Onto the discussion.
Onto the discussion.
I stated to you in the beginning of my posts as well as later on, that I believe that the one (and only) place we are in disagreement is in ”what change is”. I have no argument with the substitution of sin argument (obviously), but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t a real and true change in Christ.
You claim that there was no change in Christ becoming a curse, sin, and dying, where as I have tried to show you that there was an absolute change, in that that He took on the sins of the world (something He had never done or experienced before). He was forsaken by the Father (something He had never experienced before and never will again) That He was separated from the Father (He died, something He had never experienced before and never will again).
Did Christ turn into rape? No, of course not! Did He suddenly become a rapist? No, of course not! But did He, for the first time ever, take those sins upon Himself? In other words, did He accept guilt for them on our behalf? YES! And that was a change. Just as it was a change when He bore the brunt of His actions, accepting the cost of our sin, and paying the price in full.
As to your supposed only question:
That’s what we’ve been leading up to. And yes, there was a change in His righteousness. While He was righteous, before taking on our sin, He was, and had always been, in perfect union with the Father. Then, when Jesus said:
Let me put it like this: At the beginning of this discussion I took great pains to show that sin is not a thing, but an action. This is very important because without really taking that concept (as well as three others) into consideration, it is difficult to see the practicality of the argument.
The other three concepts that are vital to this discussion are these: (1) That death is separation from God. (2) That the price of guilt is death (separation from God). And (3) That being unrighteous means having guilt.
Since sin is an action, and not a thing, once we have done it, it is gone. For instance, you don’t have a bunch of little black marbles rolling around in your heart labeled with the names of all your sins. No. The action of the sin is in the past and no longer exists. The fact that you did it exists, and the consequences, but not the sin itself, because it is nothing more than an action.
So when you make the statement that “sin can not be separated from the sinner” you have to be careful. Why? Because this is a cliché, and like most clichés it is trying to make an analogy. And analogies only go so far to show what something means. Taken too literally an analogy becomes a wrong statement.
What is meant in the phrase that sin cannot be separated from the sinner is that the actions we perform are a direct correlation to who we are. The sin itself does not stay with us, but rather the consequences. The consequence of sin is guilt. And guilt brings forth death (separation from God). Therefore the unbeliever bears the guilt of his sins (being unrighteous). And the punishment of that guilt is death.
When we became believers God says He put our sin as far away from us as the east is from the west. How does He do this? By having paid for our guilt, thereby negating the need for our death (making us righteous). He accomplished this by truly paying the price for our debt (guilt), by Christ dying on the cross, and being separated from the Trinity. He bore our guilt and in so doing became unrighteous (guilty).
This is where you have a problem with this idea, but think it through with the mind set of sin being an action instead of a thing. Christ didn’t die for our sin, but for our guilt. In other words, He didn’t die to take on our evil actions, but rather for the price of those evil actions. The price of our guilt is death (separation from God). Christ took our guilt on Himself, paid the price and redeemed us. But the cost of that redemption was change, He became a curse. He died, (was separated), paying our price. But Christ, being more than just a man (man and God), could not be defeated by death (separation from the Father) and was made righteous by the Spirit.
So in this sense the term unrighteous means having guilt. Christ did have our guilt because He took it from us. He then paid the price and was made righteous (no longer separated which is the price of unrighteousness) and was the first to truly rise from the dead, because He is the first to have died and then been reunited with the Father.
I agree with you that this is a difficult subject, but great for study.
Onto the discussion.
I stated to you in the beginning of my posts as well as later on, that I believe that the one (and only) place we are in disagreement is in ”what change is”. I have no argument with the substitution of sin argument (obviously), but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t a real and true change in Christ.
You claim that there was no change in Christ becoming a curse, sin, and dying, where as I have tried to show you that there was an absolute change, in that that He took on the sins of the world (something He had never done or experienced before). He was forsaken by the Father (something He had never experienced before and never will again) That He was separated from the Father (He died, something He had never experienced before and never will again).
Did Christ turn into rape? No, of course not! Did He suddenly become a rapist? No, of course not! But did He, for the first time ever, take those sins upon Himself? In other words, did He accept guilt for them on our behalf? YES! And that was a change. Just as it was a change when He bore the brunt of His actions, accepting the cost of our sin, and paying the price in full.
As to your supposed only question:
As I said earlier, I am not objecting to any other change in Christ except that He changed in His righteousness, which is on account of two main phrases, that He became sin for us, and that God declared Him righteous.
That’s what we’ve been leading up to. And yes, there was a change in His righteousness. While He was righteous, before taking on our sin, He was, and had always been, in perfect union with the Father. Then, when Jesus said:
At this point, I believe He became a curse (for our sake,) taking the sins of the world upon Himself and becoming unrighteous. Does this mean that He became “a sin”? No. Does it mean that He became “a rapist?” No. It means that when God saw Him as unrighteous, loaded with the curse due the world, He allowed His full wrath to come down on Jesus, killing Him (separation).Mark 15:34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” which is translated, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?”
Let me put it like this: At the beginning of this discussion I took great pains to show that sin is not a thing, but an action. This is very important because without really taking that concept (as well as three others) into consideration, it is difficult to see the practicality of the argument.
The other three concepts that are vital to this discussion are these: (1) That death is separation from God. (2) That the price of guilt is death (separation from God). And (3) That being unrighteous means having guilt.
Since sin is an action, and not a thing, once we have done it, it is gone. For instance, you don’t have a bunch of little black marbles rolling around in your heart labeled with the names of all your sins. No. The action of the sin is in the past and no longer exists. The fact that you did it exists, and the consequences, but not the sin itself, because it is nothing more than an action.
So when you make the statement that “sin can not be separated from the sinner” you have to be careful. Why? Because this is a cliché, and like most clichés it is trying to make an analogy. And analogies only go so far to show what something means. Taken too literally an analogy becomes a wrong statement.
What is meant in the phrase that sin cannot be separated from the sinner is that the actions we perform are a direct correlation to who we are. The sin itself does not stay with us, but rather the consequences. The consequence of sin is guilt. And guilt brings forth death (separation from God). Therefore the unbeliever bears the guilt of his sins (being unrighteous). And the punishment of that guilt is death.
When we became believers God says He put our sin as far away from us as the east is from the west. How does He do this? By having paid for our guilt, thereby negating the need for our death (making us righteous). He accomplished this by truly paying the price for our debt (guilt), by Christ dying on the cross, and being separated from the Trinity. He bore our guilt and in so doing became unrighteous (guilty).
This is where you have a problem with this idea, but think it through with the mind set of sin being an action instead of a thing. Christ didn’t die for our sin, but for our guilt. In other words, He didn’t die to take on our evil actions, but rather for the price of those evil actions. The price of our guilt is death (separation from God). Christ took our guilt on Himself, paid the price and redeemed us. But the cost of that redemption was change, He became a curse. He died, (was separated), paying our price. But Christ, being more than just a man (man and God), could not be defeated by death (separation from the Father) and was made righteous by the Spirit.
So in this sense the term unrighteous means having guilt. Christ did have our guilt because He took it from us. He then paid the price and was made righteous (no longer separated which is the price of unrighteousness) and was the first to truly rise from the dead, because He is the first to have died and then been reunited with the Father.
I agree with you that this is a difficult subject, but great for study.