How is God a Just God AND a Savior?

[JonC]

No, rejecting something might make one mistaken (though not in this case), but not a liar.

So you believe that there is only one interpretation of imputation that deals with God as just and justifier (not that the other interpretations are incorrect, but that they do not exist)?

I'll chalk that up to a mistake rather than a lack of integrity.

 

[JonC]

I'll make it easy, @Martin Marprelate

Exacy who has suggested that Pastor Bill Parker (or any pastor, preacher, or church teacher) should explain or bring up ANY position other than the one they believe correct?

The answer, of course, is NOBODY. You brought it up as a strawman.

My point is that we should preach what we believe as true. Anything else would be dishonest.

Are strawman arguments honest arguments? If not, why go there?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

No, I have not disagreed at all.

So you agree with me when I wrote that Mr Parker is entitled to stae that his understanding is the only Biblical one if he belives that to be the case. Thank you.
For the avoidance of doubt, I believe that the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer and Penal Substitution are absolutely essential to our salvation. Whether it is necessary for everyone to believe in order to be saved, I am less certain, but I would not allow any contrary view to be taught in my church, either formally from the pulpit or privately (titus 3:10). That decision is not entirely mine, but it is the one I would press within the eldership.

 

[JonC]

So you agree with me when I wrote that Mr Parker is entitled to stae that his understanding is the only Biblical one if he belives that to be the case. Thank you.

Yes. Of course. That is what I posted over and over on this thread.

The Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement is a different matter. I do not believe it correct (in fact, I can think of no other doctrine within contemporary Christianity that does as much damage to the Body of Christ and perverts the doctrine of the Cross to such unbiblical limits).

That said, if one understands the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement (or the Moral Influence Theory, or Recapitulation, or the Government Theory, or Christus Victor, or Ontological Substitution, or the Satisfaction Theory, or the Ransom Theory, etc.) to be correct then I absolutely expect that is what they will teach.

 

[Aaron]

Yet we cut you slack every time you post.

To paraphrase Jordan Peterson, In order to think, one must risk being offended.

 

[Van]

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us Galatians 3:13

Does that mean He became a curse offering?

Please, you should know all the verses that say Jesus was our sin offering.

The premise these posters actually try to reconcile their objectionable view with all scripture is bogus. Romans 8:3 or Hebrews 10:14.

 

[Van]

It has, of course, only been debunked in your imagination.

Reasoning with you never does any good, but for the benefit of others, the Lord Jesus was made sin. He was not made a sinner, but all the sins of all God's elect were laid upon Him by imputation (Isaiah 53:6; 1 Peter 2:24 etc.), and His perfect righteousness and obedience is credited to us who believe (Isaiah 61:10; Romans 5:18-19).

All you seem to do is post stuff out of your own overheated imagination. Please admit that your view creates error..

Once again, this poster does not address that fact Jesus could not have been "sin" and "just" at the same time. Saying the very words of scripture come from my imagination is not helpful, but reflects the reasoning of those denying scripture.

Does Isaiah 53:6 say the sin of the elect were laid on Jesus or the sin of all humanity? All who have gone astray refers to all humanity.

Does 1 Peter 2:24 say the sins of only those saved were laid on Jesus, or that the sins of those saved were laid on Jesus without addressing those never saved?

Does Isaiah 61:10 say righteousness is "credited" to believers? Nope And Romans 5:19 says we were "made" righteous.

 

[Aaron]

Please, you should know all the verses that say Jesus was our sin offering.

The premise these posters actually try to reconcile their objectionable view with all scripture is bogus. Romans 8:3 or Hebrews 10:14.

Did He become a curse or not?

 

[Silverhair]

Did He become a curse or not?

Gal_3:13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"),

Christ was considered as a cursed individual by the Jews. It did not mean that He was cursed as you seem to think.

 

[AustinC]

Gal_3:13 Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE"),

Christ was considered as a cursed individual by the Jews. It did not mean that He was cursed as you seem to think.

The curse of the Covenant with Adam fell upon Jesus. Jesus, being the 2nd Adam, did not sin, not was the curse of failing the Covenant upon Jesus. But, Jesus became the curse. He took the sin of all the saints upon himself and exchanged their guilt for His righteousness. Therefore, by His substitution, we have been justified in the presence of God the Father and our sins have been paid in full. Jesus then acts as High Priest who intercedes continually with the Father on our behalf.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Once again, this poster does not address that fact Jesus could not have been "sin" and "just" at the same time. Saying the very words of scripture come from my imagination is not helpful, but reflects the reasoning of those denying scripture.

Once again this poster does not address the fact that the Bible specifically states that our Lord was made sin and that therefore he needs to think outside of hos prejudices and his limited Biblical understanding.. The Bible does not share his concerns. Peter says that God 'judges justly' immediately before explaining that He 'bore our sins.' (1 Peter 2:23-24). Paul explains that the rreason that Christ was set forth as a propitiation was that He might be 'just and the justifier of the one who believes in Jesus' Romans 3:25-26).

2 Corinthians 5:21 states that Christ was made sin 'that we might become the rrighteousness of God in Him'. First of all, who are 'we'? 'We' are 'the church of God which is in Corinth , with all the saints who are in all Achaia' (2 Corinthians 1:1) and even more importantly, '...All who in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours' (1 Corinthians 1:2b). So Christ was made whatever He was made,, not for everyone, but for believers only.
Secondly, What does 'in Him' mean? It means that we are not an unrelated third party; He is in us, and we in Him, indwelt by His Spirit. Our union with Christ is not physical but spiritual, but nonetheless real for al that. Our justification, our adoption and our reigning with Christ in the heavenly places are all 'in Christ.' Our guilt is imputed to Christ and His perfect righteousness to us through this union. Luther likens this to a couple who marry although one of them is deep in debt.. The other party nevertheless willingly takes that debt upon himself and settles it himself. Ephesians 5:25 uses marriage as a illustration of the costly love of Christ in which He entered into union with His people, those whom God had given Him Hebrews 2:13; John 6:39).

Does Isaiah 53:6 say the sin of the elect were laid on Jesus or the sin of all humanity? All who have gone astray refers to all humanity.

Isaiah 53:6 does not say 'all who have gone astray,' it says , 'All we like sheep have gone astray, and the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.' We being God's elect. There was no rreason for Isaiah to have added the 'we' if he meant every single person.

Does 1 Peter 2:24 say the sins of only those saved were laid on Jesus, or that the sins of those saved were laid on Jesus without addressing those never saved?

'....Who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree.....' Who is Paul writing to? Those who are '....elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father..... etc.'

Does Isaiah 61:10 say righteousness is "credited" to believers? Nope

Yep! The robe of righteousness and the garments of salvation are given to sinners, therefore the righteousness is that of Jesus Christ credited to us, not something we stitch together of our own.

And Romans 5:19 says we were "made" righteous.

Made righteous by imputation. Romans 5:1 tells us that Christ died for the ungodly and Romans 4:5 tells us that He justifies the ungodly. '...... Not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is ffrom God by faith' (Philippians 3:9).

 

[Salty]

six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 10 pm EST 7 pm

 

[Van]

Did He become a curse or not?

Who said who became a curse? Are you incapable to comprehending the issue?

 

[Van]

New
Van said: ↑
Once again, this poster does not address that fact Jesus could not have been "sin" and "just" at the same time. Saying the very words of scripture come from my imagination is not helpful, but reflects the reasoning of those denying scripture.
Martin said:
Once again this poster does not address the fact that the Bible specifically states that our Lord was made sin and that therefore he needs to think outside of his prejudices and his limited Biblical understanding..

1) I showed that either translation choice was possible, so the statement that scripture specifically states our Lord was made sin is a material false statement.

2) Addressing claimed faults of his opponent, rather than admitting Jesus could not be sin and just shows fallacious argumentation

3) Only one translation choice of 2 Corinthians 5:21 avoids the error of claiming Jesus was both sin and just, and that is Jesus was sacrificed for sin rather than became sin.

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,

. .

 

[Van]

There are two aspects of "sin" first is the thought or action that deviates from God's will, thus the missing of the godly thought or action. But additionally sin has consequences, what God bestows upon the sinner due to the "missing." When we sin, we "store up wrath" or the adverse consequence accumulated due to God's oracles against us.

As our "sin offering" Christ had the consequence or wages of sin laid upon Him, thus He became sin (suffering the consequence of sin) but not the guilty perpetrator of sin.

Thus as our "sin offering" He was the just for the unjust.

 

[JonC]

To paraphrase Jordan Peterson, In order to think, one must risk being offended.

It's been awhile, but I don't think that is a paraphrase.

That said, Peterson was speaking of ideas. When we offer our ideas we do so at the risk of offending others.

That is fine.

The problem is when Christians express their ideas in an unkind way. The reason this is a problem is it is direct disobedience to God (it is sinful).

 

[Salty]

six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 10 pm EST 7 pm

This thread is closed