The "made sin" or "infused sinfulness" Heresy

[Brandan Kraft]

Do you believe Christ was literally evil? Even for a speck of time? Then you believe an awful heresy. I am taking a stand right now against this evil doctrine that Christ was more than made sin by imputation but that he was actually made a sinner! I'm taking a stand against the notion that a "righteous man could not die for sinners." Christ was our substitution in death, but not our substitution in evil! I'm taking a stand against the notion that Christ was actually "created evil" and became a "sink" or "sewer" on the cross.

I have read the Sermon by Mark Daniel, and the highlights by Ken Wimer in it will make your stomach crawl. It truly is an evil heresy and I can no longer fellowship with those who hold or promote such teaching. Sorry, but my conscience is bound to the word of God, not any friendships or bonds I have with others.

I will not be attending the Danville Conference this year because I don't want to listen to this awful doctrine ever again. It is heresy. It is damnable. And I don't want anything to do with the "infused sinfulness doctrine" of Mark Daniels. How any true Christian could defend what is written in this attached document is beyond me.

See attached document with foreword by Ken Wimer:

Dear Friends,

It is truly with a heavy heart that I send out this email. Some consider me as a 'busy-body' provoking trouble in the camp, however, as I increasingly hear of people throwing their support behind a preacher, who in my consideration, is preaching heresy, I wonder whether you have the full picture. Many have said that they listened to the message that Mark Daniel preached in Albany, GA in February before being dismissed by the congregation there, and have told me that they saw nothing wrong with the message. Because it is easy to forget exactly what was preached, the further removed from the actual message, I thought it profitable to put it into writing, verbatim, so that any who wonder about the seriousness of what is being preached under the banner of 'Absolute Substitution,' can see the transcript for themselves. Is this what you profess to be the Gospel, 'God making Christ sinful or creating sin in Him' at the cross? I know that many have said to me, "It says, He made Him sin," However, the Bible also says, 'God so loved the world,' and world means 'world,' so that means everyone. Or how about how the Catholic Church interprets Christ's statement regarding the bread and wine, 'This is my body...and blood.' Will we then say that it means that the bread and wine actually become His body and blood. No! Context means everything.

This is particularly bothersome to me when I hear that Eager Avenue Grace Church congregation is being maligned both in pulpits, in writing, and in private conversations, as 'evil and wicked,' for taking the stand they have. I also have been thrown in the mix for speaking up. Nonetheless, in defense of the truth, I am persuaded that I cannot remain silent, having myself talked with Mark at length right after he preached it, but without being able to persuade him of the grave danger of such a doctrine. Know that this is particularly grievous to me in light of the separation this has caused between us, Mark being a long time friend.

Nevertheless , because this matter has been made public as it has, I must at least speak up. It is what I consider a doctrine that perverts the very character of Christ, and perverts the Scriptural teaching of Christ as Substitute, all with the view of setting up another righteousness IN the sinner, that must complete what he calls 'INSUFFICIENT' at the cross. I can only speak my conscience before those for whom I have a great love and concern. If I have time, I will transcribe also the follow up message he preached on 'Believing Saints,' where he develops further the idea of the necessity of inherent or imparted righteousness, as what truly makes one righteous before God, the imputed righteousness of Christ not being sufficient.

If after reading this transcript, you tell me that you are still in full agreement, then at least I will have had the opportunity, for my own conscience sake, to know that I have done what I could, by God's grace. Nonetheless, the verse that the Lord has impressed upon my mind is, " Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?" I Corinthians 5:6.

May the Lord grant discernment to any and all who read this transcript.

Prayerfully submitted,
Ken

[Brandan Kraft]

More from Ken - see attached document:

Attached is the follow-up transcript of a message preached by Mark Daniel in Albany, GA in March, 2005, which culminated in his dismissal from the Eager Avenue Grace Church. It is important to read this attached transcript in light of the first that I sent a few days ago, wherein he reinterpreted 2 Corinthians 5:21, stating that Christ was made sinful (a sinner by the implantation of the sin of His people in His flesh), and stating that the inverse (i.e.being made the righteousness of God) takes place only at regeneration, by the Spirit implanting the very sinless nature of Christ into the believer. This message is the follow up to that, and must be read in that context. As you will note in reading this word for word transcript, Mark endeavors to show that he is not talking about an infused or imparted righteousness, but by definition that is what he describes.

Some may ask, 'Why all this trouble?'

1. Knowing what I know of the situation in Albany, and the men that are being maligned there as evil and malicious by a number of preachers, I cannot stand by and remain silent, knowing what they were being forced to endure under the guise of the Gospel. I believe by getting the very transcript into as many hands as possible, that everyone can judge for themselves, where they stand or fall on this most important Gospel issue.

2. For the record, I want to reaffirm that I have talked at length with Mark Daniel about these very matters, so I am not violating any confidence between us. He is well aware of my concerns and prayers for him, and those who have followed him to begin another work there in Albany.

3. I suppose my greatest surprise has been with those who do support his preaching of Christ being made a sinner, and that as he shows in this message, the death of the Lord Jesus merely guaranteed the holiness of His people, but that it is not accomplished UNTIL regeneration. I believe that this is a total confusion of the work of Christ FOR His people (redeeming, justifying, and sanctifying them at the cross), and the work of the Spirit IN regenerating, and calling them out of their sin and darkness to SEE and REST in the Righteousness accomplished by Christ at the cross ONCE FOR ALL. We were justified and sanctified by His blood, and it is the Spirit of God who comes and quickens dead hearts, making them alive, and directing those hearts to the ONLY righteousness that God has ever accepted, that of Christ imputed at the cross. To draw my thoughts away from the cross, even to some inward work of the Spirit, is to be drawn away from the ONLY Holiness and Righteousness that God has ever accepted and approved on behalf of sinners. If my holiness is that of some inward holiness, even though it is attributed to the Spirit, no matter how you package it, it is not that of the cross which was done ONCE for all, Hebrews 10:10. Again, I remind you of what one old writer wrote: "One day as I was passing into the field . . . this sentence fell upon my soul. Thy righteousness is in heaven. And me thought, withal, I saw with the eyes of my soul Jesus Christ at God's right hand; there, I say, was my righteousness; so that wherever I was, or whatever I was doing, God could not say of me, he wants [=lacks] my righteousness, for that was just before him. I also saw, moreover, that it was not my good frame of heart that made my righteousness better, nor yet my bad frame that made my righteousness worse, for my righteousness was Jesus Christ himself, "The same yesterday, today, and forever." Heb. 13:8.

I admit that this transcript is a bit laborious, however, I simply transcribed what was preached. Nonetheless, I believe that everyone needs to read it carefully. Depending on what version you have of Word, you will find annotations of my comments throughout. For some, these will appear as balloons off to the right. For others, there may simply be a notation such as [KW1] etc. If you double-click where you see the notation, it will open a window below for you to see all of my comments. However, if you want to simply read the comments without opening them, you should simply hover the mouse over them and a screen will pop up. I apologize for having to insert so many comments, but I have prayerfully weighed these in light of what I know of the Word and the Gospel, and I have added them only because I am persuaded that there needs to be clarification regarding the error of what Mark is teaching.

I am the last to want such a controversy, and would willingly see it put to rest, and praying for that to be, that we might all be truly united in THE FAITH. However, I cannot in good conscience go against what I know to be the truth of the cross, and it is to that end that I prayerfully submit this transcript and my comments. As the old adage goes: "Error will go around the world many times, while truth is putting its boots on."

May the Lord Himself graciously teach us all.


Ken

[Brandan Kraft]

More from Ken against Don Fortner's article:

Attached is a message by Don Fortner, posted on his website as a result of what took place in Albany, GA regarding Mark Daniel's message there stating that Christ was actually made sinful as the substitute for His people. I would not be making this a matter of importance did I not believe that it is a perversion and a going beyond of what the Scriptures teach regarding the Person and Work of our Lord.

Some of you, after reading Mark's message that I sent last week, have asked me if any of the other preachers with whom we are acquainted would support Mark in his position of Christ actually being made a sinner at the cross. Sadly, yes. Some do not say it as plainly, but they are essentially saying the same thing. This distresses me greatly, but I must stand where I believe the Scriptures to stand, in the light that the Lord has given me, but I believe that the attached by Don Fortner should leave no doubt as to his identification with Mark's 'Christ Made Sinful' message which was part of the ground of his dismissal in Albany, and any who continue to support him, rather than call him to repentance.

I felt impressed to include comments throughout Don Fortner's commentary, because of the way he simply keeps restating 'Christ was made sin,' but as you will see by the end, what he really means is that Christ was actually made a sinner. My comments are designed to simply help you weigh carefully what he is stating in light of the Word.

Prayerfully submitted,

Ken

[lionovjudah]

I still do not understand the need to make this literally mean what they are implying. I will have to read it closer. I must be missing something.

How could a sinner, a mere sinful man, atone for the sins of others. Scripture constantly stresses the spotless Lamb without blemish. I do nto believe a substitute has to equal the one he takes place for. Is this what they say? That in order to atone for sinful man, Christ had to literally become sinfull Himself? Am I understanding it corectly?

[Brandan Kraft]

Scripture constantly stresses the spotless Lamb without blemish. I do nto believe a substitute has to equal the one he takes place for. Is this what they say? That in order to atone for sinful man, Christ had to literally become sinfull Himself? Am I understanding it corectly?

Yes Joe, they are saying exactly that. Read the highlights in Mark Daniel's Sermon! It's as plain as day.

[lionovjudah]

Yes Joe, they are saying exactly that. Read the highlights by Mark Daniels Sermon! It's as plain as day.

Wow, this is some different stuff here to swallow. I will read it much closer tonight.

[L-Today]

Brandan,

Thank you for taking stand against this evil. I know it is not easy for you because there are people involved in this matter whom you used to be friends with and whom you admired. I cannot see how a Christian can make any other choice.

Luba.

[wildboar]

It's just plain silly anabaptist nonsense, taking a verse of Scripture and making it say something it was never intended to say regardless of how the interpretation contradicts the rest of Scripture. Just like all the anti-oath, anti-war, anti-alcohol, anti-human blooded Jesus, and successionists.

[Dee Dee Warren]

The Word of Faith movement consistently teaches this type of stuff.

[Robert R. Higby]

Very true, Dee Dee. There is a difference--some of these teachers who affirm high grace predestination (like Don Fortner) are affirming more of a 'mystery' teaching of Christ's being made sin. I'm sure that they would condemn the word-faith movement in no uncertain terms. However, that does not excuse the agitation of this controversy they want to engage in and I will never support it. The Lord has LAID UPON HIM the iniquity of us all (impuation from Isa. 53)--that is ALL that 'made sin' is referring to--Christ's fulfillment of prophecy in this regard!

[Brandan Kraft]

I found the benny hinn mp3 file in my sound archives (attached) that teaches something very similar to this heresy.

[Eileen]

It is a ‘mystery’ teaching this being made sin and I can relate to the congregation in Albany, GA as in my own reading of the article in the New Focus magazine. Because they don’t say plainly what they are actually teaching, it is very misleading. If the article in the New Focus magazine had, for instance, said in plain language……Christ was made a sinner, do you think there would have been an uproar from 99% of the readers, I do.

Thank you for the full realm of this teaching, for if you think for even but a moment that Christ, the spotless Lamb of God, was made a sinner, the hope is gone and the light becomes darkness.

Eileen

[Mickey]

You cannot make one 'person' of the Trinity a sinner. If so then we no longer have the Triune God head.

[L-Today]

Mike is right - there is no God if Christ was a sinner.

But how many people still believe this rot, blindly following their teachers because they don't see what Christian loyalty means? What about the teachers themselves of this ''gospel of sinful Jesus Christ''? Clearly, they are not preaching the gospel of the Scriptures but another gospel which Paul called ''accursed''. And the implications of such preaching and believing?

WB, I cannot accept that turning Jesus Christ into evil should be compared and put on the same level with other arguments inside all possible groups of Baptists or anybody else. Yes, they use the same confused method when twisting the Scriptures, but this one is a thing apart, whether they meant it to be so or not.

This specific matter of turning Christ into abomination is about whether we have God at all, and not about to drink or not to drink beer on a Saturday. Of course, there are people who would like to mix these issues together and thus remove the magnitude of the ''made into literal sin'' blasphemy. And that is the cleverest way of sneaking false doctrines onto the believers - blend and bunch together heresies and blasphemies with trivialities and treat them alike. And maybe that is why we have all missed the horror and madness of this teaching before - because we thought it is ''one of those misunderstandings''. IT IS NOT.

Eileen is right - THEY don't come out and state straight that they actually mean: ''Christ Jesus was a sinner like us, only far worse'', because if they did they would not have as many listeners and readers left as they have now.

When camouflaged in between highly devout and loud pronouncements 'Lord! Lord!', this, the worst possible slander upon this very Lord, slips in almost unnoticed into believers' minds, making it a sort of uneasy OK that Jesus Christ became evil for three hours. Now, according to the proponents of this theology, WE get rid of our sins for sure, because now our different kinds of the substance ''sin'', folowed by sins and then by their offspring are really and finally incinerated on the burning cross outside the camp in the sinful body and sinful soul of Jesus Christ. If this is not a bright example of the false prophecy which should be a serious and very useful warning to us all on how to heed what we read and listen to, then I don't know what is.

[lionovjudah]

In the OT shadows or figures of atonment. Did the sacrafice, the lamb or scapegoat actually become sinfull? Or were the sins of the people just laid on them and the Lord accepted this?


Joe

[Brandan Kraft]

I think the answer to your question Joe is fairly obvious. How in the world can a lamb (the animal) become sinful?

[lionovjudah]

I think the answer to your question Joe is fairly obvious. How in the world can a lamb (the animal) become sinful?

Ask Fortner.

I do not know.

[melted]

What can it mean that Christ was actually and really made to be sin?

Sin is transgression of the law of God. Was Christ made to be a transgression? That makes no sense.

There is the nature of sinfulness that resides in man and demons. Was Christ made to be a sin nature? Was Christ made to have a sin nature? Surely this is blasphemy, as to be God by definition requires the fully righteous and holy nature of sinless perfection. To claim otherwise is to remove the very idea of God from such a being.

The act of sin comes and goes; it is an action accounted to an individual. The man sins many times, but these sins themselves are not retained. They do not "live on". There is no substance of a sin. What does live on is the shame of the sin. The wrath that is due on account of the sin. The DEBT of sin is built up and retained by the sinner.

I brought up this passage before, and I think it prudent to do so again:
Act 2:36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ--this Jesus whom you crucified."

The same word is used here as in 1 Cor 5:21, yet it does not mean that Christ was in substance made to be something different than what He has always been.

[lionovjudah]

Here are some random thoughts.

1) Jesus voluntarily suffered for our sins. He was not punished.

2) Punishment means one is guilty.

3) Suffering for His elect is nto punishment.

4) The Scriptures NEVER say Christ was punished, it always says he suffered.

5) Therefore, he cannot be sinful on the cross because He was not punished.

Heb. 10:4

“it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins.” If they preach/teach that Jesus literally became sin, they misrepresent all of Scripture and say these were effectual offerings becausethey transferred sin. ( Mike Steele)



Too many believe that God was punishing Christ on the Cross, that he was actually displeased with His Son, and was throwing lightening bolts at Him in wrath. This is not the case. The cross represxents the Trinity working out the salvation of the elect because of His eternal love for them. This love of God caused Christ to suffer the most extreme pain as a subsitute for the punishment due the elect.( John Miley)


Jesus is the substitute for those given to Him before the foundation of the world. A substitute to suffer, not to be punished because He was, is, and always will be the spotless lamb.


The cross had no seperation of the Trinity.

2 Cor. 5:19.
"God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself."

[Larry Brown]

Brandon,

In 1984 I accompanied Missionary Bill Clark to Ivory Coast, West Africa. I have no reservations in saying that he was with one of the “greatest” Missionaries of the century (if not history). He was going there to visit another young missionary named Ken Wimer. We spent nineteen days traveling dirt roads in a Mazda pickup truck. You can get to know someone when you are that close to one another. That “vacation” was to change my life and daily routine for years after.

When I returned home, I began sending Ken audio tapes expounding the free, sovereign grace of Christ by men like Henry Mahan, Maurice Montgomery, Don Fortner, and others. Those tapes (apparently) resulted in Ken changing his message and preaching the same free grace at his sponsor church in Michigan while on furlough. He was immediately excommunicated (I think he had to leave by a side door!) and his support was withdrawn.

Being the first person he called, I remember vividly the trembling voice and the question “What am I going to do?” Though I invited him and his family to my house, he untimately wound up in Ashland, KY where the congregation at Thirteenth Street provided him with support and housing until he returned to Africa. The whole ordeal resulted in a near family relationship with Ken, Mary and his family. To his daughter, I was “Uncle Larry.” The very thought of it make me smile to this day.

On his return to the mission field, I became his Power of Attorney receiving his support from numerous churches, converting it, sending it, filing his tax returns, and talking to him via Ham Radio once a week for 10+ years. His support came from congregations with whom you are all familiar. Those congregations at one time or another included those of Pastors Henry Mahan, Maurice Montgomery, Don Fortner, Daniel Parks, Gary Shepard, Donnie Bell, Gene Harmon, Tim James, Jim Byrd, Jack Shanks, Todd Nibert, and others to numerous to mention.

I said all that to say this. I am not giving this response to Kens machinations with any light consideration. His relentless attacks upon the gospel of Christ and those who preach it, his determined efforts to divide brethren, and his wilful, deliberately deceitful and often openly false slander of men who have done nothing but seek to assist him over the years, makes it obvious that his only goal is the same as that of Diotrephes, the promotion of Ken Wimer.

I realize your “forum” professes that it does not condone personal attacks. But Don Fortner is my pastor and it is clear that he is no longer invited to this party. Since you have allowed the attacks to be levied, perhaps you will be fair enough to allow one for Don’s defense as well as others whom Ken will only name cowardly in “confidential” conversations out of loving concern for their souls. It was not Don or any of the other named pastors who made this a public issue. The sermon from which the article was written was preached at Cherokee, NC and in Danville last October (2004) and the article itself was written in November 2004 and then published in New Focus Magazine, before Mark Daniels ever went to Albany. It was also sent out as Bulletin articles during Feb-April this year. It was only then that Ken perceived it as “support of Mark” and openly attacked it in writing and in preaching. It then became Ken’s perfect vehicle for politicing the dark halls of deceit ruining the lives of two faithful gospel ministers and to organize a pack faithful to himself.

Ken has credited Don with believing doctrines that he knows emphatically Don does not believe and has never preached. (I have been listening to Don preach for 26 years, and have read practically everything he has written or published.) Ken has had virtually no contact with Pastor Gene Harmon for years. Then so that Ken and Gene might “have fellowship in this glorious truth” (justification at the cross only),”. . .He emailed Gene “alarmed by a strong reaction by a number of preachers promoting 'Eternal Justification.” He then offered his "loving" declaration that Don and Todd Nibert do not believe the death of Christ was and is necessary to the salvation of God's elect. Do you think for a minute, that Ken thought he was telling the truth? It was a bald/bold-faced lie

I will not bore you with other such examples.

Christ himself cries in Psalm 69&c, “Save me, O God! for the waters are come in unto my soul. I sink in deep mire where there is no standing. I am come into deep waters, where the floods overflow me. I am weary of my crying: my throat is dried: mine eyes fail while I wait for my God. They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, being mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored that which I took not away. O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee.” Do any of you have a problem with my sin becoming so much a part of Christ that he speaks of it being his very own. Does that sound like my sins was merely pasted on Him?

In Psalm 22&c Christ said “I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels. LORD, rebuke me not in thy wrath: neither chasten me in thy hot displeasure.” Does that describe my sin as being merely draped over his body?

In Psalm 38&c Christ mourned “thine arrows stick fast in me, and thy hand presseth me sore. There is no soundness in my flesh because of thine anger; neither is there any rest in my bones because of my sin. For mine iniquities are gone over mine head: as an heavy burden they are too heavy for me. My wounds stink and are corrupt because of my foolishness. I am troubled; I am bowed down greatly; I go mourning all the day long. My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.”

Could some of you explain all those to me?

Concerning the current “controversy,” where have any of you, including Ken, found where Don or any of these other men have said that “Christ was made a sinner.” The scriptures say that “Christ was made sin.” That is all these men have said. Nowhere have they tried to remove the mystery of that great transaction! Ken admits in another of his many emails circulated to those whom he assumed to be faithful followers that “because of the way he (Don Fortner)simply keeps restating 'Christ was made sin,' but as you will see by the end, what he really means is that Christ was actually made a sinner.” Oh really! Can any of the rest of us get into another’s mind? Slick, Slick, Slick.

I’ll tell you what I think. I think, It is the mystery of Godliness. It is one of the most assuring things of Christ in the Gospel All of that, that I might be made righteous. Now are we the Sons of God!!

If Christ being made sin is your issue, then put your fists in God’s face, not my pastor’s or the face of other faithful pastors.

I have heard nor seen anyone of the realm in which I associate go past such describing Christ as having being made sin.

Suffice it to say, Ken has been trying to pick a fight with Don over virtually everything he has written or published in the past three years, beginning with Don’s writings on Eternal Justification,then Fourfold Justification, and now Christ being made sin. Don makes an easy target both physically and theologically. After all, everything he has written or preached is available in his books or on our website. Have any of you really read them to know if what Ken is saying is true? Really read them? Its easy to pick a line here and a line there to lift out of context. Ken speaks above that his “greatest surprise has been with those who do support his (Mark’s [and I suppose Don’s as well]) preaching of Christ being made a sinner.” He has also been asked “if any of the other preachers with whom we are acquainted would support Mark in his position of Christ actually being made a sinner at the cross. Sadly, yes. Some do not say it as plainly, but they are essentially saying the same thing.”

Do I support Mark in his belief that Christ was actually made a sinner at the cross? Well, . . . . . . I believe that “Christ was made sin.”

Mark Daniels, Don Fortner, Henry Mahan, Daniel Parks, Tom Harding, Marvin Stalnaker, Jack Shanks, Milton Howard, David Pledger, Tommy Robins, Drew Dietz, Jim Byrd, Gary Shepard, Paul Mahan, Donnie Bell, Greg Elmquest, Chris Cunningham, Joe Terrell and a multitude of others are all men of faithful character and proven devotion to the local church and the cause of Christ in the comforting of God’s people. None of these men should be the subject, or inferred subjects, of “novices,” “internet christians,” and “conference freeloaders,” the majority of which know nothing of belonging to a local church, and have no firsthand knowledge of these minister’s work and ministry. They deserve our respect.

I do regret that firsthand knowledge of Ken’s recent attempts to sully Don and Mark’s name, and to divide other brothers has drawn me into the same sewer pit into which Ken has jumped headlong. Now I know how it feels when someone kicks your dog.

I am sincerely sorry that you will not be attending our conference this year. That is exactly what Ken was hoping. Another notch in his gun.

Larry Brown