Sin and Righteousness: Imputed or Imparted or Both? [Archive]

Tobias Crisp

05-29-2005, 10:11 PM

IS RIGHTEOUSNESS IMPUTED, IMPARTED, OR INFUSED?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~

GOOD NEWS FROM THE REDEEMER

August 18, 2002 RADIO MESSAGE #437

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~

One often hears in Christian circles the terms "imputed righteousness," "imparted righteousness," and "infused righteousness." What do these terms mean? And are they Scriptural?

I. The doctrine of "imputed righteousness" teaches that God graciously charges to the account of believers in Christ the righteousness wrought by Christ. This doctrine is Scriptural. It is at length expounded in Romans 3:21-4:25. Here we are taught that the righteousness wrought by Christ during the days of His incarnation is imputed to, or charged to the account of, believers by God in justification. The justified acknowledge Christ to be not only "Jehovah Our Righteousness" (Jeremiah 23:6) – but also their only righteousness (Psalm 71:16). And they pray to be "found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith" (Philippians 3:9).

It may aid one in understanding this doctrine if he will ever bear in mind that in justification righteousness is imputed, not imparted. And justification does not make one righteous, but merely declares him to be so. And the imputation of righteousness does not change one inwardly and subjectively, this being the work of sanctification, not justification.

II. The doctrine of "imparted righteousness" teaches that God bestows righteousness to believers. This term and its doctrine are problematic.

If by the righteousness imparted one refers to the righteousness wrought by Christ, this term is a misnomer. That righteousness was a merit earned by Christ. And the merit of one person cannot be imparted to another. Just as surely as the guilt of Adam was imputed, not imparted, to all his race, the righteousness of Christ is imputed, not imparted, to all His people.

Some theologians use the term imparted righteousness to identify the righteous nature imparted by God to believers when He regenerates them. They thereby become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4). This "divine nature" (not God's essential nature) is the new one placed in men in regeneration, and which is ever in conflict with the old Adamic nature. It is the "seed" of God placed in man which "cannot sin" (1 John 3:9). While the doctrine here set forth is Scriptural, it is problematic to call it "imparted righteousness." That which is imparted is a righteous nature, not righteousness.

Another problem associated with the term imparted righteousness is that many who use it mean by it the heresy of infused righteousness.

III. The doctrine of "infused righteousness" teaches that God justifies in accord with a righteousness merited by Christ instilled into the believer and maintained by good works. This doctrine, especially prominent in the Roman Catholic Church, is anti-Scriptural, but accords with its doctrine of justification by works. It posits the believer receives both imputed and infused righteousness, the latter becoming his inherent righteousness, and one is justified on the basis of what he personally does with it.

This doctrine may be illustrated by three statements made by a certain gentleman upon hearing a gospel message on the subject of the wedding garment of Christ's bride (Revelation 19:8). His first statement was an objection to the preacher's declaration that the imputed righteousness of Christ is the only righteousness of the saints, on the ground that they possess also imparted righteousness. His second statement was his declaration that he furthermore possessed a "personal righteousness through Christ." His third statement was his response when told Isaiah 64:6 declares "all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags": "I would not call that which is done through the Holy Spirit a filthy rag!" In other words, he believed he was capable of performing works God would declare to be "righteous," not "filthy rags." It was very clear that what he called imparted righteousness manifested itself as infused righteousness, and that his "personal righteousness" was "self-righteousness."

Saints at the final day will be clothed in the imputed righteousness of Christ alone (Revelation 19:8; Isaiah 54:17; 61:10; Philippians 3:9). In what will you be clothed?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~

Your servant for Jesus' sake, Daniel E. Parks (2 Corinthians 4:5)
Pastor, Redeemer Baptist Church
2801 Cleveland Boulevard, Louisville, KY 40206 / 502.899-9205

Tobias Crisp

05-29-2005, 10:17 PM

IMPUTED OR IMPARTED -- WHICH?

by Pastor Bill Parker

One of the greatest debates amongst those who claim to be "Christian," amongst various denominations, is this -- Are we saved based on an imputed righteousness, an imparted righteousness, or a combination of both? This issue can be easily settled if we rely upon and bow to God's Word. First, what is righteousness? Strictly speaking, when the Bible speaks in terms of the ground of salvation, justification before God, and when it speaks of fitness and entitlement to Heaven, righteousness refers to the perfect satisfaction to God's holy law and inflexible justice worked out and provided by God in the obedience and death of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 1:16-17; 3:21-26; 10:4). Righteousness, in this sense, refers to the entire merit of Christ's work on behalf of God's elect, as their Mediator and Surety. God's Word tells us plainly that sinners can only be saved, justified before God, and made fit and entitled to all of Heaven based solely upon Christ's righteousness imputed to them (Romans 5:18-21; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Philippians 3:7-10). Imputed means that the merit of Christ's work of mediation is legally charged to their persons, to their accounts, so that they are saved, justified, made fit and entitled to all of salvation based on a righteousness they personally did not produce, the righteousness of Christ, their Substitute and Surety. This is salvation by grace!

The Bible knows no such term as imparted righteousness, however, when men refer to this, most mean the work of the Holy Spirit in a sinner to give that sinner spiritual life (a principle of life and godliness), faith, repentance, love, humility, and all the graces of the Spirit. These wonderful graces of the Spirit are imparted, infused and implanted, into the sinner by way of the heart (the mind, the affections, and the will). These things are not the merit of a work such as is the righteousness Christ produced. They are moral qualities of character freely given to God's elect by virtue of their oneness with Christ and as the fruit and result of His righteousness imputed to them (Romans 8:32). Therefore, these blessed and necessary graces of the Spirit cannot form any part of the ground of salvation, of justification before God, nor can they make us fit or entitled to any part of Heaven. They are all necessary in salvation, but not as the ground of salvation. They are all the fruit and effect of the work of Christ which is the only ground of salvation.

So it is true that in salvation there must be the merit of a work imputed and there must be moral qualities of character imparted. Christ's righteousness is imputed as the only ground of salvation, as the only merit that makes us fit and entitled to all of Heaven, so that He might have the preeminence in all things. As a result, the work of the Holy Spirit is imparted to bring God's elect to a saving knowledge of Christ and His righteousness as the only ground. God the Holy Spirit points us to and glorifies God the Son incarnate (John 16:13-14). Righteousness, the merit of Christ's work for us, is imputed, as the only ground of salvation. Spiritual life, and all that it includes, is imparted to us by the Holy Spirit as the fruit and effect of Christ's work for us. To confuse this as if the work of the Holy Spirit in us forms some part of the ground of our salvation is to make salvation a matter of works, not grace.

Now, Christ's righteousness cannot be imparted to a sinner, because the merit of a work cannot be imparted or infused. It can only be imputed, or legally charged to the sinner. Spiritual life, saving faith, repentance, love, and humility cannot be imputed to a sinner because a moral quality of character cannot be imputed, or charged to their account. It can only be imparted. This is the only way it can be in order for God to be glorified, Christ to be exalted, and sinners be saved in a way that removes all boasting in themselves. God cannot save sinners based on any moral quality of character infused into them nor based on anything the Holy Spirit enables them to do. Why? It is because God is holy and just, and He cannot save sinners or entitle them to Heaven based on anything less than perfect satisfaction to His holy law and inflexible justice. This is why the term imparted righteousness is confusing. Many imply or derive from this that God the Holy Spirit enables a sinner to meet up to, or at least progressively grow toward, the perfect standard of God's holy law. They imagine, therefore, that God will save them, bless them, or entitle them to some part of salvation based on what they have been enabled to do, not based solely upon what Christ has done. This is works salvation!

All the graces of the Holy Spirit imparted to God's elect, though they are perfect as given by the Spirit, when imparted or infused into a sinner become tainted with sin (Romans 7:14-24). Our faith, though it lays hold of the perfect righteousness of Christ, is not yet itself perfect faith. Our love is not yet perfect love. Our obedience is not yet perfect obedience. And even though we should try to make great improvements in these areas, when we do, we cannot say that we are any holier, or any more righteous, than we are in Christ by virtue of His righteousness imputed. Therefore, we cannot expect God to save us or entitle us to any part of Heaven based on these things, or anything else that is imparted to us. Yes, we must have faith in order to be saved, but we must never believe that faith forms any part of the ground of our salvation or any part of our entitlement to Heaven. We must look to Christ's righteousness imputed alone for this! This glorifies God who justifies the ungodly based on the righteousness of His Son. This exalts Christ who obeyed, suffered, bled, and died in order to establish a righteousness that would enable God to justify sinners and entitle them to all of Heaven. This removes all grounds of boasting in saved sinners and inspires them to love and obedience without legalism.

Salvation is based on the righteousness of Christ freely imputed and received by faith. Salvation is not based on any so-called imparted righteousness. Again, it is true that no sinner will be saved without the work of the Holy Spirit imparting spiritual life, saving faith, true repentance, Godly love, and humility, but all of these things point us to Christ and His righteousness alone as the only ground upon which God will save sinners and entitle them to Heaven. As John Bunyan wrote, "There is no other way for sinners to be justified from the curse of the law in the sight of God, than by the imputation of that righteousness long ago performed by, and still residing with, the Person of Jesus Christ."

What, then, does the Scriptures mean when they talk about doing righteousness (ex. 1 John 2:29; 3:7). As in every case of Scriptural interpretation, context determines the meaning. Doing righteousness does not mean that the Holy Spirit enables a believer to perfectly satisfy God's holy law and inflexible justice. That would be contrary to His main purpose -- to point us to Christ and cause us to rest in Him alone as the one who satisfied God's law and justice. Doing righteousness does not mean that the Holy Spirit imparts a principle in us that enables us to progressively meet up to God's perfect standard of holiness. We as believers are to aim for holiness in our character and conduct, but as we aim at this, we must keep two things in mind --

(1) Although we are free from the guilt, condemnation, and defilement of sin as to our persons, in this life we will never be free from the power, influence, and presence of sin in our character and conduct. We will only be free from sin in this sense in the next life. Until then, we are sinners in our character and conduct, and as we grow in grace and in knowledge, we will realize more and more how sinful we are. We will realize more and more that our efforts to be holy cannot make us holy and cannot entitle us to any part of the inheritance of grace. This continually drives us to Christ for comfort and assurance. It continually causes us to plead His righteousness alone as our complete entitlement to all of Heaven.
(2) Before we ever take the first step in seeking to be holy or in doing good works, we are already completely justified, sanctified, fit and entitled to all of Heaven based on the imputed righteousness of Christ. We are to run the Christian race, persevere in the faith, walk in the light, seek to bear fruit and bring forth good works, not in order to become saints, but we are to do all of this as having been made full-fledged saints by virtue of Christ and His righteousness alone.
Doing righteousness, then, is walking by a particular standard, and that standard is the Gospel -- God's promise to save us (and this includes the work of the Holy Spirit in us), bless us, keep us, and entitle us to all of Heaven based on the imputed righteousness of Christ. Doing righteousness is walking and living by faith in Christ, seeking to obey God, not in order to be entitled to any part of Heaven, but as we are already fully entitled to Heaven in Christ (Romans 12:1-2; Ephesians 1:3; Colossians 2:9-10). Doing righteousness is walking by the rule of the Gospel -- "But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world" (Galatians 6:14).

One last note on the issue of the term "imparted righteousness." Those who insist on using this term are usually very adamant against using the term "progressive sanctification." They say that "progressive sanctification" is not a Scriptural term, and it leads people to wrong thoughts about Biblical sanctification. I have heard people defend the use of this term by stating that they mean growth in grace. I agree that "progressive sanctification" is not a Scriptural term, and most who use it mean that believers become progressively holier by their efforts to obey God's commands. This is legalism and opposed to the Gospel. But I submit, in light of what has been written here, that the use of the term "imparted righteousness" is just as confusing and can be just as legal. Neither "progressive sanctification" nor "imparted righteousness" are Scriptural terms. This does not mean that we can only use words and phrases as quoted exactly from the Bible. If that were true, we would not use the term "Trinity" or the word "sovereign." However, we know these are Scriptural terms because they convey the right meaning of Scriptural truth. They do not confuse the issues of truth. Any words or phrases that confuse the issues of truth and life should be discarded. It is true that some people will twist and wrest any word or phrase. Peter spoke of those who would wrest the Scriptures "unto their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16). We cannot stop this, but when words and phrases have historically and continually confused people and implied things contrary to the Scriptures, we need to discard them. Truth is more important than our own egos and reputations.

Tobias Crisp

05-29-2005, 10:33 PM

Hi Anthony,

I was at the same conference, and I remember him explaining that. I believe he was simply pressing home the reality of the imputed righteousness of Christ. Don Fortner the other night talked about imparted righteousness, and it's my opinion that it's just different terminology for sanctification and holy spirit regeneration. Christ indwells every believer through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, and Christ is perfectly righteous - thus the impartation/indwelling of the Spirit equals impartation of Christ's righteousness.

BrandanBrandan,

As Bill and Moose point out, this is very bad terminology at best. Also, this same preacher said that Rev. 7:14 regarding the robes being made white through the blood of the Lamb is the believer's own imparted righteousness. I am convinced that this is so wrong. The only righteousness that a believer has is an alien righteousness: the Righteousness of Christ imputed.

My goal here is not to criticize particular preachers but the specific concept that some of them are preaching. This was the main topic of discussion between Scott (who you met at the conference) and myself at the picnic following the conference which you were unable to attend. This same preacher also brought up these issues with Scott both before and during the conference in order to convert him to these ideas.

Eager Avenue Grace Church is also dealing with this issue in Albany, GA. This church rejects the concept of imparted righteousness and apparently the preacher from the conference recommended Mark Daniel to the church, who they ended up calling as their pastor. But within a few months Mr. Daniel began slowly introducing this concept of imparted righteousness into his messages. The church knew what was happening and ended up asking him to leave. Mr. Daniel hid his views on this issue knowing full well where they stood and tried to change them. If you want to discuss these things further offline let me know via email (anthonylawson2@juno.com). We can then discuss names and issues.

Again, my aim isn't to criticism or tear down these men, I have a lot of respect for them, but find this specific issue a major problem that many of them promote.

Eileen

05-30-2005, 09:34 AM

Anthony,

The article in New Focus deals only with the imputation of our sin to Christ and doesn't address the 'Righteousness of Christ' that is imputed to us.

The bottom line is that Christ took the believer's sin by imputation only, to infer that Christ became sin in some other way more than imputation can lead to serious error. (Anthonys's quote)

Would you address the differences that you see between what Fortner is teaching and what the normative teaching on imputation of our sin to Christ is?

Bottom line question in the article is and I quote Fortner:

"Were our sins trasferred to Christ and made to be His, or was our Saviour only treated as if that were the case?"

He doesn't deny imputation but believes that Christ actually bore our sins themselves, not just the consequences, when He was made an offering for sin. Isaiah 53 (vv 6, 8-12)

Some clarification on the errors of this would be much appreciated by me. And I fully understand that you are not personally attacking Fortner.

Thanks for any input!
Eileen~

L-Today

05-30-2005, 10:11 AM

Tobias Crisp,

I agree with your stance on imputation vs impartation/infusion absolutely. It is dangerous to go down any other road apart from imputation because all of them eventually (and logically) lead to Rome. Our (own) righteousness is (forever) filthy rags - that is why we can never and under no circumstances rely upon it. And I am very happy over this truth without which I am undone. Maybe others can be righteous by themselves, but I CANNOT. No amount of infusion will help our corrupt flesh which is ever striving against the spirit in our present bodies of death. What other joy is comparable to the knowledge that we are robed ONLY in Jesus Christ's robe of perfect righteousness? Who wants infusions?

Listening to Don Fortner's tapes and reading his books and articles at home, I was as disturbed by the strong emphasis he places upon how our Lord Jesus really and truly became ''sin'', not that our sin (and sins) were imputed into His account, the result of which transaction was that His Father's wrath was unleashed upon His Son instead of on us.

Hard for me to understand why this magnificent concept of imputation is not enough for some people. (As Mike cannot understand ''what if's''). Of course, Isaiah 53.6 says '' . . . and the LORD hath LAID ON him the uniquity of us all.'', but I thought it is obvious here, and in all other relevant passages, that our sins were imputed into the account, not imparted nor infused into the Person of our Redeemer, because He never actually committed any sin ever, being born and remaining forever impeccable, even when going through unspeakable agonies on the cross paying penalties for our sins.

If Don Fortner by ''impartation'' means ''imputation'', he'd better say so. This is far too important doctrine to be ambiguous about, especially with so much general and particular confusion in today's Christendom. Why give food for error to any potential Romish aspirants if it is easy to be clear on this matter, as Daniel E Parks has shown, for example. Maybe somebody can ask Don Fortner to deal with this matter, especially that Brandon, and maybe others, think that DN means ''imputation'' when he says ''impartation''.

There are other issues with Don Fortner that I don't agree with, although I readily and happily admit that he is a very effective preacher and, most certainly, a very nice and kind man and pastor. He is brilliant when bashing universalists.

L-Today.

Brandan Kraft

05-30-2005, 11:33 AM

Here is what Fortner has to say on imparted righteousness... I would prefer the term imparted holiness myself, but I don't think he in any wise means infused righteousness!

http://www.freegrace.net/articles/don%5Cdfarticle230.htm

Imputed righteousness is an act of God's grace in redemption. Because the Lord Jesus Christ lived in righteousness upon this earth as our Representative and died under the penalty of God's law as our Substitute, the law and justice of God declare that we are righteous. The very righteousness of Christ, his perfect obedience to God as a man, has been imputed to us. That is to say, righteousness has been laid to our account. In exactly the same manner as our sins were imputed to Christ, his righteousness has been imputed to us. When God made Christ to be sin for us, he charged him with our sin. The Son of God became responsible to the law of God for the sins of his elect. And the penalty of sin was exacted from him. He died under the wrath of God. Even so, God having imputed the righteousness of Christ to us who believe, we have become responsible for righteousness in the sight of God's law. And we shall receive the just reward of the law for righteousness, eternal life and everlasting glory. As our works of sin were made to be our Lord's, so his works of righteousness have been made ours. As he received the reward of our sin, we must receive the reward of his righteousness. That is substitution. Our righteousness before God is perfect, unalterable righteousness. It is the righteousness of Christ, our Substitute. Child of God, can you realize this? Your standing, your acceptance with God never varies. God is always well pleased with you in his Son!

Imparted righteousness is an act of God's grace in regeneration. In the new birth God gives his people a new heart, a new will, a new nature, created in righteousness and true holiness. Your standing before God is not improved at all by the new birth. God has given you a heart, nature and will of righteousness so that you now love the things you once hated and hate the things you once loved. By this act of divine grace in regeneration the righteous nature of Christ is imparted to God's elect.

http://www.freegrace.net/dfradio/dfrh595.htm
IMPARTED RIGHTEOUSNESS II Peter 1:3-4

Just as the fallen, unrighteous nature of Adam was imparted to all men by natural birth, the holy, righteous nature of Christ is imparted to all God's elect in the new birth. The righteousness of Christ is imputed to us for justification. And the righteousness of Christ is imparted to us in regeneration, by the irresistible power and effectual grace of God the Holy Spirit (I Pet. 3:10-12; I John 3:7-9).

I am not saying that the believer is without sin! He is not. Sin is what we are by nature. Sin is mixed with all we do. Sin mars our best thoughts, blackens our best deeds, corrupts our best words, and defiles our best aspirations.

I am not saying that the old nature is changed in regeneration; It is not. Flesh is always flesh. It never improves. It never becomes spirit. It only corrupts, rots and, thank God, in time dies.

I am not saying that the believer's works can ever be accepted before God upon their own merit! They are not. We offer up our prayers and sacrifices to God, which are accepted by him, only upon the merits of Christ's righteousness and blood atonement (I Pet. 2:5).

But I am saying that the person who is born of God is a new creature in Christ (II Cor. 5:17). He has a new nature, which is Christ in him the hope of glory. All who are born of God walk in the Spirit (Gal. 5:16-23). We love the law and truth of God. We love holiness. But, oh, the evil of our hearts!

There is a constant warfare within! (See Rom. 7:14-25). All who are born of God mind the things of God (Rom. 8:5). This is imparted righteousness. Believers love Christ and one another. They identify themselves with Christ, his gospel and his church. Believers are men and women of honesty and integrity. They live honestly, pay their bills and speak the truth, Believers hate their sin and long to be free of it. They are generous, kind and merciful. In a word, all who are born of God are committed to Christ, sold out to him. And they will continue in the faith, clinging to Christ alone unto the end.

Those who do not have this imparted righteousness are no more born of God than those who do not have Christ's imputed righteousness are justified before God.

Here is something from Dan Parks on the subject... Don Fortner was just at his church preaching, so I don't think Dan thinks Don is preaching infused righteousness!

http://grace-for-today.com/2194.htm

IS RIGHTEOUSNESS IMPUTED, IMPARTED, OR INFUSED?

GOOD NEWS FROM THE REDEEMER

August 18, 2002 RADIO MESSAGE #437

One often hears in Christian circles the terms "imputed righteousness," "imparted righteousness," and "infused righteousness." What do these terms mean? And are they Scriptural?

I. The doctrine of "imputed righteousness" teaches that God graciously charges to the account of believers in Christ the righteousness wrought by Christ. This doctrine is Scriptural. It is at length expounded in Romans 3:21-4:25. Here we are taught that the righteousness wrought by Christ during the days of His incarnation is imputed to, or charged to the account of, believers by God in justification. The justified acknowledge Christ to be not only "Jehovah Our Righteousness" (Jeremiah 23:6) – but also their only righteousness (Psalm 71:16). And they pray to be "found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith" (Philippians 3:9).

It may aid one in understanding this doctrine if he will ever bear in mind that in justification righteousness is imputed, not imparted. And justification does not make one righteous, but merely declares him to be so. And the imputation of righteousness does not change one inwardly and subjectively, this being the work of sanctification, not justification.

II. The doctrine of "imparted righteousness" teaches that God bestows righteousness to believers. This term and its doctrine are problematic.

If by the righteousness imparted one refers to the righteousness wrought by Christ, this term is a misnomer. That righteousness was a merit earned by Christ. And the merit of one person cannot be imparted to another. Just as surely as the guilt of Adam was imputed, not imparted, to all his race, the righteousness of Christ is imputed, not imparted, to all His people.

Some theologians use the term imparted righteousness to identify the righteous nature imparted by God to believers when He regenerates them. They thereby become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4). This "divine nature" (not God's essential nature) is the new one placed in men in regeneration, and which is ever in conflict with the old Adamic nature. It is the "seed" of God placed in man which "cannot sin" (1 John 3:9). While the doctrine here set forth is Scriptural, it is problematic to call it "imparted righteousness." That which is imparted is a righteous nature, not righteousness.

Another problem associated with the term imparted righteousness is that many who use it mean by it the heresy of infused righteousness.

III. The doctrine of "infused righteousness" teaches that God justifies in accord with a righteousness merited by Christ instilled into the believer and maintained by good works. This doctrine, especially prominent in the Roman Catholic Church, is anti-Scriptural, but accords with its doctrine of justification by works. It posits the believer receives both imputed and infused righteousness, the latter becoming his inherent righteousness, and one is justified on the basis of what he personally does with it.

This doctrine may be illustrated by three statements made by a certain gentleman upon hearing a gospel message on the subject of the wedding garment of Christ's bride (Revelation 19:8). His first statement was an objection to the preacher's declaration that the imputed righteousness of Christ is the only righteousness of the saints, on the ground that they possess also imparted righteousness. His second statement was his declaration that he furthermore possessed a "personal righteousness through Christ." His third statement was his response when told Isaiah 64:6 declares "all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags": "I would not call that which is done through the Holy Spirit a filthy rag!" In other words, he believed he was capable of performing works God would declare to be "righteous," not "filthy rags." It was very clear that what he called imparted righteousness manifested itself as infused righteousness, and that his "personal righteousness" was "self-righteousness."

Saints at the final day will be clothed in the imputed righteousness of Christ alone (Revelation 19:8; Isaiah 54:17; 61:10; Philippians 3:9). In what will you be clothed?

Your servant for Jesus' sake, Daniel E. Parks (2 Corinthians 4:5)
Pastor, Redeemer Baptist Church

2801 Cleveland Boulevard, Louisville, KY 40206 / 502.899-9205

All believers in regeneration are given a new nature - a holy consecrated nature. I think these theologians are simply using the word "imparted righteousness" to describe this, although I think it's a term that should not be used due to the confusion that it has brought. Nowhere do the scriptures use the word "impart" to describe this, so the terminology ought to be dropped.

Brandan Kraft

05-30-2005, 12:20 PM

Silly me, I overlooked the earlier post by dan parks by Anthony - Sorry!

cih92

05-30-2005, 01:22 PM

Our sin was imputed to Christ, but this does not mean that Christ became guilty.

The believer does not have a righteousness of his own (Phil. 3:9). The believer has the imputed righteousness of Christ. The believer has a changed life, but I would not call this changed life, "righteousness".

L-Today

05-30-2005, 01:42 PM

Brandan, sorry for misspelling your name! Never thought it could happen to me! (Maybe lack of recent communication could be blamed).

You are right: best of all is to drop the term ''impartation''. To tell you the truth, I get even more confused after reading DF's thoughts on the subject.

L

Eileen

05-30-2005, 03:44 PM

Luba,

Do you have the April/May issue of New Focus magazine? That is where I read the article where DF presents his ideas about our sins being more than imputed. In the bit of article that Brandan posted he used the full idea:

When God made Christ to be sin for us, he charged him with our sin.

In the magazine article he is saying that the 'to be' has been inserted by our translators to make the text read more smoothly, though there are no words corresponding to them in the text. In otherwords, it should read: "He hath made him sin" I'm wondering if he himself, DF that is, has changed his thinking on this and now believes something new? I'm hoping someone who has knowledge about translations (such as WB) will comment on the 'to be'.

I'm settled in my assurance that I have NO RIGHTEOUSNESS of my own but that the Righteousness of Christ is and ever will be my standing before a Holy God, today, tomorrow and the day I stand before Him. Christ Alone!

Hoping someone will comment on the 'to be' issue that DF has introduced.

Eileen~

Robert R. Higby

05-30-2005, 08:16 PM

I agree with all of you that dropping the term 'impartation' is the most wise option, in light of history. Impartation (a 'gift') has been equated with both imputation and infusion, TWO OPPOSITE CONCEPTS, depending on the interpreter. We don't want to introduce this confusion to those who love the true gospel of imputation ALONE as the sum and substance of Christ's redemption in which we savingly believe.

I do believe in REAL and not merely forensic imputation. What this means is that God in his sovereignty really and trully imputes our sins to Jesus in his atoning work and Christ's righteousness to us in that same work. Some who teach purely forensic imputation make it out to be an 'AS IF' proposition that can be wiped out by the unfaithfulness of the believer. God forbid! :cool:

Robert R. Higby

05-31-2005, 03:31 AM

We in the dark 21st century are in the midst of an awful crisis. The truth of the gospel is hated increasingly by the established 'church' every day of our lives, with the heretical New Perspective on Paul gaining more and more prominence. This is no time for unclear and confusing language; it is a most awful error to use jargon that IN ANY WAY might confuse believers and sound similar to those heretics promoting the Roman doctrine of gratia infusa.

By very definition I am one of the ignorant sheep of Christianity. Being a Nonconformist, I hold no 'ordained' office in any 'church'--therefore I have no 'right' to teach others. So let those who have the 'official' right to teach speak clearly and avoid all of this confusion. Don't confuse us men and women of the plow with a new language unless it is clearly explained so that a child might understand it! That is my only request. :cool:

Ian Potts

05-31-2005, 08:32 AM

I haven’t time to discuss this subject but I did one to make a brief comment on the matter.

Essentially two points are being discussed here and contributors to the thread would be wise to keep clarity on which point they are dealing with, firstly the issue of imputation and impartation of righteousness to the elect, and secondly the imputation (or otherwise) of sin to Christ.

I have a high regard for Don Fortner both as a preacher and as a man. I count him as a faithful and bold preacher of the gospel in a day where such are few and far between. Very few.

Part of Brother Fortner’s attraction to me is his no-nonsense, black and white, forthright approach. He is a preacher of the gospel. Not a debater, not a scholar, not one to discuss and analyse, but a preacher. It is such men whom God sends forth with His word. The Gospel is to be preached not debated.

With regard to Don Fortner’s position on the points raised I’d say this:-

In common with Brandan I think Don’s usage of the phrase ‘imparted righteousness’ is really just a terminology issue. He is not preaching anything akin to Roman Catholic dogma. All he is meaning by this is that which is a result of the new birth. At the cross Christ justified his people and the righteousness of God in Christ is imputed to them from that point. When they are born again of the Spirit they who were dead are quickened to life, and that life is the Spirit of Christ within them. His life is RIGHTEOUSNESS and that life will bring forth fruit in the person’s actual conduct. It is this which Fortner is referring to by ‘imparted righteousness’. Not that something of Christ is ‘transferred’ to us, but that Christ Himself dwells within by His Spirit. Hence although the phrase ‘imparted righteousness’ might conjure up certain errors to some I wouldn’t be too hard on Fortner over this. Perhaps he could just use more scriptural language here.

Fortner’s position that Christ didn’t just have our sin IMPUTED to Him, but that He was actually MADE SIN (2 Corinthians 5:21) is spot on. He is absolutely right here and I agree completely. Hence I reproduce his article on my website: http://www.ipotts.freeserve.co.uk/article18.html
For Christ to be a true substitute for the sinner in death He had to truly become what they are, sin, in order to take it away by suffering under the wrath of God. That doesn’t make Christ a sinner, but it did mean that He was made sin during those hours of darkness at the cross, until that hour at which He cried out ‘It is finished!’ when all that sin was GONE. Consumed, burnt up. Judged. Taken away. And Christ arose from the grave on the third day spotless, perfect, righteous. And us in Him.

Will I debate such a truth? Not now. I’d rather preach it, as I’m sure Don Fortner would. :)

In Grace,

Ian

Brandan Kraft

05-31-2005, 08:41 AM

Ian Potts

05-31-2005, 09:00 AM

I'm having a hard time trying to understand the difference between imputation of sin and being made sin. Aren't they the same? Christ was made a sinner by imputation. I thought that is what imputation meant! To have sin charged to one's account is to be made a sinner... Am I missing something? I really don't know what the distinction is.
Brandan,

A very brief explanation, just for you. ;)

To impute, is reckon something to be something, to 'put it to its account'. So to impute sin to someone is to reckon that person to have that sin, whether they have it or not.

Imagine I have a wall painted white. I could impute black to it, reckon it to be black and treat it accordingly. If I particularly hate black walls I may well paint it white again....

But the fact is that wall was white all along, and repainting it white doesn't alter its colour.

But if I take a white wall and throw black paint on it, I haven't imputed black to it, I've MADE IT black. Then I can paint it white to erase the black.

This is much the case with Christ being MADE SIN. If sin was just imputed to Him, then God would simply put our sin to His account, treat Him as the sinner and judge Him for that sin. But nothing would actually happen TO THAT SIN. Christ wouldn't be made it, the sin itself wouldn't be transferred from us to Him, and taken out of the way in the judgement.

But if Christ was MADE SIN (our sin) for us, as He was, then God took our black sin, and made the righteous Christ (white), black with sin. God then burnt up that sin in Christ as He blotted it out. All the black burnt away leaving Christ white again. And us white in Him.

This is not merely imputation. Not merely forensic. Not merely 'as if'. But actually AS. Christ was MADE SIN for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

As saith the scriptures.

In Grace,
Ian

P.S. And just to throw another cat among the pigeons (and I haven't time to discuss.... :) )....

Scripture makes a distinction between SIN and SINS. Christ was MADE SIN, and He bore OUR SINS.

SIN is what we are. SINS are what we do. We have by nature a wicked heart, a sinful heart. We are sin. Out of that heart proceed evil things. We DO wicked things, sins. The two are not the same. Christ in His death dealt with both, our state in the fall, and our actions. He was MADE SIN, and He BORE OUR SINS.

2 Corinthians 5:21 deals essentially with the state, SIN. Christ was MADE SIN (our state by nature) that we might become the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD IN HIM (His state by nature, not the actions He did - eg. under the law in His life - but what He IS, righteousness of God). His blood washed away our sins.

Eileen

05-31-2005, 12:47 PM

Thank you Ian for your willingness to further clarify/explain what "He hath
made him sin" truly does mean. Certainly answered my questions!
Eileen~

Brandan Kraft

05-31-2005, 01:07 PM

Well, I went to the handy dandy John Gill commentary and this is what I found..

http://bible.5solas.org/bible.php?view=1&restrict=0&keywords=&startbook=0&endbook=0&references=0&andor=0&ascdesc=&highlight=1&chaplinks=1&book=47&chapter=5&verse1=21&verse2=&version=gill&abrv=1&createchaps=1

2 Cor 5:21, (GILL), For he hath made him to be sin for us,.... Christ was made of a woman, took flesh of a sinful woman; though the flesh he took of her was not sinful, being sanctified by the Spirit of God, the former of Christ's human nature: however, he appeared "in the likeness of sinful flesh"; being attended with infirmities, the effects of sin, though sinless; and he was traduced by men as a sinner, and treated as such. Moreover, he was made a sacrifice for sin, in order to make expiation and atonement for it; so the Hebrew word hajx signifies both sin and a sin offering; see Ps 40:6 (http://bible.5solas.org/bible.php?view=1&createchaps=1&highlight=1&abrv=1&version=kjv&book=19&chapter=40&verse1=6) and so amartia, Ro 8:3 (http://bible.5solas.org/bible.php?view=1&createchaps=1&highlight=1&abrv=1&version=kjv&book=45&chapter=8&verse1=3). But besides all this, he was made sin itself by imputation; the sins of all his people were transferred unto him, laid upon him, and placed to his account; he sustained their persons, and bore their sins; and having them upon him, and being chargeable with, and answerable for them, he was treated by the justice of God as if he had been not only a sinner, but a mass of sin; for to be made sin, is a stronger expression than to be made a sinner: but now that this may appear to be only by imputation, and that none may conclude from hence that he was really and actually a sinner, or in himself so, it is said he was "made sin"; he did not become sin, or a sinner, through any sinful act of his own, but through his Father's act of imputation, to which he agreed; for it was "he" that made him sin: it is not said that men made him sin; not but that they traduced him as a sinner, pretended they knew he was one, and arraigned him at Pilate's bar as such; nor is he said to make himself so, though he readily engaged to be the surety of his people, and voluntarily took upon him their sins, and gave himself an offering for them; but he, his Father, is said to make him sin; it was he that "laid", or "made to meet" on him, the iniquity of us all; it was he that made his soul an offering for sin, and delivered him up into the hands of justice, and to death, and that "for us", in "our" room and stead, to bear the punishment of sin, and make satisfaction and atonement for it; of which he was capable, and for which he was greatly qualified: for he......

Brandan Kraft

05-31-2005, 01:17 PM

He Hath Made Him To Be Sin For Us!
2 Corinthians 5:21
What was done with the Lord Jesus Christ when he was made to be sin for us? Let no one consider these things as mere matters of cold, theological speculation. They are to be studied and meditated upon only with deep reverence for him who was made to be sin for us.

Our Lord Jesus Christ voluntarily took upon himself an intimate, infinite acquaintance with human sin. He really did take our sins and make them his very own (Psa. 40:12; 69:4-5; 7-9). Our Savior voluntarily assumed all the sins of all his people and volunteered to be made sin for us and to suffer all the wrath of God for our sins, as our Substitute (Psa. 40:6-8; Isa. 50:5-7).

God almighty delivered his own dear Son over into the hands of Divine justice. He was made to suffer the fullest possible extent and extremity of God's infinite and violent wrath. He was made to pay the just penalty of the law.

God made his Son to be sin! This was the soul of his sufferings. He who knew no sin was made to be sin. John Gill wrote, "He was made sin itself by imputation. The sins of all his people were transferred unto him, laid upon him, and placed to his account. He sustained their persons and bore their sins. And having them upon him, and being chargeable with, and answerable for them, he was treated by the justice of God as if he had been not only a sinner, but a mass of sin."

The Lord Jesus Christ, our Savior, suffered and died under the justice and wrath of God as the greatest sinner who ever lived. He was charged with all the sins of all his people. He was made to be sin for all God's elect at once. He suffered shame and reproach. He was despised and rejected of men. He was forsaken by his disciples. He was cursed and denied by Peter. He was nailed to the cursed tree. He was mocked, railed, and spit upon. He was forsaken by his Father!

"Oh, hear that piercing cry! What can its meaning be?

"My God! My God! Oh! Why hast Thou In wrath forsaken me?"

It was because our sins On Him by God were laid;

He who Himself had never sinned, For sinners, sin was made!"

Almighty God drew forth the dreadful sword of justice and slew his Son in our place! Who can grasp that thought? Who can enter into its depths? I cannot understand it. I can hardly realize it. But I can and do believe it. I rest my soul upon it! "He hath made him to be sin for us!" I cannot declare it as I wish I could. But I can bow down and worship my glorious Surety!

"For Us" 2 Corinthians 5:21

Contrary to the popular, heretical opinion of the religious world, the Son of God was not made to be sin for everyone. He was made to be sin "for us." Who are those people for whom the Lord Jesus Christ was made to be sin? That question is answered in many ways in the Word of God. Yet, all the answers given describe one specific category of people. They all describe God's elect. Christ was made to be sin for ungodly, helpless sinners (Rom. 5:6-8). He was made to be sin for his sheep (John 10:11). He was made to be sin for his church (Eph. 5:25-27). The Lord Jesus was made to be sin for those for whom he prayed in John 17 (See verses 9 and 20). In Hebrews 2:9-18, the Spirit of God tells us that the Lord Jesus was made to be sin and "tasted death for every man" whom he calls brother, "every man" numbered among his children, "every man" of Abraham's seed, and "every man" he will bring to glory. Another way of saying that Christ was made to be sin and died for his elect is to assert that he was made to be sin for all who believe. The "us" for whom Christ died are all true believers. Our faith in him is the fruit and evidence of the fact that he died for us (Heb. 11:1). What are the results of this mighty substitutionary Sacrifice? There are some sure, inevitable results arising from Christ's substitutionary sacrifice. Nothing was left to chance, or to the free-will of men. He who died at Calvary died for a specific purpose, to achieve specific results; and he will see his purpose accomplished (Isa. 53:10-12). Should he fail to achieve even one of those purposes for which he died, for even one of those sinners for whom he died, then he is not the Christ of God, and we are yet in our sins (Isa:42:4). Justice was satisfied. All the wrath, condemnation, pain, and agony required by the law and justice of God for sin was fully endured by Christ. Sin was removed. The law released its claim upon God's elect. The righteousness of God was made ours. These things were accomplished on the spot; and other things were guaranteed by the death of Christ. The death of Christ guarantees that every believer will be made perfectly righteous. The death of Christ guarantees the eternal salvation of all God's elect. The death of Christ guarantees that every soul for whom he died will enter into eternal glory. If the Lord Jesus Chris was made to be sin for us, if the Lord of glory died for us, we ought to willingly, constantly, and completely consecrate ourselves to him (Rom. 12:1-2; 1 Cor. 6:19-20). Nothing else makes any sense at all. Half-heartedness toward Christ is simply incomprehensible! Even with a knowledge of my horrible depravity and sin, I simply cannot understand how a blood-bought sinner can be so indifferent to his Redeemer as I am!

Don Fortner

L-Today

05-31-2005, 04:06 PM

Dear Eileen,

Sorry for having missed your posting to me. Will go and re-read attentively DF's article.

Our scholars here are sure to come up with an answer to your question very shortly, I am sure.

Together with you, I am settled in the assurance that I have NO righteousness of my own. In Christ's righteousness alone to be robed! Wondrous liberating truth!

Ian, hi, long time since we have comunicated - I know how busy you are.

First and foremost - I agree with you on DF - very good preacher, excellent, just as they should be - black and white and no foggy speckled patches. We surely could do with many more like him. Peter and Jill sent me quite a few of his tapes, and I love his sermons a lot. I have his Basic Bible Doctrine and many articles.

Ian, what interests me is this: when you speak about Christ's account, you treat it as if this account was a thing apart from Christ, somewhere far away from Him, so that when God has afflicted His Son on the cross, this separate account with our sin and sins, remained in this other place - intact. Now, would you explain to me: how is it possible to separate a person from his account? It reminds me of one of the churchianity's favourite song: ''God hates sin but loves the sinner'', as if sin floats here and there all by itself.

When Father and Son agreed, in eternity, that the elect people's sin and sins will be IMPUTED INTO THE ACCOUNT of the Son, was it understood in this agreement that the Son will bear and be punished for these sins in His account, Himself remaining innocent? Or did it mean that the Son must become a sinner Himself, His innocence then gone from Him?

In your example of white wall with black paint on it, did God see/consider the white wall beneath the black paint which He was burning by His wrath? Of course, He did. But in DF's description it almost sounds as if God sees nothing but black. Probably I am wrong, but that is how it came across, maybe because of the ''impartation''. I should listen and read more carefully and not miss a word.

Hope you are all well at home, Ian.

In our Lord's mercy only,

Luba.

Robert R. Higby

05-31-2005, 09:41 PM

For me, the distinction between 'reckoned a sinner' and 'made sin' has to do with God's sovereignty. Both Lutherans and Arminians teach that Christ was accounted as a sinner in a forensic 'exchange' transaction of God's reckoning; they also teach that the believer is accounted as righteous in a forensic 'exchange' transaction of God's reckoning. But this 'AS IF' forensic justification does not secure the believer eternally, since it is not real. It is God's real and sovereign works (decrees) finished from the foundation of the world that make imputation in both directions REAL, not merely or purely forensic. What God determines to call REAL in his own estimation and decree REALLY is a fact and historical. Christ experienced all the horrors and burden of the guilt of sin for certain.

This may not be what others are saying (exactly) but anything more than this simply creates a maze of confusion for me; I'm not smart enough to know how Christ can be 'black' with sin in a deeper sense than what Gill describes, unless one crosses the line and says that Christ actually experienced sin and rebellion by infusion. That I cannot and will never do; I'm trusting that others here hold to the same conviction. :cool:

red beetle

06-01-2005, 12:35 AM

Robert R. Higby

06-01-2005, 04:01 AM

I will let Ian answer Red Beetle.

The terms of argument are shaping up for me. There is a difference between calling this transfer of sin to Christ 'merely forensic' than calling it 'merely imputed' (the latter of which to me is wrong). I believe it is correct to describe the transfer of our sins to Christ as more than forensic, but not more than imputation. It is the introduction of this little term 'imparted' by some that is throwing the saints into confusion; that is what Anthony was concerned about. Based on the history of dogma, 'imparted' is the wrong term for it has characteristically been an alternate word for 'infused' or 'transmitted'.

Imputation includes a real transfer in God's sovereign purposes of the guilt of sin to Christ, not only a forensic reckoning of the fulfillment of justice. But it is just as true that Christ's righteousness was REALLY transferred to a whole host of his elect without even their own existence, for in the atonement all of his elect were constituted just (the constitutive aspect of justification). In no way did this involve an impartation either. In actual fact, the righteousness of Christ is never imparted to the believer, even in eternity. He comes to live within us and make us new creatures in his image. That is the creation of a new and distinct creation in Christ, however, not a re-incarnation of himself as the Christmas hymn teaches false doctrine: cast out our sin and enter in, be born in us today. God's purpose is not that his elect become "little Christ's" by impartation or infusion--never will be.

Ian Potts

06-01-2005, 04:29 AM

The quotes from Don Fortner which Brandan has posted do not present the full picture of what he states on this matter. Here is an extract from the article "He hath made him sin" by Fortner which I have on my site:-

Not Stated

I. First, let me show you what the text does not say.

A. It is not stated, as it is most commonly suggested, that God the Father made his Son “a sin-offering.”

The Scriptures do declare, “thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin.” Our all-glorious Christ is our sin-offering. We have no offering for sin but him. But that is not what this text says. Here the Holy Spirit declares, “He hath made him sin for us.”

B. The Apostle does here tell us that Christ was made “a sacrifice for sin.”

He is that. We rejoice to declare that when our blessed Savior died as our Substitute, he himself “one sacrifice for sins” and “sat down on the right hand of God.” Because of his one sacrifice “there remaineth therefore no more sacrifice for sin!” But here the Spirit of God tells us, “He hath made him sin for us.”

C. Again, the Holy Spirit does not tell us here that Christ was “reckoned to be sin” by his Father.

That is the way we would read the text, if we followed the implications of our translators in adding those words “to be.” Yes, he was reckoned to be sin and punished as such for us. But here we read, “He hath made him sin for us.”

D. In the same line of thought, it must be pointed out that our Lord Jesus is not here said to have sin imputed to him.

Sin was indeed, imputed to our Substitute, it was laid to his charge, but that is because “He hath made him sin for us.” But as far as the words of Holy Scripture are concerned, it is nowhere stated in the Book of God that sin was imputed to the Lord Jesus Christ. There is not a single passage in the Bible that speaks of our sins being imputed to our Savior.

In Romans 4 the word “imputation” or its equivalent (accounting or reckoning) is used seven times. It is mentioned again in chapter 5 (v. 13). But in those places God the Holy Spirit speaks of sin not being imputed to us and of righteousness being imputed to us. Yes, our sins were imputed to Christ when he was made sin for us, and because “He hath made him sin for us.” But the Word of God never uses the word impute, or any word like it, to speak of sin being imputed to Christ.

Made Sin

II. Now, let me show you what our text does reveal. — “He hath made him sin.”

John Gill said, “He was made sin itself…The sins of all his people were transferred unto him, laid upon him…He sustained their persons and bore their sins. And having them upon him, and being chargeable with, and answerable for them, he was treated by the justice of God as if he had been not only a sinner, but a mass of sin.”

I am fully aware that natural reason opposes it. And many have endeavored to make the Word of God say something else. We are told that Christ had sin imputed to him, that he bore the guilt of sin, that he was charged with the debt of our sins, that he became accountable for our sins, that he bore all the effects of our sins, and that he was treated as if he were sin. But this plain, straightforward, blessed statement of Holy Scripture is almost universally denied by men. — “He hath made him sin.” But there it stands. — “He hath made him sin.”How can this be? What can it mean?

In human law and reason, among men, I fully acknowledge that guilt cannot be transferred, but only its effects. Among the sons of men, a third person may cancel my debts but not my crimes. But I am not talking to you about things men can, or may do. I am talking to you about what our God has done. And in this great affair of salvation our great God stands infinitely alone. In this, his most glorious work, there is such a display of justice, mercy, wisdom and power, as never entered into the heart of man to conceive. Consequently, it can have no parallel in the actions of mortals. — “Who hath declared this from ancient time? Who hath told it from that time? have not I the Lord? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me” (Isaiah 45:21).

(Micah 7:18) “Who is a God like unto thee, that pardoneth (BEARETH) iniquity, and passeth by the transgression of the remnant of his heritage? he retaineth not his anger for ever, because he delighteth in mercy.”

Were our sins transferred to Christ and made to be his, or was our Savior only treated as if that were the case? What do the Scriptures say? I am not even slightly concerned about what men say concerning this matter. I only want to know this. — What does God say in his Word? This is what God says. — “He hath made him sin.”

In this statement, “He hath made him sin,” the word “made” is very significant. It is not a legal term, but a word that carries the idea of “create.” It means, “by one act gather together and cause to be.” Paul is telling us that God the Father, by one great, mysterious act, gathered together all the sins of all his elect throughout all the ages of time, and caused his darling Son to be sin for us.

(Isaiah 53:6) “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.”

(Isaiah 53:12) “Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.”

(1 Peter 2:24) “Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.”

The Word of God plainly teaches that Christ our blessed Surety was made sin for us, that he bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that the Lord God laid upon him our iniquities, that “He hath made him sin.”

Let me just emphasise again one point Brother Fortner makes here:

"But as far as the words of Holy Scripture are concerned, it is nowhere stated in the Book of God that sin was imputed to the Lord Jesus Christ. There is not a single passage in the Bible that speaks of our sins being imputed to our Savior."

In various replies mention has been made of how our sin was imputed to Christ. That is claimed to be Biblical. But not one passage of scripture says that or uses that term. Yet Paul clearly understood imputation and used the term elsewhere, such as in Romans 4 in relation to righteousness being imputed to the elect.

So if I and Fortner are going to be charged as unbliblical here I think a better ground for the accusation will need to be sought.

Ian

harald

06-01-2005, 05:06 AM

In my mind right now, I have difficulty conceiving how God could have "MADE" Christ "sin" except by imputation, which was possible only due to previously established legal decretive union of Him and His elect. With "sin" in the 2 Cor. 5 passage I believe Paul refers to the root sin, the sin nature or principle. If, and I say if, God at the cross "made" Christ "sin" in the ultimate sense of "make" then Christ in His own Person came to be (through the Father's making), there and then, tainted with sin, I say IN HIMSELF considered. But of a truth He was not, in Himself considered, tainted with sin, not with the least sin. How could it then truly and verily be said that Christ (in Himself considered) "was" (subsisted in the capacity of) SIN unless He possessed some taint of sin in or about His Person? If God had truly and verily made Christ sin in every sense of the word "make" then He would have had to be considered "a sinner" in His own Person considered, by both God and men so considered. But I cannot find that God in some way did change the personal constitution of this Person Jesus Christ there on the cross. He always, in Himself considered, remained the spotless sacrificial lamb of God. But I perceive that considered as being the Representative of His own, and as in union with them, He was by God "made" sin imputatively. God dealt with His Son incarnate just as He would have had to deal with the elect were it not for Jesus assuming their debt. Right now I do not understand why divinely established decretive union of Christ and the elect in conjunction with a multiple imputation (at Calvary) seemingly is not enough to justify the elect in God's sight. I have still to wait to see those clearly define "made" who say it means something else (or more) than sovereign Divine imputation. When they cough up their definition with Scripture backing-up I will listen carefully and consider their say.

Harald

Ian Potts

06-01-2005, 05:30 AM

Dear Ian Potts,

You are wrong. Your view is not Biblical. You are denying the sufficiency of imputation. Our sins imputed to Christ, and Christ's righteousness imputed to us, is sufficient to Justify us before God. You are clearly asserting that our sin imputed to Christ, and His righteousness imputed to us, is not enough to justify us.

Well, I’m wrong about many things ‘Red Beetle’. I don’t deny that. My fallible, frail mind gets much wrong, and I daily fear being led aside from the truth by many influences, particularly the fallible writings of men.

But when I stand on the solid rock of the word of God, and have the witness of the Spirit of God to the truth, then I know I’m in a good place. Then I can be as sure as a man can be that I speak aright. Then I will speak out, and not until then.

I always seek to speak from the solid foundation of God’s word. So I find the charge that my view is not Biblical quite spurious.

What is your idea of what is Biblical? Apparently that “Our sins imputed to Christ, and Christ's righteousness imputed to us, is sufficient to Justify us before God.”

Please show me a scripture verse, just one, that says that our sins were imputed to Christ. I don’t know of a single verse myself.

Then, please show me a verse which says that “Christ’s righteousness” is imputed to us. I don’t think you’ll find the phrase “Christ’s righteousness” in scripture either, and I’m not being pedantic here, believe me. My Bible repeatedly uses the term “the righteousness of God” with respect to justifying righteousness. For example Romans 3:20-22.

Perhaps you will reply that the terms refer to the same thing. “Christ’s righteousness” is the righteousness of God many claim. Well, why not use the exact scriptural terms rather than introducing a new label for this? After all, one of the criticisms of Fortner in this thread is his terminology in using the phrase ‘imparted righteousness’. Well don’t expect of him, what you fail to do yourself. “Christ’s righteousness” is not a Biblical term and it is used poorly by many theologians in a way which blurs the doctrinal differences set forth in the New Testament between the righteousness of the law, and the righteousness of faith, “the righteousness of God without the law … even the righteousness of God by faith of Jesus Christ”.

However unbiblical you wish to be, however led along by the theological jargon of those ‘Reformed’ writers who are so often revered by Protestants to the level of sainthood, as for me I’ll stick to the plain, simple, language of scripture. Especially when dealing with such an important area as Justification.

So when I read in 2 Corinthians 5:21…

“For he hath made him sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him”

I’ll take it as written. The verse says “he hath made him sin” and it means “he hath made him sin”. If Paul meant imputation here you can be sure he would have used that word. But the verse DOES NOT SAY:-

“For he hath imputed sin to him for us, who knew no sin; that we might have the righteousness of Christ imputed to us”

Paul knew very well what imputation meant. He used the term with respect to righteousness in Romans 4. He used it again with respect to imputing sin in Romans 5. But nowhere, NOWHERE, does he use it with respect to our sin being imputed to Christ.

Why not? Because “he hath made him sin for us”. That is what Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 5:21 and is EXACTLY what he meant. Made sin. To what end? That we might be made the righteousness of God in him. And you’re not going to have the righteousness unless Christ really was made sin for you. Because no one will enter heaven and take sin with them. Imputed righteousness or not. A profession of sovereign grace or not.

The plain meaning of this verse in no way contradicts other passages of scripture such as those cited from Hebrews. Christ was made sin during the three hours of darkness at the cross. He was not made a sinner. That sin was ours but He was made it at the cross when we were united with Him in death. And as such, in that mystical union of the Bridegroom and His Bride they became one. Christ was righteous but His bride was sin, so He was made sin, Her sin. He bore her iniquities. And in His suffering he bore them all away. The bride died with Christ spiritually, but the suffering was all His, as Her substitute. He was made her sin that He might take it away, and take it away He did. Then, sin being no more, they both rose again in everlasting life on the third day, spotless, perfect.

Until the cross Christ “knew no sin”. At the cross He was made sin. When sin was judged, at the end of three hours there was no more sin. The phrase “who knew no sin” does not mean that Christ knew no sin at the cross. It means He knew no sin until that point. Then He was made sin. This fits perfectly well with the verses cited from Hebrews such as:-

"How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" Hebrews 9:14

When Christ hung upon the cross He offered Himself without spot to God, as He who knew no sin, as the perfect, blameless, spotless, lamb of God. And what did God do? He took that sacrifice and “made him sin”. That He might take it away, blot it out.

Christ came for such a purpose. As it reads in Romans 8:3:

“For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:”

I will leave it there. My position, with Fortner’s, is completely Biblical. I can defend it, if I had the time, with scripture. I do not need to try to ‘explain away’ the plain meaning of passages such as 2 Corinthians 5:21 by saying things such as ‘made’ here really means ‘imputed’. What a slur against the Apostle Paul, and indeed the Holy Spirit. As though the Spirit can rightly use the term ‘imputed’ in Romans 4 but somehow got the theology wrong in 2 Corinthians 5:21….?

I said in my original post that I won’t debate these things. I stand by that. Don’t expect further replies on this matter. Frankly time fails me to do so.

(EVERY time I have posted on 5Solas, often with the intention of just adding a few thoughts to a thread, my tuppence worth as it were, I have ended up being questioned from every side. I haven’t the time to get into debate like that and the more that happens the LESS INCLINED I am to ever post again here. I don’t mean to be blunt in saying that – it is simply that I don’t post with the intention of debating. If others wish to then feel free to discuss the matter between yourselves, using SCRIPTURE as a guide, under the Spirit’s leading. But I really can’t answer umpteen questions.)

I daresay, that my post will simply stir up a fuss here and some will brand me as wrong over this. So be it, I’m QUITE used to that! However I posted originally simply to defend a good man and friend of mine, Don Fortner, who believes the same as I, and who was called into question. Not that he or myself needs defending though… we both declare what the scripture says, no more. If you disagree then refute it from scripture. But so far much that I’ve read here is human wisdom, gleanings from books, and quotes from revered theologians about such ideas as sin being imputed to Christ. Let the word of God respond:-

“For he hath made him sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him”
2 Corinthians 5:21

In Grace,
Ian

P.S. Luba – Hi! Good to speak again. Sorry I can’t respond to your points. Time fails me. Hopefully my response here will serve for now. God Bless you Sister. :)

Brandan Kraft

06-01-2005, 08:13 AM

Ian, what interests me is this: when you speak about Christ's account, you treat it as if this account was a thing apart from Christ, somewhere far away from Him, so that when God has afflicted His Son on the cross, this separate account with our sin and sins, remained in this other place - intact. Now, would you explain to me: how is it possible to separate a person from his account? It reminds me of one of the churchianity's favourite song: ''God hates sin but loves the sinner'', as if sin floats here and there all by itself.

When Father and Son agreed, in eternity, that the elect people's sin and sins will be IMPUTED INTO THE ACCOUNT of the Son, was it understood in this agreement that the Son will bear and be punished for these sins in His account, Himself remaining innocent? Or did it mean that the Son must become a sinner Himself, His innocence then gone from Him?I think Luba here hit on the very key issue of this discussion. Is Christ separated from "his account?" I see no reason to believe so. Imputation of sin was forensic, but who says forensic is not real! If the sins of the elect were imputed to Christ's account that means they were laid on Christ. Christ and "his account" are not at all separated.

Christ in all actuality suffered under the wrath of God and he bore His people's sins as if He was the actual transgressor. He was made sin by imputation. I agree with Bob that Christ did not sin, nor did He experience what it was like to rebel against the Father.

I hear one side saying - the sins of the elect were imputed to Christ's account. I hear the other side saying - no, they were laid on Christ. I think both sides are saying the same thing but they don't see it because they see Christ's account separated from Himself - which absolutely makes no sense to me at all!

BTW Harald, welcome back - I was wondering what happened to you! I hope all is well with you.

Brandan Kraft

06-01-2005, 08:47 AM

I've invited a few of the speakers (Scott Price, Don Fortner, Dan Parks, Todd Nibert, Don Bell) and Peter Meney of New Focus Mag to participate in this discussion - or at least observe it so that they can be better prepared to discuss these things in the future.

Robert R. Higby

06-01-2005, 08:47 AM

Well, I disagree with Fortner's limitation on the meaning of the word 'imputed'-- since I believe it includes real, not purely forensic reckoning as used in scripture. So the fact that Christ was made sin (and believers made the righteousness of God in him) is the same thing as dual/transferred imputation both ways, whether the word is used or not in that passage. If we assume that 'imputed' is limited to 'forensic' (which is not the biblical meaning of 'imputed') then I would see his point that there is more to it than that.

If grace is in every way superior to law, the pupose of God in transferring REAL and sovereign grace is the prominent aspect of the atonement imputed to believers, even more than the fulfillment of law/justice (forensic transaction). In God's sovereign plan, law, sin, and guilt were brought in ('added' to history) to magnify his greater and all-consuming purpose of exercising sovereign grace to those unworthy.

Our plea to drop 'imparted' is based on the historical use of that term by Catholics and Wesleyans to promote the false and pernicious doctrine of infusion (Christ's righteousness infused into saints making them 'little Christ's').

Ian Potts

06-01-2005, 09:20 AM

Well, I disagree with Fortner's limitation on the meaning of the word 'imputed'-- since I believe it includes real, not purely forensic reckoning as used in scripture. So the fact that Christ was made sin (and believers made the righteousness of God in him) is the same thing as dual/transferred imputation both ways, whether the word is used or not in that passage. If we assume that 'imputed' is limited to 'forensic' (which is not the biblical meaning of 'imputed') then I would see his point that there is more to it than that.

But imputation, whether 'real' or 'forensic' is still a reckoning isn't it? You think Biblical imputation is 'real reckoning'. But that stops short of what 2 Cor 5:21 says: "made sin". Not "reckoned to be sin", but "made sin".

If Paul meant "imputed" or "really reckoned to be" then he'd have said so, as in Romans 4. He doesn't because he means "made sin".

Until someone can explain why "made sin" should not be read as such, and really should be considered as "reckoned to be", 'really' or otherwise, I don't see why the plain words of scripture should be questioned.

...But I said I'm done here, and so I am.

In Grace,
Ian

lionovjudah

06-01-2005, 09:57 AM

Perhaps this is off base, so correct me please.

did the OT sacrafices that shadowed and were figures of Christs sacrafice, become sin? or were they just a sacrafice for the sin? I am attempting to follow this thread with great interest, but I am getting lost in the words.

Can someone please provide a simple definaition of the following.

Imputation
Impartation
Infusion.

Please no lenghtly thesauraus type words..hahahahaha

harald

06-01-2005, 10:19 AM

Brandan,

Thank you. I guess there is much to complain about myself, especially spiritually speaking. But I guess I should not complain. For some months now I have been off forums, but the last few days I have been following some of the discussion on this one. Today I decided to write a bit. I guess some little polemicizing and/or plain discussion could shake me (in a positive sense) out of this lethargy. My sword has laid too long in its sheath, so as to speak.

Harald

Ivor Thomas

06-01-2005, 10:36 AM

This is just to say if i could write and express what i know about this subject,i would write exactly what Ian has wrote, in saying this i will make just one contribution to this thread, a scripture for all to ponder on. WHO HIMSELF BORE OUR SINS [IN] HIS OWN BODY ON THE TREE.......1 Peter ch2v24;[ not on but in]
Ivor Thomas....

harald

06-01-2005, 10:46 AM

Joe. My take on your words.

imputation - in the Greek text a verb, "logizomai". Defined variously as "to impute, reckon, count, calculate" etc., depending on context. In Romans 4 Paul uses it many times, and I have come to think there it most often has the sense of "to attribute". I think this is also how Paul mainly uses the verb, at least in contexts where touching upon righteousness and justification. "Logizomai" is to be distinguished from a closely similar verb, "ellogeO". I believe this one primarily means "to charge (to someone's account)". I think it was in Romans 5:13 or thereabout that Paul uses ellogeO.

impartation - I do not recall finding this noun in the NT. But the verb for "impart" is found in some versions in Pauline corpus. But not in justification context. The verb rendered "impart" means "to share (with)". So here some Webster's definition would be of no use. What is important in discussing such words as these is in what sense Paul uses them.

infusion - cannot recall seeing this noun in the NT, nor its cognate verb. The verb "infuse" according to Webster's comes from the Latin "infundere" - "to pour in". So if one talked about "infused righteousness" then it would mean "poured in righteousness". I do not see such language used by Paul. To be dogmatic, the righteousness which Christ Jesus exhibited while here on earth cannot, could not, be "poured in" into some human being. But, what this righteousness, and its exhibiter (Christ), purchased for God's elect was a righteousness that could be infused. I mean infused into God's elect in the sense of God putting into their innermost parts a new and perfectly righteous nature, one which corresponds to Christ's holy and righteous humanity. Which is the same as to say that regeneration was purchased by Christ for His own when He justified them on the cross. When Paul spoke "justification of life" in Romans 5 this was what he talked about as respected God's chosen ones. He meant a justification before God which was/would be characterized by, marked by, LIFE (spiritual, eternal). So, the mark, characteristic, evidence etc. of justification before God is LIFE eternal, of which the essence is to experientially know the one true God and His Son Jesus Christ, whom He did send.

My take is that persons (inclusive of preachers) who go on confusing these vital issues are such as would be "teachers of law" but know not whereof they affirm. As for preachers I believe that God-called such do not confuse these issues, but have the Spirit's ability to speak with utmost clarity and precision. Their trumpet gives none uncertain sound whatsoever.

Harald

L-Today

06-01-2005, 11:48 AM

Dear Ian, come back, please, for a little while yet, I'll be ever so grateful.

Please teach me where I am wrong on the following: are we not a sum total of what is in our accounts? Everything we ever thought, spoke, did - isn't it us?

What else is there in us apart from our accounts=full information about ourselves? Flesh on our bones? Don't we think, love, hate, plan, believe in our hearts-minds which means our very beings, all of which is gathered into our accounts, and that is how we are known?

Only God knows all our accounts exhaustively, of course, and it is these our accounts which would have been judged - every tiny detail in them - on the Judgment Day before the throne of Judge, were they not washed clean by the Blood of our Redeemer. Reprobates will pay in full for what is in their accounts. If not only for what is in these records of theirs, what else will they pay for? Who are they without their accounts?

Is not our Lord Jesus Christ's (here a very inadequate one) Account: He is the Second Person of the Triune God, the Son of God, the Word of God, by whom God created everything, who 2,000 years ago became God-Man for the purpose of redeeming the elect sinners His Father has given Him in eternity? That His conception in the virgin by the Holy Spirit was holy, that He lived an impeccable life here on earth, that He is the Lord of Glory and the Wisdom of God, and is Altogether Lovely, the Blessed Lamb of God, the Divine Substitute for us, sinners?

If we take away this account from our Lord Jesus, what are we left with to know about Him? You see, what I am asking, Ian - how can laying our sins into our Lord's account not affect Him? How - by imputation - He COULD be punished Himself, but His account with our sins remain intact?

As Bob wrote, the mutual redemptive agreement within the Godhead, in eternity, can never be ''as if'' - God is never making decrees which are not real or actual, so when our sins were laid upon our Saviour, of course, His Father's wrath was REALLY unleashed on His Beloved HOLY Son nailed to the cursed tree by His rebellious creatures! Where was our Saviour's account then?

Imputation - I hear your concern, brother, over this word not being in the Bible as such. But are we not given numerous examples of necessary logical deductions by our Lord Jesus Himself and by all the inspired writers of the Scriptures? If we were always stuck on each word, then what do we do with the Arminian ''weapons'' of the usual ''all'', ''world'', etc.? My question here is - do you think this concept of imputation of our sins to our Lord and His Perfection into ours - is wrong in itself?

Ian, I am grateful for your contributions, and please believe that brothers here never just attack people - they are keen students of God truth and are ever trying to make things as clear as possible to all concerned.

Maybe we could pick up our e-mails when you have more time?

Brandan, thank you, brother, for understanding my dilemma with separate accounts and imputations.

ray kikkert

06-01-2005, 12:50 PM

Joe. My take on your words.

My take is that persons (inclusive of preachers) who go on confusing these vital issues are such as would be "teachers of law" but know not whereof they affirm. As for preachers I believe that God-called such do not confuse these issues, but have the Spirit's ability to speak with utmost clarity and precision. Their trumpet gives none uncertain sound whatsoever.

Harald

I agree Harold with you and Bill that the simpler the better. I also enjoy Bill's call to the sovereign purpose and decree of the Lord in regard to the topic at hand.

It is quite telling that "imputation" alone is used in Scripture in defining justification by faith alone.

In reading the relevant texts that use the word in Psalm 32:2, Romans 4, and 2 Corinthians 5:19...... imputation can be easily advocated as the proper word to use.

God justifies the elect by not imputing sin to them.
Righteousness is the remission of sins.
It is imputed without the addition of works on the part of the justified.
The thinking should not be that the fault is remitted, yet, the punishment is still retained by God.
Perfect obedience was required and was accomplished by Christ.

Verse 19 of 2 Corinth. 5 states that God was in Christ. God reconciled with His elect creation through Christ.

John Calvin's commentary on verse 21:

21. Him who knew no sin. Do you observe, that, according to Paul, there is no return to favor with God, except what is founded on the sacrifice of Christ alone? Let us learn, therefore, to turn our views in that direction, whenever we desire to be absolved from guilt. He now teaches more clearly, what we adverted to above -- that God is propitious to us, when he acknowledges us as righteous. For these two things are equivalent -- that we are acceptable to God, and that we are regarded by him as righteous.

To know no sin is to be free from sin. He says, then, that Christ, while he was entirely exempt from sin, was made sin for us. It is commonly remarked, that sin here denotes an expiatory sacrifice for sin, and in the same way the Latin's term it, piaculum. 14 (http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol40/htm/xi.iv.htm#_fnf14) Paul, too, has in this, and other passages, borrowed this phrase from the Hebrews, among whom Msa (asham) denotes an expiatory sacrifice, as well as an offense or crime. 15 (http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol40/htm/xi.iv.htm#_fnf15) But the signification of this word, as well as the entire statement, will be better understood from a comparison of both parts of the antithesis. Sin is here contrasted with righteousness, when Paul teaches us, that we were made the righteousness of God, on the ground of Christ's having been made sin. Righteousness, here, is not taken to denote a quality or habit, but by way of imputation, on the ground of Christ's righteousness being reckoned to have been received by us. What, on the other hand, is denoted by sin? It is the guilt, on account of which we are arraigned at the bar of God. As, however, the curse of the individual was of old cast upon the victim, so Christ's condemnation was our absolution, and with his stripes we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=Isaiah+53:5,).)

The righteousness of God in him. In the first place, the righteousness of God is taken here to denote -- not that which is given us by God, but that which is approved of by him, as in John 12:43 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=John+12:43,), the glory of God means -- that which is in estimation with him -- the glory of men denotes the vain applause of the world. Farther, in Romans 3:23 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=Romans+3:23,), when he says, that we have come short of the glory of God, he means, that there is nothing that we can glory in before God, for it is no very difficult matter to appear righteous before men, but it is a mere delusive appearance of righteousness, which becomes at last the ground of perdition. Hence, that is the only true righteousness, which is acceptable to God.

Let us now return to the contrast between righteousness and sin. How are we righteous in the sight of God? It is assuredly in the same respect in which Christ was a sinner. For he assumed in a manner our place, that he might be a criminal in our room, and might be dealt with as a sinner, not for his own offenses, but for those of others, inasmuch as he was pure and exempt from every fault, and might endure the punishment that. was due to us -- not to himself. It is in the same manner, assuredly, that we are now righteous in him -- not in respect of our rendering satisfaction to the justice of God by our own works, but because we are judged of in connection with Christ's righteousness, which we have put on by faith, that it might become ours. On this account I have preferred to retain the particle ejn, (in,) rather than substitute in its place per, (through,) for that signification corresponds better with Paul's intention. 16 (http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol40/htm/xi.iv.htm#_fnf16)

14 (http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol40/htm/xi.iv.htm#_fnb14) The Latin term piaculum is sometimes employed to denote a crime requiring expiation, and at other times, an expiatory victim. -- Ed

15 (http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol40/htm/xi.iv.htm#_fnb15) Thus in Leviticus 5:6 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=Leviticus+5:6,), Msa, (asham,) denotes a trespass -- offering; and in the verse immediately following, it means an offense or trespass. See Calvin's Institutes, volume 2. -- Ed.

16 (http://www.ccel.org/c/calvin/comment3/comm_vol40/htm/xi.iv.htm#_fnb16) The force of the preposition ejn (in,) as made use of by the Apostle in this passage, is more fully brought out by Beza in the following terms: "Justi apud Deum, et quidem justitia non nobis inh'rente, sed qu', quum in Christo sit, nobis per fidem a Deo imputatur. Ideo enim additurn est: ejn aujtw~|. Sic ergo sumus justitia Dei in ipso, ut ille est peccatum in nobis, nempe ex imputatione. Libet autem hic ex Augustino locum insignem exscribere, velut istius commentarium plenissimum. Sic igitur ille Serm. 5. de verbis Apostoli: Deus Pater eum, qui non noverat peccatum (nempe Iesum Christum) peccatum effecit,ut nos simus justitia Dei (non nostra) in ipso (non in nobis.) His adde Philippians 3:9 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=Philippians+3:9,);" -- "Righteous before God, and that by a righteousness which is not inherent in us, but which, being in Christ, is imputed to us by God through faith. For it is on this account that it is added: ejn aujtw~| (in him.) We are, therefore, the righteousness of God in him in the same way as he is sin in us -- by imputation. I may here quote a remarkable passage from Augustine, as a most complete commentary upon it. In Serm. 5 on the words of the Apostle he expresses himself thus: God the Father made him sin who had not known sin, (Jesus Christ,) that .we might be the righteousness of God (not our own) in him (not in ourselves.) To these add Philippians 3:9 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=Philippians+3:9,)." -- Ed.

Question 56 (http://www.prca.org/hc_index.html#Q56). What believest thou concerning "the forgiveness of sins"?

Answer. That God, for the sake of [k] (http://www.prca.org/hc_text2.html#LDXXIk) Christ's satisfaction will no more [l] (http://www.prca.org/hc_text2.html#LDXXIl) remember my sins, neither my corrupt nature, against which I have to struggle all my life long; but will graciously impute to me the righteousness of Christ; that I may never be [m] (http://www.prca.org/hc_text2.html#LDXXIm) condemned before the tribunal of God.

Tobias Crisp

06-01-2005, 01:13 PM

On the issue of 2 Cor. 5:21 and whether it is teaching imputation or not, here is a portion of an article written by John Brine. The article is called "The Doctrine of the Imputation of Sin to Christ, and the Imputation of his Righteousness to his People" and can be found here:

http://www.gospeldefense.com/brine_doctrine.html

The Act of making him to be Sin: Or how he was made Sin for us, is to be considered. I would do this negatively, and positively.

(1) Negatively. It was not inherently: That was absolutely impossible. For, that would have been contrary to the infinite Purity of God, and ruinous to his Design of our Salvation by Christ. Besides, as has been before shewn, the miraculous Conception of our Lord, and the Super-addition of the Gifts and Graces of the Holy Spirit unto the Purity of his Nature, and the Subsistence of his human Nature, in his divine Person, rendered it impossible that any moral Taint, or Impurity, should ever take Place in him. This Act, therefore, of making him to be Sin, effected no internal Change in him. His Nature remained pure and spotless notwithstanding. And all his Actions corresponded with the sinless Perfection of his Nature.

(2) I am to shew in a positive Sense, how Christ was made Sin. And He was made Sin in the same manner, as we are made the Righteousness of God in Him. Which is imputatively. Blessed is the Man to whom the Lord imputeth Righteousness without Works. Imputation is, reckoning accounting or placing to Account, and esteeming thereupon. The Act of Imputation, therefore, whether, of Sin, or Righteousness, makes no internal Change in the Object of the Act. For it is not a transient Act; but it is an inward Act of the Mind, which cannot produce a physical Change, in the Object upon whom it passes. And, consequently, the Imputation of Sin to Christ, was not, nor could be productive of any internal Change in him. Notwithstanding the placing to his Account, in the divine Mind, our Guilt, or criminal Actions, he remained, innocent, pure, and spotless, in himself. This one thing being duly attended unto, will enable us to answer various of the trifling Objections, which are raised against the Doctrine of the Imputation of our Sins to him, beyond any solid Reply. Some have objected, that if Sin itself was imputed to Christ, he must have been defiled by it. But that is a great Mistake: For Sin, as imputed, defiles not. If it did, the Imputation of it, would be impossible with God, not only with respect to Christ; but also, Sinners themselves; because infinite Purity, cannot put forth any Act which would render the Object of that Act morally impure. If the Imputation of Sin to the guilty Creature does not pollute him, which is a certain Truth: How should the Imputation of it to the Holy Jesus, defile him: Imputation is not Transfusion. In the latter a Person become the Subject of that which is transfused. But in the former, no one becomes the Subject of that which is imputed, by the Act of Imputation. And therefore, though the Transfusion of Sin, if that could be, which it cannot, would necessarily defile: The Imputation of it, does not pollute the Object of that Act. And, consequently, the Imputation of Sin to the Blessed Jesus did not, nor could pollute his holy Nature.

This Doctrine contains no false, or mistaken Idea in it, on the Part of the Father, who imputed Sin to Christ; nor on the Part of Christ, to whom it was imputed. Not on the Part of the Father; for, he did not consider our criminal Actions, which he placed to the Account of Christ, as his Acts, or perpetrated by him; but as our Acts, or committed by us: So that his Judgment in this Affair was according to Truth and Fact. Nor, does this Doctrine on the Part of Christ, include any mistaken Conception in it: For, it does not suppose, that he had any Consciousness of the Perpetration of those criminal Actions, which were imputed to him: Or, that under the Charge of them to him, he considered and esteemed them Acts, which he himself had committed. Wherefore, this Doctrine is attended with no dangerous Consequence, relating to Christ, nor is any Thing contrary to Truth, supposed therein, respecting Sin, which he was made for us.

Besides, if Guilt was not charged on Christ, his Sufferings could not be of a penal nature. For, Penalty, is suffering under a Charge of Offence, and without a just Imputation of Guilt; Punishment cannot, in Equity be inflected, on any Subject. It is a most unrighteous thing to punish any one considered, as innocent. And, therefore, if it was not possible with God, to impute Sin to the innocent Jesus, neither could he inflect Punishment on him. And, if Christ did not endure proper Punishment, his Sufferings were not, nor could be satisfactory to the Law, and Justice of God for our Sins. And it is in vain to hope for Salvation, through his Sufferings and Death. Of such Necessity and Importance, is the Doctrine of the Imputation of Sin to Christ.

lionovjudah

06-01-2005, 01:21 PM

harald

06-01-2005, 01:29 PM

Ray and all. Would it not be wise to look at the 2Cor. 5 context in conjunction with Isa. 53:10 words - "MAKE his soul an OFFERING FOR SIN". Could it not be that Paul had these Isaiah words (inspired by God) in mind when he penned the 2Cor. 5 wording?

If Paul were here today I believe I would venture to ask him "exactly what is your sense in your wording

ton gar mê gnonta hamartian huper hêmôn hamartian epoiêsen - lit. "seeing that the one (or "him") not having experientially known sin he made sin on behalf of us"

I would not be satisfied to stare in ignorant awe at the one verb "MADE", but would want to know precisely in what sense Christ "was made" (sin).

So far I cannot recall having seen any take at defining "made" on Ian's part. Does he understand "made" as that God infused a sin nature or many (the elect's) sin natures into the Person of Jesus? If he or some one else says "made" cannot mean "made by imputation" then let them say what they think "made" means. One thing myself knows for sure. The Father's "making" sin of Christ did NOT change the blemishless constitution of His perfectly holy and righteous theanthropic Person. If this is a doctrinal issue we are discussing then Ian should be able to explain by means of WORDS what he thinks "made" exactly means or refers to in this important verse. Was Christ really made sin (the root of sinful propensities and actions, i.e. the sinful nature/principle) in every sense of the verb? In such a sense MADE sin that on that cross was not any more a blemishless lamb, but in reality and in verity nothing but a polluted sin-mass? My mind says this was impossible. He was indeed regarded and treated thusly by the Father during that crucial point in time, but constitutionally, in His person (here with emphasis on the human nature of Christ), He was still the same spotless pure Lamb, innocent and harmless, holy and undefiled. This is my mindedness at this point.

Harald

lionovjudah

06-01-2005, 01:34 PM

Is this article simple but in line?

By Imputation or Infusion?

The great mystery of salvation is justification. How are we made acceptable to a Holy and perfect God who demands an unattainable perfect compliance with His law? Clearly we can never, on our own, meet such a demand.

The problem is not that our sins are not forgiven. The problem is that the price of admission to heaven is an unblemished record. And once one has sinned, the record can never be expunged. Christ said “I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” (Matthew 9:13). The (mythical) righteous man has no need of justification.

Justification is like being acquitted of a crime, though not because the accused is innocent, but because an innocent third party (Christ) has made a satisfactory restitution to the offended (God). We get off on some clever legal maneuvering.

So exactly how does this happen? Here again is an area where there is a substantive difference between the Roman Catholic view and the Reformed view.

As always, when I talk about the Roman Catholic position I do so with great humility and welcome any corrections.

More than a quibble over the word “alone”

The difference between the Roman Catholic view of Justification is sometimes cast as the “mere” addition of the word alone:

RCC: Justification is by faith.
Reformers: Justification is by faith alone.

There has been much unpleasant discussion in blogdom over just how important this difference is, and who meant what back in the 16th century, and who was or was not cursed at Trent, and historical context, and many other details.

However, there is another big question here, above and beyond the nontrivial insistence on the word alone. To wit, how does justification happen? And here we find another substantive difference between the RCC and the Reformers. It is not “just” the “aloneness” of justification, but also that way it happens.

The question is whether we can actually become righteousness (and are therefore acceptable to God) or whether God treats us as if we were righteous. The former is the view of the RCC, the latter of the Reformers.

Neither side holds the position that any sort of justification can occur apart from Grace (that is the heresy of Pelagianism). Both the RCC and Reformed position is that grace is necessary for justification. There is a difference as to whether it is sufficient.

The Reformed View

Calvin wrote:

Thus we simply interpret justification as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favour as if we were righteous; and we say that this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. Calvin also writes that the justified is “deemed righteous” and “regarded not as a sinner.”

This makes it clear that the Reformed view is that man himself does not have inherent righteousness even after justification. The righteousness with which we present ourselves to a Holy God is by imputation; it is not inherent or infused into us. It is symmetric with the view that our sins were imputed to Christ on the cross and he was punished as if they were His own even though they were not.

The Roman Catholic View

Contrast Calvin’s view with what Rome declared at the Council of Trent:

… the instrumental cause [of justification] is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which no man was ever justified finally, the single formal cause is the justice of God, not that by which He Himself is just, but that by which He makes us just, that, namely, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and not only are we reputed but we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to everyone as He wills, and according to each one's disposition and cooperation. We see here a very different view from Calvin’s. The RCC view is that we are justified not by an imputation but by an infusion. We acquire inherent righteousness, initially from the instrumental cause: baptism. Justification also requires cooperation. Furthermore, the state of being justified can be lost through the commission of sin and must be restored by another sacrament: penance. This is turns leads to the idea of congruous merit (http://helives.blogspot.com/2002_06_16_helives_archive.html) that is so alien to the reformed view and that Luther so despised.

The RCC disputes the Reformed view of Justification and holds that if we must be righteous before God then we must have a true, internal righteousness which, though accomplished through grace, is nevertheless “ours”.

Conclusion

The RCC and the Reformed views on justification are very different-- different enough to be the primary cause of the Reformation. It is very important to appreciate that these differences are not superficial (some have said that the only difference is the Reformers and the RCC interchange the meanings of Justification and Sanctification). There are additional ramifications when it comes to other doctrines such as predesitination, perseverance, the atonement, original sin, types of merit, purgatory, and virtually all other salvation related topics. Whether or not these differences are substantive enough in our eyes to warrant the greatest schism in the history of Christianity, they were without question considered very important to both the Reformers and Rome.

harald

06-01-2005, 02:03 PM

Joe,

I'm not sure I altogether understand your last question(s). But shall try answering.

My understanding is that Romanism teaches essentially the same as most of Protestantism. I.e. that with Divine help man attains to justification before God. Unless I understand amiss Romanism teaches that God infuses righteousness, and this righteous nature enables the sinner to meet the demands of faith + good works, based on which things God justifies.
Protestantism on the whole teaches that "faith, the gift of God" is what justifies before God. I.e. that at the point in time when the sinner in his heart exhibits and/or exercises (as called by some) "faith in Christ" he is constituted just and righteous before God.

The two do not differ much. Both are man centered, and condition justification before God NOT on Christ crucified alone, but in reality on what the Spirit enables man to perform Christ-ward and/or God-ward.

Justification before God

Protestantism: Christ's work + the Spirit's enabling + the sinner's initial believing on Christ

Romanism: Christ's work + the Spirit's enabling ("infusa gratia") + the sinner's faith & good works

Paul: Christ the Substitute and Representative in His Person & redemptive Work (culminating in the cross-death) plus nothing minus nothing

Then. As to the infusa gratia notion I know not whether infusion is said to make men divine. I would have to study romanism more. But in Scripture soteriology a sinner is made "hagios" at the point of the Spirit regenerating him/her. Not "divine", but "holy/sanctified/set apart" (Gr. hagios).

Justification in Paul can be said, briefly, to be that God constituted & accounted (quite co-simultaneously) sinners perfectly righteous in His own sight. Not based on seeing Christ IN them. But, based on Christ crucified being their Surety, Representative, Substitute, and their being in Divinely established union with Him as Head. So, not based on seeing Christ in them, but based on seeing Christ Jesus the Righteous and Faithful in their room and stead, as seeing Christ as being their covering, their righteousness, and seeing them "in Him".

"Alien righteousness" in the Scripture sense is that the righteousness which avails with God is not something personally springing from or exhibited by the sinner, but it is entirely a righteousness without their persons, residing in the Person of Jesus Christ. Yet, based on their Divinely established union with Him that Divine righteousness is theirs as well.

Harald

Tobias Crisp

06-01-2005, 02:53 PM

Here is a good article by Stephen Charnock on the imputation of the elect's sin to Christ.

The Imputation of our Sins

by Stephen Charnock

Our sins were imputed to him as to a sacrifice. Christ the just is put in the place of the unjust, to suffer for them (1 Peter 3 :18). Christ is said to bear sin, as a sacrifice bears sin (Isaiah 53:10, 12). His soul was made an offering for it. But sin was so laid upon the victims, as that it was imputed to them in a judicial account [manner] according to the ceremonial law, and typically expiated by them. Christ had not [would not have] taken away our sins as Mediator, had he not borne the punishment of them. As a surety, 'He was made sin for us' (2 Corinthians 5:21), and he bare our sins, which is evident by the kind of death he suffered, not only sharp and shameful but accursed, having a sense of God's wrath linked to it.

(1) Imputation cannot be understood of the infection of sin. The filth of our nature was not transmitted to him. Though he was made sin, yet he was not made a sinner by any infusion or transplantation of sin into his nature. It was impossible his holiness could be defiled with our filth.

(2) But our sin was the meritorious cause of his punishment. All those phrases, that 'Christ died for our sins' (1 Corinthians 15:3) and was 'delivered to death for our offenses' (Romans 4:25) clearly import [mean] sin to be the meritorious cause of the punishment [which] Christ endured. Sin cannot be said to be the cause of punishment, but [except] by way of merit. If Christ had not been just, he had not been [would not have been] capable of suffering for us; had we not been unjust, we had not [would not have] merited any suffering for ourselves, much less for another. Our unrighteousness put us under a necessity of a sacrifice, and his righteousness made him fit to be one. What was the cause of the desert of suffering for ourselves was the meritorious cause of the sufferings of the Redeemer after he put himself in our place. The sin of the offerer merited the death of the sacrifice presented in his stead.

(3) Our sins were charged upon him in regard of their guilt. Our sins are so imputed to him as that they are 'not imputed to us' (2 Corinthians 5:19), and not imputed to us because 'he was made a curse for us' (Galatians 3 :13). He bore our sins, as to the punishment, is granted. If he were an offering for them, they must in a judicial way be charged upon him. If by being made sin, be understood a sacrifice for sin (which indeed is the true intent of the word sometimes in scripture), sin was then legally transferred on the antitype, as it was on the types in the Jewish service by the ceremony of laying on of hands and confessing of sin, after which the thing so dedicated became accursed and though it was in itself innocent, yet was guilty in [the] sight of [the] law and as a substitute. In the same manner was Christ accounted. So on the contrary, believers are personally guilty, but by virtue of the satisfaction of this sacrifice imputed to them, they are judicially counted innocent. Christ, who never sinned, is put in such a state as if he had; and we, who have always sinned, are put into such a state by him as if we never had. As we are made righteous in him, so he was made sin for us.

Now, as justifying righteousness is not inherent in us, but imputed to us; so our condemning sin was not inherent in Christ, but imputed to him. There would else [otherwise] be no consistency in the antithesis: 'He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin' (2 Corinthians 5:21). He knew no sin, yet he became sin. It seems to carry it [the idea] further than only the bearing [of] the punishment of sin. He was by law charged in our stead with the guilt of sin. Our iniquities were laid upon him (Isaiah 53:6). The prophet had spoken (verse 5) of Christ bearing the chastisement of our peace, the punishment of our sin, and then seems to declare the ground of that, which consisted in God's imputation of sin to him in laying upon him the iniquities of us all. What iniquities? Our goings astray, our turnings every one to his own way. He made him to be that sin which he knew not, but he knew the punishment of sin. The knowledge of that was the end of his coming. He came to lay down his life a ransom for many. He knew not sin by an experimental inherency [something in his own nature], but he knew it by judicial imputation. He knew it not in regard of the spots, but he knew it in regard of the guilt following upon the judgment of God. He was righteous in his person, but not in the sight of the law pronounced righteous as our Surety till after his sacrifice, when he was 'taken from prison and from judgment' (Isaiah 53:8). Till he had paid the debt, he was accounted as a debtor to God.

The apostle distinguishes his second coming from his first by this, 'He shall appear the second time without sin unto salvation' (Hebrews 9:28). It is not meant of the filth of sin, for so he appeared at first without sin. But [he will appear] without the guilt of sin which he had at his first coming derived or taken upon Himself to satisfy for and remove from the sinner. He shall appear without sin to be imputed, without punishment to be inflicted. At the time of His first coming he appeared with sin, with sin charged upon him, as our Surety arrested for our criminal debts. He pawned his life for the lives which we had forfeited. He suffered the penalty due by law that we might have a deliverance free by grace. In his first coming he represented our persons as an undertaker [proxy] for us. Our sins were therefore laid upon him. In his second coming he represents God as a deputy, and so no sin can be charged upon him.

He cannot well be supposed to suffer for our sins, if our sins in regard of their guilt be not supposed to be charged upon him. How could he die, if he were not reputed a sinner? Had he not first had a relation to our sin, he could not in justice have undergone our punishment. He must in the order of justice be [either] supposed a sinner really, or [else] by imputation. Since he was not a sinner really, he was so by imputation. How can we conceive [that] he should be made a curse for us, if that which made us accursed had not been first charged upon him? It is as much against divine justice to inflict punishment where there is no sin, as it is to spare an offender who has committed a crime or to 'clear the guilty. This God will by no means do' (Exodus 34:7). The consideration of a crime precedes the sentence, either upon an offender or his surety. We cannot conceive how divine justice should inflict the punishment, had it not first considered him under guilt. Though the first designation of the Redeemer to a suretyship or sacrifice for us was an act of God's sovereignty, yet the inflicting punishment after that designation and our Saviour's acceptation of it was an act of God's justice, and so declared to be, 'to declare his righteousness, that he might be just' (Romans 3:26), that he might declare his justice in justification, his justice to his law. Can this highest declaration of justice be founded upon an unjust act? Would that have been justice or injustice to Christ, for God to lay his wrath upon the Son of his love, one whose person was always dear to him, always pleased him, had he not stood as a sinner regarded so by law in our stead, and suffered that sin, which was the ruin of mankind, to be cast with all the weight of it upon his innocent shoulders? After, by his own act, he had engaged for [made himself responsible for] our debt, God injustice might demand of him every farthing, which without that undertaking and putting himself in our stead could not be done. This submission of his and compliance with it [readiness to suffer for it] is expressed twice, by his not opening his mouth (Isaiah 53:7); and no wrong is done to a voluntary undertaker [i.e. sufferer].

Add this too. It is from his standing in our stead as guilty that the benefit of his death redounds to us. His death had had [would have had] no relation to us had not our sin been lawfully adjudged to be his; nor can we challenge an acquittance [plead for pardon] at the hands of God for our debts if they were not our debts that he paid on the cross. 'He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities' (Isaiah 53:5). The laying hands on the head of the sin-offering was necessary to make it a sacrifice for the offender; without which ceremony it might have been a slain but not a sacrificed beast. The transferring our iniquities upon him must in some way precede his being bruised for them, which could not be any other way than by imputation whereby he was constituted by God a debtor in our stead to bear the punishment of our sin. Since he was made sin for us, our sin was in a sort [manner] made his; he was made sin without sin; he knew the guilt without knowing the filth; he felt the punishment without being touched with the pollution. Since death was the wages of sin and passed as a penalty for a violated law (Romans 6:23) it could not righteously be inflicted on him, if sin had not first been imputed to him. In his own person he was in the arms of his Father's love; as he represented our sinful persons, he felt the strokes of his Father's wrath.

Tobias Crisp

06-01-2005, 03:32 PM

Ian,

"But as far as the words of Holy Scripture are concerned, it is nowhere stated in the Book of God that sin was imputed to the Lord Jesus Christ. There is not a single passage in the Bible that speaks of our sins being imputed to our Savior."

In various replies mention has been made of how our sin was imputed to Christ. That is claimed to be Biblical. But not one passage of scripture says that or uses that term. Yet Paul clearly understood imputation and used the term elsewhere, such as in Romans 4 in relation to righteousness being imputed to the elect.
I find this the most disturbing of what you and Fortner are saying. It's not enough to say that the sin laid of Christ was more than imputation, you are actually denying it's by imputation at all. I was going to spend some time going over each point, and I still may, but I found a good summary in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia that will work for now.

Imputation of the Sins of His People to Christ:

That our sins are imputed to Christ is not expressly stated in the Scripture, but is implied in those passages which affirm that Christ "bore our sins," and that our iniquities were "laid upon him" by Yahweh. To bear inquity or sin, though it may sometimes mean to bear it away or remove it, is an expression often applied in Scripture to persons charged with guilt and subjected to the punishment of their own sin (Leviticus 5:17 (http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/bibleBook/1/sChap/1/sVerse/1/sVerseID/2848/eVerseID/2848/opt/Def/RTD/isbe); Leviticus 7:18 (http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/bibleBook/1/sChap/1/sVerse/1/sVerseID/2898/eVerseID/2898/opt/Def/RTD/isbe); Leviticus 19:8 (http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/bibleBook/1/sChap/1/sVerse/1/sVerseID/3290/eVerseID/3290/opt/Def/RTD/isbe); Leviticus 22:9 (http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/bibleBook/1/sChap/1/sVerse/1/sVerseID/3379/eVerseID/3379/opt/Def/RTD/isbe)). That the Hebrew verb nasa' has this meaning is also indicated by its being interchanged with the verb cabhal, which means "to bear as a burden" and is used to denote the bearing of the punishment of sin (Isaiah 53:11 (http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/bibleBook/1/sChap/1/sVerse/1/sVerseID/18723/eVerseID/18723/opt/Def/RTD/isbe)). In the Old Testament sacrificial system, which according to the New Testament is typical of the sacrifice of Christ, the imposition of hands on the head of the victim signified the substitution of it for the offender and the transfer of his guilt to it. This idea is brought out clearly in the case of the two goats on the great Day of Atonement (Lev. 16). When, therefore, the Servant of Yahweh in Isa. 53 is said "to bear iniquity" (Isaiah 53:11 (http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/bibleBook/1/sChap/1/sVerse/1/sVerseID/18723/eVerseID/18723/opt/Def/RTD/isbe)), or that "the chastisement of our peace was upon him" (Isaiah 53:5 (http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/bibleBook/1/sChap/1/sVerse/1/sVerseID/18717/eVerseID/18717/opt/Def/RTD/isbe)), or that "Yahweh hath laid (literally, "caused to fall") on him the iniquity of us all" (Isaiah 53:6 (http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/bibleBook/1/sChap/1/sVerse/1/sVerseID/18718/eVerseID/18718/opt/Def/RTD/isbe)), the idea expressed is that Christ bore the punishment of our sin vicariously, its guilt having been imputed to Him. The thought of the prophecy is, as Delitzsch says, that of vicarious punishment, which implies the idea of the imputation of the guilt of our sins to Christ.

The same idea underlies these expressions when they occur in the New Testament. When Peter wishes to hold up Christ as an example of patience in suffering, he takes up the thought of Isa, and adduces the fact that Christ "his own self bare our sins in his body upon the tree". (1 Peter 2:24 (http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/bibleBook/1/sChap/1/sVerse/1/sVerseID/30424/eVerseID/30424/opt/Def/RTD/isbe)). The context indicates that Peter had the prophecy of Isa. 53 in mind, so that his meaning is, not that Christ carried our sins even up to the cross, but that in His death on the cross Christ bore the punishment of our sin, its guilt having been imputed to Him. The same thought is expressed by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the contrast between the first and second advents of Christ is made to hinge upon the fact that in the first He came to be sacrificed as a sin-bearer, burdened with the guilt of the sin of others, whereas in His second coming He will appear without this burden of imputed or vicarious guilt (Hebrews 9:28 (http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/bibleBook/1/sChap/1/sVerse/1/sVerseID/30134/eVerseID/30134/opt/Def/RTD/isbe)). Paul also gives expression to the same thought when he says that Christ was "made. to be sin on our behalf" (2 Corinthians 5:21 (http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/bibleBook/1/sChap/1/sVerse/1/sVerseID/28899/eVerseID/28899/opt/Def/RTD/isbe)), and that He became "a curse for us" (Galatians 3:13 (http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/bibleBook/1/sChap/1/sVerse/1/sVerseID/29116/eVerseID/29116/opt/Def/RTD/isbe)). In the former passage the idea of substitution, although not expressed by the preposition huper which indicates that Christ's work was for our benefit, is nevertheless clearly implied in the thought that Christ, whose sinlessness is emphasized in the ver, is made sin, and that we sinners become righteous in Him. Paul means that Christ was made to bear the penalty of our sin and that its guilt was imputed to Him in precisely the same way in which we sinners become the righteousness of God in Him, i.e. by the imputation of His righteousness to us. The same thought is expressed in Galatians 3:13 (http://bibletools.org//index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/bibleBook/1/sChap/1/sVerse/1/sVerseID/29116/eVerseID/29116/opt/Def/RTD/isbe), where the statement that Christ was made a curse for us means that He was made to endure the curse or penalty of the broken law. In all these passages the underlying thought is that the guilt of our sin was imputed to Christ.

Brandan Kraft

06-01-2005, 04:18 PM

You know, I think this conversation is overly complicated and confusing. It shouldn't be!

Christ was the substitute for His people.

Think about that statement for a while...... Most in this thread would agree on that. How was Christ the substitute? Was it simply a "theoretical" substitute, or was He a real sacrifice? Was the wrath of God REALLY upon Christ? Most here I know would say yes.

Did Christ sin? I don't know anyone here who would say He did.

Were the sins of the elect infused into Christ? I know of nobody here who would suggest such a thing.

What is sin? Sin is transgression of the God's law.

So then what does it mean to be "made sin". Obviously Christ was not "transgression" as He was still human. This means He was constituted as a transgressor. God the Father looked upon Him as He would look upon any other transgressor and His anger burned against Him. Christ suffered the wrath of God, and He did it in the place of the actual transgressors. Their sins were laid upon Him at the cross (imputation). His righteousness was imputed to them at the cross. There was an exchange that took place. We all agree that Christ did not sin as He was impeccable. But God held Him in contempt and Christ actually DIED. When Christ died, so did His people. When Christ was resurrected, so were His people (positionally). Victory over sin was accomplished. This is the Gospel Truth.

Were the sins of the elect imputed to Christ? Absolutely! Was His righteousness imputed to the elect? Absolutely! So why the need to add more to it? If men have been given the righteousness of Christ, they can never be constituted as sinners - but as righteous saints. I personally don't know what the message I just have posted here is lacking.

In Hope,
Brandan

Tobias Crisp

06-01-2005, 08:16 PM

Robert R. Higby

06-01-2005, 08:20 PM

I don't believe the message you have posted is lacking at all Brandan! When 2 Cor. 5:21 states that we are MADE the righteousness of God in him, that refers to a historical event that took place almost 21 centuries ago (Christ's incarnation, life, death, resurrection, ascension as Lord). So the 'making righteous' is certainly not an event in the Roman/Latin sense of Trent!

To answer Ian's question about 'reckon' (impute) and 'made' being different terms, I believe that they actually overlap in the biblical meaning. Imputation is not only a forensic (law-court) reckoning but a real reckoning and something considered real history by God's decree and will. So 'accounting' righteous and 'making' righteous are the same thing. God's reckoning, regarding, transferring to, & making us the righteousness of God in Christ is all the same reality. It is objective, complete, and finished for the elect from the foundation of the world.

In the declarative (present & future) dimension of justification or imputation, Christ also both reckons a righteousness in heaven and makes it real on earth. He declares us righteous before the angels/saints in heaven at the same moment that he sheds the Holy Spirit into our souls, granting faith in Christ. But the subjective aspect is not an infusion--Christ lives in his people but their souls remain an entity separate from him. :cool:

Tobias Crisp

06-01-2005, 10:05 PM

Ian Potts earlier had quoted Don Fortner as essentially saying that Scripture does not explicitly teach that sins were imputed to Christ. But yet I found the following short article by Fortner affirming the belief that the elects sins were in fact imputed to Christ.

A HOLY GOD CANNOT JUSTIFY A WICKED MAN

Job 25:4

Don Fortner (don@donfortner.com)

God's holiness and justice demand the punishment of sin. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die" (Ezek. 18:20). There are no exceptions. "He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are an abomination to the Lord" (Prov. 17:15). "How then can a man be justified with God?" (Job 25:4).

There is only one answer to that question – DIVINE IMPUTATION! This is the doctrine of Holy Scripture. This is the only hope any sinner has of being saved (Read Rom. 4:5; 5:19; II Cor. 5:21; I Pet. 3:18).

THE LORD JESUS CHRIST WAS MADE TO BE SIN BY DIVINE IMPUTATION. All the sins of God's elect were imputed to him. Our sins became his sins! The holy Lord God dealt with him on the basis of our sins, which were imputed to him, and punished him for sin in the place of his people. And by his death Christ made complete satisfaction, or atonement for sin. He put away all the sins of his people!

THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST IS IMPUTED TO ALL WHO TRUST HIM, so that we are made the righteousness of God in him. Sinners can be made rigthteous only in the same way that Christ was made to be sin – by divine imputation! God deals with his elect on the basis of Christ's imputed righteousness. He rewards every believer with eternal life and heavenly glory because EVERY BELIEVER HAS BEEN MADE WORTHY OF HEAVENLY GLORY AND ETERNAL ACCEPTANCE WITH GOD THROUGH THE BLOOD AND RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST, THE SINNER'S SUBSTITUTE!

Don Fortner, Pastor

Grace Baptist Church

Danville, Ky.

red beetle

06-02-2005, 03:13 AM

Perhaps this is off base, so correct me please.
did the OT sacrafices that shadowed and were figures of Christs sacrafice, become sin? or were they just a sacrafice for the sin?

No, the sacrificial animals did not become sin.
But they were without defect while they were killed (sacrificed).
Christ was pure and without spot when he was killed (sacrificed) as well (Hebrews 9:14).
This fact contradicts Ian Pots idea that sin was infused to Christ during the three hours of darkness and during Christ's death.
Thus proving Ian Pots doctrine of sin-transfusion to contradict the book of Hebrews.

Red Beetle

red beetle

06-02-2005, 03:26 AM

red beetle

06-02-2005, 03:29 AM

Brandan,

I don't believe anything is lacking in your post. Why imputation is thought by some to not be real or not enough is beyond my understanding. It sends shrivers down my spine when someone refers to "mere" imputation as not being enough and then brings in language remniscient of infusion as being real. Some of the statements made here sound like many that were made by the Papists against the Reformers defense of imputed righteousness as "legal fiction".

Well, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....

Red Beetle

red beetle

06-02-2005, 03:41 AM

Ian Pots,

you state:
Because no one will enter heaven and take sin with them. Imputed righteousness or not.

I just got to know how a Holy God could be hypostatically united to sin for 3 hours if he can't stand to be around it one second in heaven. Please explain.

Red Beetle

red beetle

06-02-2005, 04:04 AM

Ian Potts

06-02-2005, 04:36 AM

Ian Pots,

you state:
Christ was made sin during the three hours of darkness at the cross. He was not made a sinner.

I'm sure other people have got to be wondering, as I am, how Christ could be made sin for three hours and not sin during that time. Christ was conscious and active during that time. He spoke to his mother. And of course He stated, "My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken Me?" (Mark 15:34)
Since only sin can proceed from something made sin, was Christ sinning? Was He not, according to your teaching being sinful? How could He be infused with all of the sin of the elect during this time and not be sinful in His actions?
"As saith the proverb of the ancients, wickedness proceedeth from the wicked" (1 Samuel 24:13).
"For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts..." (Matt. 15:19).
"Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one." (Job 14:4).

Please explain, in light of the Scriptures just sited, how Christ's human soul could be made sin for three hours and not sin, though He was active during that time. If Christ was made sin, then anything proceeding from Him during this time would be sinful or tainted with sin (Job 14:4).

Red Beetle
Red Beetle,

Sorry, but no, I won't offer you any further explanation. What I have stated is scriptural and true. Whether you believe or not is another matter. I perceive from your posts that you have little willingness to receive or learn these truths but simply desire to refute them.

That Christ was made sin at the cross, that He bore our sins, does not mean that he committed sin. Your 'logic' and 'wisdom' here is altogether faulty and you have misapplied scriptures.

I shall post further in reply to some of the other posts here in order to clarify why scripture plainly teaches that RIGHTEOUSNESS is imputed to the believer, BECAUSE Christ was made sin at the cross.

In Grace,
Ian Potts (Two T's)

Ian Potts

06-02-2005, 05:34 AM

I said earlier that I would not discuss this matter further. But as I’ve found before on this forum I have received replies and comments from several quarters, much of them quite critical.

I believe my position, with Fortner’s, is thoroughly biblical and true and those who disagree have demonstrated I believe a degree of confusion on the matter. For this reason I will try in one post to answer some of these posts and demonstrate why the biblical doctrine of imputed righteousness is dependant upon the related truth that Christ was made sin at the cross and really bore ours sins IN His own body on the tree.

Ian,

"But as far as the words of Holy Scripture are concerned, it is nowhere stated in the Book of God that sin was imputed to the Lord Jesus Christ. There is not a single passage in the Bible that speaks of our sins being imputed to our Savior."

In various replies mention has been made of how our sin was imputed to Christ. That is claimed to be Biblical. But not one passage of scripture says that or uses that term. Yet Paul clearly understood imputation and used the term elsewhere, such as in Romans 4 in relation to righteousness being imputed to the elect.

I find this the most disturbing of what you and Fortner are saying. It's not enough to say that the sin laid of Christ was more than imputation, you are actually denying it's by imputation at all. I was going to spend some time going over each point, and I still may, but I found a good summary in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia that will work for now.
No, you are going beyond what Fortner and I have stated here.

We have not denied imputation here altogether, which is exactly why you were able to find an article by Fortner discussing the imputation of sin. If you read Fortner’s full article “He hath made him sin” on my website you will find that Fortner says that ours sins were imputed to Christ. But he also says that nowhere does scripture teach that.

Then what is he meaning? He is meaning that sin was imputed to Christ, accounted to him, as an obvious logical consequence of the fact that Christ was made sin at the cross. Nowhere does scripture say that sin was imputed to Christ, but 2 Corinthians 5:21 does teach that Christ was actually made sin, and if Christ was actually made sin then of course God would impute that sin to Him. That is obvious.

But the point is that scripture doesn’t teach that sin was imputed to Christ, it teaches that He was made sin. This is more than imputation. The result of which is obviously that sin was accounted to, reckoned to Christ, but BECAUSE He was made sin.

What no one here can disagree with though is that Romans 4 teaches that RIGHTEOUSNESS is imputed to the believer. 2 Corinthians 5:21 says that Christ was ‘made sin’. NOWHERE does scripture use the term ‘imputation’ with regard to sin being imputed to Christ. Why not? Because the truth is more than that.

Why imputation is thought by some to not be real or not enough is beyond my understanding. It sends shrivers down my spine when someone refers to "mere" imputation as not being enough and then brings in language remniscient of infusion as being real. Some of the statements made here sound like many that were made by the Papists against the Reformers defense of imputed righteousness as "legal fiction".

Let me be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR here. My comment about “merely imputing” was with regard to whether or not sin was imputed to Christ. Not with regard to righteousness being imputed to the believer.

I do not deny for one moment imputed righteousness. I do not consider it a “legal fiction” as the Papists and Wesleyans do. Their opposition is to IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS. What is under consideration here is the issue of Christ being made sin. You claim that is by imputation only, I say He was MADE SIN, as the scriptures declare plainly (with the logical inference that God imputed sin to Him because He was made sin). Imputation of sin to Christ alone is not enough to justify us as sin itself actually had to be taken away in the sacrifice. Christ was made sin and sin was burnt up just as typified in the sin offering which was burnt to ashes outside the camp (Hebrews 13). Christ didn't just suffer for sin, but sin itself was consumed, taken away. See also Romans 6:6 "Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed ..."

I will go on to discuss imputed righteousness in relation to Christ’s being made sin in response to Bob’s comments below. But I do want to make it clear that with respect to the imputation of righteousness I don’t consider this a ‘mere’ thing. It is solid and real because of the work of justification by Christ at the cross. See below.

To answer Ian's question about 'reckon' (impute) and 'made' being different terms, I believe that they actually overlap in the biblical meaning. Imputation is not only a forensic (law-court) reckoning but a real reckoning and something considered real history by God's decree and will. So 'accounting' righteous and 'making' righteous are the same thing. God's reckoning, regarding, transferring to, & making us the righteousness of God in Christ is all the same reality. It is objective, complete, and finished for the elect from the foundation of the world.

In the declarative (present & future) dimension of justification or imputation, Christ also both reckons a righteousness in heaven and makes it real on earth. He declares us righteous before the angels/saints in heaven at the same moment that he sheds the Holy Spirit into our souls, granting faith in Christ. But the subjective aspect is not an infusion--Christ lives in his people but their souls remain an entity separate from him.
Thanks Bob for the reply.

I agree completely that the Biblical doctrine of imputed righteousness is not merely a ‘forensic’ imputation but is real. God really does account believers as righteous in Christ, not just forensically, but really. This is based upon a solid foundation. They were truly justified by Christ at the cross, their sin was completely judged and taken away.

But the scriptures use the term ‘imputation’ in Romans 4 with regard to RIGHTEOUSNESS. In 2 Corinthians 5:21 where the transfer of sin to Christ is discussed the word imputation is not used – Christ was made sin. Elsewhere (eg. 1 Peter 2:24) we read that Christ bare our sins IN His own body on the tree. Not imputation, but baring in His own body.

There is most certainly a difference between forensic and real imputation. Romans 4 teaches a real imputation of righteousness.

But what MAKES that difference? What makes that imputation of righteousness not merely forensic, but real? How can God really declare His people righteous in Christ – without sin?

What makes the difference? The fact that Christ was ‘made sin’ for His people. That does.

This truth is foundational to the imputing of righteousness. Imputed righteousness is REAL, not simply forensic, exactly because Christ REALLY WAS MADE SIN and took sin away under the wrath of God. Without the reality of being made sin in that way the imputed righteousness mentioned in Romans 4 would lose its foundation. It would become essentially forensic.

This is why scripture is so clear in its language on this matter. For God to justify a people their sin must be taken away. That CANNOT be done by simply imputing it to another. The actual sin must be placed upon another. He must be made sin and bare their sins in order to take sin (the sinful nature) and sins (the deeds) away.

And exactly because Christ WAS Made sin at the cross and DID take it away God is just in declaring His people righteous in Christ. Imputed righteousness as a doctrine is based upon that solid foundation.

Chip away at that truth and you fatally undermine the reality of imputed righteousness. It becomes forensic. Which is exactly why many theologians have fallen into that snare. Why? Because they have built upon the errors of their fathers. The first error being to introduce imputation into the Bible where it is not – "made sin" in 2 Corinthians 5:21.

This error came in a long time ago and is blindly repeated by many men (good men included) parrot-like down through history. People follow them lemming-like over the same cliff. They trumpet up imputed righteousness, but have undermined its reality by reducing the truth that Christ was literally made sin at the cross to just saying that sin was imputed to him. Then sin itself wasn’t truly taken out of the way, it wasn’t truly burnt up under the wrath of God, and imputed righteousness is no longer ‘real’ because sin remains. Oh yes, under this ‘scheme’ Christ may have suffered the wrath of God against sin, but sin itself wasn’t burnt up in the sacrifice because it wasn’t IN the sacrifice it was merely ‘reckoned’ to be there. But reckoning isn’t enough.

The reason that God can ‘reckon’ us to be righteous in Christ, that this reckoning is more than just ‘reckoning’ but is real, is because Christ was REALLY made sin.

(It can't be claimed that 'made sin' in 2 Cor 5:21 refers to a 'real', not just forensic, imputation of sin, because there is no foundation for such an idea. Imputation is real in Romans 4 because Christ was really made sin and took it away so righteousness can really be accounted to us. Imputation read into 2 Cor 5:21 by definition is 'accounting to be' and therefore Christ was never really made sin, and sin remains, hence imputation of righteousness becomes merely forensic.)

The fallacy of double imputation (our sin to Christ, righteousness to us) is that the foundational truth has been ripped out of the equation. It all becomes forensic.

Bob, you are right that imputation in Romans 4 is ‘real’, not merely forensic. But that reality is based upon the fact that Christ was literally made sin at the cross, 2 Cor 5:21. You have gone along a circular route. Knowing that imputation in Romans 4 is more than forensic, but real, you have then read ‘real’ imputation into 2 Corinthians 5:21. But the reality of imputation in Romans 4 is based upon the reality of Christ being made sin in 2 Cor 5:21. Alter the latter to imputation and the former can no longer be a ‘real’ imputation. You have removed the foundation. The whole building crumbles into a heap.

Turning to the eternal decrees of God as the ‘foundation’ doesn’t solve that problem. Yes, God decreed to justify a people. But those decrees were carried out in time in the person and work of Christ. Christ really was born of a virgin with human nature. He really lived. He really died. He really rose again. The decrees don’t take away from that, and all of those truths are essential to the foundation of the Gospel. Likewise in His death on the cross Christ REALLY WAS MADE SIN. That had to happen in time in order for righteousness to be truly imputed in time, for sinners to be saved, to be regenerated by the Spirit.

I hope this clarifies some points. In 2 Corinthians 5:21 we read that Christ was ‘made sin’ before we read that we might ‘become the righteousness of God in him’. The latter is dependant upon the former. Imputed righteousness is REAL because Christ really was MADE SIN.

That is the teaching, the solid teaching of scripture. Once theologians started to meddle with the words of scripture and took the word ‘imputation’ from Romans 4 and read it into 2 Corinthians 5:21 and 1 Peter 2:24 (and elsewhere) they fatally undermined the very foundation upon which that imputed righteousness of Romans 4 is based.

Let the wise here, those taught of God, take note. Beware of the traditions of the elders.

May the Spirit lead into all truth, through His word.

In Grace,
Ian

P.S. Luba – Sorry! Time fails me. In due course perhaps I’ll get time to address your post also. Perhaps, though, this post will help?

Brandan Kraft

06-02-2005, 06:48 AM

Don Fortner graciously sent me some of his material on the subject about what HE BELIEVES - not anyone else. Feel free to investigate it for yourself... (See attached)

Tobias Crisp

06-02-2005, 07:59 AM

Don Fortner graciously sent me some of his material on the subject about what HE BELIEVES - not anyone else. Feel free to investigate it for yourself... (See attached)Brandan,

I don't think Don would mind posting his comments in the email that he sent us so I will post it here especially since he responds to a comment that I made on the forum.

One matter needs to be cleared regarding Mark Daniels. It is insignificant to me what is thought or said about me and/or my doctrine. But Bro. Lawson is totally in error about Mark Hiding anything from the Eager AV Church. Those men have known my doctrine for 20 years. It has not changed. They knew my association with Bro. Mark. They were not kept in the dark about anything. They simply called a pastor who would not buckle under to their intimidation. Mark is a faithful man. I have known him for a long time. And I was present in Albany at Eager AV Church for a meeting just a few days before the Church removed him from the pulpit specifically for saying what the Word of God clearly says, that "he who knew no sin was made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." It is both unwise and contrary to everything taught in the Scriptures to make accusations against any man based upon the reports of others.

I long ago learned not to try to speak for others. And I will not do so now. For you who wish to see what I have written on the issues currently being debated, I have attached three fairly recent articles. You are welcome to send them to whomever you wish. I trust they will be helpful to any who desire to read them. These articles represent DON FORTNER'S DOCTRINE. NO ONE ELSE. Our brethren can speak for themselves.

Please forgive the fact that I do not have either the time or the desire to debate the things I have written. Were I not fully convinced of them, I would not have written them. Should any desire to know what I have written on any subject or text, you can find everything on our web page www.donfortner.com (http://www.donfortner.com/).

Brandan Kraft

06-02-2005, 09:16 AM

Don Bell, a Sovereign Grace preacher sent me the following article and requested that it be posted to this thread.

How utterly abominable and wicked we must be, that nothing less than God coming down and taking unto Himself human flesh, and "being made in the likeness of sinful flesh", so that He would have a body in which He could suffer death on the cross.

How awful sin must be, and how horribly sinful we must be, that Christ Jesus our Lord must be the one "Who his own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree" (1 Pet. 2:24), and "pour out his soul an offering for sin". Sin is indeed exceeding sinful that it would take such a sacrifice. How utterly lost, helpless, and without any ability to better ourselves before an infinitely holy and righteous God we must be, that Christ, God's dear Son would take our place before His Holy Father on the cursed tree and there bear what I could not bear, which is the infinite righteous wrath and justice of God against us and our sin.

By his suffering in our stead, He consumed the wrath of God which was against us, and he satisfied God's infinitely righteous justice for us. Yet after Christ, having done all this in our room and stead, we are totally unable to see these things, or to know these blessed truths, or even care about them unless we are born again! Our carnal minds were enmity against God, we were enemies in our minds by wicked works, and so how are our minds changed from enmity and our wills brought into subjection to God? It will take omnipotent power to make us willing to be saved; we must be drawn to God because we are unwilling to come. We must be given new hearts, new wills, new minds, new desires, new loves, and new natures if we are to enter the kingdom of God. None of these things can we do for ourselves. But blessed be God, He loved us and gave His Son for us, and with him he freely gives all things, he sent the spirit of his Son into our hearts and we cry Abba Father. Our gracious God, in making his Son's death effectual to us, makes us new creatures In Christ. He brings into existence a new man. It is this new man that is able to see, to believe, and to walk and commune with God in Christ.

Don Bell

harald

06-02-2005, 11:42 AM

I shall put forth some thoughts.

In 2Cor. 5:19 the participle "logizomenos" (imputing, KJV) is used by Paul in the sense of "attributing", not in the sense of "placing onto the account of". The trespasses of God's elect were already (from Adam's fall onwards) on their own accounts, so they could not be placed onto or into them. But what God did at the cross was that He did not hold these trespasses against them, as if to say "as for me I do not take any account whatever of their trespasses". God did not attribute their trespasses to them, which is almost the same as to say He did not hold them against His elect. If He'd held against them it were as if saying "You owe me, pay everything or die!". But now He did not attribute the trespasses to His own, as if saying to them "You owe me absolutely nothing". This is how I presently understand v. 19. And I believe Paul uses the verb "logizomai" in this sense also at other places. I shall shortly give examples.
As for v. 21 it is true it does not literally say "made sin by imputation". Paul says "made sin". But I desperately desire to understand for myself in what sense "made sin". If He was made sin, it must mean that just prior he was something else. I say He was righteousness, and much more of course. But now Paul says He was made sin. Then it must be asked, how can absolute righteousness personified be made to be something diametrically opposite, i.e. sin. Did God make Him sin by in some way or sense altering the constitution of His two-natured Person for the worse? I cannot find any Scripture record of such having taken place. God did not tamper with the impeccable personage of Christ. On the cross God did not add any thing to His constitution as a total person. Nor did He take any thing or attribute away from Him. Therefore at the present I cannot conceive of anything else than that God made Christ sin "BY WAY OF REPRESENTATION". Christ did not Himself make Himself sin, God made Him sin. And this making I believe was by way of representation. While this may seem far fetched to some I shall give an example from Scripture where a verb spoken by a Divine Person does not literally mean what it seems to mean. I do not now remember the verse, but it was when Jesus said "this IS my blood", speaking of the wine in the cup in His hand. The wine was not in reality His physical blood, but it "represents" the blood that was to be shed. Likewise Paul's "made" in v. 21 I believe must be understood metaphorically, that He was made sin by way of representation. As if God saying when Christ hung on the cross, "this Man I have now made to represent the sin I so vehemently hate". Not as saying "this Man I have now altered constitutionally, by way of making a real change in His own personhood, so that whereas He previously was righteousness He is not that anymore in any sense, but rather pure sin in every sense". And, when Christ so had been made (by Jehovah) to represent sin, Jehovah also accounted him as being what He represented - sin, and treated Him accordingly - pouring out His wrath on Him.

Paul uses logizomai in the sense of "to attribute" (which is not the same as "put into an account" -sense) also in Romans 4:3. In this verse Abraham's believing Jehovah was attributed to him as righteousness. This verse does in no sense speak about justification before God. Rather it speaks about character righteousness being attributed to Abraham. W E Best called this an example of "real imputation". Meaning that Jehovah attributed something to Abraham that he already possessed, and this something was character righteousness. In Rom. 4:3 logizomai cannot have the sense of "placed (righteousness) onto Abraham's legal account", as if his account was empty before but now at the point of his believing God transferred righteousness to his account. Some may think this verse means that, but this makes no sense. If I asked them "what kind of righteousness, then, did God transfer onto Abraham's account?". If they say "a justifying righteousness" I would point out that they condition the transferring of justifying righteousness on an act of faith. And also that justifying righteousness was not made over to Abraham until Christ being on the cross. Abraham looked forward to Christ's day and was glad. The key to Romans 4:3 is in v. 1 - lit. "What, then, shall we assert Abraham the father of us to have found as pertaineth to flesh?" Namely, the context here is what Abraham found as pertaineth to personal character and conduct ("flesh"). And what he did find or chance upon as pertains to personal character and conduct was God attributing to him character righteousness when he trusted Jehovah. This (attributing of character righteousness) was a great honour and blessing for faithful Abraham to obtain from God. I believe the sense of logizomai in v. 5 is exactly the same as in v. 3.
In fact, at present I do not believe Paul at all uses logizomai in the sense of transferring/putting (something) onto an account which was not there previously. On the other hand I believe another verb, "ellogeO", used twice by Paul (Philemon 1:18, Romans 5:13), may have this meaning. But this verb is not used in contexts contemplating justification before God.

So, Romans 4:3 and 5, do not speak about the same thing as 2 Cor. 5:19-21. The former focuses on Abraham and his personal character and conduct in relation to Jehovah. The latter focuses on things that took place at Christ's cross.

Harald

ray kikkert

06-02-2005, 01:07 PM

Chip away at that truth and you fatally undermine the reality of imputed righteousness. It becomes forensic. Which is exactly why many theologians have fallen into that snare. Why? Because they have built upon the errors of their fathers. The first error being to introduce imputation into the Bible where it is not – "made sin" in 2 Corinthians 5:21.

This error came in a long time ago and is blindly repeated by many men (good men included) parrot-like down through history. People follow them lemming-like over the same cliff. They trumpet up imputed righteousness, but have undermined its reality by reducing the truth that Christ was literally made sin at the cross to just saying that sin was imputed to him. Then sin itself wasn’t truly taken out of the way, it wasn’t truly burnt up under the wrath of God, and imputed righteousness is no longer ‘real’ because sin remains. Oh yes, under this ‘scheme’ Christ may have suffered the wrath of God against sin, but sin itself wasn’t burnt up in the sacrifice because it wasn’t IN the sacrifice it was merely ‘reckoned’ to be there. But reckoning isn’t enough.

The reason that God can ‘reckon’ us to be righteous in Christ, that this reckoning is more than just ‘reckoning’ but is real, is because Christ was REALLY made sin.

(It can't be claimed that 'made sin' in 2 Cor 5:21 refers to a 'real', not just forensic, imputation of sin, because there is no foundation for such an idea. Imputation is real in Romans 4 because Christ was really made sin and took it away so righteousness can really be accounted to us. Imputation read into 2 Cor 5:21 by definition is 'accounting to be' and therefore Christ was never really made sin, and sin remains, hence imputation of righteousness becomes merely forensic.)

The fallacy of double imputation (our sin to Christ, righteousness to us) is that the foundational truth has been ripped out of the equation. It all becomes forensic.

Bob, you are right that imputation in Romans 4 is ‘real’, not merely forensic. But that reality is based upon the fact that Christ was literally made sin at the cross, 2 Cor 5:21. You have gone along a circular route. Knowing that imputation in Romans 4 is more than forensic, but real, you have then read ‘real’ imputation into 2 Corinthians 5:21. But the reality of imputation in Romans 4 is based upon the reality of Christ being made sin in 2 Cor 5:21. Alter the latter to imputation and the former can no longer be a ‘real’ imputation. You have removed the foundation. The whole building crumbles into a heap.

Turning to the eternal decrees of God as the ‘foundation’ doesn’t solve that problem. Yes, God decreed to justify a people. But those decrees were carried out in time in the person and work of Christ. Christ really was born of a virgin with human nature. He really lived. He really died. He really rose again. The decrees don’t take away from that, and all of those truths are essential to the foundation of the Gospel. Likewise in His death on the cross Christ REALLY WAS MADE SIN. That had to happen in time in order for righteousness to be truly imputed in time, for sinners to be saved, to be regenerated by the Spirit.

I hope this clarifies some points. In 2 Corinthians 5:21 we read that Christ was ‘made sin’ before we read that we might ‘become the righteousness of God in him’. The latter is dependant upon the former. Imputed righteousness is REAL because Christ really was MADE SIN.

That is the teaching, the solid teaching of scripture. Once theologians started to meddle with the words of scripture and took the word ‘imputation’ from Romans 4 and read it into 2 Corinthians 5:21 and 1 Peter 2:24 (and elsewhere) they fatally undermined the very foundation upon which that imputed righteousness of Romans 4 is based.

Let the wise here, those taught of God, take note. Beware of the traditions of the elders.

May the Spirit lead into all truth, through His word.

In Grace,
Ian

?

Imputation of righteousness to the elect sinner.
Imputation of sin to Jesus Christ/ Jesus Christ was made sin

Question. When these acts took place did the attributes of both man and Jesus Christ change?

Man a sinner by nature. God has determined His elect vessels to be righteous in Christ. The elect vessel still must struggle with his initial attribute of sin till His Creator calls him/her home, where they will be given new bodies and be spotless and where no sin is.

Jesus Christ was like his brethren in all things, sin excepted. God determined that His Son be made sin and make perfect satisfaction. Jesus Christ did retain His initial attribute of being perfect after preforming the perfect sacrifice.

Canons of Dort
SECOND HEAD OF DOCTRINE (http://www.prca.org/cd_text2.html)
Of the Death of Christ, and the Redemption of Men Thereby
Article 2 (http://www.prca.org/cd_index.html#head2). Since therefore we are unable to make that satisfaction in our own persons, or to deliver ourselves from the wrath of God, he hath been pleased in his infinite mercy to give his only begotten Son, for our surety, who was made sin, and became a curse for us and in our stead, that he might make satisfaction to divine justice on our behalf.

After reading what Mr. Potts has submitted here, what is the consensus?

Tobias Crisp

06-02-2005, 01:57 PM

After reading what Mr. Potts has submitted here, what is the consensus?Ray,

Ian has written a lot here that needs to be dealt with and, at least for me, it will take some time to go through it all and to write an adequate reply. I also do not think that there will be a consensus especially since there are some on this forum that agree with him. For myself, I am very disturbed at what is being taught here. I think part of the issue is that some, especially those who want to make being a "Baptist" a big thing, are over reacting to some of the teachings in Reformed theology. For example Ian has an article on his website rejecting "active obedience" in regards to imputation of righteousness. I know that there was a recent thread on this issue and I don't want to necessarily reopen it but I think it's at least partially related to our current discussion.

Bottom line Ray is that some of the things being taught here have serious implications that concern me greatly.

melted

06-02-2005, 02:10 PM

Ivor Thomas

06-02-2005, 03:00 PM

This what Ian has posted should concern us greatly, because when the Bible quite clearly say's such as, He was made sin, we ought to believe it and let it deepen our love for the Saviour who took our sin in His body. What He did at the cross was to be our Substitute, THOROUGHLY Exchanging place's with every one of His Elect. And has as already been said, He is a Real Saviour who really Saved His people on the cross. Ivor Thomas..

cih92

06-02-2005, 03:25 PM

Will believers get their own righteousness when they get to heaven?

ray kikkert

06-02-2005, 03:36 PM

One point I fail to understand, probably due to ignorance, is this need of impartation to abolish "SIN" over and above the abolishment of "SINS" (by imputation) on the cross.

Sinners have two things working against them:
1) debt for sins commited
2) a sin nature

Imputation of our sin to Jesus Christ accomplishes both.

The debt for sins commited has been taken on by Christ and paid in full. He suffered the punishment for these sins. What is the need for Him also to suffer the tainting of the sins as well? His divinity and IMMUTABLE perfection would not allow the changing of His attributes in any way, such as the introduction of sin into His real person.

The sin nature is also defeated on the cross. By the cross the elect are justified, and because the saints are justified, they are sanctified and glorified. Regeneration is a changing of the nature of the elect and glorification a changing of the body. It is a sovereign action of the Holy Spirit following the eternal justification of the elect. I fail to understand why impartation is required to allow the Holy Spirit to change our nature from sin to holiness, or for our resurrected bodies to no longer retain sin.

What does impartation do above and beyond imputation except corrupt the holy, incorruptable, impeccable Lord Jesus Christ?

Melted, that to me remains unanswered by Mr. Potts. Did the attribute of Jesus Christ change? It pretty much has to by the definition he submits. Made sin means impartation by his definition. I do not believe Scripture reveals that Christ's attributes changed in His suffering the wrath of God for the sins of the elect.

I also am not swayed to think that double imputation is bankrupt thinking. Mr.Potts maintains that imputation of sin to Christ is not real. I maintain it is. It is just as real as when iniquity is not imputed to the elect vessel.

Mr. Potts has also made some big claims in refuting the exegetical wisdom of past reformers on this issue. Is he somewhat enlightened in the year of our Lord 2005?

Tobias raised a good point. Let us, if possible, examine the outworking of this thinking of Potts in other doctrinal definitions he is defending. Let us see his outworking doctrine of justification and where it leads. Then we can see if this is mere hair splitting theology or more to it.

There is agreement for the most part on one thing. Both imputation of sin to Christ/ Christ made sin and imputation of righteousness to the elect are accomplished by Christ at the cross as predestined by the sovereign Lord. If accomplished , then also very real.

Ivor Thomas

06-02-2005, 03:41 PM

Will believers get their own righteousness when they get to heaven? A scripture to consider on what you ask, is, 1Cor;ch15 v28; Now when all thing's are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all thing's under Him,that GOD MAY BE ALL IN ALL..
Ivor Thomas.

harald

06-02-2005, 04:37 PM

Ray Kikkert,

I am not so much worried about Ian's seemingly making mock of the exegetical skills of those you refer to as past reformers. I have read some of Ian's writings on justification, both now and in previous months on this forum. And I personally think he is not in the least behind them in exegetical skills or sharpness of mind/thought as respects the doctrine of justification. On the contrary I have found him clearer on some aspects pertaining to justification than some "reformers" ever were. But what myself does worry about a bit as to Ian is whether he is confusing the doctrine in comparison to what Paul teaches in totality. For instance I have found Ian much more clearer on the timing of justification before God than e.g. Calvin or others. Usually I have found Ian to be rightfully dogmatic in maintaining that the elect's justification before God occured when Christ was on the cross and at no other point in time/history (but I have found him wanting in his dogmaticalness in not being bold enough to call e.g. Luther an errorist as to justification). When I have read a little of "reformers" like Calvin I have found them to be most confusing. Yea, I dare say sinfully undogmatic, sometimes seeming to say it took place on the cross, sometimes saying it takes place when a sinner believes on Christ for the first time. For this reason myself has none respect whatever for the Reformer (so called) Calvin when it comes to the doctrine of justification before God. Luther I find to have been even more worthless when it comes to teaching about justification. The fact that such men have a great name about them does not mean they were men of God, nor that they were exegetically skillful as to said doctrine.
Even John Gill, whom many holds in esteem, I have found to have been somewhat confusing when it comes to his teaching on justification. So much so that I would never recommend anyone to go to Gill either, to learn about what Paul taught about justification. Let men primarily go to Paul and the Scriptures, and thence learn what is God's very truth about this glorious doctrine. And yet for all their study of Scripture some men never learn as they should.

Harald

Brandan Kraft

06-02-2005, 04:51 PM

So much so that I would never recommend anyone to go to Gill either, to learn about what Paul taught about justification. Let men primarily go to Paul and the Scriptures, and thence learn what is God's very truth about this glorious doctrine. And yet for all their study of Scripture some men never learn as they should. Amen Harald! Paul's Doctrine needs no interpreter or teacher other than Christ Himself!

Robert R. Higby

06-02-2005, 09:37 PM

Anthony: For myself, I am very disturbed at what is being taught here. I think part of the issue is that some, especially those who want to make being a "Baptist" a big thing, are over reacting to some of the teachings in Reformed theology. For example Ian has an article on his website rejecting "active obedience" in regards to imputation of righteousness. I know that there was a recent thread on this issue and I don't want to necessarily reopen it but I think it's at least partially related to our current discussion.

That is exactly right! As for myself, I want to make it clear that I'm not calling any of these men heretics or false teachers. But I'm very concerned about certain elements in these teachings (both of them) and what these things might cause in leading other believers into confusion.

If we see the deadness of certain aspects of Reformed tradition and therefore have a Nonconformist spirit (as I do), we need to be rebels with a cause! Let us not try and rearrange or re-state doctrines that consist of truth that is so refined from the crucible of past controversy that it is an abundant and indisputable heritage of overflowing joy to our Christian testimony! :cool:

Tobias Crisp

06-03-2005, 11:58 AM

Brother Don Fortner has been reading this forum and has sent the following email to Scott Price. I will respond below.

Bro. Scott,

Anthony posted the following on a web page chat room to which someone directed my attention. (As you know, I never visit such, unless so directed for specific reasons. Would you be so kind as to tell me when the thing Anthony mentions occurred, or ask that he be so kind as to refrain from speaking (especially publicly) about things of which he is totally ignorant?

"This was the main topic of discussion between Scott (who you met at the conference) and myself at the picnic following the conference which you were unable to attend. This same preacher also brought up these issues with Scott both before and during the conference in order to convert him to these ideas."

I do not recall you and me having such a conversation. I do not think I've ever attempted to convert anyone to a doctrinal position in personal conversation since I was 17 or 18 years old. If I have appeared to do so in your company, I sincerely apologize.

Anthony, your comments regarding Mark's behavior were totally erroneous. I speak not from second hand information. Anyone who says otherwise has deliberately deceived you. That you may tell anyone (including the deceiver(s)) is a direct quote from DSF.

I know you are both concerned to promote the cause and glory of Christ. Thank you both for clearing these matters up.

Don
The preacher that I was referring to was Todd Nibert and not Don himself. And please keep in mind I am not trying to bash and put down either Don or Todd as I have high regard for both of them and believe both are gospel preachers.

Regarding the issue of Mark Daniels, I should have said something earlier, but I do take back my statement that Mark was hiding his views from Eager Avenue Church. My saying he was hiding something implies that I knew Mark's intentions of which I do not. I do know that one of the members of EAGC contacted Scott and myself some months prior to the church asking Mark to leave regarding the matter of Mark beginning to teach views on imparted righteousness that the church did not agree with and that he had not taught these views prior. This concerned the member and said that others had noticed this new teaching as well.

Let me just state that I regret bringing up the issues of Eager Avenue Grace Church and Mark Daniels. My intent was to illustrate how the teaching of Todd Nibert and others on this issue was affecting others.

Don, if you are reading this, let me just state publically that I had no intention of causing any ill feeling or to misrepresent anyone. Nor was it my intention in all of this discussion to bring in names of individuals but only to discuss the matter at hand.

red beetle

06-03-2005, 10:54 PM

Ian: Sorry, but no, I won't offer you any further explanation.

Ian, you never explained anything. You simply quoted a verse and made a statement or two. You offered no syllogisms, no exegesis.
Your begging the question. You need to demonstrate from the Scriptures, rather than assume your teaching is true.

Ian:
That Christ was made sin at the cross, that He bore our sins, does not mean that he committed sin. Your 'logic' and 'wisdom' here is altogether faulty and you have misapplied scriptures.
Christ's human nature, His human mind, according to you, was filled with sin, was changed from pure, to sin. Scripture, which cannot lie, testifies that any human nature which is full of sin can but only sin(Job 14:4). Christ was full of sin the three hours He was on the cross, according to you, and was quite active. In light of the Scripture I quoted, you need to explain how Christ's human nature was full of sin, and did not sin. You can claim you don't have time, and go and hide, but that does not impress serious students of God's Word. Stop begging the question. Explain.

A1.1) Any human nature that contains sin is a human nature that can only sin (Job 14:4)
A1.2) Christ's human nature is a human nature that was made to contain sin for three hours (Ian Pott's doctrine of sin-infusion)
__________________________________________________ _______
A1.3) Therefore, Christ's human nature was a human nature that could only sin for three hours

A2.1) If Christ's human nature was sinful for the three hours of darkness on the cross, and it was active during those three hours, then it itself was sinful for those three hours
A2.2) Christ's human nature was active during those three hours
(Mark 15:34)
__________________________________________________ ________
A2.3) Therefore, Christ's human nature was sinful for those three hours of darkness on the cross

The above syllogisms demonstrate some of the logical outcomes of Ian Pott's teachings. One clear outcome from his teachings is that Christ Himself was a sinner while on the cross. This of course would make Christ sinful as well. Ignoring the fact, for the moment, that if you are made sin (infused with sin), then you can still correctly be called sinful, there is more than a few things in Ian's teachings that scream for serious explanation.

Red Beetle

Robert R. Higby

06-04-2005, 03:28 PM

Ian Potts: For God to justify a people their sin must be taken away. That CANNOT be done by simply imputing it to another. The actual sin must be placed upon another. He must be made sin and bare their sins in order to take sin (the sinful nature) and sins (the deeds) away. And exactly because Christ WAS Made sin at the cross and DID take it away God is just in declaring His people righteous in Christ.

First of all, all of this is mystical the way it is described. 'Placed upon' to most of us means nothing different than imputation, this very passage states that Christ knew no sin. So you have to give us YOUR definition of 'placed upon' before we will have any idea of what you are saying. You are asking us to accept this as truth without a willingness to describe logically what you mean by this 'made sin' that is not imputation. HOW was sin IMPARTED to Christ? In addition, this reasoning is according to the eternal law philosophy of Anselm, which is strictly low-grace and not high-grace doctrine. In stating that God CANNOT do something except according to a ruling principle of law, his grace is made subject to that 'over-ruling principle' of wisdom or justice which is assumed to dictate God's necessary actions. In high-grace doctrine, grace is superior to law in every single aspect of redemptive history! God can do what ever he wants in his sovereign purposes of grace, including double imputation! And what God does in those purposes is REAL simply because he determines it to be in his own wisdom--which consists first and foremost of the desire to exercise grace! 2 Cor. 5:19 (leading in to 5:21) clearly teaches double imputation by the emphatic negative. Others have pointed this out with excellence.

Melted:One point I fail to understand, probably due to ignorance, is this need of impartation to abolish "SIN" over and above the abolishment of "SINS" (by imputation) on the cross . . . imputation of our sin to Jesus Christ accomplishes both.

What you have said is not due to ignorance, it is the gospel truth! :cool:

harald

06-04-2005, 04:13 PM

Ivor Thomas

06-04-2005, 05:49 PM

harald

06-04-2005, 06:09 PM

Ivor, I for one do not say it says "imputed" in the verse. But it is not unreasonable to want to see Ian briefly define his understanding of "made sin". If he has given already a definition (lengthy or brief) of "made sin" I must have missed it. If so then perhaps you could briefly repeat it here for those interested to know what it is.

I do not think any denies it says "made sin" in the Bible. But in the OT somewhere it talks about opening up the word and giving the SENSE to the people. It is not unreasonable, then, to ask Ian to do so in brief as to his understanding/conception of "made sin". Otherwise some will likely impute to him a view of Christ being made sin that is no better than the JDS doctrine of the Word of Faith people. And I think someone already did something like this here.

Frankly myself begins to be tired with this secrecy as to Ian's understanding of the HOW of Christ's being "made sin". I almost feel like saying like Paul, that "I will know for myself not the word of those having been puffed up, but the power". 1Corinthians 4:19.

Harald

Ivor Thomas

06-04-2005, 06:54 PM

Harald, surely Paul wrote made sin he was not puffed up was he, myself i think it is self explanatory Christ was made sin for us, Harald i did not mean you but someone else who was less than kind to Ian earlier on the thread, please go back over a few of Ian's posts you may have missed it. Ivor Thomas..

ray kikkert

06-04-2005, 08:28 PM

Come now let us reason together in truth, the onus is not on Ian who believes The bible when it say's MADE SIN, and so do I, and through history many also hold to this, the onus is on you who say Imputed here in this verse, because if you go to scripture alone it's Made Sin, go back over Ian's post's there is nothing mystic about them they are clear and concise,has any one could be on such difficult text to explain. Ivor Thomas..

Ivor, I meant no disrespect to what Ian is saying. Yes , God's Word states "made sin", that is what it says.

Now, does this mean impartation to him, did Christs attribute change? Or does it mean imputation. This is the source of disagreement.

Wisdom says to me, if unclear , see what the past reformers rendered the definition as. This is what I called Ian on,was his dismissal of the reformers work which renders him suspect.

Yes , I know the statement in the text says made sin. How is this thus defined? As impartation or imputation. The reformed within there confessional stance and exegetical stance have rendered the definition be that of imputation.

I can say that I am thankful for the discussion. It has helped me view these things more clearly and given me more understanding from all.

The bottom line must always be that God receive the honor and glory , in this as well. It is for Him we submit ourselves to the study of His Word. What answer will give the Lord honor and glory? What demotes His honor and glory? That,at the end of the day should be our chief end. Is that what we are all striving for?

harald

06-05-2005, 01:19 AM

Ivor,

Appreciate your answer. It may well be I have missed something Ian has said. Then, I did not and do not claim Paul being puffed up, never. Like I said the issue is not whether Paul wrote "made sin" or not. He did indeed. One reason why I like to see Ian define how he understands "made sin" as written by Paul is because I would not want to see Ian being in error in his view, but rather in accordance with God's truth. Some seem to think Ian understands "made sin" as that Christ had sin infused into His human nature (not to mention His Deity). I hope to God this is not Ian's view. If it is not this and not imputation then I am interested to learn what it is. I am just interested to for myself entertain nothing but God-honoring and Scripture-according views of Christ in His person and work. And I wish the same to be a fact with Ian as well. If Ian is right at this moment in his understanding I cannot tell since I have not seen a short but clear definition of "made sin" from his pen. If he gives one and I find myself to have a wrong view then I eagerly desire nothing but adopt what is very truth herein. Not so in order to gain something with or from God, but so as to duly honor Him.

Harald

Brandan Kraft

06-05-2005, 08:47 AM

Some seem to think Ian understands "made sin" as that Christ had sin infused into His human nature (not to mention His Deity). I hope to God this is not Ian's view. If it is not this and not imputation then I am interested to learn what it is. I am just interested to for myself entertain nothing but God-honoring and Scripture-according views of Christ in His person and work. Harald, I agree with you. Further clarification by Ian would be beneficial. I think it is unwise to immediately accuse him of holding to "infused sin" considering he has been such a wonderful distributor of Gospel truth. But I really don't know what other conclusion one could come to unless of course he's holding to some other understanding of Jesus being made sin (which I have no logical explanation for). What does it mean "to be made sin," Ian? I hold nothing against you and respect you as a brother in the Lord. But if it's "infused sinfulness", I would ask that you please repent and study this topic afresh. If it is something else, please explain to me what it is.

Brother Ivor, I would also ask for your patience with me and others. I understand your love for Ian is great, and it is only natural to defend him. Ian is not on trial here. But we're only asking these questions in hopes of learning and helping to correct his or our understanding.

Brandan Kraft

06-05-2005, 08:55 AM

this reasoning is according to the eternal law philosophy of Anselm, which is strictly low-grace and not high-grace doctrine. In stating that God CANNOT do something except according to a ruling principle of law, his grace is made subject to that 'over-ruling principle' of wisdom or justice which is assumed to dictate God's necessary actions. In high-grace doctrine, grace is superior to law in every single aspect of redemptive history! God can do what ever he wants in his sovereign purposes of grace, including double imputation! Amen Bob. God, as Sovereign Creator of the Universe does not need to justify his actions. He is bound by no law, and if He deemed it fit to make men righteous by imputing their sin to Christ, then that's good enough for me! His decree needs no defending whatsoever!

Mickey

06-05-2005, 10:19 AM

Coveat: My reason for bringing this up is not to digress from the topic at hand, so don't let it.;)

We all have at one point heard the 'Pastorism' that God 'turned His back' on Christ when He was on the cross or that God 'seperated Himself' from Christ. This being in reference to Christ's quoting of Psalm 22. I don't think those who I have heard say this from the pulpit know what they are really saying.

I think this relates because if indeed Christ was made sinfull then one person of the Trinity would have been defiled with sin. Which is dangerous because we should flee from ideas that require us to separate the 'persons.' Did the Father hate the Son as this took place? Did the Father feel sorry for Christ? "Sorry Son this hurts me more than it hurts you." Or did it please Him? The latter of course!

My 2 assarion.

Mike

red beetle

06-05-2005, 11:37 PM

I have heard many good things about Ian Potts.

I have nothing personal contra this guy.

I do not think I would be loving my neighbor if I knew he was wrong, and let him go on that way. I hope that he will clarify his doctrine.
And, I do think he has a moral responsibility to clarify his doctrine, since he has taught it publicly, and it has met with great confusion at best.

Red Beetle

Robert R. Higby

06-06-2005, 08:40 AM

Mike, good point about NO SEPARATION in the Trinity! If God the Son could be separated from God the Father, God would not be God. All 3 members of the Trinity were pleased with the bruising of Christ and his sin-bearing. It is not paradoxical to state that Christ was both abandoned by God and pleased with his own sacrifice at the same time, for he was both God and man.

Ian has made two points clear about his position:
1. Sin was NOT infused into Christ in such a way that Jesus EXPERIENCED sin or rebellion in his soul.

2. Nontheless, Christ was made sin by IMPARTATION; not imputation only or primarily.

It is the paradoxical nature of these two statements that needs resolution and it is not too much for us to expect one. --Bob

Ian Potts

06-06-2005, 09:35 AM

I also would be interested to see Ian Potts come forth with some definition(s). For example, how he understands "made sin", i.e. what SENSE he attaches to those Pauline words in 2Cor 5. Unless he is willing to give such a definition (if he indeed has seen the request) in understandable words I will have to conclude he is just standing in ignorant awe of those two words, "made sin", with no spiritual desire to know/understand (let alone share with others for their potential benefit/edification) what Paul exactly and precisely signifies by them in the context and in light of his overall teaching of the redemption of Christ…

If the sense of "made sin" cannot be explained by simple but clear and appropriate words (on Ian's part) I say he is into mysticism and not doctrine.

Ivor, I for one do not say it says "imputed" in the verse. But it is not unreasonable to want to see Ian briefly define his understanding of "made sin”.

Frankly myself begins to be tired with this secrecy as to Ian's understanding of the HOW of Christ's being "made sin".

Ivor, I meant no disrespect to what Ian is saying. Yes , God's Word states "made sin", that is what it says.

Now, does this mean impartation to him, did Christs attribute change? Or does it mean imputation. This is the source of disagreement.

What does it mean "to be made sin," Ian? I hold nothing against you and respect you as a brother in the Lord. But if it's "infused sinfulness", I would ask that you please repent and study this topic afresh. If it is something else, please explain to me what it is.

Brother Ivor, I would also ask for your patience with me and others. I understand your love for Ian is great, and it is only natural to defend him. Ian is not on trial here. But we're only asking these questions in hopes of learning and helping to correct his or our understanding.

In light of the Scripture I quoted, you need to explain how Christ's human nature was full of sin, and did not sin. You can claim you don't have time, and go and hide, but that does not impress serious students of God's Word. Stop begging the question. Explain.
Red Beetle

I have heard many good things about Ian Potts.

I have nothing personal contra this guy.

I do not think I would be loving my neighbor if I knew he was wrong, and let him go on that way. I hope that he will clarify his doctrine.

And, I do think he has a moral responsibility to clarify his doctrine, since he has taught it publicly, and it has met with great confusion at best.

To begin with can I say that I am pleased to hear that although ‘Red Beetle’ may find fault with my doctrine he also says that he has heard many good things about me. The Bible tells us to beware when all men speak well of us, and that we can tell those who are truly of God by the fact that they receive both good report and evil report – 2 Corinthians 6:8….

However, I see that I am called into question again. I am accused of “secrecy” by Harald, of possibly standing in “ignorant awe” of the words “made sin”, of possibly being into mysticism and not doctrine. Brandan says that I am not on trial here, yet the fact is that if I be found holding to one position I am called upon to ‘repent’... :) ‘Red Beetle’ seems to imply that I am claiming a lack of time in order to hide…

Let me begin by saying this. I DO LACK TIME to discuss this matter on this forum. Accuse me of anything you like, but that is a fact, and is not being used as an excuse or as a cover in any way.

I did not come to this thread in order to discuss this matter, nor did I post in here in order to ‘teach’ this doctrine. Why did I first post? Because I knew that Brandan and others had been to the conference recently and I looked at 5Solas to see how they got on. I was disappointed to see the teaching of my friend, and brother in the Lord, Don Fortner brought into question. Therefore I made one post on here simply to say that I agree with him. Re-read that post folks. In it I state clearly “I haven’t time to discuss this subject but I did [want] to make a brief comment on the matter”.

Any further posts were made in response to the questioning of others out of a desire to be helpful. As so often happens in this type of discussion forum various folk posted replies to me demanding further answers. Just go back and re-read the course of the discussion. There was no attempt by myself to ‘bring’ this teaching to the board (the teaching was ‘brought up’ at the conference and by Anthony questioning it on here). I made it clear from the start that I did not have the time to discuss it, nor the desire. I ‘owe’ no one any answers. I certainly have no ‘moral obligation’ to post further on here.

Don Fortner’s teaching I am in agreement with. He has stated his views in various articles. One is on my website, others have been posted as attachments in this thread. Don, as a preacher, has preached what God has given him to declare. He is under no ‘moral obligation’ to explain that any further. He need add no more. He need answer no questions. And neither need I.

As Ivor said…

Come now let us reason together in truth, the onus is not on Ian who believes The bible when it say's MADE SIN, and so do I, and through history many also hold to this, the onus is on you who say Imputed here in this verse, because if you go to scripture alone it's Made Sin, go back over Ian's post's there is nothing mystic about them they are clear and concise,has any one could be on such difficult text to explain. Ivor Thomas..
Thank you Ivor. Exactly.

Nevertheless I will spare a moment to explain one or two things here. I am not out to ‘convince’ anyone here of this truth. If you believe it, good. If you don’t, fair enough. I didn’t come here to ‘teach’ it – but merely to express my agreement with Don Fortner over it (and apparently, as this thread has demonstrated, with several other Sovereign Grace preachers including Todd Nibert and Don Bell). As Don Fortner said, he can only speak for himself, not others – and I say the same. What I have spoken is my understanding of this doctrine from the scriptures. These other men may differ with me … but from my reading of Fortner I feel that we are much in agreement.

Bob said in one post “You are asking us to accept this as truth without a willingness to describe logically what you mean by this 'made sin' that is not imputation.” I have to answer Bob, that no, I am not asking any of you to accept this teaching. That’s up to you. Nor am I ‘unwilling’ to describe logically what I mean by ‘made sin’. I have simply lacked the time to answer every question, and I didn’t intend to teach or discuss this doctrine on here in the first place…

But, OK, let me answer the ‘big’ question everyone seems so keen to hear about. What does 2 Corinthians 5:21 mean by ‘made sin’?

Well, are the words so ‘hard to be understood’? If one is ‘made’ sin, then they are then sin, are they not? I haven’t defined it much more than that in prior posts because I thought the words were self-explanatory! I stated elsewhere that I believe that Christ was ‘literally made sin’.

Does that mean that our sin in our fallen sinful nature was ‘imparted’ to Christ? Yes. Scripture doesn’t use that word ‘imparted’ but that pretty much describes it. God made him sin. God caused Christ ‘to become’ sin. It was a creative work.

The Greek word translated ‘made’ in 2 Corinthians 5:21 is exactly the same word translated ‘made’ in other places of scripture such as Hebrews 1:2 [God] “Hath in these last days spoken unto us by Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;”.

How were the worlds made? By imputation? Were they ‘reckoned’ into being? Were they ‘charged’ or accounted as being there?

No, they were made. They were created. No other wording makes sense here. Imputation?!

This is the word used in 2 Cor. 5:21 and ‘created’ is the sense of it. God ‘made him sin’. He caused him to become sin by a creative act no less powerful and real than that by which He created the world. God took the spotless, pure, perfect, sinless humanity of Christ (who knew no sin) and made him sin. In his humanity.

Alter 2 Cor. 5:21 to mean imputation and to be consistent you really should alter Hebrews 1:2 likewise. In which case nothing is real everything is just ‘reckoned to be so’.

But my Bible says God made the worlds, and He made Christ sin that we might become the righteousness of God in him. And I’m happy to stand on that sure foundation.

…

Now, I’m called into question over this doctrine, not because I am speaking contrary to the words of the text. Not because 2 Corinthians 5:21 says otherwise. Not because I’m glossing over a passage which says ‘impute’ and I’m trying to claim that ‘impute’ there really means ‘made’.

No, I’m called into question because the fact that Christ really was ‘made sin’ at the cross fills certain people with consternation. It isn’t what ‘they’ thought really happened. It isn't what they learned from their traditions. It seems to them to affect certain other truths. It isn’t a question of whether this doctrine actually contradicts scripture, but that it contradicts certain logical deductions which some people have derived from scripture.

The areas questioned essentially boil down to Christ’s immutability and the fact that He was impeccable. It is claimed that if he was literally made sin at the cross that these two areas would be affected. Well let’s look at these areas briefly:-

Immutability

Does the fact that Christ was made sin affect his immutability? Does it affect his ‘attribute’ as Ray asserts?

Let me answer by asking some questions. Did Christ have a human nature before the incarnation? Did He ‘increase in wisdom and stature’ in that nature? Did Christ die as a man? Did He rise again on the third day?

Now, did any of those ‘changes’ affect the immutability of Christ as God? Of course not. Did they affect His ‘attribute’ in any way? No. In which case how does Christ being made sin at the cross, leading to his death, affect His immutability?

It does not, any more than those others changes could, and the inference that it does is misinformed at best.

Impeccable nature

What about the fact that Christ is impeccable, sinless, perfect, without spot or blemish? Surely if ‘made sin’ in reality (ie. by impartation) then He would no longer be impeccable?

Well the question here is: does scripture teach that Christ AT THE CROSS during the hours of his punishment was impeccable, without sin? There is no question that it teaches that in His humanity up until that point He ‘knew no sin’ (2 Corinthians 5:1) and that He ‘offered Himself without spot to God’ when He offered Himself up as the sacrifice for sin (Hebrews 9:14). None here dispute that.

Also, none here dispute the fact that after the cross, having made satisfaction for the sins of His people, Christ arose in the resurrection in perfection, in righteousness. So He had no sin then.

But what about during the hours on the cross? Did His humanity remain without sin, or was it made sin literally?

I believe scripture teaches the latter, and that no scripture contradicts this fact. 2 Cor. 5:21 says that God made him sin, who knew no sin. Until that point Christ knew no sin, but at the cross He was made sin.

Consider the Hebrews verse which ‘Red Beetle’ brought up. Hebrews 9:14 says:-

“How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?”

‘Red Beetle’ feels that this refers to the state of Christ being without spot THROUGHOUT the hours on the cross. But the verse doesn’t say that. It says Christ offered himself without spot to God. He did. What God DID TO HIM once offered is another matter. What did God do to him? Read further on in chapter 9 of Hebrews:-

“So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many:…” Hebrews 9:28

That verse concludes the chapter. So joining the verses up, we understand that “Christ … through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God …” “…to bear the sins of many”.

Christ was without spot when He went to the cross. He offered Himself without spot to God. But God then made Him sin. He laid upon His Son the sins of many. The Son bore those sins. Christ suffered under the wrath of God against sin until that sin was burnt up, consumed, taken away. The sacrifice was, as it were, burnt to ashes outside the camp. Sin was no more. Christ then rose again from the dead, without sin, in perfection. For Hebrews 9:28 goes on to tell us that “…unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.” Why stress that if Christ was never ‘with sin’? Because at the cross he bore ours sins! He was made sin. But He will appear the second time WITHOUT SIN having taken sin away.

Many scriptural proofs could be found to show that Christ was sinless in His life, and that He is sinless following the cross-work. But scripture also teaches that at the cross God made him sin and He bore the sins of His people.

Mike raises the following point…

…if indeed Christ was made sinfull then one person of the Trinity would have been defiled with sin. Which is dangerous because we should flee from ideas that require us to separate the 'persons.'
Mike
OK, this gets to an important point here. If Christ was ‘made sin’ at the cross, then was one person of the Trinity defiled with sin?

The answer: NO.

Why not? Because of the distinction between Christ’s person and His natures. Christ is NOT a human person. He is a divine person. But He has two natures, one divine, one human. At the incarnation Christ did not take a human PERSON into union with His divinity, but a human NATURE. His person was, is, and ever will be divine. And as such it is always perfectly righteous, immutable, and untainted by sin. Always.

But when God made Christ ‘sin’ at the cross, He did so in Christ’s human nature. Christ was unique from the other persons in the Godhead in having this nature, so this does not “separate the ‘persons’” of the Godhead in any incorrect way as Mike seems to be concerned about.

This point of Christ being a divine person is important to understand. His divine nature and person were not ‘made sin’ at the cross. That could not be so. This creative work of the Father was performed upon the humanity of Christ as He stood as the TRUE SUBSTITUTE of His people, His ‘human people’, in death. He TRULY EXCHANGED PLACES with them, becoming what they are. He was made sin. Their sinful human nature, He was made to be. In so doing He could take that sin away under the wrath of God.

Did that affect His divine person? Did it make His person sin? No. His person is divine.

But ‘Red Beetle’ contends:-

“Any human nature that contains sin is a human nature that can only sin (Job 14:4)”

and…

“A2.1) If Christ's human nature was sinful for the three hours of darkness on the cross, and it was active during those three hours, then it itself was sinful for those three hours
A2.2) Christ's human nature was active during those three hours
(Mark 15:34)
__________________________________________________ ________
A2.3) Therefore, Christ's human nature was sinful for those three hours of darkness on the cross"

Now, what does Job 14:4 actually say?

“Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one.”

And Mark 15:34?

“And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, la-ma-sa-bach-tha-ni? Which is being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

So… ‘Red Beetle’ asserts that if Christ’s human nature was ‘made sin’ at the cross then HE must have been sinning. I deny that. Scripture in no way states that, and logical deduction based on solid truth does not prove that. When Christ was ‘made sin’ it was ALL OUR SIN, not His. He ‘bare OUR sins IN His own body on the tree’. 1 Peter 2:24.

But, it is claimed, his human nature was ‘made sin’ therefore out of it would have sprung forth sin. Oh, would it? In a human PERSON maybe. In them all their volition and activity is sinful. But Christ wasn’t a human PERSON. His person was DIVINE. He was the ETERNAL SON OF GOD.

Following the cry of Christ in Mark 15:34 we read in verse 39 the words of the centurion who looked on “Truly this man was the Son of God.”

The SON OF GOD cried out to His Father “Why hast thou forsaken me?” There was no sin in that. But if His human nature was sin at that point, why not? Because His person was divine and sinless. He was able not so sin even whilst being united to a human nature which was made sin. If His person had been human then the case might well be otherwise.

‘Red Beetle’ mentions Job 14:4. He claims “Scripture, which cannot lie, testifies that any human nature which is full of sin can but only sin(Job 14:4).” But Job 14:4, which ‘cannot lie’ DOES NOT SAY THAT. It says:-

“Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? Not one.”

This does not prove that Christ’s human nature when made sin could but only sin. HE WAS A DIVINE PERSON with that human nature. And that makes a MASSIVE difference.

What this verse actually DOES SAY hardly contradicts the truth of what I’m saying. We are talking about the work of God at the cross here. The SUBSTITUTIONARY work of Christ in taking the sinner’s place - a stupendous work of Sovereign Grace in which God took the sins of all His people, laid them upon the Son, took those sins away in a staggering outpouring of divine justice and wrath, and through that justified that people. GOD MADE THEM CLEAN. What is impossible with man is possible with God. [The context of Job 14:4 is really speaking of sinful humans, not of God, or even of the God-man Christ.]

To assert that if Christ was made sin in His human nature then He ‘would sin’ would need much better scriptural backing than has been given. I do not believe that that can be proven. I repeat:

Christ was and is a divine PERSON with both a divine and human nature.

Lastly, Bob said...

This reasoning is according to the eternal law philosophy of Anselm, which is strictly low-grace and not high-grace doctrine. In stating that God CANNOT do something except according to a ruling principle of law, his grace is made subject to that 'over-ruling principle' of wisdom or justice which is assumed to dictate God's necessary actions. In high-grace doctrine, grace is superior to law in every single aspect of redemptive history! God can do what ever he wants in his sovereign purposes of grace, including double imputation! And what God does in those purposes is REAL simply because he determines it to be in his own wisdom--which consists first and foremost of the desire to exercise grace! 2 Cor. 5:19 (leading in to 5:21) clearly teaches double imputation by the emphatic negative. Others have pointed this out with excellence.

Bob,

When I spoke along the lines of ‘this had to be done this way’ I was not implying that God was bound to some ‘external’ law. I take your point. But frankly it is not unreasonable to use language such as ‘Christ had to die in order to save His people’. Or ‘sin had to be blotted out’.

But in taking your point that ‘God can do what ever he wants in his sovereign purposes of grace’ then I say that that includes Christ literally being made sin. God could literally make Christ sin if He decreed it.

So really… you argue against yourself.

Also, according to that principle, ‘Red Beetle’s’ claims that if Christ was made sin in his human nature then he had to be sinning during those three hours, is also false. If God decreed otherwise, if God decided to make Christ sin at the cross during which time He did not sin, then so it was. And so scripture tells us.

As to the reference to not imputing trespasses to us, found in 2 Cor. 5:19 that is true because it is laid upon the basis of the fact that Christ was literally ‘made sin’ 2 Cor. 5:21. I have explained this in my previous post. This DOES NOT teach double imputation.

I leave this subject here. I was not obligated, by ‘moral obligation’ or any other to reply further, but I have taken time to do so. I hope this clarifies a few things. I seek to ‘convince’ no one. May the Spirit be pleased to do that through the scriptures.

My apologies to Luba! I had hoped to address her post but what little time I had has been taken on this reply to others who seemed to ‘demand’ answers. I doubt at this rate that I’ll get to your questions Luba. Forgive me.

As I am ‘not on trial here’ I trust that I won’t be condemned for my answers and that contributors will endeavour to respond in that grace which we should all show who profess Christ.

In Grace,
Ian

Ian Potts

06-06-2005, 11:07 AM

I can say that I am thankful for the discussion. It has helped me view these things more clearly and given me more understanding from all.

The bottom line must always be that God receive the honor and glory , in this as well. It is for Him we submit ourselves to the study of His Word. What answer will give the Lord honor and glory? What demotes His honor and glory? That,at the end of the day should be our chief end. Is that what we are all striving for?
A brief reply to Ray's good point here...

I fully understand that my position contradicts various writers of the past. I also understand that it can be difficult to grasp for those who have imbibed the teaching of others regarding imputation.

As you say, no one wants to dishonour Christ - we should strive for His glory and honour. But at the end of the day I believe scripture teaches this and in my judgement this is the most Christ-honouring doctrine as it shows the depth which He suffered when He became our substitute in death. He not only suffered wrath against sin but He suffered that most abhorrent to Him - He was MADE sin.

That simply fills me with overwhelming praise and wonder. To me this is not 'disturbing' but truly awesome.

In Grace,
Ian

harald

06-06-2005, 03:01 PM

Ian,

Thank you so much for your explanations and definition, and taking the time to write it all on here. You did it well. As for now I do not charge you with teaching error or something such like. As for myself I am struggling to understand "your" view, and struggling to ascertain whether it contradicts anything written in the Scripture. It differs a whole world from the "traditional" view, but this makes no difference to me. I only care whether it is in line with the Scripture. I take into account there is a possibility myself has had a wrong mental grasp of the things discussed, and consequently that I may have propagated error when putting it in written form. If "your" view indeed is the truth then it makes the mystery of Christ and His cross work more fascinating than ever "the traditional Reformed" view was. I still have many questions in my mind about these things that you have put forth that need to be answered and ascertained.

I shall point out to however interested that in 2Cor. 5:21 the verb "knew" (KJV) is in the aorist active participle - lit. "the one not having experientially known sin". In my understanding this construct does not definitely contradict what Ian said. It seems to be saying that Christ had not up to this point known sin experientially, and then at this point God made Him sin. And during those hours when being sin He must have somehow experientially known sin. Otherwise a host of Scripture passages seem to be superfluous.

I may reason erroneously here. But, at this moment it seems to me that the only way in which Christ (as to His humanity) could truly/really/literally be made ("creatively", as Ian said it) sin without God intrinsically altering the very constitution of that 33 year old inherently blemishless and holy humanity, would have been by God infusing an alien (the elect's) sin-principle (along with all its attending sinful propensities) into the body of Christ. In this way it would also be literally according as it says in the Scripture, that He carried the elect's sins in His own body on the tree. In this case there would have been sinful activity (from that active infused sin-principle, which is not a passive principle) going on in the body of Christ on the cross, but it would not have been springing from Christ's own holy human nature. In this case Christ would have had experiential aquaintance with sin (not His very own, because He had none) during those hours on the cross. In this case Christ can rightfully be said to have been "obedient" to the point of death, which would not have been true in case Christ's humanity had been creatively altered so as to be nothing but sin. Pure sin, plus nothing minus nothing, cannot be perfectly obedient without cessation. Christ was perfectly obedient to God without cessation, to the point of death, while at the same time being literally made sin during the last few hours, bearing in His own body the sin (the sin principle) and sins (the sinful propensities of the former) of God's elect. In this case it is also fully understandable how Christ can symphatize with His elect while they're on earth in a body of death - because He Himself had experiential knowledge of sin while being made sin on the cross.
It may be this my reasoning differs somewhat in some details from Ian's view.

Ian, I would be interested to hear your comment on my last thoughts.

Harald

L-Today

06-06-2005, 08:30 PM

Ian, thank you, dear brother, for wanting to answer my questions. I know that you are very busy, and therefore am grateful that you even gave it a thought. Maybe some other day we can e-mail when there is more time.

Now, I ask you, and whoever else holds your views on this, very important matter, to read the following comment only for its content - I am NOT attacking anybody personally at all. Please keep it in mind while reading. It is thoughts that are before us which are under scrutity, as we are commanded by God to do, not brothers and sisters on this forum and elsewhere. Our Lord's Truth is paramount, and nothing else matters.

Well, whoever wishes to cogitate and muse over the idea that our Saviour literally and actually became a heaving mass of sin, let them do so.

Me, I am standing firm, our Lord God sustaining me, upon perfectly designed by God doctrine of IMPUTATION, and not because somebody else taught it before, but because it is what the whole of Scripture, not just the word ''made'' teaches.

It is the most fascinating and perfectly Biblical doctrine: our sins accounted to Jesus Christ, and His righteousness accounted to us, and I am utterly rivetted to it without any need for an additional excitement of the possibility of our Redeemer disappearing for three hours, just when His purity was needed most of all.

Where was Jesus Christ for the three hours of darkness? The actual mass of sin is not called Jesus Christ, nor is it called the Lamb of God, nor do we have a Saviour if His sinlessness was gone even for a split second, let alone for three hours! Three hours without Jesus Christ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Then the whole universe collapses, for it is by the Eternally and Infinitely Holy Word of God that it is sustained, upheld and controlled. And the Bible calls Jesus Christ, yes, both divine AND human natures in Him, and not only divine, the Word of God and God. So then the Word of God and God Himself becomes sin? What do you think apostles John, Paul and others would have said to the proposition that the Wisdom of God, the Lord of Glory Himself, for some untenable and unnecessary reason, was turned into a mass of sin? The whole counsel of God speaks of sinless suffering for sinners, not sin suffering for sinners.

Far bigger wonder than burning a literal heap of sin, is the miracle that the INNOCENT from BEGINNING TO THE END WITHOUT INTERRUPTION GodMan, has ENDURED very real agony of hell for our sins, Himself remaining SINLESS and PURE. We shall never know what our EVER Holy Saviour Lord Jesus Christ went through in Gethsemane and on the cross so that His righteousness becomes ours. THIS is the real miracle and the truth to wonder at and to worship forever -that our Lord Jesus has remained pure and faithful through such an unimaginable trial, that when hated, despised, tortured, mocked, treated as a criminal and even forsaken by His own Father, He remained innocent and spotless, loving and obedient Son of His Father - which, of course, He could not do if He was a heap of sin. His divine nature's response to God is no miracle at all, but His PURE divine-human - SUFFERING AND AGONIZING nature's loving response to God is for us to marvel and rejoice over forever.

To me, ''made sin'' means that our Saviour was treated exactly - yes - AS IF He has committed our sins - that is what substitute means. On Christ was God's wrath poured as Father did not spare His only beloved begotten Son (and not a heaving mass of sin) - even unto death - for our sins. Nothing unreal about it at all. Our sins were washed away by Christ's blood, which, by the way, He did not have to shed if our sin(s) could be destroyed by burning them after an injection of them into Him.

''When'' the Persons of the Godhead agreed that the Son will pay the penalties for the sins of His people, it was not a joke, and Triune God knew, for He has so ordained, the full horror of hell that the Son will have to go through - which stupendous WORK our Lord Jesus has, of course, accomplished perfectly and completely to satisfaction of His Father's Holy Justice - and our sins are no more - for the penalties for them have been paid. Such Scriptural perfection!

This discussion has evoked something that happened to me soon after my conversion. Somebody gave me a book by Derek Prince. This charismatic author belived that our Lord Jesus was made into a literal sin. He also brought into his teaching Isaiah 52.14 ''his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men'', in addition to ''made sin'' - and the picture this blasphemer painted of our Lord Jesus was so evil that I had to tear the pages of this book and throw it away or else I could not sleep. He went on and on how our Lord was all covered with literal sin - horrid ugly boils covered his face and body so that no flesh was visible under the runny pus - that, he wrote, was sin oozing out. SICK and EVIL, and yes, the writer reached the conclusion his logic led him into.

Now, I am not EVER ascribing any motives to dear brothers Ian and Ivor and others who think alike, other than taking the word ''made'' literally in the physical sense. Please, may God-loving Christians be not offended, as no offence was meant, but I had to speak up because of the importance of this matter.

We shall know these things for sure SOON ENOUGH.

With Christian love and prayers,

L-Today.

Robert R. Higby

06-07-2005, 01:18 AM

I agree with Luba; I can have nothing to do with this false teaching. I'm out. This is not to disrespect any contributor here (from a human standpoint). However, I believe that this teaching of 'imparted sin' stands condemned by the Word of God!

Ian: Does that mean that our sin in our fallen sinful nature was ‘imparted’ to Christ? Yes. Scripture doesn’t use that word ‘imparted’ but that pretty much describes it. God made him sin. God caused Christ ‘to become’ sin. It was a creative work.

This is the false teaching of the early Jewish Ebionites and 19th century Irvingites!

I will have no more posts in this thread! All know my positon. I can only hope that Don Fortner does not agree with Ian on these points. :cool:

red beetle

06-07-2005, 04:51 AM

Guys,

Does that mean that our sin in our fallen sinful nature was ‘imparted’ to Christ? Yes. Scripture doesn’t use that word ‘imparted’ but that pretty much describes it. God made him sin. God caused Christ ‘to become’ sin. It was a creative work.

This is the word used in 2 Cor. 5:21 and ‘created’ is the sense of it. God ‘made him sin’. He caused him to become sin by a creative act no less powerful and real than that by which He created the world. God took the spotless, pure, perfect, sinless humanity of Christ (who knew no sin) and made him sin. In his humanity.

When Christ was ‘made sin’ it was ALL OUR SIN, not His. He ‘bare OUR sins IN His own body on the tree’. 1 Peter 2:24.

It is clear from the above that Ian is teaching that the sin of the elect was infused into the Christ. He wants to use the word 'create', but then gets entangled into a logical mess, so he tries later to remind us that the sin imparted is actually ours that is in Christ (as the above shows).

It isn’t a question of whether this doctrine actually contradicts scripture, but that it contradicts certain logical deductions which some people have derived from scripture.

Oh yes, that is the entire question. If your sin transfusion/infusion contradicts Scripture, or anything that is logically deduced from it, then it is to be rejected.

Consider the Hebrews verse which ‘Red Beetle’ brought up. Hebrews 9:14 says:-

“How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?”

‘Red Beetle’ feels that this refers to the state of Christ being without spot THROUGHOUT the hours on the cross. But the verse doesn’t say that. It says Christ offered himself without spot to God. He did. What God DID TO HIM once offered is another matter. What did God do to him? Read further on in chapter 9 of Hebrews:-

Ian Potts defines Christ's offer/sacrifice to end prior to the three hours of darkness. This is no where stated in the Scripture. It is read into it by Ian, who is trying desperately to fit his square peg into this round hole. Scripture defines the Offering/Sacrifice, not Ian. Christ being offered is synonomous with him being sacrificed. The slaying of the sacrificial animal is always included as part of the offering/sacrifice. Do the math. If Christ was sacrificed, then His being killed must also be included in the offering. Thus, Hebrews 9:14 supports the Reformed position. Scripture proves Ian wrong here.

But, it is claimed, his human nature was ‘made sin’ therefore out of it would have sprung forth sin. Oh, would it? In a human PERSON maybe.

In a human person maybe? Does this guy even believe in total depravity? He sounds like Pelagius!!! :eek:

Finally, I asked John Robbins to explain the difference between 'REAL' imputation and 'Forensic' imputation. He said that there was no difference, because forensic imputation is real. John thinks that it is blasphemy to hold that our sin was imparted to Christ. If any would like to fuss at John, then e-mail him at: jrob1517@aol.com

I think that Ian's theology is one that wishes to eliminate imputation. Takes the focus off of imputed righteousness in justification, and causes us to focus upon what is in us and what is in Christ. We all know that the Roman Catholic Church-state is the one who attacks imputation as not being real, then they fuss about a person having grace in them before they can be justified. Logically, if Ian wants our sin infused in Christ before we can be justified, then in return we can expect him to later teach that we need righteousness infused into us before we can be justified.

Christ did not sin, and NEVER had sin in HIM.
The Christ I worship is, and always has been the HOLY ONE without spot.
Our sin was imputed to Christ, as is clearly asserted by Scripture.
Our sanctification is what eliminates sin in us, not a sin transfusion into Christ.

Plus, if all of the sin was infused into Christ then, there would NOW be no sin, and there clearly is. Think about that one.:D

RED BEETLE

lionovjudah

06-07-2005, 08:05 AM

THis is just a question. I am not an expert on the hypostatic Union of the natures of Christ. Can the natures, or are the natures ever sperated where at one point He is all human and not divine and visa versa?

I am trying to understand here how His human nature could be made sin, and not His divine.

As I read this, I know it is probably a moot question, so forgive my ignorance.

Was He not 100% divine and 100% human at all times during His earthly life?

Brandan Kraft

06-07-2005, 08:26 AM

lionovjudah

06-07-2005, 08:26 AM

Does the below make any sense? I have began to look at the WHole idea of Sacrafice from the beginning, of which were types and shadows of Christs sacrafice. Paul and all must have known the piacular consensus of sacrafice that is spoken about.

One must also keep in mind the Old Testament concept of substitution. The sacrificial victim had to be "without defect" (Leviticus 4:3, 23, 32). A hand would be laid on the unblemished sacrificial animal as a way of symbolizing a transfer of guilt (4:4, 24, 33). The sacrificial animal did not thereby actually BECOME sinful by nature; rather, sin was IMPUTED to the animal and the animal acted as a sacrificial substitute. Christ the Lamb of God was utterly unblemished, but our sin was imputed to Him and He was our sacrificial substitute on the cross of Calvary. Simply because our sin was imputed to Him does not mean He changed in nature. Christ was not sinful personally; He was made to be sin substitutionally.

GraceAmbassador

06-07-2005, 08:28 AM

I think that Ian's theology is one that wishes to eliminate imputation. Takes the focus off of imputed righteousness in justification, and causes us to focus upon what is in us and what is in Christ. We all know that the Roman Catholic Church-state is the one who attacks imputation as not being real, then they fuss about a person having grace in them before they can be justified. Logically, if Ian wants our sin infused in Christ before we can be justified, then in return we can expect him to later teach that we need righteousness infused into us before we can be justified.

Christ did not sin, and NEVER had sin in HIM.
The Christ I worship is, and always has been the HOLY ONE without spot.
Our sin was imputed to Christ, as is clearly asserted by Scripture.
Our sanctification is what eliminates sin in us, not a sin transfusion into Christ.

Plus, if all of the sin was infused into Christ then, there would NOW be no sin, and there clearly is. Think about that one.:D

Dear Saints and Ain'ts:

Theologically I am in total agreement with Red Beetle or KingSportJudo. I do hold a certain degree of "holy" fear that BROTHER Ian's theology (not "this guy") can lead to the heresy of the Kenneth's of Tulsa Oklahoma who claim that not only Christ received our sins, but He also had to go to hell as a sinner in order to be our Savior. I will let BROTHER Ian defend himself when he can or if he wishes.

I believe that when an animal, an irrational being who could not sin was sacrificed, the sins of the people were inputed in him (depending on what semantic range one yields to the term "impute") but it (the animal) was not and could not be a sinner.

In the other hand, we cannot act as a dog who was bitten by a snake and now runs scared of a sausage link (as we say in Brazil). Were we "bitten" by the RCC and now we run scared of every semblance of them, in an irrational overeaction? I believe that BROTHER Ian is not in the category of a heretic. As such I feel that splitting every single word Ian says and to treat him as "this guy" and finding fault in everything he says based on what a third party respected teacher who is not here to be confronted and that also has very little time to correspond personally with everyone (just try...) is not something recommendable and should be rejected by the moderators of this Forum. Attack Ian's ideas but let's not "marcarpenterize" him. It appears that the way this issue is being treated by BROTHER KingSportJudo may appear a "marcarpenterization" or BROTHER Ian.

This is just a suggestion from your humble moderator. Let's give BROTHER Ian time to respond here in this Forum and discuss this issue with the vessels we have available in this Forum. (I admit that perhaps this is my aprehension for debators that not only repeat concepts of dead "gurus" but also the living ones...)

Milt

harald

06-07-2005, 09:24 AM

I am, frankly speaking, confused as to what I ought to think about the details of the Substitution. As for the concept of "sin being imputed to Christ" I ask that anyone bring one New Testament verse which explicitly states this concept. At least the verse should contain either one of the two Greek verbs that have been rendered as "impute" in KJV. I refer to logizomai, which KJV renders "impute" a few times, and to ellogeO, which KJV renders "impute" in Rom. 5:13. I ask this because it is important to truly ascertain whether Paul or other inspired penmen really and truly taught "sin being imputed to Christ". It is not enough to trust "Reformers" or such men of old who claim they taught it.

I also ask, those that unhesitatingly believe "sin being imputed to Christ", exactly what sense do you attach to "Impute"? Is it

A) a transfering of something (in this case SIN) onto an account (in this case Christ's) which (the "something", viz. SIN) was not previously there
B) an attributing of something (here SIN), to Christ, which He already possessed (in some sense)
C) some other sense - which?

I also ask, those that unhesitatingly believe "Christ's righteousness imputed to the elect". Bring at least one verse from Paul that you believe explicitly teaches this concept.

I ask these because the things being discussed and dealt with are so vastly important. The truth (of God) has nothing to fear from a thorough investigation.
It is apparently held by some that the "Reformed" view on the Substitution is exactly the same as the Scripture's. And that whereas Ian's is not the traditional Reformed view he must be anti-Scripture in his view. I say both the Reformed view and Ian's/Fortner's ought to be thoroughly scrutinized in Scripture light, to ascertain if one is right and the other wrong, or whether both are fallen into the ditch.
As for me I believe I am prepared to objectively scrutinize both views, so help me God. For any view of the Substitution to be truly Scriptural it must not contradict anything revealed in the Scripture relative to it, but must exhibit nothing but beautiful harmony.

Harald

L-Today

06-08-2005, 10:15 AM

Harald,

Are there any verses in the Bible stating in exact words that bread and wine are not the literal body and blood of Jesus Christ? Our Saviour Himself commanding His followers to eat bread and drink wine in memory of Him, millions of people don't see as cancelling bread and wine being literal body and blood of Christ. For them bread and wine can be both for the memory purpose and for themselves becoming holy by biting and swallowing what they think is the literal body and blood of Christ. Result: RCC's cannibalistic mass.

What about ''in Christ'' - are there exact words in the Scriptures stating that the elect believers ''in Him'' are not actually and literally inside Christ's body? On the contrary, we are even told that we are the very members of His body. Well, there are millions of literal interpreters of ''in God'' too - they are called pantheists.

In RCC and Russian Orthodox superstitious traditions, they used to take ''sheep'' and ''goats'' literally, burning as witches women who kept a goat; this being one of many examples of the literal adaptations of some verses. They found no verses directly refuting that a literal goat is not a reprobate.

A messianic Jewish author writes to the delight of his many admirers, that literal king David will sit on his literal throne on the top of the literal highest mountain in the world and the literal Gentile kings and nations will continue climbing this literal higher than Everest mountain to pay homage to David and to bring him their treasures. There is no direct refutation of these verses in the Bible, so it is easy for this writer to ''prove'' his point to people who refuse to see king David and his throne in the spiritual light of the whole counsel of God.

When our Lord Jesus told His listeners to eat bread for it is His body and to drink wine for it is His blood, every enlightened hearer (very few of them) understood that such a literal transmutation of different substances is an impossibility, notwithstanding the absence of the verses stating that a body cannot be turned into bread or into anything else while it lives.

What about our Lord being compared to a seed which falls into a ground, dies, and produces multitudes of seeds as a rich harvest? Do we take His body for a literal seed? Does the Bible anywhere state: ''The physical body of the Lord Jesus Christ is not a literal seed even if other verses that say that it is''? Of course not, such verses do not exist, but we nevertheless know that it is a spiritual example for us to understand the necessity and the reason of our Redeemer's death.

What I want to say, Harald, is that, given spiritual enlightenment by God the Holy Spirit, we should know, FROM THE WHOLE OF THE SCRIPTURE, which passages, verses and words should be understood as literal and which as typological and spiritual. And we also know that HOLINESS and SIN are two different substances, and can never ever be mixed into one mass. They are as unmixable as God's Light is not mixable with darkness, and as the real body of our Lord Jesus Christ is not mixable into the actual bread that we eat.

In no way our salvation could be viewed as Christ's INTERRUPTED (by becoming our real actual sin) Person and His Perfect Work. The onus of proof, I believe, is on them who believe in this interruption, and ''made sin'' won't do as a proof in the light of the above (and thousands of similar) examples. If we accept ''made sin'' literally, then we have no Saviour, and then also we must accept ''bread'' and ''wine'' and ''in'' and all else as literal. Why not? On what grounds can we tell RCC not to take things literally while we are doing the same thing by turning our Redeemer into a literal abomination?

The Good News is that the Righteous God-Man lived UNINTERRUPTEDLY and ACTIVELY in absolute obedience to God's Law IN OUR STEAD for we can never be obedient. And that He ACTIVELY died in OUR STEAD for we can never be righteous, remaining exactly the very Righteous and Holy (uninterruptedly) God-Man, even in His unfathomable for us suffering. If we combine the imputation of our sins to Christ's account with the literal unfusion of our sins into Him, we lose our Redeemer, for He ceases to be Himself. Don't you see our salvation by God and Christ in this light from the whole of the Scriptures?

L-Today.

Very sorry for repeating myself - the matter is of utmost importance. And also sorry for not answering your questions directly.

Brandan Kraft

06-08-2005, 10:35 AM

Brother Ian,

So, if the sins of the elect were actualy "in" Christ when He hung on the cross, that means that he would have hated the elect at that point in time because there is no love in in our black hearts.

The thought of Christ being sinful (in either his human or divine nature), even for a few moments, is too much for me to bear. I have to reject and condemn your teaching on this topic as falsehood. I can only hope and conclude that you are simply being inconsistent in much the same way I think you are inconsistent on your stance regarding the "passive vs. active" obedience of Christ issue.

Brandan

Brandan Kraft

06-08-2005, 11:52 AM

Due to a private message from Ian, I felt it would be best to post publicly.

Ian,

Brother, I never meant to hurt you or condemn YOU in my last post. I don't want you to feel like YOU have been condemned by me. I dislike what you are saying. I find it disturbing and unbiblical. I think the error is probably one of the worst errors one could make in biblical interpretation. It even appears to me that even the distinguished man I adore and admire, Don Fortner, is also holding to this error. Further clarification from him would be helpful.

However, I do not think you realize what you are saying! I perceive you to be a Sovereign Grace believer, and if you're hurt by what I have said, that was not the intention of my post.

I agree with Red Beetle that your errors, when taken to their logical conclusions would lead a person right into Roman catholicism. Thankfully though, it does appear that by God's Grace, you don't see the end results of such a doctrine and have been preserved from going down that rabbit hole.

There is much love for you on this forum; but a teaching such as yours is not one that can be tolerated. I hope you understand my position. For your edification, I would recommend the Trinity Foundation (http://www.trinityfoundation.org) for further studies in logical deduction. John Robbins and Gordon Clark have been most influential in my life, and I can see in many of your posts an adverse reaction to "logic".

You wrote to me privately: "I don't agree with that. I don't believe that Christ EVER sinned Himself, even whilst made sin. He BORE OUR sins.

You say that doesn't make sense - he must 'logically' be sinning Himself. And because of that conclusion you then say that the verses regarding 'made sin' and 'he bore our sins' MUST be imputation, and not literal."

This quote by you proves to me that you are inconsistent in your teaching and you are my brother in Christ. However, I would add that Logic is a biblical concept. It is through logic that we know God. God IS Logic. In the beginning was the LOGOS (or logic). Christ is LOGIC. Logical principles are taught in scripture. The entire Bible is a book on logic. We are not going outside the word of God if we attempt to solve these problems logically.

Your Brother in Hope,
Brandan

harald

06-08-2005, 01:43 PM

Luba,

Thanks for your words. No need to apologize for anything. You said wise things.

As for all this going on I am still a bit confused. But I trust that if God is with me I shall come out of it stronger. In a way all of this has forced me to the Scriptures, and in the weekend to come I will have all the time to study things out from thence. Because of my respect for Ian I have paid my ear to his view. And now I am confused. Had someone else come up with the same view on here I may not have listened at all, but because I have esteemed Ian to be knowledgeable in the doctrine of the cross above many others on here I paid ear.

I have been thinking and thinking and thinking, but have nonetheless felt stuck in my thought at this time, seemingly going nowhere. One thing I know. I do not trust Don Fortner when it comes to soteriology. If he has been amiss on the timing of the justification of God's elect, teaching something close akin to what Spurgeon taught, then nothing guarantees that such a man is right on the money in this thing. But the same holds true for Calvin and other Reformers. But in spite of Calvin having been in grave error on the timing of justification it does not demand he was wrong on Christ's being made sin. So, while I hold that virtually all of Reformed traditionalists have been erring on the timing I must take into account the possibility that they have been right on "made sin". Frankly, there are no watertight guarantees as to the doctrinal correctness of uninspired men. They may be right in some things, they may be wrong, and often it is so. A mixture of truth and error in their systems, but never pure truth without any admixture of error.

Of a truth, the context in 2Cor. 5 does not define the "made" of the wording "made sin". It does not there say "by imputation", nor what Ian says "by a creative act". If "BY IMPUTATION" then this must be deduced from some other passage(s). The same goes for "by creative act".

As for Christ's righteousness being forensically made over to the elect it is quite clearly taught in Romans 5:13-21. But right now I am inclined to think that no single verse explicitly states this. For example, I do not believe either Rom. 4:3 or 5 in context teaches "Christ 's righteousness imputed to the elect". The context of Romans 4 I see to be what Abraham found as pertains to personal character and conduct (v. 1). It does not primarily address Abraham's justification before God. His justification before God at the cross is, however, the basis of what transpired in Genesis 15. Based on the fact that God would justify Abraham by Christ at the cross He regenerated him in his own lifetime, and in Gen. 15 where Abraham believed Jehovah He ascribed his faith to him as righteousness, character righteousness, not justifying (before God and His bar of justice) righteousness.

While there are passages that state Christ bore the elect's sins IN His own body, it must be asked if this is LITERAL or NON-Literal. If literal then it must be asked in what way or sense were those sins IN His body. If non-literal then I think imputation must come into play. In connection with this I today looked at Isa. 53. I must say when looking at it I saw nothing clearly hinting at INFUSION. Nor nothing clearly hinting at IMPUTATION. Then again I may have not looked as I should have.

All right, I have rambled enough.

Harald

harald

06-08-2005, 02:02 PM

Red Beetle,

I will not address "impartation", but imputation. As to imputation there are two kinds, as I see it.

1) what some call "real" imputation. This is the ascribing or attributing of something to someone that he/she already possesses

2) the 2nd kind of imputation is the legal putting of something to someone's account, a something not previously there. This some call "forensic" imputation.

Both imputations are real and true, not fictious or "make-believe". But they differ in nature. In the Greek NT the verb "logizomai" is often used to depict imputation #1. But I doubt it is used to depict #2. But there is another verb, ellogeO, which is used to depict imputation #2. But, at present I believe that whereas logizomai is not used to depict imputation #2 it is nonetheless implicitly taught in the NT as respects the elect's justification before God. In Romans 5:18 I believe we have an example of imputation #2 - "forensic imputation" (which is not unreal but real). But the verb logizomai is not being used to describe this concept.

In 2Cor. 5:19 logizomai is used to depict imputation #1. That is, God did not ascribe to the elect their trespasses.

Harald

L-Today

06-08-2005, 04:24 PM

Harald,

Thank you very much for your reply.

I join you in esteeming and respecting Ian and paying attention to his views. He is a lovely and multi-talented Christian brother, and I only wish I lived closer to his family so that we could discuss these, and many other things at length, time permitting, of course.

Nevertheless, our love for those dearest to us is worth nothing without God's truth being our first purpose, principle and delight, otherwise ''lovingly'' we might be unwittingly (or otherwise) sidetracked into worshiping not our God Almighty of the Bible but some idol, in which case our ''love'' is not love but sin.

I sincerely hope that we have not been unkind or rude to Ian himself, for this would grieve me and others on this forum, as many people are very fond of him.

Harald, I understand your confusion for now, especially considering the unusualness of the matter discussed. In the dictionaries and encyclopedias that I looked into, the imputation of ''made sin'', in whatever wordings, is taken for granted, for, I imagine, the authors could not conceive of anything but a sort of exchanged accounts of the elect sinners' sins to Christ and His righteousness to them. But then I did not read a huge amount of reference works on this. You are right that although we read and often value other God-loving thinkers's views, we should finally and ultimately rely only on the whole Word of God, Scripture interpreting Scripture.

Good that the weekend is at hand so you can get into serious study of the Bible until you are satisfied with the meaning of ''made sin''. I cannot wait to learn of the results of your research, hoping that you would be willing to share your conclusions with us.

As you said, the verses in Romans that you've mentioned, do not speak on the subject of our sins being imputed to Christ, but rather how we are counted righteous before God. With the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the elect sinners you are satisfied. It is the second part of the Divine ''accounting''. Now, after your studies, hopefully you will be also satisfied with the first part too, which is decreed by God to be done in the same way - our sins imputed to Jesus Christ. Our sins to Him, His righteousness to us. (I don't know anything about your views on the timing of justification, but maybe I can find the relevant threads in the archives).

What concerns Abraham's 'character righteousness' as opposed to him being 'justified before God righteousness', this dear father of our faith went and lied that Sarah is his sister - twice - and also listened to his wife in taking Hagar to bear him a son, which he could not patiently wait for although God Personally promised him - and Sarah - the son from whom the Messiah would come. Well, although these and other sins of our father Abraham are nothing compared to sins of God's other children, yet we cannot call him righteous in his own character. Not even after he was regenerated, for the simple reason that all flesh is enmity to God, without one exception, from beginning to the end of history. Well, this is a totally different subject, better discussed elsewhere as we have enough on our plate for now as it is.

What if you, Harald, wished to be punished for a murder committed by another person, and the judge agreed to such a transaction? You would have to go through the process of paying the full and just penalty for the crime you yourself have never even dreamt of, while the real criminal goes free. To you the justice system does whatever this murderer deserves, be it a lethal injection, beating to death, firing squad, or whatever punishment the system at the time deems to fit the crime of murder. You will have to pay for another person's crime - HOW? - in your own body, of course - in what else? How else? There is no other other ''thing'' we can give to the justice other than our bodies, for it will accept nothing else. Of course, in corrupt systems, some criminals can buy their escape from the just penalty, or go free due to some politically correct machinations, but we are not talking here about our usual worldly state of affairs.

So, why not our Saviour Jesus Christ paying the penalties FOR our sins in the same way? How else could He pay? What else can Holy Justice of God demand? What could be asked of Him other than His Impeccable body and soul? And we, the filthy stenchy criminals and rebels, go free. Not only do we go free, but - an incredible thought - get adopted by the Almighty God Himself, and are going to live in our resurrection bodies with Him forever in heaven in a joy impossible for us to imagine. Why? Because it pleased our God to ordain that His sinless God-Man Son will pay the debts of the elect sinners, which debts He Himself could never acquire. Christ's non-interrupted purity is all important. That is why He is THE OVERCOMER. If He was not holy at all time, there would be nothing to overcome, and we could never be more than conquerers in Him.

I don't see any Biblical need of our sins infusion into our Lord Jesus. What for? If God's Justice is fully satisfied with the penalties paid for our sins and them gone as far as the east is from the west, what else could be required by God's Justice? Our Glorious Lion of Judah overcame the world by His steadfast faithfulness and obedience to the VERY BITTER END, for which HIGHLY ACTIVE and PERFECT WORK HE was received in Heaven as the Great King of kings and Lord of lords and was triumphantly exalted above all creation over which He rules with the rod of iron.

If, as per theory of infusion, He was passive while being turned by His Father into something which is not the Son of God Jesus Christ, then He did nothing on the cross, for it was this something else which got burned. Where was our Lord Jesus when this burning took place, I cannot answer in such a case, but Christ Himself was not then on the cross. Which leads us where? You tell me, Harald, please. Hope the above will make you dig even deeper into the only source of all Truth.

Have a very profitable study, Harald, and enjoy yourself in the process.

Luba.

Ivor Thomas

06-08-2005, 06:17 PM

Just putting this Sovereign Grace article for you to read and consider,
''AND ARRON SHALL LAY BOTH HIS HANDS
UPON THE HEAD OF THE LIVE GOAT.
Robert Hawker.
http://sovereign-grace.com/867.htm

Ivor Thomas...

Mickey

06-08-2005, 11:10 PM

In the article Ivor posted it should be Lev 16:21-22 (not 26:21-22) for those who are staring at their bibles and scratching their heads. I e-mailed them to let them know.:)

Ivor Thomas

06-09-2005, 04:58 AM

Thank's Mike for sorting the scripture out.

Now i would ask please for just one more article be considered on The Saviour.
http://grace-for-today.com/1990.htm

Ivor Thomas....

L-Today

06-09-2005, 07:09 AM

Harald,

While you are studying the Bible in order to determine for yourself the meaning of ''made sin'', maybe the following could be useful. It helped me a lot.

How does the Bible define ''sin''? Does it say that it is breaking of God's Law + SOMETHING ELSE?

Does the Bible say that everybody's sin(s) are written in ''books'' and that out of these sinners' opened records, each one will be judged and dealt with - in his body and soul - according to his individual sin(s) - to the full satisfaction and glory of the Judge and His angels and saints?

Or

Does the Bible say that AFTER, or TOGETHER WITH this legal and absolutely just judgment, condemnation and sending off to the everlasting punishment of every (reprobate) sinner according to his record, a separate from his record and person SUBSTANCE ''sin'' exists?

Does the Bible teach that SIN is ALSO dealt with by the Judge - separately from the sinner and his record - and that there is no way of getting rid of this ''sin'' other than dealing with it separately and on top of the punishment of the doer of this sin which deeds are known from his record?

Does the Bible say anything about what happens to this substance ''sin'' in hell? Does it get burned (in whatever sense) instantly, slowly, with the never-ending burning - separately from reprobates? Is it gathered and dealt with in one huge reprobate heap, or do these sins exist individually and are tormented individually? Does this separate substance ''sin'' suffer or react in any way when being burned on its own, separated from its owner's body and soul? When it is being burned, how does it affect the separated producer of this substance who, in turn, is already tormented in himself, apparently paying the penalty for producing this very separate substance which is also being tormented on its own?

Such thoughts helped me a lot. If ''sin'' is the breaking of God's Law ONLY, and we are talking of God's COURT of His Immutable Law, then the LEGAL imputation of our sins to Jesus Christ's spotless record is the perfect satisfaction of God's Holy Justice. With the wondrous full payment of our debts which our Adorable Saviour Jesus Christ has PERFECTLY ACCOMPLISHED, when His sinless heel was being bruised very severely indeed, the Just and Fair Judge can demand nothing more.

On the other hand, if your research will reveal that ''sin'' is not only legal breaking of God's Law but also something else on top of it, that it is some sort of ''thing'' living on its own apart from sinner, and that it can be gathered into a literal heap transfusable into Jesus Christ's body, THEN I will have to begin my studies on the subject of substitution again, having this new to me proof of the existence of a separate from sinner substance ''sin''.

L

Brandan Kraft

06-09-2005, 07:41 AM

Thank you Luba! You've made an excellent point once again. The definition of sin is "to transgress" (verb) LAW. SIN is not a substance. It is an action. Our actions have LEGAL consequences which are REAL consequences. Christ took upon himself the consequences which should have been given to the elect had they not had a substitute. He did not have any "substance" placed in him or on him. He was the substitute in consequences - not in the doing.

Brandan

L-Today

06-09-2005, 07:50 AM

Ivor,

If I had a talent and sat down to write a book or a commentary on our Lord Jesus Christ paying all and full penalties for His people's sins, I'd rather not use the words like ''drain'', ''sink'' and such which Robert Hawker chose to use. In my opinion, the Word of God is perfectly adequate in the description of our Lord Jesus' unspeakable suffering which He went through for our sakes.

It surprises me how some saints, in their zeal to present our Redeemer's torments in ever brighter colours, add to the Scriptures by inventing, guessing, or fabricating their own pictures of how it all went 2,000 years ago, often missing or ignoring the perfect words of the Bible. Maybe it aids some people's awe, but I often wonder how some of these ''painters'' don't fear God. Nor do they limit themselves to the Cricifixion's horrors only, they feel very free indeed in their guesswork all over the Bible.

For instance, R Hawker asks an almost rhetorical question in his commentary you've provided for us to read, whether the brook in Ps110.7 was brook Cedron (Kidron), implying that our Lord drank from this sewer. Now, did Hawker mean literal drinking of the sewage or symbolic? I did not get a clear message from this piece of his commentary, did you, Ivor? Did RH mean that our Lord was turned into a literal physical ''sink'' and ''drain'', or did he use such, edifying in his opinion, epithets for more voluminous outpouring of his readers' emotions?

Luba.

Ian Potts

06-09-2005, 08:25 AM

On the other hand, if your research will reveal that ''sin'' is not only legal breaking of God's Law but also something else on top of it, that it is some sort of ''thing'' living on its own apart from sinner, and that it can be gathered into a literal heap transfusable into Jesus Christ's body, THEN I will have to begin my studies on the subject of substitution again, having this new to me proof of the existence of a separate from sinner substance ''sin''.

L
If Harald does his research well then he will find that sin is not only legal breaking of God's law. It is that which entered into the world when man fell, and death by sin. It is that evil nature within man's heart from which spring SINS (plural). Sins are transgressions, sin is the cause of them.

So perhaps you will need to restart your studies.

See Romans 5:12-13

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:
(For until the law sin was in the world..."

Sin existed before the law was given. Sin essentially is LAWLESSNESS. Utter wantoness and abandoment. Living as though there are no laws, no restraints. It is not simply a 'transgression of the law' (a mistranslation of 'sin is lawlessness' in the KJV).

No time for further comment, but this needed pointing out before the waters in this thread get ever murkier.

In Grace,
Ian

P.S. I find your disregard for Robert Hawker disappointing Luba. He was a man with a wonderful love for the Lord Jesus Christ and saw Him everywhere in scripture. We can learn much from Hawker.

Ivor Thomas

06-09-2005, 08:40 AM

Dear sister Luba you presume to teach a Brother in public, and also would make light of one the finest of our Lord's Saint's Robert Hawker, I just wonder how much you know of him, and his love for the Saviour, and has for sin it resides in us and is REAL, not just when we perform sin, the Saviour is much more ,so much more than just a legal from Law Saviour as you imply, why wont you just use the word's of scripture has given by the Author The Holy Spirit, [Made Sin] . Ivor Thomas...

lionovjudah

06-09-2005, 08:44 AM

Dear sister Luba you presume to teach a Brother in public

What does this mean? I hope it does not mean that Luba cannot ask questions or make comments or loving criticisms towards a male. Please tell me it does not.

harald

06-09-2005, 08:50 AM

Luba,

Thanks for your thoughts. I wish I could comment on all that you said. But now while I remember I must say something on "sin". My understanding is that there is such a thing as could be called "the sin nature". I often refer to it as the sin principle. If I refer to Paul and Romans 7 I deduce from there that in Paul, a regenerate man, there was also this sin principle. I believe I am talking about "the flesh". The flesh is not an action. It is a sin-full influencing or governing principle which is at the core of fallen man. Paul says that the principle of sin is warring against the governing principle of his mind. Therefore in Paul, a saint for sure, there was something of a warfare going on inside. The governing principle of Paul's mind as a saint was no more the flesh or sin principle, but "spirit" (cp. John 3:6). But, in Paul the flesh was warring against "spirit", the governing principle of Paul's mind. I believe that in some places "sin" refers NOT to sin as an action, but to the root of sinful actions - the flesh. Sometimes "sin" refers to what may be called sinful propensities, from whence spring sinful actions. It is interesting to note that in the Greek there are two words that have been rendered "sin". One is hamartia, the other is hamartêma. The latter is properly "sinful actions". It is used e.g. in Rom. 3:25. KJV renders "sins". I do not believe the penmen used these two nouns interchangeably, at least not in letters where they employed both.

As for "sin" in the action of it. It is an active transgressing of law, or, the law. And it is also a falling or coming short of the mark or standard of perfect righteousness. In light of this I would say sin as action is both a doing lawlessness, and, a not doing righteousness. When I sin I fail to do righteousness, but I also positively commit lawlessness.

Have to go eat.

Harald

L-Today

06-09-2005, 01:48 PM

Harald, hope your food was good.

I do know the things you wrote about sin.

The whole point of this discussion is Ian's posts on the forum that the imputation of our sins to Christ and Him paying for them with His life and His death, is not enough to satisfy God's justice. To make it enough for God, according to Ian, Christ Himself must be infused with our sin and sins, and they must be burned in Him, otherwise they will still remain (I don't know where). That is why I wrote of sin from the forensic aspect only. Because I do not believe that any such infusion of sin principle or any other aspect of it into Jesus Christ is Biblical, nor is it necessary.

L

L-Today

06-09-2005, 02:23 PM

L-Today

06-09-2005, 02:28 PM

Ivor,

Are you saying that I must first know the works of Robert Hawker exhaustively before I am allowed to disagree with the epithets he chose in that commentary? Any other untouchable writers? Maybe we should make a list of those who are not to be questioned, especially by stupid women on public forums.

GraceAmbassador

06-09-2005, 03:20 PM

Dear Saints:

I proposed the closing of this thread... it ceased from being a blessing.

I will let others decide before deciding...
Milt

lionovjudah

06-09-2005, 03:31 PM

Joe,

Yes, it means just that, that I am not allowed to question a man in public, nor in private for that matter. Of course, it is because I am a woman, an ignorant and an arrogant such, daring not to quietly and quickly accept what Ian Potts teaches in public.

Maybe females should not participate in discussions at all? If such were the rules, I don't mind and would obey, but I thought that this forum is for Christians of both genders.

Was I rude to Ian, to Ivor, to Robert Hawker('s memory) PERSONALLY, or did I disagree strictly with their teachings?

L-Today.

Well you may question me anytime you feel the need Luba. Take a deep breathe and calm yourself please!!!!!!!!

Ivors comment was off base and made me kinda chuckle.

Perhaps he was gritting his teeth in anguish and could only result in. "Hey Luba , I dont have any answers, but youre a woman, how dare you rebuke a man in public!!!!!

Take a step back and just laugh Luba.

And Milt, perhaps we can get back on focus. This thread is active and heated. Let us temper it with charity and a search for the truth.

Brandan Kraft

06-09-2005, 03:32 PM

Milt, I don't think we should close this thread just yet.

harald

06-09-2005, 04:13 PM

Luba,

The food was good, thank you. But I fear I ate too much rye bread at the end, and my blood sugar went rollercoasting, and I had to take a nap. But the nap did me good. I did have a energy-consuming day at work, though.

Now, I am glad you are familiar with what I stated, and, I can understand you are concerned with Ian's view of sin-infusion.

As for me I did not react negatively in respect of what you said about Hawker. He has no immunity from criticism and/or testing by the Scriptures, as I see it. In this thread I have not bothered to read the Hawker file. But if I had done so I might have just as well brought some criticism. As for the man Robert Hawker I shall briefly state that I seriously question his claimed sainthood.

As for your publicly teaching a brother/male, then. I come to think of two Pauline scriptures which relate. The one in 1Cor. 14, and the one in 1Tim. 2:12. First it should be thoroughly ascertained how they should be applied to this forum. I confess I know not if Brandan in the forum rules addresses this issue. Secondly, the verbs involved ("teach", "usurp", "speak") are all in the present tense, not aorist. So, a one time doing of any of these things, on the part of a woman, is not so much being addressed as that of a continual teaching, usurping, speaking. Perhaps it would be good to start a new thread on this issue.

I agree with Brandan that it should not be closed yet.

Harald

L-Today

06-09-2005, 05:14 PM

Harald,

Did you overeat my favourite Fazer rye bread? If yes, you are excused for it is so good.

Yes, please, if Brandan wishes, he can always stop me from disagreeing with men's opinions on this forum. Somehow I have a feeling that he won't do it, as we are not in a church, and I am not teaching a congregation here as a pastor or preacher. This very important matter of infusion came up, and I don't see how I could keep quiet.

If Ian did something bad to me personally, I would have never brought it into public but would have contacted him privately trying to resolve it between us. But this ''infusion'' matter is not between Ian and me, it is of a great concern to us all - or at least should be, and we should all search for the answers in the whole counsel of God. Otherwise how are we defending the faith and how are we faithful to our Lord?

Joe, thank you for pacifying me. I am not at all angry, it is other people who cannot stick to the issues before us and go for personalities and such. Me, I am cool, and hope the same is true of various contributors to this thread.

Ian Potts

06-10-2005, 09:12 AM

Joe posted the following in the thread about 'mystery' and I think it is worth repeating here...

musthvrion

hidden thing, secret, mystery

generally mysteries, religious secrets, confided only to the initiated and not to ordinary mortals
a hidden or secret thing, not obvious to the understanding
a hidden purpose or counsel
secret will 1c

of men 1c
of God: the secret counsels which govern God in dealing with the righteous, which are hidden from ungodly and wicked men but plain to the godly
I believe before you make a dogmatic principle, is there any way of determining what context the word is used in each Scripture?

1 example: Gill

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness,
&c.] What follows is so, the incarnation of Christ, his birth of a virgin, the union of the two natures, divine and human, in his person; this is a mystery, which though revealed, and so to be believed, is not to be discerned nor accounted for, nor the modus of it to be comprehended by reason: and it is a great one, next, if not equal, to the doctrine of a trinity of persons in the divine essence; and is a mystery of godliness, which tends to encourage internal and external religion, powerful and practical godliness in all the parts and branches of it; and is so beyond all dispute and doubt.

I was taugh that when mystery is used in scripture, It can mean inexhaustable. And this is the intention of paul. We believe what is revealed, but because of human limitations, we can never think we have exhausted anything of God.

I have repeated this, because whatever objections Brandan may have to people dismissing certains truths as simply 'mysteries' to be believed (and I agree with him in much that he says), nevertheless as Joe says, based on Gill, there are certain things like the Trinity and the 'hypostatic union' of Christ which though 'revealed' to be believed are nevertheless inexhaustible to our human understanding. We can not fully comprehend them by reason.

I make that point because much of the disagreement regarding the 'made sin' issue regards the effects that the doctrine has upon Christ in the union of His divine person and nature with His human nature. Does His being made sin mean that He Himself was sinful i.e. that Christ committed any sin Himself? I say, emphatically, NO. But others say it would mean that. Yet all this regards our comprehension of this union, which quite frankly, I don't think any of us can truly claim to fully understand. Accuse me of 'hiding behind mystery' if you will but I answer that the point is valid. We are not discussing just any area of doctrine but one which relates to the HYPOSTATIC union. A particular point of teaching which even Gill admits we can't fully comprehend by reason.

The whole point of this discussion is Ian's posts on the forum that the imputation of our sins to Christ and Him paying for them with His life and His death, is not enough to satisfy God's justice. To make it enough for God, according to Ian, Christ Himself must be infused with our sin and sins, and they must be burned in Him, otherwise they will still remain (I don't know where). That is why I wrote of sin from the forensic aspect only.

A brief response. Where would that sin remain if only judged by imputation? Very simply in us. Where it was in the first place.

Imputation effectively changes the 'ownership' of sin. It is no longer accounted to us, but to Christ. But it doesn't 'move' or 'remove' the sin itself.

Consider the picture from Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress. There the image of sin is given of the great burden upon Christian's back. At the cross that burden rolls off.

Now the idea of imputation would effectively state that the burden on Christian's back no longer 'belongs' to him, but is now Christ's. Christ now 'owns' it, having it in his 'account' and as such Christ died under the penalty against it. But the actual burden, though now under new ownership still remains on Christian's back.

I believe the burden itself was moved. It was taken off Christian's back and placed upon Christ's. At the cross God burnt up that burden until it was all gone. Therefore not only did the 'ownership' change by imputation, but the burden itself was moved and eradicated. It is nowhere to be found. Christian enters glory with no burden of sin.

A rather simple analogy I know, but true nonetheless. As illustrated by several scriptures: 2 Cor. 5:21, 1 Peter 2:24, Hebrews 9:28, Romans 6:6, Romans 8:3, Isaiah 53:11-12, etc. etc. The subject of sin is also illustrated by the figurative picture of Leprosy as illustrated in Leviticus 13 and 14, which is worth reading in relation to this.

In Grace,
Ian

Snark

06-10-2005, 10:04 AM

Hello all. I've been browsing the forum for a few weeks and decided now was the time to start posting.

In response to Ian's Bunyan analogy: I think the losing of the burden more accurately depicts losing the guilt of sin than removal of the actual substance of the sin. It is experiential, not legal or forensic. I don't think Bunyan was portraying anything to do with imputation here. Experientially, we lose the burden of sin when we are assured that our sins were forgiven through the work of Christ on the cross.

I agree that there is a sin principle and an innate sinfulness in man quite apart from any sinful deeds, but I cannot agree that Christ was given that innately sinful nature. If I've misunderstood you, I apologise.

It seems dangerous to me to form such a far-reaching doctrine from one text which may quite easily be read as referring to imputation, as other scriptures seem to show. The danger of such an attitude is shown by the Arminian's constant repetition of John 3:16.

Ian Potts

06-10-2005, 10:31 AM

Hello all. I've been browsing the forum for a few weeks and decided now was the time to start posting.

Hello ‘Snark’ – nice to meet you.

In response to Ian's Bunyan analogy: I think the losing of the burden more accurately depicts losing the guilt of sin than removal of the actual substance of the sin. It is experiential, not legal or forensic. I don't think Bunyan was portraying anything to do with imputation here. Experientially, we lose the burden of sin when we are assured that our sins were forgiven through the work of Christ on the cross.

You bring up an important truth, and that may well have been Bunyan’s intention with his analogy. However I was ‘borrowing’ the analogy, not referring to Bunyan’s meaning by it. I was taking that as a useful, well known, easily understood picture and applying it to the actual burden of sin itself. I don’t think that usage is unreasonable.

It seems dangerous to me to form such a far-reaching doctrine from one text which may quite easily be read as referring to imputation, as other scriptures seem to show. The danger of such an attitude is shown by the Arminian's constant repetition of John 3:16.
True, but this doctrine isn’t built upon ‘one text’. My previous post quoted several, eg. Romans 6:6, 8:3, 2 Cor. 5:21, 1 Peter 2:24, Hebrews 9:28, Isaiah 53:11-12. All those verses refer to either Christ being made sin at the cross or His bearing our sins in His body at the cross. None use the term ‘imputation’ or indeed the language of imputation. They don’t refer to the effects of sin, the guilt, or the penalty due to it, but actually to sin itself (and sins).

As has been previously written no verses in the Bible ever speak of sin being imputed to Christ. So that doctrine is built upon NO TEXTS explicitly. It is built upon the assertion that such texts as I have listed really describe imputation and nothing more. But this calls into question the Holy Spirit’s usage of words. Why didn’t the Spirit use imputation in such texts if that is what is meant, when He clearly used such terms with relation to righteousness in Romans 4 and elsewhere? The term simply isn't used with regard to sin ANYWHERE in the word of God. I find the assertion that the verses mean other than they say to be dishonouring to the Spirit. In such important doctrinal areas the Spirit (and Paul by the Spirit) is very careful with His words. We should be careful before we question them, should we not?

I refer readers again to Don Fortner's article "He hath made him sin" at http://www.ipotts.freeserve.co.uk/article18.html (In this article he covers many passages of scripture in relation to the subject including the types and figures of sacrifice in the OT.)

But I’m repeating remarks already made in the thread so I’ll leave it here.

Thanks for the post Snark. Welcome to the forum.

In Grace,
Ian

L-Today

06-10-2005, 12:06 PM

Ian,

After this exchange of opinions, I remain an even firmer believer in the doctrine of our sins being imputed and not infused into our Lord Jesus Christ.

Thank you so much for all your postings, and especially for the time you have spent on them. Probably I did not express my veiws well enough, leaving you with an impression that my understanding of ''sin'' and other doctrines is one-dimensional. Well, so be it. I don't think I'll be adding much on top of what was said and repeated time and again.

Regards and best wishes,

L-Today.

harald

06-10-2005, 03:19 PM

Luba,

As for the rye bread it was not Fazer's. I have tasted some rye bread made by them, and it was delicious. This time I ate some organic dried rye bread with a bit of wheat in it as well. Good for the teeth. But by far the tastiest bread I have ever eaten is an organic wholemeal spelt bread, a dry/crisp (cp. knäckebröd) type of thin bread. Containing also nettle and blueberry and "ruususuola" (lit. rose-salt), which is the only healthy salt I know of besides unrefined sea salt.

Harald

harald

06-11-2005, 02:19 AM

If Paul in 2Cor. 5:21 ("made sin") refers to Isaiah's words in Isa. 53:10, "...shalt make his soul and offering for sin", then this verse should give some hint at how the NT verse should be understood. The word in Isa. 53:10 rendered "(shalt) make" does not mean "create". The word rendered "an offering for sin" has the primary sense/meaning of "guilt". Thus both Strong's Hebrew lexicon and BDB. The longer rendering of KJV is something of a Dynamic Equivalence rendering of said word (Heb. ASHAM). Thus the Hebrew might literally translate into "when thou dost make his soul guilt". If Paul when penning down "sin" had Isa. 53:10, "guilt", in mind then he by "sin" refers to SIN in the guilt-aspect of it. This would then to me exclude the infusion thing, and rather emphasize the legal/forensic aspect. And imputation and/or representation would rather come into play. This then corresponds well with 2Co. 5:19, "not imputing" (meaning: NOT attributing/ascribing - logizomai). In the context of 2Co. 5:19-21 verse 20 and 19b should be looked upon as being in brackets, as follows:

19 How that God was in Christ, reconciling a world to himself, not attributing to them those their lapses, (and by himself depositing in us the word of the reconciliation;
20 In behalf of Christ, then, we are acting as ambassadors, as *God exhorting through us we are exhorting in behalf of Christ, be ye at once reconciled to *God!)
21 Seeing that the one not having experientially known sin he made sin on behalf of us, to the end just we would become righteousness of God in him.

So, the reason why God did not attribute the elect's lapses/trespasses to them was Christ's being made sin (for them). "Sin" (singular) here therefore corresponds to "lapses" (plural). They are somehow viewed as being the same thing.

Now, here in v. 21 rather than IMPUTATION (in the "put to a legal account" -sense) being emphasized I see that Paul emphasizes union and intimate identification with Christ as respects the elect's "becoming" (Gr. ginomai) God's righteousness (which here amounts to complete justification before God).

Harald

harald

06-11-2005, 04:57 AM

Oops. A mistake slipped through. The second "exhorting" in v. 20 in my above post's translation should of course be "(we are) beseeching".

Harald

GraceAmbassador

06-11-2005, 07:52 AM

Haald:

Your last post is excellent! I hold a very similar, if not identical, view of these texts. But that is not the only reason why I feel you are correct here. It simply makes sense with O.T. language disclosed by Paul in the N.T.

Considering that Paul's theology is all about REVEALING the "hidden" mysteries of the O.T., the O.T. REALLY offers great hints as to how to interpret Paul's writings and also what Paul meant in the text in question in this thread.

Also BROTHER Ian's interpretation of "made" as in Hebrews is interesting but NEVER FORGET THAT "MADE" in terms of MAKING THE WORLDS, as a work of God, was DECLARATION. God DECLARED "let there be light... and there was light"... God DECLARED the world into existence; He did not MAKE in the sense of PRODUCING or "squeezing into shape" (Ytzar-as in Hebrew) as He did to Abraham. Thus it appears to me that "MADE SIN" has the same meaning as "DECLARED" Jesus as the one the "BORE" our sins.

Also Isaiah 53 says: "the CHASTISEMENT that brings us peace was ON, or OVER Him..."

I am not shouting, by the way. It is too early and I am too blind (no contacts, so I write by intuition...) and lazy to push the "bold" face key.

Milt

harald

06-11-2005, 09:28 AM

Milt,

I very much appreciated your positive feedback.

And, you make an excellent point in relating "make" to "declare". I had not thought about this. All this dictates that the Scripture is not any ordinary document. It must therefore be interpreted on God's and its own terms, preferably in the light of the Spirit of Christ.

Harald

L-Today

06-11-2005, 06:04 PM

Milt and Harald, thank you for your wise inputs.

I was thinking of what Milt wrote on 'declaring' - an interesting idea. But what do you think of the following, Milt:

God the Creator's 'declaring' has resulted in actual things, and that is what Ian was talking about - that God used the creative process during the infusion on the cross even thought this particular creation maybe was not first declared, it still resulted in a mass of sin infused or imparted.

But when God the Judge declares the way to satisfy His justice, no creative process involved in it, I think, but the legality, effectiveness and actuality of this exchange decreed by Him - One Sinless Lamb of God for many elect guilty sinners. And that is the difference between the two 'declarations'. Please correct me where I am going wrong.

I have noticed that the preposition ''for'' is present in all verses concerning atonement, sacrifice, suffering, ransom, redemption, purchase, payment of price - FOR.

My question is: Is the word ''for'' ever used in the Bible in any other sense than an ''exchange''? I don't mean, of course, ''for'' as ''because'' and such, only when one thing is given for another. Maybe Hebrew and/or Greek have different meanings for this very important preposition?

Thank you very much for your research, and may it be in God's wisdom and counsel alone.

L-Today.

GraceAmbassador

06-11-2005, 07:12 PM

God the Creator's 'declaring' has resulted in actual things, and that is what Ian was talking about - that God used the creative process during the infusion on the cross even thought this particular creation maybe was not first declared, it still resulted in a mass of sin infused or imparted.

But when God the Judge declares the way to satisfy His justice, no creative process involved in it, I think, but the legality, effectiveness and actuality of this exchange decreed by Him - One Sinless Lamb of God for many elect guilty sinners. And that is the difference between the two 'declarations'. Please correct me where I am going wrong.

Dear Luba:

I was actually expecting someone to make the point above: Things that God declared resulted in actual and visible things. However I was prepared to make your second point, which is correct.

Note that at creation God was declaring things into existence; He was not placing something that already existed on top of something that did not exist. We have to be satisfied and at peace, in faith, that God did not declare Christ into "existence as a sinner" for three or more hours, but that Christ BORE our sins and the "chastisement that brought us peace was upon Him. BROTHER Ian, very capably pointed out the "made" aspect as being something that the Jewish people understood and is a word used throughout the Bible as a word signifying to "make something, as to produce something". My disagreement with Ian is that the idea of "made" the world is actually understood by Jewish thinking as the word "made" used in Hebrew that is not YATZAR (save my memory betrays me...) which is to "squeeze something into shape" or to "make something out of something else" as in the "making of Adam out of clay".

I am not one who go on and on with techinical explanations. I prefer the simplest of all explanations. By faith only, in whatever way one defines faith, I believe the following:

He took the sins that I may now be righteous.
He took the curse that I may now be blessed.
He took the chastisement that I may now have peace
He took the stripes that I may now be healed.

Anyone who did not shout Halleluyah at this point HAS TO BE DEAD

I will not theologize this out of what I state above and out of what I need to know to praise God forever for such a wonderful and perfect plan. I take it by FAITH. (Now I shouted...) I do see the danger of believing "infusion" upon Christ not because of the "straw man" of the Kenneth's from Tulsa Oklahoma teaching (a very cultistic charismatic interpretation of the death of Jesus which sends him to hell and defeating the devil in his terrytory). I believe it is dangerous because it complicates the simplicity of God's declaring us righteous in that He used the Lamb of God as an ATONEMENT for our sins in substitution for us.

That's my view only.

Milt

L-Today

06-11-2005, 07:44 PM

Dear Milt,

I am celebrating and rejoicing with you at such Great Salvation by our blessed God and Redeemer.

The blessed truth is that all our differences will be over soon! And then we'll be of one mind, never able to sin or think a wrong thought again!

L

harald

06-12-2005, 12:51 AM

Luba. You asked:

I have noticed that the preposition ''for'' is present in all verses concerning atonement, sacrifice, suffering, ransom, redemption, purchase, payment of price - FOR.

My question is: Is the word ''for'' ever used in the Bible in any other sense than an ''exchange''? I don't mean, of course, ''for'' as ''because'' and such, only when one thing is given for another. Maybe Hebrew and/or Greek have different meanings for this very important preposition?

Now, I love you asking such wise and pointed questions. This is what we must strive for - the (contextual) SENSE of the words of the Divinely inspired penmen. In most cases in the New Testament the "for", in the examples listed, is the Greek HUPER. My understanding is that its sense is that of "in/on behalf of", "in the stead/place of". Possibly with the double sense of "instead of and for the benefit of" in many a place. In 1Cor. 15:3 Paul uses HUPER, "for (our sins)" (KJV et al.). A legitimate literal rendering could be - "Christ died away in substitution of the sins of us". So, HUPER in such contexts teaches VICARIOUS SUBSTITUTION. It is interesting that the Greek verb most often rendered "died" is a strengthened form - APOTHNEESKOO, prefixed by APO - "away from" (denoting separation), thus lit. "to die off/away". The Greek NT also uses the simpler form THNEESKOO, "to die", and I believe there is some difference between these two. The shorter one I believe mainly signfies a physical death about which there is nothing extraordinary or significant. But in Paul we find APOTHNEESKOO all the time when he refers to Christ's cross-death.

Another preposition in the Greek which may have the sense of substitution in some contexts is PERI. Often rendered "for" by versions. John the apostle uses PERI in the 2nd chapter of his 1st epistle where he refers to Christ as "the propitiation FOR our sins" (KJV). Versions often in this verse render "for", but some employ the more literal meaning of PERI - "concerning". It may well be that John here means "concerning". Considering that the meaning of HILASMOS (propitiation, KJV) is essentially that of a wrath-averting APPEASEMENT/SATISFACTION "concerning" makes greater sense -

lit. "and just he is satisfaction/appeasement concerning the sins of us"

Here to understand "for" (PERI) in the sense of "in stead of" would yield...

"and just he is satisfaction in stead of the sins of us"

Which would imply that our sins are/were a potential satisfaction, but that Christ nonetheless was used as the satisfaction. So, we see the wisdom of John in choosing PERI - "concerning", and not HUPER, in this verse. So, myself sides with those versions here that render "concerning".

As for the Hebrew and "for" I'm afraid that right now I cannot shed any light. Having said all this I do not mean HUPER does not denote "in exchange of", which you mentioned. I think it can safely be included with the others ("instead of", "in substitution of" etc.).

Harald

red beetle

06-12-2005, 03:28 AM

Ian Potts,

there are certain things like the Trinity and the 'hypostatic union' of Christ which though 'revealed' to be believed are nevertheless inexhaustible to our human understanding. We can not fully comprehend them by reason.

Anything revealed can be understood. If it cannot be understood, then it has not been revealed. Ian is diving towards mysticism.

Yet all this regards our comprehension of this union, which quite frankly, I don't think any of us can truly claim to fully understand.

How does Ian know that none of us can understand this? He needs to demonstrate this.

Secondly...
According to Ian, this subject cannot now be understood. So, why does he persist in teaching this?
Please do us all a favor and quit teaching your views. After all, you cannot teach that which cannot be understood.

Accuse me of 'hiding behind mystery' if you will but I answer that the point is valid.

Consider yourself accused.
Mystery, as Gordon Clark points out, is always something that is capable of being understood. An appeal to mystery is a sign that your position is intellectually bankrupt.

We are not discussing just any area of doctrine but one which relates to the HYPOSTATIC union. A particular point of teaching which even Gill admits we can't fully comprehend by reason.

This is an intimidation tactic.

A brief response. Where would that sin remain if only judged by imputation? Very simply in us. Where it was in the first place.

Sanctification is what removes the sin.
The sin does not remain in us forever.
This is basic.

Imputation effectively changes the 'ownership' of sin. It is no longer accounted to us, but to Christ. But it doesn't 'move' or 'remove' the sin itself.

It is clear that he has confused justification and sanctification.

I believe the burden itself was moved. It was taken off Christian's back and placed upon Christ's. At the cross God burnt up that burden until it was all gone. Therefore not only did the 'ownership' change by imputation, but the burden itself was moved and eradicated. It is nowhere to be found.

This is false.
Sin is found all around us today, and before Christ was crucified. The reason sin is present today is because our sins were imputed to Christ, not imparted to Christ. If Ian is right, then he will have to explain why there is sin today and will be up until the second coming.

Red Beetle
www.kingsportjudo.com (http://www.kingsportjudo.com/)

Ivor Thomas

06-12-2005, 05:10 AM

Kingofsportjudo, Those hour's of the Saviour are told to us in scripture, we think on those thing's that happened their by reading scripture, we are enlightened by The Spirit and the word, with out knowledge we would be in darkness, what fully happened in the exchange on the cross is not reveald to us, [of course if you know please enlighten us],. What we do know is what the Bible say's, He who knew no sin was MADE SIN, Those of us who do not fully know exactly the mystery of those hour's, hold rigdedly firmly to Made sin, on the other hand you say you know for certain that it was imputed,To me you mean by this you must know the mystery of that exchange of place's fully,Christ experienced those things of taking our sin, your rationalism and logic, with out our humanity being considered, Leave me cold.. Ivor Thomas..

GraceAmbassador

06-12-2005, 01:08 PM

Dear Brother Ian, Ivor and KingSportJudo:

Let's say I agree that the Trinity cannot be "fully understood". Even in that case, we have enough Scriptural backing to say that there is a Trinity and we assent and receive it by FAITH as I said before.

Red Beetle states that you, Brother Ian, is delving into mysticism. I doubt it as I read your overall body of writings, however, if we say that the Trinity cannot be fully understood even with the evidenciary documentation recorded in the Scriptures, we do fall into the danger of mystifying a "revealed" doctrine and placing in the realm of "mystery".

Many do accuse me of mysticism as well when I state that some of the wonderful blessings the Bible states about me have to be understood by FAITH and settled by FAITH. Some of these truths, if pursued in an overly thechnical way, will indeed lead us to mysticism and not their acceptance by faith. These are some examples of these truths (not necessarily in any order of importance):

The Bible says that I am "called, predestined, justified and GLORIFIED". I believe that I am GLORIFIED NOW in the eyes of God and that settles it. I will not theologize this out of the Bible
The Bible says that "we have been called from the darkness and TRANSLADED into the Kingdom of His dear Son (Col 1:13). So, where am I now? How can I reconcile this truth with the fact that I am still here subject to all limitations of the flesh? I do not theologize that! God sees me in the Kingdom of His dear Son and that settles it. I am HERE, but am not FROM HERE!
Jesus says: "...And the glory which Thou gavest me, I have given them..." Jesus is speaking about the Glory He had with the Father before the world began. Do you grasp that?
Somethings are to be believed, intellectually assented, received in quietness that GOD IS ABLE TO FULFILL HIS WORD and not simply theologized back into a "mystery". That indeed has been done by the charismatics and some of the old fashion pentecostal preachers into some kind of mystical religion. The book Christianity in Crisis has a quotation from one of them who says that Jesus "has no advantage over us" (my paraphrase) since we "are just like Him before God". It sounds okay at first sight, but the meaning of it is very dangerous. These teachers claim that Peter says that the "great and precious promises of God, MADE US TO BE PARTAKERS OF THE DIVINE NATURE". So, they teach their unfortunate flock that "we are as JESUS in terms of divinity and in fact we are Jesuses". Well, I partook of a cake last night in a party... Have I become the cake?

I know this is a digression. I debated with some Dutch reformed before and even if you agree with them they won't crack a smile and quit arguing and keep making snydy remarks about what you are saying and mince every word you say. If you do the same to them, they play the victim. Even when you agree with them, they call you "mystical". Seemingly they only smile when they are so saturated by their favorite fermented brew that they make Ephesians 5:18 sound as if it is mere poetry rather than an apostolic command. I don't know anyone like these in this Forum, but I see a tendency for endless arguments, at least in those few I met personally. Apparently it is sinful to "smile" and come to a point of agreement in their denomination. But that aside, I do believe your assertion, NOT YOUR TEACHING, and I understand that you said you "did not come here to teach this" and only mentioned it because you agreed with Fortner, your assertion about the Trinity potentially leads to mysticism.

I receive and accept the fact that Jesus glorified God in that He received power to overcome the flesh in that He bore our sins without being a sinner and not crumbling under them and cringing away from the Cross. (John 17:2) so He would be able to give eternal life as many as God had given Him.

To me that settles the issue of "made sin".

I will not "bug" you anymore with my preachy style...

Humbly and unabashedly kindly, and at the same time, unapologetically blunt.

Milt

Robert R. Higby

06-12-2005, 01:33 PM

Milt:I proposed the closing of this thread... it ceased from being a blessing.

I understand your feelings, Milt. I myself dropped out--but did not ask for a closing. I left because the issue was becoming too personal for me (based on my upbringing in Irvingite teaching) and I felt that others were handling it well. :cool:

Ian Potts

06-13-2005, 07:29 AM

Ian Potts,

Anything revealed can be understood. If it cannot be understood, then it has not been revealed. Ian is diving towards mysticism.

It has been revealed in the Bible that Christ was "made sin" for us and that He "bore our sins in his own body on the tree". To the degree with which the Lord has revealed to me His TRUTH by His Spirit as I read the scriptures and compare scripture with scripture I believe I understand these statements aright and have an understanding of the effect upon the humanity of Christ of being made sin, whilst in Himself never sinning. Yes, I understand that, and I have set forth some of my understanding in a prior post.

Nevertheless it is clear to me that not all do understand as many claim that the clear revelation of truths that God made Christ to be sin at the cross and that He bore our sins in His own body on the tree, if taken literally, would make Christ to be one who actively sinned Himself at the cross. That I believe demonstrates a lack of understanding regarding the PERSON of Christ incarnate in the union of His divine PERSON AND NATURE with His human nature. It seems as though to many people’s understanding they comprehend Christ in this union is as though he was a human PERSON, not a divine person with a human nature.

But rather than seeking to criticise such misunderstandings I have sought to be charitable in recognising that the manifestation of God in the flesh IS a mystery (1 Timothy 3:16) and one that I do not believe we can fully exhaust in our present human understanding and comprehension as it is such a wonderful truth. Therefore I recognise that some confusion could occur as to the effect of Christ’s being made sin upon His own person, and I’m charitable towards such confusion because I do not think that scripture tells us everything that could be known about that union of divine person/nature and human nature. I do not believe that eternity will be long enough for us to fully exhaust the depths of some of God’s truth. For now we see through a glass darkly.

“For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.” 1 Corinthians 13:12

Nevertheless I am quite happy in my own mind, based upon the knowledge that I do have, that Christ being ‘made sin’ in His humanity had no affect upon the perfection of His divine nature and person and did not cause Him to sin in any way Himself. I believe that this is truth, I believe it by faith, I understand it by faith as the Spirit grants understanding. Hebrews 11:1-3.

Secondly...

According to Ian, this subject cannot now be understood. So, why does he persist in teaching this?
Please do us all a favor and quit teaching your views. After all, you cannot teach that which cannot be understood.

I did not ‘start’ to teach this here, so I cannot ‘persist’ in teaching what I did not start. I expressed agreement with Brother Don Fortner on the matter and since then I have been asked various questions to which I have taken time to respond and have at times also replied to various points made against my answers. If I didn’t reply to questions I would be criticised (just read the demands made earlier in the thread for me to explain just what I understood by ‘made sin’), and it seems, when I DO make replies I am castigated for ‘teaching’ my ‘views’. Simple answer: Just stop discussing my ‘views’ on 5Solas Red Beetle.

As for elsewhere…. Well I’m not about to remove Fortner’s article from my website. Nor will I cease to preach the truth that God has taught me wherever and whenever God wills. The love of Christ constraineth me. Your demand that I ‘quit teaching’ my views reminds me of the similar demands made by the Jews of the Apostles. They nevertheless continued to preach Jesus and so must I, God help me.

Consider yourself accused.

Mystery, as Gordon Clark points out, is always something that is capable of being understood. An appeal to mystery is a sign that your position is intellectually bankrupt.

My reference to ‘mystery’ with regard to the ‘hypostatic union’ was meant mainly as a conciliatory remark given the differences of understanding regarding the effects of Christ being ‘made sin’ (see my comments above). I don’t need to rest upon the matter of ‘mystery’ to support my position. I feel the truths which I have declared are very clearly revealed in the Bible and can be understood and believed as clearly as many other truths, according to the measure of the knowledge revealed unto us. Nevertheless we need God-given faith to believe such things, we need Godly wisdom, not carnal wisdom (see 1 Corinthians 1 and 2) and we need divine illumination upon the scriptures, for flesh and blood can’t reveal such things to us, but the Father in heaven.

Sanctification is what removes the sin.
The sin does not remain in us forever.
This is basic.

This is an astonishing remark really. I would say that this is ‘basic’ to the theology of John Wesley with his dreadful error of sinless perfection. Are you of the belief that a Christian of 20 years has less sin than one of 10 years? And one of 40 years even less sin? And one nearing death, perhaps even without sin at all?

This understanding of ‘sanctification’ would seem to be the ‘progressive sanctification’ idea which I know is not shared by many on this forum. I’m sure it has been discussed in other threads (Brandan?) The sinful flesh remains in us until our dying day and only gets worse. One day we will be free from it in our experience, but that is ultimately because of the reality that it was crucified with Christ. See Romans 6:6. Indeed read all of Romans 6 until 8:4 in relation to the flesh and sin. Especially notice Romans 8:3.

This is false.
Sin is found all around us today, and before Christ was crucified. The reason sin is present today is because our sins were imputed to Christ, not imparted to Christ. If Ian is right, then he will have to explain why there is sin today and will be up until the second coming.

You made this argument before and I didn’t bother to pick up on it as it doesn’t hold water.

God is not ‘time-bound’ like you and I. When Christ died He justified all his elect, whether they were born or not. All the sins of all the elect throughout all time were laid upon Him at the cross and borne away.

The same ‘problem’ you present here relates to the ‘imputation view’ really just as much as to my beliefs. If God imputed my sins to Christ 2000 years ago did He just impute those sins committed up until the present moment? No, He looked at my life as a whole and placed ALL my sins, past, present, future to the account of Christ. So 2000 years ago He looked ahead in time and counted up all those future sins and laid them to the charge of Christ.

I believe He did more than that. God took my sin and made Christ to be it. He took all my sins (up until my last day) and laid them upon the Son who actually bore them in His own body on the tree. Because those sins had to be committed in my life before God could lay them upon the Son. Thus He as it were waited until my last day upon earth and then took up all my sins and laid them upon the Son, back in time 2000 years prior. A mystery? Well, I believe this and understand it, whether you can comprehend it or not.

Yes, that is what happened. I believe that God took all my sins (up until my last day) and laid them upon the Son who actually bore them in His own body on the tree. And because He REALLY did that and my ‘old man’ was really crucified with Christ (Galatians 2:20, Romans 6:6) I can reckon myself dead to sin (even though it is still in my body now), Romans 6:11. When I die I will be free from it in personal experience, but that is because God actually took it and made His Son to be it, and He actually took my sins and laid them upon the Son. And God judged the Son and my sin in Him until it was all gone. Christ suffered in HIS experience because of my sin, in order that I would become the righteousness of God in Him. Praise God.

Now… to some comments by Milt briefly:-

Let's say I agree that the Trinity cannot be "fully understood". Even in that case, we have enough Scriptural backing to say that there is a Trinity and we assent and receive it by FAITH as I said before.

I quite agree and I believe we can believe in the ‘hypostatic union’ according to that level of knowledge of it actually given in scripture. But to go BEYOND that knowledge is to veer into speculation about those aspects of this truth which are not entirely revealed to us. That, really, is my only point regarding ‘mystery’ in relation to this. I feel that the assertion by some that if Christ was literally made sin in his humanity then He must have actually sinned Himself is speculative, going beyond the knowledge we have of the union of his natures. I disagree with that assertion. Scripture tells me that Christ WAS MADE SIN and that is enough for me. If others wish to reason that away until it becomes imputation then let them tread such a path. As for me, I'll rest upon what IS revealed to me in the scriptures.

Red Beetle states that you, Brother Ian, is delving into mysticism. I doubt it as I read your overall body of writings, however, if we say that the Trinity cannot be fully understood even with the evidenciary documentation recorded in the Scriptures, we do fall into the danger of mystifying a "revealed" doctrine and placing in the realm of "mystery".

I follow your point, and I don’t believe I’m doing that, but feel that others may be by questioning the meaning of ‘made sin’ and ‘he bore our sins in his own body on the tree’ and judging that that must mean ‘imputation’ and not what is actually written.

Regarding the Trinity however I believe we can understand it according to that degree of knowledge revealed about it to us in the scriptures, by the Spirit's leading.

Many do accuse me of mysticism as well when I state that some of the wonderful blessings the Bible states about me have to be understood by FAITH and settled by FAITH. Some of these truths, if pursued in an overly thechnical way, will indeed lead us to mysticism and not their acceptance by faith.

Yes, but who is being overly technical?

…But that aside, I do believe your assertion, NOT YOUR TEACHING, and I understand that you said you "did not come here to teach this" and only mentioned it because you agreed with Fortner…

Thank you.

I receive and accept the fact that Jesus glorified God in that He received power to overcome the flesh in that He bore our sins without being a sinner and not crumbling under them and cringing away from the Cross. (John 17:2) so He would be able to give eternal life as many as God had given Him.

Amen Milt.

I will not "bug" you anymore with my preachy style...

Humbly and unabashedly kindly, and at the same time, unapologetically blunt.

Milt, I enjoy your posts even when you don’t agree with me. I don’t find them terribly blunt either. I share your rejoicing in the work of the Saviour. Oh, that we may know more of His grace daily.

In Grace,
Ian

"There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath 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 sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace."
Romans 8:1-6

red beetle

06-14-2005, 01:05 AM

[QUOTE]
This is an astonishing remark really. I would say that this is ‘basic’ to the theology of John Wesley with his dreadful error of sinless perfection. Are you of the belief that a Christian of 20 years has less sin than one of 10 years? And one of 40 years even less sin? And one nearing death, perhaps even without sin at all?

This understanding of ‘sanctification’ would seem to be the ‘progressive sanctification’ idea which I know is not shared by many on this forum. I’m sure it has been discussed in other threads (Brandan?) The sinful flesh remains in us until our dying day and only gets worse. One day we will be free from it in our experience, but that is ultimately because of the reality that it was crucified with Christ. See Romans 6:6. Indeed read all of Romans 6 until 8:4 in relation to the flesh and sin. Especially notice Romans 8:3.

You probably would say that the idea of sanctification eliminating sin is basic to the theology of John Wesley. You neither know what sanctification is in Calvinism, nor in Wesley's Arminianism. You need to get a copy of Gordon H. Clark's book titled: Sanctification. Our sins are cleansed by sanctification. They are not infused into Christ as you teach apart from Scripture.

Let me give you some of the forward from Sanctification. You can see my view, that is the Reformed view, of sanctification presented by this excellent forward. John Robbins writes:

The Bible teaches that salvation, from start to finish, from election to glorification, from eternity to eternity, is all of grace... Our works, both before and after regeneration, are not the basis or cause of our salvation. We are justified--declared legally righteous by God and pardoned from all sin--by grace alone through faith alone, apart from works. Furthermore, our justification is wholly outside of us; it is a work that God has done for us by imputing Christ's perfect righteousness to our account. It is not a work done in us by God.

Sanctification, however, is not done outside of us. It is a subjective moral change in our character that begins with regeneration and ends with our glorification in heaven [Note this is not Wesley's view--Red Beetle]. The thirteenth chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith, "Of Sanctification," summarizes the Bible's teachings in these words:

They, who were once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, by his word and Spirit dwelling in them: the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and several lusts whereof are more and more weakened and mortified; and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man can see the Lord.

This sanctification is throughout in the whole man, yet imperfect in this life [whoops, no Wesley there either--Red Beetle], there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part; whence arises a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.

In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail; yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part does overcome; and so the saints grow in grace [there is a progression in sanctification--Red Beetle], perfecting holiness in the fear of God.

Both justification and sanctification are the work of God, not of ourselves; one work, justification, takes place wholly outside of us; the second, sanctification, is God's work in cleansing us from all sin. The Larger Catechism says that Sanctification is "the work of God's free grace, whereby we are renewed in the whole man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin and live unto righteousness."

In short, men do not make themselves holy; neither their regeneration nor their growth in grace is due to their own diligence or obedience, but to God alone[note that God alone causes this progression in sanctification that Ian denies--Red Beetle]. The fruit of the Spirit--love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control--are just that, the fruit of the Spirit, not of ourselves, for it is Christ who lives in us, and it is Christ who works in us both to will and to do his good pleasure. We are commanded to "work out" what God has already "worked in" us. We cannot work out unless God works in us, For without Christ we can do nothing. We are Christ's workmanship, not our own.

But how does God sanctify us?...God works through knowledge. Christ prayed, "Sanctify them by your truth, your word is truth." Peter prayed that "grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord." The reason for his prayer is obvious: "His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness through the knowledge of him who called us by glory and virtue, by which have been given to us exceedingly great and precious promises, that through these you may be partakers of the divine nature..."

It is common in some religious circles to decry the futility of education in changing men's lives. Education, we are told, is the pagan Greek method, not the Christian method, of changing men. But such an attitude is far removed from the Bible. It is precisely education, education in the truth, that is the means of our sanctification. James tells us, "Of his own will he [God] brought us forth by the word of truth," for the "implanted word is able to save your souls." Christ is our Teacher, and we are sanctified by his knowledge.

(Sanctification, from the forward, Trinity, [emphasis mine])

Red Beetle

red beetle

06-14-2005, 01:17 AM

[QUOTE=Ian Potts]
I make that point because much of the disagreement regarding the 'made sin' issue regards the effects that the doctrine has upon Christ in the union of His divine person and nature with His human nature. Does His being made sin mean that He Himself was sinful i.e. that Christ committed any sin Himself? I say, emphatically, NO. But others say it would mean that. Yet all this regards our comprehension of this union, which quite frankly, I don't think any of us can truly claim to fully understand. Accuse me of 'hiding behind mystery' if you will but I answer that the point is valid. We are not discussing just any area of doctrine but one which relates to the HYPOSTATIC union. A particular point of teaching which even Gill admits we can't fully comprehend by reason.

Let me post this from one of John Robbins' essays that is found in the back of the books that are published by the Trinity Foundation. It speaks to the mysticism which Ian Potts has decided to be his smoke screen.

John writes:

Is it any wonder that the world is grasping at straws--the straws of experientialism, mysticism, and drugs? After all, if people are told that the Bible contains insoluble mysteries, then is not a flight into mysticism to be expected? On what grounds can it be condemned? Certainly not on logical grounds or Biblical grounds, it cannot be condemned at all. If people are going to have a religion of the mysterious, they will not adopt Christianity: they will have a genuine mystery religion. "Those who call for nonsense," C.S. Lewis wrote, "will find that it comes." And that is precisely what has happened."
(The Crisis Of Our Times, Nonsense Has Come)

Red Beetle

red beetle

06-14-2005, 01:34 AM

My reference to ‘mystery’ with regard to the ‘hypostatic union’ was meant mainly as a conciliatory remark given the differences of understanding regarding the effects of Christ being ‘made sin’ (see my comments above). I don’t need to rest upon the matter of ‘mystery’ to support my position.

But you did .

Red Beetle

red beetle

06-14-2005, 02:05 AM

You made this argument before and I didn’t bother to pick up on it as it doesn’t hold water.

God is not ‘time-bound’ like you and I. When Christ died He justified all his elect, whether they were born or not. All the sins of all the elect throughout all time were laid upon Him at the cross and borne away.

This is not a Biblical view of God.
You are asserting that we can not move in and out of the future and past, but that God can. The future is not a place. God does not go into it, God is not already there. The future is every decree which God has not executed yet. Again, the future is not a place. You have seen too many movies.

The same ‘problem’ you present here relates to the ‘imputation view’ really just as much as to my beliefs.

Attacking imputation again?
In the Christian view the acts of sin are done, and are in us, not in Christ.
If they were infused into Christ, then they would be His, not ours. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

I believe He did more than that. God took my sin and made Christ to be it.

Ian, why do you refuse to say that our sins were infused into Christ. If you do not believe that they were, then please explain the difference. I believe you sense your own blasphemy.

He took all my sins (up until my last day) and laid them upon

This is the language of imputation, not infusion. It also contextually explains the rest of the passage, "who actually bore them in His own body". It is talking about punishment, not our acts of sin.

Thus He as it were waited until my last day upon earth and then took up all my sins and laid them upon the Son, back in time 2000 years prior. A mystery? Well, I believe this and understand it, whether you can comprehend it or not.

Why would God have to wait? Isn't God already there? Isnt' He already in that future place you made for him?

Please.

The future does not exist until God executes those specific decrees, and then it is no longer the future, but the present.

Red Beetle

Ivor Thomas

06-14-2005, 06:35 AM

Kingofsportjudo Progressive Sanctification IS not taught in scripture, and it does not matter to me who say's it to be true, by your teaching you would have some christian's more Holier than other's,this is the Logic of Rcc etc', you also show by your remark about God and the future you dont believe in the Absolute Predestination of all thing's. And using John Robbin's writting about C.S Lewis as an authority is a bit Rich seeing has John tells of CS Lewis not going to Heaven, there again i will let Ian answer for himself, your false charges of mysticism etc'. Even though i believe he has set out quite clearly is doctrine, and his love for his IMPECCABLE Saviour The Lord Jesus Christ. Take consideration to 1;Cor;ch-13.
Ivor Thomas.

lionovjudah

06-14-2005, 08:24 AM

This thread is neither becoming edifying or gracious.

Red Beetle, I may be the only person more arrogant than you sir. :D

1) John Robbins, Gordon Clarke are not the infallible barometer.

2) I know from my tenure here, Ian is not a "mystic" whatever that means.

3) Again, "Mystery" means can never be exhausted. You, me, Ian, Brandan, Gill, Fortner, Robbins and every single theologian together, can never exhaust 1 truth of God. IF you think you can, than I may as well pray to you instead of God. Like He told Job: "Were you there beetle when He created......?"

4) Your love for the Word of God is commendable, but do not follow in the footsteps of Knox, who had so much anger constantly, people turned him off.

In His Name

Joe

Brandan Kraft

06-14-2005, 08:30 AM

I deny the concept of progressive sanctification. God's people do not get more and more holy as they go on living. They are perfectly holy in Christ - even before the foundation of the world. When they are regenerated, the Holy Spirit takes up residence in them, and Christ in them is their perfect sanctification.

However, I believe most of our presbyterian brethren, including John Robbins and Kingsportjudo, are not teaching perfectionism. I think they are using terminology to describe what I believe happens in every believer, and that is each one of God's regenerate elect GROW IN GRACE AND KNOWLEDGE of the Lord Jesus Christ.

I'll paste what the Gospel Standard Articles of Faith (the 5solas.org statement of faith) have to say on the subject, and leave it at that:

XIX We believe in the sanctification of God's people, the term sanctification signifying a separation and setting apart by and for God. This, in the child of God, is three-fold: i, by election by God the Father (Jude I); ii, by redemption by God the Son (John 17:19); and iii, by the almighty regenerating operation of God the Holy Ghost (Rom. 15:16.) We believe that the blessed Spirit is the Author of what is styled in Scripture the new creature, or creation (2 Cor. 5:17, Eph. 4:24), or new heart (Ezek. 36:26); being, in truth, an implantation of the Divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4), through which the child of God would, according to the inner man (Rom. 7:22), be holy as God is holy, and perfectly fulfil all the good pleasure of the Father's will; but groans being burdened, being constantly opposed by the contrary workings of the old man. (Rom. 7, Gal. 5:17.) We reject the doctrine of progressive sanctification, or that a child of God experiences such a gradual weakening, subduing, or rectification of the old nature, called in Scripture the old man (Eph. 4:22, Col. 3:9), or such a continued general improvement as shall make him at any time less dependent upon the communications of the Spirit and grace of Christ for all goodness, or less a poor, vile, wretched, helpless sinner in himself, and in his own estimation. (John 15:part of 5, 2 Cor. 3:5, Rev. 3:17.)

XX We believe that the grace of God produces a real change in a man and teaches him to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to live godly (Tit. 2:11-12), and that there is a growth in grace (2 Pet. 3:18, Phil. 3:8-10, Mark 4:26-29, 1 John 2:12-13), which consists principally in a growing experimental knowledge of a man's sinful self (1 Kings 8:38, Ezra. 9:6, Job 40:4-6, Ps. 73:22, Dan. x. 8), the vanity of the creature, the glory of God, the spirituality of His law, and the want and worth of Jesus Christ. This is accompanied by a deepening distrust of everything but the grace and love of God in Christ for salvation, and is not a growth in conscious goodness, but in felt necessity and the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. (John 3:30, 1 Cor. 2:2, Tit. 3:3-8, Eph. 3:8, 1 Tim. 1:15.)

XXI We reject the doctrine of perfection in the flesh, or that the believer ever becomes free from indwelling sin in this life, or whilst in the body. "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." (1 John 1:8, 1 Kings 8:46, Job 9:2, Job 15:14, Ps. 119:96, Prov. 20:9, Ecc. 7:20, Rom. 7:18.)

XXII We reject the doctrines that the children of God cannot backslide, and that God does not chastise His people for sin. (1 Cor. 11:32.) For, though we believe that a child of God is called from a death in sin to a life of righteousness, and would, according to the law of his mind, or new nature, in all respects obey God's holy will as declared in the Scriptures, yet through the temptations of Satan, the allurements of the world, and the power and deceitfulness of indwelling sin, he may fall for a season like David, Peter, and other Bible saints did. (Jer. 3:14, Jer. 3:22, Hos. 14.) But we believe that when the children of God thus sin against God, and transgress His holy revealed will, God does in various ways and degrees chastise them for it (Ps. 89:30-33, Prov. 3:11-12), not in vindictive anger, but in tender love, as a father does the son in whom he delighteth. (Job. 5:17, Ps. 94:12, Ps. 119:67, Isa. 54:7-8, Heb. 12:5-11.) We believe, too, that in this matter of chastisement for sin God will deal in a most sovereign way, and as a God of judgment; so that, though the punished child shall be made to discern the reason of the rod (Mic. 6:9), it is seldom safe for others to judge according to the outward appearance. We further believe that no man living in habitual sin gives any proof that he is a child of God, and we cannot, therefore, have fellowship with him, be his profession what it may.

If anyone wants to discuss progressive sanctification - please create a new thread.

Ivor, concerning CS Lewis, quoting an individual is in no way an endorsement of him.

Kingsportjudo wrote:
You are asserting that we can not move in and out of the future and past, but that God can. The future is not a place. God does not go into it, God is not already there. The future is every decree which God has not executed yet. Again, the future is not a place. You have seen too many movies.

Hi Red Beetle, please tone your rhetoric down here. I would find that comment insulting... What I think Ivor is suggesting is that God sees all of time at once (including future events). He is not a spectator, but views every moment of time (since He created it) as if it has already occurred. From God's perspective from eternity, all things have already occurred including the glorification of the saints.

I'm now going to close this thread as I think this topic has been discussed sufficiently. I think what Ian is promoting a very dangerous teaching, and I would warn all that have read this thread to think about the implications of such a teaching.

Think about it for a minute. Ian is suggesting that Christ became sinful. That the nature of sin was put into Christ by a "creative work". That while He hung on the tree, the IMPECCABLE LORD was sinful! That is what is being taught here. I am not misrepresenting his teaching. Of course he also believes that Christ did not sin Himself, and His deity nature was not sinful. But this is confusing and paradoxical in my opinion. The entire 5solas.org moderating team rejects this teaching, and we all lovingly call you to reconsider your position.

Brandan

This thread is now closed.

http://www.5solas.org/images/threadclosed.jpg