Sometimes Justification is thought and taught in terms of "double imputation". I have even usually thought this way until this question came to mind. Double imputation is the idea that Jesus' righteousness is imputed to believers (they get his righteous record credited to their account) and believers righteousness is imputed to Jesus (he gets the sin of sinners credited to his account and pays for it). On the whole, I think this is fine. But I wonder if it's imprecise.
The Westminster Confession of Faith puts it like this:
That in justification, God has "...[imputed] the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them..." (WCF 11.1).
That is to say, that the righteousness of Jesus and the death of Jesus has been imputed to believers. So, in the eyes of God, believers have in their account:
But according to this understanding it would appear that the sins of believers are not imputed to Christ.
- A perfectly righteous record. This merits for them heaven.
- A death that atones for their sin.
What's the deal?
These old ideas are left over from the notion that God is a supreme bookkeeper who delights in finding faults with his creation.
God is a Living heavenly Father, we are each sons of God.
Jesus never taught that man was born into sin debt, that a ransom must be paid. At least not in the original gospel that he had hoped the Jews would accept.
Those of us who have children know what parental Love is like.
Upvote
0