Results 1 - 4 of 4
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | God can't die or look on sin! | Matt 27:46 | Beja | 225416 | ||
CDBJ, Honestly I think we are missunderstanding what is being taught. What are we saying in that God can't look upon sin? Are we saying He isn't aware of it? Ofcourse not. Are we saying that he is physically turning his face away? How can He when he isn't physical? The notion that this is teaching that God can't in some way be aware of sin or turns his face is an error in my estimation. The point is that he can't stand by idly. He can't just look at it; He must judge sin. He must deal with it. Which is exactly what He did. There is therefore no puzzle to be answered. What was the second person of the trinity doing while the Father imputed sin upon Christ? He was suffering and dying for that sin. In Christ, Beja |
||||||
2 | God can't die or look on sin! | Matt 27:46 | CDBJ | 225417 | ||
Hi Beja, I think you are getting close to something if we can make the following fit. 2 Cor. 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. My point is how, since Christ is a hypostasis, can Jesus be made sin without infecting the deity, which we know is imposable? We know for a fact that it actually happened but how? CDBJ |
||||||
3 | God can't die or look on sin! | Matt 27:46 | following him | 225418 | ||
Hello CDBJ; It's been years since I have posted, and have recently started looking in again and saw your posting here. In response to your question, I think it may be important to look at whose sin it was. The sin He became was not His it was ours. On the cross while dieing for our sins and taking them on Himself He was still Holy, blameless and without sin of His own. He has never committed sin and therefore is uncontaminated by carring and suffering for ours. Does this sound reasonable? God Bless Aaron Erberich |
||||||
4 | God can't die or look on sin! | Matt 27:46 | CDBJ | 225422 | ||
Greetings FM and welcome back to the forum. I would guess it depends largely on which camp one’s concept of the hypostasis resides. I’m not even sure that my thoughts on the subject would totally fit entirely in any of the sections that I’ve listed but I would say the Apollinaris view would likely be the closes therefore causing the problem in my previous post. 2 Cor. 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. The words (made him) in the previous verse would argue against The Apollinaris view of the hypostasis since deity can’t be made sin, as it were. Example from Wikipedia Apollinaris of Laodicea was the first to use the term hypostasis in trying to understand the Incarnation. Apollinaris described the union of the divine and human in Christ as being of a single nature and having a single essence - a single hypostasis. The Nestorian Theodore of Mopsuestia went in the other direction, arguing that in Christ there were two natures (dyophysite) (human and divine) and two hypostases (in the sense of "essence" or "person") that co-existed. The Chalcedonian Creed agreed with Theodore that there were two natures in the Incarnation. However, the Council of Chalcedon also insisted that hypostasis be used as it was in the Trinitarian definition: to indicate the person and not the nature as with Apollinarius. Thus, the Council declared that in Christ there are two natures; each retaining its own properties, and together united in one subsistence and in one single person As the precise nature of this union is held to defy finite human comprehension, the hypostatic union is also referred to by the alternative term "mystical union." The Oriental Orthodox Churches, having rejected the Chalcedonian Creed, were known as Monophysites because they would only accept a definition that characterized the incarnate Son as having one nature. The Chalcedonian "in two natures" formula was seen as derived from and akin to a Nestorian Christology. Contrariwise, the Chalcedonians saw the Oriental Orthodox as tending towards Eutychian Monophysitism. However, the Oriental Orthodox have in modern ecumenical dialogue specified that they have never believed in the doctrines of Eutyches, that they have always affirmed that Christ's humanity is consubstantial with our own, and they thus prefer the term Miaphysite to refer to themselves (a reference to Cyrillian Christology, which used the phrase "mia physis tou theou logou sesarkomene"). I hope you stay with us a while, CDBJ |
||||||