Double Imputation?

[iwbswiaihl2]

.
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.

Luke 8:9-15 Then His disciples asked Him, saying, “What does this parable mean?” 10 And He said, “To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is given in parables, that‘Seeing they may not see,And hearing they may not understand.’
11 “Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. 12 Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. 13 But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. 14 Now the ones that fell among thorns are those who, when they have heard, go out and are choked with cares, riches, and pleasures of life, and bring no fruit to maturity. 15 But the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience.

I highlighted the key words and wonder why I would think Jesus was teaching on Salvation. Let me see, the mysteries of the kingdom of God and the word being the seed and those that do not understand the word and be saved. It doesn't seem to difficult to see that point after reading it, does it?

Plus His answer to His disciples when asked this question: Luke 8:9-10
Then His disciples asked Him, saying, “What does this parable mean?”
10 And He said, “To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is given in parables, that‘Seeing they may not see,And hearing they may not understand.’ Who are the rest and who are the ones address, To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God. Did Jesus not say the kingdom of God is within you. Luke 17:20-21
And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God comes not with observation:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

You can tell that I don't share your view that the Kingdom of God is for the Jews who did not believe. Except a man be born again he cannot enter the kingdom of God does mean they cannot be saved apart from being born again, doesn't it?

 

[JIMINZ]

12 Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

.
So your argument is, Salvation was available to the Jews, through the Preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom by Jesus, and not by Belief in Jesus for the Forgiveness of sins, which wouldn't even become available to them until after He was Crucified?.....I'm not sure how that works.

Quick question.
What was it that the Messiah was to Do, or Bring to the Jewish Nation, what was it they were expecting?

1) The Kingdom?
2) Salvation through His death?

If they as a People had accepted Him as their Messiah, then both the Kingdom of God and THEIR Salvation would have been available to them.

Keep in mind, the Parable was about the Kingdom, not Salvation, Jesus said so in verses 9,10.

Luke 8:12
Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.

Luke 8:9,10
9) And his disciples asked him, saying, What might this parable be?
10) And he said, Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand.

Lest they should believe WHAT and be Saved?, Jesus' death for sin brings Salvation?

Jesus was only speaking to the Jewish People not the Gentiles.

Jesus Ministry was ONLY to the Jews.

Mat. 15:24
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

We, the Gentiles of the world only came to the place of Salvation because, the Jews Rejected their Messiah, and by His Death for sin we have Redemption in Christ.

Jesus said.

Mat. 24:14
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Mar. 14:9
Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.

Now go back through the Bible, and almost everywhere the word GOSPEL is used, read it with the understanding, it is speaking about the Gospel of the Kingdom of God, and not the Gospel of Salvation.

Here are a few examples of what Gospel was to be Preached.

Mar 16:15,16
15) And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Rom. 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

2Co. 10:14
For we stretch not ourselves beyond our measure, as though we reached not unto you: for we are come as far as to you also in preaching the gospel of Christ:

Again what was the Gospel of Christ?

Are you able to show, where the Gospel of Salvation is taught by anyone to be Preached?

 

[Oldmantook]

Half of what you say is what I am saying, for clarification I do mean that Christ's righteousness was imputed to every believer that was indeed born again and following conversion the scripture teach that we are His workmanship created in Christ Jesus unto good works. The saints can do nothing to add more righteousness that we get from the Lord because He has nothing within the Godhead that is not fully righteous. What we do is walk in His righteousness and that is demonstrated by a holy walk and obedience, of course saying that, a holy walk and obedience are probably the same thing. How would you say that a saint would be able to add something to the righteousness of Christ?

I do not think we add any righteousness to His, but I take it this way as in 1John2:29 If you know that He is righteous, you know that everyone who practices righteousness is born of Him.

So if your premise is correct, that Christ's righteousness is imparted to every born again believer and we need do nothing more to add to that, what becomes of the need to repent? No one walks in perfect obedience as we all sin, so when we do sin, do we need to confess/repent? Conversely if we don't repent, is Christ's righteousness still ours?
1 Jn 2:29 refers to practical righteousness - the way one practices righteousness in his/her life; i.e. obedience. It does not refer to positional righteousness so what this verse states is that our obedience - not imputed righteousness - is what assures us that we are born of him.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

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).

It's only a double imputation if you see sin and righteousness as both being positive things. When I say positive, I don't mean good. I mean that light is positive, while darkness is a negative thing. You can make a flashlight that shines light on a dark room, but you can't make a flashdark that showers darkness on a light room. Darkness is merely a lack of light and not a thing in itself. Hence, if righteousness is a positive thing, and if sin is merely a lack of righteousness, then what you're talking about is not so much a double imputation so much as it is a redundancy. If I pay you money, then my acceptance of the expense and your acceptance of the income do not make for two separate transactions. It's merely two sides of the same coin. Christ's imputation of righteousness to believers is the same as believers' imputation of sin to Christ. One positive thing plus its negative do not add up to two things.

 

[Oldmantook]

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.

Thanks for your response. My reply though which I'm sure you would agree with is that all scripture must be interpreted within it's proper context. So when we say the word "imputed", what does that really mean. One definition would be "reckoned as." So how is righteousness imputed or reckoned to us? When we take a look at Rom 4:5-8 we see that in context it references David's words in Ps 32:5 where he repents/confesses his sin. At that point he states that he receives God's forgiveness for his sin. So taken in context, David was reckoned as righteous upon his repentance. When seen in this light, we are reckoned as righteous not because Christ's righteousness was imputed to us but because we walk in obedience and when we do sin, like David, we need to repent.

I think 1 Jn 1:7 confirms the above. It is important to note that verse 7 contains the word "if" which makes this verse a conditional sentence. If we walk in the light is the condition necessary for the the cleansing blood of Jesus to be efficacious. Conversely, if we don't walk in the light no assurance can be had that Jesus' blood cleanses us from all sin. Instead, if we choose to walk in darkness we don't even have fellowship with God (v.6). So to summarize it appears that like David, believers are required to live obedient, repentant lives in order to have God's forgiveness. If Jesus' righteousness was imputed to us, then my thinking is that there would be no need to repent since we would have Jesus' righteousness and God would not see any sin in us. Anyway, just my thoughts.

 

[omega2xx]

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?

I don't see any Scripture that says our sins are imputed to Jesus. Jesus paying for our sins does not imply they had to be imputed to Him.

 

[hedrick]

I don't see any Scripture that says our sins are imputed to Jesus. Jesus paying for our sins does not imply they had to be imputed to Him.

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."

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."

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.

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.)

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

 

[AFrazier]

Thanks for your response. My reply though which I'm sure you would agree with is that all scripture must be interpreted within it's proper context. So when we say the word "imputed", what does that really mean. One definition would be "reckoned as." So how is righteousness imputed or reckoned to us? When we take a look at Rom 4:5-8 we see that in context it references David's words in Ps 32:5 where he repents/confesses his sin. At that point he states that he receives God's forgiveness for his sin. So taken in context, David was reckoned as righteous upon his repentance. When seen in this light, we are reckoned as righteous not because Christ's righteousness was imputed to us but because we walk in obedience and when we do sin, like David, we need to repent.

I think 1 Jn 1:7 confirms the above. It is important to note that verse 7 contains the word "if" which makes this verse a conditional sentence. If we walk in the light is the condition necessary for the the cleansing blood of Jesus to be efficacious. Conversely, if we don't walk in the light no assurance can be had that Jesus' blood cleanses us from all sin. Instead, if we choose to walk in darkness we don't even have fellowship with God (v.6). So to summarize it appears that like David, believers are required to live obedient, repentant lives in order to have God's forgiveness. If Jesus' righteousness was imputed to us, then my thinking is that there would be no need to repent since we would have Jesus' righteousness and God would not see any sin in us. Anyway, just my thoughts.

The only stick in that whole pile of mud (forgive the expression) is that the scriptures explicitly state that his righteousness is, in fact, imputed to us. So at the foundation, your argument is an argument against the plain statement of scripture.

When you say context, do understand that "impute" essentially means to accuse. Sin is not "imputed" where there is no law. His righteousness is "imputed" to us. What it means is that the righteousness of Christ is declared as ours.

Be mindful of the fact that obedience-based interpretations of this concept walk a very fine line on the edge of salvation by works. It is a free gift; viz. it is imputed to us. It is not by works of righteousness; viz. earned through works and obedience. Because our works are garbage in light of our sin, and our righteousness is as filthy rags.

BUT, this doesn't mean that obedience, righteousness, repentance, etc. are not required aspects of the Christian lifestyle.

 

[AFrazier]

I don't see any Scripture that says our sins are imputed to Jesus. Jesus paying for our sins does not imply they had to be imputed to Him.

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.

 

[AFrazier]

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

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."

This would make sense. Jesus is the Lamb of God, or more precisely with the genitive, God's Lamb. God bore our iniquity, and having done so, the sin had to be paid for. So Christ was sent as God's own lamb for a sin offering. Ergo, he was a ἁμαρτία.

 

[FireDragon76]

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."

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."

I believe this is correct. Jesus doesn't literally become sin or a sinner (indeed, in our tradition that is a condemned heresy taught by Matthias Flaccius), despite the fact some on the fringe of our church have tried to resurrect this notion that Jesus somehow commits his own personal sin on the Cross ("Eloi, eloi lema sabachthani")

Though it still doesn't overturn the theology of imputation altogether. In our tradition, Luther uses the image of marriage and a change of legal status associated with that. That is related to the concept of imputation, since in traditional marriage, what belongs to one person is reckoned to the other.

In using nuptial imagery, Luther was actually following a long line of ancient and medieval mystics which ultimately have their origin in the Bible itself (Luther was actually very much influenced by late medieval Germanic mysticism, especially the Dominican teacher Tauler). The forensic aspects of justification just flow out of that.

I believe Calvin likely had a similar understanding of imputation, though being a lawyer its understandable why he drew so heavily from legal imagery. Nuptial imagery has tended to become less part of western Christian theology and piety, perhaps due to the increase in rationalism in modern thought.

 

[iwbswiaihl2]

So if your premise is correct, that Christ's righteousness is imparted to every born again believer and we need do nothing more to add to that, what becomes of the need to repent? No one walks in perfect obedience as we all sin, so when we do sin, do we need to confess/repent? Conversely if we don't repent, is Christ's righteousness still ours?
1 Jn 2:29 refers to practical righteousness - the way one practices righteousness in his/her life; i.e. obedience. It does not refer to positional righteousness so what this verse states is that our obedience - not imputed righteousness - is what assures us that we are born of him.

First off, you added something I never posted, you added (and we need do nothing more to add to that) here is what I actually said: [The saints "can do nothing" to add more righteousness than we get from the Lord because He has nothing within the Godhead that is not fully righteous. What we do is walk in His righteousness and that is demonstrated by a holy walk and obedience, of course saying that, a holy walk and obedience are probably the same thing.

That verse in 1 John shows that one has been declared righteous by faith in Jesus and the walk is evidence of the Holy Spirit in that life to produce the good works just it says in Eph 2:8-10 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. As in every case, no one ever could answer a question or make a statement of truth if they have to insert every thing that has ever been declared about the walk of faith. My point was that a believer does nothing to add righteousness to themselves. All of our righteousness comes from being in Christ Jesus.

 

[Oldmantook]

The only stick in that whole pile of mud (forgive the expression) is that the scriptures explicitly state that his righteousness is, in fact, imputed to us. So at the foundation, your argument is an argument against the plain statement of scripture.

I demonstrated via Rom 4:5-8 and Ps 32 what imputed righteousness entails. 1 John 1:7 requires that one must be walking in the light in order for the cleansing blood of Jesus to be efficacious. I could cite still other verses which give evidence that our practical righteousness i.e., obedience and a repentant lifestyle reckons us as righteous. Since we know that Scripture does not contradict itself you would have to explain/reconcile these verses away in order to uphold your view.

When you say context, do understand that "impute" essentially means to accuse. Sin is not "imputed" where there is no law. His righteousness is "imputed" to us. What it means is that the righteousness of Christ is declared as ours.

You are choosing to understand impute via a judicial framework but the Greek word itself has a much broader context. As you can see it is not restricted to just "accuse."
Dictionary:
λογίζομαι
Greek transliteration:
logizomai
Simplified transliteration:
logizomai
Principal Parts:
(ἐλογιζόμην), -, ἐλογισάμην, -, -, ἐλογίσθην
Numbers
Strong's number:
3049
GK Number:
3357
Statistics
Frequency in New Testament:
40
Morphology of Biblical Greek Tag:
v-2a(1)
Gloss:
to credit, count, reckon; regard, think, consider
Definition:
(1) pr. to count, calculate; to count, enumerate, Mk. 15:28; Lk. 22:37; to set down as a matter of account, 1 Cor. 13:5; 2 Cor. 3:5; 12:6; to impute, Rom. 4:3; 2 Cor. 5:19; 2 Tim. 4:16; to account, Rom. 2:26; 8:36; εἰς οὐδὲν λογισθῆναι, to be set at nought, despised, Acts 19:27; to regard, deem, consider, Rom. 6:11; 14:14; 1 Cor. 4:1; 2 Cor. 10:2; Phil. 3:13; (2) to infer, conclude, presume, Rom. 2:3; 3:28; 8:18; 2 Cor. 10:2, 7, 11; Heb. 11:19; 1 Pet. 5:12; (3) to think upon, ponder, Phil. 4:8; absol. to reason, Mk. 11:31; 1 Cor. 13:11

Be mindful of the fact that obedience-based interpretations of this concept walk a very fine line on the edge of salvation by works. It is a free gift; viz. it is imputed to us. It is not by works of righteousness; viz. earned through works and obedience. Because our works are garbage in light of our sin, and our righteousness is as filthy rags.

I think you would agree that it is important to define what works means as the word is used in different contexts. There is works of the Law which do not save us. There are works of the flesh (sin/garbage) which of course do not save us. There are works done in our own strength/righteousness which do not save us. And then there are works done in conjunction with faith which give evidence our faith. These works of obedience to God are never condemned in Scripture - either in the OT or NT - and in fact we are created to do good works (Eph 2:10). The gospel message itself is not absent of works. If we allow the Apostle Paul to describe the gospel message that he himself preached we find this in Act 26:20 - "First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and then to the Gentiles, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and demonstrate their repentance by their deeds." Our good deeds/works are the outward evidence of our inner faith. That is why James wrote that we are justified by works and not by faith alone (Js 2:24) and that faith without works is dead (Js 2:17). Good works done in obedience to God are not optional in the life of the believer as they are requisite giving evidence of what it means to have genuine faith. Good works emanate from our faith. That is exactly why when Jesus judges the 7 churches in Revelation, he judges them by their works/deeds. Since Jesus judges the churches by their deeds, or lack thereof, should we not also judge ourselves by the same standard that Jesus uses? In judging the 7 churches, Jesus never once mentioned the imputing of his righteousness as a measure or qualification of our righteousness.

 

[Oldmantook]

First off, you added something I never posted, you added (and we need do nothing more to add to that) here is what I actually said: [The saints "can do nothing" to add more righteousness than we get from the Lord because He has nothing within the Godhead that is not fully righteous. What we do is walk in His righteousness and that is demonstrated by a holy walk and obedience, of course saying that, a holy walk and obedience are probably the same thing.

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. In Ps 32, David wrote that only when he repented and confessed his sin did God forgive him. That is why I asked you the question if we don't confess/repent, are we still considered righteous?

That verse in 1 John shows that one has been declared righteous by faith in Jesus and the walk is evidence of the Holy Spirit in that life to produce the good works just it says in Eph 2:8-10 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. As in every case, no one ever could answer a question or make a statement of truth if they have to insert every thing that has ever been declared about the walk of faith. My point was that a believer does nothing to add righteousness to themselves. All of our righteousness comes from being in Christ Jesus.

1 Jn 1:7 contains the word IF which indicates possibility - not certainty that a believer will walk in the light. A believer can instead choose to walk in darkness which in that case is he/she still righteous because of Christ's righteousness imputed to him/her? 1 Jn 1:6 states that such a believer who walks in darkness does not even have fellowship with God.

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?
Rom 8:1 states "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit." NKJV
Being in Christ Jesus is qualified by the stipulation that one must be walking according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh. It does not say that one is in Christ Jesus via the imputation of his righteousness. This is reinforced by v.4 which follows: "so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."
Again, no mention in this verse of the requirement of the Law being met by Jesus' righteousness being imputed to us. Instead this verse specifically states that our Spirit-led walk of obedience qualifies us as meeting the requirement of the Law. And again that is perfectly consistent with what the Apostle John wrote: "Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous."
John's writings are consistent with Paul's writings - no mention of Jesus' imputation of his righteousness to us making us righteous. Instead it is our obedience and a repentant lifestyle that qualifies us as righteous only made possible through the grace that is obtained through Jesus' atonement.

 

[iwbswiaihl2]

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. In Ps 32, David wrote that only when he repented and confessed his sin did God forgive him. That is why I asked you the question if we don't confess/repent, are we still considered righteous?


1 Jn 1:7 contains the word IF which indicates possibility - not certainty that a believer will walk in the light. A believer can instead choose to walk in darkness which in that case is he/she still righteous because of Christ's righteousness imputed to him/her? 1 Jn 1:6 states that such a believer who walks in darkness does not even have fellowship with God.

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?
Rom 8:1 states "There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit." NKJV
Being in Christ Jesus is qualified by the stipulation that one must be walking according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh. It does not say that one is in Christ Jesus via the imputation of his righteousness. This is reinforced by v.4 which follows: "so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."
Again, no mention in this verse of the requirement of the Law being met by Jesus' righteousness being imputed to us. Instead this verse specifically states that our Spirit-led walk of obedience qualifies us as meeting the requirement of the Law. And again that is perfectly consistent with what the Apostle John wrote: "Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous."
John's writings are consistent with Paul's writings - no mention of Jesus' imputation of his righteousness to us making us righteous. Instead it is our obedience and a repentant lifestyle that qualifies us as righteous only made possible through the grace that is obtained through Jesus' atonement.

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.

 

[JIMINZ]

.

Sin and Righteousness are NOT IMPUTED at all!

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

The word IMPUTE- -ED only relates to something 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.

We are MADE THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD IN HIM.
Not just that we are said to be the Righteousness of God THROUGH 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 New Creatures, Righteous.

While Imputation is something spoken, attributed, being made is a reality.

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.

We did not receive Jesus Righteousness, but Gods' Righteousness

 

[iwbswiaihl2]

So there's a difference in Jesus's righteousness and God's righteousness? What is the difference, since He is God? 2 Pet 1:1 Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

 

[AFrazier]

I demonstrated via Rom 4:5-8 and Ps 32 what imputed righteousness entails. 1 John 1:7 requires that one must be walking in the light in order for the cleansing blood of Jesus to be efficacious. I could cite still other verses which give evidence that our practical righteousness i.e., obedience and a repentant lifestyle reckons us as righteous. Since we know that Scripture does not contradict itself you would have to explain/reconcile these verses away in order to uphold your view.


You are choosing to understand impute via a judicial framework but the Greek word itself has a much broader context. As you can see it is not restricted to just "accuse."
Dictionary:
λογίζομαι
Greek transliteration:
logizomai
Simplified transliteration:
logizomai
Principal Parts:
(ἐλογιζόμην), -, ἐλογισάμην, -, -, ἐλογίσθην
Numbers
Strong's number:
3049
GK Number:
3357
Statistics
Frequency in New Testament:
40
Morphology of Biblical Greek Tag:
v-2a(1)
Gloss:
to credit, count, reckon; regard, think, consider
Definition:
(1) pr. to count, calculate; to count, enumerate, Mk. 15:28; Lk. 22:37; to set down as a matter of account, 1 Cor. 13:5; 2 Cor. 3:5; 12:6; to impute, Rom. 4:3; 2 Cor. 5:19; 2 Tim. 4:16; to account, Rom. 2:26; 8:36; εἰς οὐδὲν λογισθῆναι, to be set at nought, despised, Acts 19:27; to regard, deem, consider, Rom. 6:11; 14:14; 1 Cor. 4:1; 2 Cor. 10:2; Phil. 3:13; (2) to infer, conclude, presume, Rom. 2:3; 3:28; 8:18; 2 Cor. 10:2, 7, 11; Heb. 11:19; 1 Pet. 5:12; (3) to think upon, ponder, Phil. 4:8; absol. to reason, Mk. 11:31; 1 Cor. 13:11


I think you would agree that it is important to define what works means as the word is used in different contexts. There is works of the Law which do not save us. There are works of the flesh (sin/garbage) which of course do not save us. There are works done in our own strength/righteousness which do not save us. And then there are works done in conjunction with faith which give evidence our faith. These works of obedience to God are never condemned in Scripture - either in the OT or NT - and in fact we are created to do good works (Eph 2:10). The gospel message itself is not absent of works. If we allow the Apostle Paul to describe the gospel message that he himself preached we find this in Act 26:20 - "First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and then to the Gentiles, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and demonstrate their repentance by their deeds." Our good deeds/works are the outward evidence of our inner faith. That is why James wrote that we are justified by works and not by faith alone (Js 2:24) and that faith without works is dead (Js 2:17). Good works done in obedience to God are not optional in the life of the believer as they are requisite giving evidence of what it means to have genuine faith. Good works emanate from our faith. That is exactly why when Jesus judges the 7 churches in Revelation, he judges them by their works/deeds. Since Jesus judges the churches by their deeds, or lack thereof, should we not also judge ourselves by the same standard that Jesus uses? In judging the 7 churches, Jesus never once mentioned the imputing of his righteousness as a measure or qualification of our righteousness.

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.

 

[JIMINZ]

The righteousness of Christ is declared to our account.

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

 

[JIMINZ]

So there's a difference in Jesus's righteousness and God's righteousness? What is the difference, since He is God? 2 Pet 1:1 Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:

.
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?