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.
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.