Double Imputation?

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Everyone who hears the word of God, which is the seed, but I doubt if you really believed that everyone who hears it gets saved. Good soil means it bore fruit. There is an old saying, no fruit, no root, only those attached to the vine bear good fruit, the fruitless branches were cut off and thrown into the fire.

I was looking at the word received ... like those who received talents but buried them. Those branches thrown in where saved but as thru fire so that's not saying they were destroyed or didn't belong in the first place.

 

[redleghunter]

And yet Paul, himself, said in Phil 3 that he had not yet achieved eternal life, but was striving towards it. The saints had always considered this to be a goal, a cooperative effort, 100% certain only in the end when we meet our Lord. Humility alone, in light of our human weaknesses and limitations along with our inability to know the future of our own lives demands this position IMO. And Scripture supports this thoroughly, warning followers to keep following, to remain in the Spirit, in Christ, remain faithful, keep oil in their lamps, invest their talents, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, keep Christ's commandments, love each other, be perfect, be holy and pure of heart, without which no one will see the Lord, etc etc. To the extent that we do these things -and keep doing them-we can continue to have assurance. But in the end God alone knows perfectly whose names are written in the Book of life and whose are not.

Is this what you are referring to?

Philippians 3: NKJV

7 But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. 8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and 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; 10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, 11 if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

First, it is obvious when Paul wrote this he in fact did not attain to the resurrection of the dead. He was still alive.

There were only two ways Paul taught we 'attain' to the resurrection of the dead.


1 Thessalonians 4: NKJV

13 But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus.

15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.


From John Gill's Exposition:

Philippians 3:11
If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.
If by any means I, might attain unto the resurrection of the dead. Not in a figurative sense, the resurrection from the death of sin to a life of grace, of which Christ is the efficient cause, for this the apostle had attained to; unless the consummation of that spiritual life, in perfect holiness, should be intended, than which nothing was more desirable by him; nor in a representative sense, for this also he enjoyed in Christ his head, being risen with him, and in him, when he rose from the dead; but in a literal sense and designs not the general resurrection of the just and unjust, which he believed; for he knew that everyone must, and will attain to this, even Pharaoh, Judas, and the worst of men; but the special and particular resurrection of the righteous, the better resurrection, which will be first, and upon the personal coming of Christ, and by virtue of union to him, and in a glorious manner, and to everlasting life and happiness: and when the apostle says, "if by any means" he might attain to this, it is not to be understood as if he doubted of it, which would be inconsistent with his firm persuasion, that nothing should separate him from the love of God, and with his full assurance of faith, as to interest in Jesus Christ; but it denotes the difficulty of attaining it, since through various afflictions and great tribulations a believer must pass, before he comes to it; and also the apostle's earnest desire of it, and strenuous endeavour for it; not caring what scenes of trouble, or sea of sorrow what fiery trials, severe sufferings, or cruel death he went through, so be it he obtained as he believed he should, the glorious and better resurrection; he counted not his life dear to himself, he loved it not unto death, having in view the blissful and happy state after it.

Philippians 3 Gill's Exposition

 

[hedrick]

Hedrick, Old Testament saints were justified the same way New Testament saints were justified, by faith in God. In the new dispensation, this Messianic age where Christ already reigns as king through Word and Sacrament, that faith is best represented as faith in Christ. Old Testament saints were justified through the same merits of Christ, the same as New Testament saints.

Yes, that's the classic Reformed position. Calvin taught that there was a single covenant after the fall, the covenant of grace. Everything else was part of the unfolding of that covenant. Reformed Theology Is Covenant Theology by Richard Pratt Jr..

I agree with Wright that the covenant is critical. The prophets saw that as the basis of God's commitment to redeem his people.

Of course the OT also speaks of multiple covenants. There's a covenant with Noah and then with Abraham. Moses makes a covenant. Jeremiah talks about a new covenant. But the Reformed view would be that this is just the playing out of the covenant of grace, and that God's commitment to save his people remained constant throughout.

Perhaps this is an area that Reformed and Lutherans differ. We do not think of humanity's relationship to God primarily in terms of different covenants. The covenant given to the Jews was a pedagogue for living under grace, in preparation for the Messiah, it was not a plan of salvation. Indeed, this is more consonant with how many Jews think of their own relationship to Torah.

Are you confusing Reformed with dispensationalists? Just one covenant.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Yes, that's the classic Reformed position. Calvin taught that there was a single covenant after the fall, the covenant of grace. Everything else was part of the unfolding of that covenant. Reformed Theology Is Covenant Theology by Richard Pratt Jr..

I agree with Wright that the covenant is critical. The prophets saw that as the basis of God's commitment to redeem his people.

Of course the OT also speaks of multiple covenants. There's a covenant with Noah and then with Abraham. Moses makes a covenant. Jeremiah talks about a new covenant. But the Reformed view would be that this is just the playing out of the covenant of grace, and that God's commitment to save his people remained constant throughout.


Are you confusing Reformed with dispensationalists? Just one covenant.

As far as I know dispensationalists see the different covenants as changes in dispensations. Church age is grace.

 

[JIMINZ]

I honestly think that the best image to understand this with, from the human perspective, is the Parable of the Sower. The farmer scatters seed, the Word/grace, and we, the soil, react as we will, some seed not taking root, some taking root but later dying, some taking root and producing gobs of fruit. In this way we avoid putting the cart ahead of the horse, we don't profess to know what we can't know for sure, to decide with certainty who's saved and who isn't, how much or little our wills play; we let God sort all that out and judge accordingly. We're just expected to do the best we can with what we're given-and leave the rest to Him.

.
The Parable isn't about Salvation but the Kingdom

 

[JIMINZ]

Not knowing exactly your conclusions here, but if as in the parable there is only one seed that fell on good soil and produced fruit, what do believe happened to the others, were they ever saved? I will tell you my understanding on this parable, only the one that fell on good soil was converted and became a child of God. This is my point in one of my other post, can't remember which one right at this moment, nevertheless, God know who He gives the Holy Spirit to, and He only gives Him to the ones that come on His terms and when they are sealed, He will be transforming them into the image of His Son, Jesus. He declared that before the foundation of the world was laid. I posted those text and verses before. Too many people seem to believe that God sealed those who later apostasy, that would mean to me that He did not know that they were going to leave the faith, I don't believe that at all. Whom He seals is just as it says it scripture, unto the day of redemption. He is holding on to the saints not the other way around. Ps 37:23-24 The 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. Luke 22:31-32 And the Lord said, “Simon, Simon! Indeed, Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.” Always remembering, without Me(Jesus) you can do nothing. I will never leave you, nor forsake you.

.
The Parable isn't about Salvation but the Kingdom.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

As far as I know dispensationalists see the different covenants as changes in dispensations. Church age is grace.

Perhaps propitiation needs defining as to when the offering of the first fruits were accepted? But this is getting out of the context of the thread so I'll bow out.

 

[FireDragon76]

Of course the OT also speaks of multiple covenants. There's a covenant with Noah and then with Abraham. Moses makes a covenant. Jeremiah talks about a new covenant. But the Reformed view would be that this is just the playing out of the covenant of grace, and that God's commitment to save his people remained constant throughout.

I believe in Reformed theology, there is the concept of the Covenant of Works with Adam, before the Fall, where Adam theoretically earns eternal life through obedience. I don't know of any similar concept in Lutheran thought.

Are you confusing Reformed with dispensationalists? Just one covenant.

No, but not all uses of the word refer to dispensationalism. Even in the New Perspective, there is a movement into a new dispensation with the advent of Christ. It doesn't necessarily mark a change in the way God deal with humanity but it does mark a change in religious devotion.

I think its potentially confusing because some Christian groups use words in special ways, as jargon. I try to avoid that as much as possible. Dispensationalism is completely foreign to Lutheranism.

 

[iwbswiaihl2]

 

[hedrick]

I believe in Reformed theology, there is the concept of the Covenant of Works with Adam, before the Fall, where Adam theoretically earns eternal life through obedience. I don't know of any similar concept in Lutheran thought.

I don't use the term myself, partly because I don't think there was a literal Fall. But if you believe in a literal Fall, there was a change in our relationship. Adam and Eve would remain in their pre-fall perfection as long as they obeyed God's command not to eat of the tree. I don't think it's unreasonable to call that a covenant.

In traditional theology, the whole rest of the Bible deals with how God recovers from the Fall. He has a single plan that uses Israel as his agents, but was always intended to include all of humanity.

 

[FireDragon76]

meaning what?

Interpreting the Parable of the Sower as being about individual salvation is not necessarily the only possible interpretation.

 

[AFrazier]

Respectfully, it works both ways as perhaps - just perhaps, your doctrine might be incorrect. We are all but fallible creatures so you or I could be mistaken about something at any given time. Having said that how would you address my post #13 which differs from your view?

In the original response to another person on the same point as your post #13, I did acknowledge the scriptural necessity of obedience, repentance, and righteous living.

Your approach to it gives the impression that our righteousness is our own. We just need our nasty souls to be cleaned up a bit. And there's some viability to that idea. As John says in 1 John, we've all sinned, and if we are willing to confess our sins to God, he is faithful to forgive, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

However, while I do see a scriptural precedent for this concept, I think you're trying to take this one idea and run with it, allowing it to swallow up all other aspects, because the other version is likewise attested to in scripture, and it seems far more likely that Christ's righteousness is what cleans our own dirty souls. As 1 John also tells us, it's Christ blood that facilitates the cleansing.

So ultimately, we have all sinned. We confess that we have sinned. We believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of the living God. We believe that he died for our sins and rose again.

And by that faith, God grants us his grace and mercy, and cleanses our souls with the blood of Jesus Christ. Ergo, his righteousness is imputed to us, because it's his death that makes it possible to cleanse us at all. However, it is still our duty as Christians to repent, be righteous, be obedient, etc.

Not sure if I am answering the right question or not. But that's my answer.

 

[ladodgers6]

Both traditions accept the three uses of the Law, but Lutherans tend to emphasize its use in driving us to God's mercy, and Reformed are more willing to see it as restraint and a guide. As liberal Reformed I'd agree, but I would note that our use of Law is not the commandments read legally, but the Law as interpreted by Jesus in Mat. 5.

Both Luther and Calvin taught that the Law, drives sinners to Christ.

 

[FireDragon76]

Imputation really has very little to do with cleansing of souls per se. The reformers, in articulating this doctrine, were interesting in describing the legal status of sinners as offenders or criminals against God. How could they be justified, despite the fact that sin is an ever-present reality in our lives? The answer is that we have a status as both righteous and sinner at the same time. We sin, but because we are justified through faith, God does not reckon us as guilty.

The cleansing through blood is a cultic image, and while it is applicable to talking about Christ's atonement, it should not be confused with the imputation of an innocent status.

 

[FireDragon76]

Good soil wills rightly-and continues to.

How can soil will, when it is passive and inert?

Good soil does what good soil does, it lets somebody else come along and give it water and food.

 

[fhansen]

I already showed you Phil 1:6 being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ; and you are now telling me that by the third chapter he lost that confidence! Surely you don't believe that Why not show me the verse that said he had not obtained eternal life, my translation don't seem to have that verse, are you sure it said he had not obtained eternal life or did you insert that he had not obtained eternal life? Some saints may have considered, but I can assure you that millions and millions of them have not considered it at all. Neither does scripture, even John 3:16 which most know by heart say For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. The other parts that you state are your interpretation not mine nor what scripture teaches at all. 1 John3:1-3 Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God!Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. 2 Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. 3 And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure. Notice it says that everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure. You can have this hope, but if you don't, it doesn't nullify that millions of other saints aren't already rejoicing in it.

You keep going to your reasoning that saints must continue on in the faith, I agree with that and have not read anyone that would disagree with the perseverance of the saints.

Well, you can read the bible however you prefer, or however your favorite commentator/scholar prefers, but either way the consistent teaching of the Church east and west has been that salvation can be forfeited/lost, and must be striven for as per Phil 2:12. The work Christ has for us involves an easy yoke and a light burden but an obligation nonetheless. Christians have confidence, but not 100% certainty. One has to throw out half of the NT to believe otherwise.

 

[hedrick]

Christians have confidence, but not 100% certainty. One has to throw out half of the NT to believe otherwise.

We can have confidence in God, that he won't abandon us. The only way we lose out is if we reject him. It does happen.

One of Calvin's weakest sections is Institutes 3.24.7, which deals with this. He admits that there are people who to all appearances are elect, but fall away. He maintains that they never had the heartfelt confidence that the elect have. I don't think there's any evidence for that, and the Reformed tradition has never said that you have to be confident of your election in order to be saved.

 

[fhansen]

We can have confidence in God, that he won't abandon us. The only way we lose out is if we reject him. It does happen.

One of Calvin's weakest sections is Institutes 3.24.7, which deals with this. He admits that there are people who to all appearances are elect, but fall away. He maintains that they never had the heartfelt confidence that the elect have. I don't think there's any evidence for that, and the Reformed tradition has never said that you have to be confident of your election in order to be saved.

Yes, and it seems to me that Matt 25:31-46 and other passages make this point, that confidence is no guarantee of salvation, or lack of confidence a guarantee that one is not saved.

 

[JIMINZ]

Interpreting the Parable of the Sower as being about individual salvation is not necessarily the only possible interpretation.

.
The Parable of the Sower is most definitely not about Salvation, because it is only about the Kingdom of God.

 

[JIMINZ]

.
Do you only read the first part of the Parable and Interpret it to be about Salvation?

The Parable is only about the Kingdom of God, and more specifically it only relates to the Jews of that Generation, which Jesus was speaking to.

The Parable is recorded in.
Mat. 13:3-23
Mark 4:2-20
Luke 8:4-18

Read all three and then show me where Jesus was teaching on Salvation in Himself.