Featured Christ made Sin?

Christ can be made literally "sin" in the sense of judicial action. The Law can treat him literally as sin by judicial position. Position is different than Person. Even in our own law courts there are JUST PERSONS who are literally legally viewed as CRIMINALS and condemned positionally even though they are later found out to be personally innocent.

However, in God's law court Jesus was predetermined according to God's eternal counsel (Acts 2;23) to be legally "made sin" in the eyes of the Law of God and so treated literally as a sinner would be treated. His just person and personal obedience has nothing to do with how the law treated Christ legally and thus positionally.

 

Jesus was cursed of God by hanging upon that Cross, and he was the sin bearer, sin offering made to the father in our stead, so God saw Jesus and poured out His Holy wrath just as if it was us and not Him on that Cross

Jesus became sin in the sense that God viewed and treated Him same way all lost sinners will be at the GWT.

 

Much of this depends on if you view God the father really actually pouring out Holy wrath on Jesus, and forsaking Him in some fashion, or not!!

 

I thought this would be about whether Christ created sin; as he made all things and without him nothing was made that was made. If sin exists, he created it, indicates John 1:3.

 

Also, there are some things not even God can do or create, as not consistent with His nature and attributes!

 

Sin does not exist?

 

First, the law court scenario is very Biblical as the writers use forensic terms drawn straight from the court system established by God among the israelites. Second, your comparison makes no sense. He suffers the consequences BECAUSE the Law views him as guilty regardless if he is personally guilty or not. He stands in the position of guilt, and is treated as a sinner, as guilty by the Father with regard to the Law. The law veiws him as it does those that will stand before the White Seat Judgement as the law does not discriminate.

You think that the Father cannot at one and the same time see him as personally sinless and obedient with regard to his own person but yet with regard to the eternal covenant of redemption legally treat him as sin. The type had to be a lamb without blemish, and yet when it was placed on the altar it was treated legally and positionally as sin and thus called a "sin" offering.

Personally, I could care less what Roman and Reformed Roman Catholic traditions say or don't say. The Levitical ceremonial system clearly lays the basis for the atonement and it is unmistakenly clear as to its penal substitutionary nature. The law that is broken is not Satan's law and Satan did not need satisfaction, it was the law of God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and it is God's law that needs full satisfaction and the type and antitype that satisfies the wrath of God against sin - or violation of His law (Isa. 53:12 "he shall be satisfied")

Your view contradicts scripture and is simply wrong and dreadfully wrong as it is an attack upon the very Biblical nature of the atonement.

 

He was "made to be sin" in the sight of God as Judge in administration of His Law. His personal obedience made him fit to be a substitute for sinners. The ceremonial qualifications for a "sin" offering had to be a lamb without spot or blemish with regard to its PERSONAL qualifications but once it was placed upon the "brazen" altar it was treated as a "sin" offering in a very clear sense of a LEGAL SUBSTITUTE. You seemingly can't grasp that one does not deny the other but both are equally true.

 

God did not create sin as sin originates with a wrong intent of heart and that cannot originate with the heart of God. That is why the first indication of sin is described as being "found" in Lucifer rather than "created."

 

Start by being honest about what I said versus what I did note say. I never said, "God hated Jesus" or "His viewing Jesus as evil personified." And what I did say was "You seemingly can't grasp" which you claim was meant to be an "insult" (good at reading hearts I suppose) and then to support that claim you distort what I said to be "too stupid to grasp....uneducated mind....obvious illiteracy....." Your education, and IQ have nothing to do with Biblical understanding - The Spirit of God either opens your mind to receive the truth or He does not.

However, I see that you intend to make something personal that was never intended to be personal on my part. It is obivous you neither understand or receive the truth of the penal substitution as the Biblical teaching. You pit his person before the Father against his position before law. I just stated the obvious.

In fact, I said the very opposite. With regard to His Person he is without blame, spotless, perfect and obedient to the Father. Therefore, he is personified as holy. That is what makes him a suitable penal substitute in the law court, as otherwise, he would deserve all that he suffered. While to his position before the Law he is "made to be sin" that which is hated by God, that which is despised and condemned by God and that which takes the consequences in our place.

 

and how so?

First, you are denying that the "cross" is a judical means to exercise justice against sin in the behalf of sinners. Second, you are denying that Jesus is being viewed LEGALLY in the place of SINNERS and not merely just being made "SIN" legally and positionally. You are wrong on both accounts.

Here is a clear example of your confusion and incapability of distinguishing between PERSON and POSITION. With regard to the LITERAL Person of Christ He is the beloved of the Father and always will be. With regard to his LEGAL POSITION on the cross he is "made to be sin" before the Father as the only fit or qualified substitute for sinners must be PERSONALLY blameless so that he can fulfill the LEGAL role of a penal substutite or take the place of sinners JUDICIALLY and thus POSITIONALLY.