question of imputation

[Mark Quayle]

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.

Lol, ok.

Well, I'm at a bit of a loss to get your point. I do have plenty of experiences that seem uselessly random, but that doesn't mean they are random. I only call them that, because they seem random.

 

[RandyPNW]

Lol, ok.

Well, I'm at a bit of a loss to get your point. I do have plenty of experiences that seem uselessly random, but that doesn't mean they are random. I only call them that, because they seem random.

No, I saw your point, and accept it. Everything has a cause. But human choice and angelic choice puzzles me. Forget about figuring out God's choice. I just know He's consistent.

I'm a predestinarian who believes in free choice. I say that for a reason. Often I can virtually tell in advance who is going to choose for salvation and who will not.

But my brother, who I really respect, is against Calvinism and believes in Free Choice. So considering his point of view I have to admit that mankind has free choice. It is a conundrem I cannot resolve.

Earlier I watched a Tim Allen movie, and was quite amused. I suppose I was still caught in a moment of levity?

 

[KevinT]

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

I think you and I have had this discussion before.

Two issues are tied up in this question First is what physicist call “realism“. There are a variety of interpretations of the mathematical formulas of quantum mechanics. Some include realism and some don’t. There is an interesting table in Wikipedia that compares all the different interpretations. I could help you find it if you were interested.

The second issue is whether there is true randomness. I think you believe that there is no true randomness. I, on the other hand, feel that God could include randomness into his universe if He wanted. I suspect when we ask God about this in the new kingdom, we will both be embarrassingly off on our theories.

This is probably not the thread to explore this issue again.

Best wishes
Kevin

 

[concretecamper]

Yes, our position with Christ in heaven is, as I see it, "in grace." We have legal standing with Christ who is in heaven.

This statement sets the rest of your post(s) down the wrong road. Our relationship with Him in Covenantal (I am yours and you are Mine). We are to become part of the Body of Christ. That is why righteousness is infused, not imputed.

 

[Mark Quayle]

No, I saw your point, and accept it. Everything has a cause. But human choice and angelic choice puzzles me. Forget about figuring out God's choice. I just know He's consistent.

I'm a predestinarian who believes in free choice. I say that for a reason. Often I can virtually tell in advance who is going to choose for salvation and who will not.

But my brother, who I really respect, is against Calvinism and believes in Free Choice. So considering his point of view I have to admit that mankind has free choice. It is a conundrem I cannot resolve.

Earlier I watched a Tim Allen movie, and was quite amused. I suppose I was still caught in a moment of levity?

I find the conundrum to be a problem of the temporal (not to mention, self-assuming and word-driven) mind. I tell people that if they need to, to put the whole of creation or, at least temporal creation, into an envelope in their mind, to see it all as something that God did. They complain, liking it to the notion of God telling a story or writing a play, with us as the characters or players. I say, ok, that is close enough, though not the whole truth of it.

Intuitively, we want to say that there is some sort of spontaneity endemic to each individual alone, or he is a puppet. I disagree. GOD is the source of all fact, (and even that word, "fact", is a necessarily human word in our minds). We logic(verb) that God is not his own source, and so he is not the source of the fact that he exists. See how our words throw us around there? It is accurate enough to say that he is self-existent, and we must say that he has 'always been', having no beginning nor end, because we don't know how to describe the I AM. But we cling to our words.

Spontaneity can be neither partial nor limited. It is simply spontaneity. Free will is either caused, or is not free in the sense we want it to be. I find no logical way to say that anything about us is not caused. The implications are too wide flung to accept. Logically, there is no such thing as billions of little first causes trotting about the planet. There can be only ONE first cause, and that is God himself. EVERYTHING else is result. Even if the middle-knowledge and Pelagians are right, it is still all of it caused, and so, it is all of it caused in every particular.

I could go on too long about the question of human responsibility; if God is the first cause of all fact, but in the end, the fact of HIS unique being/existence is overwhelmingly default, and all else being result, then our vision and assessment --particularly if it claims some sort of independence from God's causation-- is somewhere in the range between 'short of facts', to, 'void and self-defeating.

 

[Mark Quayle]

This statement sets the rest of your post(s) down the wrong road. Our relationship with Him in Covenantal (I am yours and you are Mine). We are to become part of the Body of Christ. That is why righteousness is infused, not imputed.

'Infused' does not imply 'not imputed'.

 

[Hazelelponi]

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.

The Holy Spirit, we are fallen and have no righteousness of our own, there is nothing good we can do apart from Christ.

While the imputation is a penal declaration, when we are given the imputation we are also given the guarantor/seal of the Holy Spirit and since both seem fairly well identically timed I rather believe these two things are quite related.

We are given imputed righteousness at the same time we are given the Holy Spirit.

 

[concretecamper]

'Infused' does not imply 'not imputed'.

and?

 

[Clare73]

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

Imputation is not actual, imputation is not transformation.

Imputation is simply credit for, application to one, of what one does not actually have.

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.

 

[Clare73]

No, I saw your point, and accept it. Everything has a cause. But human choice and angelic choice puzzles me. Forget about figuring out God's choice. I just know He's consistent.
I'm a predestinarian who believes in free choice. I say that for a reason. Often I can virtually tell in advance who is going to choose for salvation and who will not.
But my brother, who I really respect, is against Calvinism and believes in Free Choice. So considering his point of view I have to admit that mankind has free choice. It is a conundrem I cannot resolve.

I'm goin'g with Jesus on that one. . .he who sins is a slave to sin (Jn 8:34), and slaves aren't free.

Is man free to choose to be sinless?

Then he is not free.

 

[Clare73]

This statement sets the rest of your post(s) down the wrong road. Our relationship with Him in Covenantal (I am yours and you are Mine). We are to become part of the Body of Christ. That is why righteousness is infused, not imputed.

And yet the word of God says otherwise in Ge 5:6; i.e., Abraham's faith was imputed to him as righteousness (Ro 4:1-5).

 

[Clare73]

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.

It's not about what is actual, it's about what is credited to us, or charged to us.

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.

Nowhere in Scripture do we "operate in Christ's righteousness."

Christ's righteousess is simply credited to the unrighteous, simply counted as their own.

 

[concretecamper]

And yet the word of God says otherwise in Ge 5:6; i.e., Abraham's faith was imputed to him as righteousness (Ro 4:1-5).

Ok, you live under the Old Law if you want.

 

[Clare73]

Ok, you live under the Old Law if you want.

I live under Ro 4:1-5.

Should you do the same?

 

[Mark Quayle]

concretecamper said:
This statement sets the rest of your post(s) down the wrong road. Our relationship with Him in Covenantal (I am yours and you are Mine). We are to become part of the Body of Christ. That is why righteousness is infused, not imputed.

Mark Quayle said:
'Infused' does not imply 'not imputed'.

and?

So your statement, "That is why righteousness is infused, not imputed", doesn't add up. The fact that righteousness may be infused does not imply that it is not also imputed. Those are two different facts concerning righteousness that is not ours of our own doing.

 

[concretecamper]

concretecamper said:
This statement sets the rest of your post(s) down the wrong road. Our relationship with Him in Covenantal (I am yours and you are Mine). We are to become part of the Body of Christ. That is why righteousness is infused, not imputed.

Mark Quayle said:
'Infused' does not imply 'not imputed'.

So your statement, "That is why righteousness is infused, not imputed", doesn't add up. The fact that righteousness may be infused does not imply that it is not also imputed. Those are two different facts concerning righteousness that is not ours of our own doing.

and?

 

[Mark Quayle]

and?

You don't see me countering what you said? No discussion? I'm saying you are wrong.

 

[tdidymas]

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.

"impute" means to ascribe - meaning that because we are believers in Jesus, God has declared us righteous. This declaration in conjunction with the Holy Spirit given to us, makes us have the ability and willingness to obey Jesus in all He commanded.

So, taking this idea that is taught in the NT as fact, I live by faith that God is sanctifying me, that is, making me holy. This is the reason why I seek God daily and obey His will in all I know to do. It's all based on the completed work of Christ, so my faith is directly related to what Jesus did. I can do all Christ commanded, because His Spirit is enabling me to do it.

If the foundation of my relationship with God is that God has imputed His righteousness to me and justified me by the blood of Christ, this is my motivation to love God and serve His people. So God justifying me is a free gift, not merited by anything I do; but my actions to obey God arise out of my love for God because of His free grace.

 

[RandyPNW]

"impute" means to ascribe - meaning that because we are believers in Jesus, God has declared us righteous. This declaration in conjunction with the Holy Spirit given to us, makes us have the ability and willingness to obey Jesus in all He commanded.

Right, we are declared forgivcen. And we are enabled to walk in Christ's righteousness.

The problem I have is with the language of "imputation." To "inpute" does not mean to "forgive." And it does not mean to "walk in righteousness."

In my view it is not imputation of flawless righteousness that justifies us. Rather, it is simply forgiveness. Perfect righteousness was required of Christ--not of us. The only righteousness required of us is the righteousness that comes by Grace.

Of course, Christ had to qualify to bring God's forgiveness to us. In God's eyes, Christ had to be the flawless representative of His righteousness, and then suffer death at the hands of sinful men. In that way Christ could give God's righteousness to sinful men by grace through their repentance. That is not "imputation" but rather, providing a means to offer grace to men.

So, taking this idea that is taught in the NT as fact, I live by faith that God is sanctifying me, that is, making me holy. This is the reason why I seek God daily and obey His will in all I know to do. It's all based on the completed work of Christ, so my faith is directly related to what Jesus did. I can do all Christ commanded, because His Spirit is enabling me to do it.

I agree that Christ completed the work of redemption by sacrificing himself for us. And I agree that we can, by faith, partake of God's righteousness on the basis that Christ has forgiven me. But where does this require that God "imputes" Christ's righteousness to us? He doesn't "impute it." Rather, He imparts it via Grace.

If the foundation of my relationship with God is that God has imputed His righteousness to me and justified me by the blood of Christ, this is my motivation to love God and serve His people.

I didn't get the "imputation" part? Where does that fit in? He views us as potential recipients--not righteous by imputation. He gives His righteousness to us by Grace. He does not "impute" this righteousness to us.

So God justifying me is a free gift, not merited by anything I do; but my actions to obey God arise out of my love for God because of His free grace.

The ony merit I see that we have is the choice to accept God's terms for redemption, which is to substitute Christ's righteousness for our own. His righteuosness was prepared beforehand to be displayed by Christ. And then Christ offered himself freely as an atonement for our sin so that we may partake of God's righteousness by Grace. Where is there a need for "imputation?"

 

[tdidymas]

Right, we are declared forgivcen. And we are enabled to walk in Christ's righteousness.

The problem I have is with the language of "imputation." To "inpute" does not mean to "forgive." And it does not mean to "walk in righteousness."

In my view it is not imputation of flawless righteousness that justifies us. Rather, it is simply forgiveness. Perfect righteousness was required of Christ--not of us. The only righteousness required of us is the righteousness that comes by Grace.

Of course, Christ had to qualify to bring God's forgiveness to us. In God's eyes, Christ had to be the flawless representative of His righteousness, and then suffer death at the hands of sinful men. In that way Christ could give God's righteousness to sinful men by grace through their repentance. That is not "imputation" but rather, providing a means to offer grace to men.

I agree that Christ completed the work of redemption by sacrificing himself for us. And I agree that we can, by faith, partake of God's righteousness on the basis that Christ has forgiven me. But where does this require that God "imputes" Christ's righteousness to us? He doesn't "impute it." Rather, He imparts it via Grace.

I didn't get the "imputation" part? Where does that fit in? He views us as potential recipients--not righteous by imputation. He gives His righteousness to us by Grace. He does not "impute" this righteousness to us.

The ony merit I see that we have is the choice to accept God's terms for redemption, which is to substitute Christ's righteousness for our own. His righteuosness was prepared beforehand to be displayed by Christ. And then Christ offered himself freely as an atonement for our sin so that we may partake of God's righteousness by Grace. Where is there a need for "imputation?"

The KJV uses the term "imputed" righteousness, which means "accounted" or "credited" according to other translations. Therefore, we certainly must accept the fact that righteousness is imputed to us, the same as justification is. In fact, you cannot have one without the other. If we are indeed justified (accepted) by God, then we certainly are righteous in His sight. This is the teaching of the apostle Paul in Romans and elsewhere, so rejecting it is not an option.

Rom. 4:22 says that Abraham "believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness." So through Abraham's faith, God declared him righteous. If God had not declared him righteous, then how could Abraham be justified before the ultimate holy God? Being justified means that we must be seen as righteous because God is righteous. Therefore, "credited to him for righteousness" has to mean loved, accepted, forgiven, and justified.

Gen. 15 where Paul is quoting is a pivotal point in the idea of God's acceptance, and the reason why Paul quotes it and spends time explaining it in Rom. 4 and Gal. 3. When Jesus said (Jn. 8) "Abraham saw My day and was glad," this is what He was referring to, that when it says "Abraham believed God" he "saw" Christ's day, that is, he believed in the future coming of the Messiah. We know this by the fact that in Gal. 3:16 Paul explains that Abraham understood that God was talking about the Messiah first promised in Gen. 3:15.

I think you have a problem with thinking that acceptance by God is merited by a choice made "to accept God's terms for redemption." I see this as a problem, because the grace of God is unmerited. Unmerited grace means that justification is also unmerited. If God gives justification as a free gift, as is stated in Rom. 3:24, then justification is not merited by anything we do or choose to do.

As clearly stated in Eph. 2:8-9, getting saved is not of ourselves, but is a gift of God. A gift is not merited by anything at all, or else it's not a gift. And in v. 5 he explains exactly how the gift is not merited by anything, saying "even while we were dead in trespasses and sins, God raised us up to life and seated us in the heavenly places in Christ - by grace are we saved." So Paul says that grace is when God did something to us to create a born-again condition in our spirit, and according to James and Peter, it happened while hearing the gospel preached. Or, I imagine after hearing the gospel preached and thinking about how such a thing could be (as described by some testimonies). However, it's my understanding that if a person meditates on the gospel to believe it, they already believe it in the shadow-depth of the heart, and are merely seeking to understand it.

Faith itself is a gift from God. Whenever we are born of God, our heart is changed and renewed such that we are converted. We then no longer loathe to do God's will, but become willing to submit to Him and accept His terms for redemption. Being born again is the key (the pivot or the foundation) to living as God designed us to live. Whenever we finally, fully, and permanently accept His terms for redemption, we find from the teaching of the NT that we have indeed already been redeemed, because we have already been born of God. This is proven in 1 Jn. 5:1 which says, "Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God." And one born of God is already redeemed.