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

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by 1Way
I guess Connie has kept my email away from Bob,

Yes, in fact the command came down early in the morning and was accompanied by the usual flashing red lights and that ear piercing siren. The directive was clear....Do not allow Bob to view the e-mail in question.

After all, the mere sight of that e-mail could send a ripple effect of destruction through the entire organization.

Therefore only one option was available....
Carefully remove the e-mail with special precision tongs and immediately place it in a "escape proof" container that was procured from NASA only months before with the intention of using it on some suspicious letters that had surfaced from the Washington DC area.

After the e-mail was safely in the "escape proof" container it was buried in a undisclosed location in eastern Colorado.


You continue....

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.

A devastatingly unfair comment. I have personally seen Bob sit for hours after his show discussing issues and witnessing to the lost even when he knows he is needed elsewhere like raising his 7 children, running his business and various websites, writing his material for seminars and manuscripts and being the pastor of a fantastic Bible church.

I myself have to ignore a certain percentage of the questions and inquires that flood TheologyOnLine daily. Not because I want to ignore these things but simply due to logistics. I just can't answer them all! There isn't time! Is that unfair? I don't know! But we do the best we can with the amount of time and resources we have which isn't much. And my situation pales in comparison to Bob's which dwarfs my tight schedule.

 

[Lion]

Did He really become flesh?

Did He really become flesh?

1 Way-First let me explain about the “Escape Proof Container” procured from NASA (code named:Connie!). Knight doesn’t know the details of this due to his being at a hockey tournament with his many children at the time we had the Elder’s meeting that created Connie!.

At our last Elder’s meeting we discussed ways that we could free up some time so that Bob could finish the sequel to “The Plot”. One of our solutions was to create Connie! A highly efficient filtering secretarial device that would not allow Bob to talk for hours on end to his friends on the phone (like he usually does) or answer his e-mail with out it first going through the filtering device (Connie!). Bob wasn’t too happy about this invention, but, we, the elders of Denver Bible Church, felt it vital, if the manuscript were ever to be finished (he’s only on chapter three for crying out loud!). I assure you this decision has nothing to do with money…. wait, let me take that back. It does have something to do with money, because BEL is way short of funds and in danger of closing completely. Not our church, but BEL. The elders of the church don’t want that to happen, especially since many of the elders themselves came to the LORD through BEL. The publication of “The Script” will hopefully give a much-needed boost of income to the ministry. Besides, Bob is horrible about ever asking for money. So, your shot about Bob and the money issue is really inaccurate concerning Bob. It is not so inaccurate concerning me and the other elders, (except Knight who wasn’t there), because we see the need for continued income in order to keep BEL on the air.

Thus, Connie! is our invention to keep Bob on task. Sometimes I think we created her a little too good, I couldn’t even get through her this morning. She shut me down cold!

As to the real nature of your original question I would like to take a stab at it (I tried to ask Bob what he thought about it, but Connie! was there doing her job most effectively. RATS!

I believe that Christ absolutely did change when He became sin for us. So let’s look at two things first and go on from there.

My first question is: Did God the Son change when He took on flesh?

I would say yes, he did. He, God the Son, became a New Creation. Man and God, for the first time ever. Never before, in eternity past, had God become flesh. So God the Son did change.

Do you agree with this?

The second thing is sin itself. You made the statement that sin is not a thing, but rather a concept. I would go a step further and state that sin is an action. And those actions have true consequences. When we sin, we commit an action against God and others. There is a price to be paid for those actions (in other words consequences). In your analogy about the rich man that paid off the debts of the world, there really was no consequence. It was as if he paid the debt to himself and said, okay all’s forgiven, no problem. And he was still endlessly rich. So the question is was there really a price for the sin of the world? In your analogy I would say no.

Do you agree with this?

 

[billwald]

"Right, substitution is what I have in mind, it's what I hear from most theologians also."

Could be correct but at least to me it makes God appear infantile. The substitution theory boils down to the concept that pain has a positive qualitative and quantitative value that offsets the negative qualitative and quantitative value of sin.

An adult god would accept sincere confession and repentance (and restitution, where possible) as an acceptable atonement for sin.

"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."

Hadn't heard it put this way but doesn't sound right.

Please explain "He became sin for us."

I think the primary purpose of the incarnation was to resolve a communication problem between God and humans.

 

[1Way]

Knight – Connie said she would look into it instead of Bob because he was too busy to be bothered with more work. As to my devastatingly unfair comment, , , unfair? Is it fair to observe the state of things? It’s an observation that I think is true, just as I’m sure yours is too. Bob can not respond to most mailings, because he is too busy. That is not an issue of fairness, it’s an issue of reality.

His mother just wanted to know one thing, will Bob have more work or not after reading the email, this was concerning the supportive suggestions and the objection slash questioning of his teaching. After some clarifying what she meant, I said yes, it would likely cause him more work, so she said she would handle the email herself, but she made it clear that I should handle it myself, or, if I had any questions for approval, then of course I should ask, otherwise I should shoulder all the time and effort preparing and producing my suggestion. Nothing “unfair” about that, it’s about being too busy to respond. I am not faulting anyone for not being fair, but I suppose I am not happy with the conflicting message, send us your thoughts and disagreements even though it most likely will not be responded to.

I should make a comment because disappointment is not the only response I have to this issue. I can understand that the best intentions sometimes are simply not realized, especially when one man is trying to serve thousands. I look at everyone else (including you folks near Bob) and would like to help them too, help each other build each other up. So, I do what I can, and hope for the best.

Take it light, if you thought I was wrong about a very important issue, such as me teaching an false message about who Jesus is, I’d hope that I’d be humble enough to objectively receive the message, and I’d hope you’d be caring enough to give it to me.

I imagine that Bob feels the same way. And so here we are.

 

[1Way]

Lion – As to project Connie, (LOL) 10-4, she is working in optimal efficiency. And she was very polite about it too, so my concerns, however valid or valuable or redemptive or crummy, are left by the wayside. It’s a big world, and BEL has reached (and is reaching) many, and that is more important that my email being read. BEL is an amazing ministry.

As to

So, your shot about Bob and the money issue is really inaccurate concerning Bob. It is not so inaccurate concerning me and the other elders, (except Knight who wasn’t there), because we see the need for continued income in order to keep BEL on the air.

Wow, them are strong words, strongly humble, and I imagine right on the money. I have to go back and see what you mean about a shot at Bob on the money issue. Thanks for helping me understand the Connie thing.

You must mean this.

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.

The fact is that if you are a BEL supporter, but don’t have the extra time and cash to produce the suggestion autonomously, it will not happen, the lack of time because of being too busy even precludes a response, so why even read the email if you already know it would negatively impact time and effort. That message was given to me by Connie. All she wanted to know was, will it cause Bob more work, at first I said, I don’t know because I considered such things as delegation and teamwork and at least hearing out the idea in the mean time until more time might be available for more careful consideration, but none of that was in the picture, she helped me understand by saying, can you or will you produce your suggestion yourself? I said no I can’t since my work leaves me with no spare time and I’m financially deep in the red. I was offering (free) promotional concepts that given the right people and effort (and finances), could make a very positive impact towards financial support for BEL. So, Connie found out that I was not going to handle it myself, and said that Bob can’t be bothered with more work. It was just that simple, and I understood just that quick too, because I know that Bob is an extremely busy man, and has been way more productive in a redemptive sense than probably anyone I’ve ever met.

So I have that, and I have Bob saying, I want to hear from the audience because I am not infallible, Bob wants astute critical feedback. I did not do that, BEL did. Nothings perfect, I have patience, and I wait and hope for the best.

Even if I had a simple and hopefully effective idea that might help build up BEL’s financial support, it still needs hours of work for preparation as well as financial support to get it started, so it will have to wait since I can not do it.

I meant no disrespect by it. If it is troublesome that people without extra money and time are not given more attention, then such is life. I guess both BEL and BEL supporters will just have to get used to it.

So what seems unchallenged and are pretty clear?

Call or write in if you disagree with Bob, but don’t expect a response because he doesn’t have the time. Perhaps Bob needs to make a policy announcement that although He encourages and appreciates our responses, even our disagreements with his bible teaching, he is simply too busy to read them and respond to them, in fact, it might be overlooked.

I know that Bob also lets his audience know that he has an overwhelming job trying to respond to so many emails and letters and calls and such, I’ve heard that message for some 5 plus years or so. So I guess I am frustrated, but also overjoyed from the many blessings derived from BEL.

I still wish BEL would give my concept/suggestion for strengthening BEL’s financial support a decent look over.

As to

My first question is: Did God the Son change when He took on flesh?

I would say yes, he did. He, God the Son, became a New Creation. Man and God, for the first time ever. Never before, in eternity past, had God become flesh. So God the Son did change.

(1)Do you agree with this?

(2a)The second thing is sin itself. You made the statement that sin is not a thing, but rather a concept. I would go a step further and state that sin is an action. (2b)And those actions have true consequences. When we sin, we commit an action against God and others. There is a price to be paid for those actions (in other words consequences). (2c)In your analogy about the rich man that paid off the debts of the world, there really was no consequence.

1 - Sure. The change happened in the person, the person was different before and after the change. It was a real personal change.

2a - Well, my point was that it was not an animate object, sin usually happens in action but not always, sometimes it happens purely in the realm of the mind, - - - but sin is not a material thing, it is a moral thing, and is understood conceptually. In essences sin is going against God, and it starts in the heart or will of a person even before it is ever carried out with action.

2b - Actions, or even non-actions like just sinful thoughts and intents, have consequences. That is “a” crux in this discussion. Sin is one thing, and the consequences of sin is another thing.

2c - You mean if the dept wasn’t paid? I was only focusing on the aspect of the issue that is in contention, as I’m sure we all agree what happens when are sins are not forgiven and our debt is not paid.

I am speaking of the way God attributes righteousness to our behalf, and how I imagine that God declared Jesus as righteous as if that issue was somehow in contention. The Bible is clear that we are not righteous other than Gods accounting Christ’s righteousness on our behalf. Accounting, substitution, it’s all real, but it’s real substitution into our personal account, we ourselves are not changed into perfect righteousness, our sin remains with each and every person, but if we are saved, our sin is simply not condemned by God, hence the sin remains but our account says it is gone, no real change in the person concerning sinlessness, only a change in account.

Yes we are a new creation since Christ lives in us and we are sealed by the HS and so on, but even then we still often sin, and our sin is not translated to someone else, it’s ours because that is the nature of morality, you can not really separate the morality from the moral agent, you can forgive or condemn, but the moral intentions and deeds are connected to it’s agent. Separate the sin from the sinner is a false teaching, and it can’t be done.

As to

It was as if he paid the debt to himself and said, okay all’s forgiven, no problem. And he was still endlessly rich. So the question is was there really a price for the sin of the world? In your analogy I would say no.

Do you agree with this?

Oh, actually, I imagined the dept was paid to someone else, but in the case of Jesus paying the debt to God, I guess it matches. And God is till endlessly rich and righteous even though He paid the ransom and bought every soul an eternal ticket to heaven, if only they would accept.

The ram in the thicket was God’s offering to substitute for the boy’s life and is a foreshadow of what happened at the cross. Jacob stole the birthright and blessing from his brother, another example of substitution which foreshadows what Christ did at his work of redemption by taking on the birthright given to Adam. Jesus died that we might live, direct substitution.

BTW, Lion, you started out by claiming that Jesus Himself really changed when He became sin for us. Remember, Bob said that Jesus changed in Himself, it was a real change, and then He was called, Jesus the righteous. The only way that could possibly be a change would be in Jesus’ righteousness. And since this claim proclaims Jesus as righteous, then prior to this change, He must have been other than Jesus the righteous, implying, Jesus not the righteous, or Jesus less than righteous, or Jesus not righteous. I suggest that if these are not correct, then it was figurative of Jesus’ work of redemption.

If not, then Jesus living a sinless life is not accurate since Jesus really and truly had sin in His life at the cross. Also, the perfect sacrifice, the lamb without blemish (imperfection) did not happen, Christ’s sacrifice was not only blemished with sin, it was the most filthy and disgusting offering ever given to God. God takes not pleasure in sin and wickedness, it makes Him ravenous with contempt and wrath to consider the worlds wickedness, now imagine all the world’s sin was presented to God all at once in Jesus when He died at the cross. Jesus would be filled beyond measure full of murder and strife and perverse heinous wickedness, like rape and incest and malicious torture and theft and lies and on and on. That is what happened at the cross?

I don’t think so. I think Jesus was righteous and loving and good and right and Holy every step of the way.

God says almost as though He is bragging that He hardened Pharaoh’s heart. But God let Pharaoh’s heart do exactly as it wanted to do, He did not violate Pharaoh’s will. Sometimes God states things in nearly contrary ways, and expects the unashamed worker to understand the truth, even if it takes more effort than simply reading a few words that otherwise seem to make it seem like Jesus ever changed in His righteousness.

So come on with the stuff, exactly what sort of change happened IN Jesus when He became our sin?

 

[1Way]

Billwald – As to

Could be correct but at least to me it makes God appear infantile. The substitution theory boils down to the concept that pain has a positive qualitative and quantitative value that offsets the negative qualitative and quantitative value of sin.

Infantile? Substitution is a bible wide theme. Pain? Pain? . . . Pain. Pain?

Substitution is not about pain. Look at what the Bible teaches on the topic. That man can not save himself, he needs God’s rescue and God seems right in thinking that only a perfect (sinless) sacrifice could possibly redeem the world for all eternity. Not pain, but biblical righteousness and forgiveness. Forgiveness never says, the offender is not guilty of offending, it’s, the offender is guilty BUT he repented AND I forgive the offense they did against me.

And as far as forgiveness in salvation goes, God imputes Christ’s righteousness into our account. Imputation is not something that is separates the sin from the sinner, it’s outright substitution, God esteems/declares our account as righteous as though our righteousness is really Christ’s perfection! Yet even though Christ lives in us, “our” own righteousness is not perfect, it’s is merely accounted that way by God despite all our sin and unrighteousness. That’s love and forgiveness and biblical accounting and substitution, and lastly, the fact that you can never separate the sin from the sinner, or the good from the righteous.

Bob Enyart was the one who is saying that Jesus changed when He became sin for us, and when He later was declared righteous. Unless someone finally comes forward and explains what other change in God we are talking about, this teaching is saying that God was at least temporarily less than righteous because of sin. I am saying that is not possible, the sacrifice at the cross was without blemish, the price tag for the gift of salvation to the world was not paid by a person filled sin, the infinite price was paid by a perfect person without sin.

(As to) “He became sin for us”, must not mean what Bob is teaching, which would be focusing only on the first part and ignoring the second half, it must be some statement of substitution. And look, consider the phrase, it is substitution. God did something:
- for us,
- instead of us,
- on our behalf.
Substitution, or “on our behalf”, or “on our account”, is the idea plainly presented, and in other parts of scripture, being “accounted for righteousness” is God’s word concerning our salvation and forgiveness.

Surely you can at least acknowledge these precepts as Biblical.(?)

 

[1Way]

Thanks all for your input, see you later, another week of work on the road calls again.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by 1Way
As to my devastatingly unfair comment, , , unfair? Is it fair to observe the state of things?

If the observation insinuates something that is untrue then yes the observation is unfair.

You stated...

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.

This insinuates in no uncertain terms that BEL does not respond to disagreements. Bob DOES indeed respond to disagreements, most notably everyday on his radio broadcast. The fact that he didn't respond to YOUR disagreement does not mean he doesn't respond to ANY disagreements.

There are many things I would like to ask Walter Brown or Ken Ham or any number of authors but I know full well that it is nearly impossible for these folks to respond to even a fraction of what is asked of them. Therefore for me to expect that my questions be responded to might be a tad unfair to that individual. I certainly wouldn't publicly criticize him for not moving my issue to the top of his priority list.

To summarize:
You insinuated in no uncertain terms that since your objection or idea was not responded to... therefore no objections or ideas are responded to. That is not only untrue but unfair.

Unless of course you have some way to demonstrate that NO objections or ideas are responded to. Then I suppose your observation would be a fair observation.

 

[1Way]

Knight – As to

This insinuates in no uncertain terms that BEL does not respond to disagreements. This insinuates in no uncertain terms that BEL does not respond to disagreements.

I’d agree, especially without reading the rest of my post. Given Connie, your letter or call or email will not reach Bob if it would require him more work. So evidently the only communication that will get to Bob are the ones that do not require for Bob to do more work. And between responses of disagreement and one's of agreement, naturally, the one's of disagreement would take more work.

Actually, the new rule as stated so far is a bit of an overstatement on the surface, because even reading takes a bit of time, but, it seems that Bob is surrounded by a force field as also described by Lion, which naturally precludes him from responding to anything that would require him to do more work. It’s just an observation that Lion says is right on.

Bob is very giving of himself, that is obvious, but this is what is going on, that is, if what Lion and Connie says is anywhere near accurate.

Therefore for me to expect that my questions be responded to might be a tad unfair to that individual. I certainly wouldn't publicly criticize him for not moving my issue to the top of his priority list.

Unless BEL is picking on me specifically, the new “no reaching Bob” rule is for everyone (who’s response would require more work from him), not just me. And I know you don’t mean to suggest that.

At least I get to voice my "work requiring" objection to what Bob taught here! (I hope my topic actually gets dealt with.)

 

[Lion]

Did God the Son die?

Did God the Son die?

1Way-You said:

1 - Sure. The change happened in the person, the person was different before and after the change. It was a real personal change.

Great, we agree here, both realizing that God does change.

Then you answered:

2a - Well, my point was that it was not an animate object, sin usually happens in action but not always, sometimes it happens purely in the realm of the mind, - - - but sin is not a material thing, it is a moral thing, and is understood conceptually. In essences sin is going against God, and it starts in the heart or will of a person even before it is ever carried out with action.

Hmmmm… not exactly right. Best to check the P&P manual for the correct description of what sin is:

James 1: 14 But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. 15 Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

Sin always requires action, even if that action is only agreeing to play with your thoughts. It is not a sin when a scantily clad woman walks by and you see her (at least not a sin on your part). Nor is it a sin if after seeing her a filthy thought flashes into your head (the flesh and Satan are powerful and sneaky). However, once you decide to continue down that path, playing with those thoughts, (an action in itself), then you are sinning.

Then you said:

2b - Actions, or even non-actions like just sinful thoughts and intents, have consequences. That is “a” crux in this discussion. Sin is one thing, and the consequences of sin is another thing.

Ahhhh, now we are getting there. Yes, sin, and the consequence of sin is indeed at the heart of this discussion.

I then had asked:

The second thing is sin itself. You made the statement that sin is not a thing, but rather a concept. I would go a step further and state that sin is an action. And those actions have true consequences. When we sin, we commit an action against God and others. There is a price to be paid for those actions (in other words consequences). In your analogy about the rich man that paid off the debts of the world, there really was no consequence. It was as if he paid the debt to himself and said, okay all’s forgiven, no problem. And he was still endlessly rich. So the question is was there really a price for the sin of the world? In your analogy I would say no.

You said:

Oh, actually, I imagined the dept was paid to someone else, but in the case of Jesus paying the debt to God, I guess it matches. And God is till endlessly rich and righteous even though He paid the ransom and bought every soul an eternal ticket to heaven, if only they would accept.

You missunderstood what I was saying here. The point I was making was that in your analogy the rich man really lost nothing by paying all the worlds debt off because he was still fabulously rich, and all he gave up was a little cash.

That is a bad analogy. Because God didn’t just pretend to pay our debt. Nor did He have a wealth of Son’s to spend, so that the loss of one of them was no big deal.

Your analogy could possibly have been correct if sin was against God alone, however it isn’t. We also sin against one another, and if God just said “Hey, no big deal, I’ll just pay their debt, since I own everything anyway”, and winked and all sins were forgiven, then justice would not be served. If a man kills my child, I know, (because it is written in my heart), that that man must pay with his life, and even then he hasn’t given enough back to me to make up for what he stole from me. The truth is that he can never pay it back because my daughter has eternal worth to me. She is priceless. That is why the death of a man alone, even a sinless man, could never be enough to cover the world’s debt.

So, when I said:

So the question is was there really a price for the sin of the world? In your analogy I would say no.

And in your analogy I still say no, but in God’s case I would say yes, because a true price was paid. A price of eternal value that truly hurt God the Father and God the Son and changed them forever. And that price, the price of God Himself willing to die, is more than payment for all sins, both to God and to mankind.

Now let’s get at the last part of the puzzle so that we can get to work on piecing it together.

What is death?

 

[1Way]

Lion – I find most of your post in substantial agreement with what I believe and what I have said, so I find it strange your disagreeing slash corrective approach towards me.

I gave an accurate however general definition of what sin is, and you beg to differ by giving me James 1:14, saying that it defines sin, however, it does not define sin, but it does go on about the process of the conception of sin, and what sin produces, none of which is a definition of sin.

I agree with James 1:14, but it does nothing to correct my understanding of sin. Then you go on to explain what you originally meant by sin being an “action”, you meant it as including a moral deed, which includes thoughts and intentions, which are “acts” of the will. So we agree, yet for some reason, you opposed and correction me, even though we agree.

I said that sin is not just an action, it can also happen in the mind (without physical action), so you proceed to correct me by agreeing with me. I appreciate your explaining what you really meant, however, with your form of opposing correction, who needs mutual agreement. :think:

I still haven’t heard you deal with my point the way I gave it. Sin is not a material object that can be separated from the sinner. I can not have your morality, yours is your and mine is mine, you can’t separate the sin from the sinner, or the righteousness from the righteous. That is demonstrated in that hell will be filled with evil people, not just evil deeds.

That was my point about sin not being something that we can exchange from person to person like an animate object. Nothing more, nothing less.

As far as my analogy goes, you are criticizing it like it’s a formal letter of doctrine. I am not assuming anything other than it’s application to the God of the Bible and His teaching about Christ’s work of redemption, in relation to personal substitution. The issue is, Jesus becoming sin for us, was that an “accounting” and “substitutionary”, or was that a real change in Christ’s righteousness, like Jesus was truly filled with sin, hence, He was temporarily not sinless.

In hopes of finally getting to the issue (grin), you said.

Now let’s get at the last part of the puzzle so that we can get to work on piecing it together.

What is death?

Does the perspective behind a question (context, context, context) matter?

At the morgue and cemetery, death means job security. (grin) In general, it’s lifelessness and is what happens after one’s life ends. In the bible, it is a common reference to a guilty person who is not right with God, it’s eternal separation from God in the lake of fire. But I think that’s called the second death.

Stalling for time?

Just “ :joker: ing ”

(Remember) It’s not, did Jesus change in some other way, it’s, did Jesus change in His righteousness when He became sin “for us”.

 

[Lion]

1-Way-Not to banter points but what you originally said about sin was this:

2a - Well, my point was that it was not an animate object, sin usually happens in action but not always, sometimes it happens purely in the realm of the mind, - - - but sin is not a material thing, it is a moral thing, and is understood conceptually. In essences sin is going against God, and it starts in the heart or will of a person even before it is ever carried out with action.

And what I was trying to show you with the James passage is that in order for there to be sin, it does require action. The action may just be deciding to play with a sinful idea in the mind, or to go against God in the mind, but either way it requires action on the part of the subject. My objection to your statement was that sin could happen without action. It can’t.

As to death: I would like to use the definition you used in relation to God. Death is the separation from God. Not non-existence, but separation. We, of course, both agree on this.

Now in your first post you gave a brief description of what Bob said about Christ being “justified in the spirit” and this is your major sticking point. Did Jesus literally change? And I would say “yes” He literally changed. Did He become an inanimate object, “sin itself”? No.

(By the way I think you gave a brilliant description of the transference of sin and accountability. I’ve saved it in a file to use in latter arguments.)

But for the first time in history God the Son had all the sins of man laid upon Him and He literally died. By that I mean He, God the Son, was literally separated from God the Father. And in that instant He was unrighteous. Not because of what He did, but because He was clothed in our sin (much as you explained in your earlier post). Then He was made righteous by the Spirit and was reunited with God the Father, having paid our debt in full. But the key point here is that this wasn’t just a pretend payment (as in your rich man analogy). God, (both Son and Father and Holy Spirit) did pay the price. He really did suffer. He really did die.

As I stated at the beginning of this discussion, the only difference I see between our two positions is that you don’t consider this an actual change. I do, and so I believe, does Bob. God the Son had never known what it was to experience the weight of sin. Then He did. And that changed Him forever. Never before had God the Son been separated from the Father. Then He was. And that changed Him forever. Now He is able to be a true and righteous mediator and judge before us.

Does this help to clear up your problem with what you thought Bob was saying?

 

[1Way]

Lion - I have a full reply, but I am praying about it for a while. In the mean time, two points protrude rather unavoidably. Please help me with my lack of understanding.

So sin can “actually” be separated from the sinner.
I can’t fathom how, other than symbolically.

And a perfectly sinless personal sacrifice can actually change and become completely sinful at the very moment of the sacrifice, and later be truthfully considered perfectly sinless.
I can’t imagine this either.

:help:

 

[Lion]

Whazza?

Whazza?

1Way-

So sin can “actually” be separated from the sinner.
I can’t fathom how, other than symbolically.

I don’t know how you got that out of what I said. But that’s not what I said.

And a perfectly sinless personal sacrifice can actually change and become completely sinful at the very moment of the sacrifice, and later be truthfully considered perfectly sinless.

I don’t know how you got that out of what I said either. But that’s not what I said, either.

I guess I’ll wait for your full reply before I say more.

 

[1Way]

(NOTE: Ok, I believe that this re-edited version is now ready for the record, although I may make a few more minor changes. Please be sure to quote this more correct version. Thanks!)

Lion – I did not say that you said that. I don’t know how you got that out of what I said. But that’s not what I said, nor intended.

However I agree, our frame of reference and point of view (understandings) are not aligned. So lets continue towards better clarity.

That is what I am dealing with since hearing Bob and now you say that Christ actually changed in His righteousness when He took on the sins of the world and when He was later declared righteous.

For the record, I don’t believe that I have ever heard the teaching that Christ “actually” (and not symbolically by way of substitution) became unrighteous. I hope for everyone’s sake that “we” can straighten out this teaching. Bob nearly said it, and you did said it. I think it is wrong and is probably blasphemous to actually attribute unrighteousness in God.

In the first point, since it is not just symbolic, it’s actual, then you are teaching separating the sin from the sinner. If you are not, then I have no idea why you have not given in to my point that you can not separate sin from the sinner a long time ago, hence it is not an actual change, it’s a symbolic change because there was no actual change in Christ, but there was a symbolic change involving the world and God.

The second point, you actually went slightly farther than what Bob did in explaining what sort of change actually happened in Jesus. You said that the change was in His actual righteousness because of the sin He took on Himself, namely, that He became unrighteous. Christ didn’t take just some of the sin, He took it all and thus become the most sin-filled – or - sinful person ever. And since the sin actually transferred from the world to Him, the biggest sinner ever was supposedly saving a perfectly sinless world, a complete reversal of what the Bible teaches. But the single point I was making in that “second point” was against the believe that the perfectly sinless sacrifice, Jesus, became (completely) sinful, and then was declared righteous again, even though the bible does not teach against Christ’s sinless perfection. Here’s another view of that.

The point being that Christ was and is “actually” sinless,

then if he ever “actually” changed in His righteousness, then He would not “actually” be sinless.

So, one of the two righteousness teachings has to be “symbolic” and not actual, specifically, the real but symbolic change must not be in Christ’s righteousness, but in something else. Otherwise you are left with a direct contradiction, Jesus the Son of God as being both sinless and sinful.

Doesn’t the bible teach that our savior was the perfect righteous sinless sacrifice? If so, then it seems to me that you are denying that by saying that Jesus “actually” was full of sin instead, and I don’t understand why anyone would say that. Especially since all you have to do is recognize what is symbolically represented (the sins of the world) and what is actually not changed (Christ’s righteousness).


2Co 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.


I hope you read my first post (well). I pointed out that there are some words that are included in this supposed change in Christ that apparently bare heavily on the meaning intended by this change we are talking about. The words are, “for us”.

I suggested that those words are precisely what we find throughout scripture concerning forgiveness and sacrificial love and substitution. I think it could rightly be restated as follows.

He made Him who knew no sin [to be] sin on our behalf,

When you do something on someone else’s behalf, “when you do it yourself” “for someone else”, that is substitution, it’s you, instead of them, acting on their behalf. So that is what is happening in that teaching, the phrase’s contextual use is only clear that it is a case of symbolism, where one is substituting for another. So really, it’s a change in relationship between two parties, not one person actually changing.

This relational expression, really happened, Christ really stood in our place and substituted Himself for us, for our behalf, and atoned for OUR actual sins that never left us. I’m sure I could show quite a front declaring that God forgave OUR sins, and that even after Christ took on our sins upon Himself, we still have OUR actual sins forgiven.

I guess by your view, our sins actually started with us, then they were actually separated from us and given to Jesus, and then after they were dealt with at the cross, sometime God must have given them back to us so that He can save us from OUR sins. This jockeying back and forth with sins is fanciful nonsense. What is real is the substitutionary sacrifice, which was perfectly sinless for the sake of redeeming the world on behalf of all OUR actual sins.

In the same symbolic way, Jesus was declared righteous on our behalf, it wasn’t because of Christ’s unrighteousness that He was declared righteous, because He was always righteous and never sinned. Rather, God (trinity) considered that Jesus actually accomplished justification for sins by His substitutionary sacrifice, so for the sake of all those sins, God declared Christ righteous on our behalf, it was our sins that remain with us that was in need of forgiveness, not Christ’s sin and unrightrousness, because He had none to be forgiven, so we consider what Christ did as symbolically dealing with our sins, then yes, Christ was justified on account of our sins which was symbolically but really accounted onto Him.

Otherwise, if you (as I suggest) wrongly attribute the real change in Jesus as Him actually but not symbolically becoming sin “for us”, and as you plainly said, actually becoming unrighteous, then you have two new and very problematic teachings,

1 - an actually sin-filled sacrifice instead of a sin-less one,

2 - and you have the new teaching of being able to actually, not symbolically, separate the sin from the sinner.

Both of which are clearly against what the bible teaches.

I am not in the least persuaded that the concept of Christ’s sinlessness needs to be altered in order to let Him become sinful, even for just an instant. And I am rather surprised that you actually believe that Christ actually became unrighteous, even if just of a moment. It doesn’t matter how long you are “actually” involved with sin, if you have sin, you have sin, you are not sinless, you are “actually” unrighteous and need to get right with God. That alone is enough to know that Christ did not actually become unrighteous, so I suggest that you have to dig a little deeper in order to understand what God intended by saying that He became sin for us, and Christ was declared righteous (on behalf of OUR sin).

It was symbolic and substitutionary for our account with God, it was not an actual change in Christ. But I am more than willing to hear how I should stand corrected. :help: !

 

[Lion]

Read what I say, not what you want it to mean.

Read what I say, not what you want it to mean.

1Way-I don’t mean to be rude, but sometimes you can be so thick headed you refuse to see the writing on the page in front of you. You hear or read something and one little word catches your attention because it isn’t stated the way you think it should be stated and then someone can try a hundred times to explain what is really meant, but you refuse to understand what is being said, sticking instead to your own misconstrued idea.

In the first place, I did read what you said in your earlier post and even told you that I thought it was brilliant.

Now in your first post you gave a brief description of what Bob said about Christ being “justified in the spirit” and this is your major sticking point. Did Jesus literally change? And I would say “yes” He literally changed. Did He become an inanimate object, “sin itself”? No.

(By the way I think you gave a brilliant description of the transference of sin and accountability. I’ve saved it in a file to use in latter arguments.)

In the second place, you must not have read my response to that post at all, or you read it while your mind was already made up as to what I was going to say, because you have completely misconstrued what I said. In fact you say that I said the exact opposite of what I said.

You say I said:

In the first point, since it is not just symbolic, it’s actual, then you are teaching separating the sin from the sinner.

When what I really said was:

But for the first time in history God the Son had all the sins of man laid upon Him and He literally died. By that I mean He, God the Son, was literally separated from God the Father. And in that instant He was unrighteous. Not because of what He did, but because He was clothed in our sin (much as you explained in your earlier post).

First God the Son was clothed in sinless flesh (He tented among us). Then He took the sins of the world onto that flesh (clothing Christ with sin), stealing, (an action) man’s inheritance of death (separation from God the Father, which is the price for sin). Then the Spirit (God the Son, who was now Christ) was able to overcome death (separation from God), having paid the price, once for all time. He “became sin” in that He took our sins upon Himself and defeated death, having paid the price in full. Just as when Jacob stole Esau’s birthright by clothing himself in apparel that simulated Esau’s appearance. Jacob didn’t actually become Esau, nor did he pretend he was Esau for the rest of his life. He did it once, stole the inheritance, and it was his for evermore. Christ stole our inheritance, paid the price, once, then defeated the power of that price by the power of the spirit, forevermore.

Rom. 8:2-4 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

So before we go on I need to l know this from you.

Prior to Christ dieing on the cross, did God have experiential knowledge of the price of sin, death? In other words, had He Himself, experienced it?

And once He did experience it, is that not a change?

Or, do you instead contend that Christ never actually paid our price, but instead only did it symbolically, like your rich man analogy. Do you state that Christ really never did die for our sins? Is that what you are saying?

 

[1Way]

Lion – 1of2 - You have degraded this discussion into something shameful. Two posts in a row, instead of fostering an enjoyable brotherly bible discussion, you falsely attack me for misrepresentation, and neither time did I do that. And this time you slam with some harsh insults as though the disagreement and lack of understanding between us is not difficult enough. Understanding is hardly founded between us, your attacks fail as I hope ignorance will to. And I hope and pray for sufficient grace between us. This is a bible discussion between two or more folks who don’t think the same on every issue, and that should be a good thing, a redemptive opportunity. Win win, not loser loser.

As to what I was doing instead of misrepresenting you, I was responding to your line of thinking while at the same time, I demonstrated the negative implications that I see even though your thinking on the implications may be completely different. I have a penitent for accuracy when responding to and representing others; I prefer to quote verbatim and even put little callout numbers for immediate and clear reference, like I have done in this thread several times (well at least once posted, and once not yet posted, but I do it alot, smile). I was not “merely” representing what I think you think, I was representing your view along with the dangerous implications that I see connected to that view. Bringing our views together where they clash is a method of brevity that I had hoped I handled well. I am sorry if I misled you into thinking otherwise.

So the first part of your post is mostly spent making sure I know this painful feeling I get deep inside when I consider your recent treatment of me.

I gave an analogy, but you have practically trash it every time you mention it. Even after I tried to correct you about it’s intended limitations, you not only don’t kindly and thankfully stand corrected (like you normally would) but you trashed it some more at the end of your post, twisting it in a way that I expressly did not allow it to be used. Here is what you said. Notice the consistent and careful directness when I actually represent you.

Or, do you instead contend that Christ never actually paid our price, but instead only did it symbolically, like your rich man analogy. Do you state that Christ really never did die for our sins? Is that what you are saying?

Here was one limiting remark I gave about my (trashy) analogy.

As far as my analogy goes, you are criticizing it like it’s a formal letter of doctrine. I am not assuming anything other than it’s application to the God of the Bible and His teaching about Christ’s work of redemption, in relation to personal substitution. The issue is, Jesus becoming sin for us, was that an “accounting” and “substitutionary”, or was that a real change in Christ’s righteousness, like Jesus was truly filled with sin, hence, He was temporarily not sinless.

So you have NOT been taking some of what I have already written to you very well, despite your kind words to the contrary. I am tiring of correcting you over my analogy. Please refrain from going there, but instead, deal with more concrete apologetic and direct expressions, which are plentiful.

As I said earlier, I am not objecting to any other change in Christ except that He changed in His righteousness, which is on account of two main phrases, that He became sin for us, and that God declared Him righteous.

(Remember) It’s not, did Jesus change in some other way, it’s, did Jesus change in His righteousness when He became sin “for us”.

So the entire last part of your post is pretty much irrelevant as it pertains to the continued misuse of my analogy and what I have been arguing. Christ humbled Himself, even unto death. I am open view pretty much like you are. I do not believe that Christ changed in His personal righteousness, taking on the sins of the world is figurative of what God would do for us by way of redemption. Jesus didn’t actually become sin filled, He remained sinless. Yet you apparently disagree, and I don’t understand why.

Continued.

 

[1Way]

Lion – 2of2 - As to your paragraph before and including the quote from Romans 8. I don’t think anyone is disagreeing on what events happened at the cross, other than if Christ actually and not symbolically became sin for us.

I contend that Christ’s sinlessness and righteous perfection is consistent throughout the bible and His life, including His work of redemption. You seem to contend that Jesus actually was not sinless, He actually became unrighteous even if only for a moment. And thus we have been disagreeing.

The way you have treated me in this thread continues to hurt me. If this is what it’s like to share over issues of brotherly disagreement about what the bible teaches, then I guess I should just feel lucky that I am not the personal target of your bitter offensiveness because of my sincere desire for biblical edification and fellowship, including correction.

Grace and peace and love. (right?)

I didn’t mean to upset you or knight or our unity in fellowship. I disagree with what Bob (and now you) teaches about Christ changing in His righteousness. And, although I obviously grant that he is too busy to respond to everyone, I am disappointed in Bob for often and consistently teaching his listeners that he wants us to contact him especially if we disagree with his bible teaching so that he might have the opportunity to humbly keep himself from error, while at the same time effectively quashing such efforts. And because of that I get personal contempt and grief from both you and Knight, even direct and harsh insults. It should not be so.

To show how careless you have been, you said.

So before we go on I need to l know this from you.

Prior to Christ dieing on the cross, did God have experiential knowledge of the price of sin, death? In other words, had He Himself, experienced it?

As though we disagree about anything else except whether or not Jesus actually became unrighteous by taking on our sin and then later being declared righteous. My focus has been on one point, which is contended over two main phrases, and that is

Chirst’s sinless righteousness,

and Him “becoming sin for us”, and Him afterward being “declared righteous”.

We have no contention over anything else. You did come right out and say (paraphrased), "Christ actually became unrighteous", which I could hardly believe you said that, but you did make that much clear, most else has been near but not on topic. Earlier I feared this problem of falling off topic so I posted this end of post reminder (from post 31 of 36).

(Remember) It’s not, did Jesus change in some other way, it’s, did Jesus change in His righteousness when He became sin “for us”.

So lets get to the issue of contention, and let our otherwise obvious agreements remain in the Godly confidence that our joy would normally afford, but can’t since our joyous fellowship has not been preferred.

I’ve probably already presented to you at least three times now why it is that I think that Jesus did not change in His righteousness when you say that He did. I’d actually like a direct response to them. I feel certain that I have given at least three arguments to that end, one of which is rather significant and I’ve focused on it the most. Yet I don’t understand, and am still waiting for your arguments for why you feel that Jesus “actually” became filled with sin instead of symbolically became sin for us (on our account).

 

[1Way]

Gotta go, for about a week or so :sigh: , unless I get lucky and can get online while being gone all week truck driving. I almost have converted my stationary PC into a mobile PC. :yesyes:

Part one is done and successful, chopping up my PC case, it's now about 5" shorter and a bit lighter. And mobile cell phone internet is up and running!

Next I have to find a way to mount my LCD monitor for road use.

Take care!

 

[Lion]

Taken far enough "sin is seperated from the sinner."

Taken far enough "sin is seperated from the sinner."

1Way-You said:

So you have NOT been taking some of what I have already written to you very well, despite your kind words to the contrary. I am tiring of correcting you over my analogy. Please refrain from going there, but instead, deal with more concrete apologetic and direct expressions, which are plentiful.

I will stop quoting your analogy when you finally see how flawed it is. I took great care in showing where it grossly failed, and that it’s failure is part of your problem with not being able to understand this issue. Go back and re-read what I said about it the first time and perhaps you will get it.

You have two annoying habits that get to me some times. One is where you jab little insults in and then act as if you have been perfectly polite and then can’t understand, and get all offended, when some one comes back at you.

I said that sin is not just an action, it can also happen in the mind (without physical action), so you proceed to correct me by agreeing with me. I appreciate your explaining what you really meant, however, with your form of opposing correction, who needs mutual agreement.

Lion – 1of2 – You have degraded this discussion into something shameful. Two posts in a row, instead of fostering an enjoyable brotherly bible discussion, you falsely attack me for misrepresentation, and neither time did I do that.

If this is what it’s like to share over issues of brotherly disagreement about what the bible teaches, then I guess I should just feel lucky that I am not the personal target of your bitter offensiveness because of my sincere desire for biblical edification and fellowship, including correction.

Deeply offended? Well I happen to be deeply offended at the way you falsely accuse and misrepresent Bob and Connie at the beginning of this post. And other posts.

The second habit is what I alluded to before, where you hear something and get an idea of what you think the person meant, and if you can’t get an immediate retraction or explanation, then you think they are running or hiding from you because they are spouting false teachings, when in reality, it is often just a misunderstanding.

So, if you don’t want to get burned with insults, then learn to post without making any. Otherwise, let’s not worry about hurting each other’s feelings and just get on with the discussion.