question of imputation

[RandyPNW]

Yes, our position with Christ in heaven is, as I see it, "in grace." We have legal standing with Christ who is in heaven. We are not in heaven with him, obviously, but we are with him positionally, or legally, because he sits there upholding the stand he took for us on the cross in forgiving us of our sins.

For me, it is not so much imputation of righteousness, which is not understandable for me, but God recognizing that He doesn't hold our imperfections against us, and sees, instead, an example of our operating together with Christ's righteousness within us, through the Spirit.

So I suppose it is a acceptable to state that Christ is imputing to us the righteousness of Christ because he acknowledges that his righteousness in us is being generated along with a dispensation of grace, to cover our imperfections. It may just be the semantics of the thing, but I can't actually see Christ's perfect righteousness, which is sinless, imputed to us in any practical sense because once it is in us, through the Spirit, it comes to be tainted with our flawed ways of handling it.

 

[RandyPNW]

So it seems that Justification is speaking of Christ's work preliminary to our Salvation, imputing a perfect righteousness where it is not deserved? Instead of declaring this righteousness to be "imputed," however, I prefer it to be stated that Christ viewed us as lost sinners, who in no way deserved to have righteousness imputed to them.

Rather, Christ's righteousness was simply delivered to us by grace, fully acknowledging our unworthiness, and yet primed to receive a righteousness that was originally intended for Man.

That is, Christ did not have to "impute" anything to us to give us this gift. Is "imputation" a qualification for God to be able to give us His righteousness? I haven't worked that out yet.

Do we have sinless righteousness creditted to us? Not sinless righteousness, but I think what is creditted to us is what Abraham received, even though he was not yet "Saved." He certainly did not have imputed to him Sinless Righteousness, since he was not yet Saved or Glorified.

He was creditted a form of righteousness that obtains covenant relationship with God by acceptance of God's terms for that relationship. In other words, it is "faith" that obtains righteousness by accepting that our righteousness done in obedience is accepted not on its own merit alone, but more, on the merit of our following the directives of God. That is Grace.

And that is what "faith" is, in my view. It is not just believing that Christ is our substitute but it is actual acceptance of our need to comply with what that demands of us, namely a participation in the righteousness that God has not imputed to us, but has actually given to us.

Even more, Faith is our acceptance of the idea that we must defer to the Spirit of Christ in all that we do, whether we're successful in it or not. Indeed we cannot be perfectly succeessful in it, although we can accept it as the basis of our life, namely obedience.

This is the problem I have with the word "imputation," although as others use the term properly I can accept it. I just want to understand what I'm saying, using terms that mean something to me. Thanks for your understanding.

 

[RandyPNW]

Here is an explanation of why I have a problem with the doctrine of "Imputation." It is not so much that it is incorrect but that as I use the term it becomes incorrect. I'm not sure how to resolve it? But the following may help you better understand my concern about using the term....

Was sin Adam and Eve committed a Sin Nature "imputed" and therefore applied to their descendants? Or, was Sin a disease that naturally spread from parent to child, etc.?

No, I believe Sin is bound up in the makeup of a person who works. When his work becomes defective, or becomes sinful, the product is going to be defective and the product of sin. In the case of parenting children, the sin-infected parents work, and their product, ie the children, are born in sin simply because the parents can no longer produce perfect children.

The children are born with a spiritual nature that tends to rebel against God, indeed is to some measure rebellious against God's word and authority. What Adam and Eve did to corrupt their own nature was produced, by their work of reproduction, in their children.

So it was very important that the priests of Israel, who were also sin-infected, understand that their work in bringing Israel into relationship with God could not produce something perfect and final. They could not lead Israel to Eternal Life because they themselves were sin-infected, and did not qualify for Eternal Life, let alone lead others to it by the work of ministry.

So everything ministered under the Law was an imperfect work, and could not lead Israel into anything more than a relationship with God, and could not lead to Eternal Life, except indirectly, by prefiguring it. But this priesthood was patterned after the heavenly priesthood of Christ, whose works did qualify to give to sinful people not just a relationship with God, but also Eternal Life.

Jesus was God's earthly priest who qualified as a perfect priest to give Eternal Life to sinners, which is what he did by dying on the cross. In this way he qualified to give Eternal Life to all sinners, because he gave his all to sinners.

The Scriptures say Jesus "became Sin" for us. This does not, I think, mean he actually took the form of a sinner. Rather, he became, in Paul's short-hand terminology, a substitute for our sin.

This was, I think, the language of the Law in which priests offered sacrificial animals as substitutes for the people of Israel. In that way Christ became "Sin for us." He was taking punishment from sinners, which only sinners deserved.

So Sin is not "imputed" to Adam's descendants. And neither is righteousness "imputed" to sinners, in my view. Rather, Christ gave Man an opportunity to participate in his righteousness as sinners by giving to them a righteousness generated along with their works.

In this way Christ gave us God's righteousness, but certainly did not impute perfect righteousness to us. He fully realized, when he gave us his righteousness, that we are not righteous apart from his aid.

Believing this need to partake in his righteousness was viewed by God as righteousness because it is acceptance of the need to partner with God in His provision of righteousness to us. It is indeed something we must do to be saved, but it is not a work that "earns" salvation, but rather, merely "accepts" Salvation. It accepts Christ as the only substitute for our life and work, so that what we do produces things that are eternal through participation with him.

I think it might've been wrong for God to "impute" sin that Adam committed to his children without explaining that work was built into Man with the responsibility to produce like kind. Nevertheless, God provided in Man's makeup the means of correction of this problem through His redemptive word and ultimately through Christ's death and word of Salvation.

In the same way it might be viewed as wrong for God to impute Christ's perfect righteousness to sinners who receive His righteousness, if for no other reason than it is not true. People who receive Christ's righteousness are *not* perfect, and don't *become perfect* when they receive it.

If God sees this perfect righteousness as "imputed" I see no reason for this to become the means for Him to justify giving His righteousness to us? He could simply give His righteousness to us through grace. Why must God impute perfect righteousness to us in order to justify giving us grace?

It was Christ's perfect work as a heavenly priest that enabled him to give righteousness to men. And it was the fact he suffered sin on earth that enabled him to give righteousness to sinners.

It being a perfect work it could produce works that turns sinners into saints, and results in redemption to Eternal life. The work of a Christian minister, like a redeemed priest, can bring full redemption to others through their work and word!

Some have a problem with seeing "Faith" as a "Work." They complain that we can do no Work to earn our Salvation. Therefore, Faith is not a Work. And if we don't Work at all, obtaining Salvation is a matter of "imputing" righteousness to us.

But this is, I think, semantical. In context we may use the word "Work" as a "work that earns Salvation." Or, we may in a different context use "Work" as a Work that is done to obtain Salvation by accepting the prerequisites of getting that, which is simply accepting our need to be transformed into followers of Christ's word.

True Work that obtains Salvation is, I think, merely a matter of accepting God's conditions for righteousness and for Salvation. We must accept God's Word in all matters, in place of living independently of God.

True Work acknowledges our need for a relationship with God and His Word in order to find Salvation and produce righteousness that lasts. And this kind of "Work" is called "Faith," in contrast with the kind of "Work" that attempts to operate outside of God's control and influence.

When God viewed Abraham's Faith as Righteousness he was not "imputing" righteousness to something that was not a Work. Rather, he was accepting that Abraham was meeting the prerequisite for walking in God's righteousness by accepting the Lord/Servant relationship. This is the kind of "Work" that does not earn Salvation, but rather, *obtains* it.

Abraham's Faith achieved that quality of Work by which he obtained God's pleasure because he agreed with God's program of grace, which began with a relationship between Sinner and Holy God, and ends with the Sinner conforming, by grace, to that Holy God. That happens when we accept the work of the perfect priest, who properly disposed of sin, not in a flawed way, but in a perfect way.

Christ's Work was perfect, and included both forgiving us and giving us access to his righteousness. This is Work that could produce like-kind, and form his righteousness within us, even through the mechanism of grace.

By his Faith Abraham did not "earn" God's pleasure by doing work independent of God, or on his own. But he agreed that he needed God's help to begin the path that leads to the work of Christ, whose work did absolve us of our Sin debt.

Anyway, that's how I see it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Yes, our position with Christ in heaven is, as I see it, "in grace." We have legal standing with Christ who is in heaven. We are not in heaven with him, obviously, but we are with him positionally, or legally, because he sits there upholding the stand he took for us on the cross in forgiving us of our sins.

For me, it is not so much imputation of righteousness, which is not understandable for me, but God recognizing that He doesn't hold our imperfections against us, and sees, instead, an example of our operating together with Christ's righteousness within us, through the Spirit.

So I suppose it is a acceptable to state that Christ is imputing to us the righteousness of Christ because he acknowledges that his righteousness in us is being generated along with a dispensation of grace, to cover our imperfections. It may just be the semantics of the thing, but I can't actually see Christ's perfect righteousness, which is sinless, imputed to us in any practical sense because once it is in us, through the Spirit, it comes to be tainted with our flawed ways of handling it.

You are right, in the sense that imputation is a forensic righteousness; it is 'applied to' the believer, irrespective of what we have or have not done. We are thus judged "not guilty".

But the question does not stand on its own, but in the context of the imputation of sin to us. See the discussions contrasting the effects of the sin of Adam vs the work of Christ, in Romans 5 and 2 Corinthians 5. By the imputation of sin to us, regardless of what we have or have not done (although we have sinned), we (the human race) are judged guilty, because of Adam's sin. But the imputation of righteousness frees us from that forensic guilt, and we are no longer considered God's enemies.

 

[soldier of light]

Yes, our position with Christ in heaven is, as I see it, "in grace." We have legal standing with Christ who is in heaven. We are not in heaven with him, obviously, but we are with him positionally, or legally, because he sits there upholding the stand he took for us on the cross in forgiving us of our sins.

For me, it is not so much imputation of righteousness, which is not understandable for me, but God recognizing that He doesn't hold our imperfections against us, and sees, instead, an example of our operating together with Christ's righteousness within us, through the Spirit.

So I suppose it is a acceptable to state that Christ is imputing to us the righteousness of Christ because he acknowledges that his righteousness in us is being generated along with a dispensation of grace, to cover our imperfections. It may just be the semantics of the thing, but I can't actually see Christ's perfect righteousness, which is sinless, imputed to us in any practical sense because once it is in us, through the Spirit, it comes to be tainted with our flawed ways of handling it.

Maybe it's both God's grace or undeserved favor that you seem to be suggesting, but its also the Lord helping us to do good instead of evil. I'm not perfect but I've come far.

 

[RandyPNW]

You are right, in the sense that imputation is a forensic righteousness; it is 'applied to' the believer, irrespective of what we have or have not done. We are thus judged "not guilty".

But the question does not stand on its own, but in the context of the imputation of sin to us. See the discussions contrasting the effects of the sin of Adam vs the work of Christ, in Romans 5 and 2 Corinthians 5. By the imputation of sin to us, regardless of what we have or have not done (although we have sinned), we (the human race) are judged guilty, because of Adam's sin. But the imputation of righteousness frees us from that forensic guilt, and we are no longer considered God's enemies.

I hear what you're saying, and yes-I've read these passages for many years. Currently, because of things NT Wright has written, my brother and I have been discussing whether he has "gone off the deep end," or simply was trying to get at a specific concern.

According to my brother, Wright is focusing not so much on evangelical Salvation as "becoming God's People." So my thought was that he is just stating, perhaps, that sinners do not become sinless saints. Rather, they become accepted sinners who are no longer disqualified from operating in God's righteousness in such a way that their righteousness is accepted as eternal.

Personally, "forensic righteousness" makes no sense to me. It is either Christ's righteousneses, recorded as sinless, or our record of righteousness, which is mixed between our shortcomings and the righteousness coming from Christ that we are participating in through obedience to his word.

My brother points out the difference between "imputed righteousness" and "imparted righteousness." Again, I cannot personally use the word "imputed" because in my understanding, the only thing "imputed" to me is forgiveness--certainly not sinless righteousness. I'm not even looked at as sinless--I'm simply forgiven, and given the right nonetheless to participate in his righteousness.

I suppose one could say that what is "imputed" to me is the right to participate in his righteousness in such a way that it comes to be qualified for eternal life? At any event, it is Christ's righteousness that is recorded as sinless, and not mine--not even if I participate in it.

It is not even "forensically" mine, as I understand it. What is "forensically" mine is the right Christ initially had to have eternal life, because prior to my glorification it has become my right. We are positionally placed in heaven with Christ, so as to already participate in his righteousness and so obtain eternal benefit.

I hope you understand?--it is kind of a weird distinction I'm trying to make.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I hear what you're saying, and yes-I've read these passages for many years. Currently, because of things NT Wright has written, my brother and I have been discussing whether he has "gone off the deep end," or simply was trying to get at a specific concern.

According to my brother, Wright is focusing not so much on evangelical Salvation as "becoming God's People." So my thought was that he is just stating, perhaps, that sinners do not become sinless saints. Rather, they become accepted sinners who are no longer disqualified from operating in God's righteousness in such a way that their righteousness is accepted as eternal.

Personally, "forensic righteousness" makes no sense to me. It is either Christ's righteousneses, recorded as sinless, or our record of righteousness, which is mixed between our shortcomings and the righteousness coming from Christ that we are participating in through obedience to his word.

My brother points out the difference between "imputed righteousness" and "imparted righteousness." Again, I cannot personally use the word "imputed" because in my understanding, the only thing "imputed" to me is forgiveness--certainly not sinless righteousness. I'm not even looked at as sinless--I'm simply forgiven, and given the right nonetheless to participate in his righteousness.

I suppose one could say that what is "imputed" to me is the right to participate in his righteousness in such a way that it comes to be qualified for eternal life? At any event, it is Christ's righteousness that is recorded as sinless, and not mine--not even if I participate in it.

It is not even "forensically" mine, as I understand it. What is "forensically" mine is the right Christ initially had to have eternal life, because prior to my glorification it has become my right. We are positionally placed in heaven with Christ, so as to already participate in his righteousness and so obtain eternal benefit.

I hope you understand?--it is kind of a weird distinction I'm trying to make.

Not that it's a big deal to me how you arrange it, as long as you don't invent what Scripture doesn't say. No doubt both you and I could do with more scripture reading on the matter.

 

[KevinT]

Here is an explanation of why I have a problem with the doctrine of "Imputation."

I would recommend not getting too hung up on words such as "imputing" vs "imparting". If anyone tells you that they have the technology of salvation all figured out, ask them how the human mind works with all its hopes and desires, drives and cravings. Ask exactly what God is doing to help us put away wrong and turn to what's right.

I have heard it said that analogies don't stand on all four legs. But God's process of changing a wretched sinner into a beautiful disciple of Christ is such a complex process, that it can only be taught to us in forms of analogies. For example, there is the legal perspective where a sinner is said to have incurred a debt. Paul describes this debt as "paid for" by the death of Christ. In Jesus' parable of the debtor, the King just forgives the debtor without any payment needed -- though later rescinds the forgiveness when the debtor failed to "pay it forward" to yet another fellow debtor. Each of these analogies can be taken to extremes. For example, if Christ is "paying for" the sin of the world, to whom is He paying this? To the Father? Why does the Father need payment? If the payment wasn't provided, what would the Father do? As NT Wright points out, this leads to, "For God so hated the world that He killed His only son." But no, the text says that "For God so LOVED the world that He GAVE His only son."

My point is that scholars have tried to button this all down into neat formulas with nice names like "imputation" and "impartation." But at the end of the day, their understanding will be but a shadow of God's actual working. There is value in having a logically consistent understanding of how God works, but we shouldn't take it too far. I just read the book of Job again. It struck me that Job's friends had a theory of how God works: "If you do right, good things will follow. And if you do wrong, bad things will follow." This is a reasonable theory and it works in many cases. But it didn't in Jobs case -- and that blew their minds, leading them to accusing Job of sins he had not committed.

I am writing this because I especially have always wanted a formula for salvation. What is the exact belief or action needed to be "saved?" When I studied physics in college, I learned how math can be used to predict the trajectory of a cannon ball fired into the sky. Suddenly the solution for every object everywhere in the universe seemed to be held in the palm of my hand. Only later did I remember that cannon balls are actually traveling through a turbulent atmosphere, not mathematical points moving through a theoretical empty space. And I learned of chaos theory, where tiny changes to input can cause huge changes to output -- to say nothing of the intrinsic randomness apparently built into the fabric of the universe as shown by quantum theory. Furthermore computational irreducibility shows that sometimes there is no shortcut to figure out the results of an experiment before actually conducting it. My point is that while there is value in such things, we must always remember the limitations of our knowledge and abilities.

In short, we must trust God.

KT

 

[KevinT]

According to my brother, Wright is focusing not so much on evangelical Salvation as "becoming God's People." So my thought was that he is just stating, perhaps, that sinners do not become sinless saints. Rather, they become accepted sinners who are no longer disqualified from operating in God's righteousness in such a way that their righteousness is accepted as eternal.

I have recently read two of Wright's books, and I have been very impressed. I agree that becoming a member of the family of God doesn't mean that one instantly becomes a sinless saint. But it would be expected that one would "grow up" in Christ, and put away our childish foolish behaviors as we continue to study the instructions of Christ and listen to the Spirit. But through it all, we remain members of God's family.

Kevin

 

[RandyPNW]

I would recommend not getting too hung up on words such as "imputing" vs "imparting". If anyone tells you that they have the technology of salvation all figured out, ask them how the human mind works with all its hopes and desires, drives and cravings. Ask exactly what God is doing to help us put away wrong and turn to what's right.

Thank you. That's exactly the point I was trying to make. As I told my brother, I'm not so much against the "Doctrine of Imputation" as I'm interested in describing what I believe for myself, using my own terms.

If I'm just parotting what others believe and what their doctrines are, I'm not really communicating their sense--just the fact that others believe them typically. I want to speak in such a way that I know what I'm talking about and can defend their integrity.

As you say, the truth is more important than the eloquence of how we put it. At least, that's how I read you?

I have heard it said that analogies don't stand on all four legs.

I love that one! One cannot prove a literal truth from a bug or an animal!

But God's process of changing a wretched sinner into a beautiful disciple of Christ is such a complex process, that it can only be taught to us in forms of analogies.

Yes, some argue that we as mortal, finite creatures can never contact or understand an infinite Deity. But we can understand the words of God who has that capacity, even though what we understand is only a portion of the whole--some say it's symbolism, but I say it's the real thing. It's not code--it's God real words to us, even if it expresses something that goes far beyond anything we can ask about or imagine.

For example, there is the legal perspective where a sinner is said to have incurred a debt. Paul describes this debt as "paid for" by the death of Christ. In Jesus' parable of the debtor, the King just forgives the debtor without any payment needed -- though later rescinds the forgiveness when the debtor failed to "pay it forward" to yet another fellow debtor. Each of these analogies can be taken to extremes. For example, if Christ is "paying for" the sin of the world, to whom is He paying this? To the Father? Why does the Father need payment? If the payment wasn't provided, what would the Father do? As NT Wright points out, this leads to, "For God so hated the world that He killed His only son." But no, the text says that "For God so LOVED the world that He GAVE His only son."

That was wonderfully put! Yes, analogies are necessary, but again--they are real. We were in debt as far as the judicial structure that God set up by His own Plan. He set forth from the beginning what the parameters were for human justice. And in light of that we fell short of God's standards in a way in which the debt could be paid--we could legitimately be redeemed by the method that God provided through Christ's forgiveness. But it did require that he sacrifice himself for us.

My point is that scholars have tried to button this all down into neat formulas with nice names like "imputation" and "impartation." But at the end of the day, their understanding will be but a shadow of God's actual working.

I agree.

There is value in having a logically consistent understanding of how God works, but we shouldn't take it too far. I just read the book of Job again. It struck me that Job's friends had a theory of how God works: "If you do right, good things will follow. And if you do wrong, bad things will follow." This is a reasonable theory and it works in many cases. But it didn't in Jobs case -- and that blew their minds, leading them to accusing Job of sins he had not committed.

I couldn't agree more. That's some real wisdom! I think Jesus said it--don't judge prematurely or by appearances only. We need help from above, and when we reach our limitations, we should just let it lie until we receive more wisdom.

I am writing this because I especially have always wanted a formula for salvation. What is the exact belief or action needed to be "saved?"

You're preaching to the choir now! I've for many years wanted to get inside Paul's mind. In fact, I went through the whole Bible on my own many years ago and determined to find out where each NT doctrine originated. It wasn't an exercise in futility, but it was only a step in a growth process that has been tempered by the kinds of things you're talking about.

When I studied physics in college, I learned how math can be used to predict the trajectory of a cannon ball fired into the sky. Suddenly the solution for every object everywhere in the universe seemed to be held in the palm of my hand. Only later did I remember that cannon balls are actually traveling through a turbulent atmosphere, not mathematical points moving through a theoretical empty space.

Yes, I hear ya.

And I learned of chaos theory, where tiny changes to input can cause huge changes to output -- to say nothing of the intrinsic randomness apparently built into the fabric of the universe as shown by quantum theory.

I'm not a physics person, but I do respect it. I think imputing the data of God's mind with its liberties is next to impossible. Many years ago I studied behavior science, and felt, possibly, that every human choice can be predicted by preliminary influences.

In the end, as I worked a temporary job, counselling people on drugs, I realized that behavior cannot be forced or "conditioned." The human will and God's will are above me, although I do recognize that the work we do does have a predictable impact on the future.

Furthermore computational irreducibility shows that sometimes there is no shortcut to figure out the results of an experiment before actually conducting it. My point is that while there is value in such things, we must always remember the limitations of our knowledge and abilities.

In short, we must trust God.

KT

Very interesting commentary, and I appreciate it, and will take the advice to heart.

 

[KevinT]

I'm not a physics person, but I do respect it. I think imputing the data of God's mind with its liberties is next to impossible.

Arrrggghhh!! That word "imputing" again!

Ha! Just kidding.

Thanks for your feedback.

Kevin

 

[RandyPNW]

Arrrggghhh!! That word "imputing" again!

Ha! Just kidding.

Thanks for your feedback.

Kevin

You're hilarious--slipping on my own tears!

 

[Clare73]

Yes, our position with Christ in heaven is, as I see it, "in grace." We have legal standing with Christ who is in heaven. We are not in heaven with him, obviously, but we are with him positionally, or legally, because he sits there upholding the stand he took for us on the cross in forgiving us of our sins.

For me, it is not so much imputation of righteousness, which is not understandable for me, but God recognizing that He doesn't hold our imperfections against us, and sees, instead, an example of our operating together with Christ's righteousness within us, through the Spirit.

So I suppose it is a acceptable to state that Christ is imputing to us the righteousness of Christ because he acknowledges that his righteousness in us is being generated along with a dispensation of grace, to cover our imperfections. It may just be the semantics of the thing, but I can't actually see Christ's perfect righteousness, which is sinless, imputed to us in any practical sense because once it is in us, through the Spirit, it comes to be tainted with our flawed ways of handling it.

To impute is to reckon to, to ascribe to, to account to, to credit to.

God accounts, credits the righteousness of Christ to us and, therefore, we receive the benefits thereof. . .etermal life, sonship, fellowship,

 

[Clare73]

Here is an explanation of why I have a problem with the doctrine of "Imputation." It is not so much that it is incorrect but that as I use the term it becomes incorrect. I'm not sure how to resolve it? But the following may help you better understand my concern about using the term....

Well, then that is where the problem lies and what must be corrected.

Imputation simply means "accounted to," it does not mean personal occurrence of.

Adam's sin is imputed (accounted) to me (Ro 5:17, 18, 19).
Christ's righteousness is imputed (accounted) to me (Ro 5:18, 19).
Imputation doesn't change me, it simply credits me with benefits, or obligates me with debt.
I am obligated with the debt of Adam's sin (Ro 5:17, 18, 19) and credited with the benefit of Christ's righteousness (Ro 5:18, 19).

 

[BobRyan]

It may just be the semantics of the thing, but I can't actually see Christ's perfect righteousness, which is sinless, imputed to us in any practical sense because once it is in us, through the Spirit, it comes to be tainted with our flawed ways of handling it.

Righteousness by faith is no God sticking something in you.

It is God's view of you as you stand in Christ.

But it includes the new birth -- new creation of 2 Cor 5 and the indwelling Holy Spirit which is "Christ in you the hope of glory"

 

[RandyPNW]

Well, then that is where the problem lies and what must be corrected.

Imputation simply means "accounted to," it does not mean personal occurrence of.

Adam's sin is imputed (accounted) to me (Ro 5:17, 18, 19).
Christ's righteousness is imputed (accounted) to me (Ro 5:18, 19).
Imputation doesn''t change me, it simply credits me with benefits, or obligates me with debt.
I am obligated with the debt of Adam's sin (Ro 5:17, 18, 19) and credited with the benefit of Christ's righteousness (Ro 5:18, 19).

The problem is, Clare, that I don't have to use the term "imputation." As it is usually used, it becomes theological "mumbo jumbo" to me. I like to use terms that I can defend, and make use of in a sensible way.
I don't doubt that others can do this--it's just that I cannot.

The word "impute" adds something that seems redundant to me. After saying that I'm forgiven I'm told that for this to happen something must be "imputed" to me. I'm told this thing that is imputed to me is Christ's righteousness.

Well, I know that we cannot attain to Eternal Life apart from grace. I know that only Christ was able to obtain Eternal Life by his righteousness. This not only defined him as Deity, but it also meant that Sin could not disqualify him in his work of providing Eternal Life for us.

But do we really need him to impute his righteousness to us in order for us to be forgiven, in order for us to receive his gift of Eternal Life? I can't say I know this in any sensible way. Something was creditted to us, but I'm not sure it was his righteousness. In that case I would be looked at as if I am walking in perfection, and clearly I'm not!

So what is being creditted to us? We are being creditted with a sufficiency to continue accessing not just God's righteousness but also Eternal Life. What little we have is *enough* to obtain Eternal Life. That's what we are being creditted with--with having enough to obtain this through our faith, through our acceptance of the terms of our receiving Eternal Life.

Faith is the key for me, because faith is the means by which we say Christ's life is our substitute for our own carnal life. We substitute his life for ours. We choose to live by his Spirit instead of by our own independent whims or desires. That is, I believe, sufficiency to be saved--not being credited with living a perfect life.

 

[Clare73]

The problem is, Clare, that I don't have to use the term "imputation." As it is usually used, it becomes theological "mumbo jumbo" to me. I like to use terms that I can defend, and make use of in a sensible way.
I don't doubt that others can do this--it's just that I cannot.

The word "impute" adds something that seems redundant to me. After saying that I'm forgiven I'm told that for this to happen something must be "imputed" to me. I'm told this thing that is imputed to me is Christ's righteousness.

Absence of sin and presence of righteousness are not the same thing. . .two different operations.

Absence of sin does not make one righteous, it just makes one sinless.

 

[RandyPNW]

Absence of sin and presence of righteousness are not the same thing. . .two different operations.

Absence of sin does not make one righteous, it just makes one sinless.

Yes, I agree. But how are you applying this to the "imputation of Christ's righteousness" to us? If the "absence of sin does not make one righteous," then the "imputation of righteousness" to us who do not have it does not make us righteous either.

What is being done is God is forgiving us our flawed record of righteousness, while allowing us to continue participating in His righteousness when not earning that right ourselves. Christ earned, by virtue of who he is, the right to operate in God's righteousness continually, but then creditted that right to us who had been given only temporary rights to operate in it. Through Christ we were given to operate as he did, participating in Christ's righteousness continually without having to earn that right for ourselves.

So that is probably what "imputing righteousness" refers to--the right we borrowed from Christ to operate in God's righteousness on a continual basis? Sin would've prevented us from doing this. Sin would still keep us from doing this. But now we've obtained the right to do this from Christ who did it for us.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I would recommend not getting too hung up on words such as "imputing" vs "imparting". If anyone tells you that they have the technology of salvation all figured out, ask them how the human mind works with all its hopes and desires, drives and cravings. Ask exactly what God is doing to help us put away wrong and turn to what's right.

I have heard it said that analogies don't stand on all four legs. But God's process of changing a wretched sinner into a beautiful disciple of Christ is such a complex process, that it can only be taught to us in forms of analogies. For example, there is the legal perspective where a sinner is said to have incurred a debt. Paul describes this debt as "paid for" by the death of Christ. In Jesus' parable of the debtor, the King just forgives the debtor without any payment needed -- though later rescinds the forgiveness when the debtor failed to "pay it forward" to yet another fellow debtor. Each of these analogies can be taken to extremes. For example, if Christ is "paying for" the sin of the world, to whom is He paying this? To the Father? Why does the Father need payment? If the payment wasn't provided, what would the Father do? As NT Wright points out, this leads to, "For God so hated the world that He killed His only son." But no, the text says that "For God so LOVED the world that He GAVE His only son."

My point is that scholars have tried to button this all down into neat formulas with nice names like "imputation" and "impartation." But at the end of the day, their understanding will be but a shadow of God's actual working. There is value in having a logically consistent understanding of how God works, but we shouldn't take it too far. I just read the book of Job again. It struck me that Job's friends had a theory of how God works: "If you do right, good things will follow. And if you do wrong, bad things will follow." This is a reasonable theory and it works in many cases. But it didn't in Jobs case -- and that blew their minds, leading them to accusing Job of sins he had not committed.

I am writing this because I especially have always wanted a formula for salvation. What is the exact belief or action needed to be "saved?" When I studied physics in college, I learned how math can be used to predict the trajectory of a cannon ball fired into the sky. Suddenly the solution for every object everywhere in the universe seemed to be held in the palm of my hand. Only later did I remember that cannon balls are actually traveling through a turbulent atmosphere, not mathematical points moving through a theoretical empty space. And I learned of chaos theory, where tiny changes to input can cause huge changes to output -- to say nothing of the intrinsic randomness apparently built into the fabric of the universe as shown by quantum theory. Furthermore computational irreducibility shows that sometimes there is no shortcut to figure out the results of an experiment before actually conducting it. My point is that while there is value in such things, we must always remember the limitations of our knowledge and abilities.

In short, we must trust God.

KT

Don't forget that inherent "randomness" is only a shortcut for our lack of ability to predict. It says nothing about actual causation.

 

[RandyPNW]

I once thought life was a dream until I woke up. I woke up because a truck slammed into the side of my apartment. The driver did that because he was drunk. His wife had left him because she was an alcoholic and couldn't quit, and didn't want to live with somebody sober all the time. Besides, the Devil whispered in his ear and said that it's okay to take his problems out on a perfect stranger because he doesn't know him. And nobody will be able to tie the crime to him because there's no motive. Sometimes I just can't figure out why people do bad things!
I guess the moral of the story is--forget about trying to figure out Why. Just deal with it. Well, at least parts of the story are true. A car did ram the side of our apartment, and the guy was probably drunk.