The 'Imputation' of the Righteousness of God, in Christ. A Book Keepers term.

mark kennedy · Mar 27, 2019

fhansen said:
Romans 2:12-13 makes the point clearly enough that we'll be judged on the law regardless:
"All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous."

Because, while we're not holy or spiritual as we come into this life, "the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good." Rom 7:12

The promise of the New Covenant is that, by establishing communion between fallen man and God, initiated by faith in response to grace, God will do the justifying as only He can; God will place His law in our minds and write it on our hearts, God will make us holy, righteous, and good, how we were intended to be. He didn't create man to sin after all. But man cannot justify himself, by his own efforts-never could. Adam thought otherwise, that he'd be better yet apart from God but, "Apart from Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5). That's the basis of the new Covenant. And that's what we're here to learn.

Because, "... with God all things are possible." Matt 19:26

When you stop to think about what the Ten Commandments include, it seems unlikely God has changed his mind about having or making other gods for instance. The New Testament makes clear that the Laws related to our interaction with one another is summed up by loving your neighbor as yourself. The concept of obedience is wrapped up in the idea of righteousness, righteous God requires his people to be the righteousness of God in Christ, even providing for it. The question becomes, how do we get there from our fallen state? "Jehovah Our Righteousness" (Jeremiah 23:6) – our only righteousness (Psalms 71:16), are two passages from the Old Testament that sum up what I'm trying to get at with regards to imputed righteousness, there is only one source for that, God himself. We can't accomplish much by our own efforts, righteousness is a gift of grace.

Grace not only saves us but sanctifies us, apart from Christ we can do nothing and to make myself clear, your merit counts for nothing. If one were to ask the Apostle Paul how it is that he worked so hard and suffered so much and bringing so many the Gospel, he would, and did, tell us that it is by grace.

But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. (I Cor. 15:10)

If we take what Paul, who was quoting Genesis, to heart we have to understand that righteousness is credited (considered, reckoned) to us, by simply believing the one who makes the promise is faithful. This credit of righteousness is more then passive forgiveness, it's the impetus for rising up to walk in newness of life. Salvation is essentially a new nature, communicated by God to the sinner who is not only forgiven for past sins, but empowered for service.

No, the righteous requirements of the Law have not been changed, because God dosen't change. What is changed now is that the righteousness of God has now been revealed in the person and work of Christ, and as you quoted, apart from him we can do nothing.

Grace and peace,
Mark

mark kennedy · Mar 27, 2019

1213 said:
I think the idea of inputted righteousness is not correct understanding. If person is righteous, it is seen in actions of the person. If person has right actions, he can be declared righteous. Right actions would be that person lives according to God’s law, or right action is that person is loyal/faithful to God. Those actions can prove that person is righteous and that is why person can be declared righteous, if those exists.

Righteousness is always something that comes visible in actions. Without the actions, person is not righteous. But it doesn’t work so that person can do few nice things and the expect that he is declared righteous. It is like in the parable of good and bad tree.

Even so, every good tree produces good fruit; but the corrupt tree produces evil fruit. A good tree can't produce evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree produce good fruit. Every tree that doesn't grow good fruit is cut down, and thrown into the fire. Therefore, by their fruits you will know them.
Matt. 7:17-20

He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

If person has righteous mind, he does righteous things, and it is evidence for that person is righteous. The actions are only result of the mind and can show if person has right understanding and wisdom of the just. It is not so that person could become righteous by doing right actions, because righteousness is what must be in person first, before he can do righteous actions. And righteous actions then are good actions that are done in right state of mind.

Of course God hasn't abandoned the need for practical righteousness, that's not really what imputation means in Romans 4. Later Paul will use the same word with regards to our attitude toward sin. He says, 'in the same way count (same word as imputed), yourselves as dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus' (Rom. 6:11). It can be translated 'credit', 'reckon', 'consider' depending on the context. Imputed is an obscure term because most of us don't normally use it. It has great significance to theologians because it is at this point the believer is considered righteous before God simply by believing the message. More follows obviously but this is how righteousness is bestowed, it will ultimately result in bearing fruit but that's the end, grace through faith is the means.

~Zao~ · Mar 27, 2019

mark kennedy said:
.

And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. (Rom. 5:11)

Some say the word is better translated reconciliation.

And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation. (2 Cor. 5:18)

Regardless of the semantic, the concept remains the same.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I’m not sure how your reconciling the ministry of reconciliation given to us and the ministry of the High Priest on the day of atonement? Reconciliation seems to be more about presenting justification and the atonement was ongoing more like sanctification.
Romans 5:10
For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

~Zao~ · Mar 28, 2019

LoreneDD said:
I’m not sure how your reconciling the ministry of reconciliation given to us and the ministry of the High Priest on the day of atonement? Reconciliation seems to be more about presenting justification and the atonement was ongoing more like sanctification.
Romans 5:10
For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

I may be way off on this, but from BibleGateway - Keyword Search: reconcile it may be the ministry between believers too. For instance 'leaving the offering at the altar and go and be reconciled etc’ I’m just not sure that it’s the same as atonement as some say is the better translation.

mark kennedy · Mar 28, 2019

LoreneDD said:
I’m not sure how your reconciling the ministry of reconciliation given to us and the ministry of the High Priest on the day of atonement? Reconciliation seems to be more about presenting justification and the atonement was ongoing more like sanctification.
Romans 5:10
For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.

Atonement was ongoing, it was impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin. The sacrifice of Christ was once and for all (Heb. 10:10). You seem to think there is a difference between justification and sanctification but they are two parts of the same thing. Atonement happened, at one moment, that moment was when Jesus died on the cross. Sanctification is a process, justification is the moment that starts the sanctification process. I don't see the problem.

mark kennedy · Mar 28, 2019

LoreneDD said:
I may be way off on this, but from BibleGateway - Keyword Search: reconcile it may be the ministry between believers too. For instance 'leaving the offering at the altar and go and be reconciled etc’ I’m just not sure that it’s the same as atonement as some say is the better translation.

It's not the sam word but 'reconcile' is appropriate for both tramnslations. It's different with regards to the circumstances, thhe idea in Matt. 5:24 is mutual concession. The reconciliation in atonement is the satisfaction of a debt, when Jesus said 'it is finished' it could have been translated 'paid in full'. They are very close the way they are translayted but in the Greek there are some subtleties that are well worth being aware of. Not everything translates perfectly.

~Zao~ · Mar 28, 2019

mark kennedy said:
It's not the sam word but 'reconcile' is appropriate for both tramnslations. It's different with regards to the circumstances, thhe idea in Matt. 5:24 is mutual concession. The reconciliation in atonement is the satisfaction of a debt, when Jesus said 'it is finished' it could have been translated 'paid in full'. They are very close the way they are translayted but in the Greek there are some subtleties that are well worth being aware of. Not everything translates perfectly.

mark kennedy said:
Atonement was ongoing, it was impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin. The sacrifice of Christ was once and for all (Heb. 10:10). You seem to think there is a difference between justification and sanctification but they are two parts of the same thing. Atonement happened, at one moment, that moment was when Jesus died on the cross. Sanctification is a process, justification is the moment that starts the sanctification process. I don't see the problem.

Ok thanks. I just wasn’t sure how we could have the ministry of atonement tis all.

mark kennedy · Mar 28, 2019

LoreneDD said:
Ok thanks. I just wasn’t sure how we could have the ministry of atonement tis all.

There is a connection, you are forgiven, you must forgive. When we were dead in trespasses and sins Jesus died for the ungodly. We are never the ones to make atonement, even for ourselves, but that doesn't mean that the concept of reconciliation doesn't extend to Christian living and ministry. The best way to have a ministry of atonement is to preach the gospel, Jesus died for our sins is at the heart of the message.

Oh and don't let the concept of reconciliation throw you, the two words are kind of related just not the same thing. What I'm getting from the reading is in Matt. 6:24 it's mutual, whereas in Romans 4 it's pretty much one sided. A subtle point but sometimes when working in formal doctrine little details are a matter of great interest.

Grace and peace,
Mark

notreligus · Mar 28, 2019

The Law brings condemnation. Only Christ lived such that He kept the Law to perfection (i.e. fulfilled the Law). However, the Father placed the sin of mankind upon Him on the cross; we cannot even imagine the weight of that burden. His righteousness was imputed to us such that we can be presentable before the Father. This is often called "The Great Exchange." Christians have been told for many years that the Book of Hebrews is a "Jewish" book so they don't read it. Read it! Christ stands before the Father as our attorney and He is able to call us righteous before the Father. He shed blood is the proof and it is the payment that God Almighty would accept to reconcile mankind back to Himself.

mister rogers · Apr 7, 2019

Venema has a great book on this called "The Gospel of Free Acceptance in Christ".

Gregory Thompson · Apr 7, 2019

mark kennedy said:
Atonement/Reconciliation (G2643 καταλλαγή katallagē) - 1. exchange; of the business of money-changers, exchanging equivalent values (Aristotle, others). (Thayer’s Lexicon)

What follows is an invitation to study imputation and atonement as a formal doctrine. I'm going to offer a few choice quotes and expositions in the hopes of exploring the Biblical account of atonement as it relates to the gospel. The English word for 'atonement' was actually invented by William Tyndale, it's from a Greek word and Levitical concept that could probably be better translated 'reconciliation' but he wanted to coin a term that caught the full meaning of the idea of the Yum Kippur. I've tried to be brief, perhaps over simplifying some of the details in the process.

You would be justified (declared righteous) by the Law (Romans 2:13; Leviticus 18:5), if you could keep the righteous requirements of the Law (Romans 2:13). The Law is holy, righteous and good but it is spiritual and I am not (Romans 7:12, 14). We know that all God’s commandments are righteous (Psalm 119:172). The Law and the prophets clearly testify to the righteousness of God (Romans 3:21), so the Law at least shows us what the requirements of righteousness are, you just cannot be righteous before God by works of the Law, if that were possible then Christ died for nothing (Galatians 2:21)

The doctrine of "imputed righteousness" teaches that God graciously charges to the account of believers in Christ the righteousness wrought by Christ. It is at length expounded in Romans 3:21-4:25. Here we are taught that the righteousness wrought by Christ during the days of His incarnation is imputed to, or charged to the account of, believers by God in justification. The justified acknowledge Christ to be not only "Jehovah Our Righteousness" (Jeremiah 23:6) – but also their only righteousness (Psalm 71:16). And they pray to be "found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith" (Philippians 3:9). (A Response to Don Garlington on Imputation in Reformation and Revival, John Piper)

Atonement ‘"at-one-ment”, perhaps would be better translated ‘reconciliation’ (Rom 11:15; 2Cr 5:18, 19). The idea is from Leviticus 16, 17 and the Yum Kippur, the annual remission of the sins of the nation of Israel.

The corresponding NT words are hilasmos, "propitiation," (1 John 2:2; 4:10), and hilasterion, (Rom 3:25; Heb. 9:5), "mercy-seat," the covering of the ark of the covenant. (Vine's Expository Dictionary)

This acknowledges "Jehovah Our Righteousness" (Jeremiah 23:6) – our only righteousness (Psalm 71:16). And pray to be "found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith" (Philippians 3:9).

Now that's the rough cut of the doctrinal details. While I'm more interested in exploring this as formal doctrine I realize that there is a personal aspect to all of this and personal insights are certainly welcome. The New Testament is pretty clear that salvation and the requisite righteousness of God is imputed by faith as a gift, not paid as wages, I would hope I would get no arguments to the contrary. There are a lot of ways of approaching this subject matter; Jewish, Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant, feel free to express those views as you see fit.

Let all things be done unto edification.

Grace and peace,
Mark

G3049 is translated usually as a form of reasoning, what does this have to do with imputation?

When I look up imputation as a dictionary term it tends to mean insinuation or accusation.

Ye are hereby accused of Salvation, you have no choice! .. it just sounded funny.

mark kennedy · Apr 7, 2019

Michael Collum said:
G3049 is translated usually as a form of reasoning, what does this have to do with imputation?

When I look up imputation as a dictionary term it tends to mean insinuation or accusation.

Ye are hereby accused of Salvation, you have no choice! .. it just sounded funny.

I was pointing out that atonement, like imputation was a book keepers term:

Atonement (G2643 καταλλαγή katallagē) The exchange of the business of money changers, exchanging equivalent values. Adjustment of a difference, reconciliation, restoration to favor. in the NT of the restoration of the favour of God to sinners that repent and put their trust in the expiatory death of Christ. (Outline of Biblical Usage)

Impute (G3049 λογίζομαι logizomai): To reckon, count, compute, calculate, count over, to take into account, to make an account of. Used metaphorically to pass to one's account, to impute. (Outline of Biblical Usage.)

Impute (G3049 λογίζομαι logizomai): In Phl 4:8 it signifies "to think upon a matter by way of taking account of its character" (RV marg.). Accounted: Primarily signifies "to reckon," whether by calculation or imputation, e.g., Gal 3:6 (RV, "reckoned"); then, to deliberate, and so to suppose, "account," Rom 8:36; 14:14 (AV, "esteemeth") (Vines Dictionary)

Both terms have the primary meaning of crediting to someone's account. Impute is used differently in the New Testament 'consider, reckon, count', but it is still essentially a book keepers term.

Here is some of the ways 'imputed' is used in the New Testament:

Of Christ:
He was numbered G3049 with the transgressors. (Mark 5:28; Luke 2:7)

Of Abraham:
And therefore it was imputed G3049 to him for righteousness. (Romans 4:22)
Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed G3049 to him. (Romans 4:23)
Accounting G3049 that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure. (Hebrews 11:19)
And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed G3049 unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. (James 2:23)
Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted G3049 to him for righteousness. (Galatians 3:6)

Of Believers:
But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, G3049 if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; (Romans 4:24)
Likewise reckon G3049 ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:11)
That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted G3049 for the seed. (Romans 9:8)
Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think G3049 any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God (2 Corinthians 3:5)
To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing G3049 their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. (2 Corinthians 5:19)
Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him G3049 of himself think G3049 this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's.

Obviously the New Testament uses it a little differently but the primary definition is to credit something, positive or negative, to an account like carrying something on the books.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Gregory Thompson · Apr 7, 2019

mark kennedy said:
I was pointing out that atonement, like imputation was a book keepers term:

Atonement (G2643 καταλλαγή katallagē) The exchange of the business of money changers, exchanging equivalent values. Adjustment of a difference, reconciliation, restoration to favor. in the NT of the restoration of the favour of God to sinners that repent and put their trust in the expiatory death of Christ. (Outline of Biblical Usage)

Impute (G3049 λογίζομαι logizomai): To reckon, count, compute, calculate, count over, to take into account, to make an account of. Used metaphorically to pass to one's account, to impute. (Outline of Biblical Usage.)

Impute (G3049 λογίζομαι logizomai): In Phl 4:8 it signifies "to think upon a matter by way of taking account of its character" (RV marg.). Accounted: Primarily signifies "to reckon," whether by calculation or imputation, e.g., Gal 3:6 (RV, "reckoned"); then, to deliberate, and so to suppose, "account," Rom 8:36; 14:14 (AV, "esteemeth") (Vines Dictionary)

Both terms have the primary meaning of crediting to someone's account. Impute is used differently in the New Testament 'consider, reckon, count', but it is still essentially a book keepers term.

Here is some of the ways 'imputed' is used in the New Testament:

Of Christ:
He was numbered G3049 with the transgressors. (Mark 5:28; Luke 2:7)

Of Abraham:
And therefore it was imputed G3049 to him for righteousness. (Romans 4:22)
Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed G3049 to him. (Romans 4:23)
Accounting G3049 that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure. (Hebrews 11:19)
And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed G3049 unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. (James 2:23)
Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted G3049 to him for righteousness. (Galatians 3:6)

Of Believers:
But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, G3049 if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; (Romans 4:24)
Likewise reckon G3049 ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:11)
That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted G3049 for the seed. (Romans 9:8)
Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think G3049 any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God (2 Corinthians 3:5)
To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing G3049 their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. (2 Corinthians 5:19)
Do ye look on things after the outward appearance? If any man trust to himself that he is Christ's, let him G3049 of himself think G3049 this again, that, as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's.

Obviously the New Testament uses it a little differently but the primary definition is to credit something, positive or negative, to an account like carrying something on the books.

Grace and peace,
Mark

So that's why you mentioned the statement "paid in full" from the cross earlier.

This reminds me: The kingdom of the world quantifies things of value, but the kingdom of God resists quantification. To quantify the infinite, means it is actually finite in a sense.

mark kennedy · Apr 7, 2019

Michael Collum said:
So that's why you mentioned the statement "paid in full" from the cross earlier.

This reminds me: The kingdom of the world quantifies things of value, but the kingdom of God resists quantification. To quantify the infinite, means it is actually finite in a sense.

You have hit on a key point and it is one of those things that make expositional and exegetical studies awkward at times. The writer will often use something from the immediate culture the reader (usually a listener since the Scriptures were read to congregations). Another example would be dispensation, Paul uses this in Ephesians to describe the dispensation of grace that Dispensationalists have developed into a whole subtheology related to the end times. If you look at the actual work it's an economic term, based on (οἶκος oikos), the normal Greek word for house. Used in that sense it's the idea of managing a household but the principle is expanded to include economic, a word derived from the same Greek word for house. The point being, while you navigate some of the semantics in all of this, it's helpful to consider why the writer would borrow a word from the culture that might be a book keepers term, or a general term indicating the management of goods and services. It helps to understand the cultural context it was written in.

Like Jesus said, if you don't understand when I explain earthly things, how will you understand when I explain heavenly things. You have to get the analogy before the more eternal meaning behind it comes to light.

Grace and peace,
Mark

~Zao~ · Apr 12, 2019

mark kennedy said:
There is a connection, you are forgiven, you must forgive. When we were dead in trespasses and sins Jesus died for the ungodly. We are never the ones to make atonement, even for ourselves, but that doesn't mean that the concept of reconciliation doesn't extend to Christian living and ministry. The best way to have a ministry of atonement is to preach the gospel, Jesus died for our sins is at the heart of the message.

Oh and don't let the concept of reconciliation throw you, the two words are kind of related just not the same thing. What I'm getting from the reading is in Matt. 6:24 it's mutual, whereas in Romans 4 it's pretty much one sided. A subtle point but sometimes when working in formal doctrine little details are a matter of great interest.

Grace and peace,
Mark

The message that I think that we’ve been given to proclaim is that Jesus, acting thru God, is our personal saviour. Many people know Him only historically, academically, or doctrinally but like that 15” journey from head to heart He must be known intimately and somehow that’s what we need to portray. United in mind, yes, but also in heart.

Imputation

step #1= Adam's sin reckoned to the race

step #2= God reckoned over the sin of Adam's race to Christ

step #3= God reckoned righteousness of Jesus to sinners

REDEMPTION= sinward aspect of death of Christ in which Jesus Christ by His death, purchased out of the slavemarket of sin those who were shackled and bound.

RECONCILIATION= manward aspect of death of Christ. Sinners who were separated from God by a great gulf, have now been made nigh.

PROPITIATION= Godward aspect of the value of the death of Christ. The love of God unloosed and God free to act on behalf of sinners

-Jesus Christ propitiated the Father

-Jesus Christ alone could offer Himself, so God could give grace

-not an earthly altar, but by His own body

-Christ's blood propitiates and the sinner recieves the benefit

A person may be redeemed but not reconciled to God because it’s based on acknowledging Him as Saviour

mark kennedy · Apr 13, 2019

LoreneDD said:
The message that I think that we’ve been given to proclaim is that Jesus, acting thru God, is our personal saviour. Many people know Him only historically, academically, or doctrinally but like that 15” journey from head to heart He must be known intimately and somehow that’s what we need to portray. United in mind, yes, but also in heart.

Imputation

step #1= Adam's sin reckoned to the race

step #2= God reckoned over the sin of Adam's race to Christ

step #3= God reckoned righteousness of Jesus to sinners

REDEMPTION= sinward aspect of death of Christ in which Jesus Christ by His death, purchased out of the slavemarket of sin those who were shackled and bound.

RECONCILIATION= manward aspect of death of Christ. Sinners who were separated from God by a great gulf, have now been made nigh.

PROPITIATION= Godward aspect of the value of the death of Christ. The love of God unloosed and God free to act on behalf of sinners

-Jesus Christ propitiated the Father

-Jesus Christ alone could offer Himself, so God could give grace

-not an earthly altar, but by His own body

-Christ's blood propitiates and the sinner recieves the benefit

A person may be redeemed but not reconciled to God because it’s based on acknowledging Him as Saviour

Got busy or I would have responded to this earlier. The atonement happened at the cross, when Jesus gave up the ghost, so to speak, the veil between the holy place and the holy of holies was torn in two. The Day of Atonement was the only day anyone went into the holy of holies, and that was to sprinkle some blood and leave. Jesus went into the one in heaven, into the very presence of God and stayed, because that was where he came from in the first place. That is where atonement is made for the believer, in heaven and the very presence of God. That veil is no small thing, there is a reason they looked to the Temple in times of distress, God was in there. When David wanted to build a Temple because he didn't like God living in a tent when he lived in a place, God spoke to him. God says, when did I ever ask you for a house made of cedar? He liked that tent but because David did it for the right reasons, God allowed it, call it permissive will.

Solomon would pray when the Temple was complete, the whole heavens cannot contain you, how much less the house made of human hands. At Calvary God got out, your sin imputed to Christ and righteousness imputed to you by faith, that is how New Testament salvation works. The concept of double imputation isn't just for Calvinists, it's a hermeneutic principle in Scripture. Christ is our 'atonement', 'propitiation' or payment for sin. Based on that act of divine mercy, righteousness is 'imputed' (accounted, credited, reckoned) by faith.

Grace and peace,
Mark

~Zao~ · Apr 13, 2019

mark kennedy said:
Got busy or I would have responded to this earlier. The atonement happened at the cross, when Jesus gave up the ghost, so to speak, the veil between the holy place and the holy of holies was torn in two. The Day of Atonement was the only day anyone went into the holy of holies, and that was to sprinkle some blood and leave. Jesus went into the one in heaven, into the very presence of God and stayed, because that was where he came from in the first place. That is where atonement is made for the believer, in heaven and the very presence of God. That veil is no small thing, there is a reason they looked to the Temple in times of distress, God was in there. When David wanted to build a Temple because he didn't like God living in a tent when he lived in a place, God spoke to him. God says, when did I ever ask you for a house made of cedar? He liked that tent but because David did it for the right reasons, God allowed it, call it permissive will.

Solomon would pray when the Temple was complete, the whole heavens cannot contain you, how much less the house made of human hands. At Calvary God got out, your sin imputed to Christ and righteousness imputed to you by faith, that is how New Testament salvation works. The concept of double imputation isn't just for Calvinists, it's a hermeneutic principle in Scripture. Christ is our 'atonement', 'propitiation' or payment for sin. Based on that act of divine mercy, righteousness is 'imputed' (accounted, credited, reckoned) by faith.

Grace and peace,
Mark

God freed to act on Christian’s behalf because of the transaction taken place between Christ and the sinner and because the sinner initially accepts that saving grace in acknowledgement of Christ's finished work and the need of saving grace found only thru Him. The seed of that transaction is the perfect work that we are never to abandon, giving Grace the freedom to carry on further growth within the Christian, Christ being forever there to trim the chaff from the wheat as Christians move unto the fullness of His word. I think we are speaking the same language

Thanks for the reply.

FireDragon76 · Apr 15, 2019

In Lutheran thought, imputed righteousness primarily has to do with having ones sins forgiven, having the innocence of Christ reckoned to us. It's not a moral quality so much as a legal judgment. It happens due to our union with Christ. In our mind it's less about a courtroom drama happening, and more like a marriage.

FireDragon76 · Apr 15, 2019

1213 said:
I think the idea of inputted righteousness is not correct understanding. If person is righteous, it is seen in actions of the person. If person has right actions, he can be declared righteous. Right actions would be that person lives according to God’s law, or right action is that person is loyal/faithful to God. Those actions can prove that person is righteous and that is why person can be declared righteous, if those exists.

Righteousness is always something that comes visible in actions. Without the actions, person is not righteous.

That's just no true. The thief on the cross beside Jesus was considered righteous. But he had no actions or works that lead to that, indeed, he had probably lead what we would think of as a bad life. Righteousness is not a specifically moral quality in the usual sense, it's simply a judgment rendered on a person. It's like saying "I think you are OK" as we do in common conventional speech.

FireDragon76 · Apr 15, 2019

FenderTL5 said:
The challenge is that the Bible uses several analogies for atonement, not just one.
In my humble opinion, none of them are all encompassing but portions of the whole.

Pr. Jordan Cooper has shown, however, that imputation, satisfaction, and substitution themes are quite old in the Church, going back to the ECF's. Orthodox emphasize different themes, and are right to do so, but denying the theme altogether just doesn't stand up to scholarly analysis. And that's mostly what the New Perspective on Paul has been about, trying to argue the Church has simply misread Paul. And I believe much of the reason is that most of the folks in the NPP movement are not as well versed in historical theology- it's simply not their field of expertise.

https://www.amazon.com/Righteousness-One-Evaluation-Soteriology-Perspective/dp/1620327589

The Lutheran approach to soteriology, at least, is relatively immune to the NPP's critiques. We simply do not view salvation in purely forensic categories, as Pr. Cooper also points out in other works, such as his recent work Christification: a Lutheran Approach to Theosis .

https://www.amazon.com/Christificat...christification&qid=1555324891&s=books&sr=1-1

Though it is definitely true the forensic model is the one we emphasize the most as it shapes our entire approach.

The 'Imputation' of the Righteousness of God, in Christ. A Book Keepers term.

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

Wisdom’s child

Wisdom’s child

Natura non facit saltum

Natura non facit saltum

Wisdom’s child

Natura non facit saltum

Member

Active Member

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Natura non facit saltum

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Natura non facit saltum

Wisdom’s child

Natura non facit saltum

Wisdom’s child

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads