Now the fact that His Son became sin for us I wouldn’t take it to mean that He became the sin principle but He took on humanity in which the sin principle reigns.
Oooh, I like the way you say this, especially the second part. I’ll have to remember this!

Josh,
Thanks for jumping in and playing along. It’s always nice to hear new voices. I particularly liked this:
When our hope is in Christ, our sin testifies to our weakness and our need for our savior.
Very true. Hope to see you around here more often!

Regarding God “forsaking” Jesus on the cross, I think we all agree that the literal meaning of the word cannot be in view here. Given the nature and character of God, it would have been impossible for God to not be in the presence of Jesus.

Rey’s thoughts on a “forensic”(i.e. declared) unrighteousness in Jesus have some appeal because we’re not violating God’s triune, omnipresent nature. The question I have about this is that I’m not aware of the scriptures spelling this out anywhere. They do talk about us being declared righteous, and about Christ taking on our sins, but nothing explicit that I’m aware of.

One interpretation I’ve read is that Jesus is quoting Psalm 22 :

My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning?
O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer,
and by night, but I find no rest.

In the beginning it sounds like a Psalm of defeat but by the end it’s a song of victory. So Jesus is essentially saying “Hey, things aren’t what they appear. Just wait and see”. I like this because it’s in keeping with Jesus teaching/saying a lot of things that the disciples really would not get until post-resurrection. Also there is not the “forsaken” issue to figure out with all the metaphysical stuff involved.

Good conversation guys!

(Welcome to the blog Josh! Glad to have you visit)

I think that the human race was corrupted by the decisions made by Adam and Eve. They chose to change natures when they ate the fruit. Instead of being immortal friends of God, they became mortal and self reliant.

We are born within their new nature. As such, it is natural for us to be self reliant and self centered.

God invites us back into our intended nature. In order to take him up on this offer, we must agree to surrender identity in Adam. And adopt an identity in Christ.

In Gen 2:17 God gave Adam one meal that he could take to leave communion with God. In John 6:53-58, Christ offers another meal to return to communion with God. There is one path out, and one path in.

As Christians, we can still sin, but it doesn’t have the same effect that it does for a non-believer. A non believer searches for something to place their hope in, and often look to sin as a path to deliverance from a otherwise meaningless existance.

When our hope is in Christ, our sin testifies to our weakness and our need for our savior. We do not look to sin to deliver us from life (which we understand is really death), but we look to God to deliver us from sin and death. We look at sin as a symptom of what we are being saved from while the non-believer looks at it as a path to a better life.

Will I be recognizable in heaven after my sin and been stripped away? I look to 1 Corinthians 3:10-15, I have two foundations that I can invest in during this worldly lifetime. I can build on man’s foundation, and be assured that my identity will be destroyed, or I can build on Christ’s foundation and be assured that my work will be rewarded. Some nominal Christians will enter heaven with everything burnt up except the goodness that has hidden deep in their soul. Others will be quite recognizable, as their life and their identity has been wrapped up in God’s eternal work for quite some time.

Put another way, I challenge myself with this: What good is eternal life, if I choose to stay in the coffin? In essence that is what we do when we identify and invest too much with the world.

Thank God for Paul who understood and proclaimed the truths of the Gospel like no other and yet wrestled with this very thing within him (Rom 7). If it wasn’t for his written example I think we would all be hopelessly perplexed at the depths of our depravity after salvation (and this coming from an unabashed non-Calvinist!)

Yeah, if sin can’t be in God’s presence, that kind of messes with omnipresence.
I wouldn’t classify sin as a locale or thing but as a principle or state which is in direct contradiction to God. God’s nature is eternal and the sin nature is corruptive–dark vs light in nature.

Now the fact that His Son became sin for us I wouldn’t take it to mean that He became the sin principle but He took on humanity in which the sin principle reigns (enter struggle of Christ’s nature which is surely a whole ‘nother discussion–heh). As a son of Adam and the son of God He was doing something mind-boggling unique so I’ll step back from that ground.

It gets really sticky when we start trying to figure out “What Makes Rey, Rey” I know there will come a day where I am to be glorified but how will that individual act and react to thinks and still be distinctly me. I can sort of understand the concept of Michelangelo’s art where the stone is being removed to reveal the glorious sculpture under his hands but I’m still made out of stone, for all intents and purposes, and seeing past This Temporal Frame is very fuzzy. Paul (thank God) comes to the rescue again: that we’re looking at a fuzzy reflection but the day will come when we’ll be fully known. ::sigh::

Sin’s existence is in one sense always in God’s presence since he is basically everywhere but in the forensic sense I don’t think sin can abide in his presence just as darkness can’t abide in light.
Yeah, if sin can’t be in God’s presence, that kind of messes with omnipresence. I mean, God is “within” me and there is definitely still some sin “in” me. And it even messes with Trinity. God the Son would have never been able to walk among us if that held true in the utmost sense. I think I follow you with the light/dark thing, but isn’t that kind of like saying, “It’s like this, but it’s not?” Guess I’m still working on it.

Lynn,
My understanding is that I fell when I was in Adam, and I was born bound to sin. I know I’m no longer a slave to it, but it seems as though as a believer I still am nothing but a sinner, if only that my thoughts are self-serving and not God-serving.
I’m totally with you here. This is where I’m most sympathetic to Calvinist ideas - total depravity. Sometimes my depravity resonates within me! But my hope lies in the unmerited grace of God which does what I cannot. So, yes, like you, I am weak and fail constantly, but I don’t see that as a sin problem as much as a grace need. If I didn’t sin, I might not be as aware of my need. So in a way, I’m thankful for my sin. Sort of. Hope that makes sense.

My understanding is that I fell when I was in Adam, and I was born bound to sin. I know I’m no longer a slave to it, but it seems as though as a believer I still am nothing but a sinner, if only that my thoughts are self-serving and not God-serving.

I guess I don’t have much of a problem with sin’s origin as I do with its continued presence inside of me. I seem to be very weak and fail constantly.

Sin’s existence is in one sense always in God’s presence since he is basically everywhere but in the forensic sense I don’t think sin can abide in his presence just as darkness can’t abide in light.

So God forsaking Jesus because of sin is fine if seen in a sort of legal terms; cut off, punished, put outside of the camp. Which incidentally, is why believers can be seen as dead to sin and dead to the law while still struggling with meeting the requirements of the law and wrestling with the flesh and sin. We’re legally dead in Christ and yet alive because Christ lives–yet no longer we living but Christ living.

Now that I’ve completely kicked up all the mud in the river bottom, enjoy the swim.