Double Imputation?

[Oldmantook]

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.

You're exactly correct - no where in Ps 32 does it say anything at all about the righteousness of God being imputed to David. But that is exactly my point to you. I first referenced Rom 4:5 to you where it states "However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness." This verse is often used as a proof-text for the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer as it states that their faith is credited as righteousness. However this verse in context does not mean imputation of God's righteousness because verses 6-8 which follow, reference David's repentance of sin which then God credits to him as righteousness. Like you said, no mention of imputation; only David's repentance. Therefore Jesus/ righteousness is not imputed to us which makes us righteous as you claim. Rather like David, it is our repentance and turning away from sin which makes us righteous. And that is why I also quoted to you 1 Jn 3:7 "Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. It does not say whoever is imputed Christ's righteousness is righteous.

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.

So correct me if I'm wrong but your answer to my question is even when a believer refuses to repent of known sin, then he/she still retains the righteousness of God/Jesus correct? The Bible never states that we are forgiven of all of our sins which include future sins. The forgiveness of future sins is dependent on whether or not we repent. Rom 3:25 states "whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It is our former sins committed in the past that have been passed over and forgiven - no mention at all of any present or future sins being automatically forgiven. That makes sense as our present and future sins are first dependent on us seeking forgiveness and repentance in order to then be forgiven. No repentance = no forgiveness.

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?

Respectfully, no that is not right. You cite v.2 while completely neglecting v.4. V.2 states that we have been set free from the Law. V.4 explains how we are set free from the Law. Therefore v.2 must be interpreted in the context of what v.4 states. V.4 states "that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh. The requirement is that a believer must be walking according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh in order to be set free from the Law. If a believer instead chooses to not abide in Christ and instead lives according to the flesh, this verse indicates that he is not set free from the Law. Instead he is still under the law of sin and death which is why Paul in Rom 8:13 warned the brethren in Rome that IF they live according to the flesh, they will die.

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.

My answer is yes, that is right - David would have been lost had he not repented. Your reference to Heb 6 ironically supports my position instead of yours. The reason why it was/is impossible for these Hebrew believers to be renewed to repentance is found in v.6 - and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. Notice that these believers are still in the act/process of SINNING as exemplified by their ongoing actions. They are CRUCIFYING the Son of God and SUBJECTING him to public disgrace. They have not stopped sinning but instead continue to sin by crucifying the Son and subjecting him to disgrace. Thus it is impossible to renew them to repentance since it is quite obvious that they HAVE NOT REPENTED since they continue in their willful sinning. Conceivably, if they had stopped sinning against Christ and repented, God could have forgiven them and they could have been renewed to repentance however this verse simply states that they continued in unrepentant sin.

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.

Then by logical extension even if you or any other believer took the mark of the beast you would still be saved.

 

[Oldmantook]

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

You quote my reference to 1 Jn 1:6-7 but then you fail to explain what it means in order to reconcile it with your view. As we know all scripture must be reconciled to form one's doctrine since scripture cannot contradict scripture. 1 Jn 1:7 states that the condition of walking in the light is requisite to be cleansed of sin, yes or no? The word IF means that there is a possibility not certainty that a believer will walk in the light, yes or no? If the condition of walking in the light is not met, then does the believer still have the cleansing blood of Jesus applied to his sins according to 1 Jn 1:7?
Sin that is unrepented of separates the believer from God and if unrepented of results in spiritual death. Do you disagree with Rom 8:13? You neglect to notice that no condemnation is only promised to those believers who choose to live according the the Spirit. Romans 8 does conclude with a list of things that cannot separate us from the love of God however please note that no where in that entire list is sin ever mentioned because sin does indeed separate us from the love of God.

 

[iwbswiaihl2]

You're exactly correct - no where in Ps 32 does it say anything at all about the righteousness of God being imputed to David. But that is exactly my point to you. I first referenced Rom 4:5 to you where it states "However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness." This verse is often used as a proof-text for the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer as it states that their faith is credited as righteousness. However this verse in context does not mean imputation of God's righteousness because verses 6-8 which follow, reference David's repentance of sin which then God credits to him as righteousness. Like you said, no mention of imputation; only David's repentance. Therefore Jesus/ righteousness is not imputed to us which makes us righteous as you claim. Rather like David, it is our repentance and turning away from sin which makes us righteous. And that is why I also quoted to you 1 Jn 3:7 "Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous. It does not say whoever is imputed Christ's righteousness is righteous.


So correct me if I'm wrong but your answer to my question is even when a believer refuses to repent of known sin, then he/she still retains the righteousness of God/Jesus correct? The Bible never states that we are forgiven of all of our sins which include future sins. The forgiveness of future sins is dependent on whether or not we repent. Rom 3:25 states "whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It is our former sins committed in the past that have been passed over and forgiven - no mention at all of any present or future sins being automatically forgiven. That makes sense as our present and future sins are first dependent on us seeking forgiveness and repentance in order to then be forgiven. No repentance = no forgiveness.


Respectfully, no that is not right. You cite v.2 while completely neglecting v.4. V.2 states that we have been set free from the Law. V.4 explains how we are set free from the Law. Therefore v.2 must be interpreted in the context of what v.4 states. V.4 states "that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh. The requirement is that a believer must be walking according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh in order to be set free from the Law. If a believer instead chooses to not abide in Christ and instead lives according to the flesh, this verse indicates that he is not set free from the Law. Instead he is still under the law of sin and death which is why Paul in Rom 8:13 warned the brethren in Rome that IF they live according to the flesh, they will die.
My answer is yes, that is right - David would have been lost had he not repented. Your reference to Heb 6 ironically supports my position instead of yours. The reason why it was/is impossible for these Hebrew believers to be renewed to repentance is found in v.6 - and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace. Notice that these believers are still in the act/process of SINNING as exemplified by their ongoing actions. They are CRUCIFYING the Son of God and SUBJECTING him to public disgrace. They have not stopped sinning but instead continue to sin by crucifying the Son and subjecting him to disgrace. Thus it is impossible to renew them to repentance since it is quite obvious that they HAVE NOT REPENTED since they continue in their willful sinning. Conceivably, if they had stopped sinning against Christ and repented, God could have forgiven them and they could have been renewed to repentance however this verse simply states that they continued in unrepentant sin.
Then by logical extension even if you or any other believer took the mark of the beast you would still be saved.

Your suppositions of how one verse in context negate what the other verses are saying is why your conclusions are your own and not what the text is saying. You don't answer the questions as I ask but give answer to something you want to answer about your opinions. For instance, I asked you if David was lost because their was considerable time before he acknowledged his sins, according to your words, if he had not repented he would have been lost, tell me how many days does one get before being lost takes effect, that was the point of my question, you just answered if he hadn't repented he would have been lost. The point of the question was how long before the person does not confess is it before the lost stated takes effect? One day, one month, one year just how long does one get to confess, that was the point of using David. And in Romans 8 you read one verse that says if the believer walks in the Spirit he is saved and then conclude that if he sins and chooses to not abide he is lost but like David sometime down the road he confess he is saved, not lost. I can see why a person like that is so confused they don't know from one day to the next whether they are saved or lost. I sure am glad the Lord showed me that as long as I abide in Him He sealed me unto the day of redemption. I will let those that believe you do, think what they will, I will keep His trusting in His word. I see no sense in further replies seeing as how the context in a passage meaning nothings.

 

[JIMINZ]

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).

.
So, that's a no?

You know, as profoundly sure of your position as you sounded, I expected you to come up with some off the wall verse like you did with 2Pet. 1:1.

But I guess you can't huh?

 

[iwbswiaihl2]

.
So, that's a no?

You know, as profoundly sure of your position as you sounded, I expected you to come up with some off the wall verse like you did with 2Pet. 1:1.

But I guess you can't huh?

And from your reply I extrapolate that you cannot answer the simply question that I asked you about what righteousness that Jesus needed that He did not already have?

 

[hedrick]

I’ve been thinking a bit more about 2 Cor 5:21. It's relevant to this discussion since it's commonly cited as the most convincing evidence for double imputation. See e.g. the commentary from Calvin, which I quoted above.

I've reconsidered the explanation I gave before, after more investigation. That’s that “amartia” is used for “sin offering.” It’s suggested by Martin’s commentary, and a number of others, but in retrospect I’m not convinced. Furnish says “The subject (he) is God. Sin here cannot mean “sin offering” (see Lev 4:25, 29), as some have held, for that would import an idea foreign to this context; see discussions in Bachmann, 272; Plummer, 187; Hughes, 214–15.” I agree.

I have yet to see a completely convincing explanation. One thing is clear though, which is why it’s “sin” and not “sins.” Why would he not say that Christ took our sins? Paul, as well as other parts of the Bible sees sin as a power, not just as individual actions. In Rom 6 (Paul’s most detailed look at the atonement) we die to sin through Christ. Christ took from us sin as a controlling power, which goes beyond just being forgiven for sins.

On the second half, I think there’s a more convincing understanding. In this I’m going to follow N T Wright. Also Furnish and others. Why are we made God’s righteousness, rather than the more obvious made righteous? I suggest going back to one of Luther’s core realizations, that God’s righteousness is the righteousness with which he saves people. Speaking in more recent terms, it is his faithfulness to his covenant.

The whole context leading up to it is about our role (or Paul’s) as reconciling people. It makes sense, then, to see the climax in v 21 as saying that as a result of Christ dealing with our sin, we embody God’s commitment to reconcile the world. I.e. we are in fact God’s righteousness.

Wright translates 5:21: "The Messiah did not know sin, but God made him to be sin on our behalf, so that in him we might embody God’s faithfulness to the covenant."

 

[hedrick]

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.

This is an unhelpful response in a discussion of exegesis. While I don't think Paul is perfect, he is our earliest witness to the impact of Jesus' death and resurrection. Unfortunately, he doesn't say much about Jesus' life and teaching (though he alludes to his teachings a number of times), but we have the Gospels for that.

Christian theology (even liberal theology) sees Jesus not just as a teacher but as our risen Lord, so Paul is critical to it.

 

[AFrazier]

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.

If this is how you understood me, then you didn't read my post completely. It's going to remain an argument if you only read half of the response.

 

[fhansen]

From my understanding Christ's atonement won reconciliation between God and man, first of all with forgiveness, but also by the cleansing and the making of new creations of us. This reconciliation is not merely juridical, but real and personal, as it establishes communion/relationship between the individual and God, the relationship man was always meant to have with Him, the relationship, the union, that Jesus had with the Father in His human nature. He's the only begotten Son; we're the adopted children.

God's purpose in this is not merely to forgive and forget, but to help us be who we're intended to be, to help us to 'go, and sin no more'. We weren't created to sin after all; we just can't be righteous without Him. So a real righteousness, a real placing of His law in our minds and writing it on our hearts, is the order of the day in our being justified. Righteousness isn't merely imputed or declared; we aren't expected to remain "snow-covered dung heaps"; God wants more for and from us than that-for our own good.

The "righteousness of God" is the righteousness, the justice, that God intends man to have, the "natural law" as it's been called, as opposed to the "righteousness" of man, that which man operated on since the fall, doing what was right in his own eyes. Adam essentially overrode the righteousness God had instilled in Him, and lost or forfeited that righteousness as communion with God was severed as a result. Anyway, faith (something Adam failed at for all practical purposes), now reestablishes this relationship.

At the end of our days we must answer for what we did with the gifts given, beginning with faith. An imputed righteousness that means a merely declared one wouldn't suffice at that point; we're expected to actually be oriented towards righteousness within ourselves, choosing good over evil, and faith is the beginning of that rectitude, that right order of things. And God doesn't leave us there; He graces us with the gifts of more faith, and hope, and love and expects these to increase as we "invest" our gifts as per the Parable of the Talents. Only the holy, only the pure of heart, see God; only the pure of heart are capable of seeing Him. And to see Him is to be in heaven.

 

[Oldmantook]

Your suppositions of how one verse in context negate what the other verses are saying is why your conclusions are your own and not what the text is saying. You don't answer the questions as I ask but give answer to something you want to answer about your opinions. For instance, I asked you if David was lost because their was considerable time before he acknowledged his sins, according to your words, if he had not repented he would have been lost, tell me how many days does one get before being lost takes effect, that was the point of my question, you just answered if he hadn't repented he would have been lost. The point of the question was how long before the person does not confess is it before the lost stated takes effect? One day, one month, one year just how long does one get to confess, that was the point of using David. And in Romans 8 you read one verse that says if the believer walks in the Spirit he is saved and then conclude that if he sins and chooses to not abide he is lost but like David sometime down the road he confess he is saved, not lost. I can see why a person like that is so confused they don't know from one day to the next whether they are saved or lost. I sure am glad the Lord showed me that as long as I abide in Him He sealed me unto the day of redemption. I will let those that believe you do, think what they will, I will keep His trusting in His word. I see no sense in further replies seeing as how the context in a passage meaning nothings.

I wrote that David indeed would be lost if he did not repent as that was your question. If you wanted me to distinguish between habitual sin and occasional sin you should have asked as I'm unable to read your mind. I suggest you read the scriptures yourself for they warn about the PRACTICE of sin and living according to the flesh. You choose not to believe Paul's stern warning in Rom 8:13 and that is your prerogative. Would you really be confused if you practiced a sin knowingly? Would the habitual practice of such a sin be the obvious evidence that you have not repented since you keep doing it? You wouldn't be confused; instead as a believer you would be convicted by the Spirit knowing that you need to turn around and repent. Some Christians do; some Christians don't. Would Christ's supposed imputation of his righteousness to you or any other genuine believer still be credited to your account if you took the mark of the beast? That right there should give you an indication that your belief is incorrect.

 

[Oldmantook]

If this is how you understood me, then you didn't read my post completely. It's going to remain an argument if you only read half of the response.

I prefaced my reply with "if I understand you correctly." If I was wrong, is it not a simple matter for you to submit correction based on my misunderstanding?

 

[JIMINZ]

And from your reply I extrapolate that you cannot answer the simply question that I asked you about what righteousness that Jesus needed that He did not already have?

.
Well with you having that kind of an attitude, all I have to say to you is I asked you first.

 

[omega2xx]

This is an unhelpful response in a discussion of exegesis. While I don't think Paul is perfect, he is our earliest witness to the impact of Jesus' death and resurrection. Unfortunately, he doesn't say much about Jesus' life and teaching (though he alludes to his teachings a number of times), but we have the Gospels for that.

Christian theology (even liberal theology) sees Jesus not just as a teacher but as our risen Lord, so Paul is critical to it.

IMO it is always necessary to know one's theology when discussing theology.

Paul is not perfect but what is attributed to him is because "all Scripture is inspired by God."

We have the life and teaching of Jesus in the Gospels. We have all God knows we need.

 

[fhansen]

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.

The difference between good and poor human soil lies in the will.

 

[FireDragon76]

The difference between good and poor human soil lies in the will.

then why did Jesus use the metaphor of soil?

 

[fhansen]

then why did Jesus use the metaphor of soil?

Why not? Something makes the soil good or poor. And since He's speaking of hearers of the word (humans), he's definitely not speaking of varying combinations of sand, silt, and clay, differing levels of organic matter, N,P,K and other plant nutrients, or H2O.