I explained the made-him-for-us: God IMPUTED sin to Christ. But that differs from Christ sinned (technical point).
A technical yet necessary point to make. It looks like I edited my post after you were already responding, but I was making the same point:
- "Christ was not sinless, but he never sinned. The sin for which he was punished was not committed by him but imputed to him."
However, don't miss that crucial part of penal substitutionary atonement: "he was punished" (penal). But the sin for which he was punished was imputed—counted as his own—being the sins of the elect (substitionary). And it was God who punished him for those transgressions and iniquities (Isa. 53:4-6), so as to remove them and bring them to an end, accomplishing reconciliation for us (atonement), whereby he "will aquit many, for he carried their sins" (vv. 10-11)—
- quum posueris delictum animam ejus (Louis de Dieu), "when you shall place sin on his soul,", or
- si posuerit delictum sua anima (Arias Montanus), "if he places sin on his soul."
(These were Renaissance-era scholars; de Dieu (early 17th century) was a Dutch Reformed theologian and linguist, and Montanus (mid-16th century) was a Spanish biblical scholar and linguist.)
I think we disagree on nuanced meanings of words.
I can't think of a single word on which we disagree, nuanced or otherwise. We both agree that Christ was sinless until he wasn't, that the sins for which he was punished were not committed by him but imputed to him (counted as his own), that to punish is "to impose a penalty for a fault, offense, or violation," and that it was God who punished him for those sins.
And yet, despite agreeing with every part of that, you still think it's wrong to say that God punished Christ? Whatever is causing this cognitive dissonance, it hasn't been uncovered yet—unless it's the fact that you "just don't like the word
punish being applied to God," as you said (
link). THAT was uncovered.
I just don't understand the situation as you see it.
How do I see it? And how does it differ from how you see it?
As far as I can tell, we understand the situation in the same way.
Well, you've given a possible explanation of my syllogism. I appreciate that. At least you understood the crux of the argument I was making. Maybe you're right.
I wasn't providing an explanation of your syllogism, I was providing an entirely different syllogism for your consideration—and maybe hoping you would critique it, as I critiqued yours.
Agreed. I'm just saying Christ's sacrifice was more than sufficient.
And with what scriptures do you substantiate that?
I have connected my claims to specific scriptures (using a redemptive-historical hermeneutic). I am asking that you do the same, if your claim is biblical.
As an aside, if "everything God does is perfect," would not that include the atoning sacrifice of Christ (propitiation)? It was neither more nor less than sufficient, but rather perfectly sufficient.
I didn't say that [forgiveness and atonement didn't require the cross].
No, but what you said implied it. You said that Christ's atoning sacrifice was "far greater than was necessary," the implication being that forgiveness and atonement could've been accomplished with less than the cross—in other words, the cross wasn't required.
Thanks for you thoughtful response.
The feeling is mutual.
