Did "Jesus literally change" w/declared righteous?!?

Status
Not open for further replies.

1Way

+OL remote satellite affiliate
Here is a critical presentation against what I (tentatively) understand Bob to be saying on his show “Do callers change” 1-30-2003.

http://kgov.com/BEL/2003/20030130-BEL021.mp3

I posted this post there, but no one responded. So, here’s it’s own thread in an updated version, I hope someone will take up the challenge.

**repost**

Perhaps I totally misunderstand what Bob intended. ?

As many of you know, I am an avid supporter of Bob Enyart, especially his bible teaching ministry. I find it rather astonishing that I am hard pressed to disagree with what I clearly understand he teaches. It’s usually over matters that I realize that I don’t fully understand the other things that must be going on in his mind. And remember how the context really alter things, we make a point while addressing one context in response to one question, and in another different context, and answering a different concern, we may say nearly the point in a seemingly contradictory way. So grace has been more than sufficient for all unclear matters.

Here are quotes and highlights from Bob’s show, “Do callers change?” dated Jan 30, 03.

Highlights and quotes.

- God became flesh and dwelt among us.”

“How about other changes with God, sticking with God the Son”

- Humility
- “And, then He suffered we know,”
- “And let me ask you a bible question,”

“Did God the Son, become sin for us, did He become a curse for us?”

(Dan) . . . And so he did change.

That’s how. . . He took our punishment, He took our sin upon Himself.

Now let me ask you. Dan, was it only a figure of speech, or did he really take our sin upon Himself?

(Dan) . . . It wasn’t a figure. . .

Right, absolutely.
And then, He took our sin upon Him, He was separated from the father, but Paul writes, He was justified in the spirit and reunited.

(Commercial break)

“So that while Jesus Christ became sin and became a curse, for us, the apostle Paul wrote to Timothy in 1st Timothy 3:16, that, that He was Justified in the Spirit. And justified is a change word, because Christ, ,,, and hay Dan, is this orthodox Christian teaching, that Jesus, took on the sin, He took our sin upon Himself, And He was separated from the Father, but then He was justified in the spirit, and now He is, Jesus Christ the righteous. Is that all orthodox? Ya, I think so.”

End Highlights and quotes.

Summary

He goes on to argue against classic immutability, so his argument from the start to the end was consistent in demonstrating change in God. And I agree, God changes. But he was trying to demonstrate that God the Son (really and personally) changed (not figuratively changed) when He was justified in the spirit, and then was considered “Jesus the righteous”.

It seems as though Bob is saying that there was a time when Jesus Christ (Himself) was not justified in the spirit, or as He said, “and now” (after the change of being justified in the Spirit) He is Jesus Christ the righteous. As though previous to that point, Jesus Christ was not always righteous or just?

If the change he is indicating was literal and real in the person of Jesus, that should necessarily mean that prior to the point that He was justified, He was NOT justified in the spirit, He was NOT Jesus Christ the righteous. And that just doesn’t make good sense to me.

Here are the verses Bob offered.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For He made Him who knew no sin [to be] sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Galatians 3:13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed [is] everyone who hangs on a tree"),

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory.

Here’s my perspective.

Our sin really personally and not figuratively separates us from God so much that we need a Savior.
I offer Heb 4:15, that Jesus (in His own being) was sinless. Jesus “taking on the sins of the world”, that really did happen, and Jesus really was punished for our sins, but this is not saying that Jesus (in His person, in His being) literally changed from “sinlessness” into being “sin”. Is Bob saying that when Jesus was separated from the Father (forsaken), that the separation (not personal disapproval) was because Jesus and sin had become one, or that sin had literally transferred from us into Christ, literally making Him as we were, separated from God because of our own personal sin? Because of that, we need a savior, did that mean that Jesus needed a savior too? Of course not, so the transfer of sin to Jesus is not accounted upon Himself as it was upon us.

Wait, can we separate sin from the sinner?
No one can actually or literally separate the sin from the sinner, even if you are forgiven, your sins will always be yours and yours alone. Yet when forgiveness happens, God makes “a change in “account” “for us”. And I think it’s in this same substitutionary way that Jesus “took on the sins of the world” and “became sin for us”, it was “on account” of the world’s sin that he really did do what He did. He “substituted” Himself for us, and God the Father “accounts” Jesus’ righteous account to all saved people’s account even though their sin remains with them, God sees Jesus’ righteous account covering over us, so our “account” is judged as righteous.

What’s in the formula “for us”?
The debt was paid by Him on our “account”. I believe that is why the scriptures keep saying “for us”, like when it says that Jesus became sin “for us”, and He became a curse “for us”. It’s a statement of relational action “on our account”, He substituted Himself “for us”, “on account of us”.

Literally becoming sin? Literally becoming an inanimate object?
Examine the claim of a person really becoming an inanimate object. Can anyone really and personally become “sin”? Sin is not something a free will moral agent can “become”, sin is something one can “do” or “be guilty of”, or “be forgiven of”, etc. So if you want to be sin, the closest you can really do is be guilty of, or be forgiven of, you can’t change yourself into being sin “itself”. It seems obvious then that the concept, becoming sin, is not a very literal phrase.

So all the way around, Jesus “becoming sin for us”, and “becoming a curse for us”, holds the idea of a relationship which is highlighted in the words, “for us”. God really hung on a tree, and God really took on our problem of sin by paying the debt because of His love in order to provide a means of justification, since we could never remedy the problem of the world’s sin. But does any of that mean that God the Son personally changed when He became sin for us or was justified in the Spirit?

Now, to be fair, I don’t know how to “best” explain Jesus “being justified in the spirit”, but I think it’s fair to say that it does not imply that previously “Jesus” Himself was personally less than just or righteous. Right?!? And if that is so, then why say that Jesus Himself literally changed when He was declared righteous, since there was no change in Jesus’ righteousness.

I’d suspect it has to do with Him taking on the punishment for the sins of the world (= becoming sin for us) and becoming a curse for us. God could not accept man because God is just and righteous and man was exceedingly unjust and unrighteous. And God the Son did not deserve to take our punishment, which was the greatest punishment possible. But the Son could make the payment, as long as the father accepted it. So I suppose Jesus being declared justified, would be the same as saying that God accepted His Son’s sacrificial offering for sins such that justification came to the world. Before Jesus was justified in the spirit, the world had to wait in hopes of eternal life. We who are saved are part of God, and our righteousness comes from Him, our redemption comes from Him. So perhaps God was declaring those who are identified in Jesus, as being justified in Jesus, being justified in the spirit.

Here’s an analogy that I hope proves helpful.
The richest man in the world was so rich, that he could pay off all the entire worlds debt and still be wealthy. So, one day he was in an especially giving and gracious mood and just decided to pay off all the debts of the world! And so he paid the world’s debt. Now, when it was all done, one could say, he took on the debt of the world, he became debt for us, and he suffered the pain of paying our debt like a curse from the terrible problem of the worlds huge dept. But, after the dept was paid for and accepted as payment in full, then the rich man (on account of the world) was declared debt free, He owed nothing to anyone, yet really, that really means that now the world owes nothing to anyone.

The world’s debt was because of bad financial dealings. But the rich man’s so called “debt” was simply self-imposed because of charity. In fact, if He wanted to, at the last minuet, and without any liability, he could have changed his mind and given back all the accounts of debt back to the world and said, I will not pay your debt, it’s a curse and a burden that is your and I do not accept it for myself. It’s not wrong to not pay off someone else’s debt, but it is right to pay off someone else’s debt if they so chose to do so, and if the debtor accepts the substitutionary payment arrangement.

No one but the debtors could forgive the debt. They could either say, ok, no one has paid your debt, but we’ve just decided to forgive all your debts. Which would really be the same as them paying off your debt for you, they did pay for the products or services that remained in debt. Or, someone other than the debtors could come in and pay the dept, and in either case, the debtors could all forgive all debt regardless of who paid it. That is how I understand God taking on the sins of the world and becoming sin for us. It is real, but it concerns our account and the actual sin is not transferred, so Christ becoming sin FOR US, represented no real change in Jesus. The change was that previously, He had not paid for the sins of the world, and God had not previously accounted Jesus’ sacrifice as payment in full. And because this change more so represents relationships, rather than Jesus literally becoming sin, it’s seem like a faulty example to use to sight God changing.

When God humbled Himself, He really changed in Himself, but when Jesus became sin for us, He did not literally become sin, it’s a statement of profound relationship and love for us, a change Jesus provided for our account.

Perhaps I misunderstand what Bob intended. ?

**end repost**


Thanks for your thoughtful consideration.
 
Last edited:

1Way

+OL remote satellite affiliate
Does everyone here just accept that Jesus changed becaues of being declared righteous? This change must mean that previously He was not declared righteous. Why, was it because He was somehow unrighteous? If not, and He was always righteous, and if that is the case, then what "so called change" happened IN JESUS because of being declared righteous?

Being declared righteous makes no difference in a person if that same person was always righteous. That would be like me going up to an eternally righteous God, and saying, God is righteous, what, as though prior to my declaration, He wasn't righteous?

So I don't get how it was that supposedly Jesus changed due to being declared righteous.

Hello out there, does anyone else understand my problem with what Bob is saying?
 

1Way

+OL remote satellite affiliate
Come on, don't be shy, how could Jesus Himself have changed by being declared righteous? In what way?
 

1Way

+OL remote satellite affiliate
Has anyone carefully considered what Bob has publicly taught on this issue?

On one hand, I would grant that Bob does believe that Jesus never sinned, but on the other hand, I have no idea in what way thinks that Jesus Himself literally changed when He was declared righteous.

Perhaps I’ll just have to go to Bob himself, if no one else is able to assist me on this issue.
 

1Way

+OL remote satellite affiliate
Oh no, not Zak – So then, in what way did Jesus change by being declared Jesus the righteous? Or are you just expounding nonsense from the peanut gallery?

Proverbs 24:9 The devising of foolishness [is] sin, And the scoffer [is] an abomination to men.

As to
"Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, "yes, gravity is real! I will have faith!"- Dan Barker
Truth does demand faith when it’s absolutely morally right and men constantly reject it to their own destruction.

Proverbs 24:11 Deliver [those who] are drawn toward death, And hold back [those] stumbling to the slaughter.

If we Christians (moral absolutists) were to take your advice, we should let every wicked and destructive thing happen without any resistance from us, because hay, who cares who believes in truth, who cares if the truth makes an eternal difference, belief in the truth is not important. But Zakath, we believers love God, and besides, we are awake, so we are not so dumb as to think that belief in the truth is not a moral issue. For all eternity, Christians will be able to console themselves that they heeded the word of God and averted their own destruction by trusting in and loving His truth, the truth that sets us free. And for all eternity, it will be unbelievers who imagined that somehow the truth is not a moral issue of eternal consequence, and that most obviously reject the truth (see the history of wicked man for more details).

2 Thessalonians 2:10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.


Thanks for the offering, but I was hoping for more of a productive and helpful response.
 

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Originally posted by 1Way
Oh no, not Zak – So then, in what way did Jesus change by being declared Jesus the righteous? Or are you just expounding nonsense from the peanut gallery?
(sound of peanut shells cracking...) Who me? ;)

I actually agree with you about the illogic of the OV position.

There, is that better? :D

As to Truth does demand faith when it’s absolutely morally right and men constantly reject it to their own destruction.
But I have yet to see anyone demonstrate something that is "abosolutely morally right". Knight's (and Enyart's) ridiculous hyperbole aside.

If we Christians (moral absolutists) were to take your advice, we should let every wicked and destructive thing happen without any resistance from us, because hay, who cares who believes in truth, who cares if the truth makes an eternal difference, belief in the truth is not important.
Actually if you Christians took our advice you wouldn't remain Christians very long, because you'd begin to think and determine your own moral truths.

Remember that OT story about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

Metaphorically speaking, the knowledge of good and evil is what separates man from dependence on the gods. With it, man "has become like one of us", to quote YHWH (Gen. 3:22). When you begin to determine what is right and wrong for yourself, you take that first step toward determining your own destiny and taking on personal responsibility.

Being responsible for one's own actions and thoughts is a frightening prospect. Too disturbing for most people to accept, hence the need for religions and all the moral rules that accompany them. With religion people can say, "I'm good because my holy book tells me to be that way." Without it people must say, "I'm good because I believe it is the way to be."
 

philosophizer

New member
1Way,

I think the message that might have been intended was not that Jesus was dubbed righteous and therefore wasn't righteous before. I think the intended message was probably that there was a point during the crusifixion when Jesus took the sin on Himself and changed to a temporary unrighteous state. He was righteous before then, and righteous after, but during that time He took on sin and became separated from the Father.

I think that's what they probably meant. I, however, do not agree. I don't think Jesus ever personally changed to an unjustified or unrighteous state. I liked your rich man analogy very much. I think you are on to something there.

Jesus took on the sin of the world. Does that mean that He had to change who He was? I don't think so. I could go change my clothes and put on a different shirt. Does that mean that I've changed who I am? No. I'm still me. I'm still the same person. Jesus clothed Himself in our sin and at that time, the Father could not look upon Him. He was still Jesus Christ, but he was covered and so was forsaken.

That's the real suffering that Jesus went through. The physical torments of crusifixion were undoubtedly painful. But that must be insignificant to that moment when God turned from him. That must have been pain more than anything we'll ever experience on this world.

But then after this "payment of our debts" the cloak of sin was removed and His righteousness was again exposed and justified in the Spirit.

So yeah, I agree with you. Jesus didn't necessarily have to "change" in order to accept sin and pay its wage.
 

1Way

+OL remote satellite affiliate
Philosophizer – Big sigh of relief, I’m not the only one who noticed this teaching as at least dubious. As to
(A) I think the message that might have been intended was not that Jesus was dubbed righteous and therefore wasn't righteous before. I think the intended message was probably that there was a point during the crusifixion when (B) Jesus took the sin on Himself and changed to a temporary unrighteous state. He was righteous before then, and righteous after, but during that time He took on sin and became separated from the Father.

(during that time He personally became unrighteous)
A and B present a contradiction, but I think you realize that. If Jesus was never personally unrighteous, then He could never personally become temporarily unrighteous. But I agree, that does seem to be what he was teaching, and that is why I have a problem with it.

As to
I think that's what they probably meant. I, however, do not agree. I don't think Jesus ever personally changed to an unjustified or unrighteous state. I liked your rich man analogy very much. I think you are on to something there.
Thanks. The idea of replacement or substitution is a prolonged theme in the bible. And God seems to be fond of sort of mixing Himself into affairs in such a way that sometimes seems misleading. Like hardening of Pharaoh’s heart for example, really Pharaoh’s heart was hard because of his own doing, God just strengthened and highlighted the issue, which forced his heart to harden even harder, that is, unless he would repent, but he didn’t. God makes it sound like he totally regretted making man, when His actions show that to some extent, He still wanted to make it all work out. So when we hear God say something, we have to understand why He said it, and if there may be some thick contextual truths that He assumes is presumed along with these somewhat unique divine statements.

As to
That's the real suffering that Jesus went through. The physical torments of crusifixion were undoubtedly painful. But that must be insignificant to that moment when God turned from him. That must have been pain more than anything we'll ever experience on this world.
I agree that the “taking on sin” was manifest in Jesus through His punishment and execution, i.e. it was a statement specific to justice, not simply a literal fact.

But I’d like to examine a phrase you used. Not to be contentious but to expound an interesting point. Jesus is God, He is fully God, yet as God the son He emptied Himself of some of His powers and such. But did Jesus ever empty Himself from being God? I don’t think so. You see, at the crucifixion, because God the father forsook Jesus, some seem to think that Jesus lost His divinity and died purely as a man and not as God. I haven’t studied this view out, but at this point, I disagree with that view rather firmly. I think that Jesus the Son of God was just as much God as God the Father is God, even after empting and humbling Himself, Jesus remained fully God. After all, it’s good and Godly to humble yourself and to suffer change in order to reach and hopefully save people.

So I would not say that “God” left Him at His death, it was He Himself (God the Son) who would cause Himself to rise on the third day(!), so if “God” could not be part of what happened to Jesus at His death, then we have great problems with what Jesus taught about Himself and His death. I suggest that “God the father forsaking Jesus” was more of a relational deal concerning “justice and sacrifice and unique personal responsibility” where the father had the terrible pain of not wanting anyone to die over sin, least of all His own son, and yet, Jesus had the responsibility of dieing for sinful people so that people could live forever with “God”, yet they were both untied together in purpose and righteousness and love.

God remained with Him, or else Jesus was not always fully God, He was sometimes only a man and not God. But again to your point, I fully agree, the taking on of the sins of the world was realized in Jesus by His punishment and pain and execution, He did not become less than righteous, that part must be figurative and substitutional.

Thanks much for your response.

*************
This sort of thing (error) is the last sort of thing I'd expect from Bob and His ministry. On the other hand, lets say that he has taught a thousands of individual teachings, probably more like tens or hundreds of thousands, , , , so one wrong teaching here or an occasional error there is really a pretty exceptionally terrific record. I am proud of Bob and His teaching ministry, he is a real inspiration.
*************
 
Last edited:

1Way

+OL remote satellite affiliate
Zakath – You’re a moron.

I agree that false religion is false, but your alternative is not an alternative, it’s the same problem of a man subjectively determining what he thinks is right and wrong.

1 Corinthians 14:38 But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant.
 
Last edited:

Zakath

Resident Atheist
Originally posted by 1Way
Zakath – You’re a moron.
That was profound.

Use an ad hominem insult to avoid dealing with the issues I raised.

What's the matter 1Way, have you lost your way?

I agree that false religion is false, but your alternative is not an alternative, it’s the same problem of a man subjectively determining what he thinks is right and wrong.
You haven't given any reason why you think that is problematic, merely asserted that it is so.

1 Corinthians 14:38 But if anyone is ignorant, let him be ignorant.
Well you've done a good job demonstrating you're ignorant so far.

Are you capable of discussion that goes beyond "You're a moron." "You're wrong because I say so." ???
 

1Way

+OL remote satellite affiliate
Zak - Sorry, now I stand corrected, Your a willfully ignorant moron.

Ya just can't win an argument with stupid. I'm happy letting our first posts tell the entire tale.

Your an advanced moron.
 

billwald

New member
This line of thinking considers sins as financial debt and God the Bookkeeper in the Sky. Just as I could go to your local utility and pay your electric bill (they don't care who the money comes from) Jesus has "paid" our sin bill.
 

1Way

+OL remote satellite affiliate
Billwald – So what is your point?

Right, substitution is what I have in mind, it's what I hear from most theologians also. The alternative that God the Son became less than righteous by taking on our sin is anti-Biblical on several fronts which I exposed, like no one can literally become sin, like sin can never really be serperated from the sinner, it can just be accounted/reckoned differently by forgiveness (like an accountant), and on and on.

And I don’t think that Jesus ever lost His divinity so that only His haman nature became sin/unrighteous at the cross. Do you? And even if you do think that, then that means that the sacrifice was not without blemish, it was not the perfect sacrifice, it was just a sin laden man, which in my understaning, could not settle God's need for justice for the sins of the entire world. You need a perfect and spotless offering in order to pay for the sins of the world and provision for eternity with God.

Jesus' sacrifical death was substitutionary and vicarious (in our place), but the supposed exchange of sin is necessarily figurative of this substitution. Jesus Christ was never personally less than holy and righteous, and that is the issue at stack with Bob's teaching the way he put it.
 
Last edited:

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Originally posted by 1Way
:shocked:

NOTHING?!?

NOONE?!?

NOTHING?!?

:doh:
It's a bit impossible to argue in the 4th person.

My guess is.... you and Bob would agree on this topic if you were to discuss it with him.

But then again maybe not! And that would be interesting as well. :D
 

1Way

+OL remote satellite affiliate
Knight – You have the neatest website. Your avatars of altering characters crack me up. You keep things rolling here very well, and I’m proud of what theology online has become.

As to
(1) It's a bit impossible to argue in the 4th person.

(2) My guess is.... you and Bob would agree on this topic if you were to discuss it with him.

But then again maybe not! And that would be interesting as well. :D
  • (1) Well, I wouldn’t say impossible, perhaps difficult, especially if we are assuming that we must try to represent what Bob really meant. As to taking a 3rd or 4th person stance, I’ve never heard that one stated that way before. Sure, we can only speculate or guess what another person was thinking, but I am not seeking a discussion like that. We stand in the gap for God against all evil doers all the time as though it is our place to do so even though ever sinner and evil doing is primarily going against God, so I really don’t have a problem jumping into someone else’s debate/discussion. But in respect for Bob and his teachings, I have been careful to do two things.
    • I left the door wide open for the possibility that I simply misunderstand what he is teaching, and have been asking EVERYONE if they heard/understood the same things I did. So far, my observations of what he is teaching seem accurate.
    • I’ve simply been arguing concepts about what we know he plainly said pretty much apart from guessing what Bob may personally believe.[/list=a]
    • (2) I agree. But part of my problem is that I have given this teaching some serious thought and I can’t understand how to get from what he said to where we would agree. It seems like there are some pieces of the puzzle missing, at least for me. Baring some strange misunderstanding(s), if I had to make a conclusion right now, it would be that Bob Enyart made an outright mistake by teaching that God personally changed when Jesus was declared righteous. Again, it would be quite unreasonable for anyone to think that Bob must get everything perfect and teach no mistakes at all. My best guess so far is that he was concentrating on just one aspect of a rather relationally involved issue and accidentally overstated the case without considering other angles attached to the same issues.
    • And lastly, it could just be me that is wrong and mistaken.

      I’m glad to hear what others think, I encourage folks to do as Bob teaches us to do, to not just take his word as gospel truth, but to search the scriptures to see if these things are so. And I know that Bob does not want to attribute to God something that He does not take credit for doing. I wrote him an email, and I sent a copy of it to you, but Bob’s email was intercepted by Connie, and she seems adamant that Bob will not be bothered about such things that might cause Bob more work, Bob is VERY busy and his time is important to a lot of people, so I have my doubts that he will become informed about this matter. Thanks for your input.
 

1Way

+OL remote satellite affiliate
I guess Connie has kept my email away from Bob, which included a note and reference to this forum page, and also what I thought were some really good suggestions for helping his ministry grow, but since I can not single handedly make them all happen, my supportive efforts are apparently disregarded out of hand. I guess when Bob Enyart says that he encourages folks to communicate to him disagreements with his teachings, it’s (somewhat) not true, because these issues may never reach his attention because as Connie plainly put it, and as his sons demonstrated as well, “if it would cause Bob any added work, then we can’t bother Bob with it”.

I saw this same sort of reaction before with what I believe was Bob mishandling the Strong’s occurrences of the Hebrew word “ra” (evil/ruin/destroy). Apparently he was off in reporting the occurrences, in terms from
a scant handful -- to over a hundred(!),
which “would” upset his point about what the word “ra” means. One or two of his sons (over say two phone calls) successfully stopped that unwelcome intrusion as well.

So I guess it’s
send in your disagreements, BEL wants to respond to them,
but don’t expect a response, just send them in anyway.

And also, support BEL with your time and money, even if its very difficult and scarce, but don’t bother BEL if you don’t have extra time and money to produce your suggestion completely autonomously.

Don’t get me wrong, if I was as busy AND as productive in ministry as BEL is, I would adopt similar procedures because you just can’t respond to everything everyone says or suggests or disagrees with, and expect to get anything accomplished. On the other hand, I think it is going too far to say that only those with plenty of money and spare time will get BEL to respond.

A growing ministry needs volunteer work and financial support. So, I guess I should simply be happy for the blessings I’ve received so far, which are many. Besides, my disagreements and support ideas may not be that important in the grand scheme of things.

Problem resolved by just getting over it.
 

1Way

+OL remote satellite affiliate
But the truth about Jesus is important, especially if we are contradicting the truth. I really wish Bob E would respond to this issue. :shut:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top