IF imputed righteousness creates a righteous person in GOD's sight from a sinner then
the imputation of sin creates a sinful person from either an innocent or a righteous persons...
Keeping in mind that other than Jesus, there has
never been an "innocent or righteous person" on earth.
Moot point.
Since GOD has no need for sinfulness and HIS nature is loving, righteousness and just so HE would never choose to impute sinfulness to (or create sinfulness in) any innocent or righteous person as HE has no reason to do this to anyone let alone HIS Bride destined to be HIS spouse.
Agreed. . .God does not impute
sinfulness, he imputes
guilt, which Paul shows in
Romans 5:12-21.
There's a big difference between them.
OR, IF the imputation of righteousness to a sinner does NOT create the sinner as righteous since they are indeed still sinners in need of sanctification by the Spirit, then the imputation of righteousness in Christ is an acceptance of the sinner as righteous so that the Spirit is able to work with them unto their sanctification, not being able to abide evil people.
Which sanctification this side of glory is still not enough to make them
adequately righteous in God's eyes, hence the
imputation of
Christ's righteousness, the
only adequate righteousness in the eyes of God, and which additional sanctification is
not the source of their
guaranteed salvation,
only their
faith is.
This would mean that the imputation of sinfulness is not a creation of sinfulness in the person, that there is no change in the person's nature but only in HIS accepted status with GOD...
Does this definition of imputed sin sound any better? Not int the least!
Correct.
Because it's not
about creating
sinfulness in the person,
it's about making Adam's
guilt the
cause of the physical death of all mankind
(human and animal, whether unrighteous or righteous, which
no one is, or ever has been, other than Jesus).
IF HE cannot create evil (GOD is light and light cannot create the dark; GOD is love and love cannot create hate) then why would HE pretend some people are evil (treat them as evil when they are not evil) and visit upon them the consequences of evil, death and suffering as if their evil was in fact true??? !!!!
It's not about suffering, it's about the consequences of
physical death to all mankind.
Imputation of sinfulness is a terrible doctrine
Agreed. . .it's not about sinfulness, it's about
guilt.
when applied to those who have never made a free will decision to rebel against HIM or at least, HIS commands. "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter."
Adam was condemned to die. This judgement can only righteously be imputed to all his progeny if they are all already sinners, not innocents.
Adam's
guilt is imputed to all mankind so that none of his progeny can escape
physical death which is caused by breaking God's explicit commands, as did Adam.
This imputation of death to all in Adam
So you have no problem with God i
mputing death to all mankind, only with him
imputing guilt to justify their death, when there were no commands between Adam and Moses to
cause their deaths.
allowed Christ to die once for all sinners without having to die once for each sinner, that is, a billion times.
Nothing creates a necessity for Christ to die once for
each sinner, rather than dying once for
all sinners.
Moot point.
Imputation of the liability to judgement, yes. Imputation of sinfulness, no way!
Sinfulness is not being imputed, guilt is being imputed.
Paul presents
imputation of Adam's
guilt as the reason for the death of all mankind between Adam and Moses when there was no law to transgress and, therefore,
no sin--"they did not sin" (
Romans 5:14).
So. . .you say they died because Adam's
judgment (for
breaking God's command) was imputed to them who "
did not sin" (by breaking God's commands/laws because there was
no law to break), and
Paul says they died because Adam's
guilt was
imputed to them who
were not guilty of sin (by breaking God's commands/laws because there was no law to break).
I'm thinking Paul got it right for two reasons:
1 ) Imputed
righteousness is the counterpart of imputed
guilt, not the counterpart of imputed
judgment,
2) Paul received his revelation from Jesus Christ personally (
Galatians 1:11-12), having been caught up
to the third heaven, and even hearing inexpressible things man is not permitted to tell (
2 Corinthians 12:3-4).
I think we are actually in agreement when you understand I am
not talking about imputed
sinfulness, but imputed
guilt, they
not being the same thing, and Paul demonstrating imputed
guilt in
Romans 5:12-21.
Good for you!