How is God a Just God AND a Savior?

[Martin Marprelate]

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

There are several reasons why your interpretation is wrong. The simplest one is this. The word for sin, hamartian, is used twice in the same sentence; it would be very odd if it had two different meanings, but to say that "He has made Him who knew no sin offering to be a sin offering for us" makes no sense. If the Holy Spirit has wanted to say 'sin offering' on the second use of hamartian, He could have used prosphora peri hamartias as in Hebrews 10:18.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

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.

I think this is absolutely true, and if Mr Parker thinks so then he is entirely right to state it in the clearest possible way. He has not said that those who disagree with him are going to hell, but that there is only one way that God has decreed for the salvation of guilty sinners. Whether people who don't believe it are damned is a matter for God, not for us, but preachers have a duty to preach the truth in the clearest possible terms and that is what Mr Parker has done. Good for him!

 

[JonC]

Whether people who don't believe it are damned is a matter for God, not for us

This is true as far as we know of Pastor Parker. He made only the error of belaying that h8s interpretation was the only one that presented God as just and justifier.

But it is not true of Ken equating Parker's understanding of imputation as the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I believe there is only one gospel and it is the power of God unto salvation to all who believes.

If somebody rejects the gospel of Jesus Christ then we KNOW they are lost. It is not a matter known only to God.

To say one must believe Parkers understanding of imputation as the gospel is a false statement (that is itself "another gospel", adding to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

The very same Paul wrote some rather harsh, but truthful words in Galatians 1:6-9. Or how about Galatians 5:12?

JonC, the words above were addressed to you. Was Paul overstating his case? Of course not. Should there be different interpretations? Of course not. The Bible isn't silly putty. It's not malleable.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I believe there is only one gospel and it is the power of God unto salvation to all who believes.

Why do you not add, "But of course this is only my belief and there may be lots of Gospels"?

If somebody rejects the gospel of Jesus Christ then we KNOW they are lost. It is not a matter known only to God.

You just said that it was your belief. Why are you committing to hell people who don't share your beelief?

To say one must believe Parkers understanding of imputation as the gospel is a false statement (that is itself "another gospel", adding to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

So we can disagree with Mr Paerker's understanding, but not yours.
I have only made this post to show how silly your position is. I don't intend to discuss it further.

 

[KenH]

Your argument is the man must get in, but also understand physics as it reates to buoyancy, the construction process of the boat, etc.

Where in what I posted by Bill Parker does he state that one must understand EVERYTHING about Biblical doctrine to be saved? Where in what I posted by Bill Parker does he state that one must have EVERY SINGLE ONE of his theological ducks in a row in order to be saved? He doesn't. I submit, sir, that you have created a straw man argument.

 

[KenH]

To you, does that mean I am not saved or does that mean that there are many gospels of Jesus Christ that is the power of salvation?

Since you asked, here are a few questions(not saying this is a complete list, just some that come readily to mind):

Do you understand that you are a sinner and that regardless of how moral or sincere or kind you might be, that you cannot stand guiltless before God on that basis? Do you understand that all of the conditions for salvation were fulfilled by Christ alone, that there is nothing that you can think or perform to make yourself accepted by God, that there are no conditions for you to meet since Christ met them all? Do you understand that you cannot create a righteousness of your own that is acceptable to God, that you must have a righteousness outside of yourself - the righteousness of Christ, the Lord our Righteousness? Do you understand that you MUST look to God to save you - that salvation starts with God and ends with God - and that you are incapable of adding anything to that? Do you understand that the standard is PERFECT RIGHTEOUSNESS, not "sincere obedience"? Wherefore, do you understand that faith and repentance from dead works are gifts from God and His almighty power and not something you can do or contribute to because there is something innately good or responsive in yourself?

Please note, that I did not ask you about imputation or election or a whole host of other doctrinal issues. I asked you about a sinner and how he sees himself before a perfectly holy God and where the perfect righteousness necessary for a sinner to stand guiltless before God is found. Most religious people try to establish their own righteousness, and that effort is doomed to always fail. Submitting to the righteousness of God is what all of God's elect will be enabled by God's power to do.

 

[JonC]

I take personal umbrage at you calling him a liar.

Why? I never called him a liar.

I believe he honestly does not understand how others present God as just and justifier.

 

[JonC]

Since you asked, here are a few questions(not saying this is a complete list, just some that come readily to mind):

Do you understand that you are a sinner and that regardless of how moral or sincere or kind you might be, that you cannot stand guiltless before God on that basis? Do you understand that all of the conditions for salvation were fulfilled by Christ alone, that there is nothing that you can think or perform to make yourself accepted by God, that there are no conditions for you to meet since Christ met them all? Do you understand that you cannot create a righteousness of your own that is acceptable to God, that you must have a righteousness outside of yourself - the righteousness of Christ, the Lord our Righteousness? Do you understand that you MUST look to God to save you - that salvation starts with God and ends with God - and that you are incapable of adding anything to that? Do you understand that the standard is PERFECT RIGHTEOUSNESS, not "sincere obedience"? Wherefore, do you understand that faith and repentance from dead works are gifts from God and His almighty power and not something you can do or contribute to because there is something innately good or responsive in yourself?

Please note, that I did not ask you about imputation or election or a whole host of other doctrinal issues. I asked you about a sinner and how he sees himself before a perfectly holy God and where the perfect righteousness necessary for a sinner to stand guiltless before God is found. Most religious people try to establish their own righteousness, and that effort is doomed to always fail. Submitting to the righteousness of God is what all of God's elect will be enabled by God's power to do.

Do I understand that? Yes.

I was merely pointing out that there are several competing interpretations of God's Word that present God as just and justifier, pointing out the fact that Pastor Parker overstated his position.

I was not saying Parkers position was wrong, only that he made an error in writing that it was the only interpretation meeting the criteria he set forth.

He skipped defending his position by simply saying it was the only possible interpretation that presented God as just and justifier (a logical fallacy, but in that category because it is not uncommon).

 

[JonC]

Where in what I posted by Bill Parker does he state that one must understand EVERYTHING about Biblical doctrine to be saved? Where in what I posted by Bill Parker does he state that one must have EVERY SINGLE ONE of his theological ducks in a row in order to be saved? He doesn't. I submit, sir, that you have created a straw man argument.

Strawman argument.

I never said that Bill Parker equated positions that do not follow his understanding of the gospel ad another gospel.

I said that you did.

I think Parker simply overstated (he was emphasizing his position, but in so doing made a false statement there there exists no other interpretation throughout Christian thought that presents God as just and justifier....that his understanding was the only one that exists).

We all believe our understanding correct. But to simply deny that other interpretations of God being just and justifier exist is wrong.

But it was you, not Parker, that equated Parker's understanding of the gospel to the gospel of Jesus Christ itself.

 

[JonC]

I am going to clarify as it appears my argument is being twisted out of context.

I am not arguing against the position in the OP.

I am pointing out that there are several interpretations of Scripture that give the glory to Christ and present God as just and justifier.

When we argue positions it is a bit silly to support your position by denying the existence of others.

We do not benefit from doing that.

The proper argument should be "I believe ... and think it the best interpretation because ....".

Saying "my understanding is the only one" is simply a baseless claim that avoids true investigation.

 

[AustinC]

I am going to clarify as it appears my argument is being twisted out of context.

I am not arguing against the position in the OP.

I am pointing out that there are several interpretations of Scripture that give the glory to Christ and present God as just and justifier.

When we argue positions it is a bit silly to support your position by denying the existence of others.

We do not benefit from doing that.

The proper argument should be "I believe ... and think it the best interpretation because ....".

Saying "my understanding is the only one" is simply a baseless claim that avoids true investigation.

When the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense.
~ Golden Rule of Interpretation

Throwing in other views, just because one doesn't like what the text declares does not give the alternate view any merit. It only serves to stir up doubt where there should be no doubt.

 

[JonC]

Why do you not add, "But of course this is only my belief and there may be lots of Gospels"?

Because there is not many gospels.

People have different interpretations of Scripture, and different views of the effects of the gospel. Sone believe the gospel results in imputed righteousness (Pastor Parker and me) for example. Others don't.

But if a person is saved then they have repented and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ (ONE gospel).

You just said that it was your belief. Why are you committing to hell people who don't share your beelief?

I am not committing people to Hell. God tells us that there is one Way, one Gospel. If a man denies the gospel of Jesus Christ then that man will perish.

You can say all day long that we cannot know tge fate of people who deny Christ and reject His gospel. That does not make it so.

People can reject other people's understanding. People can disagree on many doctrines associated with the gospel. But Christians believe in the same gospel of Christ or they are not Christian at all.

So we can disagree with Mr Paerker's understanding, but not yours.
I have only made this post to show how silly your position is.

I never claimed that my understanding is the only position that presents God as just and justifier.

That is what I was arguing against.

I don't intend to discuss it further.

Of course not. You are the king of "hit and run" arguments.

You post strawman arguments and end with "I'm not discussing the strawman I just tossed out there".

I expect nothing less.

 

[JonC]

When the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense.
~ Golden Rule of Interpretation

Throwing in other views, just because one doesn't like what the text declares does not give the alternate view any merit. It only serves to stir up doubt where there should be no doubt.

The problem is there is no common "plain sense".

For example, I believe the plain sense of "Christ died for our sins" is that it is for our sins that Christ died. Others believe the plain sense is that Christ died for our sins instead of us.

When men say "the plain meaning" they are simply leaning on their own understanding, trusting in their human ability rather than God.

 

[KenH]

People have different interpretations of Scripture, and different views of the effects of the gospel. Sone believe the gospel results in imputed righteousness (Pastor Parker and me) for example. Others don't.

So do you believe there are different versions of the gospel of Christ?

 

[KenH]

For example, I believe the plain sense of "Christ died for our sins" is that it is for our sins that Christ died. Others believe the plain sense is that Christ died for our sins instead of us.

Christ did die for the sins of God's elect instead of the elect, in their place.

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (emphasis mine)

Notice, the Scriptures say that He died for us - for actual people.

 

[KenH]

He skipped defending his position

I suggest you read more of what Bill Parker has written or listen to some of his sermons on YouTube or SermonAudio. You seem to think that one small thing of his writings that I posted is the only thing Bill has ever written or said.

 

[KenH]

People can disagree on many doctrines associated with the gospel.

You disagree with the Scriptures - 1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

 

[KenH]

People can disagree on many doctrines associated with the gospel.

Sounds like if there had been a public message board back in the 1st century A.D. that you would have been on it and blasting away at the apostle John, since you seem to think there can be various views and ideas called the doctrine of Christ.

1 John 1:9-11 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. (emphasis mine)

 

[KenH]

When the plain sense makes common sense, seek no other sense.
~ Golden Rule of Interpretation

Apparently, @JonC expects anyone who states a position must immediately, at the same time, in the same sermon or in the same article, explain that there are a bunch of wrong views floating around and explain what they are and why they are wrong.

When one declares the truth from God's Word, he is not under any obligation whatsoever to explain what is wrong with every other view.