How is God a Just God AND a Savior?

[KenH]

There are some who ridicule me and other Gospel preachers for emphasizing the Biblical truth of imputation - the elect's sins imputed to Christ whereby He was justly condemned by the Father and for which He died on their behalf, and Christ's righteousness imputed to the elect whereby they are all justified before God and from which they are all born again and brought to faith in Christ and repentance of dead works. But any of you who do not understand the value of imputation, think about this -- When we preach the Gospel stating emphatically that the Lord Jesus Christ died for the sins of His people, that He died "the just for the unjust," we beg the question (from the Word of God), how can God be just to punish His Son Who knew no sin, and how can God be just to declare His people righteous who have no righteousness in themselves? The only answer that glorifies the Lord is by the imputation of our sins to Christ and HIs righteousness to us. When we ask, "How can God justify the ungodly," we can say that it is by the death of Christ, and this is not wrong. He justifies His elect by the death of Christ. But God must be just when He justifies sinners. HOW CAN THIS BE? It is only by the Divine reality of imputation. Herein is God both A JUST GOD AND A SAVIOR, and there is no other way.

- by Bill Parker, pastor of Eager Avenue Grace Church in Albany, Georgia, via Facebook.

 

[Van]

I see a Religious Baker got up early today and posted a slew of leaven to corrupt God's word.
Are we declared righteous or are we made righteous? Romans 5:19

Did Christ die for those never to be saved? Yes see 2 Peter 2:1 The Rebellious Bakers deny Christ "bought" those heading for swift destruction with His precious blood.

If Christ became sin due to the imputation of our sins, then He would no longer be "just." However, God's word, with no leaven added says:

1 Peter 3:18 (NKJV)
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,​

 

[KenH]

If anyone disputes that Christ was made to be sin for the elect by the imputation of their sins to Him, and the elect having been made righteous by the perfect righteousness of Christ imputed to them, their caterwauling is broken into tiny pieces by this verse:

2 Corinthians 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.

 

[kyredneck]

caterwauling

"Caterwauling", I like that. Anti-Cals like @Van do a whoooole lot of 'caterwauling' -

18 So then he hath mercy on whom he will, and whom he will be hardeneth.
19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth his will?
20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why didst thou make me thus? Ro 9

 

[Van]

"Caterwauling", I like that.Cals like @kyredneck do a whoooole lot of 'caterwauling'

Jesus could not have been "just" if He had been made sin. Anyone who disputes that is caterwauling...

 

[37818]

2 Corinthians 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.

Jesus could not have been "just" if He had been made sin. Anyone who disputes that is caterwauling...

??!

 

[Van]

CEV
Christ never sinned! But God treated him as a sinner, so Christ could make us acceptable to God.
MOUNCE
He made him who knew no sin to be a sin-offering for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
NLT
For God made Christ, who never sinned, to be the offering for our sin, so that we could be made right with God through Christ.
TLV
He made the One who knew no sin to become a sin offering on our behalf, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.
2Co 5:21 (NASB)
He made Him who knew no sin to be [fn]sin in our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
Footnote: Or Sin Offering.

Thus the basis of the false doctrine that Jesus was "sin" and also "just" is the majority choice of translators to perhaps unwittingly create an inconsistency in God's inspired text.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Jesus could not have been "just" if He had been made sin

On the cross, He was made sin. He was not made a sinner. He was never that. 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.' Our sins were laid upon Him and His perfect righteousness credited to those who believe.

 

[AustinC]

*Hebrews 7:20-28*
And it was not without an oath. For those who formerly became priests were made such without an oath, but this one was made a priest with an oath by the one who said to him: “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind, ‘You are a priest forever.’” This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant. The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. For it was indeed fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, unstained, separated from sinners, and exalted above the heavens. He has no need, like those high priests, to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people, since he did this once for all when he offered up himself. For the law appoints men in their weakness as high priests, but the word of the oath, which came later than the law, appoints a Son who has been made perfect forever.

*Hebrews 9:11-14,24-28*
But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things that have come, then through the greater and more perfect tent (not made with hands, that is, not of this creation) he entered once for all into the holy places, not by means of the blood of goats and calves but by means of his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption. For if the blood of goats and bulls, and the sprinkling of defiled persons with the ashes of a heifer, sanctify for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.

For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

 

[JonC]

There are some who ridicule me and other Gospel preachers for emphasizing the Biblical truth of imputation - the elect's sins imputed to Christ whereby He was justly condemned by the Father and for which He died on their behalf, and Christ's righteousness imputed to the elect whereby they are all justified before God and from which they are all born again and brought to faith in Christ and repentance of dead works. But any of you who do not understand the value of imputation, think about this -- When we preach the Gospel stating emphatically that the Lord Jesus Christ died for the sins of His people, that He died "the just for the unjust," we beg the question (from the Word of God), how can God be just to punish His Son Who knew no sin, and how can God be just to declare His people righteous who have no righteousness in themselves? .The only answer that glorifies the Lord is by the imputation of our sins to Christ and HIs righteousness to us When we ask, "How can God justify the ungodly," we can say that it is by the death of Christ, and this is not wrong. He justifies His elect by the death of Christ. But God must be just when He justifies sinners. HOW CAN THIS BE? It is only by the Divine reality of imputation. Herein is God both A JUST GOD AND A SAVIOR, and there is no other way.

- by Bill Parker, pastor of Eager Avenue Grace Church in Albany, Georgia, via Facebook.

Christians should not ridicule others for their positions.

Reading the article in the OP Pastor Parker makes the same error that leads many into hateful feelings against other views.

The pastor wrote - "The only answer that glorifies the Lord is by the imputation of our sins to Christ and HIs righteousness to us."

That is a false statement. He may have been correct to clarify by saying that the only answer he understands .....

Off hand I can think of two positions which I reject and one I believe which glorifies Christ and demonstrates God as just and the justifier of sinners. That's three views, where the pastor presents his as the only possible position meeting the criteria. And that's just three off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more I know of if I thought about it, and more of which I am unaware.

Pastor Parker would have done better to state and expound on his position rather than making such a blanket assumption. It comes across as arrogant / prideful and if he is ridiculed it is via invitation.

 

[DaveXR650]

I don't remember in my younger years there being much emphasis on the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Him taking our sins upon himself on our behalf was taught but not so much teaching on the imputation of his righteousness. I didn't really notice this until reading reformed literature where frequent reference was made to the obedient life of Christ as more than a qualification that he would be a suitable sacrifice. In other words there is teaching that we are saved by his obedient life as well as his death. Does anyone on here know if that is a point of issue with different groups or did I just miss it - which is quite possible. This is only a question and not intended as an argument.

 

[KenH]

That is a false statement.

It is a totally true statement.

Pastor Parker would have done better to state and expound on his position

There is nothing wrong with Bill Parker's presentation.

It comes across as arrogant / prideful

No, it doesn't.

 

[KenH]

we are saved by his obedient life as well as his death.

Yes. This in part of the gospel of Christ. We need a perfect righteousness to stand before a perfectly holy God; only Christ could have provided that for His people to be imputed to them since they cannot effect a perfect righteousness themselves.

 

[KenH]

esus could not have been "just" if He had been made sin.

Christ was made sin by imputation. That is what 2 Corinthians 5:21 states.

 

[JonC]

It is a totally true statement.



There is nothing wrong with Bill Parker's presentation.



No, it doesn't.

It is a false statement not because of his position but because he presents his interpretation as the only one that glorifies Christ and presents God as just and the justifier of sinners.

The only thing that statement shows is that the pastor does not understand positions other than his own.

And that is fine. I don't have a problem with his view of imputation. But his ignorance does not negate the fact that his claim is overstated.

Christians would be better people of they would explain their views rather than trying to explain away the positions of others. Perhaps that is a lesson this pastor would benefit in learning (a lesson he could easily learn by reading Paul's first letter to the church in Corinth).

 

[KenH]

It is a false statement not because of his position but because he presents his interpretation as the only one that glorifies Christ and presents God as just and the justifier of sinners.

The gospel of Christ is not a smorgasbord(Galatians 1:6-9).

 

[JonC]

The gospel of Christ is not a smorgasbord(Galatians 1:6-9).

The gospel of Christ is not, I agree.

The problem comes in when people understand aspects of redemption differently and are ignorant of other views.

The pastor in the OP made the false claim that his was the only understanding of the effects the work of Christ has on the believer that glorifies Christ and presents God as just and the justifier of sinners.

I'm not debating his understanding of imputation. But he is obviously lacking in understanding when it comes to views other than his own.

If he cannot grasp how other views present God as just and the justifier of sinners while not impeding on the glory of Christ then it is impossible for him to evaluate his understanding of Scripture against the understanding of others.

His claim is foolish and arrogant because it is born of ignorance.

Now you are equating the gospel of Jesus Christ with one's understanding of imputation, which would mean it is not Christ but our understanding of the effect of redemption that saves. That is a "gospel" entirely different from the gospel of Jesus Christ as found in Scripture.

Never once does Scripture equate our understanding of imputation to the gospel itself.

 

[JonC]

I don't remember in my younger years there being much emphasis on the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Him taking our sins upon himself on our behalf was taught but not so much teaching on the imputation of his righteousness. I didn't really notice this until reading reformed literature where frequent reference was made to the obedient life of Christ as more than a qualification that he would be a suitable sacrifice. In other words there is teaching that we are saved by his obedient life as well as his death. Does anyone on here know if that is a point of issue with different groups or did I just miss it - which is quite possible. This is only a question and not intended as an argument.

That is one point of difference.

Growing up I'd hear that we are "clothed" in His righteousness. That is something I agree with.

One issue with the way some Reformed brothers look it (and a major difference between traditional views) is that they go back to salvation via obedience to the Law. This is not the only Reformed view, but you hit on a good point.

They view Christ as obeying the Law perfectly and this obedience (this righteousness manifested through the Law) being imputed to us so that God looks at us as perfect Law keepers.

That view probably contradicts Scripture in the minds of most (as Scripture points out redemption was God's righteousness manifested apart from the Law) but I have encountered it in discussions (mostly with "hyper-Calvinists").

 

[Van]

On the cross, He was made sin. He was not made a sinner. He was never that. 'He Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.' Our sins were laid upon Him and His perfect righteousness credited to those who believe.

Yes, He bore our sins by being a sin offering.

 

[Van]

Christ was made sin by imputation. That is what 2 Corinthians 5:21 states.

No it does not. It says Jesus was our sin offering by dying on the cross. The just for the unjust.