Posted tagged ‘made sin’

Being Human Does Not Mean Being a Sinner

April 23, 2017

I Corinthians 15: 42 So it is with the resurrection of the dead:
Sown in corruption, raised in incorruption;
43 sown in dishonor, raised in glory;
sown in weakness, raised in power;
44 sown a natural body, raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 So it is written: The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit. 46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, then the spiritual.

47 The first man was from the earth
and made of dust;
the second man is[n] from heaven.
48 Like the man made of dust,
so are those who are made of dust;
like the heavenly man,
so are those who are heavenly.
49 And just as we have borne
the image of the man made of dust,
we will also bear
the image of the heavenly man.

How did Adam sin in the first place without being a corrupt sinner?
I don’t know

But I do know that Jesus became also human and is still also human
without ever sinning or even being able to sin

“being able to sin ” does not define “being human”

to be “human” is to be “in the image of God”

Does this mean that God has always been “human” like?

Colossians 1:12 giving thanks to the Father, who has enabled you to share in the saints’ inheritance in the light. 13 God the Father has rescued us from the kingdom of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of the Son He loves. 14 We have redemption, the forgiveness of sins, in God the Son.
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God,
the firstborn over all creation.
16 For everything was created by God the Son,
in heaven and on earth,
the visible and the invisible,
whether thrones or dominions
or rulers or authorities—
all things have been created through the Son and for the Son
17 God the Son is before all things,
and by Him all things hold together.
18 God the Son is… the firstborn from the dead,
in order to come to have
first place in everything.
19 For God was pleased to have
all His fullness dwell in the Son
20 and through the Son to reconcile
everything to Himself
by making peace
through the blood of His cross—
whether things on earth or things in heaven.

Romans 6 is about Christ the public representative of the elect first being under condemnation, being under sin and death. Romans 6:7 “For one who has died has been justified from sin. 8 Now since we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death NO LONGER has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died HE DIED TO SIN once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God.

Christ was never under grace and is still not under grace. Christ was under the law because of the imputed sins of the elect. Romans 6 is about Christ’s condemnation by the law and His death as satisfaction of that law. Christ after His resurrection is no longer “under law”. Christ’s elect, after their legal identification IN TIME with Christ’s death, are also no longer “under law”.

The death of the justified elect is the SAME legal death that Christ died. The “definitive resurrection” of the elect in Romans 6 is the result of being set apart with Christ (and His death) from being under law.

Christ was never under the power of sin in the sense of being unable not to sin. Christ was always unable to sin. The only way Christ was ever under the power of sin is by being under the guilt of sin. The guilt of the elect’s sin was legally transferred by God to Christ. Christ’s death to sin was death to the guilt of sin, and since the elect are IN TIME united with His death, the death of the elect is also a death to the guilt of sin. Romans 6:7: “For one who has died has been justified from sin.”

All or Nothing, Christ’s Righteousness or Yours

August 8, 2012

A mystical experience guy writes: “It was not only imputed sin, because Christ then had to live out that sinfulness by bearing that sinfulness”

This focus on the “sinfulness” that Jesus is bearing sounds like some six hour mystical experience, and it distracts from the meaning of Christ being legally counted with the guilt of the elect.

First, I question the biblical basis for these mystical guys assuming that Christ was not imputed with sins until six hours before He died. Second, the wages of sin is death, and not some six hour experience. Third, the focus on “sinfulness” rather than imputed guilt calls into question what these guys think “imputation” means. Is it only a transfer of punishment and consequence, and not of guilt, as Andrew Fuller would have it?

I understand the practical point is that imputation has results. Of course I agree. Indeed, I am the one saying that the life of the new birth is a result of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. But mystical guys don’t like that. They like to talk about their new birth experience. And when they talk about results of the new birth, they don’t deny imputation and forgiveness of sins, they are looking for more “real” results than that. They think the new birth has given them a better more righteous “soul” than the next guy.

This shows up when they deny that the reign of grace through righteousness in Romans 5:21 is about Christ’s earned and imputed righteousness. These mystical guys are itching to get your Spirit-enabled “righteousness” into that verse, even though it doesn’t fit the context, either before or after.

And of course their idea that imputed righteousness is not enough shows up again when they talk about II Cor 5:15-21, when they insist that “new creation” is about them and their new birth, even though the entire context is about judgment, Christ’s death, non-imputing of sins. But still they think that “becoming the righteousness of God in Christ” is not (only) about imputation.

I am not picking on people because of a word or two. I am saying we need the only. We need the sola. Texts like II Peter 1:1, Romans 5, II Cor 5, are ONLY about a righteousness that Christ earned. The righteousness in those texts is not God’s attribute, and it’s not Christ’s person apart from that finished obedience to death. Every time these mystical guys say “not only”, they might as well say, not that.

Galatians 2: 21–” I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.”

Arminians and Roman Catholics look at that verse and say, see it’s not through the law, so why talk about Christ’s satisfaction of the law when it’s about Christ in me by grace enabling me to imperfectly keep the law, and grace does not demand perfection. They don’t think that Christ’s death and resurrection are enough. They don’t deny it. They just don’t think it’s enough.

But the point of Galatians 2:21 is that Christ died to completely satisfy the law’s demand, and there is no possibility of satisfying God’s law in any other way except Christ’s death. And to those who would say, well sure, we don’t deny that Christ’s death figures into the equation but don’t forget how grace now causes us to get circumcised, Galatians 2:21 goes all or nothing. ONLY Christ’s death for righteousness, because if not ONLY that, Christ died for nothing. Thus the antithesis.

When the mystical guys proclaim (they don’t explain) that it’s not only about the imputed righteousness, they are opening up a false way for some other kind of salvation. If there were indeed a future justification based on our works, then we who are justified by Christ’s obedience alone are without hope, and Christ died in vain. Only the non-elect and non-justified will be judged by the books. This is why we who have our names written in the book warn those who don’t believe the gospel of the judgment to come.

II Corinthians 5:10 “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil. 11 Therefore, knowing the fear of the Lord, we persuade others.”

No, the imputation of righteousness is not a result of the new birth. But yes, imputation of righteousness has results. Result one, those imputed with Christ’s righteousness know and believe God’s only gospel, and repent of the false gospel that gets them into the equation. Result two, there is no condemnation for those imputed with Christ’s righteousness.

There is no being “in Christ” without being imputed with Christ’s righteousness. “No condemnation” is not a result to be minimized. And “no condemnation” is not a result to be put back in doubt based on the works of those who are already in Christ.

If Christ Were Made Sin Not Only By Imputation, by Flavel

January 8, 2012

They tell us, (1.) That the righteousness of Christ is subjectively and inherently in us, in the same fulness and perfection as it is in Christ; grant that, and then it will follow indeed, That Christ himself is not more righteous than the believer is. (2.) That not only the guilt of sin was laid on Christ by way of imputation: but sinfulness itself, was transferred from the elect to Christ: and that by God’s laying it on him, the sinfulness or fault itself was essentially transfused into him.

First, we thankfully acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ to be the Surety of the New Testament, Heb. 7.22, and that as such, all the guilt of our sins were laid upon him, Isa. 53.5,6. That is, God imputed, and he bare it in our room and stead. God the Father, as supreme Lawgiver and Judge of all, upon the transgression of the law, admitted the surety-ship of Christ, to answer for the sins of men, Heb. 10.5,6,7. And for this very end he was made under the law, Gal. 4.4,5. A

God by imputing the guilt of our sins to Christ, thereby our sins became legally his; as the debt is legally the surety’s debt, though he never borrowed any of it: Thus Christ took our sins upon him, though in him was no sin, 2 Cor. 5.21, “He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin.”

We thankfully acknowledge, that Christ hath so fully satisfied the law for the sins of all that are his, that the debts of believers are fully discharged. His payment is full, and so therefore is our discharge and acquittal, Rom. 8.1,31. The guilt of believers is so perfectly abolished, that it shall never more bring him under condemnation, John 5.24. And so in Christ they are without fault before God.

As the guilt of our sins was by God’s imputation laid upon Christ, so the righteousness of Christ is by God imputed to believers, by virtue of their legal union with Christ; and becomes thereby truly theirs, for the justification of their particular persons before God, as if they themselves had in their own persons  suffered the death  threatened.

No inherent righteousness in our own persons, is, or can be more truly our own, for this end and purpose, than Christ’s imputed righteousness is our own. He is the Lord our righteousness, Jeremiah 23.6, We are made the righteousness of God in him, 1 Cor. 5.21.

But notwithstanding all this, we cannot say, that over and above the guilt of sin, that Christ became as completely sinful as we are. He that transgresses the precepts, sins: and the personal sin of one, cannot be in this respect, the personal sin of another. There is no transfusion of the transgression of the precept from one subject to another. This is utterly impossible; even Adam’s personal sins, considered in his single private capacity, are not infused to his posterity.

The guilt of our sin was that which was imputed unto Christ. I know but two ways in the world by which one man’s sins can be imagined to become another’s. Either by imputation, which is legal, and what we affirm; or by essential transfusion from subject to subject. We have as good ground to believe the absurd doctrine of transubstantiation, as this wild notion of the essential transfusion of sin.

If we should once imagine, that the very acts and habits of sin, with the odious deformity thereof, should pass from our persons to Christ and subjectively to inhere in him, as they do in us; then it would follow that our salvation would thereby be rendered utterly impossible. For such an inhesion of sin in the person of Christ is absolutely inconsistent with the hypostatical union, which union is the very foundation of his satisfaction, and our salvation. Though the Divine nature can, and doth dwell in union with the pure and sinless human nature of Christ, yet it cannot dwell in union with sin.

This supposition would render the blood of the cross altogether unable to satisfy for us. He could not have been the Lamb of God to take away the sins of the world, if he had not been perfectly pure and spotless, 1 Pet. 1.19.

If the way of making our sins Christ’s by imputation, be thus rejected and derided; and Christ asserted by SOME OTHER WAY to become as completely sinful as we; then I cannot see which way to avoid it, but that the very same acts and habits of sin must inhere both in Christ and in believers also. For I suppose our adversaries will not deny, that notwithstanding God’s laying the sins of believers upon Christ, there remain in all believers after their justification, sinful inclinations and aversations; a law of sin in their members, a body of sin and death.

Did this indwelling sin pass from them to Christ? Why do they complain and groan of indwelling sin (as in Romans 7) if indwelling sin itself be so transferred from them to Christ? Sure, unless men will dare to say, the same acts and habits of sin which they feel in themselves, are as truly in Christ as in themselves, they have no ground to say, that by God’s laying their iniquities upon Christ, that Christ became as completely sinful as they are; and if they should so affirm, that affirmation would undermine the very foundation of their own salvation.

Nothing which Christ did or suffered, nothing that he undertook, or underwent, did, or could constitute him subjectively, inherently, and thereupon personally a sinner, or guilty of any sin of his own. To bear the guilt or blame of other men’s faults makes no man a sinner. So then this proposition, that by God’s laying our sins upon Christ (in some OTHER WAY THAN BY IMPUTATION of guilt) he became as completely sinful as we, will not, ought not to be received as the sound doctrine of the gospel.

Mark Daniel Calls Guilt-Sharing “Judicial Role-Play”

April 5, 2011

Mark Daniel’s sermon entitled “Absolute Substitution”: “What is sinful flesh? It is flesh where sin is present. Sinful flesh is flesh where it has sin in it. Sinful flesh is flesh contaminated by sin. Well, now, you ask, I don’t understand how Christ could be the Son of God, pure and holy, and yet be contaminated by sin.”

Mark Daniel goes on to affirm the mystery of it all: if we could understand it as information, then we would be God and none of us is God, but when Daniel speaks, he does speak as God has spoken, etc.

I doubt that Daniel has read Edward Irving, Karl Barth, or Cranfield about ” the likeness of sinful flesh” (Romans 8:3) but the denial that Christ made sin by legal imputation is a not a new heresy.

I could ask questions, but the “made sin is real” guys don’t want to risk any “information” answers about how Christ could go from being without sin to having sin in his flesh, and this before any legal imputation of sins.

Was “sinful in the flesh in Christ’s nature or in His person? Was it only the humanity? Is Christ’s supposedly “being made sinful” something separate from his person? But these guys think that doctrines about the person of Christ will only decrease worship of Christ. If you knew more about Christ, then you wouldn’t worship Him?

Mark Daniel: “All I’m trying to say is that God did not cut a deal with Christ, where they did role play. It wasn’t judicial role-play. “
Please notice that I am not questioning the sincerity of his motives. Mark Daniel is much like the Roman Catholics who called imputation a “mere legal fiction”. Though they do not completely dismiss God’s declarations, they assume that legal guilt sharing is impossible and that justification is analytic. When the leper is no longer a leper, then and only then will God declare a person not to be a leper. Only after Christ is “really made a sinner”, will Mark Daniel and Don Fortner accept that then -after the made really–Christ legally bore the sins of the elect.

The denial of “made sin” by legal imputation leads to a false gospel in which God gives people a new nature, and replaces sin in the flesh. This false gospel claims that being made sin by legal imputation is fake.

I am reminded of Luther’s illustration of the dung covered by the snow. The Romanists wanted something more real—they wanted God by grace to turn the dung into gold. Luther, not believing that what God did in Him would be any part of justification, asked about what happens when the gold turned back into dung!

Back when I was lost, I very much believed in the sovereignty of God, so much so that I told myself that God did not bother about justice and righteousness. I told myself that the matter of salvation was only an internal matter to God, in which God did anything God wanted. If God wanted to forgive people, God could do that. (Back when I was lost, I said that) God did not need to be just in forgiving, that God had no need to be BOTH just and justifier. I was open to the Socinian claim that, if God demands punishment for guilt, even if from Himself, then that is not forgiveness.

I am not accusing Mark Daniel of denying that God has a nature, or of equating justice with sovereignty. I don’t want to assume that you the reader, or that Mark Daniel, has gone down the same wrong paths I went down.That being said, I do have a serious objection to what Daniel teaches in this sermon (and in other sermons). Mark Daniel is denying that God can or will justify the wicked. Because Mark Daniel is denying that God can or will legally impute sin to anybody without that person being first “really made sin” before and apart from legal imputation.

Like the papists who cried “legal fiction”, Mark Daniel is saying that Christ must be “made sin in the flesh actually” before there can be any imputation of guilt. In paralell to this, his false gospel says that the righteousness we become must be “real” (which to him means not legal), and only then can there be legal imputation.

Two more quotations from the sermon by Mark Daniel. You can get a tape or a transcript of it from Eager Avenue Baptist Church. “You see, a judicial substitution is INSUFFICIENT…now understand me, I’m not putting down the judicial aspect. He gained a judicial standing but that standing, that part of His substitution, was insufficient to give me life and to give me liberty, to give me freedom from my sins.”

Mark Daniel IS putting down the judicial aspect. What’s the necessity of the judicial aspect to Mark Daniel? If Christ is made sin before the imputation, and without the imputation, what’s the point of then adding the “judicial aspect”?

If he’s saying “more than legal”, he could answer some questions by explaining what he does mean by “legal.” He claims not to be denying or putting down the legal.

So why would legal imputation of the guilt of the elect after Christ is already made sin by “more than imputation”, why would that even be still important to Mark Daniel?

The last quotation from Mark Daniel: “On the cross, Christ actually became as sinful as I. Something He had never been, could not have become, and did not want to happen, and prayed for that it might let it pass, and yet became a reality in his very being.”

“Something”. And if you ask questions about what that something was, then you show yourself to be a “rationalist”. These guys don’t explain or give reasons. They only proclaim, and we are supposed to swallow it.

Beware of implicit faith. Don’t put any of these preachers up on a pedestal where you believe what they believe but you don’t know what they believe and they can’t be bothered to explain what they believe. If they won’t answer questions, don’t listen to them.

More Than Legal?–False Information, False Gospel

April 4, 2011

We have a group of preachers who go around repeating one-liners after each other. One of the things they like to say is: Christ was made sin somehow, but we don’t know how.

Right after they say this, these same preachers give you some false information about Christ being made sin. They say: this was not just legal. They say: this was more than legal. And then they say, people don’t like me saying this, but I am comfortable with the language of Scripture.

These preachers glory in their bad explanation of II Corinthians 5:21. They say that their false explanations are not explanations but proclamations that they hope God will “somehow” turn into the very words of Christ. In other words, if you disagree with them, you are supposedly disagreeing with Christ.

First, let me point out the obvious. II Corinthians 5:21 reads: “for our sakes he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we become the righteousness of God in Him.” II Corinthians 5:21 does not deny that “made sin” was legal, nor is it the very language of Scripture to say that “made sin” is “more than legal”. That is not what the Bible says; it’s what these preachers are saying about the Bible.

I have no objection to preachers saying things about the Bible. But I do object when they want to act like their bad explanations are the very language of Scripture. These preachers refuse to give information or arguments to support their explanations, and yet they want you to treat what they say as Christ’s gospel.

So, first, the Bible does not say what they say it says. Second, they do not explain what they mean by “legal”. Why is “legal” not real or actual? In order to understand that, we don’t need some mystical zap telling us that when a clergyman says it, it’s Christ saying it. We need to study the Bible, and especially what the Bible says about guilt and Christ bearing sins.

If “made sin” is “more than legal”, that implies that it IS legal. If “made sin” is first of all legal, what does that mean? I am still waiting for these preachers to tell us how imputation is legal. What is not real or actual about Christ transferring guilt (not only punishment) from one person to another?

In the case of the Lord Jesus, the legal transfer of the sins of the elect to Christ was so real that the result was that Christ died for those sins. Romans 6:9–“We know that Christ being raised from the dead will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him.”

Why did death once have dominion over Christ? It was the legal imputation of the sins of the elect that made it so. If this group of preachers denies the reality of legal transfer of guilt, let them say so. Let them say: Christ was not made sin legally. But they don’t say that. They say: Christ was not only made sin legally. That implies that Christ was made sin legally, and also something else.

But to teach that, they would need to explain first what is real and actual about Christ being made sin legally. If they don’t want to do that, they should stop being so sneaky and say: we don’t know how Christ was made sin, but we do know it wasn’t legally. We don’t explain, but we do explain that it was not legal.

Third, these preacher guys have a plus, a more. Christ’s activity, Christ’s legal righteousness is not enough for them. Their larger hope is a new nature they see in themselves, a new nature that does not keep them from sinning but at least wants not to sin, and wants not to sin for the right reasons.

These guys have a more. Legal bearing away of sins by Christ is not enough: that’s not sufficient they say. Christ was also made sin some OTHER way. And they themselves think that they themselves are made righteous in some OTHER way.

One of them “doctrinises”, “It was not enough that our sins were imputed to him. His suffering unto death on the cross was much, much more than a legal matter. The agony of His mind and His soul cannot be described and it cannot be explained to our finite minds.”

Yes, of course there is a difference between the legal imputation of sin (made sin) and the death of Christ which was a result of that. But what information do we find in the Bible to tell us about this supposed difference between a legal matter and something “real”?

In John 6:63, the Lord Jesus says, “The words that I HAVE SPOKEN UNTO YOU are spirit and life.” But the Lord Jesus had no words to tell us about this “more than legal”. These preachers have no great regard for information from the past; their hope is that their own words will be transubstantiated into life itself, and without argument or explanation.

These preachers are too impatient to attempt to transmit information. Where II Timothy 2:24 commands us to “correct opponents with meekness, because God may PERHAPS grant them repentance leading to a KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRUTH”, these preachers don’t care about true information about the person and activity of Christ. If God is sovereign, they seem to think, God doesn’t need to give lost people any information.

And since the idea that Christ was made sin is not information, and since the explanation of these preachers that this was “more than legal” is not information, these preachers seem to think that if you disagree with them, you show yourself to be “Arminians on the inside”.

Mark is simply a negative person, a doctrinizer? Think of me as a questioner of distinctions ( like “more than”) than cannot be supported by what the Bible says. When God’s people are being comforted by half-truths and even contradictions of what the Bible says, I will not be quiet.

Is it not true that this legal matter, the imputation of the sins of the elect to Christ, is real, so real that Christ died for these sins? So where is there any BIBLE distinction between the legal and the real? And what can be more real than real? if legal imputation is a reality and not a fiction, and if the death of Jesus Christ is a real result of that, where is the “more”?

I suggest that we stop flying around the country with each other’s soundbites unless we are prepared to define them, defend them, and explain them by reference to Scripture.

Let’s not get all mystical and talk about some difference which is “more” real. Sin demands death, and the guilt of the elect imputed to Christ, demanded AS A LEGAL MATTER that Jesus “really” die. And He did. That’s what the Bible says, and we should not fuzzy it up with distinctions we cannot justify from Scripture.

Immediate Imputation

January 12, 2010

The late E.W. Johnson preached a series of messages at Calvary Baptist Church in Pine Bluff, AR in the late 50’s, which were published by Baptist Reformation Review in 1972 http://www.searchingtogether.org/articles/johnson/imputation.htm

Johnson’s article was an attack on “federalism”. It opposed the primacy of the legal transfer and makes imputation depend on corruption or regeneration. It took sides with Andrew Fuller against Abraham Booth. It sided with Augustine and Calvin against  John Murray .

Of course we baptists are not bound to what any of those guys said, not even John Gill. But I bring up the name John Murray, since he did not believe in a covenant of works, and yet he still taught the immediate imputation of guilt from Adam to all humans (Jesus Himself excepted.)

So teaching an immediate imputation of the death of Christ (ie, logically before regeneration, and not because of regeneration) is not a result of having a covenant of works. Nor is it a result of denying that all God’s elect understand and believe the gospel.

But EW Johnson lumped all who taught immediate imputation into his “Primitive Baptist category”. And Johnson always pontificated more against what he called hypers than against the Arminians. There is very little theology on the Searching Together site, but this terrible imputation essay is one still there.

Interesting that those who are so indifferent to the true and false  are nevertheless so certain about a less important place for imputation. And thus they proclaim, and do not explain.
Wheaton’s Henri Blocher’s view of original sin is that Adam’s sin opened the door so that the rest of us other sinners COULD BE imputed with our own sins, and thus condemened. Thus a mediate imputation.

Andrew Fuller taught that this “door” has been opened for all sinners, including the non-elect. But even some who affirm substitutionary atonement seem think that a door has been opened for the elect that allows God then to do some other (more real) stuff for the elect.They seem to believe that any “imputation” by God is based on what God knows He will do (or has done) in the elect. They call imputation “judicial role-play”.

I do not.

Hebrews 10:10 We have been set apart through the offering of the body of Christ once for all.
Hebrews 10:14 By a single offering He has perfected for all TIME those who are being sanctified.

The justified elect are sanctified by the imputation of Christ’s bloody death. This is parallel to the direct imputation of Adam’s sin. Romans 5:18 “as one trespass led to condemnation” does not mean “opened the door for the possibility of condemnation” . John 3:18″ the one who does not believe is condemned already.”