinner. That isn't the issue at all. And I'm certainly not misrepresenting him in that.
What concerns me is that he denies Jesus was "made sin" by assuming the punishment for all sinners so that he, as the Son of God, could provide a defense for all men who repent in his name. In choosing to live by his life they obtain redemption through his sacrifice for sin. He was "made sin" by becoming a *sin sacrifice.* Rabbi Knife aptly explains it above. :)
I have not a bit of hostility towards Journeyman. Some false teacher among Christians misled him on this. He was initially resistant to it--rightfully so. Now I'm hoping he returns to the original teaching, without losing some of the other legitimate material he obtained.
It is legitimate to understand that Jesus was not made an *actual sinner* when he was "made sin." He became, rather, the punishment for sin, or as I said, a "sin sacrifice."
-
God doesn't have to look for true repentance, He sees that His Son's blood (His Son is IN the person) has cleansed a person who has repented/believed.
To say God doesn't look for repentance but cleanses a person who repents is just double talk.
There IS NO sin in such a person when they stand before God for the first time face to face, they are already in their glorified body.
Yes, I know. There is no sin in believers who follow our Lord,
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Rom.8:1
God isn't even looking for sin, because His Son TOOK it all.
He took it all in the sense that it was inflicted on him,
For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me. Psa.69:9
Would you please tell me what you think Psa.69:9 says?
-
Is it me, or is God's "wrath" inflicted upon Christ, completely missing from Journeyman's theology?
Yes it is missing, because God doesn't inflict his wrath on the righteous, but on the unrighteous,
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Rom.1:18
Jesus didn't hold back the truth, but was persecuted for sharing it. And God said,
The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. Deut.24:16
I've posted this before and no one gave their opinion on it.
-
Ahhh, yeah... the term "propitiation" has always been hard (for me) to say. Such a great term to understand Christ as a sacrifice where God inflicts all His wrath upon His Son, so that mankind can turn too Christ for redemption when any choose to believe unto Him.
And when people mention "propitiation", they often use it in a way that implies our Lord Jesus iwas someone other than God.
-
Some false teacher among Christians misled him on this. He was initially resistant to it--rightfully so.
Actually Randy, the person who taught me loved Jesus very much and the reason I initially rejected what he was telling me, was because I ignored the scriptures he showed me. It all fits perfectly.
He became, rather, the punishment for sin, or as I said, a "sin sacrifice."
Jesus wasn't being punished by his Father. He propitiated his own anger.
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. Eze.18:20
What does Eze.18:20 mean to you Randy?
-
Actually Randy, the person who taught me loved Jesus very much and the reason I initially rejected what he was telling me, was because I ignored the scriptures he showed me. It all fits perfectly.
Yes, one can love Jesus and also not love Jesus so much by passing on uninspired "words" from God. We are a mixed breed and need to be scrutinized constantly. The greatest saints can be dangerous in this. I wouldn't at all depreciate some of these great saints, even if in their human weakness they propagate errors along with all the good they do.
Jesus wasn't being punished by his Father. He propitiated his own anger.
I don't know what that means. You continue to protest statements that *nobody is making!* Nobody is saying the Father was "punishing" His own Son. He was visiting the punishment upon him that we all deserved, as sinners. He was *not* being punished for his own sins.
If you don't think God can visit punishment upon Jesus that we deserved then you don't understand NT doctrine. The basis for our redemption was that Jesus took what we deserve and then forgave us for it. This is Christianity 101. Your Jewish friend does not have "special revelation" on this when he contradicts it, revises it, and therefore distorts it.
Nobody will make Christian doctrine any simpler by reducing it to a strictly human understanding. It *always* required divine revelation to understand something that God Himself did!
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. Eze.18:20
What does Eze.18:20 mean to you Randy?
It means that somebody does not experience punishment for doing something that somebody else does. That is generally true. But it is not true with respect to Jesus, who did indeed receive punishment for things we deserved.
He did not deserve the punishment from men he received, and yet God gave him up to experience that. So he did receive the punishment that wicked men deserve, and in so doing, forgave us and provided in his own life the means of eternal redemption.
What do you think this means, Journeyman?
Heb 2.9 But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
While it's true that Jesus was not "punished" for what we do, he did receive the punishment that sinners deserve in order to forgive them. He "tasted death for everyone."
-
For the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up; and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me. Psa.69:9
Would you please tell me what you think Psa.69:9 says?
David feels that rebuke against God, is against him. In my Bible, this verse refs Romans 15:3 as Paul expresses the same.
-
And when people mention "propitiation", they often use it in a way that implies our Lord Jesus iwas someone other than God.
I've never experienced what you just stated.
Edit: Let me add, should people do what you state, they're opinion does not change the meaning of "propitiation."
Also, this past Sunday (3 Oct), our pastor raised the meaning of "propitiation" in the message brought forth. When I listened I was smiling, God always provides confirmation.
-
We are a mixed breed and need to be scrutinized constantly.
I agree.
I don't know what that means.
it means Jesus, being One with his Father, turned his own wrath away from sinners.
You continue to protest statements that *nobody is making!* Nobody is saying the Father was "punishing" His own Son.
People here believe God poured his wrath out on his Son and you seem to agree with this. Do you believe God poured his wrath out on Jesus?
He was visiting the punishment upon him that we all deserved, as sinners.
If you don't think God can visit punishment upon Jesus that we deserved then you don't understand NT doctrine.[
The basis for our redemption was that Jesus took what we deserve and then forgave us for it. This is Christianity 101.
Your Jewish friend does not have "special revelation" on this when he contradicts it, revises it, and therefore distorts it.
Nobody will make Christian doctrine any simpler by reducing it to a strictly human understanding. It *always* required divine revelation to understand something that God Himself did!
It sounds like you're referring to OT passages which say God visits the iniquity of fathers to future generations of their children. This doesn't mean God punishes children for sins their fathers committed. It means God punishes future generations who commit sin as their fathers did,
Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? Eze.18:19
It means that somebody does not experience punishment for doing something that somebody else does.
No. it means it's not God's will that someone be punished for what someone else dioes.
That is generally true.
No. it's always true where God's will is concerned.
But it is not true with respect to Jesus, who did indeed receive punishment for things we deserved.
But not from his Father where sin is being judged.
He did not deserve the punishment from men he received, and yet God gave him up to experience that.
Yes he did, but as the express image of himself. This is why it says,
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Isa.53:10
It pleases God that his Son feels the same way his Father is grieved and longsuffering when people sin against him.
Rev
What do you think this means, Journeyman?
Heb 2.9 But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
While it's true that Jesus was not "punished" for what we do, he did receive the punishment that sinners deserve in order to forgive them. He "tasted death for everyone.
The writer of Hebrews is quoting the OT with respect to Jesus. He's saying the Father set his Son (a man) over all creation. While he was "made lower" than angels, he was still above them. Same for anything, including death, which he tasted and no doubt spit out. Point is, our Lord proved to every man he is superior to all.
And when he says,
For if the message spoken through angels proved to be so firm that every violation or disobedience received its just penalty, Heb2:2,
He means, every disobedience receives its just penalty. So Jesus wasn't paying any just penalty.
-
David feels that rebuke against God, is against him. In my Bible, this verse refs Romans 15:3 as Paul expresses the same.
Yes thats right, but David is speaking prophecy of how Jesus feels. It isn't God pouring his wrath out on his Son. It's man pouring their wrath out on the Son, because they hate the Father.
-
I've never experienced what you just stated.
The Apostles did, because Christ was in them. They knew very well how our Savior felt when they were persecuted and by his Spirit turned their anger away from their tormentors. Propitiation.
Edit: Let me add, should people do what you state, they're opinion does not change the meaning of "propitiation."
I should hope not, as giving someone what they deserve for wrongs committed is the opposite of propitiation.
Also, this past Sunday (3 Oct), our pastor raised the meaning of "propitiation" in the message brought forth. When I listened I was smiling, God always provides confirmation.
I hope your pastor has truly experienced the propitiation of Jesus in his life toward other sinners.
-
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.”
Lewis Carroll: Through the Looking-Glass
-
To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. ---->For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin;[/b] that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.2Cor.5:19-21
Jesus came in the likeness of the Prophets and Apostles. Maybe in our times, he isn't coming to the lost very often.
-
The Apostles did, because Christ was in them. They knew very well how our Savior felt when they were persecuted and by his Spirit turned their anger away from their tormentors. Propitiation.
In your previous post you stated:
And when people mention "propitiation", they often use it in a way that implies our Lord Jesus iwas someone other than God.
I made the comment that I've never experienced this. Meaning, I have never heard anyone teach or even allude to, that propitiation is about Christ NOT being God.
So what I just quoted for this response, well... while I understand your statement, it does not touch near the fullness of what propitiation means.
-
We are a mixed breed and need to be scrutinized constantly.
I agree.
I don't know what that means.
it means Jesus, being One with his Father, turned his own wrath away from sinners.
You continue to protest statements that *nobody is making!* Nobody is saying the Father was "punishing" His own Son.
People here believe God poured his wrath out on his Son and you seem to agree with this. Do you believe God poured his wrath out on Jesus?
He was visiting the punishment upon him that we all deserved, as sinners.
If you don't think God can visit punishment upon Jesus that we deserved then you don't understand NT doctrine.[
The basis for our redemption was that Jesus took what we deserve and then forgave us for it. This is Christianity 101.
Your Jewish friend does not have "special revelation" on this when he contradicts it, revises it, and therefore distorts it.
Nobody will make Christian doctrine any simpler by reducing it to a strictly human understanding. It *always* required divine revelation to understand something that God Himself did!
It sounds like you're referring to OT passages which say God visits the iniquity of fathers to future generations of their children. This doesn't mean God punishes children for sins their fathers committed. It means God punishes future generations who commit sin as their fathers did,
Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? Eze.18:19
It means that somebody does not experience punishment for doing something that somebody else does.
No. it means it's not God's will that someone be punished for what someone else dioes.
That is generally true.
No. it's always true where God's will is concerned.
But it is not true with respect to Jesus, who did indeed receive punishment for things we deserved.
But not from his Father where sin is being judged.
He did not deserve the punishment from men he received, and yet God gave him up to experience that.
Yes he did, but as the express image of himself. This is why it says,
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Isa.53:10
It pleases God that his Son feels the same way his Father is grieved and longsuffering when people sin against him.
Rev
What do you think this means, Journeyman?
Heb 2.9 But we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
While it's true that Jesus was not "punished" for what we do, he did receive the punishment that sinners deserve in order to forgive them. He "tasted death for everyone.
The writer of Hebrews is quoting the OT with respect to Jesus. He's saying the Father set his Son (a man) over all creation. While he was "made lower" than angels, he was still above them. Same for anything, including death, which he tasted and no doubt spit out. Point is, our Lord proved to every man he is superior to all.
And when he says,
For if the message spoken through angels proved to be so firm that every violation or disobedience received its just penalty, Heb2:2,
He means, every disobedience receives its just penalty. So Jesus wasn't paying any just penalty.
I'm going to have to let you go on this, since you're unwilling to change your opinion. Your view is contrary to ages of belief in the Church, but that doesn't seem to bother you? It sure would bother me!
Generally, it is true that men don't get punished for things they didn't do. But Jesus was unique, and his situation can never apply to other men. He was the Son of God and experienced *what he did not deserve.* God his Father laid on him the punishment that *we deserve.*
May the Lord help you with this.
-
To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. ---->For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin;[/b] that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.2Cor.5:19-21
Jesus came in the likeness of the Prophets and Apostles. Maybe in our times, he isn't coming to the lost very often.
Jesus did not come "in the likeness" of anyone. There were no apostles prior to Jesus... it was the sending of men with the Gospel that made one an apostle. And Jesus was not "in the likeness" of an Old Testament prophet. John the Baptist was the last and greatest of the Old Testament prophets.
And contrary to your thought, Jesus comes to the lost every single day, as He desires that no human being should ever be lost, but that every single human being should be reconciled to the Father through His propitiation and being made sin for them. Because, "while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
-
I made the comment that I've never experienced this. Meaning, I have never heard anyone teach or even allude to, that propitiation is about Christ NOT being God.
I know what you meant Slug. Please forgive my sarcasm. My point was, God doesn't pour his wrath out on himself.
So what I just quoted for this response, well... while I understand your statement, it does not touch near the fullness of what propitiation means.
Propitiation is the means by which God is appeased. He's appeased by his own nature.
-
Your view is contrary to ages of belief in the Church, but that doesn't seem to bother you? It sure would bother me!
It bothered me that for a long time, I didn't know the Lord that well.
Generally, it is true that men don't get punished for things they didn't do. But Jesus was unique, and his situation can never apply to other men. He was the Son of God and experienced *what he did not deserve.* God his Father laid on him the punishment that *we deserve.*
No, he laid on him the iniquity of us all, which is hatred for God and those who love God experienced it,
They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword: they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; Of whom the world was not worthy: Heb.11:37-38
If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you 1Per.4:14
and the reproaches of them that reproached thee are fallen upon me. Psa.69:9
It's his greatness.
May the Lord help you with this.
And you also kind sir.
-
Jesus did not come "in the likeness" of anyone.
Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, Heb.2:17
God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh Rom.8:3
And contrary to your thought, Jesus comes to the lost every single day, as He desires that no human being should ever be lost, but that every single human being should be reconciled to the Father through His propitiation and being made sin for them. Because, "while we were still sinners, Christ died for us."
I wonder if that's how believers represent Christ to the lost.
-
Both of the verses you quoted are attesting to the fact of the incarnation and the nature of the hypostatic union, not to the suggestion that Jesus is "like" or "similar" to any other being in all of history.
Certainly not that he was "in the likeness" of a prophet or apostle.
Of course "that" referenced above is how believers communicate the truth of the Gospel and Christ being made sin for us to the unbelieving world.
It's called "the Gospel" for a reason.
-
I know what you meant Slug. Please forgive my sarcasm. My point was, God doesn't pour his wrath out on himself.
Propitiation is the means by which God is appeased. He's appeased by his own nature.
I mentioned/asked earlier about how your theology is missing God's wrath. Even in the garden, Jesus "KNEW" His Father's wrath is about to be poured out ONTO Himself... so, your comments here, confirm your misunderstanding(s).
-
How can one become sin, and not suffer the consequence of sin, or the curse of it ?
By the way, good to hear from some of you !
-
How can one become sin, and not suffer the consequence of sin, or the curse of it ?
By the way, good to hear from some of you !
Hooah, God bless ya brother, joyful to see ya!
-
Both of the verses you quoted are attesting to the fact of the incarnation and the nature of the hypostatic union, not to the suggestion that Jesus is "like" or "similar" to any other being in all of history.
Certainly not that he was "in the likeness" of a prophet or apostle.
The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; Deut.18:15
Art thou that prophet?..Jn.1:21.[/quote]
Point is, Israel persecuted her prophets, as they did the Messiah. The difference is, no excuse can be given for abusing the Messiah, as he was God on earth and this is the proper way to understand his sacrifice.
Of course "that" referenced above is how believers communicate the truth of the Gospel and Christ being made sin for us to the unbelieving world.
It's called "the Gospel" for a reason.
I was speaking of the character of the person communicating the gospel, as his character should be conformed to the image of Christ and the reason for "that" is because the gospel is how Jesus chose not to destroy people who deserved it.
-
Your hermeneutic is so strange to me that I cannot understand a thing you are trying to communicate.
Carry on.
I'm out of this discussion.
-
I mentioned/asked earlier about how your theology is missing God's wrath. Even in the garden, Jesus "KNEW" His Father's wrath is about to be poured out ONTO Himself... so, your comments here, confirm your misunderstanding(s).
No. In the garden, Jesus knew mans wrath is about to be poured out onto himself. Our Creator enduring the sins being heaped on him. And his followers would experience the same,
Jesus said to them, You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, Mk.10:39
-
How can one become sin, and not suffer the consequence of sin, or the curse of it ?
The question you should be asking is, how can a sinless man suffer the curse of the law?
-
Your hermeneutic is so strange to me that I cannot understand a thing you are trying to communicate.
Carry on.
I'm out of this discussion.
That's ok RabbiKnife. When I first heard it, I was so filled with misguided belief of Gods character, I didn't understand it either.
-
I mentioned/asked earlier about how your theology is missing God's wrath. Even in the garden, Jesus "KNEW" His Father's wrath is about to be poured out ONTO Himself... so, your comments here, confirm your misunderstanding(s).
No. In the garden, Jesus knew mans wrath is about to be poured out onto himself. Our Creator enduring the sins being heaped on him. And his followers would experience the same,
Jesus said to them, You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, Mk.10:39
Brother, please do some research about the "cup" of God's wrath, starts with several OT verses and ends with some in The Revelation.
I understand "we" all who follow Christ will experience persecution, but we (redeemed by Christ) will NOT experience God's wrath concerning sin, because ALL of God's wrath was poured out onto Jesus at the cross.
-
Brother, please do some research about the "cup" of God's wrath, starts with several OT verses and ends with some in The Revelation.
I understand "we" all who follow Christ will experience persecution, but we (redeemed by Christ) will NOT experience God's wrath concerning sin, because ALL of God's wrath was poured out onto Jesus at the cross.
Slug, I've researched the cup of God's wrath. It's never poured out on the righteous, which our Lird Jesus is. It's always poured out on the ungodly.
I understand why you're mistaking the cup of God's wrath with the cup Jesus spike of in the garden. Go ahead and look at the cup of God's wrath in the OT and NT.
-
Your hermeneutic is so strange to me that I cannot understand a thing you are trying to communicate.
Carry on.
I'm out of this discussion.
That's ok RabbiKnife. When I first heard it, I was so filled with misguided belief of Gods character, I didn't understand it either.
Condescending. Nice.
So thankful you've received your super secret Gnostic wisdom.
-
Condescending. Nice.
So thankful you've received your super secret Gnostic wisdom.
No. Condescending would be for me to exclude myself from ignorance. I've admitted my own ignorance throughout this discussion.
A condescending comment would be, "So thankful you've received your super secret Gnostic wisdom", or your flippant talk about humpty dumpty.
-
That's more properly defined as "snark," not "condescending."
Condescending is the passive-aggressive implication of "I used to be as stupid as people that don't agree with me but now I'm not."
-
You're not a discerner of the thoughts and intents of my heart.
-
That's more properly defined as "snark," not "condescending."
Condescending is the passive-aggressive implication of "I used to be as stupid as people that don't agree with me but now I'm not."
Some conclude the same as you brother... began with using a piece of scripture to accuse members in this thread were not saved. So far, there is not reconciliation.
Seems his "words" do not support his thoughts and intent and while the Bible states that the heart is revealed by what is spoken, we have no reconciliation.
-
You're not a discerner of the thoughts and intents of my heart.
I am a reader of your words.
-
I am a reader of your words.
And you're not hearing the contempt I have for myself, because sinning against God is like beating Jesus mercilessly.
-
And you're not hearing the contempt I have for myself, because sinning against God is like beating Jesus mercilessly.
Ya know brother, seems the Holy Spirit is trying to show you something in what you just expressed. Let me express what is discerned.
God's wrath against sin STILL must be executed because of His righteousness, even against those who repent of sin while turning to Jesus in belief.
Question: Who received ALL of this wrath so believers are cleansed of their sin, when they repent before Christ in belief of Him?
Also, what can be discerned in your words speaking how you have contempt for yourself, if Jesus has forgiven you, has cleansed you, has redeemed you (made you alive in Himself - born-again), your words reveal either you have not forgiven yourself or you do not understand a verse you posted the other day where there is NO condemnation found in those who are saved (you posted the Romans 8 verse).
In simple words, you CAN'T have contempt for yourself based on the very PROMISE of that Romans 8:1 verse. That verse is a PROMISE, not a piece of information. It is SUCH a powerful promise from God that with it, the Holy Spirit can re-new your mind and thus, there CAN'T be any (self) contempt found in you.
In other words, even WHEN a believer sins, there should be no "contempt" in them, only conviction and a deep remorse that PUSHES the person away from the sin they did, toward Christ for forgiveness and strength in resisting, overcoming (turned away) of the sin.
Contempt is not fruit of the Holy Spirit.
-
You're not a discerner of the thoughts and intents of my heart.
Is it harder to believe that a Sovereign God would pour out His wrath on the only One who could become sin on our behalf, thereby satisfying God's just nature
or
Believing that feeble men could inflict this justice through their own unrighteous anger themselves ?
The latter does not, in any way, satisfy God's wrath. In fact, it would only bring more.
-
THERE IS THEREFORE NOW NO CONDEMNATION FOR THOSE WHO ARE IN CHRIST JESUS.
Hallelujah!
Get free, brother, get free.
All of your sins are already forgiven. Jesus paid the price. He suffered the wrath. It is finished. No condemnation. No bondage.
Your sin now, as a believer, is not a source of condemnation or contempt. Jesus already paid for it and forgave it.
He wants you to accept that and to not let guilt and false teaching keep you at arms distance from him by your efforts to appease the price of sin that He has already paid.
-
And you're not hearing the contempt I have for myself, because sinning against God is like beating Jesus mercilessly.
What was it Brennan Manning used to say?
Jesus: Did you really believe that I loved you? Loved you as you are, and not as you should be? That I cared for you? That I longed after you day-after-day?
journeyman: Yeah sure well you know I was just so full of self-hatred and self-contempt; I wanted to believe it but I was too busy hating the person you loved and died to save.
No good comes from self-hatred, or self-contempt, or the myriad negative emotions, thoughts, feelings, etc., you might hold about yourself. It doesn't make sense, if you see yourself / your sin as beating Jesus mercilessly while also hating the very person Jesus died to save -- you.
-
Ya know brother, seems the Holy Spirit is trying to show you something in what you just expressed. Let me express what is discerned.
God's wrath against sin STILL must be executed because of His righteousness, even against those who repent of sin while turning to Jesus in belief.
God will correct us as a Father loves his children, but his wrath is reserved for the unrepentant,
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. Jn.3:36
Question: Who received ALL of this wrath so believers are cleansed of their sin, when they repent before Christ in belief of Him?
God didn't pour his wrath out on his Son. We repent before Christ because sin was committed against him. Against the express image of God on earth.
Also, what can be discerned in your words speaking how you have contempt for yourself, if Jesus has forgiven you, has cleansed you, has redeemed you (made you alive in Himself - born-again), your words reveal either you have not forgiven yourself or you do not understand a verse you posted the other day where there is NO condemnation found in those who are saved (you posted the Romans 8 verse).
In simple words, you CAN'T have contempt for yourself based on the very PROMISE of that Romans 8:1 verse. That verse is a PROMISE, not a piece of information. It is SUCH a powerful promise from God that with it, the Holy Spirit can re-new your mind and thus, there CAN'T be any (self) contempt found in you.
In other words, even WHEN a believer sins, there should be no "contempt" in them, only conviction and a deep remorse that PUSHES the person away from the sin they did, toward Christ for forgiveness and strength in resisting, overcoming (turned away) of the sin.
Contempt is not fruit of the Holy Spirit.
I'm grateful for the mercy Jesus has shown us. I don't live in condemnation, but as Paul said,
O wretched man that I am! Rom.7:24
And as David said,
For I am aware of my rebellious acts; I am forever conscious of my sin. Psa.51:3
And my reason for for thinking like those brothers is so I stay aware of the fact that I'm not better than anyone.
You know as well as I do that when the self righteous wanted to stome the adulteress, our Lord put them in rememberance that they were no better than she was and that kind of thinking about ourselves shouldnt change after salvation, because it's Christ God who is great.
-
Is it harder to believe that a Sovereign God would pour out His wrath on the only One who could become sin on our behalf, thereby satisfying God's just nature
God's just nature is to give to every person what they deserve. Our perfect Father did not pour his wrath out on his innocent Son. No loving father would. The only people who regarded God as sin were the people who condemned him.
Believing that feeble men could inflict this justice through their own unrighteous anger themselves ?
Inflicting punishment on the innocent is sin.
The latter does not, in any way, satisfy God's wrath. In fact, it would only bring more.
You got that right.
-
THERE IS THEREFORE NOW NO CONDEMNATION FOR THOSE WHO ARE IN CHRIST JESUS.
Hallelujah!
Get free, brother, get free.
All of your sins are already forgiven. Jesus paid the price. He suffered the wrath. It is finished. No condemnation. No bondage.
Your sin now, as a believer, is not a source of condemnation or contempt. Jesus already paid for it and forgave it.
He wants you to accept that and to not let guilt and false teaching keep you at arms distance from him by your efforts to appease the price of sin that He has already paid.
I hope you come to realize that what sinners did to Jesus, they were doing to God.
-
What was it Brennan Manning used to say?
Jesus: Did you really believe that I loved you? Loved you as you are, and not as you should be? That I cared for you? That I longed after you day-after-day?
Actually, I believe this with all my heart. It's what I've been arguing in favor of throughout the entire thread. Instead of realizing how our Lord continued loving people who were sinning against him, theologians developed the idea that Jesus's Father was pouring out his wrath on him.
journeyman: Yeah sure well you know I was just so full of self-hatred and self-contempt; I wanted to believe it but I was too busy hating the person you loved and died to save.
No good comes from self-hatred, or self-contempt, or the myriad negative emotions, thoughts, feelings, etc., you might hold about yourself. It doesn't make sense, if you see yourself / your sin as beating Jesus mercilessly while also hating the very person Jesus died to save -- you.
Actually, I hate my old nature. I go to war against it every day.
-
Actually, I believe this with all my heart. It's what I've been arguing in favor of throughout the entire thread. Instead of realizing how our Lord continued loving people who were sinning against him, theologians developed the idea that Jesus's Father was pouring out his wrath on him.
Actually, I hate my old nature. I go to war against it every day.
Hating your 'old nature' and viewing yourself with contempt aren't the same thing. They aren't mutually exclusive either, so if you view yourself with contempt then what I wrote still applies, and no amount of "actually I espouse this or that theology" resolves the point I raised.
On the other hand, "I believe it with all my heart" and "you're not hearing the contempt I have for myself" are mutually exclusive. Maybe you misspoke, and you don't view yourself with contempt? (But then, exactly what was the point you were trying to convey?)
-
I hope you come to realize that what sinners did to Jesus, they were doing to God.
I pray you come to realize that what God the Father "did" to God the Son, is so the sinners you are referring to, can be saved.
-
Hating your 'old nature' and viewing yourself with contempt aren't the same thing.
It is to me. Regardless, my point was, I don't view myself as better than others. I view our Lord as better than others and sticking to the thread topic, so did his Father.
-
I pray you come to realize that what God the Father "did" to God the Son, is so the sinners you are referring to, can be saved.
What God "allowed" to happen. If God didn't allow sinners time to repent for the miserable way we've treated him, none of us would be left. That's the gospel Jesus teaches.
-
It is to me. Regardless, my point was, I don't view myself as better than others. I view our Lord as better than others and sticking to the thread topic, so did his Father.
Then you need to consider more carefully the difference between 'contempt' and (righteous) hatred. If you believe what you say you believe then it would be prudent to stop confusing the two.
-
Then you need to consider more carefully the difference between 'contempt' and (righteous) hatred. If you believe what you say you believe then it would be prudent to stop confusing the two.
Righteous hatred is contempt for self, not others. I understand that Jesus doesn't condemn me. This doesn't mean I should forget what a wretch I am. But this is a side issue that I shouldn't have addressed to begin with.
The point is, our Lord Jesus is the same as his Father, even though he appeared as a man. Reread the scriptures that way and you will understand them in a way you never did before. You'll understand them the right way.
-
Righteous hatred is contempt for self, not others. I understand that Jesus doesn't condemn me. This doesn't mean I should forget what a wretch I am. But this is a side issue that I shouldn't have addressed to begin with.
The point is, our Lord Jesus is the same as his Father, even though he appeared as a man. Reread the scriptures that way and you will understand them in a way you never did before. You'll understand them the right way.
I'm short of time so I'll reply in full later on, but this is the theological mess that happens when you don't properly distinguish between words.
-
Jesus did not “appear as a man.”
He was fully man, and fully God.
-
Being fully God, Jesus didn't appear that way to the people he first walked among. He appeared to be only a man.
It's good to know Jesus was and always will be fully God. God could never be curse to himself.
-
Righteous hatred is contempt for self, not others. I understand that Jesus doesn't condemn me. This doesn't mean I should forget what a wretch I am. But this is a side issue that I shouldn't have addressed to begin with.
Righteous hatred isn't 'contempt for self'. When something, or someone, is held in contempt, then this is a view, or an act, that is fundamentally derisive, disrespectful, and so on, of something, or someone, that ought to otherwise be valued. Contempt is always relative to that which is worth something, or valuable. It's part of the act of denying the worth that something or someone has. It is wholly negative.
Righteous hatred, on the other hand, is the proper working out of hatred towards that which is a deserving object of said hatred such as evil, or sin. These things are never worth something, and are never valuable in that they are goods we should pursue. Unlike contempt, righteous hatred is wholly positive when properly applied. It is a good thing to hate evil. (But there is always the temptation for righteous hatred to be misapplied by humans and become, itself, evil in its application.)
When you confuse righteous hatred with contempt for self, you confuse the positive and negative aspects of either, and thus fail to differentiate between the good of the one from the evil of the other. One of these things is proper, and one is improper.
More to the point, nowhere in Scripture are we told to hold ourselves in contempt. If you want to derisively view yourself as a 'wretch' then go for it, but make sure your theology is spot on. I'm very well aware of the sin that I'm aware of. I have introspected and prayed enough to know that the longer I consider my being the more I realise how awful the reality is. But Jesus knew that, and more, about me when I was mere potential. Whatever I find out about myself, Jesus already knew, and He still gave up His life to save mine.
That's the point of the song, right? "He saved a wretch like me". Not, "I'm a wretch I'll be self-contemptuous now". There is a multitude of properly critical attitudes and views towards the self, but contempt is at the extreme and not one of them. Self-contempt is to (unrighteously) hate who Jesus loves, and loved enough to die for.
The point is, our Lord Jesus is the same as his Father, even though he appeared as a man.
The same, or the same substance as the Father? And, what do you mean 'he appeared as a man'. Do you mean He appeared on earth vis-a-vis His incarnation (that is, fully human and fully God), or do you mean He only appeared to be human, which is some Docetic fallacy? (Or some form of Monarchianism, maybe?)
Reread the scriptures that way and you will understand them in a way you never did before. You'll understand them the right way.
You aren't going to convince anyone of that if you can't be bothered to properly understand contempt and righteous hatred.
-
Righteous hatred isn't 'contempt for self'.
It is when I know how evil I am.
When something, or someone, is held in contempt, then this is a view, or an act, that is fundamentally derisive, disrespectful, and so on, of something, or someone, that ought to otherwise be valued. Contempt is always relative to that which is worth something, or valuable. It's part of the act of denying the worth that something or someone has. It is wholly negative.
I agree. This is what the thread is about. Looking at our Lord Jesus as sin, or a curse. Only men saw him that way.
Righteous hatred, on the other hand, is the proper working out of hatred towards that which is a deserving object of said hatred such as evil, or sin. These things are never worth something, and are never valuable in that they are goods we should pursue. Unlike contempt, righteous hatred is wholly positive when properly applied. It is a good thing to hate evil. (But there is always the temptation for righteous hatred to be misapplied by humans and become, itself, evil in its application.)
When you confuse righteous hatred with contempt for self, you confuse the positive and negative aspects of either, and thus fail to differentiate between the good of the one from the evil of the other. One of these things is proper, and one is improper.
I agree, because of the aforementioned.
More to the point, nowhere in Scripture are we told to hold ourselves in contempt. If you want to derisively view yourself as a 'wretch' then go for it, but make sure your theology is spot on. I'm very well aware of the sin that I'm aware of. I have introspected and prayed enough to know that the longer I consider my being the more I realise how awful the reality is. But Jesus knew that, and more, about me when I was mere potential. Whatever I find out about myself, Jesus already knew, and He still gave up His life to save mine.
That's the point of the song, right? "He saved a wretch like me". Not, "I'm a wretch I'll be self-contemptuous now". There is a multitude of properly critical attitudes and views towards the self, but contempt is at the extreme and not one of them. Self-contempt is to (unrighteously) hate who Jesus loves, and loved enough to die for.
I agree, as had not Jesus endured the abuse of sins against himself, that would have been the end of sinners.
The same, or the same substance as the Father? And, what do you mean 'he appeared as a man'. Do you mean He appeared on earth vis-a-vis His incarnation (that is, fully human and fully God), or do you mean He only appeared to be human, which is some Docetic fallacy? (Or some form of Monarchianism, maybe?)
what i mean is, when Jesus told someone his sins were forgiven....and some listening said only God can forgive sins.... they didn't see him as God. They only saw him as a man.
You aren't going to convince anyone of that if you can't be bothered to properly understand contempt and righteous hatred.
Righteous hatred is contempt for inflicting sins on God.
-
It is when I know how evil I am.
As explained, it's not. Still, you confuse the two. Perhaps it's worth meditating on the question of whether this confusion that drives your self-contempt, one you seem to desire to wallow in, is itself sin.
-
What God "allowed" to happen. If God didn't allow sinners time to repent for the miserable way we've treated him, none of us would be left. That's the gospel Jesus teaches.
The Bible refutes your statement that God "allowed."
The two verses that immediately come to mind:
John 3: 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
The other that comes immediately to mind is:
Titus 2:14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.
In the Bible, the fact that God gave His Son to us as a sacrifice is described as an indescribable gift.
God's permissive will or God's divine will... which does Christ's death fall under? A: His divine will.
Edit: Come to think about your words, you are speaking a "works" based salvation ???
-
Being fully God, Jesus didn't appear that way to the people he first walked among. He appeared to be only a man.
It's good to know Jesus was and always will be fully God. God could never be curse to himself.
You seem to have difficulty separating the independence and interdependence of the persons of the Trinity.
-
As explained, it's not. Still, you confuse the two. Perhaps it's worth meditating on the question of whether this confusion that drives your self-contempt, one you seem to desire to wallow in, is itself sin.
I don't wallow in self contempt. I'm happy to know how great God is and how great I'm not,
If ye then, being evil.....Mt.7:11
-
The Bible refutes your statement that God "allowed."
The two verses that immediately come to mind:
John 3: 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Jn.3;16 should be seen in light of,
Having yet therefore one son, his wellbeloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son. But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours. Mt.12:6-7
The other that comes immediately to mind is:
Titus 2:14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.
This goes with this,
Behold, I have refined you, but not like silver; I have tried you in the furnace of affliction. Isa.48:10
Affliction comes from following the One who was afflicted and he's not the one who needed to be refined.
In the Bible, the fact that God gave His Son to us as a sacrifice is described as an indescribable gift.
God suffering the terrible treatment he received from sinners and offering forgiveness is a great gift.
God's permissive will or God's divine will... which does Christ's death fall under? A: His divine will.
Comitting sin (which is what the mistreatment of Christ was) isn't his divine will. He permitted it to show his divine will, which is to forgive the repentant, even of the worst sin.
Edit: Come to think about your words, you are speaking a "works" based salvation ???
He's doing the works, not me.
-
You seem to have difficulty separating the independence and interdependence of the persons of the Trinity.
The people who nailed Jesus to the cross are the ones who had that problem.
-
Affliction comes from following the One who was afflicted and he's not the one who needed to be refined.
Your whole response boils down to how your misunderstanding drives all your responses. We're not speaking about persecution. We're speaking about the fact that God decided His Son needed to "die," so sinful man can be redeemed and thus, there is the possibility of restoration to relationship with God.
-
The Bible refutes your statement that God "allowed."
The two verses that immediately come to mind:
John 3: 16 For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Jn.3;16 should be seen in light of,
Having yet therefore one son, his wellbeloved, he sent him also last unto them, saying, They will reverence my son. But those husbandmen said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and the inheritance shall be ours. Mt.12:6-7
The other that comes immediately to mind is:
Titus 2:14 who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.
This goes with this,
Behold, I have refined you, but not like silver; I have tried you in the furnace of affliction. Isa.48:10
Affliction comes from following the One who was afflicted and he's not the one who needed to be refined.
In the Bible, the fact that God gave His Son to us as a sacrifice is described as an indescribable gift.
God suffering the terrible treatment he received from sinners and offering forgiveness is a great gift.
God's permissive will or God's divine will... which does Christ's death fall under? A: His divine will.
Comitting sin (which is what the mistreatment of Christ was) isn't his divine will. He permitted it to show his divine will, which is to forgive the repentant, even of the worst sin.
Edit: Come to think about your words, you are speaking a "works" based salvation ???
He's doing the works, not me.
Actually, John 3:16 should be viewed in light of its context, which is the entirety of John 3.
We should never use parables to make theology.
-
I don't wallow in self contempt. I'm happy to know how great God is and how great I'm not,
If ye then, being evil.....Mt.7:11
And you do this by proof-texting Matthew 7, or maybe Luke 11?
Are you suggesting then that you're saved by Grace, but still evil? Like, evil in some ontological sense that has persisted? Evil, through and through, which seems to be what you think Jesus is saying? (as in, He isn't saying something like, we're morally imperfect by nature, or inherently bad, or evil when contrasted with the goodness of God?)
If you know "how great [you're] not" and you engage in self-contempt then the issue persists, and yeah, contempt comes with wallowing. Why not wallow, if you're evil and not even the redeeming work of Christ can change that?
-
God decided His Son needed to "die," so sinful man can be redeemed and thus, there is the possibility of restoration to relationship with God.
God decided he loved people, regardless of how much sin they commited against him and thus, there is the possibility of restoration to relationship with God.
-
Actually, John 3:16 should be viewed in light of its context, which is the entirety of John 3.
he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. Jn.3:36
We should never use parables to make theology.
When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen? They say unto him, He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall render him the fruits in their seasons. Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Mt.21:40-42
-
And you do this by proof-texting Matthew 7, or maybe Luke 11?
I just showed you that our Lord viewed people as evil.
Are you suggesting then that you're saved by Grace, but still evil? Like, evil in some ontological sense that has persisted? Evil, through and through, which seems to be what you think Jesus is saying? (as in, He isn't saying something like, we're morally imperfect by nature, or inherently bad, or evil when contrasted with the goodness of God?)
Being morally imperfect by nature etc is just another way of saying people are evil.
If you know "how great [you're] not" and you engage in self-contempt then the issue persists, and yeah, contempt comes with wallowing. Why not wallow, if you're evil and not even the redeeming work of Christ can change that?
I never said Christ wasn't changing me. In fact it's because of his nature that I realize how evil I am. Maybe you're old nature is no longer with you. I'm in a war against mine every day, because it's contemptible.
-
he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. Jn.3:36
After reading your response to my post and then this post, you still seem to be avoiding what is revealed in the very verses you raise.
In your response to me, you said:
God decided he loved people, regardless of how much sin they commited against him and thus, there is the possibility of restoration to relationship with God.
While I can agree with your response here, there is however a "context" you seem to actively avoid, even resist. While God loves mankind, His "wrath" MUST be served to all of sinful mankind. This means that even FOR the believer, God's wrath must be executed.
Now, you pointed out a VERY important part of a verse in your response to RabbiKnife. In paraphrase, you pointed out those who don't believe, God's wrath abides on them (the unbeliever).
So, on "Who" did God's wrath abide on, for believers?
-
While God loves mankind, His "wrath" MUST be served to all of sinful mankind. This means that even FOR the believer, God's wrath must be executed.
No it doesn't.
So, on "Who" did God's wrath abide on, for believers?
On nobody. It's like when your children are repentant for something they did. You don't take your anger out on anyone for the offense after that, because as a loving father, you forgive them.
God chastens all his children. Even Jesus submitted himself to his Father in this way, although he needed no correction,
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; Heb.5:8
The writer doesn't mean "Jesus learned obedience". He means obedience is learned through suffering and Jesus is the perfect example of this. Look at Heb.12:4-13. Look at what he's saying.
-
While God loves mankind, His "wrath" MUST be served to all of sinful mankind. This means that even FOR the believer, God's wrath must be executed.
No it doesn't.
So, on "Who" did God's wrath abide on, for believers?
On nobody. It's like when your children are repentant for something they did. You don't take your anger out on anyone for the offense after that, because as a loving father, you forgive them.
God chastens all his children. Even Jesus submitted himself to his Father in this way, although he needed no correction,
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; Heb.5:8
The writer doesn't mean "Jesus learned obedience". He means obedience is learned through suffering and Jesus is the perfect example of this. Look at Heb.12:4-13. Look at what he's saying.
You are missing "righteousness" in your analogy of a loving father. Due to "righteousness" God's punishment MUST be and will be executed. This is a critical part of the Gospel message that is missing from your theology.
So on "Who" did God's wrath abide on, for believers?
-
You are missing "righteousness" in your analogy of a loving father. Due to "righteousness" God's punishment MUST be and will be executed. This is a critical part of the Gospel message that is missing from your theology.
Gods punishment isn't missing from my theology. I just showed you on who God's punishment will be executed,
the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all.....who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Rom.1:18
To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them...Jde.1:15
So on "Who" did God's wrath abide on, for believers?
I told you Slug, on nobody. Executing wrath on people who are truly sorry isn't the righteousness of God,
O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? Mt.18:32-33
It's unrighteousness to our Father.
[/quote]
-
I just showed you that our Lord viewed people as evil.
You didn't. You quoted a verse, asserted that Jesus was making an ontological statement about his listeners, and then for some reason used this as justification for your self-contempt despite your ongoing failure to properly distinguish between it and righteous hatred.
Matthew 7 does indeed say what it says, but are we going to suggest from that, that anything not good is de facto evil? Creation is truly black-and-white, and there are no moral categories, or degrees? I agree with Jesus that no one is good but God alone, but that doesn't mean that everyone else is evil. Surely there are evil people. Surely, our hearts are inclined towards the things not of God - as we all know very well - but to flatten every category with a finger pointing "evil!" seems a bit much.
Jesus only appeared human; humans are purely evil. This is the stuff the ancient heresies were made of.
Being morally imperfect by nature etc is just another way of saying people are evil.
No, it's not, but it does leave open the possibility for a person to choose a life of evil. Adam and Eve were morally imperfect in the garden even prior to their fall, so should we describe them as evil? Of course, we'd have to say that God's declaration that they were created "very good" means that God viewed His evil creations as "very good". I'm sure you can see how this quickly becomes absurd.
I never said Christ wasn't changing me. In fact it's because of his nature that I realize how evil I am. Maybe you're old nature is no longer with you. I'm in a war against mine every day, because it's contemptible.
Considering my disagreements with St Augustine I would suspect that my "old nature", in his terms, is still quite present. Again, you ought to be engaged in a righteous battle, not one where you view yourself with contempt. I've been there, I've done that, it's not the right way.
-
Surely, our hearts are inclined towards the things not of God - as we all know very well - but to flatten every category with a finger pointing "evil!" seems a bit much.
I'm sure the people who wanted to bash in the head of the adulteress felt as you do, until they met Jesus.
Jesus only appeared human; humans are purely evil. This is the stuff the ancient heresies were made of.
The point i was making was, people who saw him were unaware that Jesus is God.
No, it's not, but it does leave open the possibility for a person to choose a life of evil. Adam and Eve were morally imperfect in the garden even prior to their fall...
No they weren't.
Of course, we'd have to say that God's declaration that they were created "very good" means that God viewed His evil creations as "very good". I'm sure you can see how this quickly becomes absurd.
God didn't make any "evil creations". God did make a system that was very good, where good and evil are separated.
....you ought to be engaged in a righteous battle, not one where you view yourself with contempt. I've been there, I've done that, it's not the right way.
The battle against self will contrary to what is pleasing to God is a righteous battle. Think of yourself as you like.
-
I'm sure the people who wanted to bash in the head of the adulteress felt as you do, until they met Jesus.
As someone who doesn't go around playing moral arbiter in the lives of others, I'll have to disagree. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with the (entirely off base) implications but what you wrote doesn't even begin to respond to what you quoted.
The point i was making was, people who saw him were unaware that Jesus is God.
Okay, well, that's an odd way to write it.
No they weren't.
They sinned, meaning they had the capacity to sin, so yes, they were morally imperfect.
God didn't make any "evil creations". God did make a system that was very good, where good and evil are separated.
My point is that the flattening of moral categories to only 'good' and 'evil' isn't appropriate. You clearly disagree but you haven't provided an argument in support of your view.
The battle against self will contrary to what is pleasing to God is a righteous battle. Think of yourself as you like.
Yet you fail to provide any Scripture commending self-contempt.
-
Yet you fail to provide any Scripture commending self-contempt.
This is on point. Journeyman seems to declare his self-contempt as a badge of honor.
While conviction will hit us when we're tempted, point out that we're about to sin... conviction will not leave us in a state of self-contempt.
-
As someone who doesn't go around playing moral arbiter in the lives of others, I'll have to disagree. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with the (entirely off base) implications but what you wrote doesn't even begin to respond to what you quoted.
Sure it does, because what Jesus wanted them to realize was that they were no better than the girl they were going to put to death. I'm glad you don't condemn others. I don't either, but I did before our Lord taught me.
Okay, well, that's an odd way to write it.
Not odd at all. Although Jesus performed miracles, the people who saw him, saw him only as a man. They didn't realize he created them.
They sinned, meaning they had the capacity to sin, so yes, they were morally imperfect.
Having the capacity to commit sin isn't the same as committing sin.
My point is that the flattening of moral categories to only 'good' and 'evil' isn't appropriate. You clearly disagree but you haven't provided an argument in support of your view.
The support for my view is my own life. I don't need to look any farther than that and neither does anyone who is honest about his own life.
Yet you fail to provide any Scripture commending self-contempt.
Yes I have. I've taken what the scriptures say in relation to my own life. Here it is again,
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Lk.14:26
So Athanasius, do you believe God viewed his Son as a curse, or that God poured his wrath out on his Son?
-
Yet you fail to provide any Scripture commending self-contempt.
This is on point. Journeyman seems to declare his self-contempt as a badge of honor.
While conviction will hit us when we're tempted, point out that we're about to sin... conviction will not leave us in a state of self-contempt.
You didn't respond to post 136.
-
Sure it does, because what Jesus wanted them to realize was that they were no better than the girl they were going to put to death.
It doesn't. Here's a refresher:
Athanasius: Surely, our hearts are inclined towards the things not of God - as we all know very well - but to flatten every category with a finger pointing "evil!" seems a bit much.
Here, I'm suggesting that your dismissal of every moral category other than 'good' and 'evil' is inappropriate in light of your proof-texting of Matthew. To be clear, I'm not arguing that people are 'good' or that this person is better than that person.
What I am saying, and what you're denying, is that the degrees of morality matter. Only God is good, but that does not mean that the murderer is the moral peer of the liar. That does not mean the liar ought to think of herself as better than the murderer. She isn't and is well capable of murder herself.
You then replied:
journeyman: I'm sure the people who wanted to bash in the head of the adulteress felt as you do, until they met Jesus.
There are a few implications here. One is that I haven't met Jesus, and another is that I view myself as being superior to others. Presumably, you think that I see myself as superior to you (since we're currently engaged in this discussion). I do not, to be clear, although as stated I do regard your confusion between self-content and righteous hatred to be misguided and wrongheaded.
I then replied:
Athanasius: As someone who doesn't go around playing moral arbiter in the lives of others, I'll have to disagree.
To which you suggest that just like the scribes and Pharisees I haven't learned that I'm not better than the next person. That's a big assumption, and importantly, wrong. This assumption seems to be informed by your insistence that self-contempt is an appropriate self-view, let alone for a Christian. Having been there, it is not.
I struggle with the opposite, actually. I think that everyone else is better than me, or that my struggles are worse than the struggles of anyone else and I am, in fact, the epitome of the worst of God's creation. Self-contempt is comfortable but it's not the place to be. It's destructive, and ought not be enjoyed in the life of the Christian.
I'm glad you don't condemn others. I don't either, but I did before our Lord taught me.
That's good; I didn't. At least, not in the way you're suggesting.
Not odd at all. Although Jesus performed miracles, the people who saw him, saw him only as a man. They didn't realize he created them.
Your phrasing, I meant.
Having the capacity to commit sin isn't the same as committing sin.
The capacity to sin and be tempted towards sin is a moral defect.
The support for my view is my own life. I don't need to look any farther than that and neither does anyone who is honest about his own life.
Implying the lot of us are dishonest? Upon reflection, are you sure you aren't judging?
es I have. I've taken what the scriptures say in relation to my own life. Here it is again,
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Lk.14:26
So Athanasius, do you believe God viewed his Son as a curse, or that God poured his wrath out on his Son?
The Scripture in questions means that one ought to love God above all else, not that we ought to hate each other - in distinct contradiction to the two most important commandments - or that self-contempt is commendable. It's a tough saying, but the way you're taking it seems to incorrect.
I agree with RK:
Jesus became sin. God doesn't punish non-sin or innocence.
That is the great theological mystery of the love of Jesus.
He willingly, literally, became the substance of sin... for me, so that I didn't have to suffer the consequences.
Moreover, He became sin for me, so that I could become righteous, in Him.
-
You didn't respond to post 136.
I already tried even before your post. Remember the term "propitiation?"
God had to provide a means of atonement for sinful mankind to be reconciled with Him. So, God the Son came to earth in the form of a man, and received God's wrath which mankind is "due" for sin(fullness). Christ received God's wrath which "delivered" us from that wrath.
Any person who believes, Christ has taken the wrath of God "for" them. Goes back to the 1 Cor 5:21 verse :-) Has 1 Peter 2:24 been raised? Or the Isiah "by His wounds" verse? I have to look that one up to ref it. I will if you want.
-
There are a few implications here. One is that I haven't met Jesus.....
The only implication I'm making is that the gospel our Lord taught, doesn't include God pouring his wrath out on his Son.
Implying the lot of us are dishonest? Upon reflection, are you sure you aren't judging?
I'm saying what was done to the Son of God was sinful. When people say, "My sins put Jesus on the cross", the implication should be that our sins are no different than the wrongful shame Jesus was subjected to.
The Scripture in questions means that one ought to love God above all else, not that we ought to hate each other - in distinct contradiction to the two most important commandments - or that self-contempt is commendable. It's a tough saying, but the way you're taking it seems to incorrect.
The way I'm taking it is that we should love the people Jesus mentioned by sharing his gospel with them, because God doesn't love everything about people.
I agree with RK:
Jesus became sin. God doesn't punish non-sin or innocence.
That is the great theological mystery of the love of Jesus.
He willingly, literally, became the substance of sin... for me, so that I didn't have to suffer the consequences.
Moreover, He became sin for me, so that I could become righteous, in Him.
God didn't punish his Son. Mankind did. Because mankind viewed Jesus as sinful. God never saw his Son as sin.
-
I already tried even before your post. Remember the term "propitiation?"
Yes I remember and I told you Jesus turned his wrath away from people who spit on him.
God had to provide a means of atonement for sinful mankind to be reconciled with Him. So, God the Son came to earth in the form of a man, and received God's wrath which mankind is "due" for sin(fullness). Christ received God's wrath which "delivered" us from that wrath.
Sinners are brought into communion with God by the mercy Jesus showed them. God didn't pour his wrath out on his Son. Mankind did and Jesus patiently endured the abuse, instead of dropping the hammer.
Any person who believes, Christ has taken the wrath of God "for" them. Goes back to the 1 Cor 5:21 verse :-) Has 1 Peter 2:24 been raised? Or the Isiah "by His wounds" verse? I have to look that one up to ref it. I will if you want.
Of course we're healed by his wounds, because if Jesus decided to stop the abuse being heaped on him, that would be the end of sinners. I've already explained this my friend,
when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.....
because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example....1Pet.2:20-21
Look at what he's saying.
-
The only implication I'm making is that the gospel our Lord taught, doesn't include God pouring his wrath out on his Son.
Let's stick to the context of the quote:
"I'm sure the people who wanted to bash in the head of the adulteress felt as you do, until they met Jesus."
Implication: like the people who "wanted to bash in the head of the adulteress" I have not met Jesus.
Otherwise, you're making statements in the view expressed above, not implying it.
I'm saying what was done to the Son of God was sinful. When people say, "My sins put Jesus on the cross", the implication should be that our sins are no different than the wrongful shame Jesus was subjected to.
This is what you're saying elsewhere, not what you said in my quote:
"The support for my view is my own life. I don't need to look any farther than that and neither does anyone who is honest about his own life."
But anyway, what exactly do you think was done to the Son of God that was sinful? There were certainly sinful things done to Jesus, but if you mean the crucifixion then you are at odds with the whole of Christian teaching.
The way I'm taking it is that we should love the people Jesus mentioned by sharing his gospel with them, because God doesn't love everything about people.
You quoted that portion of Scripture to defend your view that self-contempt is commended in Scripture. So, Jesus said to hate one's family, but that actually means sharing the Gospel with them, because God doesn't love everything about people, and so, the Christian is justified in her self-contempt?
Care to connect the dots for me?
God didn't punish his Son. Mankind did. Because mankind viewed Jesus as sinful. God never saw his Son as sin.
Do you mind explaining what you mean?
-
Sinners are brought into communion with God by the mercy Jesus showed them.
Negative... they are brought into reconciliation with the Father due to the "death" (and resurrection) the Son endured. All one must due is believe that Christ is the Son of God and that "He" died FOR them, so their (the sinner who chooses to believe), sins may be forgiven.
God didn't pour his wrath out on his Son. Mankind did and Jesus patiently endured the abuse, instead of dropping the hammer.
This statement only serves to reveal your resistance to the truth about, "propitiation." Ro 3, Heb 2, 1 John 2 and 4.
-
Sinners are brought into communion with God by the mercy Jesus showed them. God didn't pour his wrath out on his Son. Mankind did and Jesus patiently endured the abuse, instead of dropping the hammer.
Do you understand that there are no Catechisms, Statements of Faith, or any of the early church Fathers writings that agree with your view ? This should concern you. Also, when you hold this view you would also need to hold the view that there is no literal hell. Why ? God's wrath ( which is real by the way ) is nowhere in your doctrines, even though it is very, very clear in the scriptures.
If Jesus didn't suffer God's wrath ( not mans ) then He is not just. If it was mans wrath poured out an Christ and not God's, then Christ needed not come at all. This doctrine is a house of cards that doesn't line up with any scripture. It puts man in control of his own destiny and makes us judge. jury and executioner- not God. It also makes grace of no effect because the only one who can offer grace is the one put His own judgment on another.
-
Sinners are brought into communion with God by the mercy Jesus showed them. God didn't pour his wrath out on his Son. Mankind did and Jesus patiently endured the abuse, instead of dropping the hammer.
Do you understand that there are no Catechisms, Statements of Faith, or any of the early church Fathers writings that agree with your view ? This should concern you. Also, when you hold this view you would also need to hold the view that there is no literal hell. Why ? God's wrath ( which is real by the way ) is nowhere in your doctrines, even though it is very, very clear in the scriptures.
If Jesus didn't suffer God's wrath ( no mans ) then He is not just. If it was mans wrath poured out an Christ and not God's, then Christ needed not come at all. This doctrine is a house of cards that doesn't line up with any scripture. It puts man in control of his own destiny and makes us judge. jury and executioner- not God. It also makes grace of no effect because the only one who can offer grace is the one put His own judgment on another.
I mentioned in an earlier post of mine that when one really views Journeyman's theology, it is a "works" based theology.
-
Sinners are brought into communion with God by the mercy Jesus showed them. God didn't pour his wrath out on his Son. Mankind did and Jesus patiently endured the abuse, instead of dropping the hammer.
Do you understand that there are no Catechisms, Statements of Faith, or any of the early church Fathers writings that agree with your view ? This should concern you. Also, when you hold this view you would also need to hold the view that there is no literal hell. Why ? God's wrath ( which is real by the way ) is nowhere in your doctrines, even though it is very, very clear in the scriptures.
If Jesus didn't suffer God's wrath ( no mans ) then He is not just. If it was mans wrath poured out an Christ and not God's, then Christ needed not come at all. This doctrine is a house of cards that doesn't line up with any scripture. It puts man in control of his own destiny and makes us judge. jury and executioner- not God. It also makes grace of no effect because the only one who can offer grace is the one put His own judgment on another.
I mentioned in an earlier post of mine that when one really views Journeyman's theology, it is a "works" based theology.
It's exactly that. This is where humanism ultimately arrives at.
How many scriptures are in complete opposition to this view ? Christ had to suffer the full penalty of the law before the Old Covenant could be done away with and the new could be ushered in. For example, under the Old Covenant, why was there ever a need for sacrifice at all ? Because sin brings God's judgment and God's judgment brings death. It satisfied Gods wrath. Galatians 3 and basically the entire book of Hebrews tells us very plainly that only Christ could satisfy the judgment of God. How ? He was judged.
Did it, or did it not please the Father to crush the Son. After all, scripture couldn't be clearer that it did. And if it did, why did it ? Do we honestly believe that Christ, our Champion of heaven, Creator of the Universe, The Almighty God, dreaded the scorn and punishment of men when he was stressed in the Garden to the point of sweating blood ? Surely not. He was humanity was suffering only because He knew for the first time in eternity that He would be separated from His Father, and that He would become sin and the propitiation for it. Food for thought.
-
It's exactly that. This is where humanism ultimately arrives at.
How many scriptures are in complete opposition to this view ? Christ had to suffer the full penalty of the law before the Old Covenant could be done away with and the new could be ushered in. For example, under the Old Covenant, why was there ever a need for sacrifice at all ? Because sin brings God's judgment and God's judgment brings death. It satisfied Gods wrath. Galatians 3 and basically the entire book of Hebrews tells us very plainly that only Christ could satisfy the judgment of God. How ? He was judged.
Did it, or did it not please the Father to crush the Son. After all, scripture couldn't be clearer that it did. And if it did, why did it ? Do we honestly believe that Christ, our Champion of heaven, Creator of the Universe, The Almighty God, dreaded the scorn and punishment of men when he was stressed in the Garden to the point of sweating blood ? Surely not. He was humanity was suffering only because He knew for the first time in eternity that He would be separated from His Father, and that He would become sin and the propitiation for it. Food for thought.
I also raised the garden and in his response, all I received was a twisted version of what the verses are saying. Again, this amounts to resisting the truth of the scriptures.
In a nut shell, this is what I can conclude of Journeyman's theology. God the Son came to earth as a man, Jesus, who allowed man to express "their" wrath against Him but as they were killing Him, He expressed mercy and thus, mankind can now be reconciled with God.
-
It's exactly that. This is where humanism ultimately arrives at.
How many scriptures are in complete opposition to this view ? Christ had to suffer the full penalty of the law before the Old Covenant could be done away with and the new could be ushered in. For example, under the Old Covenant, why was there ever a need for sacrifice at all ? Because sin brings God's judgment and God's judgment brings death. It satisfied Gods wrath. Galatians 3 and basically the entire book of Hebrews tells us very plainly that only Christ could satisfy the judgment of God. How ? He was judged.
Did it, or did it not please the Father to crush the Son. After all, scripture couldn't be clearer that it did. And if it did, why did it ? Do we honestly believe that Christ, our Champion of heaven, Creator of the Universe, The Almighty God, dreaded the scorn and punishment of men when he was stressed in the Garden to the point of sweating blood ? Surely not. He was humanity was suffering only because He knew for the first time in eternity that He would be separated from His Father, and that He would become sin and the propitiation for it. Food for thought.
I also raised the garden and in his response, all I received was a twisted version of what the verses are saying. Again, this amounts to resisting the truth of the scriptures.
In a nut shell, this is what I can conclude of Journeyman's theology. God the Son came to earth as a man, Jesus, who allowed man to express "their" wrath against Him but as they were killing Him, He expressed mercy and thus, mankind can now be reconciled with God.
Yeah. That's unfortunate. That theology just takes you around the block and you still end up with mankind's sin and the consequences of it being dismissed instead of being conquered.
-
It's exactly that. This is where humanism ultimately arrives at.
How many scriptures are in complete opposition to this view ? Christ had to suffer the full penalty of the law before the Old Covenant could be done away with and the new could be ushered in. For example, under the Old Covenant, why was there ever a need for sacrifice at all ? Because sin brings God's judgment and God's judgment brings death. It satisfied Gods wrath. Galatians 3 and basically the entire book of Hebrews tells us very plainly that only Christ could satisfy the judgment of God. How ? He was judged.
Did it, or did it not please the Father to crush the Son. After all, scripture couldn't be clearer that it did. And if it did, why did it ? Do we honestly believe that Christ, our Champion of heaven, Creator of the Universe, The Almighty God, dreaded the scorn and punishment of men when he was stressed in the Garden to the point of sweating blood ? Surely not. He was humanity was suffering only because He knew for the first time in eternity that He would be separated from His Father, and that He would become sin and the propitiation for it. Food for thought.
I also raised the garden and in his response, all I received was a twisted version of what the verses are saying. Again, this amounts to resisting the truth of the scriptures.
In a nut shell, this is what I can conclude of Journeyman's theology. God the Son came to earth as a man, Jesus, who allowed man to express "their" wrath against Him but as they were killing Him, He expressed mercy and thus, mankind can now be reconciled with God.
Yeah. That's unfortunate. That theology just takes you around the block and you still end up with mankind's sin and the consequences of it being dismissed instead of being conquered.
I'd also add what I've heard someone preach about concerning this topic. Are we to believe that the champion of our faith were to have done nothing more significant than what many of the martyr's throughout the past couple of thousand years have done ? After all many have suffered persecution at the hands of this world. None of which can compare to the wrath of God.
-
Let's stick to the context of the quote:
"I'm sure the people who wanted to bash in the head of the adulteress felt as you do, until they met Jesus."
Implication: like the people who "wanted to bash in the head of the adulteress" I have not met Jesus.
Otherwise, you're making statements in the view expressed above, not implying it.
Point is, the people who wanted to kill the adulteress wisely changed their minds after reflecting on their own lives. Their encounter with our Lord made them aware of their own wrongdoing.
This is what you're saying elsewhere, not what you said in my quote:
"The support for my view is my own life. I don't need to look any farther than that and neither does anyone who is honest about his own life."
But anyway, what exactly do you think was done to the Son of God that was sinful? There were certainly sinful things done to Jesus, but if you mean the crucifixion then you are at odds with the whole of Christian teaching.
Putting an innocent man to death is sin. I've already cited the scriptures and they were ignored.
You quoted that portion of Scripture to defend your view that self-contempt is commended in Scripture. So, Jesus said to hate one's family, but that actually means sharing the Gospel with them, because God doesn't love everything about people, and so, the Christian is justified in her self-contempt?
Care to connect the dots for me?
Think about your own life in relation to what our Savior taught.
Do you mind explaining what you mean?
I mean, the Father was pleased by how his Son patiently endured sinful treatment, yet continued loving those who abused him,
He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied Isa.53:11
Because the Son is exactly as his Father.
-
This statement only serves to reveal your resistance to the truth about, "propitiation." Ro 3, Heb 2, 1 John 2 and 4.
when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. 1Pet.2:20
This is what our Lord did. God was pleased to turn his wrath away. That is propitiation.
-
Point is, the people who wanted to kill the adulteress wisely changed their minds after reflecting on their own lives. Their encounter with our Lord made them aware of their own wrongdoing.
Mhmm.
Putting an innocent man to death is sin. I've already cited the scriptures and they were ignored.
Something something what was meant for evil God used for good something something God's plan something something.
Think about your own life in relation to what our Savior taught.
Oh damn, I've never tried that before.
I mean, the Father was pleased by how his Son patiently endured sinful treatment, yet continued loving those who abused him,
He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied Isa.53:11
Because the Son is exactly as his Father.
Oh sorry, I had asked you to clarify what you meant by:
"God didn't punish his Son. Mankind did. Because mankind viewed Jesus as sinful. God never saw his Son as sin."
Why you think mankind was in a position to punish the Son, which implies justice not injustice, so an act that isn't sin, but that you consider to be sin, etc. etc. etc.
Not that we'll get anywhere.
-
God's wrath ( which is real by the way ) is nowhere in your doctrines, even though it is very, very clear in the scriptures.
It's clear from scripture the wrath of God was not poured out on his obedient Son,
the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: Col.3:6
because the only one who can offer grace is the one put His own judgment on another.
The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: 2Pet.2:9
-
when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. 1Pet.2:20
This verse only serves as "verse isolation" with no context. The words of the "half" verse you posted, has nothing to do with a context of Christ on the Cross as a sin sacrifice.
This is what our Lord did. God was pleased to turn his wrath away. That is propitiation.
This comment only continues to serve as confirmation that you do not understand what propitiation is about.
Did you view the scriptures I listed, of which will help in understanding propitiation?
Key elements of propitiation are 1) God will execute wrath against sin and 2) On whom this wrath is executed, others who sin can be reconciled with God, THROUGH the one who appeased God by receiving ALL God wrath against sin.
-
God's wrath ( which is real by the way ) is nowhere in your doctrines, even though it is very, very clear in the scriptures.
It's clear from scripture the wrath of God was not poured out on his obedient Son,
the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience: Col.3:6
because the only one who can offer grace is the one put His own judgment on another.
The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: 2Pet.2:9
So how do you explain Isaiah 53:10 ? " Yes it pleased the Lord to bruise Him, He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand."
The Father absolutely was in control and fully delivered the justice and consequence of sin upon Christ, not only on the cross physically, but also spiritual separation. Christ became sin - 2 Cor, 5:21 " God made Him who had no sin TO BE SIN for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God."
It's called the doctrine of substitution. We basically received the righteousness of Christ and the sonship that was due to Him, and He bore our shame and punishment from the FATHER, not men.
There's no biblical stance you can take to back your stance.
-
This verse only serves as "verse isolation" with no context. The words of the "half" verse you posted, has nothing to do with a context of Christ on the Cross as a sin sacrifice.
because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 1Pet.2:21
Peter is teaching how Jesus suffered for doing what is right and how pleased God is when believers suffer for doing what's right, following in Jesus's footsteps. That's the context of the passage.
This is what our Lord did. God was pleased to turn his wrath away. That is propitiation.
This comment only continues to serve as confirmation that you do not understand what propitiation is about.
Did you view the scriptures I listed, of which will help in understanding propitiation?
Key elements of propitiation are 1) God will execute wrath against sin and 2) On whom this wrath is executed, others who sin can be reconciled with God, THROUGH the one who appeased God by receiving ALL God wrath against sin.
I've read the passages you cited many times and have even cited a couple of them in this thread, but you didn't comment on them. As for your key elements of propitiation, God's wrath poured out on people who displeased him,
hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: Rev.6:16
Because Jesus is God.
-
So how do you explain Isaiah 53:10 ? " Yes it pleased the Lord to bruise Him, He has put Him to grief.
I explain Christ's bruising this way,
My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him, for whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. Heb.12:5-6
And the Messiah didn't exempt himself from correction, even though he didn't need correction,
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; Heb.5:8
The Son didn't need to learn the longsuffering of his Father, but we do and for this reason, Jesus subjected himself to it.
The Father absolutely was in control and fully delivered the justice and consequence of sin upon Christ, not only on the cross physically, but also spiritual separation. Christ became sin - 2 Cor, 5:21 " God made Him who had no sin TO BE SIN for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God."
The consequence of sin is the death of the one who commits sin. The only ones who viewed Christ as sin were those who falsely accused him.
Believers are conformed to Christ's image, because he's the express image of God, who patiently endures the sins mankind commits against him.
It's called the doctrine of substitution. We basically received the righteousness of Christ and the sonship that was due to Him, and He bore our shame and punishment from the FATHER, not men.
There's no biblical stance you can take to back your stance.
[/quote]
-
So how do you explain Isaiah 53:10 ? " Yes it pleased the Lord to bruise Him, He has put Him to grief.
I explain Christ's bruising this way,
My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him, for whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. Heb.12:5-6
And the Messiah didn't exempt himself from correction, even though he didn't need correction,
Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; Heb.5:8
The Son didn't need to learn the longsuffering of his Father, but we do and for this reason, Jesus subjected himself to it.
The Father absolutely was in control and fully delivered the justice and consequence of sin upon Christ, not only on the cross physically, but also spiritual separation. Christ became sin - 2 Cor, 5:21 " God made Him who had no sin TO BE SIN for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God."
The consequence of sin is the death of the one who commits sin. The only ones who viewed Christ as sin were those who falsely accused him.
Believers are conformed to Christ's image, because he's the express image of God, who patiently endures the sins mankind commits against him.
It's called the doctrine of substitution. We basically received the righteousness of Christ and the sonship that was due to Him, and He bore our shame and punishment from the FATHER, not men.
There's no biblical stance you can take to back your stance.
I know what it's called and I just showed you if believers won't receive correction, they won't receive sonship. Look at the passages I cited.
-
because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 1Pet.2:21
Peter is teaching how Jesus suffered for doing what is right and how pleased God is when believers suffer for doing what's right, following in Jesus's footsteps. That's the context of the passage.
While I can understand what you just said, it does not relate to how the persecution that man inflicts against, Jesus... will save the sinner.
The only conclusion possible to settle on, based on all you say (your interpretation/theology), is that what man did to Jesus, is the required punishment (killing of Jesus) to appease God, so that sinners can be saved.
Thus, this is a works based theology at the core.
You are only focused on "persecution" of Christ by man. You are resisting the element of "wrath" requirement dealing with propitiation. Mans persecution (man can't execute wrath), man's love, man's worship, etc... can't and never can, appease God. He will punish sin if sin is found in a person who is before Him.
God's wrath however DID execute a final punishment against sin... against His Son (became like sin), this action by God is all that can appease Him... so that man can be reconciled with Him.
God's wrath against sin, Jesus in that moment of hanging on the Cross.
I'll get to your other part once if we can get past this part.
-
While I can understand what you just said, it does not relate to how the persecution that man inflicts against, Jesus... will save the sinner.
Slug,
People aren't saved "by inflicting persecution against our Savior". They're saved by repenting of inflicting persecution against Jesus, against God on earth. When the Bible says, "by his stripes we are healed", it's because he suffered injustice without destroying those against him. He's compassionate as his Father is. And Christians who follow hiim are also compassionate toward those who hate them. We're being formed into his image.
The only conclusion possible to settle on, based on all you say (your interpretation/theology), is that what man did to Jesus, is the required punishment (killing of Jesus) to appease God, so that sinners can be saved.
Thus, this is a works based theology at the core.
No my friend. God was appeased by the steadfastness of his Son under immense abuse,
For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. Heb.12:3
You are only focused on "persecution" of Christ by man. You are resisting the element of "wrath" requirement dealing with propitiation. Mans persecution (man can't execute wrath), man's love, man's worship, etc... can't and never can, appease God. He will punish sin if sin is found in a person who is before Him.
God's wrath however DID execute a final punishment against sin... against His Son (became like sin), this action by God is all that can appease Him... so that man can be reconciled with Him.
God's wrath against sin, Jesus in that moment of hanging on the Cross.
I'll get to your other part once if we can get past this part.
I never said God is pleased by the wrath of men. The final wrath against sin will occur before the judgement seat of Christ.
-
No my friend. God was appeased by the steadfastness of his Son under immense abuse,
You are still isolating verses in a manner that opposes the Gospel message. God is appeased due to the fact that His "wrath" against the sin of the world, is appeased in Jesus.
-
[/quote]I never said God is pleased by the wrath of men. The final wrath against sin will occur before the judgement seat of Christ.
[/quote]
Do you believe that sinners pay the penalty for their sin in hell?
-
You are still isolating verses and thus, oppose the Gospel message. God is appeased due to the fact that His "wrath" against the sin of the world, is appeased in Jesus.
Gods wrath is appeased in Jesus.....because Jesus.....God in flesh.....
didn't pour his wrath out on those who hurt him,
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiationthrough faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God Rom.3:25
See the scriptures this way and they all come perfectly into place.
-
Do you believe that sinners pay the penalty for their sin in hell?
I believe God's wrath falls on the unrepentant.
-
Gods wrath is appeased in Jesus.....because Jesus.....God in flesh.....
didn't pour his wrath out on those who hurt him,
Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiationthrough faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God Rom.3:25
See the scriptures this way and they all come perfectly into place.
I agree that scriptures come perfectly into place. This leads to a question: What does the "in His blood" mean for your theology?
You still seem to resist that "propitiation" is about executed wrath for the purpose of appeasing punishment that is due. All you say, avoids this truth.
Edit: You keep saying that propitiation is due to Jesus NOT punishing sinners but this avoids the Gospel's message which reveals it is His DEATH, that is the propitiation. Mercy is not an element of the cause of propitiation, you however say it is. Mercy is the result/product, AFTER there is propitiation. Thus my question concerning Christ's blood.
-
Do you believe that sinners pay the penalty for their sin in hell?
I believe God's wrath falls on the unrepentant.
Yeah, that's not what the Bible says.
1 Peter 3:18: For Christ also suffered for sins once for all time, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
See also Isaiah 53, 1 John 4, Romans 5
God's wrath is fully satisfied. See, if you believe that sinners can pay for their sin in hell, that they suffer God's wrath, then that means that God's wrath can never be satisfied, because eternity in hell never ends.
God's wrath is fully satisified, and it was satisfied in the willing sacrifice of Jesus as the only once and for all sacrifice in propitiation for our sin... All sin. Sin has no power. It is finished. It is paid for. God has no wrath for sin remaining. Jesus took it all. The just for the unjust.
-
I agree that scriptures come perfectly into place. This leads to a question: What does the "in His blood" mean for your theology?
"In his blood" means, in his life,
the life thereof, which is the blood thereof Gen.9:4
You still seem to resist that "propitiation" is about executed wrath for the purpose of appeasing punishment that is due. All you say, avoids this truth.
Propitiation is the opposite of what you just said. It's about avoiding the wrath of God (the Lamb).
Edit: You keep saying that propitiation is due to Jesus NOT punishing sinners but this avoids the Gospel's message which reveals it is His DEATH, that is the propitiation. Mercy is not an element of the cause of propitiation, you however say it is. Mercy is the result/product, AFTER there is propitiation. Thus my question concerning Christ's blood.
Our Lord's death occured as the result of him delaying judgement. Though stronger than his enemies, he gives sinners time, with all longsuffering, to repent. That's mercy, so you're wrong.
-
Yeah, that's not what the Bible says.
1 Peter 3:18: For Christ also suffered for sins once for all time, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;
For Christ also? What does he mean by "also"? Read the verse before it.
-
Propitiation is the opposite of what you just said. It's about avoiding the wrath of God (the Lamb).
Negative, propitiation is not about avoiding wrath, it's is about wrath's completion, thus producing appeasement.
Even believers would not be able to avoid God's wrath but God's wrath at them (due to sin), was inflicted upon someone who "replaced" them (took their "due" wrath). This is also understood as a believer is "covered" or "bought" by the person who received ALL their (due) wrath. Jesus "paid" for their sin by becoming sin and received ALL the punishment (that they were due), He is a believers propitiation.
-
Negative, propitiation is not about avoiding wrath, it's is about wrath's completion, thus producing appeasement.
No it isn't, because the completion of God's wrath is here,
Then I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvelous: seven angels having the seven last plagues, for in them the wrath of God is complete. Rev.15:1
God doesn't pour his wrath out on the repentant, but on the unrepentant, because,
Say to them: ‘As I live,' says the Lord GOD, ‘I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?' Eze.33:11
I
Even believers would not be able to avoid God's wrath but God's wrath at them (due to sin), was inflicted upon someone who "replaced" them (took their "due" wrath). This is also understood as a believer is "covered" or "bought" by the person who received ALL their (due) wrath. Jesus "paid" for their sin by becoming sin and received ALL the punishment (that they were due), He is a believers propitiation.
I've already proven from scripture how God bought people by the price his Son paid, but you ignored it. I've already proven from scripture that God doesn't accept the life of one person in place of another, but you ignored it.
-
Then I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvelous: seven angels having the seven last plagues, for in them the wrath of God is complete. Rev.15:1
Brother, I stopped here because you again, isolate a scripture so you can remove the context and apply a meaning. You show me nothing except the fact that you are unwilling to apply context in a proper manner. If you were to apply the proper context to this verse, it is about "future" events during a time referred to as the Great Tribulation.
Now, I have found some studies and side with some of the studies in how the term for "plague" is applied as God's punishment being "stripes" and then the application of how Jesus took the stripes of punishment according to Isaiah 53. So if you want to go there, let me know. I'd love to because I have found in the past, that when a theology is erred, many of the very verses pushed forward from the theology that are OUT of context, when context is applied, they will find how the theology is in error.
-
Brother, I stopped here because you again, isolate a scripture so you can remove the context and apply a meaning. You show me nothing except the fact that you are unwilling to apply context in a proper manner. If you were to apply the proper context to this verse, it is about "future" events during a time referred to as the Great Tribulation.
What scripture shows is that God pours his wrath is complete by pouring his wrath out on this world, not on his Son.
Now, I have found some studies and side with some of the studies in how the term for "plague" is applied as God's punishment being "stripes" and then the application of how Jesus took the stripes of punishment according to Isaiah 53. So if you want to go there, let me know. I'd love to because I have found in the past, that when a theology is erred, many of the very verses pushed forward from the theology that are OUT of context, when context is applied, they will find how the theology is in error.
I've already proven by the scriptures how the stripes spoken of in Isa.53 should be seen as correction which every son (including the only begotten Son) receives from the Father. The correction we receive is to teach us how God through his Son loved mankind despite the miserable way he was treated. In fact, he was seen as deserving of death by sinners, not by his Father,
If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified. 1Pet.4:14
-
Do you believe that sinners pay the penalty for their sin in hell?
I believe God's wrath falls on the unrepentant.
And why does it ? Because God's wrath falls on sin and sinners. Of which Christ became on our behalf.
-
[And why does it ? Because God's wrath falls on sin and sinners.
That's justice.
Of which Christ became on our behalf.
That's what they said,
Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner. Jn.9:24
And since Jesus was lied against and spit on and all the other terrible sins he bore without pouring his wrath out on God haters, the scriptures say,
he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. Isa.53:12
-
[And why does it ? Because God's wrath falls on sin and sinners.
That's justice.
Of which Christ became on our behalf.
That's what they said,
Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner. Jn.9:24
And since Jesus was lied against and spit on and all the other terrible sins he bore without pouring his wrath out on God haters, the scriptures say,
he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. Isa.53:12
So, is man also responsible for us becoming the "righteousness of God" when our places were changed ? No. GOD made Him who knew no sin, to became sin for us, so that we may become the righteousness of God.
God ordained it, God settled the debt, Gods justice was served, and Gods wrath was settled. NOT MANS. Man had nothing - repeat - NOTHING to do with our justification. Zero.
To imply that he does is a works based gospel. But think what you will. You have been clearly shown the truth.
-
So, is man also responsible for us becoming the "righteousness of God" when our places were changed ?
God is responsible for HIMSELF coming to earth.
No. GOD made Him who knew no sin, to became sin for us, so that we may become the righteousness of God.
Yes, I just explained how people counted him a criminal,
And with him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left. And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors. Mk.15:27-28
God ordained it, God settled the debt, Gods justice was served, and Gods wrath was settled. NOT MANS. Man had nothing - repeat - NOTHING to do with our justification. Zero.
To imply that he does is a works based gospel. But think what you will. You have been clearly shown the truth.
I wish you would consider how God teaches us not to persecute the innocent, because breaking that ordination of God in no way serves his justice.
Works based gospel? For crying out loud, I'm the one arguing in favor of God's work alone. He chose to endure the sinful treatment heaped on him. Me? I would have swatted them like bugs. Father, make me more like your Son.
-
Again, this is relatively simple when one understands Greek noun constructs and basic lexicography.
Hamartia (sin) is a state of being and condition and it’s a privation or negation. It’s a “something” like a void or a hole is a something. Hamartia comes from a- (no/not) and meros (share, part, place) and is the “missing share/part/place” in man from the Edenic event.
Christ took upon Himself this “somethinglessness” according to man’s having no share, part, or place. It wasn’t like a tumor or other result from contagion. Sin isn’t a contagion. It has no substance, but is a lack of substance. The Savior took our lack upon Himself. He took the negation of divine order for mankind upon Himself. And with this He took all resulting acts because He took upon Himself the source OF all resulting acts.
He became the privation of the state of being and condition that is sin. And He took our physical death so that we might live via His resurrection. There wasn’t a “something” put upon Him because sin is a noun in language as a “thing”. It was our entire deficiency at the core of our state of being that He took upon Himself. It was our condition that He made His own by laying down His life for us.
-
Again, this is relatively simple when one understands Greek noun constructs and basic lexicography.
Hamartia (sin) is a state of being and condition and it’s a privation or negation. It’s a “something” like a void or a hole is a something. Hamartia comes from a- (no/not) and meros (share, part, place) and is the “missing share/part/place” in man from the Edenic event.
Be cautious about relying on the etymological root fallacy!
Christ took upon Himself this “somethinglessness” according to man’s having no share, part, or place. It wasn’t like a tumor or other result from contagion. Sin isn’t a contagion. It has no substance, but is a lack of substance.
When I argue that Sin is a "contagion," I've carefully explained that it is not a physical substance, but rather, a *spiritual contagion!* A contagion is something that spreads like a plague. Sin is depicted as something that spreads like a plague. Thus I define it as like a contagion--not strictly a physical contagion.
1 Cor 5.6 Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
2 Tim 2.17 Their teaching will spread like gangrene.
The Savior took our lack upon Himself. He took the negation of divine order for mankind upon Himself. And with this He took all resulting acts because He took upon Himself the source OF all resulting acts.
He became the privation of the state of being and condition that is sin.
What does this mean? Who defined sin as a "privation?" Obviously, to sin is to be deprived of God's blessings. But to deny that it is a "contagion" is something else.
When Jesus took sin upon himself, the Scriptures are referring to him becoming a "sin sacrifice," and not a sinful human being. So he did not "become sin" in that sense.
Rather, he became the punishment for sin by suffering from sinful people what should only be visited upon sinful people. Not only that but he suffered *all punishment* for sin, which amounts to suffering leading to death. He took our *punishment!* He did not himself become "deprived," as you seem to be suggesting?
And He took our physical death so that we might live via His resurrection. There wasn’t a “something” put upon Him because sin is a noun in language as a “thing”. It was our entire deficiency at the core of our state of being that He took upon Himself. It was our condition that He made His own by laying down His life for us.
Not a "deficiency," in my estimation, though it might be called a "weakness," a vulnerability to death from sinful men. What he experienced was the *punishment of sin,* so that he could forgive all sin committed against him by the entire human race, in particular those willing to make use of his atonement.
-
Again, this is relatively simple when one understands Greek noun constructs and basic lexicography.
Hamartia (sin) is a state of being and condition and it’s a privation or negation. It’s a “something” like a void or a hole is a something. Hamartia comes from a- (no/not) and meros (share, part, place) and is the “missing share/part/place” in man from the Edenic event.
Be cautious about relying on the etymological root fallacy!
Christ took upon Himself this “somethinglessness” according to man’s having no share, part, or place. It wasn’t like a tumor or other result from contagion. Sin isn’t a contagion. It has no substance, but is a lack of substance.
When I argue that Sin is a "contagion," I've carefully explained that it is not a physical substance, but rather, a *spiritual contagion!* A contagion is something that spreads like a plague. Sin is depicted as something that spreads like a plague. Thus I define it as like a contagion--not strictly a physical contagion.
1 Cor 5.6 Your boasting is not good. Don’t you know that a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough? 7 Get rid of the old yeast, so that you may be a new unleavened batch—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. 8 Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old bread leavened with malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
2 Tim 2.17 Their teaching will spread like gangrene.
The Savior took our lack upon Himself. He took the negation of divine order for mankind upon Himself. And with this He took all resulting acts because He took upon Himself the source OF all resulting acts.
He became the privation of the state of being and condition that is sin.
What does this mean? Who defined sin as a "privation?" Obviously, to sin is to be deprived of God's blessings. But to deny that it is a "contagion" is something else.
When Jesus took sin upon himself, the Scriptures are referring to him becoming a "sin sacrifice," and not a sinful human being. So he did not "become sin" in that sense.
Rather, he became the punishment for sin by suffering from sinful people what should only be visited upon sinful people. Not only that but he suffered *all punishment* for sin, which amounts to suffering leading to death. He took our *punishment!* He did not himself become "deprived," as you seem to be suggesting?
And He took our physical death so that we might live via His resurrection. There wasn’t a “something” put upon Him because sin is a noun in language as a “thing”. It was our entire deficiency at the core of our state of being that He took upon Himself. It was our condition that He made His own by laying down His life for us.
Not a "deficiency," in my estimation, though it might be called a "weakness," a vulnerability to death from sinful men. What he experienced was the *punishment of sin,* so that he could forgive all sin committed against him by the entire human race, in particular those willing to make use of his atonement.
You’re not a linguist. Why would you be trying to “warn” me of something you actually don’t know about? Hamartia isn’t even candidate for a root word fallacy, not that what you’re referring to is what you think it is. Taking two disparate words like “butter” and “fly” and making it into “butterfly” is one thing. The agglutanitve nature of Greek language structure isn’t that at all.
The word hamartia itself designates that it is a privation. No amount of stubborn declaration otherwise will change that truth and fact.
There appears to be no category of doctrine that you haven’t corrupted with your own interior rationalization. Why do you think your place is to attempt to reformulate all major Christian doctrines and ignore that you don’t even have the abilites to do so? Do you realize what the landscape of the Christian faith would be if every doctrine were left to this kind of personal and individual free-for-all?
I think you may mean well in your own way, but your content on this forum is some of the most alarmingly horrific self-determined hubris I’ve encountered. It reflects a zeal of God but not according to epignosis (knowledge). I’m terribly concerned for your spiritual well-being is why I say this. It isn’t to condescend or condemn, but it is a mild rebuke while hoping you might hear how bad it is.
-
You’re not a linguist. Why would you be trying to “warn” me of something you actually don’t know about? Hamartia isn’t even candidate for a root word fallacy, not that what you’re referring to is what you think it is. Taking two disparate words like “butter” and “fly” and making it into “butterfly” is one thing. The agglutanitve nature of Greek language structure isn’t that at all.
No, I'm not a linguist. I raise the issue because my brother studies both Hebrew and Greek, and has cautioned me against using these kinds of fallacies.
Are such fallacies used in bliblical interpretation--all the time! That's why we are warned against using them. If you're a linguist, I apologize--I couldn't argue with you on an equal basis. But your "lexical approach" remains very suspect with me.
The word hamartia itself designates that it is a privation. No amount of stubborn declaration otherwise will change that truth and fact.
Hamartia is just a word that like any other must be determined partly by its original and regular use and partly by its context. To "miss the mark" can hardly be explained simply as a "privation," as I see it. The sense of "missing the mark" has nothing to do with "privation" as far as I can see? Trying to put the literal meaning of the word for "sin" into some kind of alien sense, and then determining that is what it means seems far off the beaten path.
Sin may in effect deprive man of his good relationship with God. But how you mean "privation" is critical, if you wish to argue it. And my claim that sin is a contagion would be as applicable as your claim that it is a privation. Sin is rebelling against God's word. The effect of that may be a spiritual contagion or a privation, or both.
There appears to be no category of doctrine that you haven’t corrupted with your own interior rationalization. Why do you think your place is to attempt to reformulate all major Christian doctrines and ignore that you don’t even have the abilites to do so? Do you realize what the landscape of the Christian faith would be if every doctrine were left to this kind of personal and individual free-for-all?
It is a free world, brother. If you don't like it, ignore it. But I've had questions all my life on virtually all of these doctrines. And if your claim is that I'm contaminating doctrines by corrupting them, you should be able to have an answer to that.
And yet you don't. I've discovered many things in my studies in prophecy, and I've come to understand many difficult problems in theology. In fact I came onto forums like this one about 20 years ago for the very purpose of exploring these ideas, to see if my beliefs can hold up against scrutiny. And I've done very well, thank you.
Often I find this attack on me because of my unorthodox approach, and sometimes I get a good explanation as to why something I believe is suspect. In your case, I get nothing but assault on me as one incapable of arguing the points.
I think you may mean well in your own way, but your content on this forum is some of the most alarmingly horrific self-determined hubris I’ve encountered. It reflects a zeal of God but not according to epignosis (knowledge). I’m terribly concerned for your spiritual well-being is why I say this. It isn’t to condescend or condemn, but it is a mild rebuke while hoping you might hear how bad it is.
Amazing! Yet I sense no rebuke from the Lord at all. I wonder what spirit you're coming from?
And I wonder why you don't argue any of my points in detail, if you wish to prove them false? But if you're so alarmed about my spiritual health, shouldn't you be willing to discuss my concerns, rather than writing my beliefs off as worthless or even harmful?
-
Hamartia (sin) is a state of being and condition and it’s a privation or negation. It’s a “something” like a void or a hole is a something. Hamartia comes from a- (no/not) and meros (share, part, place) and is the “missing share/part/place” in man from the Edenic event.
You’re not a linguist. Why would you be trying to “warn” me of something you actually don’t know about? Hamartia isn’t even candidate for a root word fallacy, not that what you’re referring to is what you think it is. Taking two disparate words like “butter” and “fly” and making it into “butterfly” is one thing. The agglutanitve nature of Greek language structure isn’t that at all.
Here's the problem. What you say about "Harmartia," separating it into its parts, "a" and "meros," and then applying that as a meaning to "Sin" is exactly some kind of fallacy, as I see it. Maybe I am not using the right fallacy, but it does seem to be some kind of "root fallacy?"
You're taking the component parts of a word and then insisting that the origins of this word must dictate its meaning and how it applies biblically. It may have originated from the loss of Eden as a home--doesn't matter. That may just be the origin of the word. It's actual meaning, in context, appears to be rebellion against God's word, which was the *cause* of Adam and Eve losing Eden.
So applying the word "Hamartia" as a "privation," based on the origins of the word seems to be a stretch--certainly not a justified "lexical approach" towards defining the word.
I'll apologize if I'm wrong, but for now, that's just how I see it.
-
,,,,Hamartia (sin) is a state of being....
The most important thing to remember here is that it was some of the religious leaders and others who falsely accused our Lord of being in a state of sin. His Father didn't see him that way,
And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone? Lk.5:21
And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him. Jn.8:29
-
No, I'm not a linguist. I raise the issue because my brother studies both Hebrew and Greek, and has cautioned me against using these kinds of fallacies.
Are such fallacies used in bliblical interpretation--all the time! That's why we are warned against using them. If you're a linguist, I apologize--I couldn't argue with you on an equal basis. But your "lexical approach" remains very suspect with me.
He's not committing an etymological fallacy because he's dealing with the Greek as it was understood at the time of the NT's authorship. That's what's relevant, by the way: the word as it was understood by the Biblical authors. All CONSPICULLUM is doing is explaining how the word is constructed, and what it means, and meant in the first century (and following). This is no more a fallacy than it would be to explain the parts of the word 'CONSPICULLUM'.
This isn't an instance of the fallacy your brother would have cautioned you against. There's nothing suspect about what CONSPICULLUM has written thus far. Your contagion language, on the other hand...
-
No, I'm not a linguist. I raise the issue because my brother studies both Hebrew and Greek, and has cautioned me against using these kinds of fallacies.
Are such fallacies used in bliblical interpretation--all the time! That's why we are warned against using them. If you're a linguist, I apologize--I couldn't argue with you on an equal basis. But your "lexical approach" remains very suspect with me.
He's not committing an etymological fallacy because he's dealing with the Greek as it was understood at the time of the NT's authorship. That's what's relevant, by the way: the word as it was understood by the Biblical authors. All CONSPICULLUM is doing is explaining how the word is constructed, and what it means, and meant in the first century (and following). This is no more a fallacy than it would be to explain the parts of the word 'CONSPICULLUM'.
This isn't an instance of the fallacy your brother would have cautioned you against. There's nothing suspect about what CONSPICULLUM has written thus far. Your contagion language, on the other hand...
Sorry, the way he breaks up the word to force a particular meaning upon it is precisely what the fallacy suggests to me. I don't care how the component parts were grouped together to form the word originally. It is how the *word is used* that defines what it means--not its origins.
Humbly, I could be wrong. I just can't ask my brother right now. He's beyond reach, but I did email him about it. I'll let you know what he thinks, as well. Thanks.
As to Sin being viewed as a spiritual contagion, this is hardly original with me. I was thinking for myself, but looking it up on the internet I had no problem finding great Christian minds describing and using the word "Sin" in just that way. So it's not just me you're dismissing!
-
Sorry, the way he breaks up the word to force a particular meaning upon it is precisely what the fallacy suggests to me. I don't care how the component parts were grouped together to form the word originally. It is how the *word is used* that defines what it means--not its origins.
He's not breaking the word up to 'force a particular meaning'. It's a Greek word, and he's discussing how the Greek language constructs words, and what that word meant to the people who used it in the first century, and thus, what it means to us. That's just the nature of exegesis. Theologically, the word doesn't change. We want to know what the word originally meant so that we don't end up with a theological understanding of the word 'sin' that's improperly grounded.
If you wanted to discuss some kind of etymological fallacy then maybe you could entertain such a notion by contrasting Aristotle's use of the word in Poetics with the use of the word in Paul's writings. But no one is doing such a thing. The only way you can arrive at an etymological fallacy like the one you're concerned with is by affirming that the word can mean different things to different people, and for this to be theologically unproblematic. But that is very problematic indeed.
As to Sin being viewed as a spiritual contagion, this is hardly original with me. I was thinking for myself, but looking it up on the internet I had no problem finding great Christian minds describing and using the word "Sin" in just that way. So it's not just me you're dismissing!
Yes, and in 1999 Neo was the near-literal second coming of Christ according to most North American churches. But without having Google'd what I'd expect to find are a number of articles discussing how particular sins are 'contagious', and this is hardly controversial if some kind of social phenomenon is in view. But 'contagious' still isn't the right word. 'Contagion' isn't the right word. It carries the wrong connotations and doesn't describe the reality of sin.
-
He's not breaking the word up to 'force a particular meaning'. It's a Greek word, and he's discussing how the Greek language constructs words, and what that word meant to the people who used it in the first century...
But how it was used in the 1st century, as "missing the mark," is not how the brother is implying it was used, as a "privation." The origin of the word, which seems to have emerged from a banishment from the Garden, explains the origins of the word, but not its meaning.
There is a long distance from "banishment from the Garden" to "missing the mark," and even from missing the mark to "rebelling against God's word." One explains the origin in which Sin took place. But Sin itself is historically the act in which Adam and Eve transgressed the word of God.
Therefore, Sin means to "rebel against God's word," and has nothing to do with the environment in which the word was originated. That is, it does not mean to "lose place in the Garden." It is not a "privation" in that sense, and never did mean that, in my opinion.
But I'm not going to prolong the discussion, because at this point I think we know where we stand. To me, the brother is, in fact, seeming to use a "Root Fallacy."
Whether it's an attempt to use an archaic meaning of the word as "losing the Garden," or trying to compose a new meaning of the word as "missing the mark," the idea is neither. It is "rebelling against God's word," and certainly not just "missing the mark."
This is as I see it a "Root Fallacy," or even a "Totality Fallacy," transferring somebody else's meaning of "Sin" into the standard NT meaning of the word.
As to Sin being viewed as a spiritual contagion, this is hardly original with me. I was thinking for myself, but looking it up on the internet I had no problem finding great Christian minds describing and using the word "Sin" in just that way. So it's not just me you're dismissing!
Yes, and in 1999 Neo was the near-literal second coming of Christ according to most North American churches. But without having Google'd what I'd expect to find are a number of articles discussing how particular sins are 'contagious', and this is hardly controversial if some kind of social phenomenon is in view. But 'contagious' still isn't the right word. 'Contagion' isn't the right word. It carries the wrong connotations and doesn't describe the reality of sin.
I respect, and almost enjoy the way your ingenious mind weasels its way out of anything I throw at you. But I sincerely and humbly disagree with it.
Sin has the characteristics of a contagion. If you want to define "contagion" as a strictly physical phenomenon, then you would have a point. But I'm referring to a "spiritual contagion."
And Sin has every mark of a contagion, even though it is spiritual. It is passed on, it affects others, and it has a nasty impact. It spreads and kills. Thus, it is a contagion *in my opinion!*
https://www.christianity.com/theology/sin/cured-from-the-contagion-of-sin.html
As scary as infectious diseases are, there’s a more deadly virus that you and I already have – the sin virus. As the 16th Century Reformer John Calvin wrote in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, “all of us, who have descended from impure seed, are born infected with the contagion of sin.”
-
No, I'm not a linguist. I raise the issue because my brother studies both Hebrew and Greek, and has cautioned me against using these kinds of fallacies.
Are such fallacies used in bliblical interpretation--all the time! That's why we are warned against using them. If you're a linguist, I apologize--I couldn't argue with you on an equal basis. But your "lexical approach" remains very suspect with me.
He's not committing an etymological fallacy because he's dealing with the Greek as it was understood at the time of the NT's authorship. That's what's relevant, by the way: the word as it was understood by the Biblical authors. All CONSPICULLUM is doing is explaining how the word is constructed, and what it means, and meant in the first century (and following). This is no more a fallacy than it would be to explain the parts of the word 'CONSPICULLUM'.
This isn't an instance of the fallacy your brother would have cautioned you against. There's nothing suspect about what CONSPICULLUM has written thus far. Your contagion language, on the other hand...
Exactly correct and brilliantly concise.
-
Sorry, the way he breaks up the word to force a particular meaning upon it is precisely what the fallacy suggests to me. I don't care how the component parts were grouped together to form the word originally. It is how the *word is used* that defines what it means--not its origins.
He's not breaking the word up to 'force a particular meaning'. It's a Greek word, and he's discussing how the Greek language constructs words, and what that word meant to the people who used it in the first century, and thus, what it means to us. That's just the nature of exegesis. Theologically, the word doesn't change. We want to know what the word originally meant so that we don't end up with a theological understanding of the word 'sin' that's improperly grounded.
If you wanted to discuss some kind of etymological fallacy then maybe you could entertain such a notion by contrasting Aristotle's use of the word in Poetics with the use of the word in Paul's writings. But no one is doing such a thing. The only way you can arrive at an etymological fallacy like the one you're concerned with is by affirming that the word can mean different things to different people, and for this to be theologically unproblematic. But that is very problematic indeed.
As to Sin being viewed as a spiritual contagion, this is hardly original with me. I was thinking for myself, but looking it up on the internet I had no problem finding great Christian minds describing and using the word "Sin" in just that way. So it's not just me you're dismissing!
Yes, and in 1999 Neo was the near-literal second coming of Christ according to most North American churches. But without having Google'd what I'd expect to find are a number of articles discussing how particular sins are 'contagious', and this is hardly controversial if some kind of social phenomenon is in view. But 'contagious' still isn't the right word. 'Contagion' isn't the right word. It carries the wrong connotations and doesn't describe the reality of sin.
Very well said, Brother.
-
No, I'm not a linguist. I raise the issue because my brother studies both Hebrew and Greek, and has cautioned me against using these kinds of fallacies.
Are such fallacies used in bliblical interpretation--all the time! That's why we are warned against using them. If you're a linguist, I apologize--I couldn't argue with you on an equal basis. But your "lexical approach" remains very suspect with me.
He's not committing an etymological fallacy because he's dealing with the Greek as it was understood at the time of the NT's authorship. That's what's relevant, by the way: the word as it was understood by the Biblical authors. All CONSPICULLUM is doing is explaining how the word is constructed, and what it means, and meant in the first century (and following). This is no more a fallacy than it would be to explain the parts of the word 'CONSPICULLUM'.
This isn't an instance of the fallacy your brother would have cautioned you against. There's nothing suspect about what CONSPICULLUM has written thus far. Your contagion language, on the other hand...
Sorry, the way he breaks up the word to force a particular meaning upon it is precisely what the fallacy suggests to me. I don't care how the component parts were grouped together to form the word originally. It is how the *word is used* that defines what it means--not its origins.
Humbly, I could be wrong. I just can't ask my brother right now. He's beyond reach, but I did email him about it. I'll let you know what he thinks, as well. Thanks.
As to Sin being viewed as a spiritual contagion, this is hardly original with me. I was thinking for myself, but looking it up on the internet I had no problem finding great Christian minds describing and using the word "Sin" in just that way. So it's not just me you're dismissing!
It should not be a surprise that I have little difficulty dismissing Calvin.
Although Calvin and Hobbes will forever be numero uno
-
No, I'm not a linguist. I raise the issue because my brother studies both Hebrew and Greek, and has cautioned me against using these kinds of fallacies.
Are such fallacies used in bliblical interpretation--all the time! That's why we are warned against using them. If you're a linguist, I apologize--I couldn't argue with you on an equal basis. But your "lexical approach" remains very suspect with me.
He's not committing an etymological fallacy because he's dealing with the Greek as it was understood at the time of the NT's authorship. That's what's relevant, by the way: the word as it was understood by the Biblical authors. All CONSPICULLUM is doing is explaining how the word is constructed, and what it means, and meant in the first century (and following). This is no more a fallacy than it would be to explain the parts of the word 'CONSPICULLUM'.
This isn't an instance of the fallacy your brother would have cautioned you against. There's nothing suspect about what CONSPICULLUM has written thus far. Your contagion language, on the other hand...
Sorry, the way he breaks up the word to force a particular meaning upon it is precisely what the fallacy suggests to me. I don't care how the component parts were grouped together to form the word originally. It is how the *word is used* that defines what it means--not its origins.
Humbly, I could be wrong. I just can't ask my brother right now. He's beyond reach, but I did email him about it. I'll let you know what he thinks, as well. Thanks.
As to Sin being viewed as a spiritual contagion, this is hardly original with me. I was thinking for myself, but looking it up on the internet I had no problem finding great Christian minds describing and using the word "Sin" in just that way. So it's not just me you're dismissing!
It should not be a surprise that I have little difficulty dismissing Calvin.
Although Calvin and Hobbes will forever be numero uno
Calvin and Hobbes over The Far Side?
On the Reformation/Calvin topic, how do you view the fact that Arminius was originally a Calvinist until the Remonstrance, and basically Calvinism IS the Reformation even though soteriology has dualized itself into a false dichotomy and lots of futility with endless argument over election, predestination, atonement, etc.
Philosophically, it’s not inaccurate to characterize Arminians as Calvinists, even with divergent doctrines. What say you on this mess?
-
He's not breaking the word up to 'force a particular meaning'. It's a Greek word, and he's discussing how the Greek language constructs words, and what that word meant to the people who used it in the first century, and thus, what it means to us. That's just the nature of exegesis. Theologically, the word doesn't change. We want to know what the word originally meant so that we don't end up with a theological understanding of the word 'sin' that's improperly grounded.
I asked my brother about this, since he is more astute on language than I am, and he seems to have agreed with me. He said:
I sent a screen shot from Thayer's Lexicon. It shows only the introductory paragraph, but that is actually followed by four (four!) definitions. None of these support what your forum writer claims.
While Thayer's is not the best lexicon, I think it suggests that the forum writer is committing the etymological fallacy (and possibly other fallacies) by arguing that a word must mean what definitions its constituent parts may have been assigned at some previous point in history.
Another clue to his argument being fallacious is that the meaning of a word depends upon its context and the way it is being used. To suppose that a word has a fixed meaning regardless of its use in a specific context is a "root fallacy," where a root meaning is assigned wherever the word is found.
-
Calvin and Hobbes over the Far Side everyday.
But I must say, Pearls Before Swine is a close close second. Just call me Pig at heart with Rat’s mind.
Arminius was not a Calvinist although he and Calvin agreed on much more than that on which they disagreed. Arminius was a reformer just as Calvin was a reformer. Both objected to much of the RCCs dogma and practice. Arminius simply didn’t like the dogmatic harshness of the way Calvin approached things as he agreed with much of the same Protestant/reformed theology coming from the Moravian’s, Zwingli, TIchendoff, etc, all the way back to John Hus. Calvin did not do himself any favors with his iron fisted approach to governance in Geneva.
Although Calvin was extraordinarily harsh in both word and practice, he was trying to be logically consistent even if the result was somewhat jarring to human understandings. Arminius simply explained things differently from a philosophical approach
Calvins followers were more Calvinist than Johnny boy was, and Arminius’ followers were far more critical and harsh anti-Calvin than Arminius ever dreamed of being.
-
Since I'm a Calvinist, in the way RK seems to describe it, but not a reader of Calvin and Hobbes, I thought I would cite Calvin to show that others who are much more prestigious than I am believed that sin is a contagion of sorts. What is so wrong with that? Should I find more sources? But in my experience on forums, no authority is beyond criticism. For what it's worth, I do believe in Free Will. ;)
-
Then you certainly are NOT a Calvinist…
-
He's not breaking the word up to 'force a particular meaning'. It's a Greek word, and he's discussing how the Greek language constructs words, and what that word meant to the people who used it in the first century, and thus, what it means to us. That's just the nature of exegesis. Theologically, the word doesn't change. We want to know what the word originally meant so that we don't end up with a theological understanding of the word 'sin' that's improperly grounded.
I asked my brother about this, since he is more astute on language than I am, and he seems to have agreed with me. He said:
I sent a screen shot from Thayer's Lexicon. It shows only the introductory paragraph, but that is actually followed by four (four!) definitions. None of these support what your forum writer claims.
While Thayer's is not the best lexicon, I think it suggests that the forum writer is committing the etymological fallacy (and possibly other fallacies) by arguing that a word must mean what definitions its constituent parts may have been assigned at some previous point in history.
Another clue to his argument being fallacious is that the meaning of a word depends upon its context and the way it is being used. To suppose that a word has a fixed meaning regardless of its use in a specific context is a "root fallacy," where a root meaning is assigned wherever the word is found.
Gasp. Two novices perused Thayer’s (seriously?) for 34 seconds and somehow didn’t become instant linguists, so they double down on Greek prefixes adjoined to Greek words being two different fallacies. LOL.
I’m not here to convice you of facts against your will and manufactured personal doctrines. Proceed as you were, sir.
-
Calvin and Hobbes over the Far Side everyday.
But I must say, Pearls Before Swine is a close close second. Just call me Pig at heart with Rat’s mind.
Arminius was not a Calvinist although he and Calvin agreed on much more than that on which they disagreed. Arminius was a reformer just as Calvin was a reformer. Both objected to much of the RCCs dogma and practice. Arminius simply didn’t like the dogmatic harshness of the way Calvin approached things as he agreed with much of the same Protestant/reformed theology coming from the Moravian’s, Zwingli, TIchendoff, etc, all the way back to John Hus. Calvin did not do himself any favors with his iron fisted approach to governance in Geneva.
Although Calvin was extraordinarily harsh in both word and practice, he was trying to be logically consistent even if the result was somewhat jarring to human understandings. Arminius simply explained things differently from a philosophical approach
Calvins followers were more Calvinist than Johnny boy was, and Arminius’ followers were far more critical and harsh anti-Calvin than Arminius ever dreamed of being.
A fair enough assessment. I just wondered how you perceived it all.
-
He's not breaking the word up to 'force a particular meaning'. It's a Greek word, and he's discussing how the Greek language constructs words, and what that word meant to the people who used it in the first century, and thus, what it means to us. That's just the nature of exegesis. Theologically, the word doesn't change. We want to know what the word originally meant so that we don't end up with a theological understanding of the word 'sin' that's improperly grounded.
I asked my brother about this, since he is more astute on language than I am, and he seems to have agreed with me. He said:
I sent a screen shot from Thayer's Lexicon. It shows only the introductory paragraph, but that is actually followed by four (four!) definitions. None of these support what your forum writer claims.
While Thayer's is not the best lexicon, I think it suggests that the forum writer is committing the etymological fallacy (and possibly other fallacies) by arguing that a word must mean what definitions its constituent parts may have been assigned at some previous point in history.
Another clue to his argument being fallacious is that the meaning of a word depends upon its context and the way it is being used. To suppose that a word has a fixed meaning regardless of its use in a specific context is a "root fallacy," where a root meaning is assigned wherever the word is found.
Gasp. Two novices perused Thayer’s (seriously?) for 34 seconds and somehow didn’t become instant linguists, so they double down on Greek prefixes adjoined to Greek words being two different fallacies. LOL.
I’m not here to convice you of facts against your will and manufactured personal doctrines. Proceed as you were, sir.
I'm not going to throw names and hurl insults at you. You can do that as you please. I don't manufacture personal doctrines. I interpret doctrines as I see them set forth in the Bible. How I explain them is a matter of using language that expresses how I understand them to help others understand them also.
I also try to understand theology as it has developed around the Bible in history, things like the Trinity, the Communion, and Predestination. I've long had a burden to understand these things. You seem offended by that, but that's your concern--not mine.
Saying that you're relying on fallacies is, I believe, accurate. I trust my brother on that because he's been studying Greek and Hebrew for some time now. If you think it's not applicable to you, fine. He's helped me to know these things. It might save you grief later on.
-
Then you certainly are NOT a Calvinist…
Yea, I understand. However, I had to say that I was [blank]. Calvin fit better than Luther and Arminius.
I do believe God predestined X number of children to live in His eternal Kingdom. How others got onto the earth is a matter of free human beings running wild, producing children that choose to reject God's wish for them to be in His Kingdom.
So yes, I don't really know what I am. I just know who the elect are when I see them.
-
I asked my brother about this, since he is more astute on language than I am, and he seems to have agreed with me. He said:
I sent a screen shot from Thayer's Lexicon. It shows only the introductory paragraph, but that is actually followed by four (four!) definitions. None of these support what your forum writer claims.
While Thayer's is not the best lexicon, I think it suggests that the forum writer is committing the etymological fallacy (and possibly other fallacies) by arguing that a word must mean what definitions its constituent parts may have been assigned at some previous point in history.
Another clue to his argument being fallacious is that the meaning of a word depends upon its context and the way it is being used. To suppose that a word has a fixed meaning regardless of its use in a specific context is a "root fallacy," where a root meaning is assigned wherever the word is found.
Thayer's huh? Well, this is a confusing stance either way. No one is arguing that hamartia "must mean what ... its constituent parts may have been assigned at some previous point in history". Thus, there is no 'root fallacy' either.
The argument isn't that 'harmatia' itself ought to be defined as privation, but that what it describes of the individual entails a privation. For instance, that the individual 'misses the mark' is the result of privation vis-a-vis (that individual's) separation from God's presence. The same could be said of any of the other ~7 definitions of ἁμαρτία.
It seems all you and your brother have done is look at the definitions of ἁμαρτία, and have argued from there that apparently nothing of privation is mentioned, so therefore some kind of fallacy is happening. But this misses the point noted above.
But how it was used in the 1st century, as "missing the mark," is not how the brother is implying it was used, as a "privation." The origin of the word, which seems to have emerged from a banishment from the Garden, explains the origins of the word, but not its meaning.
But that is the privation.
There is a long distance from "banishment from the Garden" to "missing the mark," and even from missing the mark to "rebelling against God's word." One explains the origin in which Sin took place. But Sin itself is historically the act in which Adam and Eve transgressed the word of God.
Therefore, Sin means to "rebel against God's word," and has nothing to do with the environment in which the word was originated. That is, it does not mean to "lose place in the Garden." It is not a "privation" in that sense, and never did mean that, in my opinion.
But I'm not going to prolong the discussion, because at this point I think we know where we stand. To me, the brother is, in fact, seeming to use a "Root Fallacy."
Whether it's an attempt to use an archaic meaning of the word as "losing the Garden," or trying to compose a new meaning of the word as "missing the mark," the idea is neither. It is "rebelling against God's word," and certainly not just "missing the mark."
This is as I see it a "Root Fallacy," or even a "Totality Fallacy," transferring somebody else's meaning of "Sin" into the standard NT meaning of the word.
This is all over the place. I think it's clear that you misunderstand what's being argued.
As to Sin being viewed as a spiritual contagion, this is hardly original with me. I was thinking for myself, but looking it up on the internet I had no problem finding great Christian minds describing and using the word "Sin" in just that way. So it's not just me you're dismissing!
I respect, and almost enjoy the way your ingenious mind weasels its way out of anything I throw at you. But I sincerely and humbly disagree with it.
Sin has the characteristics of a contagion. If you want to define "contagion" as a strictly physical phenomenon, then you would have a point. But I'm referring to a "spiritual contagion."
And Sin has every mark of a contagion, even though it is spiritual. It is passed on, it affects others, and it has a nasty impact. It spreads and kills. Thus, it is a contagion *in my opinion!*
https://www.christianity.com/theology/sin/cured-from-the-contagion-of-sin.html
As scary as infectious diseases are, there’s a more deadly virus that you and I already have – the sin virus. As the 16th Century Reformer John Calvin wrote in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, “all of us, who have descended from impure seed, are born infected with the contagion of sin.”
Calvin notwithstanding, do you describe passed down genetic traits as a 'contagion'?
-
Agenealogetos - from a- and genealogeo. Without a genealogy. (A privation or negation because of the prefix.)
Agnoeo - from a- and noeo. Not to know or recognize. (A privation or negation because of the prefix.)
Adiakritos - from a- and diakrisis. Without partiality. (A privation or negation because of the prefix.)
Adikos - from a- and dike. Without justice, unrighteous. (A privation or negation because of the prefix.)
Azumos - from a- and zume. Without leaven. (A privation or negation because of the prefix.)
Athanasia - from a- and thanatos. Without death, immortality. (A privation or negation because of the prefix.)
Athemitos - from a- and themitos. Without law, unlawful. (A privation or negation because of the prefix.)
Atheos - from a- and theos. Without God, godless. (A privation or negation because of the prefix.)
Akatharsia - from a- and kathaino. Without cleanness, unclean. (A privation or negation because of the prefix.)
Akakos - from a- and kakos. Without guile, harmless. (A privation or negation because of the prefix.)
Akatagnostos - from a- and katagnostos. Without blame, uncondemned. (A privation or negation because of the prefix.)
Akatastatos - from a- and kathistemi. Without stability, unsettled. (A privation or negation because of the prefix.)
Akeraios - from a- and kerao. Without mixture. (A privation or negation because of the prefix.)
Just a random sequential sampling of basic lexical entries in the A section. A- as a prefix is merely a privation or negation of whatever word it’s attached to. It’s a standard form of constructing stand-alone words for a meaning inverse to the word without the prefix.
This isn’t a fallacy of any kind. And anyone who would read a decent lexicon would see this in a matter of seconds. This isn’t rocket surgery. Clues can be bought at various stores. I suggest purchasing some. :)
-
Hamartia (sin) is a state of being and condition and it’s a privation or negation.
Sin is simply transgression of the law, which is what certain people accused our Lord of. They thought wrong.
-
I lack time for the moment. C. was the one arguing the "lexical approach," and you seemed to be defending him. Maybe you weren't? Here is what my brother just wrote me. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. It may help others, however. It has helped me.
Here’s some thoughts related to the post that are just off-the-cuff and may need some qualification or even revision:
1. Whenever is hear someone say what a word means, I think we have just set ourselves up for correction, because the answer must always be, “It depends.” It depends on how it is being used grammatically. It depends on how it is being used syntactically. It depends on how the context limits or selects from the word’s semantic range.
2. Words typically have a semantic range, i.e., multiple meanings. This is true for biblical languages as it is true for English. While this may seem obvious upon checking any dictionary or lexicon, it is easily forgotten for a number of reasons when arguing what a word means. One reason is that one meaning may be more familiar or more customarily found than other meanings for a given word to the degree that it seems the rule and other definitions merely an exception to the supposed rule.
Another reason is that in first-year language learning, such as with Spanish, you may be given just one (English) gloss to memorize. Most likely, it will be a gloss you are most likely to use in translating selected sentences or even words listed in a vocabulary quiz. However, advanced classes will eventually require the reader to learn different denotations and even connotations depending, of course, on how the words are being used in a sentence or, better, in a paragraph or chapter.
A third reason should also be added. For many years, the linguistic principles described above were not taught in seminaries or Bible colleges. Biblical languages were treated as sacred languages, where the words in the Bible in the original language were treated as if they had only one meaning, like Tolkien’s “ring that rules them all.” That meaning was often derived from a supposed etymology (a word’s etymology does not have the same inspired authority that the selected word in and of itself has in Scripture, since the etymology is the fruit of a fallible historian’s inquiry), and that became the sacred, inspired meaning of the word. This led to the etymological fallacy.
The “sacred” meaning was also applied to cognate words, leading to the root fallacy.
The “illegitimate totality transfer” that James Barr cited was where an entire theology was imported into the meaning of a word wherever it occurred. Similarly, DA Carson cited a similar fallacy where the entire semantic domain of a word was to be understood wherever a word was found in Scripture.
I’ve found examples of all of these fallacies being taught as a hermeneutical principle or a fundamental exegetical practice, and linguistic theory is dismissed as a merely human, even “liberal” enterprise that has no place in biblical studies. Many of the older commentaries feature these fallacies. A frequent target of Barr was Kittel’s Theological Dictionary.
-
Just a random sequential sampling of basic lexical entries in the A section. A- as a prefix is merely a privation or negation of whatever word it’s attached to. It’s a standard form of constructing stand-alone words for a meaning inverse to the word without the prefix.
This isn’t a fallacy of any kind. And anyone who would read a decent lexicon would see this in a matter of seconds. This isn’t rocket surgery. Clues can be bought at various stores. I suggest purchasing some. :)
Nobody would argue the purpose of the prefix "a." That isn't the point. The point has to do with defining what "sin" means. Whatever "a" qualifies, it doesn't make "sin" a "privation." "Sin" remains defined as "rebellion against God's word," or "disobedience."
-
Thayer's huh? Well, this is a confusing stance either way. No one is arguing that hamartia "must mean what ... its constituent parts may have been assigned at some previous point in history". Thus, there is no 'root fallacy' either.
On the contrary, that is exactly what C. seems to be arguing, that hamartia must mean what a-meros suggests, namely a "privation." What that "privation" is said to be is unclear to me.
The argument isn't that 'hamatia' itself ought to be defined as privation, but that what it describes of the individual entails a privation.
On the contrary, that is precisely what it seems was being claimed, that the structure of the word "hamatia" demands we accept its definition to mean "a privation." Are you now changing your mind, or did I misunderstand? Or are considering whether your "friend" C. has the same mind set on this? I'd like to think you are seeking the truth, and not just "taking sides?"
I mean, C. is so much less "friendly" than you are. If you agree with him, fine. But please don't adopt his attitude towards me! Thank you.
For instance, that the individual 'misses the mark' is the result of privation vis-a-vis (that individual's) separation from God's presence. The same could be said of any of the other ~7 definitions of ἁμαρτία.
That just proves my point. You are defining "missing the mark" as a word that must mean a "privation." That's not how it works, though. It could be true, but it isn't necessarily true. The word "hamatia" means what it means, as the author intends it to be understood, and how the word was constructed originally is of much less consequence.
But how it was used in the 1st century, as "missing the mark," is not how the brother is implying it was used, as a "privation." The origin of the word, which seems to have emerged from a banishment from the Garden, explains the origins of the word, but not its meaning.
But that is the privation.
No, the "privation" is how the word was constructed, a-meros--"not a part." It has little to do with what the word was originally intended to mean, nor what it meant for people in history. You are just looking at what may have been in the mind of those who invented the word. But what they intended the word to mean is borne out in how it is used throughout Scripture--not as a privation from a place, but rather, as disobedience to God's word.
This is all over the place. I think it's clear that you misunderstand what's being argued.
Or, it could be you who are failing to understand what's being argued? I don't claim to be a great communicator.
I respect, and almost enjoy the way your ingenious mind weasels its way out of anything I throw at you. But I sincerely and humbly disagree with it.
Sin has the characteristics of a contagion. If you want to define "contagion" as a strictly physical phenomenon, then you would have a point. But I'm referring to a "spiritual contagion."
And Sin has every mark of a contagion, even though it is spiritual. It is passed on, it affects others, and it has a nasty impact. It spreads and kills. Thus, it is a contagion *in my opinion!*
https://www.christianity.com/theology/sin/cured-from-the-contagion-of-sin.html
As scary as infectious diseases are, there’s a more deadly virus that you and I already have – the sin virus. As the 16th Century Reformer John Calvin wrote in his Institutes of the Christian Religion, “all of us, who have descended from impure seed, are born infected with the contagion of sin.”
Calvin notwithstanding, do you describe passed down genetic traits as a 'contagion'?
That's probably what has made discussion of Sin as a "contagion" difficult. It doesn't operate strictly likely physical contagions. Therefore, I refer to it as a "spiritual contagion." It is not passed on through physical DNA. Rather, it is passed down through the generations by *spiritual means.* It's above my pay grade to explain how that happens. And I suspect most scientists would have a problem with it as well? ;)
-
I sure hope you guys figure out what sin means, because I’m feeling like an arrow aimed at the bullseye but hitting 8 inches low and 12 inches to the left.
-
I sure hope you guys figure out what sin means, because I’m feeling like an arrow aimed at the bullseye but hitting 8 inches low and 12 inches to the left.
Singular anarthrous hamartia is the state of being and condition that is “archerlessness”. Aiming and shooting is irrelevant. Sin means an archer could be sleeping or sitting without a bow or arrows and couldn’t awake and stand up to take bow and arrows to hit the target.
English speakers don’t understand the noun and think everything is the verb (hamartano) and its resulting acts (hamartema/ta). Hamartia isn’t a verb. Bows and arrows are secondary to the state of being wherein they can’t be effectively wielded anyway because of what’s ontologically missing in the archer.
That’s why it’s to be understood as a privation or negation.
-
Ah, I knew you could get there using words even I could understand!!!
🤭
Nicely done.
-
Ah, I knew you could get there using words even I could understand!!!
🤭
Nicely done.
B-b-b-b-but I said ontology and some other schtuff. :D
Most spend their days trying to shoot better; to become a better archer. The truth is that no one has an “archerness” in them. A life of futile works ensues. This is modern western Christianity. Do more. Pray harder. Believe better. Never understanding the noun that produces the actions is the problem.
Metamelomai is not metanoia (which is a noun; an anarthrous noun).
-
I had one of those once; you should get a doctor to look at it.
😀
In a church and society that understand only performance based love, this is the outcome. Very true
-
I had one of those once; you should get a doctor to look at it.
😀
In a church and society that understand only performance based love, this is the outcome. Very true
Indeed.
-
I sure hope you guys figure out what sin means, because I’m feeling like an arrow aimed at the bullseye but hitting 8 inches low and 12 inches to the left.
I don't have anything to figure out, personally, because Sin means rebelling against God's word. The 1st sin in the Bible was an act of defiance against God's command.
That's what sin is. It has nothing to do with the construction of the word, suggesting the loss of a place, or some such thing. It has nothing to do with missing the mark. These are just ideas from which the word originated.
It is the application of the word that determines its meaning, ie how the word is meant to be used. It is rebellion against God's word, specifically, or disobedience to God's word.
Nothing ambiguous about this. Entering the idea of "privation" confuses the matter, and makes the construction of the word pivotal to the definition. And I respectfully believe that is wrong.
-
On the contrary, that is exactly what C. seems to be arguing, that hamartia must mean what a-meros suggests, namely a "privation." What that "privation" is said to be is unclear to me.
You're not clear on what's being argued.
No one is arguing that hamartia "must mean what ... its constituent parts may have been assigned at some previous point in history". This is to suggest that hamartia is being defined differently today than it was in the past and that someone is arguing that hamartia actually ought to mean what it meant in the past. Again, theologically, the language doesn't change. We want to know what hamartia meant to the first-century writer who used it.
The argument, rather, is to take ἁμαρτία and its various definitions:
- to be without a share in;
- to miss the mark;
- to err, be mistaken;
- to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong
And ask what lies at the foundation: what is it about ἁμαρτία that causes someone to be without a share, or to miss the mark, to err, to be mistaken, etc. What relevance is ἁμαρτία to the hero's tragic flaw? It's not just heroes that have tragic flaws.
Pointing out that the word is negative in construction with respect to μηρός (meros) is part of that investigation. This is hardly controversial. There's no disagreement with the definition of the word because the constituent parts lead us to exactly the definitions above (ἁ-μηρός: without a part, without a share, without a portion...). But those are just definitions. The question concerns the reality this word describes? It's negative, for one. If it's a privation, maybe it's the privation of the part or share of something (like the beatific vision)?
The struggle is realising that ancient Greek isn't modern English, with our neat couple of word definitions. There's more to the idea of hamartia than what the literal definition conveys, and that's what we're getting at.
On the contrary, that is precisely what it seems was being claimed, that the structure of the word "hamatia" demands we accept its definition to mean "a privation." Are you now changing your mind, or did I misunderstand? Or are considering whether your "friend" C. has the same mind set on this? I'd like to think you are seeking the truth, and not just "taking sides?"
I mean, C. is so much less "friendly" than you are. If you agree with him, fine. But please don't adopt his attitude towards me! Thank you.
My understanding is that hamartia is being defined as above and that these definitions then entail privation. We're not immediately defining hamartia as a privation; that is, defining the word.
That just proves my point. You are defining "missing the mark" as a word that must mean a "privation." That's not how it works, though. It could be true, but it isn't necessarily true. The word "hamatia" means what it means, as the author intends it to be understood, and how the word was constructed originally is of much less consequence.
This doesn't make sense.
I'm not defining 'missing the mark' as 'privation', as if I'm defining hamartia, and then its definition a second time. I'm suggesting that the definition entails a privation upon examination, i.e., to stop at 'missing the mark' doesn't convey the full sense of the word.
Of course, the word 'hamartia' means what it means. But what is this, "it could be true, but it isn't necessarily true"? It could be true that hamartia entails a privation but not necessarily? Why?
No, the "privation" is how the word was constructed, a-meros--"not a part." It has little to do with what the word was originally intended to mean, nor what it meant for people in history. You are just looking at what may have been in the mind of those who invented the word. But what they intended the word to mean is borne out in how it is used throughout Scripture--not as a privation from a place, but rather, as disobedience to God's word.
Well, a-meros is negative, and that negative entails a privation by the very example you used: to not be a part of something. That has everything to do with how the word was used in antiquity. What if that 'not a part' is 'not a part of God's presence'? Why would someone who sins not be a part of God's presence? We again have a privation.
Or, it could be you who are failing to understand what's being argued?
That's always possible.
That's probably what has made discussion of Sin as a "contagion" difficult. It doesn't operate strictly likely physical contagions. Therefore, I refer to it as a "spiritual contagion." It is not passed on through physical DNA. Rather, it is passed down through the generations by *spiritual means.* It's above my pay grade to explain how that happens. And I suspect most scientists would have a problem with it as well? ;)
So why not just call it a 'spiritual inheritance'?
I don't have anything to figure out, personally, because Sin means rebelling against God's word. The 1st sin in the Bible was an act of defiance against God's command.
That's what sin is. It has nothing to do with the construction of the word, suggesting the loss of a place, or some such thing. It has nothing to do with missing the mark. These are just ideas from which the word originated.
It is the application of the word that determines its meaning, ie how the word is meant to be used. It is rebellion against God's word, specifically, or disobedience to God's word.
Nothing ambiguous about this. Entering the idea of "privation" confuses the matter, and makes the construction of the word pivotal to the definition. And I respectfully believe that is wrong.
You might need to figure out why you're confusing a narrative for a word.
-
I sure hope you guys figure out what sin means....
sin is the transgression of the law. 1Jn.3:4
So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin. Jas.4:17
-
On the contrary, that is exactly what C. seems to be arguing, that hamartia must mean what a-meros suggests, namely a "privation." What that "privation" is said to be is unclear to me.
You're not clear on what's being argued.
No one is arguing that hamartia "must mean what ... its constituent parts may have been assigned at some previous point in history". This is to suggest that hamartia is being defined differently today than it was in the past and that someone is arguing that hamartia actually ought to mean what it meant in the past. Again, theologically, the language doesn't change. We want to know what hamartia meant to the first-century writer who used it.
The argument, rather, is to take ἁμαρτία and its various definitions:
- to be without a share in;
- to miss the mark;
- to err, be mistaken;
- to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong
And ask what lies at the foundation: what is it about ἁμαρτία that causes someone to be without a share, or to miss the mark, to err, to be mistaken, etc. What relevance is ἁμαρτία to the hero's tragic flaw? It's not just heroes that have tragic flaws.
Pointing out that the word is negative in construction with respect to μηρός (meros) is part of that investigation. This is hardly controversial. There's no disagreement with the definition of the word because the constituent parts lead us to exactly the definitions above (ἁ-μηρός: without a part, without a share, without a portion...). But those are just definitions. The question concerns the reality this word describes? It's negative, for one. If it's a privation, maybe it's the privation of the part or share of something (like the beatific vision)?
The struggle is realising that ancient Greek isn't modern English, with our neat couple of word definitions. There's more to the idea of hamartia than what the literal definition conveys, and that's what we're getting at.
On the contrary, that is precisely what it seems was being claimed, that the structure of the word "hamatia" demands we accept its definition to mean "a privation." Are you now changing your mind, or did I misunderstand? Or are considering whether your "friend" C. has the same mind set on this? I'd like to think you are seeking the truth, and not just "taking sides?"
I mean, C. is so much less "friendly" than you are. If you agree with him, fine. But please don't adopt his attitude towards me! Thank you.
My understanding is that hamartia is being defined as above and that these definitions then entail privation. We're not immediately defining hamartia as a privation; that is, defining the word.
That just proves my point. You are defining "missing the mark" as a word that must mean a "privation." That's not how it works, though. It could be true, but it isn't necessarily true. The word "hamatia" means what it means, as the author intends it to be understood, and how the word was constructed originally is of much less consequence.
This doesn't make sense.
I'm not defining 'missing the mark' as 'privation', as if I'm defining hamartia, and then its definition a second time. I'm suggesting that the definition entails a privation upon examination, i.e., to stop at 'missing the mark' doesn't convey the full sense of the word.
Of course, the word 'hamartia' means what it means. But what is this, "it could be true, but it isn't necessarily true"? It could be true that hamartia entails a privation but not necessarily? Why?
No, the "privation" is how the word was constructed, a-meros--"not a part." It has little to do with what the word was originally intended to mean, nor what it meant for people in history. You are just looking at what may have been in the mind of those who invented the word. But what they intended the word to mean is borne out in how it is used throughout Scripture--not as a privation from a place, but rather, as disobedience to God's word.
Well, a-meros is negative, and that negative entails a privation by the very example you used: to not be a part of something. That has everything to do with how the word was used in antiquity. What if that 'not a part' is 'not a part of God's presence'? Why would someone who sins not be a part of God's presence? We again have a privation.
Or, it could be you who are failing to understand what's being argued?
That's always possible.
That's probably what has made discussion of Sin as a "contagion" difficult. It doesn't operate strictly likely physical contagions. Therefore, I refer to it as a "spiritual contagion." It is not passed on through physical DNA. Rather, it is passed down through the generations by *spiritual means.* It's above my pay grade to explain how that happens. And I suspect most scientists would have a problem with it as well? ;)
So why not just call it a 'spiritual inheritance'?
I don't have anything to figure out, personally, because Sin means rebelling against God's word. The 1st sin in the Bible was an act of defiance against God's command.
That's what sin is. It has nothing to do with the construction of the word, suggesting the loss of a place, or some such thing. It has nothing to do with missing the mark. These are just ideas from which the word originated.
It is the application of the word that determines its meaning, ie how the word is meant to be used. It is rebellion against God's word, specifically, or disobedience to God's word.
Nothing ambiguous about this. Entering the idea of "privation" confuses the matter, and makes the construction of the word pivotal to the definition. And I respectfully believe that is wrong.
You might need to figure out why you're confusing a narrative for a word.
The very simple point missed is that hamartia is a noun. English speakers are clueless about anarthrous nouns because English doesn’t have them while ALL Greek nouns are anarthous (to which may be added the definite article). This means English speakers mentally and conceptually convert nouns into verbs by default. Faith becomes believING. Sin becomes sinnING. Repentance becomes repentING.
Things do. Nouns verb. All action comes from a “thing”. Without “things” (nouns) there would be no acting or resulting acts. Sin (the state of being and condition, which is a lack as privation) is what produces sinning and sins. That which is missing in us is why we can’t bring forth the righteousness of God into action. We can’t even validly try. It’s impossible. The source of all action within us has something missing. Our share in constant communion (spiritual life - zoe) is gone.
Our place in our first estate is gone. Our part in the cosmos as it was originally created is not present within us. We have fallen from those things. They’re missing. Resurrection life in Christ is what provides what is missing, though the full share, part, and place will only finally be restored after this physical life. We have the earnest of the inheritance until redemption of the purchased possession.
SinnING is not hamartia. Hamartia is that state of being and condition from which actING comes that is sinnING. Any resulting post-action act is hamartema. The argument among the masses is always because they presume hamartano and hamartema are hamartia.
Transgression of the law and rebellion against God are actING. They’re not the noun that is sin. They come FROM that noun, which is the source. That which is not of faith is sin. That’s a source statement in scripture about the nouns, not the verbs.
The arguments against this multi-faceted truth about hamartia are sin. Whatever ponderance that has led up to the denial of sin as a privation is… sin. Every false doctrinal concept is… sin.
Romans 10:17 is a prime example of anarthrous nouns not being understood. “So then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.” Hearing is a NOUN. It’s the thing heard; the message, the report. And it’s ARTICULAR (just as faith is in this passage), meaning there’s only THE message/report that brings THE faith. The article is particularizing the vast meaning of each noun’s default semantic range. THIS faith comes out of/from (ek) THIS message, which comes by means of [the] Rhema (anarthrous, not articular) of God.
If there’s another qualitative rhema (other words from another source) and another message, then it will be another faith (confident persuasion). That’s why these guys argue so vehemently for error. They believe a message that is from linguistic error and it becomes a false device (noema - concept of the mind) of Satan. They’ll double down on whatever report/message they think they’ve heard with a zeal of God but not according to knowledge (epiginosko, not merely ginosko).
This affects everything theological. Turning nouns into verbs and having no clue what words mean is the modern realized recipe for schism and rampant error of individual interpretation and divergent doctrine. I’ve become fairly convinced that the English lack of anarthrous nouns will send more people to hell in unbelief and trusting their own works than any other primary source of faithlessnes. English privates faith because anarthrous nouns are missing. It’s maddening, and I watch it unfold with virtually everyone as they refuse to listen to truth because they think they’ve already reasoned it for themselves internally. Triple sigh.
-
On the contrary, that is exactly what C. seems to be arguing, that hamartia must mean what a-meros suggests, namely a "privation." What that "privation" is said to be is unclear to me.
You're not clear on what's being argued.
No one is arguing that hamartia "must mean what ... its constituent parts may have been assigned at some previous point in history". This is to suggest that hamartia is being defined differently today than it was in the past and that someone is arguing that hamartia actually ought to mean what it meant in the past. Again, theologically, the language doesn't change. We want to know what hamartia meant to the first-century writer who used it.
I agree with what you're saying up to this point. Hamartia is the word as it's intended to be understood. As I said, the construction of the word has little to do with it.
The argument, rather, is to take ἁμαρτία and its various definitions:
- to be without a share in;
- to miss the mark;
- to err, be mistaken;
- to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong
And ask what lies at the foundation: what is it about ἁμαρτία that causes someone to be without a share, or to miss the mark, to err, to be mistaken, etc. What relevance is ἁμαρτία to the hero's tragic flaw? It's not just heroes that have tragic flaws.
Yes, and this is my point. Sin means disobedience to God's word, and so, any "helpful" definitions of hamartia, such as "missing the mark," can only make sense in the context of disobedience to God's word.
My point is that "missing the mark" alone has nothing to do with defining what hamartia means. It only *helps* us to understand some sense of what disobedience is. Perhaps that is all you've been trying to say?
I don't believe we can say hamartia means, as a definition, "missing the mark." We can only say hamartia means disobedience to God's word.
If we thought that hamartia was purely "missing the mark," someone may start to think sin is only about perfection, which is only part of the idea. We fall short of God's glory, but we still have the obligation to obey God's word, whether we're perfect or not. Sin has to do with not obeying God's voice in our conscience, despite the fact we're imperfect. (Discussion of the meaning of "perfection" is another subject altogether!)
Pointing out that the word is negative in construction with respect to μηρός (meros) is part of that investigation. This is hardly controversial. There's no disagreement with the definition of the word because the constituent parts lead us to exactly the definitions above (ἁ-μηρός: without a part, without a share, without a portion...). But those are just definitions. The question concerns the reality this word describes? It's negative, for one. If it's a privation, maybe it's the privation of the part or share of something (like the beatific vision)?
Again, that's defining a word based on its construction, and not on how the word is used. I mean, sin is partly used as a privation, as being somewhat separate from God's glory, and it is spoken of as the lack of perfection, such as "missing the mark." But I don't wish to define words based on their construction, because it can be misleading, or perhaps limit the scope of the word to just one aspect of its meaning. That's why I avoid using the word "privation."
The struggle is realising that ancient Greek isn't modern English, with our neat couple of word definitions. There's more to the idea of hamartia than what the literal definition conveys, and that's what we're getting at.
Well, I'm not proficient in Greek by any means. My brother is who I go to, because not only does he study Greek but he knows a genuine Greek scholar or two. I hesitate to ask him now because he has a serious case of glaucoma.
My brother doesn't blink an eye if he disagrees with me. We've had many disagreements. But I respect his opinions and the way he argues them. He's a text person. He may even agree with you that hamartia is a "privation." ;)
My understanding is that hamartia is being defined as above and that these definitions then entail privation. We're not immediately defining hamartia as a privation; that is, defining the word.
Okay, I guess...
The word "hamatia" means what it means, as the author intends it to be understood, and how the word was constructed originally is of much less consequence.
This doesn't make sense.
The word, as constructed, means something like "not having a place," such as being deprived of Eden. But the word itself is defined as "disobedience to God's word."
The literal meaning of the word "as constructed" does not give the meaning of the word "as used." It may explain the origin of the word, ie the circumstances by which the word was appropriated. But in reality it has nothing to do with a "place" or "not having a place."
It is roughly the equivalent, I think, of turning a regular noun into a proper noun. Or, it might be like using a common word and turning the word to a primary use in a specific technical definition. Sin may have started out as meaning a generic mistake or accident. But at some point it may have acquired a more technical definition as "disobeying God's word."
I'm not defining 'missing the mark' as 'privation', as if I'm defining hamartia, and then its definition a second time. I'm suggesting that the definition entails a privation upon examination, i.e., to stop at 'missing the mark' doesn't convey the full sense of the word.
Yes, "missing the mark" may convey less than what the word was designed to convey. To define the word as "missing the mark" therefore is an aid to understanding how the word was devised, but does not add to the definition of the word.
It may, however, help us understand how the word came about and thus contribute to the general context in which the word "sin" is used. It has to do with disobeying God, having lost our place in Paradise.
Of course, the word 'hamartia' means what it means. But what is this, "it could be true, but it isn't necessarily true"? It could be true that hamartia entails a privation but not necessarily? Why?
Hamartia indicates disobedience to God's word, and as such, could be the cause of depriving us of God's blessings, just as the original sin caused Adam and Eve to lose their place in Paradise. So yes, privation could be part of the definition, although using that as a definition for hamartia could be misleading.
It is not strictly "missing the mark," or falling short in an archery contest. But referring to it as such does help us understand that disobeying God's word is a matter of falling below God's standard of perfection.
But sin obviously is more than just falling below the standard of perfection. God certainly doesn't expect sinless perfection. He only expects us to obey His word.
Well, a-meros is negative, and that negative entails a privation by the very example you used: to not be a part of something. That has everything to do with how the word was used in antiquity. What if that 'not a part' is 'not a part of God's presence'? Why would someone who sins not be a part of God's presence? We again have a privation.
I'm not sure the word was even used as such in antiquity. Again, that is just the construction of the word. I could use a word constructed to indicate one thing and then design and use the word with a completely different more technical meaning.
For all I know, sin was used in antiquity for any flub up, whether falling down, or accidentally killing someone. It may have had little to do with God at all. But the point is, it came to have a technical definition not corresponding exactly to this idea of mistakes and accidents.
It came to mean, definitively, disobedience to God's word. We just don't know how the word developed, but we do know how the word is used biblically. It's obtained a technical definition that the Bible uses consistently for failing to adhere to God's voice in our conscience.
That's probably what has made discussion of Sin as a "contagion" difficult. It doesn't operate strictly likely physical contagions. Therefore, I refer to it as a "spiritual contagion." It is not passed on through physical DNA. Rather, it is passed down through the generations by *spiritual means.* It's above my pay grade to explain how that happens. And I suspect most scientists would have a problem with it as well? ;)
So why not just call it a 'spiritual inheritance'?
I do call it that. Contagion helps me to understand that we're not just dirty villains--we're also victims.
I appreciate the gracious spirit you've exhibited in this disagreement/misunderstanding. Thanks for entertaining a different perspective. That's what it's all about.
-
The very simple point missed is that hamartia is a noun. English speakers are clueless about anarthrous nouns because English doesn’t have them while ALL Greek nouns are anarthous (to which may be added the definite article). This means English speakers mentally and conceptually convert nouns into verbs by default. Faith becomes believING. Sin becomes sinnING. Repentance becomes repentING.
Things do. Nouns verb. All action comes from a “thing”. Without “things” (nouns) there would be no acting or resulting acts. Sin (the state of being and condition, which is a lack as privation) is what produces sinning and sins. That which is missing in us is why we can’t bring forth the righteousness of God into action. We can’t even validly try. It’s impossible. The source of all action within us has something missing. Our share in constant communion (spiritual life - zoe) is gone.
Our place in our first estate is gone. Our part in the cosmos as it was originally created is not present within us. We have fallen from those things. They’re missing. Resurrection life in Christ is what provides what is missing, though the full share, part, and place will only finally be restored after this physical life. We have the earnest of the inheritance until redemption of the purchased possession.
SinnING is not hamartia. Hamartia is that state of being and condition from which actING comes that is sinnING. Any resulting post-action act is hamartema. The argument among the masses is always because they presume hamartano and hamartema are hamartia.
Transgression of the law and rebellion against God are actING. They’re not the noun that is sin. They come FROM that noun, which is the source. That which is not of faith is sin. That’s a source statement in scripture about the nouns, not the verbs.
The arguments against this multi-faceted truth about hamartia are sin. Whatever ponderance that has led up to the denial of sin as a privation is… sin. Every false doctrinal concept is… sin.
Romans 10:17 is a prime example of anarthrous nouns not being understood. “So then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.” Hearing is a NOUN. It’s the thing heard; the message, the report. And it’s ARTICULAR (just as faith is in this passage), meaning there’s only THE message/report that brings THE faith. The article is particularizing the vast meaning of each noun’s default semantic range. THIS faith comes out of/from (ek) THIS message, which comes by means of [the] Rhema (anarthrous, not articular) of God.
If there’s another qualitative rhema (other words from another source) and another message, then it will be another faith (confident persuasion). That’s why these guys argue so vehemently for error. They believe a message that is from linguistic error and it becomes a false device (noema - concept of the mind) of Satan. They’ll double down on whatever report/message they think they’ve heard with a zeal of God but not according to knowledge (epiginosko, not merely ginosko).
This affects everything theological. Turning nouns into verbs and having no clue what words mean is the modern realized recipe for schism and rampant error of individual interpretation and divergent doctrine. I’ve become fairly convinced that the English lack of anarthrous nouns will send more people to hell in unbelief and trusting their own works than any other primary source of faithlessnes. English privates faith because anarthrous nouns are missing. It’s maddening, and I watch it unfold with virtually everyone as they refuse to listen to truth because they think they’ve already reasoned it for themselves internally. Triple sigh.
Mann, Nietzsche was a philologist too and look what happened to him. It's no wonder!
Did you read Feser yet?
-
The very simple point missed is that hamartia is a noun. English speakers are clueless about anarthrous nouns because English doesn’t have them while ALL Greek nouns are anarthous (to which may be added the definite article). This means English speakers mentally and conceptually convert nouns into verbs by default. Faith becomes believING. Sin becomes sinnING. Repentance becomes repentING.
Things do. Nouns verb. All action comes from a “thing”. Without “things” (nouns) there would be no acting or resulting acts. Sin (the state of being and condition, which is a lack as privation) is what produces sinning and sins. That which is missing in us is why we can’t bring forth the righteousness of God into action. We can’t even validly try. It’s impossible. The source of all action within us has something missing. Our share in constant communion (spiritual life - zoe) is gone.
Our place in our first estate is gone. Our part in the cosmos as it was originally created is not present within us. We have fallen from those things. They’re missing. Resurrection life in Christ is what provides what is missing, though the full share, part, and place will only finally be restored after this physical life. We have the earnest of the inheritance until redemption of the purchased possession.
SinnING is not hamartia. Hamartia is that state of being and condition from which actING comes that is sinnING. Any resulting post-action act is hamartema. The argument among the masses is always because they presume hamartano and hamartema are hamartia.
Transgression of the law and rebellion against God are actING. They’re not the noun that is sin. They come FROM that noun, which is the source. That which is not of faith is sin. That’s a source statement in scripture about the nouns, not the verbs.
The arguments against this multi-faceted truth about hamartia are sin. Whatever ponderance that has led up to the denial of sin as a privation is… sin. Every false doctrinal concept is… sin.
Romans 10:17 is a prime example of anarthrous nouns not being understood. “So then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.” Hearing is a NOUN. It’s the thing heard; the message, the report. And it’s ARTICULAR (just as faith is in this passage), meaning there’s only THE message/report that brings THE faith. The article is particularizing the vast meaning of each noun’s default semantic range. THIS faith comes out of/from (ek) THIS message, which comes by means of [the] Rhema (anarthrous, not articular) of God.
If there’s another qualitative rhema (other words from another source) and another message, then it will be another faith (confident persuasion). That’s why these guys argue so vehemently for error. They believe a message that is from linguistic error and it becomes a false device (noema - concept of the mind) of Satan. They’ll double down on whatever report/message they think they’ve heard with a zeal of God but not according to knowledge (epiginosko, not merely ginosko).
This affects everything theological. Turning nouns into verbs and having no clue what words mean is the modern realized recipe for schism and rampant error of individual interpretation and divergent doctrine. I’ve become fairly convinced that the English lack of anarthrous nouns will send more people to hell in unbelief and trusting their own works than any other primary source of faithlessnes. English privates faith because anarthrous nouns are missing. It’s maddening, and I watch it unfold with virtually everyone as they refuse to listen to truth because they think they’ve already reasoned it for themselves internally. Triple sigh.
Mann, Nietzsche was a philologist too and look what happened to him. It's no wonder!
Did you read Feser yet?
I’ll take Nietzsche over many in the landscape of the modern western “church”, and that’s sad (though obviously an exaggeration). Why do you hate Philology? It’s the foundation for everything you’ve ever thought, said, read, or written. I don’t think you understand what Philology is if you have disdain for the discipline.
Nope, no Feser yet. I should read him tonight before it slips to a lesser priority by my forgetfulness.
-
Every one of the blind men and the elephant were blind
-
On the contrary, that is exactly what C. seems to be arguing, that hamartia must mean what a-meros suggests, namely a "privation." What that "privation" is said to be is unclear to me.
You're not clear on what's being argued.
No one is arguing that hamartia "must mean what ... its constituent parts may have been assigned at some previous point in history". This is to suggest that hamartia is being defined differently today than it was in the past and that someone is arguing that hamartia actually ought to mean what it meant in the past. Again, theologically, the language doesn't change. We want to know what hamartia meant to the first-century writer who used it.
I agree with what you're saying up to this point. Hamartia is the word as it's intended to be understood. As I said, the construction of the word has little to do with it.
The argument, rather, is to take ἁμαρτία and its various definitions:
- to be without a share in;
- to miss the mark;
- to err, be mistaken;
- to miss or wander from the path of uprightness and honour, to do or go wrong
And ask what lies at the foundation: what is it about ἁμαρτία that causes someone to be without a share, or to miss the mark, to err, to be mistaken, etc. What relevance is ἁμαρτία to the hero's tragic flaw? It's not just heroes that have tragic flaws.
Yes, and this is my point. Sin means disobedience to God's word, and so, any "helpful" definitions of hamartia, such as "missing the mark," can only make sense in the context of disobedience to God's word.
My point is that "missing the mark" alone has nothing to do with defining what hamartia means. It only *helps* us to understand some sense of what disobedience is. Perhaps that is all you've been trying to say?
I don't believe we can say hamartia means, as a definition, "missing the mark." We can only say hamartia means disobedience to God's word.
If we thought that hamartia was purely "missing the mark," someone may start to think sin is only about perfection, which is only part of the idea. We fall short of God's glory, but we still have the obligation to obey God's word, whether we're perfect or not. Sin has to do with not obeying God's voice in our conscience, despite the fact we're imperfect. (Discussion of the meaning of "perfection" is another subject altogether!)
Pointing out that the word is negative in construction with respect to μηρός (meros) is part of that investigation. This is hardly controversial. There's no disagreement with the definition of the word because the constituent parts lead us to exactly the definitions above (ἁ-μηρός: without a part, without a share, without a portion...). But those are just definitions. The question concerns the reality this word describes? It's negative, for one. If it's a privation, maybe it's the privation of the part or share of something (like the beatific vision)?
Again, that's defining a word based on its construction, and not on how the word is used. I mean, sin is partly used as a privation, as being somewhat separate from God's glory, and it is spoken of as the lack of perfection, such as "missing the mark." But I don't wish to define words based on their construction, because it can be misleading, or perhaps limit the scope of the word to just one aspect of its meaning. That's why I avoid using the word "privation."
The struggle is realising that ancient Greek isn't modern English, with our neat couple of word definitions. There's more to the idea of hamartia than what the literal definition conveys, and that's what we're getting at.
Well, I'm not proficient in Greek by any means. My brother is who I go to, because not only does he study Greek but he knows a genuine Greek scholar or two. I hesitate to ask him now because he has a serious case of glaucoma.
My brother doesn't blink an eye if he disagrees with me. We've had many disagreements. But I respect his opinions and the way he argues them. He's a text person. He may even agree with you that hamartia is a "privation." ;)
My understanding is that hamartia is being defined as above and that these definitions then entail privation. We're not immediately defining hamartia as a privation; that is, defining the word.
Okay, I guess...
The word "hamatia" means what it means, as the author intends it to be understood, and how the word was constructed originally is of much less consequence.
This doesn't make sense.
The word, as constructed, means something like "not having a place," such as being deprived of Eden. But the word itself is defined as "disobedience to God's word."
The literal meaning of the word "as constructed" does not give the meaning of the word "as used." It may explain the origin of the word, ie the circumstances by which the word was appropriated. But in reality it has nothing to do with a "place" or "not having a place."
It is roughly the equivalent, I think, of turning a regular noun into a proper noun. Or, it might be like using a common word and turning the word to a primary use in a specific technical definition. Sin may have started out as meaning a generic mistake or accident. But at some point it may have acquired a more technical definition as "disobeying God's word."
I'm not defining 'missing the mark' as 'privation', as if I'm defining hamartia, and then its definition a second time. I'm suggesting that the definition entails a privation upon examination, i.e., to stop at 'missing the mark' doesn't convey the full sense of the word.
Yes, "missing the mark" may convey less than what the word was designed to convey. To define the word as "missing the mark" therefore is an aid to understanding how the word was devised, but does not add to the definition of the word.
It may, however, help us understand how the word came about and thus contribute to the general context in which the word "sin" is used. It has to do with disobeying God, having lost our place in Paradise.
Of course, the word 'hamartia' means what it means. But what is this, "it could be true, but it isn't necessarily true"? It could be true that hamartia entails a privation but not necessarily? Why?
Hamartia indicates disobedience to God's word, and as such, could be the cause of depriving us of God's blessings, just as the original sin caused Adam and Eve to lose their place in Paradise. So yes, privation could be part of the definition, although using that as a definition for hamartia could be misleading.
It is not strictly "missing the mark," or falling short in an archery contest. But referring to it as such does help us understand that disobeying God's word is a matter of falling below God's standard of perfection.
But sin obviously is more than just falling below the standard of perfection. God certainly doesn't expect sinless perfection. He only expects us to obey His word.
Well, a-meros is negative, and that negative entails a privation by the very example you used: to not be a part of something. That has everything to do with how the word was used in antiquity. What if that 'not a part' is 'not a part of God's presence'? Why would someone who sins not be a part of God's presence? We again have a privation.
I'm not sure the word was even used as such in antiquity. Again, that is just the construction of the word. I could use a word constructed to indicate one thing and then design and use the word with a completely different more technical meaning.
For all I know, sin was used in antiquity for any flub up, whether falling down, or accidentally killing someone. It may have had little to do with God at all. But the point is, it came to have a technical definition not corresponding exactly to this idea of mistakes and accidents.
It came to mean, definitively, disobedience to God's word. We just don't know how the word developed, but we do know how the word is used biblically. It's obtained a technical definition that the Bible uses consistently for failing to adhere to God's voice in our conscience.
That's probably what has made discussion of Sin as a "contagion" difficult. It doesn't operate strictly likely physical contagions. Therefore, I refer to it as a "spiritual contagion." It is not passed on through physical DNA. Rather, it is passed down through the generations by *spiritual means.* It's above my pay grade to explain how that happens. And I suspect most scientists would have a problem with it as well? ;)
So why not just call it a 'spiritual inheritance'?
I do call it that. Contagion helps me to understand that we're not just dirty villains--we're also victims.
I appreciate the gracious spirit you've exhibited in this disagreement/misunderstanding. Thanks for entertaining a different perspective. That's what it's all about.
Before I fly the coop here, I have a simple question (for you AND others, I suppose). Why do you consider entertaining different perspectives to be “what it’s all about”? Why would gathering a diversity of distinct subjective opinions be any kind of priority? It seriously makes no sense to me, so this is a legit information question (lest you think it’s sarcasm).
Why would anyone in any field want to entertain endless differing perspective on their field of study or expertise or other endeavor? It’s baffling to me. Though I’ve thoroughly studied other religions, I don’t want to hear any of their proponents speak on the topic. Why would I want to know someone’s opinion instead of facts and truth?
That’s my write-in to the newspaper column for the week.
-
Every one of the blind men and the elephant were blind
Why do you presume Christians are blind when they’re given oida/eido knowledge/sight? I’ve never really seen the parallel to the 3 guys and the elephant. We don’t use our physical senses to know God. That was the fruit in the garden, you know. It was the tree of the knowledge (via physical senses) of good AND evil. They already knew good.
I don’t see any scripture or Holy Spirit activity paralleled with the 3 blind dudes. They were just groping a giant mammal. LOL.
-
And you are blind groping a man made philosophy cum science that satisfies your sense of correctness in the world. We all do the same
Any of us relying on our ability to figure it out is no different that the blind guys and the elephant
That was the entire point of the original 18th(?) / 19th century poem about the 5 guys (Hindustan, not Burgers)
All of us “see through a glass darkly”.
All of us believe (that’s a verb) and act (rats, another verb) according to the knowledge (non arthritic noun) and wisdom that God grants to us. There is nothing wrong with the study of philology but that study is neither the beginning nor ending of wisdom. Our ability to read, study, analyze, research etc is at the end of the day an exercise of our biochemical computation quasi hardware positronic mush brain that operates a software that no one understands, but which miraculously God is able to use and to them mysteriously communicate with our non meatsuit part.
No one here hates philology but then none of us here love gnostic special revelations either
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar
-
And you are blind groping a man made philosophy cum science that satisfies your sense of correctness in the world. We all do the same
Any of us relying on our ability to figure it out is no different that the blind guys and the elephant
That was the entire point of the original 18th(?) / 19th century poem about the 5 guys (Hindustan, not Burgers)
All of us “see through a glass darkly”.
All of us believe (that’s a verb) and act (rats, another verb) according to the knowledge (non arthritic noun) and wisdom that God grants to us. There is nothing wrong with the study of philology but that study is neither the beginning nor ending of wisdom. Our ability to read, study, analyze, research etc is at the end of the day an exercise of our biochemical computation quasi hardware positronic mush brain that operates a software that no one understands, but which miraculously God is able to use and to them mysteriously communicate with our non meatsuit part.
No one here hates philology but then none of us here love gnostic special revelations either
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar
The whole point of Philology-based understanding is to make sure none of the knowledge and iunderstanding is gnostic special revelation. It’s everything else that’s semi-gnostic, though that likely won’t process for you. How would you say that dealing exclusively with lexicography is “gnostic special revelation”?
That’s the real issue. Everything I’ve said (minus whatever hows and whys you don’t like from me personally) is explicitly the Word as given by infallible and inerrant inspiration. Turning nouns into verbs for theological concepts is problematic even if you can’t or won’t see it (I thought you did. Evidently not.). It takes no gnostic special revelation to spend years comprehending grammar and lexicography while putting aside one’s own interjected opinions that are contrary.
What’s gnostic is individual interpretation. Special revelation is one sect of Evangelicalism’s sacred moo-moos over other sects’ sacred moo-moos. Calvinists and Arminians at each others’ throats over fallacious Ordo Salutis arguments and an atonement false dichotomy. There’s your semi-gnosticism.
There’s no special revelation in actually knowing what a language and its words actually mean and say. English doesn’t do it as well as the original Biblical languages, and it takes a bit of work to find out why there are difficulties. Most simply don’t want to know and they want to read their NIVs on a middle school level while insisting anything more or else is “gnostic special revelation”.
And if you think a cigar is “just” a cigar, then I have some acquaintances (I don’t imbibe personally) who would like to school you on fat tobacco sticks. A cigar is never just a cigar. :D
-
The very simple point missed is that hamartia is a noun. English speakers are clueless about anarthrous nouns because English doesn’t have them while ALL Greek nouns are anarthous (to which may be added the definite article). This means English speakers mentally and conceptually convert nouns into verbs by default. Faith becomes believING. Sin becomes sinnING. Repentance becomes repentING.
Despite the fact I'm not well-acquainted with the Greek, this doesn't present a problem for me. I don't automatically turn nouns into verbs.
Things do. Nouns verb. All action comes from a “thing”. Without “things” (nouns) there would be no acting or resulting acts. Sin (the state of being and condition, which is a lack as privation) is what produces sinning and sins. That which is missing in us is why we can’t bring forth the righteousness of God into action. We can’t even validly try. It’s impossible. The source of all action within us has something missing. Our share in constant communion (spiritual life - zoe) is gone.
Sin can either be a noun or a verb, and we don't have to get them mixed up. What the noun means obviously will relate to what doing it is.
But I don't define the *noun* as a "privation." That is where the original word came from, but its technical meaning, which is what the Bible uses, is defined as opposing the word of God, or disobedience to God's word to our conscience.
Our place in our first estate is gone. Our part in the cosmos as it was originally created is not present within us. We have fallen from those things. They’re missing. Resurrection life in Christ is what provides what is missing, though the full share, part, and place will only finally be restored after this physical life. We have the earnest of the inheritance until redemption of the purchased possession.
While all that is true, it isn't the meaning of "sin." That is what happened when we sinned. "Sin" is not the state of having lost our share in paradise. It is the state of having rebelled against God's word. It is a condition, and, as I call it, a "sickness."
I wouldn't dispute that this sickness has caused us to be kept from a return to paradise. And it's the state of our being sinners that forces us to rely on Christ's grace to put our name back on that inheritance.
SinnING is not hamartia. Hamartia is that state of being and condition from which actING comes that is sinnING. Any resulting post-action act is hamartema. The argument among the masses is always because they presume hamartano and hamartema are hamartia.
Sorry, I don't think the tenses determine the meaning of the noun. And they don't impact the meaning when applied as a verb.
Transgression of the law and rebellion against God are actING. They’re not the noun that is sin. They come FROM that noun, which is the source. That which is not of faith is sin. That’s a source statement in scripture about the nouns, not the verbs.
It doesn't matter, as I said, if we're talking about the noun or the verb forms. They both relate to the meaning of the noun, as you appear to be suggesting.
But the point is, the noun means to rebel against God's word. It doesn't mean a "privation." The word may have evolved in a circumstance in which a privation occurred. Or, the rebellion against God's word may have led to a privation. But "sin" does not mean "privation." It is both a noun and a verb. A sin was committed, and the man sinned.
The arguments against this multi-faceted truth about hamartia are sin. Whatever ponderance that has led up to the denial of sin as a privation is… sin. Every false doctrinal concept is… sin.
I might agree that denial of the reality of sin is itself a sin. It would be a sin because it could be an act of rejecting God's word about sin. But I wouldn't say that disagreeing with your opinion is a sin. ;)
The point I wish to make here is that the act of rebelling against God's word may indicate a verb, or an action. But it can also be expressed as a noun, as an act of sin. Sin, therefore, whether noun or verb, expresses an act of defiance against God's word.
Romans 10:17 is a prime example of anarthrous nouns not being understood. “So then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.” Hearing is a NOUN. It’s the thing heard; the message, the report. And it’s ARTICULAR (just as faith is in this passage), meaning there’s only THE message/report that brings THE faith. The article is particularizing the vast meaning of each noun’s default semantic range. THIS faith comes out of/from (ek) THIS message, which comes by means of [the] Rhema (anarthrous, not articular) of God.
Well, I like this....a LOT! :) I don't think it bears any resemblance to what you're saying about hamartia, but it's good nonetheless and is worth thinking about.
There is a profound difference, as you suggest, between the message of faith and simply listening to God. You can listen all you want, but it doesn't mean beans if you don't get the message.
But as far as the sin committed in the garden, the action taken is what caused the noun to exist. It was rebelling against God that caused the sin condition.
-
Before I fly the coop here, I have a simple question (for you AND others, I suppose). Why do you consider entertaining different perspectives to be “what it’s all about”? Why would gathering a diversity of distinct subjective opinions be any kind of priority? It seriously makes no sense to me, so this is a legit information question (lest you think it’s sarcasm).
Why would anyone in any field want to entertain endless differing perspective on their field of study or expertise or other endeavor? It’s baffling to me. Though I’ve thoroughly studied other religions, I don’t want to hear any of their proponents speak on the topic. Why would I want to know someone’s opinion instead of facts and truth?
That’s my write-in to the newspaper column for the week.
Goodness, who would disagree with you? In an ideal world, we spend five minutes, and we all sing, "We are one in the Spirit, we are one in the Lord."
But this is a real world, and I'm hoping for congeniality, as we weave our way through our own stupid pride. We have a condition called "sin," and we have the grace to maneuver through it.
But it takes time. I'd be pleased if you stuck around, but the Lord's will be done.
-
I’ll take Nietzsche over many in the landscape of the modern western “church”, and that’s sad (though obviously an exaggeration). Why do you hate Philology? It’s the foundation for everything you’ve ever thought, said, read, or written. I don’t think you understand what Philology is if you have disdain for the discipline.
Nope, no Feser yet. I should read him tonight before it slips to a lesser priority by my forgetfulness.
I was referring to your repeated mention of hamartia being an anarthrous noun, suggesting that this is driving you mad - like another, famous philologist who was driven made (not really, but that's not the point) by his own work. I think philology is fascinating (the attitude you've brought with you, not so much), but weren't you flying the coop? You're free to change your mind if you play nice, but if you're going to say that you're going, then stick to your guns and go.
-
I’ll take Nietzsche over many in the landscape of the modern western “church”, and that’s sad (though obviously an exaggeration). Why do you hate Philology? It’s the foundation for everything you’ve ever thought, said, read, or written. I don’t think you understand what Philology is if you have disdain for the discipline.
Nope, no Feser yet. I should read him tonight before it slips to a lesser priority by my forgetfulness.
I was referring to your repeated mention of hamartia being an anarthrous noun, suggesting that this is driving you mad - like another, famous philologist who was driven made (not really, but that's not the point) by his own work. I think philology is fascinating (the attitude you've brought with you, not so much), but weren't you flying the coop? You're free to change your mind if you play nice, but if you're going to say that you're going, then stick to your guns and go.
I was just closing out existing convos that contained questions. I’m out.
-
So does anyone agree with me, that our Lord Jesus became "sin", in the sense of being thought of as sinful, or a law breaker in the minds of some (not all) of the Sanhedrin. And that he wasn't anything truly sinful to his Father?
-
So does anyone agree with me, that our Lord Jesus became "sin", in the sense of being thought of as sinful, or a law breaker in the minds of some (not all) of the Sanhedrin. And that he wasn't anything truly sinful to his Father?
Nope, I don't think anyone agrees with that at all that has posted so far on this forum.
-
So does anyone agree with me, that our Lord Jesus became "sin", in the sense of being thought of as sinful, or a law breaker in the minds of some (not all) of the Sanhedrin. And that he wasn't anything truly sinful to his Father?
I haven't really been following your arguments on this subject lately, so I'm not sure what you're saying? But I'll repeat what I believe, and you can compare with what you believe.
Clearly, the Scriptures indicate Jesus, in some way, "became sin." I personally think that is just writers' liberty and a manner of speaking. To be "made sin" is to either be made into a sinner, guilty as the rest of us, or to be a substitute for the punishment of sin. I think it is the latter, obviously, since Jesus was sinless and could never become an actual sinner.
Certainly, Jesus was a sinner in the minds of the Jewish leaders. He did not follow the Law in a conventional way, and they rejected the idea that Jesus could follow the Law as the Messiah, since they rejected the idea that he was the Messiah.
Jesus clearly had freedom above a Law that applies fixes for sinners, since he himself was not a sinner. He had no legal need to observe rituals of purification or rituals of atonement. He was the final atonement for sin, to provide a means for eternal life.
Seeing Jesus as a sinner clearly was not what Paul meant when he said Jesus "became sin." Paul was speaking of the act of atonement, in which Jesus stood in for sinners and experienced what they deserved to be punished for so that he could forgive all sin.
-
Nope, I don't think anyone agrees with that at all that has posted so far on this forum.
Originally posted by RandyPNW
I haven't really been following your arguments on this subject lately, so I'm not sure what you're saying? But I'll repeat what I believe, and you can compare with what you believe.
Clearly, the Scriptures indicate Jesus, in some way, "became sin." I personally think that is just writers' liberty and a manner of speaking. To be "made sin" is to either be made into a sinner, guilty as the rest of us, or to be a substitute for the punishment of sin. I think it is the latter, obviously, since Jesus was sinless and could never become an actual sinner.
Certainly, Jesus was a sinner in the minds of the Jewish leaders. He did not follow the Law in a conventional way, and they rejected the idea that Jesus could follow the Law as the Messiah, since they rejected the idea that he was the Messiah.
Jesus clearly had freedom above a Law that applies fixes for sinners, since he himself was not a sinner. He had no legal need to observe rituals of purification or rituals of atonement. He was the final atonement for sin, to provide a means for eternal life.
Seeing Jesus as a sinner clearly was not what Paul meant when he said Jesus "became sin." Paul was speaking of the act of atonement, in which Jesus stood in for sinners and experienced what they deserved to be punished for so that he could forgive all sin.
Thanks for clarifying. I don't understand many vocabulary words past the 70's 12th grade.
-
Thanks for clarifying. I don't understand many vocabulary words past the 70's 12th grade.
It's difficult regardless of your education. The Bible is an old set of documents, and we're far removed from its culture. The only thing we have in common is the spirituality and a very long continuous tradition of faith, along with the creeds.
It is a very common problem with Christian interpreters when reading Paul, or really any other authors of the epistles. They freely used language of the time, and it's up to us to translate.
To be "made sin" was likely Paul's way of speaking of how Jesus stood in for us, assuming the penalty as if he was a sinner, in order to forgive those who sinned against him. In this way he became an atoning sacrifice for all people in history, who sin with the same type of depravity as those who sinned against Jesus, in whatever degree we ourselves do that.
I mean we all sin. But every kind of sin was thrown at Jesus, whether greater or lesser, and *all* of it was proven to be forgivable. We only need to repent and follow him.
-
It's difficult regardless of your education. The Bible is an old set of documents, and we're far removed from its culture. The only thing we have in common is the spirituality and a very long continuous tradition of faith, along with the creeds.
It is a very common problem with Christian interpreters when reading Paul, or really any other authors of the epistles. They freely used language of the time, and it's up to us to translate.
To be "made sin" was likely Paul's way of speaking of how Jesus stood in for us, assuming the penalty as if he was a sinner, in order to forgive those who sinned against him. In this way he became an atoning sacrifice for all people in history, who sin with the same type of depravity as those who sinned against Jesus, in whatever degree we ourselves do that.
I mean we all sin. But every kind of sin was thrown at Jesus, whether greater or lesser, and *all* of it was proven to be forgivable. We only need to repent and follow him.
I agree with you that all manner of sin was committed against Jesus and that he will forgive the repentant.
It's because all people have sinned against God, no matter what time in history, that we aren't far removed from them, but it's in obeying our Lord that our knowledge of him grows,
If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. Jn.7:17
The meek will he guide in judgment: and the meek will he teach his way. Psa.25:9
Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the LORD: Hos.6:3
Isa.58:6-14 is how the scriptures are properly interpreted.
Since we are forgiven, any evil thing that unsaved people do to us is for correction, to teach us how our Lord wants us to behave toward the lost. Just as our Savior did, who himself needed no forgiveness. Words are important, but it's in following him that we come to understand more about God.
-
Amen to that, brother!