Posted tagged ‘incarnation’

If Spiritual Death Would Save, No Need for the Birth of the Baby Jesus

December 11, 2017

Hebrews 2: 14 Now since the children have flesh and blood in common, Jesus also shared in these, so that through His death Jesus would destroy the one holding the power of death—that is, the Devil— Jesus does not reach out to help any angels, but to help some of Abraham’s children . 17 Therefore, Jesus had to be like His brothers in every way, so that He could become a merciful and faithful high priest to serve God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

Mystery in the Bible is not something which has no explanation, Mystery in the Bible is information now revealed. What was not taught in the Abrahamic covenant about incarnation and imputation is now explained in the New Testament. John Owen–Believers were saved under the old covenants, but not by virtue of the old covenants. Sinners perished eternally under the old covenants, but by the curse of the original law to Adam. No man was ever saved but by virtue of the new covenant, and the mediation of Christ in that respect. http://andynaselli.com/carson-mystery-and-fulfillment

Peter Anders—The mystery of the incarnation is in the reality of the communication of attributes between the two distinct natures in the unity of the one person of Jesus. The trinitarian distinction is the conceptual key that opens the door for the understanding of God himself as freely relating to humanity in the incarnate person of Jesus. Jesus is the only mediator through which God and humanity meet in true solidarity. The more human we try to make God, the less we need the incarnation. But the more we acknowledge the radical otherness of God, through the affirmation of the divine impassibility, the more we will worship Jesus Christ who is the incarnation of God, God with us…

Smeaton, Atonement As Taught By Himself, p 78—The Son of God took sin upon Him, and bore it simultaneously with the taking of the flesh…Sin was borne by God, not alone in the sense of forbearance, but in such a sense that it was laid on the sin-bearer, to be expiated by the divine Son. Thus the Lamb of God appeared without inherent sin or taint of any kind, but never without the sin of others. The sin of man was not first imputed to Him or borne by Him when He hung on the cross, but in and with the assumption of man’s nature, or, more precisely, in and with His mission.

Smeaton–Because He bore sin, and was never seen without it, it may be affirmed that the mortality which was comprehended in the words, “Thou shalt surely die”—that is, all that was summed up in the wrath and curse of God,—was never really separated from Him. As the sin-bearer, He all through life discerned and felt the penal character of sin, the guilt, not personal, but as the surety could realize it, and the obligation to divine punishment for sins not His own, but made His own by an official action

The gospel teaches about and explains a glorious transfer, but that transfer is not a transfer of depravity. Christ was not imputed with the depravity of the elect, but with their guilt. Even though depravity is part of the punishment for imputed guilt, Christ was not imputed with depravity but with guilt. There are dangers to assuming that sin needs to be described as corruption instead of guilt, because our guilt is the cause of our inability and corruption. There is great error in describing “made sin” as the “spiritual death” of Christ. Christ did not become corrupt, and Christian do not become righteous by infusion or by imparting (one more extra nature ) but by God’s legal imputation. There is great danger in describing sovereign grace “salvation” as being born again. The elect become justified not by new birth but by means of Christ’s physical death—his blood poured out—his soul poured out.

Isaiah 53: Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him;
he has put him to grief
when his soul makes an offering for guilt,
he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days;
the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
11 Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see[i and be satisfied;
by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant,
make many to be accounted righteous,
and he shall bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many,
and he shall divide the spoil with the strong,
because he POURED OUT HIS SOUL UNTO DEATH
and was numbered with the transgressors;
yet he bore the sin of many,
and makes intercession for the transgressors.

Romans 8:3 What the law could not do since it was limited by the flesh, God did. God condemned sin in the flesh by sending His own Son in flesh LIKE ours under sin’s domain, and as a sin offering, 4 in order that the law’s requirement would be accomplished in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Romans 8:3 teaches that it is God the Father who condemns sin in the flesh. While it was indeed in the flesh of his Son that God condemned sin but it was not only in his Son as incarnate, but in his Son as a sacrificial sin-offering.. God condemned sin by passing judgement on his Son.

Not all born in Adam stay in Adam
all chosen in Christ are born in Adam
not all born in Adam are chosen in Christ
some born in Adam stay in Adam
some born in Adam are justified in Christ

Romans 6 describes two legal states, one of which is “free from righteousness”. Christ’s death has not always been credited to elect sinners. Every elect sinner was once “free from righteousness”. God will not accept us into His presence based on something changed in us, not even something God has done in us. If we have not yet been legally justified by God, we are still “free from righteousness”. Romans 6 defines being in the “new man” (the new creation) in terms of God legally being placed into the death of Christ. Once God credits us Christ’s death, we sinners are justified before God.

Donald Macleod, Christ Crucified, IVP, 2014—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. According to some, Christcondemned sin by saying no to the flesh and living a life of perfect faith, worship and obedience. But this would mean that the condemnation of sin did not take place on the cross

Tobias Crisp—Had Christ not made a full satisfaction to the Father, Christ himself must have perished under those sins that Christ did bear; but in that Christ went through the thing, and paid the full price, as Christ carried those sins away from us, so Christ laid those sins down from himself. So that now Christ is freed from sin, and we are freed from sin in him. Christ was freed from sin imputed unto him and laid upon him, when Christ died. We were freed from sin as Christ takes our sins off from our shoulders, and has carried them away. “Come unto me all ye that are weary and heavy laden.” That is, with sin. And what follows? “AND I WILL GIVE YOU REST.” As long as the guilt of sin is upon the shoulders, so long there is no rest. Therefore this doth necessarily import, that Christ must take away the power of the guilt of sin before the law, in order that we have rest. Christ Alone Exalted, Volume 1,

Tobias Crisp–Iniquity is laid on Christ, as well as the punishment of iniquity; “He was made sin for us.” Sin is a debt, Christ is a surety. The debt of sin, as Christ is a surety, is as really Christ’s, though not his own contracted, AS IF Christ had really contracted it himself– Sins his own by imputation; so legally and really Christ’s own, that God will not impute these sins imputed to Christ unto others ” 2 Corinthians 5:19. Christ Alone Exalted, Volume 2, page 20

Letham–Christ’s humanity was NOT entirely like ours. Christ does not identify with us to the extent of being himself a sinner. Christ has a peculiar distance from our own performance, does not follow our path, and always has an “estrangement from us”. Some Scholars oppose the idea that Christ took into union a nature like Adam’s before the fall. However, this is not the only alternative. Christ lived in a state of humiliation, sinless and righteous but with a nature bearing the consequences of the fall in its mortality, its vulnerability and its suffering—but not fallen. Furthermore, the NT witness is that the incarnation is a new creation, the start of the new humanity, not a reform of the old. Christ is the second Adam, not the first.

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

If Jesus died spiritually, then Jesus Needed to be Regenerated. But Jesus was not born in order to be regenerated. Jesus was born to die for the sins of the elect and be resurrected. Jesus did not become corrupt when Jesus was born. Jesus did not need to be born again after Jesus was born.

Jesus, like the Old Testament types, offered His BODY as a sacrifice: Who his own self bare our sins IN HIS OWN BODY on the tree. (I Pet. 2:24).

Being put to death IN THE FLESH, Jesus was quickened by the Spirit (I Peter 3:18).

Christ hath suffered for us IN THE FLESH. (I Peter. 4:1).

And you…has He reconciled IN THE BODY OF HIS FLESH through death (Colossians 1:21-22).

I am the living bread which came down from heaven…and the bread that I will give is MY FLESH, which I will give for the life of the world (John 6:51).

we are sanctified through the offering of the BODY OF JESUS once for all time (Hebrews 10:10).

“Destroy this temple, and in three day I will raise it up,” we are informed that”…he spake of the TEMPLE OF HIS BODY” (John 2:19-21).

“This is my BODY which is given for you” (Luke 22:19)

But many famous people continue to teach us that it’s really the “spiritual death” of Jesus which saves. Calvin was one of these people.

Calvin—Nothing had been done if Christ had only endured corporeal death. In order to interpose between us and God’s anger, and satisfy his righteous judgment, it was necessary that he should feel the weight of divine vengeance. Whence also it was necessary that he should engage, as it were, at close quarters with the powers of hell and the horrors of eternal death…Hence he descended to hell, seeing he endured the death which is inflicted on the wicked by an angry God. It is ridiculous to object that in this way the order is perverted, it being absurd that an event which preceded burial should be placed after it. But after explaining what Christ endured in the sight of man, the Creed appropriately adds the invisible and incomprehensible judgment which Christ endured before God, to teach us that not only was the body of Christ given up as the price of redemption, but that there was a greater and more excellent price—that he BORE IN HIS SOUL THE TORTURES of condemned and ruined man. (“Institutes of the Christian Religion.” Book 3:Chapter 16.)

Prosperity teacher Kenneth Hagen—Physical death would not save you from your sins. When Jesus tasted death for every man, that’s spiritual death.

Word of Faith teacher Kenneth Copeland: “Jesus did not pay for your sins on the cross. He paid for your sins in hell. His going to hell paid for your sins.” The idea is that Jesus must live in hell for a while in order to die “spiritual death” to pay for sins which were not paid for by His physical death on the cross.

John Piper– “My God, my God”, it is what takes place in THIS MOMENT that delivers us from hell. This agony, this scream, is what delivers all those who turn from their sin and trust On the cross, Jesus experienced hell for all of us. And because He did, Heaven awaits all those who turn from their sin and trust in Him. He screamed the ‘scream of the damned’ [i.e., “forsaken me”] for us. Listen, this scream should should have been my eternal scream.” Resolved Conference 2008. Session 11 – The Cry From the Cross. Min 46:35)

If Jesus completed the atonement by “spiritual death” before Jesus died, then why did Jesus die? If you deny that Jesus’ death atoned for sins, then your mistake is just as important, whether you relocate the atoning work to some period of suffering before the death of Jesus or to some period of Jesus living in torment after his death. Either way, you’re saying that the death of Christ did not atone for sin, and by inference that means that the conception, the birth, the incarnation of Jesus did not matter.

We can learn many things about the mystery reveled in the new covenant from the nature of the Old Testament sacrifices. The essential requirement for a sin-offering was that it had to be pure and sinless in order for God to accept it as a suitable substitute. The sin-offerings remained even in death MOST HOLY to God. Jesus knew no sin. Jesus became sin legally by imputation, but Jesus did not become unclean nor did Jesus commit any sins of His own. Teaching that Christ Himself became a sinner or needed to be born again is NOT teaching the fulfilling or satisfying of the law but instead it’s trying to bypass the law. It’s trying to ignore the law and calling that ignoring the law grace and atonement.

“If there were no distinction between the nature of corrupt man and original sin, it must follow that Christ either did not assume our nature, because He did not assume sin, or that, because He assumed our nature, He also assumed sin. Both of these ideas are contrary to the Scriptures. Inasmuch as the Son of God assumed our nature, and not original sin, it is clear from this fact that human nature, even since the Fall, and original sin, are not one and the same thing, but must be distinguished. (Lutheran Solid Declaration )

Erich Phillips explains the heresy in Christology which teaches Christ himself was as sinner. ,—Paulson interprets the communicatio idiomatum not as God the Son sharing in human nature, but sharing in human sin (92). He interprets the Patristic dictum, “What was not assumed cannot be healed,” in the same willfully twisted way: “what Christ assumes from sinners is their sin” (103). As if I wanted my sin to be healed! No, I want to be healed of my sin! That is what the dictum actually means. How could Christ make a fitting sacrifice of Himself, if taking Human Nature meant taking Original Sin? Paulson’s result is nothing short of appalling. How did Jesus save us? By breaking the Law Himself: Christ goes deeper yet into flesh to take our sin and acknowledged sins as his own, that is, he confessed them. This is like a man whose son has committed a crime, and out of selfless love the father steps in to take the punishment, but then goes so far that he irrationally comes to confess this crime so vehemently that he believes he has committed it—and as Luther famously said, “as you believe, so it is.” …

Paulson teaches that Christ came to believe that his Father was not pleased with him, thus multiplying sin in himself just like any other sinner who does not trust a promise from God. …Then finally in the words on the cross, “My God, my God…” Paulson teaches that Christ made the public confession of a sinner, “why have you forsaken me?” Confessing made it so, and thus Paulson teaches that Christ committed his own, personal sin Paulson—-Christ felt God’s wrath and took that experience as something truer than God’s own word of promise to him (“This is My Son, with whom I am well pleased”). Christ committed his own, personal sin.”(104) That’s exactly how Paulson defines Original Sin in another part of the book: “It is to receive a word from God in the form of a promise, and then to accuse God of withholding something of himself—calling God a liar” (152). (Paulson defines sin as against grace, not as sin against law.)

Erick Phillips asks–And how is this supposed to work salvation for sinners, that the spotless Lamb should join them in the mud? Paulson argues that by identifying so deeply with human beings as to take their sin and actually experience the act of sin, that Christ confessed not just that He was a sinner, but that He was every sinner, the only sinner. The result of this confession, for some reason, was that “once the Law accused Christ, it looked around and found no other sin anywhere in the world and suddenly, unexpectedly, when Christ was crucified, its proper work came to a halt” (110). It is not clear at all by what principle this works. It seems a bizarre and inadequate theory to prefer to the Substitutionary Atonement, but this is what Paulson means when he says that Christ “fulfilled the law

http://pseudepigraph.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Paulson-Review-E.-Phillips.pdf

Romans 16: 25 Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long AGES 26 but has NOW been disclosed

I Corinthians 15:51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, THEN shall come to pass the saying that is written:

Death is swallowed up in victory.
55 O grave, where is your victory?
O Hades, where is your sting
56 Now the sting of death is sin,
and the power of sin is the law.

Christ’s becoming incarnate (still to this day) did not mean becoming corrupt or unbelieving or sinful. Christ’s becoming incarnate was for the purpose of the imputation of the sins of the elect to Christ and then Christ’s one time historical death as satisfaction for those sins. Us becoming justified before God does not mean our becoming regenerate members of Christ’s body. The elect becoming justified means becoming legally dead to the power of the law in terms of the power of guilt

Donald Macleod–We may say that Christ died as our representative, our surety and our substitute, but the only fact that can explain the substitution itself is that we and He were federally one. The Father gave us to Him; He (voluntarily and willingly) accepted us; and He kept us and saved us. In the mystery of eternal communion with the Father and the Spirit the Son took full responsibility for the sins of His/Their people; undertook to answer for them and to do all that their remission required.
The whole point of the sacrifice of Christ is to lay a foundation for the intercession. This means that the primary movement of the atonement must be God-ward. If Christ’s intercession is God-ward (1 John 2:1) then the hilasmos on which it is based must be God-ward as well. This is fatal to all subjective theories of the atonement. The Intercessor seeks God (in accordance, of course, with the Father’s own eternal predisposition) to forgive the sins of which His people stand accused; to provide for their needs; and to receive their praise.

None of this is compatible with the idea of an intercession or atonement of which the purpose is to change us; or, more precisely, to change our views of the divine character.The Liberal argument is fatal to its own cause. If God is prepared to forgive us only on condition that we change our minds about His character, what kind of God is God? What kind of Judge is God: one whose final verdict and sentence depend on what the accused think of God?

The orthodox doctrine was moral at its very core: forgiveness must be grounded in equity, and equity is secured by the vicarious death of Christ. But if the structures of the moral universe presented no impediment to remission – if it was simply a matter of the divine sovereign will – then it was unspeakably churlish of the Almighty to require any kind of atonement: particularly an atonement which had as its object changing men’s minds about Himself.

Reduced to its basic point , the Abelardian view amounts to `Love me: or else!’

The incarnation and Death of Christ was an outrage! Why did the wrath of God abide on the Sinless One? on God’s only Son? How could God’s wrath result in death elsewhere than where God’s wrath is deserved?

`If God the Son could or needed to turn the mind of the Father, then God is not of one mind, and neither are the Son and the Father one.’ The atoning death is the result of God’s love, not the cause of God’s love.

Remission of sins is the removal of guilt, criminality and blameworthiness—-`a position and relation towards God in which His wrath would be undue, unrighteous, impossible.’ This is the position of the justified sinner. Because of the sacrifice of Christ, the justified sinner is not merely `let off’. In Christ, the moral universe has no more right to strike the justified sinner down that it has to topple the Almighty from His throne.

The Moral Influence Theory (that Christ died to impress upon us a sense of the divine love) and the Rectoral Theory (that Christ died to cause us to experience a sense of divine justice) are, both of them, false as explanations of the way that the death of Christ actually atones. The death of Christ atones by its God-ward effect.

http://www.donaldmacleod.org/?p=166

Advertisements

Questions for the “Never Not Justified” Preachers

April 24, 2017

Here are some questions for the “never not justified” preachers

1. After Christ’s death is imputed to you, are your sins still sins?

2. Do you think Christ’s death was imputed to you as soon as Christ died and before Christ was raised from the dead?

3. Do you think your sins were not imputed to you as soon as your sins were imputed to Christ, and was this before Christ died?

4. If “eternity” was before time, how is “eternity” now in the past?

5. If Abraham’s sins were imputed to Abraham even while Abraham was justified and if Abraham’s sin were only NOT imputed to Abraham when those sins were imputed to Christ. do you think that none of your sins have ever been imputed to you?

6. Do you think your sins were imputed to Christ when Christ was conceived? If so, does this mean that you were justified when Christ became also human?

7. Do you think that your sins were imputed to Christ just before Christ began to pray in the garden? If so, does this mean that you were justified just before Christ began to pray in the garden?

8. Do you think that your sins were imputed to Christ just before the three hours of darkness? If so, does this mean that you were justified before Christ died on the cross?

9. If you were justified before Christ died, why did Christ need to die?

10. If Christ satisfied God’s justice for the sins of the elect in three hours of infinite suffering, why did Christ need to become incarnate (or was Christ human but not mortal)?

11. Do you know if anybody agrees with all of your answers to the ten question above?

12. If nobody agrees with your answers, does that mean your answers are wrong or does it mean that the questions don’t matter?

Smeaton, Atonement As Taught By Himself, p 78—The Son of God took sin upon Him, and bore it simultaneously with the taking of the flesh, nay, in a sense even prior to the actual fact of the incarnation. The peculiar character of the Lord’s humanity, which was, on the one hand, pure and holy, and yet, on the other, a curse-bearing humanity, plainly shows that in some sense He was the sin-bearer from the moment of His sending, and, therefore, even prior to His actual incarnation.

Smeaton–And when it is said that God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh, we have the very same thing…Sin was borne by God, not alone in the sense of forbearance, but in such a sense that it was laid on the sin-bearer, to be expiated by the divine Son. Thus the Lamb of God appeared without inherent sin or taint of any kind, but never without the sin of others. The sin of man was not first imputed to Him or borne by Him when He hung on the cross, but in and with the assumption of man’s nature, or, more precisely, in and with His mission.

Smeaton–The very form of a servant, and His putting on the likeness of sinful flesh, was an argument that sin was already transferred to Him and borne by Him; and not a single moment of the Lord’s earthly life can be conceived of in which He did not feel the harden of the divine wrath which must otherwise have pressed on us for ever.
Because He bore sin, and was never seen without it, it may be affirmed that the mortality which was comprehended in the words, “Thou shalt surely die”—that is, all that was summed up in the wrath and curse of God,—was never really separated from Him. As the sin-bearer, He all through life discerned and felt the penal character of sin, the sense of guilt, not personal, but as the surety could realize it, and the obligation to divine punishment for sins not His own, but made His own by an official action. They who evacuate of their true significance these deep words, “ bears the sins” will not have Christ as a sin-bearer.

Is the “Spiritual Suffering” of Jesus the Real Death?

April 4, 2011

Jesus, like the Old Testament types, offered His BODY as a sacrifice: Who his own self bare our sins IN HIS OWN BODY on the tree…(I Pet. 2:24).

Being put to death IN THE FLESH, He was quickened by the Spirit (I Peter 3:18).

Christ hath suffered for us IN THE FLESH…(I Peter. 4:1).

And you…hath he reconciled IN THE BODY OF HIS FLESH through death…(Col.1:21-22).

I am the living bread which came down from heaven…and the bread that I will give is MY FLESH, which I will give for the life of the world (John 6:51).

…we are sanctified through the offering of the BODY OF JESUS once for all (Heb. 10:10).

Having abolished IN HIS FLESH the enmity, even the law of
commandments…(Eph. 2:15).

In addition to these clear texts which indicate that the sacrifice of Jesus involved the offering up of HIS BODY OF FLESH, there are others. When Jesus said to the opposing religious leaders, “Destroy this temple, and in three day I will raise it up,” we are informed that”…he spake of the TEMPLE OF HIS BODY” (John 2:19-21).

When Jesus spoke of His approaching death it was always with reference to the offering of His BODY not His SPIRIT. This is clear from John chapter 6 where Jesus spoke of giving HIS FLESH to provide life for the world. He also said, “This is my BODY which is given for you” (Luke 22:19; Read also I Cor. 10:16; 11:24-29; Eph. 2:15; Rom. 7:4; Heb. 10:19-20).

The necessity for the incarnation of the Son of God is clearly set forth in passages such as Hebrews 2; Phillipians 2; Galatians 4:4-5; John 1, 3, and Colossians 1, 2. The Jesus Died Spiritually VIEW (taught by Harold Camping) is that if Jesus only died physically, and that if the physical death of Jesus paid the penalty of sin, then every man could have died for himself.

Such a position on the Atonement reveals a lack of comprehension of the meaning and nature of the Old Testament sacrifices. The sin-offering remained even in death MOST HOLY to God. To say that if the physical death of Jesus (without a “spiritual death”) paid the penalty for sin, then every man could have died for his own sins overlooks the fact that the essential requirement in the sin-offering was that it had to be pure and sinless in order for God to accept it as a suitable substitute.

This was typified in the requirement that the Old Testament type had to be spotless and without blemish; and it was literally fulfilled in the case of Jesus Christ (Heb. 9:14; I Pet. 1:18-19).

The efficacy of the Atonement did not depend upon how much blood was shed on the cross. The Atonement’s validity depended only on the fact that the Son of God shed His spotless blood and died for the guilt of the elect. The Old Testament animal type did not bleed to death on the altar; only a few drops of blood were sprinkled on the altar as an atonement (Lev. 1:5); or, in the case of the sin-offering, the priest merely dipped his finger in the blood and applied it to the horns of the altar (Lev. 4:25).

The physical death of Jesus was absolutely essential so that Jesus would bear the punishment for our guilt IN HIS BODY (I Pet. 2:24), when He was put to death IN THE FLESH (I Pet. 3:18). We
are told that the elect are redeemed, not by a “spiritual death” but “with the precious BLOOD of Christ, as of a lamb without
blemish and without spot” (I Pet. 1:19).