Some questions on our guilt/sin being imputed to Christ.

Status
Not open for further replies.

blakerussell

Puritan Board Freshman
Well, I'm not really quite sure where this thought came from in my brain, but it came anyway.

I'm wrestling with the justice of God, and the nature of imputation and what not. This isn't necessarily foreign to me, as I've wrestled with this sort of thing before. (By that, I mean the imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity). Dabney's treatment of the imputation of Adam's sin silenced any uneasiness I had on the matter. I was uneasy about being counted sinful for someone else's sin, but when Dabney noted that none of us had innocence before birth that we could claim for ourselves, that uneasiness evaporated.

Anyhow, now I've been working through the flip side of the coin.
How is God's justice upheld when he judges the innocent Christ for our sin?

That's the question I'm working through. I would love for you all to hold me by the hand as I work through it. I recognize that without double imputation and penal substitution, there is no salvation. None of us would have any hope, and we would all face the judgment we deserve. I affirm that double imputation is the marrow of the gospel. That still doesn't mean I don't have questions or even uneasiness about some of the implications at time.

So, here are some scriptures put next to one another.

He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous,
Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD.
Proverbs 17:15


being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
25whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed;
26for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Romans 3:24-26

Alright. So the nature of my uneasiness lie in this (if you couldn't guess). I deserve wrath for my sins. Christ the innocent never sinned- He did not deserve wrath. How is it just for my sins to be counted as Christ's and suffer in my place.

The "difficulty" or objection is raised like this in the book Pierced for our transgressions: "It is unjust to punish an innocent person, even if he is willing to be punished."
"In summary, the objection is that guilt and punishment cannot be incurred by one person and transferred to another. People who sin, and only people who sin, are guilty, and only they should be punished."

The book even argues positively
" (It) is correct (when asserted) that the willingness of Christ's suffering is not a satisfactory explanation by itself (supporting the "just-ness" of penal substitution). The reason is obvious. If an innocent person suffers the punishment for a crime for which he bears no guilt, then it makes no difference whether or not he does so willingly. It is a miscarriage of justice, pure and simple. The bible roundly condemns such a thing when it comes to human courts, and it would seem strange if Christ did not adhere to the same standards himself (see Proverbs 17:15)"

The authors argue it is our union with Christ that "explains how the innocent could be justly punished- he is judged for others' sins, which by virtue of their union with him, become his. Conversely, it explains also how the guilty can be justly acquitted- believers are one with the innocent Lord Jesus Christ, and so his life of perfect righteousness is rightly imputed to us."

"The doctrine of penal substitution thus does not propose a transfer of guilt between unrelated persons. It asserts that guilt is transferred to Christ from those who are united to him."

To summarize: "We are now in a position to answer the objection that penal substitution entails unjustly punishing an innocent person. This rests on the claim that our guilt cannot be imputed to Christ, which is in turn grounded on the assumption that we are entirely separate and distinct from him. But the reality is that believers are united to Christ by his Spirit. The imputation of our guilt to Christ does not violate justice, because he willingly consents to a real, spiritual identification with his people. In short, this objection to penal substitution arises from a failure to understand the significance of union with Christ."

Berkhof in his systematic theology also treats this same objection. He answers: "It cannot be said that the transfer of the punishment to Christ was manifestly illegal, because, as a matter of fact, He identified Himself with His people. He made satisfaction as the responsible corporate body. This responsible union was constituted, says Hodge, by His own voluntary assumption of the legal responsibilities of His people, by the recognition of His sponsorship by God, and by His assumption of our nature."

Owen touches more on Christ's representation of his people: "God might punish the elect either in their own persons, or in their surety standing in their room and stead as their substitute; and when he is punished, they also are punished in their representative: for in this point of view the federal head and those represented by him are not considered as distinct, but as one; for although they are not one in respect of personal unity, they are, however, one,- that is, one body in mystical union, yea, one mystical Christ: - namely, the surety is the head, those represented by him the members; and when the head is punished, the members are also punished."

Augustus H Strong says these things about our Union with Christ-
"Rom. 7:4—“ye also were made dead to the law through the body of Christ; that ye should be joined to another, even to him who was raised from the dead, that we might bring forth fruit unto God”—here union with Christ is illustrated by the indissoluble bond that connects husband and wife, and makes them legally and organically one; 2 Cor. 11:2—“I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy: for I espoused you to one husband, that I might present you as a pure virgin to Christ”; Eph. 5:31, 32—“For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is great: but I speak in regard of Christ and of the church”—Meyer refers verse 31 wholly to Christ, and says that Christ leaves father and mother (the right hand of God) and is Joined to the church as his wife, the two constituting thenceforth one moral person."

"We have seen that Christ’s union with humanity, at the incarnation, involved him in all the legal liabilities of the race to which he united himself, and enabled him so to assume the penalty of its sin as to make for all men a full satisfaction to the divine justice, and to remove all external obstacles to man’s return to God. "

and

"Union with Christ gives to the believer the legal standing and rights of Christ. As Christ’s union with the race involves atonement, so the believer’s union with Christ involves Justification. The believer is entitled to take for his own all that Christ is, and all that Christ has done; and this because he has within him that new life of humanity which suffered in Christ’s death and rose from the grave in Christ’s resurrection,—in other words, because he is virtually one person with the Redeemer. In Christ the believer is prophet, priest, and king."

I summarize everything with this statement in pierced for our transgressions:
"Union with Christ explains how the innocent could be justly punished- he is judged for others' sins, which, by virtue of their union with him, become his. Conversely, it explains also how the guilty can be justly acquitted - believers are one with the innocent Lord Jesus Christ, and so his life of perfect righteousness is rightly imputed to us. The apostle Paul captures both sides of the exchange in a single verse: "God made him who had no sin to be sin for us so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

That is essentially all of the research I've done on the subject that I thought might be useful for quieting my own uneasiness. I still don't quite understand how being united to Christ completely solves the problem, which probably means I don't fully understand just how deep and real our union with Christ is. I would love to hear your take on it. I've been praying that God would open my eyes to the truth and quiet my uneasiness, as I'm sure it arises from indwelling sin. If God the just is satisfied, I know I should be too.

My only hope is having my sin, guilt, and punishment imputed to Christ- and His righteousness imputed to me. Without this, I will surely be punished in hell for my rebellion. I only want to uphold God and his truth and have there be no objection in my own heart to it- but to see things - yes even mysteries, as He sees them.

I can't wait to walk through this with you all.
-Blake.
 
Valid point- sorry for all the clutter. I suppose I should've wrote everything out in a journal before I made this post. Let me try to clean things up a bit, and see if I can't make a summary.
 
I suppose one question would be
"How does our union with Christ make it possible and just for Him to bear the guilt/punishment of our sins without violating Proverbs 17:15"

Perhaps more elaboration on that is what I'm looking for.
 
it was our sins imputed to Him that made Him the object of God's justice against sin. It would be unjust if God saved us apart from a substitution

With this I heartily agree. But the nature of my uneasiness lay in the proposed objection by critics who state it is unjust for God to impute our sins to Christ because Christ is innocent. How can an innocent man be justly charged with the guilt of another man's sin?

And so, I suppose that that, is the objection I am trying to answer. And, from my research, it would appear it is our Union with Christ (Which God viewed before the foundation of the world, due to election, etc) that makes it just and possible for our sins to be imputed to Christ without violating Proverbs 17:15.

I guess I'm trying to understand this more. Does that make better sense, or am I still not being clear?
 
Question for you, Blake. Is it just for someone to pay in full someone else's debt, provided the surety (the one paying) is willing and able to do so?
 
Well, I wouldn't approach things on the basis of that post.

The reason I asked what I did is that if it's just that one should discharge another's debt fully, such that the debtor is now free of any bond, thanks to the grace and resources of the one who paid his debt - then it is at least plausible that Christ can justly accept those sins as His own, discharge the sin debt of a sinner, and the sinner be freed from all penalty (and, as the covenant is agreed in this manner between Father and Son, the sinner gains the fullness of Christ's righteousness).

Proverbs 17:15 does not negate this - rather what is spoken of there is a help... our righteousness, granted by grace through faith, etc., is TRULY ours. We are truly righteous - that righteousness is truly ours, and God has declared it to be so - he has CONSTITUTED us righteous (as Murray writes) as it is His purview to do. What is spoken of in Proverbs 17:15 is the act of men declaring unholy those who are in truth righteous, and declaring righteous those who are, in truth, unrighteous. This is not the case with God. (also recall Romans 4:5, where, in a slightly different way, in fact, God is said to justify the ungodly. That doesn't contradict what I just said or what Prov. 17:15 teaches)
 
Trying to follow through what you said here.

Proverbs 17:15 isn't a problem, because, God clears the guilty through the death of Christ, so they are no longer guilty, and gives them righteousness - all to the glory of His grace- so that they are no longer truly guilty, but truly righteous.

So, when God justifies an elect sinner- is that sinner regarded/viewed as righteous through the accomplishments of Christ prior to their conversion- and it's just that the accomplishments have not yet been applied to them?

Or, is proverbs 17:15 not a problem mainly in this- the reason God justifies the ungodly, is because, through the accomplishments of Christ, they are no longer truly ungodly, but are actually made truly righteous.

I don't know. I guess I'm just thinking aloud (maybe not too smart, but I trust this is a safe forum/place for me to do so. I admit I need shepherding.)

Would you mind walking me through this statement a little bit more with particular emphasis with the statements in bold.

"What is spoken of in Proverbs 17:15 is the act of men declaring unholy those who are in truth righteous, and declaring righteous those who are, in truth, unrighteous. This is not the case with God. (also recall Romans 4:5, where, in a slightly different way, in fact, God is said to justify the ungodly. That doesn't contradict what I just said or what Prov. 17:15 teaches)"

How is this not the case with God, and how does Romans 4:5 relate to Prov. 17:15. Also, how does it not contradict Prov 17:15?

Thanks you two for your responses so far. I want to fight the fight of faith, and I believe that fight is a battle to see God for who He is, and to love Him for who He truly is. I want to cast off all hindrances.

---------- Post added 01-19-2011 at 12:03 AM ---------- Previous post was 01-18-2011 at 11:40 PM ----------

Found this blog, and definitely deals with the scriptures at hand. Crazy.
Pyromaniacs: Substitutionary atonement and Proverbs (part 2 of 2)
 
I'm on a gumint 'puter right now, and the link I want to provide you is blocked, so, try this. Go to youtube and search for "The Greatest Words in All of Scripture (Paul Washer)."

He deals with this very issue in that sermon, calling it the "greatest problem in all of Scripture." How can God justify the wicked and yet remain just? How can God condemn the righteous One and not be an abomination? He answers the questions, walking it out Scripturally. Christ became sin, that we might escape judgment. Christ took on the full wrath of God and it pleased the Father to crush the Son, as it is his will to do. Who else but the man who is God could bear that punishment?

I think that the resolution to the problem is the Resurrection. Christ bore the full penalty for our sins and is not condemned. (BTW, that was super truncated and I commend you to the sermon for better treatment of it. He deals with it near the middle of the sermon, which is nearly 2 hrs long).



Also, its an awesome sermon.
 
Last edited:
Would it be okay, if I wrote down my thoughts on the matter? I'd like to present what I've come up with through research, reflection upon scriptures, and things of that nature. I'd love for you all to critique/correct me if possible.

The mystery of our union with Christ, is similar to the mystery of becoming one flesh with your spouse. I can't comprehend this mystery (perhaps I'll have a deeper understanding of it at some point, as I'll soon be married this april.)
But, there is a real since in which the elect and Christ are truly one. Not in a pan-theistic way, where I could claim that I am Christ and Christ is me. But, a branches/vine, head/body, cornerstone/building kind of way. Once again, it's a mystery that I won't attempt to explain, because I couldn't if I tried.

Christ's becoming a man has a lot to do with this union, and there's a lot surrounding it I believe. Christ becoming a man, enabled him to become the second Adam- to relate to and represent his people.

Just as all are uniquely tied to Adam, all of Christ's people are uniquely tied to Him. (All of these ideas I'm trying to base off of scriptures, or scriptural principles.)

Christ, as the second Adam, is so uniquely tied to, and one with his people, that He can willingly take their debts (and sins) upon himself. He who knew no sin, became sin. Who's sin did he become? His peoples sins- for he never sinned. He could be justly charged with his people's sins because of his unique position as their representative/head/and by merit of his union with them. We are so uniquely tied to him, that it is possible for his righteousness to become our righteousness.

It's kind of like how, if I marry someone with debts, their debts become my debts.

An example of how punishment can be payed for and satisfied in today's court room would be a speeding ticket. My father once graciously paid for a speeding ticket. The fine was the punishment for the moral crime I committed. When my Dad paid for the ticket, the debt I owed was paid, and my moral record was cleared.

The courtroom doesn't object to this being unjust, just so long as the fine is paid. Even though I was the one that committed the moral offense, it is possible for someone to pay the debt I owe for that offense. That payment will also clear me morally with the court of law if the ticket price is doubled.

And so, my dad graciously took the punishment upon himself and cleared me. I didn't complain about this, nor did I find it unjust at the time. Neither did the court of law.

And so it is with Christ.

Finally, what is most important is the fact that the offended party, and surety find no injustice whatsoever in what took place at the cross.

This goes to show that any uneasiness I (or anyone else for that matter) has is purely rising from emotional reasons, and the claim of injustice can't really can't be justified.

I think that's it for now...
-Blake.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top