# The eternal debt paid by the perfectly human body of Christ



## reformedman (Jun 11, 2008)

Here's a very rudimentary question that I'd like to ask just to make sure I'm clear on the idea.
Christ's righteousness is imputed to us as justification so that we stand in front of a Holy God with (as it were) Christ standing in our place with God looking at His righteousness in our place. So that it is as if God were looking at Christ righteousness instead of our sinfulness.

In turn, Christ stood in front of God with our imputed sinfulness so that he stood with our sin in front of a Holy God and bore the wrath of God in our place. When God saw Christ he saw our sinfulness in front of Him and let out His wrath on Him.

The question is mainly--How then does Christ still stand in God's presence with that imputed sinfulness. I think there is some specific language that I am not interpreting correctly, English is not my best subject.

If all sin was paid for(past, present, future), then there is no more imputed sinfulness given to Christ. 
But if our sin is still being imputed onto Christ consecutively and currently as the sins happen, Christ is still bearing wrath, this can't be because all sins of the elected was paid for once for all.
Therefore, our sins must have been paid for even before my sin tomorrow happens.
If my sins which will happen tomorrow were paid for, it seems to be an important enough doctrine to name and to study. 

Back to the point, How does Christ pay an eternal debt within 3 days? He stands in heaven today glorified in bodily form, we all agree on that. But the body of Christ is my question, it should be sufferring eternally for my sins, much less everyone elses.
I can see the substance of Christ being in glory, but how did the body (which is perfectly human and nothing else) make it out so quickly?
Christ is God-man, perfectly God perfectly man; perfect man is nothing other than a normal man, nothing else. But Christ was a perfect man with perfect God joined in hypostasis. How then does the perfect manhood escape eternal wrath. Perfect Godhood could escape with no question, he is supreme, but perfect manhood doesn't seem to me like it should. It should pay the penalty eternally.

I reiterated a lot of stuff just so that 
1. you don't think I'm a heretic; I believe in orthodox Christianity as far as I know it.
2. so that you understand that I am not asking about the basics, I am instead referring to the deeper.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Jun 11, 2008)

I think the answer to your question about Christ's death as a man being sufficient is answered pretty clearly by Paul in Romans 5:18-19: 



> Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience many will be made righteous.



Through Adam's disobedience we were all condemned with a sin nature. So if through a single man's disobedience we were all condemned, so through Christ's perfect obedience (unto death) we can be justified. Furthermore, Paul continues a bit later in Romans 6:8-10:



> Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over him. For the death that He died, He died once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God.



Paul makes it clear that physical death is a consequence of sin, and that once the physical body dies, sin no longer has control over it. So Christ's physical death and descent into hell paid the debt we owe once and for all, and now in His perfect, resurrected body He no longer pays that debt, but lives for God. In God's plane of justice, clearly Christ's one-time substitutionary death was perfectly adequate for the justification of the elect. 

Also look at Hebrews 7:26-27, which makes it clear that unlike the Levitical preistly sacrifices, Christ's one-time sacrifice was sufficient for all time:



> For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is Holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people's, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Jun 11, 2008)

reformedman said:


> The question is mainly--How then does Christ still stand in God's presence with that imputed sinfulness. I think there is some specific language that I am not interpreting correctly, English is not my best subject.
> 
> If all sin was paid for(past, present, future), then there is no more imputed sinfulness given to Christ.
> But if our sin is still being imputed onto Christ consecutively and currently as the sins happen, Christ is still bearing wrath, this can't be because all sins of the elected was paid for once for all.
> ...



Without attempting a comprehesive answer to all you touched on, I would make a couple of comments. 

Recognize that God stands outside time. It is true that the sins of the elect (past, present, and future) were dealt with at the cross (once and for all). Christ is not still suffering as we continue to sin. Rather, He is seated at the right hand of the Father and continues to _intercede_ for us (Rom. 8:34 and Heb. 7:25) based on that finished work on the cross.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jun 11, 2008)

reformedman said:


> If all sin was paid for(past, present, future), then there is no more imputed sinfulness given to Christ.
> But if our sin is still being imputed onto Christ consecutively and currently as the sins happen, Christ is still bearing wrath, this can't be because all sins of the elected was paid for once for all.
> Therefore, our sins must have been paid for even before my sin tomorrow happens.
> If my sins which will happen tomorrow were paid for, it seems to be an important enough doctrine to name and to study.
> ...



Your question is answered in full both by covenant theology and by a proper view of the Incarnation. 

First, Christ, as our federal representative, took upon himself the guilt of all our sins, past-present-future, on the cross. But the work of redemption which he purchased for us is applied gradually by the Holy Spirit. The guilt we experience after conversion as children of God is the Father's displeasure, not the Judge's wrath. The wrath was extinguished in Christ forever. But the Father still works to conform us to his Son and chastises us when necessary. 

Second, Christ could exhaust the eternal wrath of God because he was more than a mere man. He is an eternal Person. So his divine nature sustained his human nature under that full weight of God's wrath, enabling him to survive and extinguish the eternal wrath of God in His own eternal person. Two natures and one person. 

So when the Father looks upon the Son now, he no longer sees imputed guilt, but one who has propitiated his wrath. The guilt which he took upon himself has been atoned by his perfect sacrifice, and his resurrection was proof that the Father accepted the sacrifice and perfect righteousness of the substitute and was pleased. All sins imputed to Christ have been atoned for. There is no more wrath against the sin bearer, nor the sinner. All that wrath has been consumed and quenched by Christ.


----------



## MW (Jun 11, 2008)

Jesus Christ was Himself justified at His resurrection from the dead, 1 Tim. 3:16; Rom. 1:3, 4. Hence not only His life and death, but His resurrection from the dead is also the meritorious cause of believers' justification, Rom. 4:25. Therein God released the prisoner and testified that justice was fully satisfied.


----------



## Iconoclast (Jun 11, 2008)

Hebrews 10:1-12 explain how perfectly Jesus accomplished the redemption both in terms of expiation, and then propitiation.
In chapter 13:8-15 an appeal is made to how the cleansing element of the bodily sacrifice,as well as the cleansing blood was eternally accepted.
Lev.16:1-27


----------



## reformedman (Jun 12, 2008)

Brethren, thank you very much for the attempt but as I knew I would not convey my question well, I tried to even state what is all well known and accepted; namely that Christ is the ultimate and full sacrifice for sins. This was not the question.

My question is "How?"
You see, the body of Christ is a perfectly normal man. He paid through Gethsemane, through emotion, physical torture, abandonment by the Father, death; the worst of everything. We all understand this. My question was not *if* he paid through his body, but instead--How.

I'll reveal the thought I had but I can't prove anything biblically and I'd rather humble myself to what has been established by our forfathers instead. My opinion is that there was something with respect to his divinity. I don't mean by this that his body was divine, this would be very grievously incorrect in my opinion. What I mean is that in his hypostatic state of being, there is a unity of his divinity and his body that is transcendant to a mere joining or combining. There is a union of 'effects(?)' whereby Christ's body is affected somehow by his being God. 

It boils down to this, at first glance it does not seem to me that a mere human body, normal albeit sinless can fulfill the penalty of death for an inumerable quantity of people. If this is the assertion, well then, Adam's perfect body before "The Fall" could have paid for the sin's of all sinners as well. 

It seems more feesable that:
1. the death of Christ's body paid for the body of all the elects' bodies to be finally glorified in the end.
2. something further was accomplished by Christ in His Divinity to pay for the souls of all the elect. 

This post is very awkward for me because without explaining myself very carefully this could all be heretical, and because I am nothing with deep theology, I want to express my desire to be humble to correction which I am sure will be needed with the above thought. Please feel free to tell me I am wrong, I would rather be quick to recant of this position than to slowly think of a way to make this theology work. I don't know of any other writers that have ever taught or insinuated any of these things, and I am not as smart as they so it's more likely that this is all heretical than that I might have stumbled upon something that Owen and Ewards haven't.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jun 12, 2008)

Frank, I read a section recently in Hugh Martin's _Abiding Presence_ on the perpetuity of Christ's sacrifice. I don't expect it would answer all your questions, but it might suggest some further answers. He makes the point several times that because of Christ's divinity, the platform for Calvary was not merely an earthly, 'eventual' platform -- the sacrifice of Christ is substantial, rather than a mere event. I am not sure if Christ's offering up of Himself through the Spirit without measure has anything to do with the answer to your questions, but I wonder if some of the answer is that God punishes _persons _not natures, and Christ is a heavenly, perpetual, victorious sacrifice in His human nature because His person which bore God's wrath is the righteous God? (Martin goes so far as to say that the sacrifice of Calvary is the righteousness of God made available to us in passing through a crisis: as such it is perpetual?)


----------



## Iconoclast (Jun 12, 2008)

The "how" is through * death* He undertook to be seperated from the Father through death, in order to destroy him who had the power of death,that is the devil.


> 14Seeing, then, the children have partaken of flesh and blood, he himself also in like manner did take part of the same, that through death he might destroy him having the power of death -- that is, the devil --


 The Father had promised the Son not to allow Him to see corruption however,in psalm 16


> 8I did place Jehovah before me continually, Because -- at my right hand I am not moved.
> 
> 9Therefore hath my heart been glad, And my honour doth rejoice, Also my flesh dwelleth confidently:
> 
> 10For Thou dost not leave my soul to Sheol, Nor givest thy saintly one to see corruption.


 David died, but it was the fruit of his loins according to the flesh that received this "promise", and us IN HIM, as per Acts 2


> 25for David saith in regard to him: I foresaw the Lord always before me -- because He is on my right hand -- that I may not be moved;
> 
> 26because of this was my heart cheered, and my tongue was glad, and yet -- my flesh also shall rest on hope,
> 
> ...


 It is not the length of time of the seperation[death] but the perfection of it that provides the cleansing element. That our Lord as High Priest is eternal, his once for all time sacrifice is eternally efficacious. He ever liveth to make intercession for his elect Hebrews 7:25-28


> 25whence also he is able to save to the very end, those coming through him unto God -- ever living to make intercession for them.
> 
> 26For such a chief priest did become us -- kind, harmless, undefiled, separate from the sinners, and become higher than the heavens,
> 
> ...


----------



## reformedman (Jun 12, 2008)

a mere housewife said:


> Frank, I read a section recently in Hugh Martin's _Abiding Presence_ on the perpetuity of Christ's sacrifice. I don't expect it would answer all your questions, but it might suggest some further answers. He makes the point several times that because of Christ's divinity, the platform for Calvary was not merely an earthly, 'eventual' platform -- the sacrifice of Christ is substantial, rather than a mere event. I am not sure if Christ's offering up of Himself through the Spirit without measure has anything to do with the answer to your questions, but I wonder if some of the answer is that God punishes _persons _not natures, and Christ is a heavenly, perpetual, victorious sacrifice in His human nature because His person which bore God's wrath is the righteous God? (Martin goes so far as to say that the sacrifice of Calvary is the righteousness of God made available to us in passing through a crisis: as such it is perpetual?)



Thank you so much.
From the title it sounds like it might be what I am looking for.
It was and still is, hard to explain the question so I think I should have continued with the reiterations in stating that I am not referring to whether Christ did perfectly fulfill the sacrifice, that's what most of the answers were related to. That was never my question.
My question was in its crude form, "If Adam in his perfect state was permitted to die for the world's sins, would it have been enough?" My answer is a fervent "NO!" But why?
Because there is something more than just a perfect sinless body being given for the payment of death of sinful people, but "What?" What extra thing is there that Christ did in His hypostatic form to redeem people in a way that a perfect body alone could not.
Most people will say that because Christ was perfect and sinless, that he was able to die for God's people, but I don't believe it can end there, there must be more, because otherwise, Adam could have done the same, and we all know that can't be.

I will get this book, hopefully it will cover the question.


----------



## py3ak (Jun 12, 2008)

I hate to say this, Frank, but the book can be hard to find. You'll definitely have to go with used book search engines.

However, I think the answer to your question is fairly straightforward. I believe it is suggested by 1 Peter 2:24: Christ Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree. The punishment came upon the theanthropic person. And so the body and soul through which the sufferings came don't have to be divinized or even glorified before enduring the suffering. The Person of Christ is of infinite value: and Christ personally stands in our stead. So it's not strictly a question of one body for millions, but a Person of infinite value experiencing through His human nature the punishment due to an innumerable multitude.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 12, 2008)

reformedman said:


> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> > Frank, I read a section recently in Hugh Martin's _Abiding Presence_ on the perpetuity of Christ's sacrifice. I don't expect it would answer all your questions, but it might suggest some further answers. He makes the point several times that because of Christ's divinity, the platform for Calvary was not merely an earthly, 'eventual' platform -- the sacrifice of Christ is substantial, rather than a mere event. I am not sure if Christ's offering up of Himself through the Spirit without measure has anything to do with the answer to your questions, but I wonder if some of the answer is that God punishes _persons _not natures, and Christ is a heavenly, perpetual, victorious sacrifice in His human nature because His person which bore God's wrath is the righteous God? (Martin goes so far as to say that the sacrifice of Calvary is the righteousness of God made available to us in passing through a crisis: as such it is perpetual?)
> ...



By your reasoning Frank, you seem to not only have a problem with Christ vicariously atoning for the sins of His Elect but also that the sin of Adam would be imputed to his posterity.

In other words, why not ask God why it is appropriate for Him to impute the first Adam's sin to all and for death and sin to come to all? Adam was just one man after all.

Hebrews 9 testifies:


> 11But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. 13For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 14How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?



There is a lesser to a greater. God demands that sin deserves death. He has every right to require it of you and me. He did not even have to allow for another's life to be taken in our place. Why not ask how God could have accepted the blood of an unwilling animal sacrifice to ceremonially cleanse the believer in the OT? God was pleased to accept this in lieu of the person being put to death.

Hebrews 9


> 24For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 28So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.



The Father was pleased to send His Son into the world to be the sacrifice for Sin. As John the Baptist cried out: Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, Christ had come to be a willing sacrifice unlike the un-willing sacrifices of the OC. Christ came in the form of man because man had rebelled against God and His other creatures had not. Christ became a Curse for us because we were unable to remove it from ourselves. Christ came to do the will of the Father because we refused. Christ came as a priest in the order of Melchizedek because it was appointed unto the Son of God to be a Priest according to that order that has no beginning or end.

Everything in Hebrews points to the perfection of Christ's Priesthood and Sacrifice. It is not appropriate to wonder merely about His human nature but to take together His status as the Son, His status as the Priest, His coming to do the will of the Father, His being sent as a Sacrifice, His laying His own life as a sacrifice, and all the other perfections in His Person.

This Sacrifice is to be a place of wonderment. It is to be a thing of awe. It is to be a thing of the greatest doxology. When we understand the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ truly then it makes all man-made religion appear as the vilest dung heap in our estimation.


----------



## reformedman (Jun 18, 2008)

py3ak said:


> The Person of Christ is of infinite value: and Christ personally stands in our stead. So it's not strictly a question of one body for millions, but a Person of infinite value experiencing through His human nature the punishment due to an innumerable multitude.



This is in my opinion the best answer, thank you.
To interject a statement of clarification I would like to add the following logical path:

If the "person" of Christ means the combination of His whole being, being natural-flesh and natural-spirit alongside his divine-being; then it wasn't the body that paid the price. It was the body and the being [all the fullness of the Godhead bodily] that paid the price. This has implications of his divine being taking part in the suffering in some way, although I don't think this would be anti-scriptural, I might say it is a-scriptural as I don't see that his divinity was to take part in the death-sacrifice-payment.

But if by person you mean only his humanity which is his natural-flesh and natural-spirit; then it was an equivalent body to that of Adam[pre-fall]. And that's fine, but then we come to my same question, how do we reconcile a perfect body paying the wages of sin for 1 billion sinful bodies?
I fully accept this latter conclusion to be the best answer. 

To reiterate: A perfect human and sinless body paying for the sins of lesser quality bodies of sin. In other words; the reason this is mathematically acceptable is because we are comparing apples with oranges. It would be like saying One Gallon of milk is equivalent in cost to 4 Quarts of milk. One quart would not be able to pay for the sins of 4 quarts, but one gallon could. Same type but different quality. Thanks again, py3ak.



> By your reasoning Frank, you seem to not only have a problem with Christ vicariously atoning for the sins of His Elect but also that the sin of Adam would be imputed to his posterity.
> 
> In other words, why not ask God why it is appropriate for Him to impute the first Adam's sin to all and for death and sin to come to all? Adam was just one man after all.


By your response, you seem to not know me. I perfectly accept Christ's vicarious atonement for my sins whether I fully understand it or not. Likewise, whether I comprehend the Trinity or not, does not mean that I do not apprehend it.

Although your retorical request for me to ask God a question in defiance to his decree hits insulting to me, I'll answer your question with something I learned at RTS. Calvin stated in the Institutes that the main reason all of mankind could legally be imputed the sins of their grandfather is the very simple and crude reason that we were physically in the loins of Adam. This explains why angels were not imputed with sins and stand in the presence of holiness day and night, because they have a different line of descendants, they are not born from Adam and they were living alongside Adam not within Adam.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 18, 2008)

reformedman said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > The Person of Christ is of infinite value: and Christ personally stands in our stead. So it's not strictly a question of one body for millions, but a Person of infinite value experiencing through His human nature the punishment due to an innumerable multitude.
> ...



This is not only _a_-Scriptural but _anti_-Scriptural. It is through the veil of His flesh that we have access to God. It was Christ in His humanity who _suffered_ and _died_ for sin and rose again on the third day.




> > By your reasoning Frank, you seem to not only have a problem with Christ vicariously atoning for the sins of His Elect but also that the sin of Adam would be imputed to his posterity.
> >
> > In other words, why not ask God why it is appropriate for Him to impute the first Adam's sin to all and for death and sin to come to all? Adam was just one man after all.
> 
> ...


If you insist on being insulted, Frank, then so be it. Your larger problem here is denying the very point you stated you don't deny. You are asking God how the humanity of Christ could atone for Sin when it is Adam that plunged us into Sin. If it is not appropriate for one Man's sacrifice to atone for the sin of billions, then it is not appropriate for one man's sin to plunge the billions into sin.

Your above expression of how Christ's Divinity participates in the Atonement is, quite frankly, profound error. If you continue to perpetrate it here, you won't be able to participate on this board any more.


----------



## MW (Jun 18, 2008)

This thread is bizarre. Here was the main question:



> The question is mainly--How then does Christ still stand in God's presence with that imputed sinfulness.



This has nothing to do with the divine/human person of Christ? He stands in God's presence vindicated by His resurrection from the dead.

If the concern is to know how Christ's sacrifice atones for more than one person, the answer is that He offered it on the altar of His divine nature, and the altar sanctifies the gift and makes it worthy. Seeing the divine nature is infinite, the sacrifice is therefore of infinite worth, and sufficient to atone for the sins of any number of people.

But it is error to teach that the divine nature suffered. That which was offered was the human nature, specially prepared and consecrated by the Holy Spirit for the purpose. Heb. 10:5, "Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me."


----------



## Herald (Jun 18, 2008)

Brother Matthew, amen and amen!


----------



## py3ak (Jun 18, 2008)

Frank, I must say if you came to the conclusions expressed above by reading my post, I think I was either terribly unclear or you misread me at some point. What I aimed at expressing was what Mr. Winzer said in the post just above, and trying to redirect your attention from what I felt was a too-exlcusive focus on the _body_.


----------



## reformedman (Jun 19, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> the answer is that He offered it on the altar of His divine nature



I thought that's what I said????



> But it is error to teach that the divine nature suffered.



I know, that was the first premise, that's why I said I agreed with the latter premise. 



sermper said:


> You are asking God how the humanity of Christ could atone for Sin when it is Adam that plunged us into Sin.


Because the method by which we were imputed with sins by Adam was not the same method by which Christ imputes us of righteousness. Adams imputation of sins to us is by progeny, per Calvin; Christ's imputation of righteousness is not by progeny abeit there is an adoption into the family of God.

Why are people saying that I said that the divine being of Christ suffered for sin, I don't see where I claimed that belief as my own. Please clarify and I'll be glad to take it back, but I honestly have not ever believed that.


----------



## MW (Jun 19, 2008)

reformedman said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > the answer is that He offered it on the altar of His divine nature
> ...



You wrote: "This has implications of his divine being taking part in the suffering in some way."

I hope you can see the difference between those two statements.


----------



## reformedman (Jun 19, 2008)

armourbearer said:


> reformedman said:
> 
> 
> > armourbearer said:
> ...



Thanks for responding so quickly but please take a look at these two premises, see that they were posted as two possibilities, and please see that I take the latter:



> If the "person" of Christ means the combination of His whole being, being natural-flesh and natural-spirit alongside his divine-being; then it wasn't the body that paid the price. It was the body and the being [all the fullness of the Godhead bodily] that paid the price. This has implications of his divine being taking part in the suffering in some way, although I don't think this would be anti-scriptural, I might say it is a-scriptural as I don't see that his divinity was to take part in the death-sacrifice-payment.
> 
> But if by person you mean only his humanity which is his natural-flesh and natural-spirit; then it was an equivalent body to that of Adam[pre-fall]. And that's fine, but then we come to my same question, how do we reconcile a perfect body paying the wages of sin for 1 billion sinful bodies?
> I fully accept this latter conclusion to be the best answer.



I called the first one a-scriptural.
I called the second one the best answer.


----------



## MW (Jun 19, 2008)

reformedman said:


> I called the first one a-scriptural.
> I called the second one the best answer.



My apologies for misunderstanding; your "logical path" made it sound like you were developing an argument.

I would call the first option contrary to scripture, not something of which scripture is indifferent, since it is clearly revealed that the divine nature cannot suffer.

On the second option, I have Chalcedonian difficulty equating Jesus' "person" with His humanity, as is expressed in the statement, "if by person you mean only his humanity."

But I am thankful for the clarifications which you have made. It is clear now that the problems you posed against the traditional teaching are from the perspective of accepting rather than questioning it.

Blessings!


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 19, 2008)

Frank,

It is the first option that I was calling anti-Scriptural as well and I agree that the second definition is wanting.

I think the way you began this whole "calculation" from the very beginning is problematic. In fact, even as you try to figure out how the single man, Jesus, could atone for the sins of many, you keep wanting to mix something with or add something to His humanity in order for the Sacrifice to have the worth. I think you're trying to add a metaphysical quality to His humanity so that Christ is not like us in His humanity in order to make sense of how God can attach worth to the offering of His Body.

This is the wrong tact. The Scriptural answers have been provided - particularly the compact and elegant explanation that Christ's humanity is offered on the altar of His Divinity. Hebrews also highlights the superiority of His Priesthood, His Sonship, and that He is a willing and obedient Sacrifice.

There are many aspects to Christ's Atonement that make it fitting that the Father should accept it on the Elect's behalf but a metaphysical difference in the nature of His humanity just isn't one of those aspects.


----------



## Brooktree (Jun 19, 2008)

reformedman said:


> Here's a very rudimentary question that I'd like to ask just to make sure I'm clear on the idea.
> Christ's righteousness is imputed to us as justification so that we stand in front of a Holy God with (as it were) Christ standing in our place with God looking at His righteousness in our place. So that it is as if God were looking at Christ righteousness instead of our sinfulness.
> 
> In turn, Christ stood in front of God with our imputed sinfulness so that he stood with our sin in front of a Holy God and bore the wrath of God in our place. When God saw Christ he saw our sinfulness in front of Him and let out His wrath on Him.
> ...



___________________________________
Hi reformedman,

As a new member of this Board, I thought it wise to sit back and read and watch for a few days before I Post. Today I feel led to make a start and will greatly appreciate correction from those more learned than myself.
The one thing that strikes my mind throughout this thread is that not one of us knows what it is like to be Without Sin. Jesus is the only man who was ever without sin, in total self-giving to the glorious and infinite will of the Father.
Jesus (who is the Truth) said to the blaspheming Pharisees in John 8:46, "Which of you convicts me of sin? If I tell you the truth, why do you not believe me?"
In His human nature it was his entire attitude to have no will of His own but to be completely united with the WILL of the Father. The Father's confirmation of this fact is infinite in His Sovereign testimony at Jesus baptism in the Jordan and His revelation of His pure being in the Transfiguration.
The merit attested to is as difficult to grasp as infinity in for the finite. Does any of us grasp the Trinity, yet we believe?

I am quite content to place myself in the same position of Jesus Infinite merit at His death on the cross for the sins of all the elect and Infinite merit to impute His righteousness to those who believe -- all in that same act on the cross.

One of the main things I look forward to in heaven is . . . NO SIN!


----------



## reformedman (Jun 19, 2008)

Brooktree said:


> One of the main things I look forward to in heaven is . . . NO SIN!



well said Brooktree, amen.


----------

