Christ Became guilty for a while, But Christ NEVER Lost Faith and NEVER Became Corrupt

2 Corinthians 5:21 God made sin the One who did not know sin, in order that we would BECOME  the righteousness of God IN HIM

If you teach that all the elect are always justified, you need to change the Bible to read—-the One who did not know sin and who was never made guilty .
If Christ never changed legal states
then we the elect
also will never become justified.

But the Bible never says that we always were the righteousness of God
And the Bible never teaches that Christ was not made sin
The Bible teaches Christ became sin

God’s elect are moved by God’s verdict from one legal state to another legal state, so that God’s imputation of Christ’s death results in the new birth and faith in God’s gospel. But withoutexception, all those who God has declared righteous have believed the gospel.

Do you boast in Jesus obeying Moses? Or do you boast in Christ’s death as the righteousness Christ did not have until Christ died?

We BECOME the righteousness of God in Christ. We were not always justified Christ became the righteousness. Christ’s attribute of righteousness is not the same as Christ’s death to satisfy righteousness for the elect

2 Peter 1:1 to those who have obtained a faith of equal privilege with ours through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.

Tianqi Wu–Christ did not die to sin’s corruption. Some antinomians teach that Christ not only became human but also became sinful (had a sinful nature). These heretics teach that Christ’s death somehow purged out of Christ’s person the corruption and despair they claim was in Christ’s heart when Christ died. This is truly a lie from the devil, because there was NEVER any corruption (or possibility of corruption) in Jesus Christ, who is holy, undefiled, and separated from sinners

Tianqi Wu–Christ died without any sinful defect imparted or infused to him. Christ was the spotless lamb of God whose death was the unique pleasing sacrifice to God. Christ never felt the corrupting power of sin, or the shame of being polluted. There is no hope in a Christ who is defiled in his own person. There is no hope in a Christ who did not bear anybody’s guilt.

Christ was not only a representative but a substitute. 2 Corinthians 5:21 is not only “made a sacrifice for guilt”
Christ also “became sin”. Christ was made guilty by God’s imputation of the specific sins of all the sins of all those for whom Christ died.

Hebrews 9: 28 Christ having been offered ONCE IN TIME to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time , NOT THAT FUTURE TIME TO BEAR SIN, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for Him.

How was Christ justified? Certainly not by becoming born again. Christ was justified by satisfying the righteous requirement of divine law for the sins imputed to Christ. Christ was justified by His death. Christ needed to be justified because Christ legally bore the guilt of His elect, and this guilt demanded His death. Christ was not justified because of His resurrection. Christ’s resurrection was Christ’s justification, and that declaration was because of Christ’s death.

Romans 8:3 God condemned sin in the flesh by sending His own Son IN FLESH like ours under the guilt of sins imputed

Donald Macleod, Christ Crucified, 2014— Romans 8:3 says that it not Jesus but God the Father who condemns sin in the flesh. While it was indeed in the flesh of his Son that God condemned sin, it was not only in his Son as incarnate, but in his Son as a sin-offering. God condemned sin by passing judgement on his Son. We are justified as ungodly (Romans 4:5), NOT as partakers of a nature which has been united with the divine.

I Corinthians 5:21. Christ was not only made to be the sin offering. Christ was made to be sin. Christ was made to be the sin offering because Christ was first made to be sin. Guilt was transferred to Christ. As the justified become the righteousness because of the transfer of righteousness, Christ was condemned because of God’s
transfer of the guilt of sin. The parallel is between becoming guilty and becoming justified. When guilt was transferred to Christ, He was then guilty. When Christ’s death is transferred to the elect, then the elect BECOME the righteousness of God in Christ.

Explore posts in the same categories: Uncategorized

8 Comments on “Christ Became guilty for a while, But Christ NEVER Lost Faith and NEVER Became Corrupt”

  1. Mark Mcculley Says:

    Tianqi Wu—The imputation of elect’s sins happened before Christ went to the cross. It happened simultaneously as Christ took human nature. From the first moment of incarnation, Christ was a sin-bearer and this is why he was sent in the “likeness of sinful flesh”, without “form or majesty” for man to see. All the rejections Christ suffered were part of the grief that fell upon him as a sin-bearer.
    Against this background, the supernatural miracles of Christ on earth
    appear all the more marvelous, as rays of transcendent light revealing this “man of grief”, “esteemed stricken by God” is in fact the Son of God who bore the curse of some people’s sins.

    It’s a gospel-destroying heresy to say Christ’s humanity was
    ontologically transformed to be sinful. What’s the reason for this discrepancy? Why did Christ not experience
    spiritual corruption as a part of punishment he received for the
    elect’s guilt imputed to him?
    First, spiritual corruption is an indirect punishment for sin. It’s
    the effect of another punishment, namely the withdrawal of the Spirit
    of God. Man is left to spiritually fend for himself against the
    kingdom of darkness, and he is powerless against it, and he is
    enslaved.
    On the other hand, it’s inconceivable this could ever happen to Jesus
    Christ, whose title means “anointed” by the Spirit of God, and who
    received the Spirit without measure. At the beginning of his human
    life, he was conceived by the Spirit. Nor did the Spirit leave him in
    the darkest hour of death, but he was offering his body and blood
    through the Spirit to God.

    How could God the Son receive such endowment of the Spirit from God, when God’s Son was bearing the elect’s guilt in God’s sight?

    The legal solidarity between the justified elect and Christ is no
    fiction. The sins of the elect imputed to Christ result in the just
    punishment of Christ their surety for their guilt, and until that
    legal reconciliation was received by these elect by means of God’s
    real legal imputation, these same elect were born under
    condemnation.
    When these elect are placed into Christ’s death (not by water) but in
    reality by God’s legal identification (Romans 6), they are already
    justified in this present age, not because of what they will do or
    because of what God promises to do, but because of what Christ has in reality already done back then when He died on the cross.
    And since those who have been justified are already citizens of
    Christ’s kingdom in this age, we need to obey the commands of our
    King.

  2. Mark Mcculley Says:

    They use Gregory of Nazianzus’s famous dictum “whatever is not assumed cannot be healed” to argue that if Christ did not have the same nature as ours we could not be saved. However, Gregory wrote this against Apollinaris who claimed that the incarnate Christ did not have a human mind. Gregory was opposing an ontological claim, not asserting an ethical on

    https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/review/the-incarnation-of-god-mystery-of-gospel-foundation-of-evangelical-theology/

    Robert Letham—Their thesis is that for Christ to identify with us in our fallen condition, it was necessary for Christ to have a fallen human nature. By assuming humanity in its fallen-ness Christ redeemed it from where it actually is, otherwise Christ could not have saved us in our actual state as fallen human beings. There are a range of problems with the claim. At best, it entails a Nestorian separation of the human nature from the person of Christ. It teaches that the eternal Son—the person who takes humanity into union—is absolutely free from sin but that the assumed humanity is fallen.
    But since Christ’s humanity never exists by itself, any idea of fallenness to that human nature is a statement about Christ, the eternal Son. Romans 5:12–21 is not mentioned. If Christ had a fallen human nature it is unavoidable that he would be included in the sin of Adam and its consequences. Christ could not have saved us since Christ would have needed atonement himself, if only for his inclusion in the sin of Adam.

  3. Mark Mcculley Says:

    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.

    John Murray—He is using the term “likeness” not for the purpose of suggesting any unreality in respect of our Lord’s human nature. That would contradict Paul’s express language elsewhere in this epistle and in his other epistles. He is under the necessity of using this word here because he uses the term “sinful flesh”; and he could net have said that Christ was sent in “sinful flesh.” That would have contradicted the sinlessness of Jesus for which the New Testament is jealous throughout. So the question is, Why did Paul use the term sinful flesh, when it is necessary to guard so jealously the sinlessness of our Lord’s flesh? He is concerned to show that when the Father sent the Son into this world of sin, of misery, and of death, he sent him in the manner that brought him into closest relation to sinful humanity that it was possible for him to have without becoming sinful himself. He himself was holy and undefiled – the word “likeness” guards this truth. But he came in the same human nature; and that is the purpose of saying “sinful flesh.” No other combination of terms could have fulfilled these purposes so perfectly.

  4. Mark Mcculley Says:

    Donald Macleod –There is a great discontinuity between Christ and sinners. They were sinners and Christ was not. He could not trust in God’s forgiveness because Christ had no need of forgiveness. Christ could not be born again because he required no changed of heart. Christ could not be converted because His life demanded no change of direction.

    If we move from the idea of Jesus as a believer to the idea of Jesus as the one who is believed IN, does Jesus believe, vicariously, in Himself?….It is not his faith that covers the deficiencies of our faith (as it is given to us by God). It is Christ’s death that covers the deficiencies of our faith…Our faith is not in the Son of God who believed for us, but in the Son of God who gave Himself for us.

    p 214, Donald Macleod, Christ Crucified, IVP, 2014—-Christ never fell, had not guilt, and knew no sin. Human nature as individualized in Christ was not fallen. Christ did not suffer from the disease of sin. In what sense then did Christ heal human nature by becoming the patient and taking the disease? As Christ faced temptation and suffering, Christ did so with a mind unclouded by sin…

    Human nature after the cross remains as it was before the cross. If Christ healed our humanity by taking our humanity, then Christ was crucified by the very nature he had healed….

  5. Mark Mcculley Says:

    Calvin on Romans 8:3 (likeness of sinful flesh) –Thus, so skillfully does the Apostle Paul distinguish Christ from the common lot that He is true man but without fault and corruption. But they babble childishly: if Christ is free from all spot, and through the secret working of the Spirit was begotten of the seed of Mary, then woman’s seed is not unclean, but only man’s. For we make Christ free of all stain not just because he was begotten of his mother without copulation with man, but because he was sanctified by the Spirit that the generation might be pure and undefiled as would have been true before Adam’s fall 2:14: 8

    Ursinus–The Holy Ghost miraculously sanctified that which was conceived and produced in the womb of the Virgin, so that original sin did not attach itself to that which was thus formed; for it did not become the Word, the Son of God, to assume a nature polluted with sin…Objection: But Christ was born of a mother that was a sinner. Therefore he himself had sin. Answer: The Holy Spirit knows best how to distinguish and separate sin from the nature of man; for sin is not from the nature of man as created but was added to it from the devil

    The error of Brandon Kraft–When Adam and Eve sinned, what really happened?: It was revealed to Adam that he was a sinner and needed the righteousness of Christ which demonstrated the eventual regeneration of every elect individual.
    One “radical Lutheran” position is that God created the world through the brutality of biological evolution. And so death, violence, and strife are built into creation. This comes very close to the Gnostic notion of the conflation of creation with the Fall
    https://infanttheology.wordpress.com/2019/01/06/some-honest-questions-about-steve-paulsons-book-luthers-outlaw-god/?fbclid=IwAR0wYMdMKF04TjqxP66nzt8WV0442SUYNBmN8fOMOZ1072jAIgSDqxg_wtM

    • markmcculley Says:

      Council of Ephesus (AD 431)  Mary is the “mother of God” (theotokos). This affirmation was intended to ward off a Nestorian understanding of Jesus Christ (which emphasized his two natures to the detriment of his one Person), and thus the focus wasn’t on Mary, but Jesus.

      In the Lutheran churches, for example, a form of Eutychianism emerged that serves that church’s peculiar view of the relationship of Christ’s body to the physical elements of the Lord’s Supper. This may be seen in the Lutheran representation of the “communication of attributes”, whereby our Lord’s divine nature at His virginal conception virtually “divinized” His human nature by communicating its attributes to the human nature. Thus, the latter is ubiquitous, Lutherans insist, and is really physically present “in, with, and under” the elements of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. But, such a christological construction, in the words of Charles Hodge, “forms no part of true Christianity.”
      A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith by Robert L. Reymond (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), p. 615.

      • markmcculley Says:

        In Vindiciae Evangelicae, his response to John Biddle’s Socinian catechism, John Owen explicitly owns the title “Mother of God,” while criticizing Nestorius, precisely on the grounds of the communicatio idiomatum secured by the hypostatic union of the two natures, divine and human, in the one person of the Incarnate Son.

        In response to Biddle’s preface, John Owen writes:

        “The communication of properties, on which depend two or three of the following instances mentioned by Mr B., is a necessary consequent of the union before asserted; and the thing intended by it is no less clearly delivered in Scripture than the truths before mentioned. It is affirmed of ‘the man Christ Jesus’ that he ‘knew what was in the heart of man,’ that he ‘would be with his unto the end of the world,’ and Thomas, putting his hand into his side, cried out to him, ‘My Lord and my God,’ etc., when Christ neither did nor was so, as he was man. Again, it is said that ‘God redeemed his church with his own blood,’ that the ‘Son of God was made of a woman,’ that ‘the Word was made flesh,’ none of which can properly be spoken of God, his Son, or eternal Word, in respect of that nature whereby he is so; and therefore we say, that look what properties are peculiar to either of his natures (as, to be omniscient, omnipotent, to be the object of divine worship, to the Deity; to be born, to bleed, and die, to the humanity), are spoken of in reference to his person, wherein both those natures are united. So that whereas the Scriptures say that ‘God redeemed his church with his own blood,’ or that he was ‘made flesh;’ or whereas, in a consonancy thereunto, and to obviate the folly of Nestorius, who made two persons of Christ, the ancients called the blessed Virgin the Mother of God,–the intendment of the one and other is no more but that he was truly God, who in his manhood was a son, had a mother, did bleed and die. And such Scripture expressions we affirm to be founded in this ‘communication of properties,’ or the assignment of that unto the person of Christ, however expressly spoken of as God or man, which is proper to him in regard of either of these natures, the one or other, God on this account being said to do what is proper to man, and man what is proper alone to God, because he who is both God and man doth both the one and the other. By what expressions and with what diligence the ancients warded the doctrine of Christ’s personal union against both Nestorius and Eutyches, the one of them dividing his person into two, the other confounding his natures by an absurd confusion and mixture of their respective essential properties (Mr B. not giving occasion), I shall not farther mention.”

        https://calvinistinternational.com/2017/06/16/john-owen-mary-mother-god/

  6. Mark Mcculley Says:

    David Gordon: Christ was not a sinner. Did Christ, in his role as Second Adam, die to and for sin? Yes, but in the course of his life prior to the cross he was never enslaved to sin; never under its mortifying influence on his moral nature. Only as the legal Substitute for sinners did he die to and for sin.

    Mark–which is why we know that Christians being “dead to sin” in Romans 6 is not about our regeneration but about being justified from sins and not under the law.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: