Featured Christ made Sin?

Here again is an example of utter confusion between person and position except here is contrasted between treatment (position) versus motivation (person). I understand precisely what you are saying and wholly disagree with it. No distortion on my part.

The problem you have is words without meaning. For example, let me exchange your words "judgment against sin on behalf of sinners" to "judgement against Christ in the position of sinners in behalf of sinners." You fail to grasp that it is "Christ" in his LEGAL ROLE on the cross that is legally and judicially "made TO BE SIN." Just substitute "sin" for "Christ" as that is the meaning. Don't respond about the moral qualities of HIS PERSON on the cross, as a SINLESS PERSON can only fulfill the LEGAL POSITION on the cross.

No, those three examples perfectly illustrate my point.

It is not what you say you believe that is being disputed. It is what you say you don't believe that is being disputed BECAUSE what you say you don't believe invalidates what you say you believe.

Fine, I have no problem with agreeing to disagree.

 

Alright, what does that leave?...
God does not create everything that he created as perfect; some are flawed. So how is creating beings, or 'hearts,' that will malfunction not creating the malfunction?

 

For the record, I think you are a pretty good chap yourself. If we met, we probably would hit it off just fine.

Well, first lets examine the way you have worded your question. I don't believe that God looked at Jesus with regard to His own Person as unrighteous, but the way your question is worded it would have me repudiating my own position. So let's properly state the question first. You should have asked:

"Now, how does my not believing that God looked at Jesus judicially as being righteous in dispensing the condemnation of the law toward him on the cross?"

Of course, you would never say that because then there would be no just basis for the Law to exercise condemnation toward him. You see, he must stand in the place and be viewed as one with sin and the sinner in the eyes of the law in order for the law to justify its wrath against him. So the wording of your question is faulty but necessary to defend your view.

 

Words must have an explicit meaning or else they will be confused with other words. I noticed you did not use the Biblical language that Christ "was made to be sin for us" and there must be a reason you will not use those words isn't there? You also did not use the words "in our place" so it is most likely you define "on our behalf" and "for us" differently than "in our place."

A "substitute' is one who acts "for" or "on behalf" of another person but it becomes meaningless unless that "for" and "on behalf" is not "in the place of" with regard to the very action or act under consideration. The action under consideration is being the object of the wrath of the Law against sin.

The ceremonial sacrificial law is the basis of instruction for the atoning work of Christ. The lamb without spot or blemish directly acts ceremoninally in the place of Jesus Christ - His just person. However, the lamb without spot or blemish additionally acts ceremonially in the place of the sinner as well as the legal recipient of the just condemnation of the Law.

The term "substitute" with regard to the ceremonial law has the sacrificial victim in the place of the sinner with regard to the ceremonial act and its symbolism. The altar is made of brass - symbolism of judgment. The "fire" is symbolic of judgment. The ceremonictim is ceremonially "in the place" of the sinner with regard to direct connection to these ceremonial symbols of judgment as signified by the laying on of the priests hand and confessing the sins of the people over the ceremonial victim's head. Hence, the idea of substitution is "for" and "on behalf of" in the clear sense of "in the place of" with regard to the very POSITION of the ceremonial symbolic actions by God against the sinner.

If you use "for" and "on behalf of" to deny "in the place of" you are negating the gospel altogether as you are in reality denying the very thing you are stating. Your words in fact simply deny the substitionary atonement altogether.

 

The creation of free choice is permission by Go

Of course there is a legal and just basis for the Father esteeming him to be without blemish and spot and that is the Law of God. However, that has to do with his PERSON not his POSITION on the cross. His position on the cross has nothing to do with his own righteousness except it makes him a fit substitute. His position on the cross has to do with that of a substitute for sinners with regard to the just condemnation of the law against sin and sinners which he personifies on the cross in that particular legal position.

However, you have ignored the problem of how your question is worded and the consequences of wording it properly. Deal with the consequences.

 

Try again! You are dealing with my revised view of your question. I was referring to the wording of your original question.

 

Of course that is your answer but I see no response to the issues I set forth concerning your choice of terms.

 

You are missing the point completely. No one, not me, is arguing that the cross was designed by God to punish His Son with regard to ANYTHING concerning his own PERSON and PERSONAL moral status. Indeed, he must be sinless to even be considered as a candidate for the LEGAL administration of justice against sin and sinners on the cross. The execution of the penalty prescribed for violating God's Law was administered to that Person on the cross in a way that it completely "satisfied" God's penal demands against sin and sinners. On the cross he was "MADE to be sin for us WHO KNEW NO SIN.

The problem here is that the truth is so simple and so obvious that any attempt to defend it against your kind of rationalization makes the simple complicated and confusing because you are denying the obvious, which is a SINLESS person stood in a SINFUL position and satisfied the penalty of the law against sin and sinners "for us" thus "in our place."

 

Words must have an explicit meaning or else they will be confused with other words. I noticed you did not use the Biblical language that Christ "was made to be sin for us" and there must be a reason you will not use those words isn't there? You also did not use the words "in our place" so it is most likely you define "on our behalf" and "for us" differently than "in our place."

A "substitute' is one who acts "for" or "on behalf" of another person but it becomes meaningless unless that "for" and "on behalf" is not "in the place of" with regard to the very action or act under consideration. The action under consideration is being the object of the wrath of the Law against sin.

The ceremonial sacrificial law is the basis of instruction for the atoning work of Christ. The lamb without spot or blemish directly acts ceremoninally in the place of Jesus Christ - His just person. However, the lamb without spot or blemish additionally acts ceremonially in the place of the sinner as well as the legal recipient of the just condemnation of the Law.

The term "substitute" with regard to the ceremonial law has the sacrificial victim in the place of the sinner with regard to the ceremonial act and its symbolism. The altar is made of brass - symbolism of judgment. The "fire" is symbolic of judgment. The ceremonictim is ceremonially "in the place" of the sinner with regard to direct connection to these ceremonial symbols of judgment as signified by the laying on of the priests hand and confessing the sins of the people over the ceremonial victim's head. Hence, the idea of substitution is "for" and "on behalf of" in the clear sense of "in the place of" with regard to the very POSITION of the ceremonial symbolic actions by God against the sinner.

The following conclusion was stated in the context presented above:

If you use "for" and "on behalf of" to deny "in the place of" you are negating the gospel altogether as you are in reality denying the very thing you are stating. Your words in fact simply deny the substitionary atonement altogether.

 

This is like saying, "there came a time....I realized scripture never spoke of the altar as being punitive towards the lamb." Really? Try to convince the lamb of that - good luck. Of course the altar was never designed to be punitive against the Lamb as and individual without spot and blemish. However, it was designed to be punitive against the Lamb as the substitute for sin and sinners. It is the design of the altar to be used for a LEGAL SUBSTITUTE who personally is without spot or blemish but representatively and substitutionally "made to be sin". It is the difference between intended design against an individual person versus a representative person. There can be no justification for the cross against the PERSON of Christ EXCEPT if that person takes on the LEGAL POSITION of sin and sinners.