Problems with Faith Alone Theology and the Double Imputation Theory.

[JohnMartin]

Problems/Questions with faith alone theology and it's accompanied theory of double imputation are presented below.

On Faith Alone

Question - If a man is justified by faith alone and the scriptures say man is justified by faith (Rom 3:28, 5:1, Gal 2:16), why then add in the word "alone", when the word "alone" does not exist within any scripture text in the context of justification by faith?


Question- if man is justified by faith alone, why doesn't any scripture text actually say that?


Question- If man is justified by faith alone, but the scriptures say man is justified by faith, what assurance does the interpreter of the scriptures have that works infer all human action other than faith? Why not infer only works within the Mosaic covenant, such as circumcision?


Question- If man is justified by faith alone, does he lose justification when faith is lost? If so, the elect do not have faith in heaven so how are they justified?


Question- If man is justified by faith alone, when the doctrine of faith alone is only ever derived from a text, why not derive other doctrines such as saved by patience alone, or saved by hope alone, when patience and hope also exist within the scriptures in association with salvation? After all, if justification by faith alone is not explicit within the text, why not derive other doctrines and claim those doctrines are implied, just as faith alone is implied within other texts?


Question- The reformers taught the gospel teaching on justification by faith alone was the gospel that was not taught by Rome, but was taught by the early Church. If this is so, why is there almost no evidence whatsoever in Church history for the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness by faith alone? If there is no evidence from history for the reformed doctrine, why then believe their claims about Rome's false teaching, when the witness of history is against the reformation.


Question- If a man is justified by faith alone by the Father imputing the righteousness of Christ to the sinners account, why is one of the proof texts Romans 4:5-8 -


5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. 6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7 “Blessed are those whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the one whose sin the Lord will never count against them.”


Where Rom 4:7-8 cites Ps 32:1-2, where Ps 32:2 says the Lord does not count sins against them and in whose spirit is no deceit (and therefore no sin)?


Ps 32:2 Blessed is the one whose sin the LORD does not count against them and in whose spirit is no deceit.


Question - Does not, "no deceit" infer the sinner has been cleansed from sin within his soul and thereby is not counted as righteousness? Why then believe God forgives sin and declares a sinner righteous whilst remaining a sinner, when Rom 4 and Ps 32 both infer the declaration of righteousness follows upon, or conforms to the interior restoration of the sinner, via an interior righteousness rather than the reformed understanding of imputed righteousness?

The Double Imputation Theory.

Problem - The reformers taught the double imputation as the great exchange. Christ became as sin and was punished in our place, and we sinners receive Christ's righteousness by faith alone, by the imputation of Christ's righteousness to our account.

As Richard Lints as the Andrew Mutch Distinguished Professor of Theology and Vice President for Academic Affairs, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, says -

At the heart of the Protestant consensus about the Gospel for the last 500 years is claim that our sins are imputed to Christ, and Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us. This is “double imputation”. Others have called it the “Great Exchange”. Christ has died in our place, and in exchange we have been given new life in Christ. Scratch below the surface though and an interesting question emerges. Is there a transfer of righteousness – from one bank account to another in this process? This is to ask, what gets “exchanged” in the Great Exchange?

The exchange is an exchange of verdicts rather than an exchange of moral character. Christ is “declared a sinner” at the cross. He is not actually a sinner nor is there any transfer of our sins to him. Whatever else one might want to say about Christ’s moral character, he has remained steadfastly faithful to his Father in heaven and was obedient to the point of death. Christ receives the verdict of death because he stands “in our place” at the cross. This is the meaning of the “imputation of sin”. So by contrast, we are “declared righteous” not because we are actually righteous or faithful, but because we stand in Christ’s place before God. The imputation of Christ’s righteousness is not to participate in one of God’s essential attributes but rather to be the beneficiaries of Christ’s messianic work.

There is no “transfer” of righteousness in salvation but rather a declaration that sinners are all that Christ is – not that sinners actually are all that Christ is.

The above quote has many problems with regard to the following -

1) Christ is “declared a sinner” at the cross. Who does the declaring and why? Is it the Father who does so? Why declare Christ a sinner anyway? After all, the Father is God and need not do this, for He could have chosen another way to have Christ suffer on the cross.

2) Christ is “declared a sinner” at the cross. If the Father does the declaring, the Father has made a false statement, causing the Father to sin. Christ is then dying on the cross to save the Father from His own sin. Such is impossible, for the Father cannot sin.

3) Christ is “declared a sinner” at the cross. If the Father has made a false statement, then Christ is involved in the Father acting to sin, making Christ's action on the cross an occasion of sin. Because Christ knew the Father would sin, Christ should not have died on the cross, contrary to the Father's will to save the Father from sinning to save men from sin.

4) Christ is “declared a sinner” at the cross. But this only means Christ is declared a sinner for the sins of those who have faith. For those who do not have faith, Christ is not their savior. Hence the Father only declares Christ a sinner for the sins of the faithful, but not for the sins of the unfaithful. Somehow the Father has decided to declare Christ a sinner for those being save, but not for those not being saved. Hence the Father must make the declaration and thereby sin for the elect, and not declare for the unsaved and thereby not sin for the non elect. So for anyone to go to heaven, the Father is their sinful father. For those who go to hell the Father is the sinner who has chosen not to declare and not sin, but in not declaring for them, has decided to abandon them. In abandoning them He has decided not to be a Father, and thereby sin against them. The convoluted outcomes of the Father imputing sin to Christ at the cross shows the Reformed doctrine to be false.

5) Sinners are declared righteous. Again, if the Father does the declaring of righteousness, then He is involved in a lie and becomes the sinner. The cross then becomes a series of logical problems that end up making God into a sinner who needs to be saved from the salvation process.

Question - why believe the reformers when 1) they have no authority, 2) have no foundation in church history, 3) have no basis for their beliefs in scripture, 4) have no logical arguments, 5) require that God be a sinner, 6) require that men are both sinners and righteous, 7) have opinions that mutually contradict each other and contradict other generations of Protestants?

There is simply no reason to believe anything they say, so why not abandon the reformation and seek for something more historical, more scriptural as found within an institution that actually makes a claim of authority and has the historical credentials to back those claims?

RC Sproul says quite candidly that the double imputation theory is both central to the reformation and is the gospel.

“…If any statement summarizes and capture the essence of the Reformation view, it is Luther’s famous Latin formula ‘simul justus et peccator.’ ‘Simil’ is the word from which we get the English ‘simultaneous;’ it means ‘at the same time.’ ‘Justus’ is the Latin word for ‘just’ or ‘righteous.’ ‘Et’ simply means ‘and.’ ‘Peccator’ means ‘sinner.’ So, with this formula, – ‘at the same time just and sinner’ – Luther was saying that in our justification, we are at the same time righteous and sinful. …He was saying that, in one sense, we are just. In another sense, we are sinners. In and of ourselves, under God’s scrutiny, we still have sin. But by God’s imputation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ to our accounts, we are considered just.”

“This is the very heart of the gospel. In order to get into heaven, will I be judged by my righteousness or by the righteousness of Christ? If I have to trust in my righteousness to get into heaven, I must completely and utterly despair of any possibility of ever being redeemed. But when we see that the righteousness that is ours by faith is the perfect righteousness of Christ, we see how glorious is the good news of the gospel. The good news is simply this: I can be reconciled to God. I can be justified, not on the basis of what I do, but on the basis of what has been accomplished for me by Christ.”

“Of course, Protestantism really teaches a double imputation. Our sin is imputed to Jesus and his righteousness is imputed to us. In this twofold transaction, we see that God does not compromise his integrity in providing salvation for his people. Rather, he punishes sin fully after it has been imputed to Jesus. This is why he is able to be both ‘just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus’ as Paul writes in Romans 3:26. So my sin goes to Jesus and his righteousness comes to me.”

“This is a truth worth dividing the church.”

“This is the article on which the church stands or falls, because it is the article on which we all stand or fall.”

The problems with the above statement are manifold.“Our sin is imputed to Jesus” – infers God has imputed sin to Jesus. Because all three persons of the Trinity always act together, all three persons of the Trinity acted to impute Jesus with sin. All three know Jesus has no sin, but impute sin to Jesus. Of course if Jesus is God, then He cannot sin. Hence the imputation of sin is a legal fiction. The legal fiction makes the imputation process very problematic, for God is then being unjust to both Jesus who does not deserve the imputation, and God who imputes the sin is also having an act measured by the law of God, which in turn must accuse God Himself of acting contrary to the law.

Furthermore, the process of imputing sin to Jesus infers -

1) God’s law becomes the ultimate measure of God’s acts, which are known to be a fiction in the context of imputing sin to Jesus. Yet God is the ultimate measure of all and is not measured by any law. Therefore the theory of imputation of sin means God is both under the law and acts disconcordant to the law. Such actions by God make God into a creature, who acts under law and is judged by law.

2) God’s law becomes a strict measure of human sin against God’s uncompromising righteousness. But simultaneously God’s law is broken by the same righteous, uncompromising God, who makes a fictional legal judgement about the imputation of sin to Jesus, which is itself a breach of law. The intrinsic contradiction within the theory of double imputation invalidates the theory.

3) God’s imputation of sin to Jesus is required to explain why Jesus suffered on the cross. Jesus suffering is His part in removing the just condemnation of God against sinners. Hence suffering caused by men on Jesus removes the breaches of law over the elect. This process means suffering and death removes an imputation of sin to the sinner and places the imputation of righteousness to the sinner. So the application of suffering to Jesus is required to remove the imputation of sin to Jesus, yet there is no legal basis for suffering of one man (be Him the God-man as Jesus) that actually causes God to be moved to impute righteousness to another man. Therefore the theory is based upon a lack of supporting evidence from the law that suffering of another can cause the imputation of righteousness to another. Hence the double imputation theory is merely a fiction invented by the reformers.

4) The legal imputation of sin must be a lawful act by God, for God always acts lawfully. Yet the legal imputation of sin to one who has not sinned is to state with legal force that a someone has breached the law without having done so. Hence the legal imputation of sin to another, is unlawful and cannot be done by the biblical God. Hence the double imputation theory is merely a fiction invented by the reformers apart from the biblical God.

5) God has inverted the natural order of justice and legally imputed sin to one whom is most unworthy of such an act. As the inversion is against the nature of God, the double imputation theory is merely a fiction invented by the reformers apart from the biblical God.

6) The imputation of sin to Jesus is against the divine majesty, which requires that God as the best will always be known by God as the best. By God imputing sin to Jesus, God knows Jesus as something other than the best. Therefore because the double imputation theory is against the majesty of God, the theory is false.

7) The imputation of sin to Jesus causes God to be most unmerciful to Jesus and most merciful to those who do not deserve the mercy. The theory then requires that God’s justice and mercy is said to be consistent with His nature as righteous, but is also most capricious. Capricious for the most just receives the harshest punishment and the most unjust is not punished. The capricious nature of God required in the double imputation theory means the theory is a false theory.

8) God imputing sin to Jesus means God must have acted to impute sin for a time, and then stop imputing sin to Jesus at another time. Such an action by God, means God’s mind about who Jesus is, must have changed. Yet God’s mind never changes. Hence the double imputation theory means God must change His mind about what Jesus is (sinner or God), and is then a false theory.

9) The imputation of sin to Jesus within the theory, is an act of God promoted by those who constructed a systematic theology outside the biblical text. As the reformers acted to construct the new theology, they did so without any legitimate authority or mandate from God to do so. Hence the theory implies that because the Reformers taught the double imputation theory without any regard for divine authority, anyone can give assent or freely chose to dissent from the theory without fear of sinning against God. Yet the Reformers taught the double imputation theory was part of the Gospel. Hence due to the lack of authority associated with the theory, there is no reason to give assent to the theory as actually being the real gospel, other than merely the opinion of those who invented the theory, and those who freely chose to embrace the theory. As the theory is not contained within any divinely authoritative institution, the theory cannot be from God and is therefore most certainly not the gospel as its adherents claim it to be. Hence the double imputation theory is a false theory.

10) The imputation of sin to Jesus is contained within the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Hence faith is not only required to believe Jesus died and rose from the dead to take away men’s sins, but that also Jesus became as sin in our place. The reformed understanding of justification means faith requires men to not only believe Jesus died and rose from the dead, but that God imputed sin to Jesus as part of the cross-resurrection event. But to redefine the cross that requires an imputation of sin to Jesus means the reformers have redefined what it means to have saving faith. Saving faith is changed from the biblical faith in the God of love, who does not deceive, to the nominalist god of Calvin and Luther who require faith to be ordered to giving assent to their own invented theory and not what God has revealed about the redemption in divine revelation. Hence because the double imputation theory requires a false, redefinition of faith, the theory is itself false.

11) Imputation of sin to Jesus means God acts in a non-legal way to legally impute sin to one who does not have sin. Such a non-legal act by God is against the nature of the reformers god, who always acts righteously and therefore legally. Hence the double imputation theory is a false theory which requires God to act against the nature of God as taught by the reformers.

The process if imputing righteousness to sinners infers -

1) Righteousness could easily be infused into the sinner, making the sinner ontologically righteous, but God chose not to do so. As God always acts in the best way to manifest His perfections, the double imputation theory requires that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness must manifest God’s perfections. Yet God’s action requires that He call sinners righteous when they are sinners. Such an act means God’s acting in the manner of a legal fiction promotes the perfections of mercy and righteousness. Yet God’s declaration does neither. For God to act in accord with a legal fiction is to defect from perfection and resemble the imperfection of a sinful creature. Hence the double imputation theory requires that God imitate sinners and not act as the biblical God with divine perfection. Therefore the double imputation theory is false.

2) Biblically righteousness is said to be infused into the sinner as new life through regeneration (Titus 3:5) or law of the Spirit who gives life (Rom 8:2). Such action by God within men, brings about the life of God within men, to help them overcome sin. According to God’s action within men, they are made righteous (Rom 5:19) in the new Adam. The new life within men then makes the double imputation theory both 1) superfluous, for men are regenerated and God does not need to call sinner righteous, and 2) inconsistent with what God does. God makes men righteous and then calls them righteous in accord with His work within men. Hence the double imputation theory is a false theory.

3) Righteousness is imputed to sinners who according to Calvin and Luther did not have free will after the fall. As such, because men do not have free will, sin is not from men’s choice, but from men’s sin nature. Yet for sin to exist without free will is against the nature of sin, which implies a free act by the sinner, by which God then imputes the guilt of sin and the associated punishment. Therefore, for righteousness to be imputed to the sinner, the Calvinist/Lutheran version of what a sinner is, means sin is unjustly imputed to the sinner, who really has not control over his own actions and cannot ever act freely to sin. Therefore, because the double imputation theory requires a false understanding of the nature of sin, righteousness imputed to the sinner by God is both unnecessary and a false solution to a false problem. As such, the double imputation theory is a false theory.

4) Righteousness is imputed to sinners, whereby the sinner remains a sinner. Thus righteousness is only ever credited to an account and not infused within the sinner to make the sinner into a saint. Yet it is said that the sinner is fit for heaven, for the sinner has been saved from sin by Jesus within the double imputation theory. The justice the sinner has imputed is the same justice the sinner will have when he gets to heaven. Yet biblically nobody will ever see God unless he is holy. As such, righteousness in heaven cannot be an extrinsic righteousness imputed to the sinner, but must be a righteousness infused within the sinner, making the man into a holy saint, fit for entrance into heaven. The legal imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinners account only has any application if the sinner is infused with grace and the Holy Spirit. Yet such is the doctrine of infused righteousness of the Catholic Church, which was rejected by the Reformers. As such, the double imputation theory is inconsistent with the nature of heaven and therefore false.

5) Righteousness is imputed to sinners by faith alone, yet faith is never discussed as being perfect or imperfect, like the strict requirements of keeping the law. Hence within the double imputation theory, God requires perfection within the law, but nothing is said about the perfection or imperfection of faith, which could be quite imperfect, for the sinner remains a sinner and must always acts with an imperfect intention - as Calvin taught. Yet if faith is perfect, then men can do perfect acts pleasing to God, whilst remaining sinners. If imperfect, then imperfect human acts are pleasing to God, contrary to the requirements of the law as taught by Calvinism.

The nature of faith within the double imputation theory is contrary to the nature of all other human acts within the theory that are said to be as dung before the Holy God. Yet God is somehow satisfied with only faith, regardless of its imperfection. For it is well recorded in history that many Protestants had faith, then lost faith, inferring faith was at some time imperfect. So the double imputation theory teaches imperfect human acts are unlawful and therefore sinful, but permits imperfect human acts of faith which save, whilst God always requires perfection within the law. Evidently the double imputation theory is eclectic regarding the nature of human acts as imperfect which both cause condemnation and justification. Therefore the theory is false trough the fallacy of eclecticism.

Comment - The entire process of imputing sin to Jesus, imputing righteousness to sinners, all done by faith alone, to sinners who do not have free will is almost completely false. Perhaps the only two truths that are contained within the theory are Jesus died and rose from the dead. Even so, these two truths are contained within a theory that is so false, that the Jesus who died and rose from the dead, did so for false reasons, making the cross a fiction that achieved nothing.

JM

 

[-57]

Unless God allows you to come to Jesus....you can't.

John 6:65 And he said, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father.”

 

[-57]

You don't choose Jesus....

Jesus chooses you.

John 15:16You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.

 

[Light of the East]

You don't choose Jesus....

Jesus chooses you.

John 15:16You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.

That verse isn't even about salvation.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

Problems/Questions with faith alone theology and it's accompanied theory of double imputation are presented below.

On Faith Alone

Question - If a man is justified by faith alone and the scriptures say man is justified by faith (Rom 3:28, 5:1, Gal 2:16), why then add in the word "alone", when the word "alone" does not exist within any scripture text in the context of justification by faith?


Question- if man is justified by faith alone, why doesn't any scripture text actually say that?


Question- If man is justified by faith alone, but the scriptures say man is justified by faith, what assurance does the interpreter of the scriptures have that works infer all human action other than faith? Why not infer only works within the Mosaic covenant, such as circumcision?


Question- If man is justified by faith alone, does he lose justification when faith is lost? If so, the elect do not have faith in heaven so how are they justified?


Question- If man is justified by faith alone, when the doctrine of faith alone is only ever derived from a text, why not derive other doctrines such as saved by patience alone, or saved by hope alone, when patience and hope also exist within the scriptures in association with salvation? After all, if justification by faith alone is not explicit within the text, why not derive other doctrines and claim those doctrines are implied, just as faith alone is implied within other texts?


Question- The reformers taught the gospel teaching on justification by faith alone was the gospel that was not taught by Rome, but was taught by the early Church. If this is so, why is there almost no evidence whatsoever in Church history for the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness by faith alone? If there is no evidence from history for the reformed doctrine, why then believe their claims about Rome's false teaching, when the witness of history is against the reformation.


Question- If a man is justified by faith alone by the Father imputing the righteousness of Christ to the sinners account, why is one of the proof texts Romans 4:5-8 -


5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. 6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7 “Blessed are those whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the one whose sin the Lord will never count against them.”


Where Rom 4:7-8 cites Ps 32:1-2, where Ps 32:2 says the Lord does not count sins against them and in whose spirit is no deceit (and therefore no sin)?


Ps 32:2 Blessed is the one whose sin the LORD does not count against them and in whose spirit is no deceit.


Question - Does not, "no deceit" infer the sinner has been cleansed from sin within his soul and thereby is not counted as righteousness? Why then believe God forgives sin and declares a sinner righteous whilst remaining a sinner, when Rom 4 and Ps 32 both infer the declaration of righteousness follows upon, or conforms to the interior restoration of the sinner, via an interior righteousness rather than the reformed understanding of imputed righteousness?

The Double Imputation Theory.

Problem - The reformers taught the double imputation as the great exchange. Christ became as sin and was punished in our place, and we sinners receive Christ's righteousness by faith alone, by the imputation of Christ's righteousness to our account.

As Richard Lints as the Andrew Mutch Distinguished Professor of Theology and Vice President for Academic Affairs, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, says -



There is no “transfer” of righteousness in salvation but rather a declaration that sinners are all that Christ is – not that sinners actually are all that Christ is.

The above quote has many problems with regard to the following -

1) Christ is “declared a sinner” at the cross. Who does the declaring and why? Is it the Father who does so? Why declare Christ a sinner anyway? After all, the Father is God and need not do this, for He could have chosen another way to have Christ suffer on the cross.

2) Christ is “declared a sinner” at the cross. If the Father does the declaring, the Father has made a false statement, causing the Father to sin. Christ is then dying on the cross to save the Father from His own sin. Such is impossible, for the Father cannot sin.

3) Christ is “declared a sinner” at the cross. If the Father has made a false statement, then Christ is involved in the Father acting to sin, making Christ's action on the cross an occasion of sin. Because Christ knew the Father would sin, Christ should not have died on the cross, contrary to the Father's will to save the Father from sinning to save men from sin.

4) Christ is “declared a sinner” at the cross. But this only means Christ is declared a sinner for the sins of those who have faith. For those who do not have faith, Christ is not their savior. Hence the Father only declares Christ a sinner for the sins of the faithful, but not for the sins of the unfaithful. Somehow the Father has decided to declare Christ a sinner for those being save, but not for those not being saved. Hence the Father must make the declaration and thereby sin for the elect, and not declare for the unsaved and thereby not sin for the non elect. So for anyone to go to heaven, the Father is their sinful father. For those who go to hell the Father is the sinner who has chosen not to declare and not sin, but in not declaring for them, has decided to abandon them. In abandoning them He has decided not to be a Father, and thereby sin against them. The convoluted outcomes of the Father imputing sin to Christ at the cross shows the Reformed doctrine to be false.

5) Sinners are declared righteous. Again, if the Father does the declaring of righteousness, then He is involved in a lie and becomes the sinner. The cross then becomes a series of logical problems that end up making God into a sinner who needs to be saved from the salvation process.

Question - why believe the reformers when 1) they have no authority, 2) have no foundation in church history, 3) have no basis for their beliefs in scripture, 4) have no logical arguments, 5) require that God be a sinner, 6) require that men are both sinners and righteous, 7) have opinions that mutually contradict each other and contradict other generations of Protestants?

There is simply no reason to believe anything they say, so why not abandon the reformation and seek for something more historical, more scriptural as found within an institution that actually makes a claim of authority and has the historical credentials to back those claims?

RC Sproul says quite candidly that the double imputation theory is both central to the reformation and is the gospel.



The problems with the above statement are manifold.“Our sin is imputed to Jesus” – infers God has imputed sin to Jesus. Because all three persons of the Trinity always act together, all three persons of the Trinity acted to impute Jesus with sin. All three know Jesus has no sin, but impute sin to Jesus. Of course if Jesus is God, then He cannot sin. Hence the imputation of sin is a legal fiction. The legal fiction makes the imputation process very problematic, for God is then being unjust to both Jesus who does not deserve the imputation, and God who imputes the sin is also having an act measured by the law of God, which in turn must accuse God Himself of acting contrary to the law.

Furthermore, the process of imputing sin to Jesus infers -

1) God’s law becomes the ultimate measure of God’s acts, which are known to be a fiction in the context of imputing sin to Jesus. Yet God is the ultimate measure of all and is not measured by any law. Therefore the theory of imputation of sin means God is both under the law and acts disconcordant to the law. Such actions by God make God into a creature, who acts under law and is judged by law.

2) God’s law becomes a strict measure of human sin against God’s uncompromising righteousness. But simultaneously God’s law is broken by the same righteous, uncompromising God, who makes a fictional legal judgement about the imputation of sin to Jesus, which is itself a breach of law. The intrinsic contradiction within the theory of double imputation invalidates the theory.

3) God’s imputation of sin to Jesus is required to explain why Jesus suffered on the cross. Jesus suffering is His part in removing the just condemnation of God against sinners. Hence suffering caused by men on Jesus removes the breaches of law over the elect. This process means suffering and death removes an imputation of sin to the sinner and places the imputation of righteousness to the sinner. So the application of suffering to Jesus is required to remove the imputation of sin to Jesus, yet there is no legal basis for suffering of one man (be Him the God-man as Jesus) that actually causes God to be moved to impute righteousness to another man. Therefore the theory is based upon a lack of supporting evidence from the law that suffering of another can cause the imputation of righteousness to another. Hence the double imputation theory is merely a fiction invented by the reformers.

4) The legal imputation of sin must be a lawful act by God, for God always acts lawfully. Yet the legal imputation of sin to one who has not sinned is to state with legal force that a someone has breached the law without having done so. Hence the legal imputation of sin to another, is unlawful and cannot be done by the biblical God. Hence the double imputation theory is merely a fiction invented by the reformers apart from the biblical God.

5) God has inverted the natural order of justice and legally imputed sin to one whom is most unworthy of such an act. As the inversion is against the nature of God, the double imputation theory is merely a fiction invented by the reformers apart from the biblical God.

6) The imputation of sin to Jesus is against the divine majesty, which requires that God as the best will always be known by God as the best. By God imputing sin to Jesus, God knows Jesus as something other than the best. Therefore because the double imputation theory is against the majesty of God, the theory is false.

7) The imputation of sin to Jesus causes God to be most unmerciful to Jesus and most merciful to those who do not deserve the mercy. The theory then requires that God’s justice and mercy is said to be consistent with His nature as righteous, but is also most capricious. Capricious for the most just receives the harshest punishment and the most unjust is not punished. The capricious nature of God required in the double imputation theory means the theory is a false theory.

8) God imputing sin to Jesus means God must have acted to impute sin for a time, and then stop imputing sin to Jesus at another time. Such an action by God, means God’s mind about who Jesus is, must have changed. Yet God’s mind never changes. Hence the double imputation theory means God must change His mind about what Jesus is (sinner or God), and is then a false theory.

9) The imputation of sin to Jesus within the theory, is an act of God promoted by those who constructed a systematic theology outside the biblical text. As the reformers acted to construct the new theology, they did so without any legitimate authority or mandate from God to do so. Hence the theory implies that because the Reformers taught the double imputation theory without any regard for divine authority, anyone can give assent or freely chose to dissent from the theory without fear of sinning against God. Yet the Reformers taught the double imputation theory was part of the Gospel. Hence due to the lack of authority associated with the theory, there is no reason to give assent to the theory as actually being the real gospel, other than merely the opinion of those who invented the theory, and those who freely chose to embrace the theory. As the theory is not contained within any divinely authoritative institution, the theory cannot be from God and is therefore most certainly not the gospel as its adherents claim it to be. Hence the double imputation theory is a false theory.

10) The imputation of sin to Jesus is contained within the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Hence faith is not only required to believe Jesus died and rose from the dead to take away men’s sins, but that also Jesus became as sin in our place. The reformed understanding of justification means faith requires men to not only believe Jesus died and rose from the dead, but that God imputed sin to Jesus as part of the cross-resurrection event. But to redefine the cross that requires an imputation of sin to Jesus means the reformers have redefined what it means to have saving faith. Saving faith is changed from the biblical faith in the God of love, who does not deceive, to the nominalist god of Calvin and Luther who require faith to be ordered to giving assent to their own invented theory and not what God has revealed about the redemption in divine revelation. Hence because the double imputation theory requires a false, redefinition of faith, the theory is itself false.

11) Imputation of sin to Jesus means God acts in a non-legal way to legally impute sin to one who does not have sin. Such a non-legal act by God is against the nature of the reformers god, who always acts righteously and therefore legally. Hence the double imputation theory is a false theory which requires God to act against the nature of God as taught by the reformers.

The process if imputing righteousness to sinners infers -

1) Righteousness could easily be infused into the sinner, making the sinner ontologically righteous, but God chose not to do so. As God always acts in the best way to manifest His perfections, the double imputation theory requires that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness must manifest God’s perfections. Yet God’s action requires that He call sinners righteous when they are sinners. Such an act means God’s acting in the manner of a legal fiction promotes the perfections of mercy and righteousness. Yet God’s declaration does neither. For God to act in accord with a legal fiction is to defect from perfection and resemble the imperfection of a sinful creature. Hence the double imputation theory requires that God imitate sinners and not act as the biblical God with divine perfection. Therefore the double imputation theory is false.

2) Biblically righteousness is said to be infused into the sinner as new life through regeneration (Titus 3:5) or law of the Spirit who gives life (Rom 8:2). Such action by God within men, brings about the life of God within men, to help them overcome sin. According to God’s action within men, they are made righteous (Rom 5:19) in the new Adam. The new life within men then makes the double imputation theory both 1) superfluous, for men are regenerated and God does not need to call sinner righteous, and 2) inconsistent with what God does. God makes men righteous and then calls them righteous in accord with His work within men. Hence the double imputation theory is a false theory.

3) Righteousness is imputed to sinners who according to Calvin and Luther did not have free will after the fall. As such, because men do not have free will, sin is not from men’s choice, but from men’s sin nature. Yet for sin to exist without free will is against the nature of sin, which implies a free act by the sinner, by which God then imputes the guilt of sin and the associated punishment. Therefore, for righteousness to be imputed to the sinner, the Calvinist/Lutheran version of what a sinner is, means sin is unjustly imputed to the sinner, who really has not control over his own actions and cannot ever act freely to sin. Therefore, because the double imputation theory requires a false understanding of the nature of sin, righteousness imputed to the sinner by God is both unnecessary and a false solution to a false problem. As such, the double imputation theory is a false theory.

4) Righteousness is imputed to sinners, whereby the sinner remains a sinner. Thus righteousness is only ever credited to an account and not infused within the sinner to make the sinner into a saint. Yet it is said that the sinner is fit for heaven, for the sinner has been saved from sin by Jesus within the double imputation theory. The justice the sinner has imputed is the same justice the sinner will have when he gets to heaven. Yet biblically nobody will ever see God unless he is holy. As such, righteousness in heaven cannot be an extrinsic righteousness imputed to the sinner, but must be a righteousness infused within the sinner, making the man into a holy saint, fit for entrance into heaven. The legal imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinners account only has any application if the sinner is infused with grace and the Holy Spirit. Yet such is the doctrine of infused righteousness of the Catholic Church, which was rejected by the Reformers. As such, the double imputation theory is inconsistent with the nature of heaven and therefore false.

5) Righteousness is imputed to sinners by faith alone, yet faith is never discussed as being perfect or imperfect, like the strict requirements of keeping the law. Hence within the double imputation theory, God requires perfection within the law, but nothing is said about the perfection or imperfection of faith, which could be quite imperfect, for the sinner remains a sinner and must always acts with an imperfect intention - as Calvin taught. Yet if faith is perfect, then men can do perfect acts pleasing to God, whilst remaining sinners. If imperfect, then imperfect human acts are pleasing to God, contrary to the requirements of the law as taught by Calvinism.

The nature of faith within the double imputation theory is contrary to the nature of all other human acts within the theory that are said to be as dung before the Holy God. Yet God is somehow satisfied with only faith, regardless of its imperfection. For it is well recorded in history that many Protestants had faith, then lost faith, inferring faith was at some time imperfect. So the double imputation theory teaches imperfect human acts are unlawful and therefore sinful, but permits imperfect human acts of faith which save, whilst God always requires perfection within the law. Evidently the double imputation theory is eclectic regarding the nature of human acts as imperfect which both cause condemnation and justification. Therefore the theory is false trough the fallacy of eclecticism.

Comment - The entire process of imputing sin to Jesus, imputing righteousness to sinners, all done by faith alone, to sinners who do not have free will is almost completely false. Perhaps the only two truths that are contained within the theory are Jesus died and rose from the dead. Even so, these two truths are contained within a theory that is so false, that the Jesus who died and rose from the dead, did so for false reasons, making the cross a fiction that achieved nothing.

JM

people wonder why many millennials seem to turn away from the church or proper tradition or whatever....it's becuase of false doctrine like faith alone. It's becuase of false doctrine like once saved always saved. That's why you don't even see people go to church and say they are christians becuase they believe and that's it.

 

[-57]

That verse isn't even about salvation.

It's about salvation....and much more.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

yeah spirit of truth was for disciples specifically... Isaiah was also led by the holy spirit for example and predicted God's guidance in the future. Now we have something we can receive called the holy ghost so now we don't have a spirit or something leading us, but those that are saved have the spirit of christ inside. They didn't have that before pentecost so yeah had holy spirit leading them.

 

[-57]

Question- if man is justified by faith alone, why doesn't any scripture text actually say that?

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,

 

[Light of the East]

I strongly suggest you do a word search on many. Here is the word used in Romans 5:19. 4183 polus. It doesn't mean all. Sorry.

Matt 7:22 uses the same word. Many....On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’

Your translation is faulty if you expect me to read it this way......On that day ALL will say to me....If your use of 4183 polus is correct then ALL will hear Jsus say...3 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, youworkers of lawlessness.’

I see your point, but then Paul's verse in Romans becomes highly problematic, doesn't it? If that is the strict meaning, then not all were made sinners by the Fall, but only some (many). Can you see the problem with this?

 

[Light of the East]

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,

The point the OP was making is that the word "alone" is missing.

 

[-57]

I see your point, but then Paul's verse in Romans becomes highly problematic, doesn't it? If that is the strict meaning, then not all were made sinners by the Fall, but only some (many). Can you see the problem with this?

I bet if I look there will be diferent words for all and many used in this instance in Romans.

Yes, all people sin and fall short...from all of the people who have lived or will live.....many will be saved.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

I have never believed in OSAS, since a proper understanding of covenant and how it works shows that a covenant relationship can be broken. That is what happened to the nation of Israel when they killed the One who offered Himself to them as King and divine Bridegroom. They broke their covenant with God and ended that relationship.

However, I am at a point in my life right now of questioning some age-old ideas that have been batted around for quite some time, especially in the Western Church. The Orthodox understanding of salvation is that God has plundered the household of the evil one and taken from him all that he stole - all mankind. In other words, as Paul wrote in Romans 5, all have come under the Cross work of Christ. No man or woman is left out.

What I think happens next is this: we are offered a chance to respond to that love and enter into union with Christ through repentance and metanoia of heart. As we do so, and as we journey in life, our goal is to become more and more like Christ, or as Paul said to "put off the old man and put on the new man, made in the image of Christ."

Those who do so in this life, becoming conformed to the image of Christ, will find the presence of God and His fiery love, to be a warm blessing of eternal bliss and joy. But those who do not, who embrace their sin and refuse to give it up, will find the presence of God to be a horrible torment. As the Orthodox say "The same sun that blesses the eyes of the well, is a torment to those whose eyes are sick" and "the same sun that bakes the clay melts the ice cube" Same sun - different results. Same presence of God - for either blessing or torment.

Can someone turn from God and go from the state of blessing to that state in which they will be among the tormented? Certainly. So I guess my answer is "NO." Our free will allows us to turn back from our journey into intimacy with God and return to sin.

Wow honestly you're take is similiar to the one my faith has despite one major difference.

We believe like you that God has come in and taken everything from Satan and God " bought" the church and ...that Satan has no power but there's a slight difference. We believe that God expects us to display what he bought, as in God expects us to "put ye on the lord JESUS christ and make no provision for the flesh to fulfill the lust thereof. Sure satan has no power over hell and death but hell is still there as we see in revelations around 20-22 as well as a lake of fire which hell shall be placed into.

So in conclusion we believe that yes Satan has no power unless we believe his "lies" and give him power over us, but we do believe sin still exist.. and the wages of sin is after all death. We even see in acts 16 that demons still exist for example and try to still bring those who walk with christ down. Satan doesn't have power to overcome us but we can believe his lies, believe in the pleasures sin brings... fall for temptation...and give satan a hold over us.

"thou that committeth sin is of the devil" and if you're associate with the devil you go where he goes. This is evident in revelations.

 

[-57]

The point the OP was making is that the word "alone" is missing.

Well, we know ...what we do, which is called works...doesn't save us because when you continue reading Eph 2:8 the very next verse says "9 not by works, so that no one can boast".

 

[-57]

I just ran a quick word check (Blue Letter Bible is a GREAT study tool). You are correct. There are two different Greek words for "all" and "many."

However, there is still this verse with which to contend.

Rom 5:18

Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all G3956 men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all G3956men unto justification of life.

Pretty much shows the universal scope of Christ's saving work for all mankind.

The second all is in reference to those who are represented by Christ. Adam was our federal headship and represented all men. All as in everyone. Concerning Christ, Christ doesn't represent all of mankind. He does represent many of mankind. The verse needs to be looked at in the context in which it was written...and not to be understood line by line in which all kinds of word nuances can be used.

If all men are to be saved then it pretty much changes the parable of Lazarus and the rich man....where the rich man can't cross the gulph.

 

[stuart lawrence]

Paul does state the Christian has righteousness apart from law ( rom3:21)

Does that indicate faith alone, or do you make a distinction between law and works?

 

[-57]

Yes, but what does that mean? You have to look in the greater context of the whole Bible and the Covenant of God.

There are two covenants spoken of in the Bible. The first is the covenant made with all mankind. That is the one that Adam broke as the covenant head (or representative) through his disobedience. It is this covenant that Christ has restored, being the Last Adam (1 Corin 15:45).

Now the problem that Paul had was that the Jews were still looking for fulfillment of this covenant with God. Paul's work was to show them that circumcision was no longer required because Christ had restored all mankind to God through His covenant work. Also, the second covenant, that of personal relationship to the Church as obtained through circumcision, was also over, to be replaced by baptism in faith of the Messiah, Christ Jesus.

So "not by works" has to do with both the eternal covenant with mankind, fulfilled in Christ and maintained by Him in heaven by His actions as the Great High Priest, and our personal works, which also cannot "cut covenant" with Him. Any works that we do are not about "cutting covenant" with Christ. They are the means by which we obey our covenant promises to follow Him and keep covenant with Him.

The Jews were still depending upon old laws of a covenant that was no longer in effect. They thought their keeping of the Law (circumcision) was all they needed to get to heaven. That is the "works of the law" upon which they were depending.

If all men are to be saved.....why do I have to do anything?

 

[Light of the East]

If all men are to be saved.....why do I have to do anything?

To keep from experiencing the scourging of God's love, which will be quite unpleasant while it lasts.

 

[Hank77]

Rom 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.

All men are now in a state of justification of life. Don't argue with me....argue with Paul. He wrote it, clear as day.

What Paul is explaining is that All men, Jew and Gentile alike, are now equally children of God when they accept reconciliation through the Christ. That He died for all men, not just the Jews. This is a recurring theme through out the NT. The Israelites are not the only chosen ones of God but the Gentiles are as well.
We see this revelation come to Peter when he has the dream of the animals in the sheet and he then goes to the gentile's house and they are filled with the Holy Spirit just as the Jews were on the day of Pentecost.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

To keep from experiencing the scourging of God's love, which will be quite unpleasant while it lasts.

Wouldn't the scourging just be hell I mean? I'm trying to figure this view out.

 

[JESUS=G.O.A.T]

If we use the common understanding of "hell" as we have it now.....no.

The idea of "hell" (which word does not appear in Scripture) we think of a place of unending torment, right? There is no other purpose for it other than God getting even with folks for turning their backs on Him and embracing sin.

Scourging, on the other hand, as understood by some of the Early Fathers of the Church such as St. Issac the Syrian, is the corrective punishment done to one to produce repentance and a change of heart and mind. It does not last forever, but only as long as needed for A.) justice to be served for sin and B.) restoration of the soul

hell is actually mentioned in the OT being a geographic location in the OT a horrible one. It's also mentioned in revelations 20 in the NT and luke 12:5 and some other places.

And I see what you mean now. Your view is like the typical view of trials/situations to a degree, where someone maybe sinned and God punished them or put them through something for a time to get them to come back. Only difference is your view carries it over to the after life as well I assume? Like if someone dies not wanting God they suffer until they eventually turn to him. God isn't a god of choices then in this sense either but rather you have to love him whether you like it or not, correction to a degree.