There is one step missing. "Abide in Me and I in you. Without Me, you can do nothing"--not even follow. There is your identity. The only exception is trusting, something that even a sheep or a dog can do.
All English refs NASB:
Romans 6:3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into (identity) Christ Jesus
have been baptized into (identity) His death?
4 Therefore we have been buried with (identity (συνεταφημεν)) Him through baptism into (identity) death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too
might walk in newness of life. (identity)
5 For if we have become united with (identity (συμφυτοι)) Him in the likeness of His death, certainly
we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, (identity)
6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with (identity (συνεσταυρωθη)) Him, in order that our
body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to
sin;
7 for he who has died is freed from sin. (No substitution here, just identity.)
8 Now if we have died with (identity (συν)) Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, (identity (συζησομεν))
9 knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again;
death no longer is master over Him.
10 For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that
He lives, He lives to God.
11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ
Jesus. (Consider because it is true.)
1 Cor 2:16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we
have the mind of Christ. (identity!)
Galatians 2:20: "I have been crucified with (identity (συνεσταυρωμαι)) Christ; and it is no longer I who
live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live
by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.
True, you can say that syn (as in synthesis) doesn't necessarily mean that close a thought, but Paul was capable of using other words that could communicate the concept of "with" in a looser matter.
But there are many, many more passages that point to identity. Those were just off the top of my head.
Abiding in Christ is the key. Identity. Christ is the head of the Church, His body. Identity.
Hmmm, I don't know why you think it is necessary to have added this. Can you please explain what value it gives? When I look at the original statement as St Paul made in Romans chapter 6, I see he is saying exactly what is said in the quote I gave you: "leave your life of sin". What baffles me is why you have gone and added the word "Identity" in every sentence that St Paul has made, but then you have said that identity is a crucial part of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I just wonder why you think that this identity is not already implied by the instrcution "follow me". - Or maybe I have been distracted again by what seems to be an unnecessary complication. I sense that you and I are having a natural contention due to fundamental differences in faith. There is something I object to strongly in people who read meanings into text that aren't there. I keep getting distracted by your tendency to do that.
The basis of the substitutionary atonement argument is that God required a perfect sacrifice in order to make atonement for sin.
Can you please explain this for me? I don't understand why God is not able to forgive without a perfect sacrifice being made to atone for sin. This is probably the root of this issue for me. I actually don't see how a perfect life being given can make forgiveness any easier. In fact, if something perfect and innocent was killed and claimed by a guilty party as some sort of right to demand forgiveness, I reckon any person with a normal mentality would be infuriated.
How was Christ that perfect sacrifice? Turning to Hebrews 4:14-15: “Having then a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus son of God, we can hold the confession. For we do not have a high priest that is not able to sympathize with our weaknesses. He was tested in every likeness, but was without sin.” Christ lived an earthly, human life and faced all of the same temptations that every human faces, but he never sinned.
I must view this very differently to you, because I do not draw the same conclusion from reading this verse as you seem to. This speaks about having a high priest that is without sin. This means, that if we are instructed by Him, and we look to Him for instruction, we can rely on Him in full faith, having no doubt that He is confident and worthy to mediate with God on our behalf.
This perfect life was acceptable to God to make atonement for sin.
Can you please explain how His life has atoned for our sin? I reckon you and I are looking at this fundamentally differently too.
The Bible goes on to tell us in II Corinthians 5:21: “He who did not know sin was made sin on our behalf so that we might become the righteousness of God in him.” It also tells us in I Peter 3:18: “But Christ suffered once concerning sins, the righteous on behalf of the unrighteous, so that he could bring you to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.” What are these verses telling us? Christ’s righteous life enabled him to be sacrificed in our place in order to reconcile us back to God.
I do not agree with this conclusion. Let me show you how I view 1 Peter 3:18
But Christ suffered once concerning sins
He lived and died only once in the era of a generation that is wicked.
, the righteous on behalf of the unrighteous, so that he could bring you to God,
He gave His life as a ransom for many: Alternative options were: fight or flee. Since nothing is gained by fleeing and all is lost, the only other option is to fight. We can remember what He said to St Peter in Gethsemane "If I wanted to fight, I could call upon legions of angels. But it will be done this way so the scriptures can be fulfilled that say it must be so". Think: if He had brought Armageddon 2,000 years ago, would you and I have been born? I suppose not. That is how I view the life of the righteous was laid down on behalf of the unrighteous. Therefore, if He had not given His life, He would not have been able to bring you and I to God. But that was God's will, and the nature of Jesus Christ. No greater love has this, than to lay down one's life for his friends.
having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.
The flesh will die, that is a given fact of life. But the gift is not like the trespass, because by the grace of this one man Jesus Christ, *life* has overflowed to many. Thus, although we all will die in the flesh as the consequence of sin, some of us are made alive in a spiritual sense through what Jesus Christ has done.
What is the result of this reconciliation? In Romans 3:24 we find: “We are being made righteous by the same gift of grace through the redemption in Christ Jesus whom God set forward as an atoning sacrifice through faith in the same blood.”
Can you please tell me the name of this translation you have used? I have consulted quite a few translations on these verses, and there is an extremely subtle inflection of substitutionary atonement doctrine in most of them (which we should not be so surprised to see). However, when reading the interlinear translation and even a couple of the other translations, we can see that it is supporting the view of the gospel in terms of forgiveness and redemption through faith in Jesus Christ, without need to read a Substitution for sin into it.
Now all of this sounds well enough, but does this reconcile the basis of the argument? Does the Bible teach that God does in fact demand the perfect sacrifice for sin that Christ became? Something to consider: Christ said that nobody comes to the father but through him (John 14:6). Also, consider Hebrews 5:7-10: “During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.” The phrase that stands out for me is “and, once made perfect.” Unless Christ was the perfect sacrifice that God required, he could never have brought us salvation.
Too right. Do you remember that He was tempted by Satan in the desert? Do you think that was the end of the temptation? I rather view that Jesus is the one in whom redemption from sin is made possible because He has resisted sin to the fullest human extent. This is something that cannot be achieved by any other man, and this is why the kingdom of God has failed to be run without corruption since the very beginning (
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+3:5-6&version=NIV). Whereas Jesus has proven His obedience to God's will to the fullest extent possible (
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+27:40-44&version=NIV,
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+4:3&version=NIV,
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+2:8&version=NIV,
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john+6:15&version=NIV). Now if you aren't accustomed to viewing the gospel this way, it can be easy to look at the significance of these words and to not really pick up the subtle meaning that St Paul puts into them: "through faith in the same blood." - Faith in the blood that was shed in order to make atonement for sin. How is it possible to atone for sin? By being perfectly obedient to the will of God. There is no other way.
Then look again to the verse your produced earlier:
Hebrews 4:14-15: “Having then a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus son of God, we can hold the confession. For we do not have a high priest that is not able to sympathize with our weaknesses. He was tested in every likeness, but was without sin.”
.. What did He accomplish by His sacrifice on the cross? He proved Phillipians 2:8. That is the propitiation for sin. This is not a discussion about what gives God a legal right to wave a magic wand to fix the world's problems. This is investigating the true nuts and bolts of how the gospel of Jesus Christ redeems the world from sin and makes it possible for humans to live forever while having the knowledge of good and evil.
Quoting from the article you reference by Peter Ditzel:
Considering this, then, what is the best and most natural translation of 2 Corinthians 5:21? Of course, it is simply this: "For the One not knowing sin, He made a sin offering for us, that we should become the righteousness of God in Him."
I personally consider his translation of "hamartia" in this verse as "sin offering" to be perfectly acceptable. It is common for Greek words to be translated in many different ways based upon the context of the verse. Also, his approach is in full conformity with the Law of Moses that the animal sacrifices under the Law were "sin offerings," and Christ was also a "sin offering."
It would help me to know Greek language at this point, but anyway the truth appears quite consistent and we should keep in mind that translations into English are impacting our view of original doctrine, especially since the translators have that inbuilt bias which causes them to only imagine what the original statement means in context of what they think it means, a result of thousands of years of indoctrination and a thousand years of which containing Substitutionary Atonement theologies.
Regardless, there is something common going on here that we can both agree to accept. Can you please tell me what was the need for a sin offering to be made under the old covenant? Was it something to do with guilt and feeling discomfort with one's self in God's view, and that God had instututed procedures by which someone could feel that they were in right standing with Him?
I checked a commentary and the Greek. NRSV is a straightforward translation: "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." Just what it means for him to have been made sin, and for us to become the righteousness of God has been talked about many times.
It appears clear to me that "him to have been made sin" is substitution. Whether penal substitution is less clear. The context talks about reconciliation and new life. Perhaps that happens through punishment, but I don’t think the text says so. Some commentators read “made sin” as made a sin offering. Even if that’s true, it depends upon your understanding of the OT offerings. I understand the sacrifices to be primarily a sacrament of repentance and reconciliation, not punishment.
What does it mean for us to become the righteousness of God? I understand God’s righteousness as his commitment to act according to his covenant. The phrase doesn’t seem to make sense literally, since a person can’t be righteousness. But my reading is that we are the demonstration of God’s righteousness, in this case his honoring his covenant by reconciling us to himself.
Thats a valid point to make about the becoming the righteousness of God being invalid English grammar. But it probably is not really relevant to us right now, though it might become important if the discussion progresses to assess how redemption is effected.
Nonetheless, would you like to describe how you understand the substitution to actually work? Yes, the understanding of OT sacrifices is a key compnent in this topic. Please go ahead and establish the basis of your understanding of that, as it forms the basis of your view of atonement.
Ah, so that's what a "plain reading" looks like.
There is plenty of reading and thinking and talking going on here, but not as much consultation with the High Priest as there should be, IMO.
