What does it mean when it says that the Christian is "dead to sin"?

 Ro 6:11 Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord.

* In verse 2, someone who is dead to sin should no longer live in it:

Ro 6:2 Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?

* In verse 4, someone who is dead to sin (buried with Christ) should walk in newness of life:

Ro 6:4 Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

* In verse 6, someone who is dead to sin is no longer sin's slave:

Ro 6:6 knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin.

* In verse 7, someone who is dead to sin, is freed from sin:

Ro 6:7 For he who has died has been freed from sin.

* In verse 12, someone who is dead to sin should not let sin reign in his life:

Ro 6:12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts.

"Why was the Lord Jesus distressed in light of the prospect of the cross? Why did He pray remove the cup from Him if it's possible? Was He scared?"

 "Why was the Lord Jesus distressed in light of the prospect of the cross? Why did He pray remove the cup from Him if it's possible? Was He scared?"

Mr 14:33 And He took Peter, James, and John with Him, and He began to be troubled and deeply distressed.

34 Then He said to them, "My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even to death. Stay here and watch."

35 He went a little farther, and fell on the ground, and prayed that if it were possible, the hour might pass from Him.

36 And He said, "Abba, Father, all things are possible for You. Take this cup away from Me; nevertheless, not what I will, but what You will."

Reply:

The reality of experiencing God’s anger reeled and staggered the Lord Jesus. Yes, of course, He knew beforehand that He would come to this. But this was different. This was the moment of truth. For the very first time, He was at the very door. The very reality of it was now inches away. And His whole being was upset by it. Martin Luther said: "No one ever feared death so much as this Man!"

The deaths of other great Christians who faced death bravely was not the same death that He would face. They had the comfort of God while He would have none. They did not die alone; God was with them but He would die alone; totally forsaken by God. They died without God’s anger and wrath but He would die consumed by it. They died without hell in their deaths but He would die and experience a hellish kind of torment in His death. Their deaths were only physical separation but His death involved so much more --- God would forsake Him. They died with God as their friend. But He will die with God as His enemy. They died with no sin on them but He would die with all the sins of the world on Him. Even those who died unsaved only had their sins on them. But Christ? All the sins of the world.

There are unsaved men who died with relative calm in their deaths, but they only died the way they died because they were ignorant of what awaited them. But the Lord Jesus saw clearly the awful and terrifying realities that awaited Him. His death was a death like no other in the history of the world. And it staggered Him to the core of His being.

Consider the fine nature of the Lord Jesus Christ. He was holiness Himself; and yet He was made sin for us.

2CO 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

He was holiness Himself and yet God poured on Him the sins of man:

ISA 53:6 All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.

Imagine the fine and sensitive ear of a musical genius and maestro, who is pained by the slightest discordant note, who detects the minutest disharmony that we ordinary mortals do not hear, being exposed to hearing us sing in a karaoke establishment. We could live with it. We survived the ordeal many times. We are used to our unmelodious and unmusical voices. But, to him, it’s pure torment and anguish.

The finer, the holier a person is, the more painful it is when exposed to sin. Imagine, He, the holy One, becoming sin for us, having our sins to fall on Him.

Consider also His perfect and sweet communion with God. And yet, it was broken when He was forsaken on the cross by God. Imagine living in heaven with God in eternity past and then forsaken by God. The One who had had perfect fellowship with God every moment of His existence was about to experience what it is to be forsaken by God. Hell is more painful when you have tasted heaven. Being forsaken by God is more painful when you have experienced perfect communion with Him. A husband who is separated for the first time from his wife of 60 years can only begin to understand a little bit about the painful alienation the Lord Jesus was about to experience here from God.

Consider His absolute love for God. You ask any soldier who is also a loving husband and father. The most difficult and the most grievous of all is not in the midst of the battle, with all guns blazing, with all the bullets whizzing by him. No, to him the most heart-wrenching event is when he has to walk away from home to go to battle and look back and see his wife sobbing with his child waving a tiny handkerchief right beside. The Lord Jesus absolutely loved God and He was going to be separated from Him, struck by Him as per Mark 14 verse 27.

And so, the reality of all these made Him experience all these intense and extreme emotions at this point.

Don’t view this as a negative point against the Lord Jesus. Some would use this incident to say: “See! He was a coward. He hesitated dying for us!”

No. No. No. Rightly viewed this is in fact an exhibition of the moral perfection of the Lord Jesus Christ. This shows that He was a morally perfect human being. It’s not a moral blemish on His part but a demonstration of moral flawlessness.

This does not detract anything from His love for us as sinners. Rather, this shows His greater love for His Father.

Does He love us as sinners? Absolutely yes! But He loves His Father more. And that’s a mark of a morally perfect being. A morally perfect being is someone who loves God more than anybody else.

A man who doesn’t pause and show any hesitancy in leaving someone is someone who has no love for that person.

If the Lord Jesus did not strongly feel what He felt here then it would not have been perfection on His part. It would have been heartlessness toward the Father.

Don’t view this incident as the Lord Jesus faltering in doing God’s will. No, view this as the pause and the hesitancy of love in leaving someone it dearly loves.

Moreover, a man who can approach God’s wrath casually without any fear, pause and hesitancy is someone who is not taking God seriously. The Lord Jesus was and is the perfect man. A perfect man is someone who takes God seriously, even His wrath. A man who doesn’t show any tendency to flee from God’s wrath is a pervert. It’s a demonstration of hardness --- a hardness that is harder than that of demons. Remember, even the demons tremble at God’s wrath and judgment. And so, that’s why He prayed: “remove this cup from Me.”

It was part of His perfection to pray “remove the cup” but it was equally part of His perfection to submit Himself to God’s will, saying: "… yet not what I will, but what You will.”

“Remove this cup from Me” is immediately followed by “yet not what I will, but what You will.” You see, He is submitting to the Father, depending on His will.

The pronouns “I” and “You” here are in the emphatic position in the Greek. In Darby’s English translation, these pronouns are in asterisk, apparently implying the emphatic position.

The Lord Jesus was saying: “yet not what I (emphatic) will, but what You (emphatic) will.” The Lord Jesus emphasized the pronouns to express His submission and dependence on the Father.

P.S. The separation and alienation spoken of here in this article does NOT refer to the relational and ontological separation of the second person of the Trinity from the first person of the Trinity. The unity of the three persons remained intact. Rather, it refers to God's benevolent and loving treatment of the Son. God did not treat the Lord Jesus lovingly the same way He treated Him before. He was separated from the loving treatment of the Father.

Is There A Need For Apostolic Succession?

There is no need for apostolic succession in the sense that Roman Catholicism would have us believe. For the apostles are still with us through their teachings as preserved for us in the Scriptures. 

When the apostle Paul contemplated about his departure from this world and the coming of ravenous wolves or false teachers that would threaten the flock he did not entrust Christians to apostolic successors. Rather, he said this:

Ac 20:29 "For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.

30 "Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves.

31 "Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.

32 "So now, brethren, I commend you to God and to the word of His grace, which is able to build you up and give you an inheritance among all those who are sanctified.

He commended them to God and the word of His grace. We still have "the word of His grace" in our time --- the Scriptures. 

2Pe 1:12 For this reason I will not be negligent to remind you always of these things, though you know and are established in the present truth.
13 Yes, I think it is right, as long as I am in this tent, to stir you up by reminding you,
14 knowing that shortly I must put off my tent, just as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me.
15 Moreover I will be careful to ensure that you always have a reminder of these things after my decease.

Notice here, the so-called "first pope", Peter, is about to depart from this world here. When he considered this possibility, what did he do? Did he comfort them by saying: "Oh, don't worry! Someone is going to succeed me in this office. No, that never crossed his mind. Instead, he wrote this second letter to ensure that Christians would always have a reminder of these truths. You see, he directed them to the Word. 

Moreover, the history of Roman Catholicism has been marred with schisms. Roman Catholic historians acknowledge that there have been far too numerous instances in history where more than one individual claimed to be the successor of the apostle Peter, each asserting their right to the papal throne.

A bishop would accuse another of this and that, while another courted the favor of emperors, and yet another resorted to poisoning to eliminate a rival and establish himself as pope. People who would go to the length of using violence and bribery just to become pope. Gouging a rival's eyes, cutting off their tongues just to establish and eliminate a rival. There were even instances (plural) where Europe was thrown into confusion as three bishops each claimed to be the pope. And there are so much more. 

Pope Stephen VI, elected in 896, decided to exhume the body of the previous pope, Formosus, and put it on trial. Formosus's body was dressed up in papal clothes and propped up on a throne while Stephen shouted out obviously unanswerable questions. Formosus was found guilty of perjury that day and his body was tossed into the Tiber River. Stephen VI, on the other hand, was eventually imprisoned then strangled to death by supporters of Formosus.

John XII came to the throne in 955, when he was just 18. Shortly thereafter, he turned his residence into a brothel, gambled with church offerings, and was even accused of castrating a cardinal. German ruler Otto of Saxony once wrote to the young pope, saying, “Everyone [...] accuses you, Holiness, of homicide, perjury, sacrilege, incest with your relatives, including two of your sisters, and with having, like a pagan, invoked Jupiter, Venus, and other demons.” John XII actually met his demise because of a tryst: A jealous husband discovered his wife in bed with the pope, and the man proceeded to severely beat him. John XII died three days later.

Benedict IX was "placed" into the papacy in 1032, when he was likely just 12 years old. Not much is known about his policies, but it's clear that he wasn't well liked. (Historian Ferdinand Gregorovius called him "a demon from hell.") Soon, political opponents tried to murder him, so he fled St. Peter's Basilica and spent time in Rome, where he "stole, murdered and committed other, unspeakable deeds," according to one account. But he came back for more: In 1045, Benedict IX deposed his replacement and became pope again. His second round of popedom lasted just two months, though. He was reportedly offered a large sum of money and, in essence, sold the papacy to his successor.  Benedict IX actually became pope a third time, seizing the throne after Pope Clement II died in 1047. 

Alexander VI became pope in 1492 — but before then he was just Rodrigo Borgia, a member of the notorious Italian crime family the Borgias. And in true crime-family fashion, he used money to buy his way into the papacy. He also had several mistresses and fathered at least nine illegitimate children — possibly as a result of hosting orgies. Another source says he hosted an orgy in 1501 called the "Joust of Whores."

These are just samples of the many, many shameful things the so-called successors of Peter did. Talk about apostolic succession! Are these the successors of the holy apostle Peter? 

Mind you, this is not from Protestant historians. Rather, they come from the very works of Roman Catholic historians themselves approved by Rome. Historians like Bellarmine and Baronius. For more modern historians, go consult Eamon Duffy, Philip Hughes and Warren H. Carroll.

Don't get angry at me for saying this. Direct your anger to these Roman Catholic historians. Ultimately, direct your anger to the Roman Catholic church for approving their writings exposing these very shameful schisms. 

At this point, let me surprise you by saying that we do believe in apostolic succession. But not the apostolic succession of office. Rather, we believe in the apostolic succession of the teachings. 

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

Here we have the apostolic succession of the teachings of the apostles. The teachings of the apostles must be taught down to other men who will be able to teach it to others as well. In effect, all the pastors and teachers after the apostles must only be a succession of echoes of the teachings of the apostles. 

Imagine the apostles peering into a deep well of truth and speaking their teachings. These truths echo through the well of time, resonating down through successive generations of pastors and teachers who faithfully carry forward their original message.