Salvation and sanctification is now complete in Christ: Consecration then follows

[Ladodgers6]

I think @Ghada is conflating mere law, or rather, the breaking of it, with sin. Ghada discounts 'original sin' in the unbeliever, and accounts mere failure to comply with the law, as what needs to be changed. No notion of the death in which the unregenerate walk about the planet.

Excellent observation. To be fair we all walked this way, before hearing the Good News of the Free Gospel. Because everyone or almost everyone, was trying to take pride in their so-called good deeds. This is in our fallen DNA, hardwired Pelagians who think we are better if not right out intrinsically righteous through deeds not creeds. That people are without sin, and can live a better life than anyone who has ever lived. This ego and pride blinds to what God has done for the ungodly. Maybe, they think as the Pharisee who thought he was better than other ugly sinners. Looking down on them as filth and swine, who do not deserve anything but punishment.

And you are exactly correct those who have a weak or no view of the Law for sinners, will also have a weak or no view of how amazing God's grace really is! Given Freely, not earned! The Law says do, the Gospel says done!​

 

[Ghada]

Arial said:
And if He was without sin,
This is representative of your methods of discussion and even, I think, your hermeneutic.

Hermeneuters? Me! No way! I take showers daily and only sleep with my wife, and I know she has no hermeneuters.

Where @Arial uses the word, "if", here, as is a common use, it means, "since". "And [since] he was was without sin..."

So, when is the last time you spoke about Jesus Christ, if He was without sin? When is the last time you ever said, If Jesus Christ was without sin? And meant since He was without sin, and had to correct yourself to the hearers, that reacted the same as me, Huh?!

Grammatically, it can only be a question about something. Putting doubt into something most surely taught and believed.

By standard comprehension, it could never be seen as a statement of fact. The only way for it to mean since, is by saying, If, being without sin, He... It leads to a question based on a certainty.

And if He was without sin, and that was all there was to the story, He would not have died or been under the curse of the law.

And the context clearly shows the devilish teaching, that Jesus Christ would not have died on the cross, except by being with sin and cursed under the law.

It's the lie of a physical sin nature, that is used to answer the question about whether Jesus Christ was without or with sin: He was with sin, because that's the only way His body would have ever died.

If he was without sin, then He would not have died on the cross, nor been cursed by the law.

Asking a question based on certain fact would read: If He, being without sin, how could He have died and been under the curse of the law?

A question is inserted about something that normally has no doubt, but a false statement.

And yet, I still gave the benefit of the doubt, to allow a rephrasing of the question, which would have changed the rest of the teaching.

IF you yourself KNOW very well how to use propositional logic in your speaking, but here you pretend not to,

Your efffort to change a proposition of doubt in whether Jesus was with or without sin, into a propostitional logic based upon a question, not a statement, is so plainly flawed, that one can wonder what the motive is.

In any case, there are people who do teach, that the only reason Jesus' body died, is because He was made a sinner cursed under the law on the cross, so that His own body became sinful like the rest of men and women.

And if you've never heard that one, then your knowledge of common heresy since the days of the apostles, is as ignorant as your use of propositional logic.

Read the tone of your posts —contentious, antagonistic, accusatory, derogatory.

True. About the teaching, and never about the person, which is why I rarely use 'you' when debating doctrine. And I still use it as little as possible, even then people resort to getting personal, because their arguments are being undermined by what I argue from the Bible.

Which once again, with this petty personal attack based only upon a surface-thin judgment, one could wonder about the motive here. To defend another person, or to lashout against the undermining of their own doctrine.

Afterall, there's no doubt whose teaching is being supported here. Certainly not mine. And going personal is a sure sign of a failed argument. It's as old as Cain, who also tried to persuade righteous Abel about the justice of his own sacrifice, until he decided it wasn't working, and made it more personal.

And may God have mercy on me too, for not living up to my own standard.

If you mean intructing in grammatical composition and comprehension, while butchering it to make false accusations, then perhaps that is your standard.

 

[Mr GLee]

Hermeneuters? Me! No way! I take showers daily and only sleep with my wife, and I know she has no hermeneuters.

It would seem hermeneutics has some value giving it as the introduction to the book. Not only inspired but signified it
.
Revelation 1King James Version1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

The poetic language of parables' called figures of the unseen eternal

Signified using the temporal historical things seen as a sign or shadow pointing to the unseen eternal .Called hidden manna in 2:17

When my wife misunderstands my parables if not careful to understand her I will be dealing with hers. The old song" Getting to know you hoping soon you will know me" (God's design) A rope of three strands not easily broken

In one way like family. fingerprints. Saying High to a neighbor can mean two different things. Many words have two meaning or none today . . picking up speed heading toward the Tower of Babel

The Rolling Stones had it right. ."Oh Lord please do not don't let me be misunderstood"

The same kind song Jesus the Son of man song with Lazarus. . . "He wept" at their unbelief. The shortest verse in the Bible. You could say the loneliest weeping . . . . , strengthened that cried out Father. . Most likely the most misunderstood person the ever walked on water. Without parables He spoke not

 

[Ghada]

It is for sinner looking to redeem themselves by their own works.​

Keedping the commandments of the Lord is not keeping our own works. They're not our commandments.

Rev 14:12Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

It is only for the righteous that have Jesus and His faith, not for sinners that don't know Him.

Which is only for them that repent of their own works, to do God's will alone, and not our own.

The Law is a ministry of death for sinners seeking salvation.​

By the law alone, not with faith.

Rom 9:31But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law.

The law of sin and death is for sinners seeking salvation by their own faith alone, without obeying the law.

Gal 2:17But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

The Law if preached correctly will drive sinners to the only place for Redemption:​

The redemption of repentance from our own dead works. Any redemption in dead works, is only by justifying them.

The arguments for it, is called the doctrine of justification by one's own faith alone.

namely Jesus Christ​

For Jesus' sake.

and his finished works!​

It's right to agree with the record of Jesus' works. It's better than not agreeing the right record, but it doesn't make anyone righteous.

The devils also agree, but repent not to do His righteous works themselves.

his finished works!​

Jesus has finished His own works and sits on the right hand of God.

He hasn't begun any work in sinners that repent not, must less finish any work of righteousness in them.

The only work He will finish with them that kill Him to themselves daily, and repent not, is judgment of their works from His throne.

We either finish our own works by His faith and righteousness, or He will finish our own works by judgment and condemnation.

There is no intrinsic goodness or righteousness in sinners.​

Exactly. Which includes their own faith alone. There is nothing good nor righteous about the faith of unrepented sinnners.

They themselves acknowledge their own faith alone, is only to lust and sin some more.

They conclude openly their own faith alone is useless and no good toward doing God's holy and righteous, but only more sinning.

We need someone from the outside to save us. Because the inside is the problem.

True. The inside is only helped by the Spirit, if the outside is repented of.

No one is helped inwardly nor outwardly, by only agreeing with the outside works of another.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is outward repentance unto inward salvation. The gospel of unrepented sinners is inward salvation with outward unrepentance.

1 Thess{5:22} Abstain from all appearance of evil. {5:23} And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and [I pray God] your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. {5:24} Faithful [is] he that calleth you, who also will do it.

Without outward repentance of doing evil, God does not wholly save and sactify any soul from lust and sin.

Without outward blamelessness, there is no inward purity.

As the title states, no one is wholly saved without being wholly sanctified, not by Jesus Christ. His salvation and sanctification is from sinning, not with sins and trespasses without, nor with lust within.

The whole great delusion of righteousness by faith alone, is claiming inward righteousness, while doing outward unrighteousness.

"I know that I still do bad things, and will keep doing bad things, but my heart is still good..."

Modern justification by one's own faith alone, is just the modern self-justification of empty feel good spirituality. But with a whole lot more words to believe and justify it.

Rom 16:18For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

2Ti 2:16But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

 

[Arial]

Is this why you use an old Moabite idol for your handle? You do know that the lion-like men of Moab were not heroes of the faith of Abraham, but enemies of Israel and the true God. Right?

Do you know who the Lion of the Tribe of Judah is?

This specifically confirms He did no sin on the cross. Do you now want Jesus Himself to have sinned, so that you can walk in His sinful steps, even as you do with other sinners?

I have consistently said that Christ was without sin. I have never said that He sinned on the cross. So why are you using those false statements to accuse me of wanting Him to have sinned so I can sin too. You assume a lot of things you cannot possibly know and do you know what that assuming does to you.

And the doctrinal justification for it (aside from a truly cursed gospel message of Jesus Christ being a cursed blasphemer), is that old serpent's lie against Christ, that He now makes men's flesh and blood is with lust and sin in it.

As well agreeing with antichrist doctrine, that Jesus Christ did not come in the natural flesh of men and women, but in another kind of immortal super-flesh, like the old pagan demigods born of the gods.

And finally saying that He only died on the cross, by sinning and blaspheming and corrupting His own flesh and blood.

I have yet to see this kind of ditch dug so deep, just to justify one's own continued unrepented sins and transgressions.

1, I never said or even implied any of those things.
2. How do you know that I am unrepentant of sin, or that I ever justify sin if I commit it. Do you justify your sin or do you tell yourself that whatever you do (I.e. all the false accusations against me you make and the hateful spewing of it) is not a sin because it is you doing it? I seem to remember Jesus saying a person should take the log out of their own eye before they go try and remove the speck out of the eye of someone else. Is that one of His commandments you break with no repentance?

Is that why you appear to preach the true Christ was also a sinner like them? And if so even worse, because they never named the God of Israel as their own, while blaspheming Him and His people.

I have never preached that, or appeared to preach that, so you can lay that question to rest. You are trying to make it appear as though I preach that, by intentionally distorting everything I say. Would that be sinful in your book?

 

[Arial]

Your efffort to change a proposition of doubt in whether Jesus was with or without sin, into a propostitional logic based upon a question, not a statement, is so plainly flawed, that one can wonder what the motive is.

There was no proposition of doubt until you took the "if" out of the context of the question. You intentionally and with malicious intent, created something that did not exist, then attributed your words to my beliefs. The whole sentence was a question to a statement of fact. And you have not answered the question.

Not only that, I reworded the question so you wouldn't have any reason not to answer it and you still haven't done so.

 

[makesends]

Hermeneuters? Me! No way! I take showers daily and only sleep with my wife, and I know she has no hermeneuters.






So, when is the last time you spoke about Jesus Christ, if He was without sin? When is the last time you ever said, If Jesus Christ was without sin? And meant since He was without sin, and had to correct yourself to the hearers, that reacted the same as me, Huh?!

Grammatically, it can only be a question about something. Putting doubt into something most surely taught and believed.

By standard comprehension, it could never be seen as a statement of fact. The only way for it to mean since, is by saying, If, being without sin, He... It leads to a question based on a certainty.



And the context clearly shows the devilish teaching, that Jesus Christ would not have died on the cross, except by being with sin and cursed under the law.

It's the lie of a physical sin nature, that is used to answer the question about whether Jesus Christ was without or with sin: He was with sin, because that's the only way His body would have ever died.

If he was without sin, then He would not have died on the cross, nor been cursed by the law.

Asking a question based on certain fact would read: If He, being without sin, how could He have died and been under the curse of the law?

A question is inserted about something that normally has no doubt, but a false statement.

And yet, I still gave the benefit of the doubt, to allow a rephrasing of the question, which would have changed the rest of the teaching.


Your efffort to change a proposition of doubt in whether Jesus was with or without sin, into a propostitional logic based upon a question, not a statement, is so plainly flawed, that one can wonder what the motive is.

In any case, there are people who do teach, that the only reason Jesus' body died, is because He was made a sinner cursed under the law on the cross, so that His own body became sinful like the rest of men and women.

And if you've never heard that one, then your knowledge of common heresy since the days of the apostles, is as ignorant as your use of propositional logic.





True. About the teaching, and never about the person, which is why I rarely use 'you' when debating doctrine. And I still use it as little as possible, even then people resort to getting personal, because their arguments are being undermined by what I argue from the Bible.

Which once again, with this petty personal attack based only upon a surface-thin judgment, one could wonder about the motive here. To defend another person, or to lashout against the undermining of their own doctrine.

Afterall, there's no doubt whose teaching is being supported here. Certainly not mine. And going personal is a sure sign of a failed argument. It's as old as Cain, who also tried to persuade righteous Abel about the justice of his own sacrifice, until he decided it wasn't working, and made it more personal.


If you mean intructing in grammatical composition and comprehension, while butchering it to make false accusations, then perhaps that is your standard.

Have you not been listening to what @Arial has written all this time, and seen that your way of taking what she said here was mistaken? At the least you could have considered the possibility of a typo. But no, you oppose her at every turn.

When I make a logical argument based on the hypothesis, "Jesus was without sin", it begins like this: "If Jesus was without sin...." and is followed by a stated or implied, "then...." Thus:
Arial said:
And if He was without sin, and that was all there was to the story, He would not have died or been under the curse of the law. The if statement: "If he was without sin, and that was all there was to the story," is all one statement, (wherein IF also is followed by "and that was all there was to the story"), which is followed by the "then" statement, here implied, that "He would not have died or been under the curse of the law." Her point is rather obviously that him being without sin is not all there is to the story!

It seems to me rather plain that Arial is making reference to the fact that he became sin for us, and I don't even remember reading the post from which you extracted the one statement. I'm kindly disposed toward her. You are not, and that antagonism has corrupted your conversation and your thinking.

Let me make this easy for you. @Arial does not believe that Jesus sinned, nor that he was sinful. If I am wrong, I would like to hear Arial say so, and if she was arguing that Christ ever sinned, rather than that he became sin for us, then I will slink away in shame and disgust at my forwardness.

 

[Arial]

Have you not been listening to what @Arial has written all this time, and seen that your way of taking what she said here was mistaken? At the least you could have considered the possibility of a typo. But no, you oppose her at every turn.

When I make a logical argument based on the hypothesis, "Jesus was without sin", it begins like this: "If Jesus was without sin...." and is followed by a stated or implied, "then...." Thus:
Arial said:
And if He was without sin, and that was all there was to the story, He would not have died or been under the curse of the law. The if statement: "If he was without sin, and that was all there was to the story," is all one statement, (wherein IF also is followed by "and that was all there was to the story"), which is followed by the "then" statement, here implied, that "He would not have died or been under the curse of the law." Her point is rather obviously that him being without sin is not all there is to the story!

It seems to me rather plain that Arial is making reference to the fact that he became sin for us, and I don't even remember reading the post from which you extracted the one statement. I'm kindly disposed toward her. You are not, and that antagonism has corrupted your conversation and your thinking.

Let me make this easy for you. @Arial does not believe that Jesus sinned, nor that he was sinful. If I am wrong, I would like to hear Arial say so, and if she was arguing that Christ ever sinned, rather than that he became sin for us, then I will slink away in shame and disgust at my forwardness.

I believe that Jesus never sinned.
I believe that Jesus never sinned.
I believe that Jesus never sinned.

@Ghada knows that very well. He is simply hostile towards me, and also towards the sola doctrines of Christianity. It doesn't matter what anyone says or how many times or ways they say it, he argues the same straw man. We are all unrepentant sinners and that is why we believe in faith alone.

 

[Ghada]

And if He was without sin, and that was all there was to the story, He would not have died or been under the curse of the law.

Are you asking if Jesus was without sin? Are you suggesting He could have been a sinner with sin?

 

[Ladodgers6]

Keedping the commandments of the Lord is not keeping our own works. They're not our commandments.

Rev 14:12Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

It is only for the righteous that have Jesus and His faith, not for sinners that don't know Him.

Which is only for them that repent of their own works, to do God's will alone, and not our own.

So, you don't see anything wrong in your comments here? Why would a righteous man need Jesus in the first place? Christ came to redeem sinners not the righteous. Didn't Jesus say he came to heal the sick, not the healthy, for what do healthy people have a need for a Doctor?

“The righteous shall live by faith.”But the law is not of faith.

By the law alone, not with faith.

Rom 9:31But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law.

The law of sin and death is for sinners seeking salvation by their own faith alone, without obeying the law.

Gal 2:17But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.

I see you are only being selective in picking to omit certain passages, why quote the whole thing?

Justified by Faith​

15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

This is very clear Ghada, and this contradicts what you say about on a person is justified. The question you need to ask is why a person cannot be justified through the works of the Law. I don't think you know why. This is the piece in understanding what Paul is saying here. So, please tell me why can't a person be justified through the works of the Law?
17 But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18 For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. 19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.

Its sinners who are found to be justified in Christ, but this doesn't make Christ a servant of sin, understand what Paul is saying here? The life Paul now lives, he lives in Faith in the Son of God. Paul does not nullify the grace of God, for is righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose! So, the next question you must ask yourself is how is a sinner justified in Christ?​

The redemption of repentance from our own dead works. Any redemption in dead works, is only by justifying them.

The arguments for it, is called the doctrine of justification by one's own faith alone.

For Jesus' sake.

Redemption of Repentance? Look Ghada, no matter how you try to dress it up or twist it, it is still legalism; works of the Law that one tries to merit justification. You are trying to find assurance of your justification or redemption in your works, not in Christ's. Repentance is the fruit of our being justified in Christ through Faith Alone. It is not the cause of it. Faith Ghada is self-renouncing; basically not trusting in anything we do or potentially do; not trusting in ourselves at all; and looking outside of ourselves to another for redemption because of what they say is true and believing in who he is and that he has done for the ungodly; sinners! This is the Gospel Promise that Christ came in the flesh born under the Law to fulfill the law with the obedience that God's demands and become a curse for sinners, suffered, bleed, and was crucified and raised for our justification.

1 Cor. 1:30And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”​

 

[Arial]

Are you asking if Jesus was without sin? Are you suggesting He could have been a sinner with sin?

No, and we have already been over that, so why go back to it?

Q.What does God pronounce as the penalty for sin?
A. Death

Q. What is the blessing for perfect obedience to God?
A. Eternal life and dwelling with Him.

Q.Was Jesus perfectly righteous?
A. Yes.

Q. Does that mean He committed no sin ever?
A. Yes

Q. Did Jesus die on the cross?
A. Yes.

Q. Why? SINCE He had done nothing that brings death, why did He die anyway?

 

[Ghada]

No believer has or would say such a thing, so why bring it up?

You haven't heard all things.

Some say He was imputed our sins on the cross by God, and so became a sinner to God in our stead.

Some also say He only died on the cross, because His 'immortal' flesh only became corrupt and mortal by having our imputed sin.

None of these are true.

Jesus was imputed sin by false accusers, accusing Him of blasphemy.

Jesus Christ came same natural flesh of all men.

 

[Arial]

You haven't heard all things.

Some say He was imputed our sins on the cross by God, and so became a sinner to God in our stead.

A believer as defined by one who has put their trust and faith in the person and work of Jesus, also believes that Jesus was without sin. So, here is a question for you. Who was Jesus' person, and what was His work? I will expect an answer to that, rather than just a repeat of the straw man mantra.

And why are you going back to responding to posts that have already been dealt with, and ignoring new posts? I.e. post #151 which comes right before your post I am responding to #152. Could you please deal with post #151? That is forward movement which is the way these interactions should go.

Some say He was imputed our sins on the cross by God, and so became a sinner to God in our stead.

It is the Bible that says our sins were imputed to Him on the cross. 1 Peter 2:22-24 He committed no sin, neither was deceith found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return, when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

You do not understand imputation, either the imputation of Adam's sin to us, that made all humanity sinners. Or the imputation of our sins to Jesus on the cross. And you don't listen when you are given the understanding. You view those who do understand it as believing according to your understanding.

Our sins being imputed to Him, does not make Him a sinner. It makes Him the victor over our sins by bearing their penalty. It make Him the victor over the power of sin to condemn the believer unto eternal death apart from the fellowship of God. His victory over death is seen in His resurrection. We too, as believers, will one day be bodily resurrected, and sin and death will meet utter destruction, and God will dwell with us. (Rev 20 and 21) Jesus came to deal with the problem of sin and its effects on all of creation. Once and for all time. He does this by His righteousness being imputed to the believer. He has paid their debt to God. The destroyer cannot touch them or change what Christ has done for them.

Some also say He only died on the cross, because His 'immortal' flesh only became corrupt and mortal by having our imputed sin.

Think about that for a minute. If His flesh was immortal it could not become corrupt and mortal. He came in the flesh---as mortal---without ever losing His divinity, in order to stand in our place on the cross, and obtain victory over sin and death. His flesh was resurrected immortal and glorified. Just as those who are in Him through faith, one day will be. He is the firstfruits of the resurrection of the dead.

Jesus was imputed sin by false accusers, accusing Him of blasphemy.

Accusing Him falsely of blasphemy is what got Him killed. But that is not what imputed sin means.

 

[Ghada]

Who was Jesus' person

God in the flesh, and the brightness of His glory in holy and truly righteous living: Inward purity and outward blamelessness from a child to the grave.

, and what was His work?

Living holily and righteously without sin nor fault, and obeying the Father to submit to wicked hands meekly unto death on a cross.

He was the Son of God in the flesh, living as God on earth. He became the Lamb of God by submitting to His persecutors and crucifiers meekly, without defense, protest, nor reviling unto death on a cross.

And why are you going back to responding to posts that have already been dealt with,

Because in the next post in line, you asked why I would ask such a thing. If you don't want questions answered in order, then don't ask.

and ignoring new posts?

Haven't seen other posts. Been busy and responded to this one as the most recent.

Could you please deal with post #151?

When I get to it.

And you don't listen when you are given the understanding. You view those who do understand it as believing according to your understanding.

I listen and reject what I understand is not Scripture. Our understanding is our's alone, unless someone agrees with us. And my understanding is not dependent upon others agreeing with me.

It is the Bible that says our sins were imputed to Him on the cross.

No, it doesn't. Some say that, but not the Bible.

1 Peter 2:22-24 He committed no sin, neither was deceith found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return, when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.

There is nothing here about God imputing sin to His own dear Son.

It's only about Jesus bearing the sins of wicked hands upon His body, meekly and without sinning Himself.

And only by obeying the Father did He do so, that He might rise again from the dead, and show mercy upon His enemies that repent of their sins and trespasses against Him.

God does not impute sin to the righteous, and especially not the sin of others. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever even suggest that He acquits the guilty and charges it to the innocent. That is contrary to the law of shedding innocent blood and defiling the whole land.

The only ones imputing sin to the Son, and declaring Him guilty under the law, were His false accusers and executioners contrary to the law. It continues today with those believing their false accusation, that He was worthy of death for blasphemy, whether Jew, Muslim, or the ignorant.

1Co 12:3Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed:

You do not understand imputation,

Imputation of God in the Bible is to count, reckon, and judge one to be righteous, or to be a sinner. The imputation is by right judgment of works, whether doing righteousness or doing unrighteousness.

Psa 32:2Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.

Rom 4:8Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Not imputing sin to anyone, is not judging them unrighteous, but judging them righteous by their deeds.

2Co 5:19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

If, not since, but if God imputs our sins to His Son, without judging and making Him a sinner, then God imputes His righteousness to us, without judging and making us the righteous.

And so, we see by teaching what is not written, we must change what is written to conform to it.

It cannot be both: Sin cannot be imputed without judging a person sinful, and impute righteousness with judging the person righteous.

Our sins being imputed to Him, does not make Him a sinner.

It does if God imputes it.

He does this by His righteousness being imputed to the believer.

True. And, if He was imputed sin by God, without being made a sinner, then God imputing us with righteousness, is without being made righteous.

Accusing Him falsely of blasphemy is what got Him killed. But that is not what imputed sin means.

It is in the Bible.

If God imputing sin to a person, is not judging him guilty of sin, then it's only a label without substance.

People can impute their own sins to others, which is meaningless, because it does not make them sinners. God's imputation of good or evil is not a meaningless label, like that of men.

 

[Arial]

God in the flesh, and the brightness of His glory in holy and truly righteous living: Inward purity and outward blamelessness from a child to the grave.

Yes.

Living holily and righteously without sin nor fault, and obeying the Father to submit to wicked hands meekly unto death on a cross.

But why? What was it that He was accomplishing in doing this?

I listen and reject what I understand is not Scripture. Our understanding is our's alone, unless someone agrees with us. And my understanding is not dependent upon others agreeing with me.

Since you don't seem to understand what I was saying, let me try and clarify. Since you believe that those who contend that we are saved through faith alone, apart from works, believe that they can go on sinning with no repentance; since that is your interpretation of the doctrine, you pay no attention to what they say to the contrary. You continue to insist that your view of what they believe IS what they believe.

No, it doesn't. Some say that, but not the Bible.

he Bible does say that. You don't evidently understand what it is saying. Maybe you have a wrong understanding of what impute means biblically?

There is nothing here about God imputing sin to His own dear Son.

It's only about Jesus bearing the sins of wicked hands upon His body, meekly and without sinning Himself.

Referencing 1 Peter 2:22-24 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By HIs wounds you have been healed.

It says nothing about the sins of wicked hands on His body. How is that bearing our sins? What does that do for the problem of sin and death?

Also, it is a direct reference to Is 53 where the person and work of Christ was prophesied. Verses 4-6 Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God,and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned---every one---to his own way. and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

I am getting sense that you do not believe in the substitutionary, atoning work of Jesus. If that is the case, you have the death of Christ that accomplishes nothing and serves no purpose. And that would mean we are all still dead in our trespasses and sins, with zero hope in the world, and forever alienated from God. That would mean He never defeated the two enemies that alienated us from God, and keep us alienated from Him; sin and death.

 

[Arial]

And only by obeying the Father did He do so, that He might rise again from the dead, and show mercy upon His enemies that repent of their sins and trespasses against Him.

What happens if forget a sin and fail to repent of it? Or what if we measure sin by ourselves instead of a holy God? Or what if we justify our sin---as in "they deserved it." of "I did it for a good reason."?

God does not impute sin to the righteous, and especially not the sin of others. Nowhere in Scripture does God ever even suggest that He acquits the guilty and charges it to the innocent. That is contrary to the law of shedding innocent blood and defiling the whole land.

Easton's Bible Dictionary - Imputation​

Imputation
is used to designate any action or word or thing as reckoned to a person. Thus in doctrinal language (1) the sin of Adam is imputed to all his descendants, i.e., it is reckoned as theirs, and they are dealt with therefore as guilty; (2) the righteousness of Christ is imputed to them that believe in him, or so attributed to them as to be considered their own; and (3) our sins are imputed to Christ, i.e., he assumed our "law-place," undertook to answer the demands of justice for our sins. In all these cases the nature of imputation is the same ( Romans 5:12-19 ; Compare Philemon 1:18 Philemon 1:19 ).

The only ones imputing sin to the Son, and declaring Him guilty under the law, were His false accusers and executioners contrary to the law.

They were declaring Him guilty of breaking the Law, which was a false accusation, and for claiming that He was God. That is not what imputing means when used biblically of our sins being imputed to Him. That has nothing to do with us declaring Him guilty, or God declaring Him guilty. Do you believe Jesus is the Redeemer? A redeemer by definition within the OT (law of the kinsman redeemer) is one substituting himself in the place of another to obtain for them what they could not obtain themselves. He gave Himself as the sin offering, to obtain forgiveness for others, paying sins debt Himself, so that God's justice against sin (eternal death with no fellowship with Him in His kingdom) was satisfied.

Imputation of God in the Bible is to count, reckon, and judge one to be righteous, or to be a sinner. The imputation is by right judgment of works, whether doing righteousness or doing unrighteousness.

See definition above. There are no righteous before God, no not one. Except Jesus. Righteous before God is PERFECT righteousness.

If, not since, but if God imputs our sins to His Son, without judging and making Him a sinner, then God imputes His righteousness to us, without judging and making us the righteous.

No. Adam's sin has been imputed to us. That means that as the representative of all men, because He sinned, all His progeny are now sinners. We do sin.

Jesus was not born in Adam, and He did not sin. He took our place, to bear the punishment for sin, as though He were a sinner. Our sins must meet the just judgment of God, and they did in Christ. Since they were judged in Him, instead of us, they now have lost all power to condemn us. Through faith we are firmly and securely identified as those He purchased for the Father with His blood. God is not judging our sins as being righteous, He is judging us in the Son. That is the imputed righteousness. It is as though we are righteous, even though now we still cannot attain to that perfection. We are seated with Him in the heavenlies, the Bible tells us. The Father is doing this for the Son, that His death be not in vain. In the fullness of time, when all the flock has been gathered into Him, then He will return. The dead will be raised imperishable and incorruptible, just as Jesus was. And those that are alive when He returns will be changed in the twinkling of an eye---immortal and incorruptible. Perfectly righteous forever.

It is in the Bible.

No it isn't.See Bible def above.

If God imputing sin to a person, is not judging him guilty of sin, then it's only a label without substance.

Imputing isn't judging.

People can impute their own sins to others, which is meaningless, because it does not make them sinners.

That isn't imputing, that is accusing.

 

[Ghada]

But why? What was it that He was accomplishing in doing this?

The sole purpose God accomplished by Jesus' own work on a cross, is to impute all sins and trespasses of man to His false accusation and crucifixion, both then and today.

Rom 2:23Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?

Rom 3:19Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

Rom 11:32For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

Heb 6:5If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

His work was to obey the Father's will, and meekly submit to wicked hands unto death. The Lamb of God without protest nor defense submitting to the slaughter.

His doing so accomplished God's purpose of concluding all sinners guilty of His blood at the cross, both Jew and Gentile, that all them repenting may be justified by Him with His resurrection, first the Jew and also the Gentile.

Isa 53:4Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

By such meekness on the cross, all likewise judged Him cursed under the law and smitten by God.

The innocent may submit to the law, even without reviling the accusers and executioners, but no innocent person does so without any protest nor defence at all. That is unheard of among the children of men. Many guilty do protest their innocense, but only one that must be guilty makes no defence.

'Our' and 'we' prophecies everyone at the cross believed He was indeed guilty of blasphemy and worthy of death, for calling Himself the Son of God.

Deu 19:9If thou shalt keep all these commandments to do them, which I command thee this day, to love the LORD thy God, and to walk ever in his ways; then shalt thou add three cities more for thee, beside these three;

That innocent blood be not shed in thy land, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, and so blood be upon thee.

When innocent blood was shed in the land of Israel, without execution of the guilty, then the land of the Israelites was polluted thereby. But when the inncent blood of the God of Israel and Son in the flesh was shed, then all the earth of sinners was condemned thereby.

Rom 11:32For God hath concluded them all in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon all.

The work of the Lamb of God on the cross, was to justly conclude all sinners in unbelief of Jesus as the Christ, and to condemn all sinners guilty of His blood, even with the wicked hands laid on His own body.

The work accomplished by Jesus' shed blood is not only to impute guilt to all sinners and trespassers against Him, but also to convince the world, that any sin against God is exceeding sinful.

The offence of the cross is condemnation to all men and women that sin. The effect of the cross is to convict with godly sorrow and repent from any and all sinning against God and His Son.

The only work of Jesus on the cross was to condemn all guilty of His blood, both Jew and Gentile. It's only the work of His resurrection to justify them that repent for His sake.

If any are imputed righteousness at the cross of Jesus, it's only if God agrees with imputing to His Son the charge of blasphemy worthy of death by God.

They all believed that lie at the cross, and many still believe it today, both Jews and Muslims.

1Co 12:3Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed:

They may honor Him with their lips as a great teacher and prophet, but they still dishonor Him with their hearts as a blasphemer smitten by the God of Abraham they both preach.

 

[Arial]

The sole purpose God accomplished by Jesus' own work on a cross, is to impute all sins and trespasses of man to His false accusation and crucifixion, both then and today.

Well I guess then there was no reason for the Son of God to come as Son of Man. If He hadn't, according to what you say, then there would be no trespass and false accusation to impute to anyone, and He would not have been crucified, having never been here.

His work was to obey the Father's will, and meekly submit to wicked hands unto death. The Lamb of God without protest nor defense submitting to the slaughter.

His doing so accomplished God's purpose of concluding all sinners guilty of His blood at the cross, both Jew and Gentile, that all them repenting may be justified by Him with His resurrection, first the Jew and also the Gentile.

Do you not know who God is? All men were accounted guilty in Adam and all men are also guilty by their own sins. Maybe you do not realize what sin is? It is anything that falls short of the perfect holiness with which we were created. We were created in His image and likeness, and we were and are meant to live according to that image and likeness.

We are not being held guilty for crucifying Jesus. The men who did so are. And simple repenting of a sin ("I'm sorry til next time, or some other sin.") is not sufficient to clear the guilty. It does not change them from being a sinner into not being a sinner. Jesus died on the cross to undo what Adam did. That is why He is called the second Adam. All in Adam are sinners. All in Christ through faith, are justified by that faith.

The innocent may submit to the law, even without reviling the accusers and executioners, but no innocent person does so without any protest nor defence at all. That is unheard of among the children of men. Many guilty do protest their innocense, but only one that must be guilty makes no defence.

Could you rephrase that? I can't make any sense of it.

When innocent blood was shed in the land of Israel, without execution of the guilty, then the land of the Israelites was polluted thereby. But when the inncent blood of the God of Israel and Son in the flesh was shed, then all the earth of sinners was condemned thereby.

They were already condemned. Read carefully the book of Romans. That is what Jesus died to undo. He took the penalty for the sins of those GOd was giving Him---the believer---in our place. If sin does not meet justice, there is no justice. If, (SINCE) sin meets sin's justice in Christ, God can show mercy to those He died for, and the sin, having already met justice in Christ on the cross, can no longer be charged against those in Him. To be sure, they will experience the corrective hand of a loving Father, and discipline, for transgressions. But that too is mercy, as it trains us in righteousness and obedience.

Christ came and lived in perfect righteousness and obedience in order to defeat the power of sin and therefore to defeat death. He had no sin of His own, so death could not hold Him. He rose in victory over sin and death.

 

[Ghada]

Imputing isn't judging. That isn't imputing, that is accusing.

That is neither imputing nor judging, but just name calling.

Only man imputs without judgment, or against judgment, not God. And only vain people imput something, where nothing is to impute.

Bible imputing is two things: Imputing with good or evil, which is imputing the soul with good or evil, not the body.

Ezek 18:4Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

Bible imputing is a charge and judgment made, whether for good or evil.

Psa 32:2Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.

Rom 5:13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.)

Imiquity and sin is imputed by God to the worker of iniquity and transgressor of His law. Not to whom there is no sin nor guile.

Gen 15:6And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

God imputes righteousness to them He judges righteous.

God imputes good or evil to them He judges good or evil, because He imputes good or evil to the soul, not the body.

It's not possible with God to impute any person with good or evil, but not the soul with being good or evil.

Isa 53:4Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

We also see here in Scripture, that imputing sin and being smitten of God are together, and not apart. Even as sin is not apart from the soul.

Judging a person smitten of God, is judging a soul smitten by God. Which is only by imputing sin to the soul against God.

In the Bible, no one can impute sin to a person, and not to their soul. Nor can anyone impute sin to a soul, without being smitten by God.

The Father did not impute the Son's soul with any sin, nor smite Him to death.

God imputing sin to a person, is charging the soul with sin. Imputing anything to a person, and not the soul, is separating a person created in the image of God, from their own soul.

Easton's Bible Dictionary - Imputation​

Imputation
is used to designate any action or word or thing as reckoned to a person. Thus in doctrinal language

True. It reckoned to the person, which is to the soul. He who knew no sin, is the soul of the Son who had no sin, because He sinned not.

And so, only the false accusers and the ignorant imputed Jesus with sin, and was smitten of God according to the law of blasphemy.

Any doctrine of God imputing anything to a person, and not to the soul, is false.

And only the soul that sins is imputed with sin and death to God.

 

[Ghada]

Well I guess then there was no reason for the Son of God to come as Son of Man. If He hadn't, according to what you say, then there would be no trespass and false accusation to impute to anyone, and He would not have been crucified, having never been here.

And one way to tarnish a sound argument, is to not show any error in it, and instead make unreal scenarios out of it.

God already imputed trespass and guilt to man on earth, beginning with Adam.

If he had not come, then none would have been guilty of His innocent blood. And no one would have conviction that their own sins are not only against God, but also so exceeding sinful to slay the innocent Son of God Himself.

It would not be good enough just to die and rise again, which He could have done at any time and in any fashion, including old age.

It was necessary by the wisdom of God, for the Son to die in such a way as to first bring all men under condemnation, and not just His own people, which was by slaying the prophets come before. But also to make any and all sinning so unjustified and destructive to the soul and life, that sinners can be convinced to repent of all their own sins and trespasses, and not just in part according to their own personal lame judgment between good and evil.

All men were accounted guilty in Adam and all men are also guilty by their own sins.

The former false without Scripture, the latter true by Scripture.

This is the first time though, that have have seen someone preaching their guilt by Adam, also at least acknowledging their guilt by their own sinning.

But how does that square with some who preach they no more have any guilt nor condemnation by their sins, because they are justified by faith alone, apart from their works?

Saying the truth, that all men are guilty by their own sinning, disanulls any teaching that some men are not guilty by their own sinning, through their own faith alone.