/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>633698

>Are you saved if you don't have the desire to not sin?

Worded better

>Are you saved if you have the desire to sin?

We all have the deisre to sin, what matters is if you repent your sins and never sin again.

>>633698

It's good that you don't desire to sin but you still can desire to and be saved

>>633699

>you repent your sins and never sin again.

Not possible

>>633737

>but you still can desire to and be saved

heresy

And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.

if you still sin you're not saved

Jesus said to be perfect like God is morally perfect, this is the standard you have to be once you are "born again" if you continue to sin you are not born again

>>633766

Hello Pelagius

>>633959

>1st pic

That's biblical teaching though

Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress. Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God.

Romans 7:1-4

>>633698

I was very lustful before I found Christ, and pleasured myself almost daily. This is a mindset that is very difficult to change, due to the way our bodies work, but I ask God to shield me from lustful desires and try to avoid anything that might arouse me wherever I can. Unfortunately, it does not always work. You will make excuses to yourself, you will say to yourself "Oh I asked God to protect me, I'll be fine if I look at X". You will do this over and over, snowballing until you have sinned, and you will sin. Once that happens you must repent, truly feel remorse for your sin, and ask Christ for forgiveness, and He will forgive you. Remember, even angels can fall from God's Grace. Seek redemption, guidance, or wisdom, and through God, you shall find them.

>>633962

And nothing here says about eternal security. It's about mosaic law and how it stopped to be binding since it's dead by blood of Christ. And moreover chapter before and after that (6:2-6, 16, 21-23; 8:9-25, 35-39) says that sin leads to hell always.

>>633737

>not possible

with God nothing is impossible anon

>>634717

>there's a never ending fight inside us.

>>634653

>And nothing here says about eternal security

You're right, it's about justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ.

>It's about mosaic law

*bzzzt* WRONG, it's about the entire law of God including the decalog. What Paul is saying is that we can no longer suffer the wrath our sins deserve because they have already been punished on the cross, we are crucified with Christ, and that means the law has forgotten us.

>says that sin leads to hell always

Sin does lead to hell always, that's why it must be blotted out by the blood of Christ, if God finds even one sin in you you will be damned.

>>634745

>You're right, it's about justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ.

It isn't though. It's about Mosaic Law being dead. And even if I would, against letter and spirit of those verses, grant you that it's about imputed righteousness then I have to remind you, that imputed rightousness does not equal to eternal security. Luther is all for imputed rightousness (for he invented it i.e. he denied inusion aspect of it) but he also preach that salvation can be lost

>WRONG, it's about the entire law of God including the decalog.

It's not though. For divine moral law, by its very definition is eternal and cannot be abolished. That's why Paul (and John) time and time again speak about how "Murderers, homosexuals, liars" etc. cannot enter heaven and how if one sow flesh will reap fruit of flesh that is death of soul.

>What Paul is saying is that we can no longer suffer the wrath our sins deserve because they have already been punished on the cross, we are crucified with Christ, and that means the law has forgotten us.

Wage of sin is death. It's not death of body since even righteous experience that but death of soul. If Christ was to be punished for our sins then he would have to experience death of soul. But it's impossible since as Chalcedonian defintion teaches (and it's biding for you if you wish to post here and be named Christian) "Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably". To say adhere to PSA theory is to commit serious Christological heresy, a form of nestorianism. Not to mention that it would deny dogma of Christ archpriethood for it would mean that Father is the one who is minister of sacrfice (which suddenlly stop being "offered up" but begins to be "poured down")

And even if, against the cornerstones of Christology, I would grant you that PSA is true, it would still do not equal to eternal security. Again, Luther.

>Sin does lead to hell always, that's why it must be blotted out by the blood of Christ, if God finds even one sin in you you will be damned.

That's why I do not believe in eternal security (and Luther theory of imputation alone), for it blinds God. I rather adhere to what Christ says to Seven Churches - that He sees sin of alredy saved Christian, that sin lead them unto death of soul and if they do not repent of sins he will cut them off and throw in fire (Rev 2:1-5, 18-22 3:1-4, 14-19; especially verses 4-5, 20, 22b, 2a, 3b, 4a, 16, 19)

>>634808

>imputed rightousness does not equal to eternal security

Didn't say it does.

>It's not though

Yes it is. If it were not, this would mean that Christ paid only for our sins against the mosaic law, leaving us still in our sins against the moral law. Also keep in mind that Paul's usage of the term law does not change between here and verse 7, I recommend you read the entire chapter before forming an interpretation of the beginning.

>For divine moral law, by its very definition is eternal and cannot be abolished

Paul does not say anything is abolished, but that we are released from it, from its obligations and its punishments. The mosaic law remains just as binding as the moral, there are men born after Christ who will go to hell for eating pork. The eternal law of God remains the standard of holiness for God's people however, and they will keep it, or be chastised as disobedient children.

>That's why Paul (and John) time and time again speak about how "Murderers, homosexuals, liars" etc. cannot enter heaven and how if one sow flesh will reap fruit of flesh that is death of soul.

Paul speaks of those who are in the flesh, and not those who are in the Spirit. In Paul's usage, a murderer is one who is desirous of murder, not simply one who commits murder, hence a Christian may commit murder, but would not be a murderer.

>It's not death of body since even righteous experience that but death of soul

It's both. Christ suffered on the cross not only physically but also in His soul, hence the words of the creed, "He descended into hell".

>To say adhere to PSA theory is to commit serious Christological heresy, a form of nestorianism

You haven't laid any foundation for that claim.

>Not to mention that it would deny dogma of Christ archpriethood for it would mean that Father is the one who is minister of sacrfice

Christ offered His sacrifice after rising from the dead.

>it would still do not equal to eternal security

And I'm still not talking about that, go back and re-read the image I was responding to, except the words "eternal security".

>it blinds God. I rather adhere to what Christ says to Seven Churches - that He sees sin of alredy saved Christian

I seriously hope you don't think I'm saying God is literally ignorant of our sins, as if He were not omniscient. What I'm saying is that it is forgotten in His law, since we are marked in it as punished, hence He no longer relates to us as judge but as father.

>>634815

>Didn't say it does.

Right. Mea culpa. I was tried and didn't think clear.

But since whole discussion is about OSAS then I feel justified.

>Yes it is. If it were not, this would mean that Christ paid only for our sins against the mosaic law, leaving us still in our sins against the moral law.

That thinking presupposes that Death of Christ was in fact PSA i.e. Christ is punished in our place. It's circular logic. Rather Christ atonement was atonement of superabundant sacrifice i.e. warth of God is not pured down on him but rather calmed by offering of pure love.

>Also keep in mind that Paul's usage of the term law does not change between here and verse 7, I recommend you read the entire chapter before forming an interpretation of the beginning.

Mosaic law was threefold as proven from Deuteronomy 6:1. And this allows Paul to change meaning or rather to change aspect of thing discussed. So fast he says "Not-moral law of Moses is dead" to add then "Was then law of Moses evil? No for it had moral percepts as well"

>Paul does not say anything is abolished, but that we are released from it, from its obligations and its punishments.

'But if her husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband." Law, being masculine in greek is styled as husband. Law is dead. It's no more. But moral law cannot be be abolished, nor dead. That's why he tells us that " For he that soweth in his flesh, of the flesh also shall reap corruption." And in another place: "Now you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err [sinners] shall possess the kingdom of God."

>The mosaic law remains just as binding as the moral, there are men born after Christ who will go to hell for eating pork.

This is some form of dual covenant theology. But old covenant is dead "For, until this present day, the selfsame veil, in the reading of the old covenant, remaineth not taken away (because in Christ it is made void).". And not only dead but als deadly. For outward ceremonies signify inward faith. And since all ceremonies of the old law points that Messiah will come to partake in them means to confess that Mesaiah will come. But Messiah did come. He was alredy there. The mystery of faith - Christ died, Christ rose, Christ will come back. To your claim to be true it would mean that Messiah did not come in flesh. Not to mention, that center and core of ceremonies of old law, that is temple and priesthood is no more. There is no Temple. All of aaronic priesthood lines died out. There is no phisical way to even keep old ceremonies

>Paul speaks of those who are in the flesh, and not those who are in the Spirit

I already quoted Paul who say those things as a warning already saved christians so I will not repeat myself. But I will add that he says and commands that Christians 'should walk in newness of life and spirit not that all christians do that.

>In Paul's usage, a murderer is one who is desirous of murder, not simply one who commits murder, hence a Christian may commit murder, but would not be a murderer.

This is twisting this verse out of context and it proper meaning. Paul is clear - "Christians do not err, nor be deceived - murderers will not inherit kingdom of God." And in another place "Christians you erred, you fallen from grace. You run well, but failed from the run. Works of flesh is this - murders. And those who murder shall not obtain kingdom of God. Walk thefore in Spirt, not Flesh. Be not deceived, God is not mocked. Those who sow flesh, will reap fruit of it"

>It's both. Christ suffered on the cross not only physically but also in His soul, hence the words of the creed, "He descended into hell".

This is not what words of this creed means. Let me quote third generation Christian, student of Saint Policarp, student of Saint John, to tell you what it means

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 4, Chap. 27, Para. 2:

The Lord descended into the regions beneath the earth, announcing there the good news of His coming and of the remission of sins conferred upon those who believe in Him.

5, 31, 2

For since the Lord went away into the midst of the shadow of death where the souls of the dead were, and afterwards arose in the body, and after the resurrection was taken up, it is clear that the souls also of His disciples, on account of which the Lord underwent these things, will go away into the place allotted them by God.

Or just give it this acient homily on the matter

http://www.vatican.va/spirit/documents/spirit_20010414_omelia-sabato-santo_en.html

Christ would not experience spiritual death if his union of both his natures is indivisible, inseparable".

Huge Point

If you deny this then we will end this here and I recommend you to stay away from this board. For it's Chalcedonian.

>You haven't laid any foundation for that claim.

I did. You ignored it. To quote myself

<Chalcedonian defintion teaches: "Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably".

>Christ offered His sacrifice after rising from the dead.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Ephesians 5:2): "He delivered Himself up for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness."

But I was not talking about "when" but about "who". For if it was father who poured down his wrath on Christ then Christ is not priest but only offering. But if Christ is priest then he is the one who offers up himself as a offering so we cannot talk about active role of Father here. For Father is not Archpriest - Son is.

>And I'm still not talking about that, go back and re-read the image I was responding to, except the words "eternal security".

It about eternal security which is possible only under imputed righteousness. Not about imputed righteousness itself for there are models of it where eternal security is not part of it.

>I seriously hope you don't think I'm saying God is literally ignorant of our sins, as if He were not omniscient

Contrary to some posters here, I do not claim to read hearts. I only say what any form of eternal security and imputed righteousness as presented by Luther (to quote him, "Snow upon dunghill") say about God.

>What I'm saying is that it is forgotten in His law, since we are marked in it as punished, hence He no longer relates to us as judge but as father.

This statement have several problems. First is of course it assumes that PSA is true. Second is that have to imply one of two things - either that eternal security is true or there is some mechainsim of reconciation of God after Christian lose his grace, the life eternal and thus salvation via mortal, that is the one which kills, sin. Thirdly it assumes that sin is nothing but legal fiction. That sins are not something that really exist. For if sin is real and not legal fiction then you infact do say that God ignores reality or as Luther puts it "Like a snow covers dunghills so imputed righteousness covers sins". For sin (or dung) is still here.

Of course all those probles are easly avoided when one subscribe to biblical, traditional, teaching of the Church - that righteousness is not mealy imputed (or imputed alone) but infused - and that very real and existing sin are absolved "and even if they were red like scarlet, the will be made white above snow". Not covered but themselv not exiting anymore.

>>635048

>That thinking presupposes that Death of Christ was in fact PSA i.e. Christ is punished in our place

Yes I believe it is safe to presuppose Paul's own teaching when reading Paul

>It's circular logic

It would be if I was using that as an argument for PSA, but I deliberately arranged my words to be compatible with other perspectives on the atonement because my point does not require that view. The word paid is the past tense form of the word pay, meaning to give money. Therefore my language had little difference to the bible's language when it speaks of Christ paying our debt. If you are objecting to saying that Christ paid for our sins, you object to the bible's own explicit words.

So my point still stands. However Christ paid for our sins, if He only paid for some, we are doomed.

>Mosaic law was threefold as proven from Deuteronomy 6:1

Paul quotes from the decalog in verse 7 as an example of the law of which he is speaking. I do not dispute he also has ceremonies in mind, but it is every law God has ever given to man.

>And this allows Paul to change meaning or rather to change aspect of thing discussed

So you are in fact arguing that there disjunction between the beginning of Romans 7 and the rest? That is most odd considering verse 7 says "What then shall we say", which is about as close as you can come to explicitly saying "I'm still talking about the same thing".

>"Was then law of Moses evil? No for it had moral percepts as well"

Were the non-moral laws evil, anon? Are you saying that God gave us evil? If not, how would that answer that question? That is not how Paul answers the question, he says "Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin", meaning that just as in Romans 3:19-20, he is saying the purpose of the law is to show us our inability to work with God, so we can see our need for Christ. Hence it is proven that the entirety of God's law is in mind, since any command which God gives us has the capacity to make sin come alive.

>Law, being masculine in greek is styled as husband

It is not. The Greek isn't saying the law is her husband, but that it is about her husband (covenantal obligations of marriage), hence the masculine. Paul does not say that the law is dead, but "you also have died to the law", and "we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive", proving that the law stands, but not for a Christian.

>But old covenant is dead

That the old covenant has passed away does not show that the old law has done the same, since the old covenant is merely a dispensation (or rather, a serious of dispensations) of the one covenant of grace, being in substance no different from the new covenant. Hence, it is done away with, since it only concerns the people of God, who have moved on into the new covenant, but the old law concerns all who hear it and believe it, so those who remain in the covenant of works and know the law are convicted by the law.

>>635048

>For outward ceremonies signify inward faith. And since all ceremonies of the old law points that Messiah will come to partake in them means to confess that Mesaiah will come

The sacraments of the old law continue even now as the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, which point backward that the Messiah did come, and signify inward faith, inasmuch as they are badges of covenant membership.

>I already quoted Paul who say those things as a warning already saved christians

He spoke that multiple times, so we have several parallels to examine. The reading in Galatians is prefaced "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law", meaning that it is not a warning to Christians of what will happen if they fail to keep the law (indeed, that would be to forsake the whole epistle), but that this is what awaits the unrepentant, who neither believe nor desire to. The sins that he lists (and the virtues he lists after) are not the deeds properly, but mean as things that one fixes their mind on. One claiming to be Christian but fixing on these sins is like Lot's wife, desiring to escape the judgement but turning back to the real object of their heart.

>But I will add that he says and commands that Christians 'should walk in newness of life and spirit not that all christians do that.

If Paul does not say that not all Christians do that and it's just something you take as implied, you are adding to scripture. The fact Paul calls us to live in light of our calling does not mean that calling is not ours.

>"Christians you erred, you fallen from grace. You run well, but failed from the run

Men professing to be Christians fell away from the realm of grace, namely the true Church.

>Works of flesh is this - murders. And those who murder shall not obtain kingdom of God. Walk thefore in Spirt, not Flesh. Be not deceived, God is not mocked. Those who sow flesh, will reap fruit of it"

And how does he conclude that section? "And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires". He tells us plainly that no Christian walks in the flesh.

>The Lord descended into the regions beneath the earth, announcing there the good news of His coming and of the remission of sins conferred upon those who believe in Him.

I do not deny that it also refers to the harrowing of hell, but I think it is also meant to assure a believer that Christ suffered all which they deserved to suffer.

>Christ would not experience spiritual death if his union of both his natures is indivisible, inseparable

I categorically deny that Christ suffered spiritual death. Spiritual death is a sinful nature, it would be blasphemy and heresy to say He died spiritually.

>>635049

>I did

You still haven't, so

>For if it was father who poured down his wrath on Christ then Christ is not priest but only offering

It was not offered to the Father until Christ was in heaven again, see Hebrews 9:24-25

>we cannot talk about active role of Father here

You seem to have forgotten the teaching of Augustine that the entire Godhead is active in every act of God, working indivisibly.

>For if sin is real and not legal fiction then you infact do say that God ignores reality

He isn't ignoring their sins, He accepts the intercession of the Son, allowing Him to take the sins of His people and to give them His righteousness. The sin isn't ignored because it is justly punished in the person of Christ. This is why it isn't a legal fiction, Jesus really took on my sin, and I really received His righteousness, though all forensically.

>>635108

>Yes I believe it is safe to presuppose Paul's own teaching when reading Paul

Except that Paul does not teach PSA. In fact, noone did before Reformation.

And accusing Paul of preaching it is nonsense since he says that He himself and all Christians in fact (Galatians 2:20, Romans 6:6) were crucified with Christ. If PSA is true then Paul says "I have endured the Father's wrath along with Christ"

>It would be if I was using that as an argument for PSA, but I deliberately arranged my words to be compatible with other perspectives on the atonement because my point does not require that view. The word paid is the past tense form of the word pay, meaning to give money. Therefore my language had little difference to the bible's language when it speaks of Christ paying our debt. If you are objecting to saying that Christ paid for our sins, you object to the bible's own explicit words.

But those verses still do not speak about imputed righteousness. It's not even speaking about justification in the first place. You could say it speaks about cause of it i.e. dead of Christ and thus abolishing Cermonial law of Mosaic covenant (which destruction of Temple Veil signifies).

>So my point still stands. However Christ paid for our sins, if He only paid for some, we are doomed.

I will agree with you. However I would argue about mode of paying and it's application, and about context of that statement.

>Paul quotes from the decalog in verse 7 as an example of the law of which he is speaking. I do not dispute he also has ceremonies in mind, but it is every law God has ever given to man.

Do not break logical part of statement in the middle of it, please.

>So you are in fact arguing that there disjunction between the beginning of Romans 7 and the rest? That is most odd considering verse 7 says "What then shall we say", which is about as close as you can come to explicitly saying "I'm still talking about the same thing".

I did explain what I meant.

>Were the non-moral laws evil, anon? Are you saying that God gave us evil?

A good thing can be said to be evil in comparison to greater good, similarly how love which is smaller can be named hatred in comparison to greater love, as Christ used it.

> If not, how would that answer that question? That is not how Paul answers the question, he says "Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin", meaning that just as in Romans 3:19-20, he is saying the purpose of the law is to show us our inability to work with God, so we can see our need for Christ. Hence it is proven that the entirety of God's law is in mind, since any command which God gives us has the capacity to make sin come alive.

First of all, God do not demand impossible. He always gave gracies neccessary to do it. Law could be kept and can be kept. Elizabeth and Zechariah kept law in all of it. Without grace, of course, it would not mean shit but it could be kept.

Second of all Paul in chapter seven of his letter to Romans speaks about concupiscence. Concupiscence, which is called sin, because it is from sin, and leads to sin, which was asleep before, was awakened by the prohibition; the law not being the cause thereof, nor properly giving occasion to it: but occasion being taken by our corrupt nature to resist the commandment laid upon us.

>>635170

>It is not. The Greek isn't saying the law is her husband, but that it is about her husband (covenantal obligations of marriage), hence the masculine. Paul does not say that the law is dead, but "you also have died to the law", and "we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive", proving that the law stands, but not for a Christian.

S. Paul here compares the law (which in the Greek is in the masculine gender) to a husband, whom a wife cannot quit, nor be married to another, as long as the husband liveth, without being an adulteress: but if the husband be dead, (as the law of Moses is now dead, and no longer obligatory after the publishing of the new law of Christ) the people that were Jews, and under the Jewish law, are now free from that former husband, to wit, the written law of Moses. Nay, this people also are become dead to the law, (v. 4.) because the law itself is dead by the body of Christ, or, as in the Greek, by reason of the body of Christ offered and sacrificed for you, and for all on the cross: so that now you must look upon yourselves as spiritually married to him: which agrees with what follows, that you may belong to another, (in the Greek, to another husband) to Christ, who is risen from the dead, and is now the spouse of your souls.

>That the old covenant has passed away does not show that the old law has done the same, since the old covenant is merely a dispensation (or rather, a serious of dispensations) of the one covenant of grace, being in substance no different from the new covenant. Hence, it is done away with, since it only concerns the people of God, who have moved on into the new covenant, but the old law concerns all who hear it and believe it, so those who remain in the covenant of works and know the law are convicted by the law.

There was never any kind of "covenant of works".

Let me repeat. Old law had three parts: Moral, judicial, and ceremonial. Moral law is always the same, and so it can be styled "law of Christ". Judicial or casual is by it very nature up to causes, that is times and places. That's why it can be styled "Moses allowed it". Ceremonial law is concerned with outward signs of inward faith. To say that it could EVER be in force after Christ died and rose it to say that Christ did not died and did not rose. For all of ceremonial law points to Christ. Those who keep ceremonial law of old sin mortaly.

>The sacraments of the old law continue even now as the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, which point backward that the Messiah did come, and signify inward faith, inasmuch as they are badges of covenant membership.

Sacraments of the old law said that Christ WILL come. Sacraments of new law are in place because Christ DID come. Two of them could be in the power at the same time in only one peroid of history that is when Christ walked with his very feet on this earth.

All sacraments of old law are "badges of covenant membership" but this covenant, this "worse covenant" is built upon "worse promises" that Christ WILL come and not that he already came. Thus they are dead. And deadly.

>He spoke that multiple times, so we have several parallels to examine. The reading in Galatians is prefaced "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law", meaning that it is not a warning to Christians of what will happen if they fail to keep the law (indeed, that would be to forsake the whole epistle), but that this is what awaits the unrepentant, who neither believe nor desire to. The sins that he lists (and the virtues he lists after) are not the deeds properly, but mean as things that one fixes their mind on. One claiming to be Christian but fixing on these sins is like Lot's wife, desiring to escape the judgement but turning back to the real object of their heart.

Your own quote disproves your whole argument. For Paul says "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law". Then Paul lists fruits of flesh (vv. 19-21a) and the he adds "Of the which I foretell you (that is you Christians, now, in this moment), as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God." And he reapets: If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

>If Paul does not say that not all Christians do that and it's just something you take as implied, you are adding to scripture. The fact Paul calls us to live in light of our calling does not mean that calling is not ours.

I have no idea what you are talking about (seriously, use of negative in english weird).To rephrase in hope that you will do the same: Paul commands Christian to walk in newness of life. He does it because many Christians do not walk in newness of life. And "if one sow flesh he shall reap death"

>Men professing to be Christians fell away from the realm of grace, namely the true Church.

On the contrary, addresseress of this part was the same to whom Paul spoke inn chapter 4, namelly "brethren", "My little children", in whom Paul "labour to make Christ formed in them". Aka real Christians, part of the body of Church but not it's soul.

>And how does he conclude that section? "And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires". He tells us plainly that no Christian walks in the flesh.

And what he say in the very next verse: "let us also walk in the Spirit." And then what? "Be not deceived, God is not mocked. For what things a man shall sow, those also shall he reap.".

Christians can walk in flesh. And thay shall reap fruit of it if they do not repet and walk in spirit again. Oh how gracious is good that he put in place "ministry of reconciliation".

>I do not deny that it also refers to the harrowing of hell, but I think it is also meant to assure a believer that Christ suffered all which they deserved to suffer.

NO ONE before Calvin (and for long time noone after him) EVER thought about it for its denial of faith of Chalcedon, that in Christ will ALWAYS his two natures united, that union of those two natures was indivisible, inseparable. To suffer in hell is to be separated from God. Christ humanity NEVER can be separated from his divinity. This union, greater than union of person in most holy Trinity is unbreakable. It never stoped to be such.

>I categorically deny that Christ suffered spiritual death. Spiritual death is a sinful nature, it would be blasphemy and heresy to say He died spiritually.

Death of spirit is separation from God. To Christ to suffer in hell he HAVE to be spiritually dead. And there are Reformed Protestants who claim this very thing.

>You still haven't, so

Let me use then copy this part one last time for you ignored it once more

Chalcedonian defintion teaches: "Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably".

indivisibly

adjective

1.

not divisible; not separable into parts; incapable of being divided:

inseparably

adjective

1.

incapable of being separated, parted, or disjoined:

This definition states clear - Human and Divine nature of Christ never separated. Thus he never been spiritually dead so he did not suffer in hell, thus his death could not be "just punishment in our place" nor in any form Father could pour down warth upon Son for Son was always united to his human nature and united to Father by fact of being of the very same substance.

>It was not offered to the Father until Christ was in heaven again, see Hebrews 9:24-25

The next three verses literally say that he presents (not once, but once for all, for all eternity) his bloody sacrifice. Or as author speaks in other place "He delivered Himself up for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness."

>You seem to have forgotten the teaching of Augustine that the entire Godhead is active in every act of God, working indivisibly.

But Sacrifice of Christ was not act of Godhead as a whole, but of person of Christ. For if it was whole Godhead, then we would have to say that Father is the Priest and Holy Spirit is the offering. You confuse things.

>He isn't ignoring their sins, He accepts the intercession of the Son, allowing Him to take the sins of His people and to give them His righteousness. The sin isn't ignored because it is justly punished in the person of Christ.

To Christ be punished justly he would have to suffer in hell. But he did not since he always had both of his natures united. But Christ offered sacrifice, sin-offering and was not punished but loved.

> This is why it isn't a legal fiction, Jesus really took on my sin, and I really received His righteousness, though all forensically.

First Pope, Peter, infalible explained what does it mean that Christ bore our sins. Hint: It's forensically.

http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-popes-infallible-interpretation-of.html

b o m p

>>635170

>And accusing Paul of preaching it is nonsense since he says that He himself and all Christians in fact (Galatians 2:20, Romans 6:6) were crucified with Christ. If PSA is true then Paul says "I have endured the Father's wrath along with Christ"

Yeah, that's his whole point, Christ on the cross was Paul suffering the wrath of God.

>But those verses still do not speak about imputed righteousness. It's not even speaking about justification in the first place. You could say it speaks about cause of it i.e. dead of Christ and thus abolishing Cermonial law of Mosaic covenant (which destruction of Temple Veil signifies).

I'm not seeing any counter-arguments, so I'll feel free to not make any either.

>I will agree with you

Ok, good, do you see how that establishes my point and means Paul is talking about the moral law in Romans 7?

>A good thing can be said to be evil in comparison to greater good, similarly how love which is smaller can be named hatred in comparison to greater love, as Christ used it.

But that's not what Paul says is it, he doesn't say "yes it's evil in comparison to a greater good", he says "no it's not, but without it I wouldn't be as evil".

>First of all, God do not demand impossible

God demands perfect righteousness regardless of whether His creatures are capable of supplying it. It isn't like God changes and compromises His standard of absolute perfection just because someone fails to meet it.

>Law could be kept and can be kept

None is righteous, no not one.

>Elizabeth and Zechariah kept law in all of it.

I don't believe Luke 1:6 means that Paul didn't actually mean what he wrote in Romans, especially not when it can easily be understood as a hyperbole conveying a general righteousness.

>Paul in chapter seven of his letter to Romans speaks about concupiscence. Concupiscence, which is called sin, because it is from sin, and leads to sin, which was asleep before, was awakened by the prohibition; the law not being the cause thereof, nor properly giving occasion to it: but occasion being taken by our corrupt nature to resist the commandment laid upon us.

Amen.

>>635171

>There was never any kind of "covenant of works".

Genesis 2:16-17

<And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

In this scripture, God promised to Adam and all his descendants eternal life conditioned on perfect righteousness. This promise remains to Adam's descendants, who do to their father's failure cannot keep the covenant. Because of this, God Himself became a man, born of a virgin, and the head of a new covenant, based not on personal righteousness but on His vicarious righteousness, being the only man to keep the covenant of works. This covenant is known as the covenant of grace, wherein eternal life is promised for faith in Christ alone, and is the only covenant in which men have ever been saved, the first member being the head of the older covenant, Adam himself.

>Old law had three parts: Moral, judicial, and ceremonial

During the dispensations of the covenant of grace prior to the coming of Christ, laws additional to the eternal moral law were given for reasons peculiar to that time, place and people. When Christ came and created a new world, His people moved on to the perfect dispensation of this covenant, the new covenant, and left these laws in the done away with dispensations, making their precepts free. Because the laws were not abrogated, but outgrown, they remain binding on those who hear and believe them within the covenant of works. They are free only for those in the new covenant, not for any other.

>For Paul says "But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law".

To Paul, every believer is led by the Spirit.

>>635172

>To rephrase in hope that you will do the same: Paul commands Christian to walk in newness of life. He does it because many Christians do not walk in newness of life

Paul commands Christians to walk in newness of life because they are required to walk in newness of life, but he knows (in fact, he teaches) that all who truly believe will walk in newness of life as they are able.

>On the contrary, addresseress of this part was the same to whom Paul spoke inn chapter 4, namelly "brethren", "My little children", in whom Paul "labour to make Christ formed in them". Aka real Christians, part of the body of Church but not it's soul.

Paul isn't claiming to know their hearts, so your point is moot.

>Christians can walk in flesh

Take it up with Paul.

>And thay shall reap fruit of it if they do not repet and walk in spirit again

It is important in any given work to note the greater context of the author. We cannot forget the monergistic context of Paul and read him as though he were a synergist believing that it is all up to man. A parallel, Romans 8:9 states "You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him". Hence, whether one is in the Spirit or in the flesh is not up to them, but up to the Spirit. Whenever Paul gives this warning, as this passage in Romans 8 shows, his teaching is that one who still walks in the flesh is not a Christian.

>To suffer in hell

Christ never suffered in hell. He suffered on the cross, that is where He made His sacrifice. His natures are not separate, they are distinct. He suffered not one bit in His divinity, but only in His humanity.

>greater than union of person in most holy Trinity

You blaspheme

>And there are Reformed Protestants who claim this very thing

No there aren't, you misunderstood them like you misunderstood me.

>Thus he never been spiritually dead

I'll quote myself, because you seem to have trouble getting it

<I categorically deny that Christ suffered spiritual death

>nor in any form Father could pour down warth upon Son for Son was always united to his human nature and united to Father by fact of being of the very same substance.

The Son was a sinner in the eyes of the Father.

>The next three verses literally say that he presents (not once, but once for all, for all eternity) his bloody sacrifice. Or as author speaks in other place "He delivered Himself up for us, an oblation and a sacrifice to God for an odor of sweetness."

What's your point?

>But Sacrifice of Christ was not act of Godhead as a whole, but of person of Christ. For if it was whole Godhead, then we would have to say that Father is the Priest and Holy Spirit is the offering

Are you saying Augustine erred on the very nature of God when he said the persons of the Trinity work indivisibly?

>To Christ be punished justly he would have to suffer in hell

Or He could, you know, suffer on the cross

>First Pope, Peter

Good joke!

>>635270

>Yeah, that's his whole point, Christ on the cross was Paul suffering the wrath of God.

Then PSub have even less sense, because it would mean that Christ suffered in vain because Christians suffer anyway warth due to them.

Or maybe you meant to write something along lines "Christ suffered Punishment that was due to Paul". But then it's clear reading into the text with "PSA is true then it have to be somehow about PSA even if it's clearly not".

>I'm not seeing any counter-arguments, so I'll feel free to not make any either.

This whole point never had any arguments from your side to begin with. You've claimed that it's speak about Imputation here without any proof. I've said that not true and explained usage of metaphore of Paul and how "Law" can be used.

>Ok, good, do you see how that establishes my point and means Paul is talking about the moral law in Romans 7?

I did agree with "Christ paid for our sins, if He only paid for some, we are doomed" statement and not your interpretation of Romans 7. I still didn't agree with mode by withc he did it and it's application that you present .

>But that's not what Paul says is it, he doesn't say "yes it's evil in comparison to a greater good", he says "no it's not, but without it I wouldn't be as evil".

And those two are not excluding.For Paul first speaks about bondage that was ceremonies of Old Law and how they are dead. Compared to "sweet yoke" of new ceremonies they were evil. But was Law itself evil? No. It was holy. Foremost by moral law secondly by fact that thse ceremonies were for a time true worship. But even moral law without grace of God is but fuel to desires of flesh.

>God demands perfect righteousness regardless of whether His creatures are capable of supplying it.

And God gives all necessary graces to fulfil this law for if he would demand impossible and punish us from not doing it he would be unjust as it's written: This commandment, that I command thee this day is not above thee, nor far off from thee.

> It isn't like God changes and compromises His standard of absolute perfection just because someone fails to meet it.

And that's why eternal security is such bullshit in the first place, because it makes God into "meh, whatever" kind of persons.

>None is righteous, no not one.

Viz. by virtue either of the law of nature, or of the law of Moses; but only by faith and grace.But with faith and grace it could have been and still can be keep. For in one of psalms that Paul quotes here we read: "Lord is in the just generation" in another: "thou wilt bless the just" and in yet other: "the just, they shall give glory to thy name".

>I don't believe Luke 1:6 means that Paul didn't actually mean what he wrote in Romans, especially not when it can easily be understood as a hyperbole conveying a general righteousness.

Luke written under Paul. I don't believe Romans 3 means that Paul didn't actually mean what he commanded to wrote in Luke, especially not when it can easily be understood as a hyperbole conveying a general lack of righteousness.

>>635529

>In this scripture, God promised to Adam and all his descendants eternal life conditioned on perfect righteousness

Except that it's not the case. Adam was already immortal. God said that he will stop to be if he disobeys God because it would be sin and sin cannot exist with grace by which Adam was immortal. Adamic covenant was covenant of grace.

God gave humans authority over everything living on the earth. This gift of the earth was unconditional and without recourse. The covenant was pure grace. No conditions were included. Adam and Eve did not have to earn authority on earth.

The covenant with Adam was a covenant of grace not a covenant of works. Adam and Eve were given the blessing of the earth, before God made the covenant. They had done nothing to earn it, and they could do nothing in the future to earn it. The covenant did not contain any guidelines about the nature of righteousness. God did not give a set of rules that humans must comply with. The only requirement he placed on humans was that they keep close to him. That was essential, because he was the source of the blessing of the covenant, but it did not earn them anything.

The covenant did not specify a standard of righteousness that humans should be tested against. Instead, he gave a relationship with the Holy Spirit. They did not have to keep a set of rules to maintain that relationship. As with any relationship, all they had to do was avoid grieving the other person. This was a covenant of mutual love, not a covenant of works.

God is God of Grace. He always have been. This core of Paul letter to Galatians and Romans, that mode of salvation was always have been by grace and that that no one ever, including Adam, could earn grace of life eternal, nor keep it if he had no grace.

>During the dispensations of the covenant of grace prior to the coming of Christ, laws additional to the eternal moral law were given for reasons peculiar to that time, place and people.

And after coming of Christ moral law reminded (for moral law is always the same) judical law was abolished (for we have a new lawgiver, new Moses, and his new Sanhedrin which is Greek from Council, a teaching authority wich in Latin is called Magisterium) and so was ceremonial (for Christ come, thus need of new ceremonies was rised for we ought to worship God who came in flesh not the one that will come. In fact doing so would be form of antichrist worship)

>When Christ came and created a new world, His people moved on to the perfect dispensation of this covenant, the new covenant, and left these laws in the done away with dispensations, making their precepts free.

That is judical and cermonial percepts for moral law is always the same, thus it can be named "law of Christ" and about Christians, in hearts of whom this law of CHrist was written, it can be said "doers of law will be justified"

>Because the laws were not abrogated, but outgrown, they remain binding on those who hear and believe them within the covenant of works. They are free only for those in the new covenant, not for any other.

And here I can't set you stright for it's just utter falsehood. Ceremonial law was abolished. Judical alw was abolished. "Let no man therefore judge you in respect of a festival day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths, Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ."

Not to mention that Mosaic law was not universal law but law for Israel alone (Romans 3:1-2, Psalm 147:9)

>>635530

>To Paul, every believer is led by the Spirit.

On the contrary he wrote to Romans "If you live according to the flesh, you shall die: but if by the Spirit you mortify the deeds of the flesh, you shall live". IF. Biggest word in english some say. And so in greek it mean a conditional conjunction. Paul says to Christians that IF they are led by spirt they shall live. But to the same Christians say that IF they are not led by Spirt they would die. He would not write "If you live according to the flesh" if they could not live according to the flesh and all of them lived according to the spirit.

>Paul commands Christians to walk in newness of life because they are required to walk in newness of life, but he knows (in fact, he teaches) that all who truly believe will walk in newness of life as they are able.

All who were baptised put on new man. But that does not mean that they do it. That's why he commands and warn about it.

>Paul isn't claiming to know their hearts, so your point is moot.

But it was you who said that those to whom Paul wrote were "Men professing to be Christians". I would take the word of Paul that they were true Christians. For as man have soul and body so Church have spirit and body, invisible and visible. And even though sinners are not united with spirit of Church (that is Spirit of Christ) they are still part of the body of Church; they are true Christians, though currently not saved (for salvation is not one-time deal).

>Take it up with Paul.

Paul time again warns Christians to NOT walk in flesh. Thus Christians can walk in flesh. For if Christians could not walk in flesh those precepts would be as logical as this one: "Anon, do not fly with crows by thy wings"

>It is important in any given work to note the greater context of the author. We cannot forget the monergistic context of Paul

Expect that context of Paul is synergetic. "For we are labourers together with (synergoi) God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.

>Hence, whether one is in the Spirit or in the flesh is not up to them, but up to the Spirit.

One cannot merit that comes to him Spirit - It's purely grace. But walking with spirit is synergistic action. For if it was not then those who fall from grace of God, those who even though had Spirit have it no longer would not be guilty of anything, for it was God who made them fall since they cannot fall on thier own. But "God is not tempter of evils, and he tempteth no man".

>Whenever Paul gives this warning, as this passage in Romans 8 shows, his teaching is that one who still walks in the flesh is not a Christian.

On the contrary he writes in Hebrews 6:4-8 that genuine Christians (for vv.45 can be said only about them) can fall from grace and walk in the flesh and no, there is no "if" there. If there is "if"in your Bible there then congratulation, it was made by Calvinist because they cannot stand it otherwise

>Christ never suffered in hell. He suffered on the cross, that is where He made His sacrifice. His natures are not separate, they are distinct. He suffered not one bit in His divinity, but only in His humanity.

So in other words this statement: "Christ suffered on the cross not only physically but also in His soul, hence the words of the creed, "He descended into hell" is false in as much as it says that suffering of the soul of Christ (very real btw) was him being in hell druing those most dark hours.

>>635531

>You blaspheme

No. It's theological certainty. Hypostatic union is greater union that union of essence.

Augustine says (De Trin. i, 10) that "man is in the Son of God, more than the Son in the Father." But the Son is in the Father by unity of essence, and man is in the Son by the union of Incarnation. Therefore the union of Incarnation is greater than the unity of the Divine Essence, which nevertheless is the greatest union; and thus the union of Incarnation implies the greatest unity.

Union implies the joining of several in some one thing. Therefore the union of Incarnation may be taken in two ways: first, in regard to the things united; secondly, in regard to that in which they are united. And in this regard this union has a pre-eminence over other unions; for the unity of the Divine Person, in which the two natures are united, is the greatest. But it has no pre-eminence in regard to the things united.

The unity of the Divine Person is greater than numerical unity, which is the principle of number. For the unity of a Divine Person is an uncreated and self-subsisting unity, not received into another by participation. Also, it is complete in itself, having in itself whatever pertains to the nature of unity; and therefore it is not compatible with the nature of a part, as in numerical unity, which is a part of number, and which is shared in by the things numbered. And hence in this respect the union of Incarnation is higher than numerical unity by reason of the unity of the Divine Person, and not by reason of the human nature, which is not the unity of the Divine Person, but is united to it.

>No there aren't, you misunderstood them like you misunderstood me.

I really, really wish I did. Sadly, not the case

http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2009/04/was-jesus-damned-in-your-place.html

http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2014/03/john-piper-says-jesus-was-damned-in-our.html

http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2014/03/protestant-apologetics-site.html

>I'll quote myself, because you seem to have trouble getting it

You may deny conclusion but this is what PSA means. To PSA to be true, Christ had to suffer spiritual death as protestants quoted in above links do hold as true.

>The Son was a sinner in the eyes of the Father.

Now THIS is blasphemy. Son was as we in all but sin. You are probably getting it from fact that "Christ was made sin", am I right? But "made sin" have different meaning. It's sin-offering. As fourth century commentary puts it: “in view of the fact that he was made an offering for sins, it is not wrong for him to be said to have been made ‘sin,’ because in the law the sacrifice which was offered for sins used to be called a ‘sin.’” For in Hebrew, Greek and Latin sin and sin-offering is the same word.

And again, Christ could not be "sinner" in the eyes of the Father because it's the person who sins and not the nature. We have nature that is sinful (and this is another way in which Christ "became sin" for, he is consubstantional in his human nature with us, whose flesh is full of concupiscence) but it not our nature but we ourselves that are sinners. And Christ was always united with his Father while "The Lord is far from the wicked"

>What's your point?

You say that Christ offered Sacrifice after he ascended. But I (and Paul) say that in heaven Christ presents his sacrifice in heaven. He presents this sacrifice for all eternity. And this sacrfice that he presents in heaven is his bloody sacrfice of cross. "He delivered (that is was killed) Himself up for us, a sacrifice to God"

>Are you saying Augustine erred on the very nature of God when he said the persons of the Trinity work indivisibly?

I never did that. Augustine rightly says that works of God that are not proper to particular person are work of whole Trinity. But Christ sacrifice was of Christ alone. For sacrifice consist of four parts to whom it is offered, by whom it is offered, what is offered, and for whom it is offered. Christ alone was what was offered and who offered it. And he alone is the true mediator who is one for whom it was offered and to whom it was offered.

>Or He could, you know, suffer on the cross

But then it would not be penal substitution for he would only substitute part of punishment dur the sin. To PSA to be true Christ would have to suffer all punishment for sin and this include separation from God, spiritual death that Adam exprienced, as quoted in links above protestants hold

>Good joke!

Even if, contrary t all historical record, you would deny that he is was the Pope, this letter is still infallible.