Double Imputation?

[Oldmantook]

I think you may have written something by mistake, Your first sentence says"I think my point was that we do not get our righteousness from Jesus; i.e. his righteousness is not imputed to us via judicial means. Rather it is our obedience and repentance which is credited to us as being made righteous. And then you say this to open the 3 paragraph: "You wrote that all of our righteousness comes from being in Christ Jesus. I agree with that so the pertinent question would be, what does it mean to be in Christ
Jesus?

I will stick with just one point, hopefully, I sometimes chase rabbits and even get out of the one field as a friend told me, It;s ok to chase a rabbit but don't jump the fence into another field. Here is what I am going to answer now, your question to me; You wrote that all of our righteousness comes from being in Christ Jesus. I agree with that so the pertinent question would be, what does it mean to be in Christ Jesus? 2 Cor 5:17-21 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. 18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, 19 that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation. 20 Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. 21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. Having believed the gospel we confess Jesus is Lord and we are sealed with the Holy Spirit. As it states in v17, this being the promise of God to all who receive Jesus become His children(John 1:12). Now v 21 God did that so we might become the righteousness of God in Him. Had God not done this, we would not have become the righteousness of God in Christ. It is just like Abraham in Gen 15:6 He believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness. Faith in what God says about Jesus being our Savior makes us have His righteousness. Without Him we can do nothing. That is why I said we cannot add any more righteousness to Jesus, we have none to offer, our good deeds, or works come from Him in the power of the Holy Spirit, so where is our credit of additional righteousness and if we could add to His righteousness, would that not mean His was not sufficient? All our righteousness is as filthy rags it says in Isaiah 64:6. Our walk of obedience as shown in 1 John simply demonstrates His working in us to do of His good will, Phil 2:13. This demonstrates the believer to be in the Spirit, or that we are following His leadership in our lives. To walk in the flesh is to walk according to the flesh, that is carnal, but when we are filled with the Spirit, we are doing His will, to me that is the difference of yielding to the flesh, or walking in the Spirit. When the cup runs over, what's in the cup comes out, our actions at the moment of any action, demonstrates flesh or being filled with the Holy Spirit, good works are the Holy Spirit having His way in our life. That is why it says in Galatians if we live in the Spirit, let us walk in the Spirit Gal 5:25, also 5:16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. Notice the contrast between flesh and Spirit and what follows, and all that follows of the Spirit is given to us, we produce nothing of the Lord except we get it from the Lord, thus, we add nothing to our account for righteousness, because we lack nothing when we have the righteousness of Christ in us.

V.19 states that our trespasses are not imputed to us. It does not state the Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. V.21 states that we might become the righteousness of God in him. Again, as I wrote earlier what does it mean to be in Him/in Christ? Belief is of course necessary so no disagreement there. But Rom 8:1-4 also states that we are required to walk according to the Spirit in order to be Christ Jesus. So both belief and obedience are necessary to be in him.
1 John 3:6 states that our practice of righteousness (obedience) makes us righteous. How could that be if there is nothing more we can do to add to Christ's righteousness imputed to us per your view? 1 John 1 states that believers can choose to either walk in darkness or the light. IF we walk in the light, the blood of Jesus cleanses our sin (1 Jn 1:7). King David in Ps 32 chose to walk in the light when he finally confessed/repented of his sin. God gives us the choice whether or not to live a repentant lifestyle. If Christ's righteousness is imputed to us then why do we need to confess sin? That is why I asked you if we still need to confess/repent when we sin since per your view there is nothing more we can add to Christ's righteousness.

 

[Oldmantook]

Look, it's either his righteousness credited to us, or it's our own righteousness made clean. You have to decide which you believe it is. It sounds to me like you are saying that it's our own righteousness made clean. If that's the case, the scriptures do not agree with you. You are trying to interpret away what they say to make your point. But your point isn't made. The righteousness of Christ is declared to our account. That's what it means for his righteousness to be imputed to us.

Respectfully, it doesn't matter what I say or you say; the question is what do the scriptures say. I already cited Rom 4:5-8 and correspondingly Ps 32 as to why we are credited as righteous. These passages make it clear that we are considered righteous by God when we turn away and repent of sin. They do not reference the righteousness of Jesus being imputed to us which is the view you hold to. You would have to reconcile these scriptures with your view since they appear to contradict your view. 1 Jn 3:7 contains a warning - Let no one deceive you. John the goes on to state this truth - the one who practices righteous is righteous.... John did not state that the righteousness of God is credited to our account but instead stated that our practice of righteousness is credited to our account so your view is at odds with what John wrote.
Consider this: if the righteousness of Jesus is imputed to us, then there is nothing that we can do or not do that will disqualify us from eternal life as we already are clothed with the righteousness of God correct? If this be so then I ask you, if you or any other genuine, regenerated believer were to accept the mark of the beast, would Jesus' righteousness still be imputed to you?

 

[omega2xx]

That's generally true. It's a matter of how you interpret Scripture. One common technique is to find one unusual passage and let it control the interpretation of everything else. In that case 2 Cor 5:21 may support the idea of imputing our sin to Christ:

"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

While I reject that interpretation, I can see how some might interpret it that way. I don't see where the get "double " out of that verse

The wording is odd, even in the original. What does it mean to be made sin? One common understanding is that God treated him as sinful, i.e. imputed sin to him. The only commentary I have on 2 Cor thinks that Paul is using ἁμαρτία in the sense that it is used by the Greek of Is 53:10. There it is used as "an offering for sin."

Evidently you use the KJ. The NASB, which is more accurate , says "If He would render Himself as a guilt offering." Not sure that would affect the meaning of the verse. Even id "double imputation" is a valid doctrine, it doe snot change any basic Biblical doctrine and I see not purpose in that interpretation,

However it's worth asking what Jesus himself thought he was doing. He did his best to get Israel to change its direction. In particular, it's clear that he was worried about the coming conflict with Rome. Several of his teachings taught forgiveness and reconciliation specifically in that context. (going the extra mile, paying taxes) Mat 23:37 shows his frustration with Israel's unwillingness to change.

He knew exactly what He was doing--To save that which was lost. I see sorrow, not frustration in Mt 23:37

I've often wondered if he saw his death as an act of vicarious repentance, of taking responsibility for the sin of his people. The words of institution suggest that he connected his death in some way with forgiveness of sin, though the most direct understanding is that it was associated with establishing Jeremiah's new covenant. (Hebrews 9 and 10 understands it as a covenant sacrifice.)

Forgiveness only because His death the propitiation for man's sins. His death did issue in the New covenant.

I'm not sure that's quite God imputing sin to him, but it's close.

Agreed.

Would you mind telling me what Presbyterian denomination you belong to? I attend a PCA church.

 

[omega2xx]

I would agree with you to an extent. Jesus bore our sins. Jesus was a ransom for us. His blood covers our sins. But the scriptures don't actually say that he was "imputed" our sins. To bear our iniquity is to be responsible for it, whether or not he committed the offenses. To be imputed our iniquity is to be charged or accredited with the offenses. There is a difference in my mind.

In my view 2 things were imputed. Our sins were imputed to Jesus and His righteousness was imputed to us. That would make double imputation a valid doctrine, and maybe that is what the term means and I did not understand it that way.

 

[hedrick]

Evidently you use the KJ. The NASB, which is more accurate , says "If He would render Himself as a guilt offering." Not sure that would affect the meaning of the verse. Even id "double imputation" is a valid doctrine, it doe snot change any basic Biblical doctrine and I see not purpose in that interpretation,

Literally it is made amartia, literally "made sin." It's not clear how that makes sense, but KJV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NASB 1995, NET, NCV use it. "guilt offering" may well be the meaning, but that's an unusual translation. This page gives just about every translation: 2 Corinthians 5:21 - Bible Gateway

Here's Calvin's exegesis:

"It is commonly remarked, that sin here denotes an expiatory sacrifice for sin, and in the same way the Latins term it, piaculum.3 Paul, too, has in this, and other passages, borrowed this phrase from the Hebrews, among whom אשם (asham) denotes an expiatory sacrifice, as well as an offence or crime.4 But the signification of this word, as well as the entire statement, will be better understood from a comparison of both parts of the antithesis. Sin is here contrasted with righteousness, when Paul teaches us, that we were made the righteousness of God, on the ground of Christ’s having been made sin. Righteousness, here, is not taken to denote a quality or habit, but by way of imputation, on the ground of Christ’s righteousness being reckoned to have been received by us. What, on the other hand, is denoted by sin? It is the guilt, on account of which we are arraigned at the bar of God. As, however, the curse of the individual was of old cast upon the victim, so Christ’s condemnation was our absolution, and with his stripes we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5.)"

Note, it is our guilt that is cast upon him. Following him, Reformed writers typically teach double imputation.

I think he's wrong, as apparently you do as well, but this is the normal Reformed understanding.

Forgiveness only because His death the propitiation for man's sins. His death did issue in the New covenant.

It certainly did. "This is my blood of the new covenant." Read Heb 9. It contrasts the first covenant, which was made with the blood of calves and goats with the new covenant with Christ's blood. "This is the blood of the covenant," quoted by both Christ and Hebrews is from Ex 24:8. It describes the covenant sacrifice for the first covenant. Jesus couldn't have been clearer. Heb cites Jer 31:31 on the new covenant. That was clearly what Jesus intended by new covenant, though he didn't cite the passage explicitly.

The point of all of this is the Jesus saw his blood as a covenant sacrifice. It is, of course, possible that there can be more than one meaning. But this is the one Jesus used. Indeed forgiveness of sins is only mentioned in the version that's in Matthew.

I'm not denying that it actually was for forgiveness of sins, but I don't believe that our sin was imputed to Jesus. As you apparently don't either.

Unfortunately Calvin is so focused on the question of the real presence that his commentary on the Synoptics doesn't deal with this question.

Would you mind telling me what Presbyterian denomination you belong to? I attend a PCA church.

PCUSA.

 

[iwbswiaihl2]

.
Your only extrapolating on an understanding, of your belief in order to make your point, when Scripture so clearly says something else.

2Co. 5:21
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Are you able to produce a verse, where Scripture says what you are saying it does?

So under the same reasoning, you post a verse and want to extrapolate from that, that the verse I showed you from 2 Peter is in error and then you do not explain why it is not to the point. So I will ask you this and as in the other post where I showed 2 Peter 1:1 why don't you make it plain why that verse is incorrect, I am sure most people believe the scriptures are not in error. And while you are at it, what righteousness did Jesus need to be added to Him? And please first just show how my answer was incorrect, anyone can make a point when they fail to deal with the error of the other persons statement(s).

 

[omega2xx]

Literally it is made amartia, literally "made sin." It's not clear how that makes sense, but KJV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NASB 1995, NET, NCV use it. "guilt offering" may well be the meaning, but that's an unusual translation. This page gives just about every translation: 2 Corinthians 5:21 - Bible Gateway

The NASB does not us "sin" in Isa 53:10.

Here's Calvin's exegesis:

"It is commonly remarked, that sin here denotes an expiatory sacrifice for sin, and in the same way the Latins term it, piaculum.3 Paul, too, has in this, and other passages, borrowed this phrase from the Hebrews, among whom אשם (asham) denotes an expiatory sacrifice, as well as an offence or crime.4 But the signification of this word, as well as the entire statement, will be better understood from a comparison of both parts of the antithesis. Sin is here contrasted with righteousness, when Paul teaches us, that we were made the righteousness of God, on the ground of Christ’s having been made sin. Righteousness, here, is not taken to denote a quality or habit, but by way of imputation, on the ground of Christ’s righteousness being reckoned to have been received by us. What, on the other hand, is denoted by sin? It is the guilt, on account of which we are arraigned at the bar of God. As, however, the curse of the individual was of old cast upon the victim, so Christ’s condemnation was our absolution, and with his stripes we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5.)"

Note, it is our guilt that is cast upon him. Following him, Reformed writers typically teach double imputation.

I think he's wrong, as apparently you do as well, but this is the normal Reformed understanding.

Although I believe the reformed view is usually the best
Scripturally, no theology is perfect. No even mine. If the double imputation refers to our sins being imputed to Jesus and His righteousness imputed to believers, I agree with the doctrine.

It certainly did. "This is my blood of the new covenant." Read Heb 9. It contrasts the first covenant, which was made with the blood of calves and goats with the new covenant with Christ's blood. "This is the blood of the covenant," quoted by both Christ and Hebrews is from Ex 24:8. It describes the covenant sacrifice for the first covenant. Jesus couldn't have been clearer. Heb cites Jer 31:31 on the new covenant. That was clearly what Jesus intended by new covenant, though he didn't cite the passage explicitly.

In the new covenant God says "I will" several times. In the New covenant God is going to do it or us, because we can't do it for our self.

The point of all of this is the Jesus saw his blood as a covenant sacrifice. It is, of course, possible that there can be more than one meaning. But this is the one Jesus used. Indeed forgiveness of sins is only mentioned in the version that's in Matthew.

I'm not denying that it actually was for forgiveness of sins, but I don't believe that our sin was imputed to Jesus. As you apparently don't either.

That depends on what "became sin for us" means. I can see it might not mean "imputed," I like He became our sin for us, better than our sin was imputed to him. IMO, what happened is what is important. If it was a double imputation, fine, If it was not, fine. The outcome is all that matters.

Unfortunately Calvin is so focused on the question of the real presence that his commentary on the Synoptics doesn't deal with this question.

PCUSA.

 

[AFrazier]

.
Are you able to produce a verse where it says "Righteousness of Christ" or "Christ's Righteousness" in direct relation to your statement?

Romans 5:17 — For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

Romans 10:3-4, 10 — For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. ... For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

1 Corinthians 1:30 — Of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.

Philippians 3:9 — And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.

Righteousness for the sinner is credited to them by faith. We are foolish, unrighteous, defiled, and separated from God. Our obedience counts for naught in light of our sin. When we believe, Christ is made our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption.

What we do after we have believed, been made righteous in the eyes of God, sanctified, and justified, is a different discussion.

 

[iwbswiaihl2]

V.19 states that our trespasses are not imputed to us. It does not state the Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. V.21 states that we might become the righteousness of God in him. Again, as I wrote earlier what does it mean to be in Him/in Christ? Belief is of course necessary so no disagreement there. But Rom 8:1-4 also states that we are required to walk according to the Spirit in order to be Christ Jesus. So both belief and obedience are necessary to be in him.
1 John 3:6 states that our practice of righteousness (obedience) makes us righteous. How could that be if there is nothing more we can do to add to Christ's righteousness imputed to us per your view? 1 John 1 states that believers can choose to either walk in darkness or the light. IF we walk in the light, the blood of Jesus cleanses our sin (1 Jn 1:7). King David in Ps 32 chose to walk in the light when he finally confessed/repented of his sin. God gives us the choice whether or not to live a repentant lifestyle. If Christ's righteousness is imputed to us then why do we need to confess sin? That is why I asked you if we still need to confess/repent when we sin since per your view there is nothing more we can add to Christ's righteousness.

So then in 2Cor5:21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him, so let me understand this, if the righteousness of God in Him is then imputed to the new convert, would we not be as righteous as Jesus because His righteousness is the righteousness of God.

And to your statement on Rom 8 you said: Rom 8:1-4 also states that we are required to walk according to the Spirit in order to be Christ Jesus. So both belief and obedience are necessary to be in him. That is so true, but one cannot walk in obedience that is not in Him. The reason we ever do please God is because He is in us, in Christ Jesus, and we are walking by faith and the Holy Spirit gives us the power and wisdom to obey. Phil 2:13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

Same principle in 1 John the believers obedience shows that they are in Christ because without Him we can do nothing. One does not obey to be righteous, they obey because they are righteous because of Christ in them. Main point, we have the righteousness of Christ, we need no more righteousness, nor can we add to His righteousness.

 

[omega2xx]

Literally it is made amartia, literally "made sin." It's not clear how that makes sense, but KJV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NASB 1995, NET, NCV use it. "guilt offering" may well be the meaning, but that's an unusual translation. This page gives just about every translation: 2 Corinthians 5:21 - Bible Gateway

Here's Calvin's exegesis:

"It is commonly remarked, that sin here denotes an expiatory sacrifice for sin, and in the same way the Latins term it, piaculum.3 Paul, too, has in this, and other passages, borrowed this phrase from the Hebrews, among whom אשם (asham) denotes an expiatory sacrifice, as well as an offence or crime.4 But the signification of this word, as well as the entire statement, will be better understood from a comparison of both parts of the antithesis. Sin is here contrasted with righteousness, when Paul teaches us, that we were made the righteousness of God, on the ground of Christ’s having been made sin. Righteousness, here, is not taken to denote a quality or habit, but by way of imputation, on the ground of Christ’s righteousness being reckoned to have been received by us. What, on the other hand, is denoted by sin? It is the guilt, on account of which we are arraigned at the bar of God. As, however, the curse of the individual was of old cast upon the victim, so Christ’s condemnation was our absolution, and with his stripes we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5.)"

Note, it is our guilt that is cast upon him. Following him, Reformed writers typically teach double imputation.

I think he's wrong, as apparently you do as well, but this is the normal Reformed understanding.



It certainly did. "This is my blood of the new covenant." Read Heb 9. It contrasts the first covenant, which was made with the blood of calves and goats with the new covenant with Christ's blood. "This is the blood of the covenant," quoted by both Christ and Hebrews is from Ex 24:8. It describes the covenant sacrifice for the first covenant. Jesus couldn't have been clearer. Heb cites Jer 31:31 on the new covenant. That was clearly what Jesus intended by new covenant, though he didn't cite the passage explicitly.

The point of all of this is the Jesus saw his blood as a covenant sacrifice. It is, of course, possible that there can be more than one meaning. But this is the one Jesus used. Indeed forgiveness of sins is only mentioned in the version that's in Matthew.

I'm not denying that it actually was for forgiveness of sins, but I don't believe that our sin was imputed to Jesus. As you apparently don't either.

Unfortunately Calvin is so focused on the question of the real presence that his commentary on the Synoptics doesn't deal with this question.

PCUSA.

I think I hit the post button before I finished and it may have deleted my whole message. If you didn't get it let me know.

I am surprised you are so concerned with the accuracy of the Bible. The PCUSA is ultra liberal and does not accept the Bible is the inspired word of God.

I know some conservative Christians stayed in the PCUSA hoping they would change back to conservative theology. The wont. Once the liberals get in control, it only gets more liberal.

 

[AFrazier]

Respectfully, it doesn't matter what I say or you say; the question is what do the scriptures say. I already cited Rom 4:5-8 and correspondingly Ps 32 as to why we are credited as righteous. These passages make it clear that we are considered righteous by God when we turn away and repent of sin. They do not reference the righteousness of Jesus being imputed to us which is the view you hold to. You would have to reconcile these scriptures with your view since they appear to contradict your view. 1 Jn 3:7 contains a warning - Let no one deceive you. John the goes on to state this truth - the one who practices righteous is righteous.... John did not state that the righteousness of God is credited to our account but instead stated that our practice of righteousness is credited to our account so your view is at odds with what John wrote.
Consider this: if the righteousness of Jesus is imputed to us, then there is nothing that we can do or not do that will disqualify us from eternal life as we already are clothed with the righteousness of God correct? If this be so then I ask you, if you or any other genuine, regenerated believer were to accept the mark of the beast, would Jesus' righteousness still be imputed to you?

Romans 5:17 — For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

Romans 10:3-4, 10 — For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. ... For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

1 Corinthians 1:30 — Of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.

Philippians 3:9 — And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.

I don't disagree with the half of the answer you are suggesting. I've already given you my agreement. But you are ignoring the first half. The sinner is imperfect. It's by Christ's righteousness that we can stand before God. It is by Christ that we are sanctified. It is Christ who declares us justified. Only after this does our obedience and repentance take a role in the scenario.

 

[AFrazier]

In my view 2 things were imputed. Our sins were imputed to Jesus and His righteousness was imputed to us. That would make double imputation a valid doctrine, and maybe that is what the term means and I did not understand it that way.

I agree with your statement here.

 

[AFrazier]

Literally it is made amartia, literally "made sin." It's not clear how that makes sense, but KJV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NASB 1995, NET, NCV use it. "guilt offering" may well be the meaning, but that's an unusual translation. This page gives just about every translation: 2 Corinthians 5:21 - Bible Gateway

Here's Calvin's exegesis:

"It is commonly remarked, that sin here denotes an expiatory sacrifice for sin, and in the same way the Latins term it, piaculum.3 Paul, too, has in this, and other passages, borrowed this phrase from the Hebrews, among whom אשם (asham) denotes an expiatory sacrifice, as well as an offence or crime.4 But the signification of this word, as well as the entire statement, will be better understood from a comparison of both parts of the antithesis. Sin is here contrasted with righteousness, when Paul teaches us, that we were made the righteousness of God, on the ground of Christ’s having been made sin. Righteousness, here, is not taken to denote a quality or habit, but by way of imputation, on the ground of Christ’s righteousness being reckoned to have been received by us. What, on the other hand, is denoted by sin? It is the guilt, on account of which we are arraigned at the bar of God. As, however, the curse of the individual was of old cast upon the victim, so Christ’s condemnation was our absolution, and with his stripes we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5.)"

Note, it is our guilt that is cast upon him. Following him, Reformed writers typically teach double imputation.

I think he's wrong, as apparently you do as well, but this is the normal Reformed understanding.



It certainly did. "This is my blood of the new covenant." Read Heb 9. It contrasts the first covenant, which was made with the blood of calves and goats with the new covenant with Christ's blood. "This is the blood of the covenant," quoted by both Christ and Hebrews is from Ex 24:8. It describes the covenant sacrifice for the first covenant. Jesus couldn't have been clearer. Heb cites Jer 31:31 on the new covenant. That was clearly what Jesus intended by new covenant, though he didn't cite the passage explicitly.

The point of all of this is the Jesus saw his blood as a covenant sacrifice. It is, of course, possible that there can be more than one meaning. But this is the one Jesus used. Indeed forgiveness of sins is only mentioned in the version that's in Matthew.

I'm not denying that it actually was for forgiveness of sins, but I don't believe that our sin was imputed to Jesus. As you apparently don't either.

Unfortunately Calvin is so focused on the question of the real presence that his commentary on the Synoptics doesn't deal with this question.

PCUSA.

I suppose the real question in this scenario is how "impute" is being defined. Scripture is clear that Christ bore our iniquities, not merely our guilt. Our iniquity was laid upon him, and because of it, he was wounded and bruised, being punished for the sake of our peace and restoration.

Isaiah 53:6, 11 — The LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. ... By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

So the question of imputation is, in my mind, the important distinction. If it means that Christ is accused of having sinned our sins, then I would agree that our sins are not imputed to him. If it means that Christ is declared responsible for our sins, then I would agree that our sins are imputed to him. It would be similar in application to Number 30:15. If the husband disannuls his wife's vow after allowing it to stand, then he has to bear her iniquity. It's the same verbiage as Isaiah. But in this case, the wife committed the sin, and the husband, in the interest of making her blameless, disannuls the the vow and bears the responsibility and punishment for her sin.

We are the bride. Christ is the husband. We are all oath-breakers.

 

[omega2xx]

I agree with your statement here.

Great minds always think alike.

 

[Oldmantook]

So then in 2Cor5:21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him, so let me understand this, if the righteousness of God in Him is then imputed to the new convert, would we not be as righteous as Jesus because His righteousness is the righteousness of God.

No, read the verse again. Where does it say that his righteousness is "imputed" to us. It simply states that we might become the righteousness of God in him. The question then is how do we become the righteousness of God? That is why I cited Rom 4:5 which many claim as the basis for the imputation of Jesus' righteousness but the context indicates otherwise. The context is Psalm 32 where David REPENTS of his sin. WHEN or IF we repent, we receive the righteousness of God as he then forgives us of sin. That is why I have repeatedly asked you the question which you have not answered - is Jesus' righteousness still "imputed" to us even when we sin and don't repent?

And to your statement on Rom 8 you said: Rom 8:1-4 also states that we are required to walk according to the Spirit in order to be Christ Jesus. So both belief and obedience are necessary to be in him. That is so true, but one cannot walk in obedience that is not in Him. The reason we ever do please God is because He is in us, in Christ Jesus, and we are walking by faith and the Holy Spirit gives us the power and wisdom to obey. Phil 2:13 for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.

When a believer walks in obedience it demonstrates that he is in Christ. I believe we both agree with that statement. However not all believers choose to walk in obedience and according to the Spirit. Just a few verses later in Rom 8:13 it states: For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. Paul warns the brethren in Rome that IF they live according to the flesh, they will reap spiritual death; but IF they live by the Spirit they will reap eternal life. The word "if" indicates that believers always have a choice to sin or not to sin. Habitual sin if unrepented of results in spiritual death.

Same principle in 1 John the believers obedience shows that they are in Christ because without Him we can do nothing. One does not obey to be righteous, they obey because they are righteous because of Christ in them. Main point, we have the righteousness of Christ, we need no more righteousness, nor can we add to His righteousness.

Again you neglect and do not account for the word "if" in 1 Jn 1:7. IF indicates that a believer is capable of NOT walking in the light as it indicated possibility - not certainty. IF a believer walks in the light, the blood of Jesus cleanses from sin. Conversely, IF a believer chooses not to walk in the light, the blood of Jesus does not cleanse from sin. This verse negates your view that we automatically have the righteousness of Christ because the efficacious application of Jesus' cleansing blood to our sins requires that our lives are reflective of "walking in the light." Not all Christians walk in the light as v.6 cites those who have chosen to "walk in darkness."

 

[Oldmantook]

Romans 5:17 — For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)

Romans 10:3-4, 10 — For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. 4For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. ... For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

1 Corinthians 1:30 — Of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.

Philippians 3:9 — And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.

I don't disagree with the half of the answer you are suggesting. I've already given you my agreement. But you are ignoring the first half. The sinner is imperfect. It's by Christ's righteousness that we can stand before God. It is by Christ that we are sanctified. It is Christ who declares us justified. Only after this does our obedience and repentance take a role in the scenario.

My view differs from yours in that if I understand you correctly, one need only believe in order to then possess the righteousness of Christ. In other words when we believe, we automatically obtain Jesus' righteousness and nothing more is required of us in the salvific sense. However your view goes against Rom 4:5 which in proper context cites King David's repentance of his sin as being reckoned to him as righteousness. In other words when David obeyed God and finally repented, God forgave and he was then restored and considered righteous in God's eyes. No repentance = no righteousness; therefore it cannot be said that we automatically possess Christ's righteousness because the requirement of us is that we obey and repent. You have cited Phil 3:9 which refers to our faith as the vehicle by which we obtain God's righteousness. That is true as faith is the means - but the question is what does genuine faith involve? We both agree that belief is certainly necessary per Jn 3:16 but isn't obedience also necessary per Heb 5:9? "And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him,"
Both belief and obedience are necessary for salvation, therefore Christ's righteousness is not "imputed" to us because if it were, there would be no need for obedience/repentance. Obedience/repentance does not take place after we are saved/justified as Heb 5:9 states that it is a requirement for our salvation. That is exactly why Jesus imposed the requirement of obedience upon the rich young ruler who asked Jesus what he must do in order to inherit eternal life. Jesus instructed the young man to sell all his possessions and give it to the poor. The man could not obey Jesus and went away disappointed. Jesus did not say just believe in me and you will have eternal life. Salvation and God's righteousness being reckoned to us requires both belief and obedience. That is why I asked you the question if you or any other regenerate believer accepted the mark of the beast, do you believe you would still have the righteousness of Christ imputed to your account?

 

[Phil 1:21]

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:

1. A perfectly righteous record. This merits for them heaven.
2. A death that atones for their sin.

But according to this understanding it would appear that the sins of believers are not imputed to Christ.

What's the deal?

2 Corinthians 5:21 "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

 

[JIMINZ]

.
The Theory of Double Imputation is a false teaching.

Neither Sin, or Righteousness are Imputed at all.

Take a close look at the verse, it says (MADE TO BE), not (ATTRIBUTED WITH).

The word (IMPUTE) only relates to something which has been SAID about a person,

2Co. 5:21
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Jesus was MADE TO BE SIN FOR US.
Not just that it was said our sin was IMPUTED (ATTRIBUTED) to Him, but that He actually became sin.


We are MADE THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD IN HIM.
Not just that it was said we received the Righteousness of God THROUGH Him, but that we actually did become The Righteousness of God in Him.

There is a big difference between what someone only says about you, Imputed with, and what you actually are (Made to Become).

Jesus BECAME SIN, while We BECAME Righteous.

Being IMPUTED with, is something spoken about, or attributed to, while being MADE is the reality of becoming.

Rom 8:3,4
3) For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4) That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

 

[iwbswiaihl2]

No, read the verse again. Where does it say that his righteousness is "imputed" to us. It simply states that we might become the righteousness of God in him. The question then is how do we become the righteousness of God? That is why I cited Rom 4:5 which many claim as the basis for the imputation of Jesus' righteousness but the context indicates otherwise. The context is Psalm 32 where David REPENTS of his sin. WHEN or IF we repent, we receive the righteousness of God as he then forgives us of sin. That is why I have repeatedly asked you the question which you have not answered - is Jesus' righteousness still "imputed" to us even when we sin and don't repent?

Sorry I missed answering that but as I type my answer I often forget some of the questions. I will answer it in this one, and I would appreciate you answering the question that I posed to you in the post which you responded to here. The question was in this:" So then in 2Cor5:21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him, so let me understand this, if the righteousness of God in Him is then imputed to the new convert, would we not be as righteous as Jesus because His righteousness is the righteousness of God.

Before I answer your last question in this paragraph, where in Psalms 32 is it talking about the righteousness of God being imputed to David? I do see where he confessed to the Lord and David said the Lord forgave him. Keep in mind, Jesus is Lord. And David himself said that in Psalms 110:1 The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.” I will leave it at this till I see your answer.
Now for that question from the last post; That is why I have repeatedly asked you the question which you have not answered - is Jesus' righteousness still "imputed" to us even when we sin and don't repent.
Whether you want to say that God's righteousness or Jesus righteousness is imputed to a believer, it is still the same righteousness because Jesus is God and when you answer the question above, did Jesus gain any righteousness that He did not already have before He came to earth as a man? Nevertheless, when a believer receives forgiveness and sealed with the Holy Spirit, all their sins are forgiven and they are freed from the law of sin and death. I think you have quoted those verses from Rom 8:2-4 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. If as v2 says the believers have been set free from the law of sin and death how can they ever be charged with sin from the legal perspective of the curse, the curse/wages of sin is spiritual death. We are set free from that according to this passage, is that not right? If not, because I know what you are going to say, and I was going to say if some believer, but it came to me to use David for my example; when David had Bathsheba's husband killed and committed adultery with her and some time passed by before he confessed to Nathan that he had sinned, was David lost and back under the condemnation of sin, thus had he died, he would have spent eternity in hell, is that right? Being in Spirit to me means having received Him and Him sealing me unto the day of redemption, if that seal can be broken I would be in the flesh lost forever, because Heb 6 would come into play, once having rejected the sacrifice of Jesus it is impossible to renew them to repentance. I believe in once saved always saved, with a strong emphasis on once saved. Because when one is saved God put within them the desire to please Him and that is walking by faith the rest of their lives, we do not keep Him, He keeps hold of us. Without Him we can do nothing. That is the difference to me of eternal salvation and those who say they can depart and be lost, they tell me by that, they are holding on to Him and not Him holding to them. When I walked by children across a street, they did not hold my hand, I held theirs, Psalms 37:23-24The steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord, And He delights in his way. 24 Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down; For the Lord upholds him with His hand. I will answer your other statements in another post, when they get this long, I think people may lose interest.

 

[iwbswiaihl2]

Again you neglect and do not account for the word "if" in 1 Jn 1:7. IF indicates that a believer is capable of NOT walking in the light as it indicated possibility - not certainty. IF a believer walks in the light, the blood of Jesus cleanses from sin. Conversely, IF a believer chooses not to walk in the light, the blood of Jesus does not cleanse from sin. This verse negates your view that we automatically have the righteousness of Christ because the efficacious application of Jesus' cleansing blood to our sins requires that our lives are reflective of "walking in the light." Not all Christians walk in the light as v.6 cites those who have chosen to "walk in darkness."

It may negate your view but that has no effect on my belief, but I would pray that every believer would come to understand what the Lord provides for the body of Christ. But one cannot be forced fed, they must by faith believe what He has written and of course believer are not only capable, but I am of the persuasion that no believers are perfect in their walk, though I also believe that we should want to be, and do all we can to obey, but the fleshly nature is no longer ruling us, it is warring against the Spirit and its desire is to rule over us, but greater is He who is in us than he who is in the world. Nevertheless, because one sins and does not instantly or even shortly confess that sin does not mean the person is not a child of God, because if any man sin we have an Advocate with God as it goes on to say in 1John2:1-2 My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2 And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the whole world. Not confessing our sin places us in the realm of being disciplined, not losing our adoption into the family of God. Paul could not have been confident of this very thing that He who began the good work in him will perform it unto the day of redemption if he would have worried about never sinning and not confessing it would separate him from God. He would have been a hypocrite and go on and say there was nothing that separate him from the love of God. Read it again in Rom 8, the whole chapter begins with no there being no condemnation to those in Christ Jesus , and ends with no separation from the love of God and in the middle all things working together for good to them that love the Lord. One can tell me why they don't believe that, but the Lord is my strong tower, therefore my hope is in Him, who by one offering has perfected forever those who trust in Him. 22 Through the Lord’s mercies we are not consumed, Because His compassions fail not. 23 They are new every morning; Great is Your faithfulness. 24 “The Lord is my portion,” says my soul, “Therefore I hope in Him!” Lem 3:22-24