God is Just. Because He is Holy He cannot just appear Just but must be Just. Paul asks the Romans "There is no injustice with God, is there?" to which he responds, "May it never be!" (or as The Message probably says, "Dur! You an igiot or something?")
So when we look at the question of how God can justly let sinners into heaven we look at imputation.
One of the other words we use is "justified", or as people are wont to say, "just as if I'd never sinned", and so it is.(T)he term "imputation" has been used in theology in a threefold sense to denote the judicial acts of God
by which the guilt of Adam's sin is imputed to his posterity;
by which the sins of Christ's people are imputed to Him; and
by which the righteousness of Christ is imputed to His people.
The act of imputation is precisely the same in each case.
It is not meant that Adam's sin was personally the sin of his descendants, but that it was set to their account, so that they share its guilt and penalty.
It is not meant that Christ shares personally in the sins of men, but that the guilt of his people's sin was set to his account, so that He bore its penalty.
It is not meant that Christ's people are made personally holy or inwardly righteous by the imputation of His righteousness to them, but that His righteousness is set to their account, so that they are entitled to all the rewards of that perfect righteousness. (line breaks mine for emphasis) Imputation Definition and Meaning - Bible Dictionary
But as the quote says, "The act of imputation is precisely the same in each case". So things are Just because Adam's sin is imputed to his descendants; these sins are imputed to Christ; Christ suffers, dies and is raised again to pay for these sins; then Christ's righteousness is imputed to those who believe.
The thing is, it would appear that you have to have all or nothing, you can't have Christ's righteousness imputed to you if you didn't first have Adam's sin imputed to you. As the quote says, "It is not meant that Adam's sin was personally the sin of his descendants", but as we're told in Romans 5 "through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men".
It's legal stuff. Because of what God and Jesus did you can be considered righteous. You were justified. However, that's because previously you were legally considered a sinner.
So entered this from our old friend FB yesterday.
The problem this is meant to illustrate is that you can't have the Just system of sin being imputed then righteousness being imputed if it doesn't apply to everyone. You also have to tell the Apostle Paul that he got his letter to the Romans wrong when explaining this, particularly when he said that "through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men".
Now I know some don't like this idea, and here are some recent quotes. But as the image states, doesn't that mean that people have to give up the idea of imputed righteousness, and if so, where would we be then?
- I am very very sure that babies go to heaven and any other teaching that contradicts that is demonic
- you believe a demonic doctrine
- God sends babies to burn eternally because they were born in sin - that is what you want to believe to support your doctrine.
- the belief that babies are in hell is pure demonic and you are too blind to see
I can think of one possible solution, but do I dare mention it as it would be too much for some to handle. The solution is for God to sovereignly choose to save some simply because He chooses to do so. But as that idea has been called heresy here a number of times that can't be the solution can it?
On a site about Systematic Theology we read this, "3. Systematic theology is a way of studying the Bible that attends to the unity of biblical teaching." How do we have unity here? Can we have unity between the ideas of an Age of Accountability and Original (imputed) Sin or are they mutually exclusive, one being Biblical and the other one not?
10 Things You Should Know about Systematic Theology | Crossway Articles