Problems with Faith Alone Theology and the Double Imputation Theory.

[jacks]

Paul does state the Christian has righteousness apart from law ( rom3:21)

Does that indicate faith alone, or do you make a distinction between law and works?

I think this is a very good point. I believe Paul was talking about empty rituals and Jewish ceremonial laws of the time. As opposed to James or for that matter Matthew when he said ""Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Mathew 7:21 I believe Paul would have agreed with this; that is the Christian behavior is a necessary and inseparable part of Christian faith, but that is not what he is addressing in Romans.

I think it is worth reading all of Romans 3:19-31 to get a better understanding of Paul's view on "law" and "faith".
Here it is below for convenience.
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.
21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. 28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

 

[stuart lawrence]

I think this is a very good point. I believe Paul was talking about empty rituals and Jewish ceremonial laws of the time. As opposed to James or for that matter Matthew when he said ""Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Mathew 7:21 I believe Paul would have agreed with this; that is the Christian behavior is a necessary and inseparable part of Christian faith, but that is not what he is addressing in Romans.

I think it is worth reading all of Romans 3:19-31 to get a better understanding of Paul's view on "law" and "faith".
Here it is below for convenience.
19 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.
21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.27 Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of the law that requires faith. 28 For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30 since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. 31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

Thanks for putting those verses up, they are all underlined in my bible.
Imagine what Pauls readers would have thought. Here he is telling them they have no righteousness/justification of observing the law. They would have wondered if that meant they could live however they liked for they had a righteousness apart from obeying God's laws. Paul of course would have known some might think that. So I love the final verse to correct those under that impression:
Do we then nullify the law by this faith (a righteousness of faith in Christ not observing the law) Not at all, rather we uphold the law.

It would be some message wouldn't it.
Die to a law of righteousness, live by a righteousness of faith in Christ and you will uphold the law/sin shall not be your master (rom6:14)

 

[-57]

To keep from experiencing the scourging of God's love, which will be quite unpleasant while it lasts.

So, I'm in heaven...but getting punished? Where does the bible teach that?

 

[-57]

Nope. You cannot do that. You can't take a word used twice in a sentence and assign to it two entirely different meanings. Breaks all the rules of grammar. All means all.

Sure I can...It's in reference to the federal headship.

...Back to the rich man in hell. You failed to explain him away.

 

[-57]

Scourging, on the other hand, as understood by some of the Early Fathers of the Church such as St. Issac the Syrian, is the corrective punishment done to one to produce repentance and a change of heart and mind. It does not last forever, but only as long as needed for A.) justice to be served for sin and B.) restoration of the soul

Care to present scripture that supports that concept?

 

[-57]

Does it state how long the rich man cannot cross the gulf?

No. The parable lets us know that for the time being, there is a gulf between the rich man and Lazarus. There is no indication of how long that separation lasts. Don't read into the parable what is not there.

Oh, but you read into the parable the gulp can be closed...really?

Have you ever read John 3:16? It says some will not perish....which means some will perish.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm not a fan of scholastic theology, but here is a bit of food for thought, from the writings of St. Therese of Lisieux:

"At the close of life's evening I shall appear before Thee with empty hands, for I ask not, Lord, that Thou wouldst count my works...All our justice is tarnished in Thy sight. It is therefore my desire to be clothed with Thine own Justice and to receive from Thy Love the eternal possession of Thyself"

This does sound like the imputation of Christ's righteousness to me...

I think to really get the bottom of why Protestants confess justification by faith alone, we have to get beyond these sort of debates about biblical texts and delve into historical theology.

As LoE said, once you adopt a Latin view of salvation as a matter of merit, there are certain issues you have to deal with. Like how do you know you have enough merits to enter heaven? Especially when the loss of salvation looms so heavily? Well, a Protestant says, God gives the merits freely by applying Christ's merits to us. Not because he is blind to sin or sees us as something that we are not, but because he is merciful to sinners.

I would say that from the Lutheran perspective it is not true that salvation is merely forensic- we do not merely have an imputation of external righteousness but also an ontological union with Christ through his human nature. Nonetheless, we tend to take a more juridical approach as the default by talking about justification for pastoral reasons.

 

[david.d]

OP, what do you believe justifies us and why?

For the record, I believe we are justified by Christ's faith, so what do you believe?

 

[FireDragon76]

These documents/works might also be helpful:

Jordan Cooper's work on outlining the patristic roots of the Protestant doctrine of justification:

The Righteousness of One: An Evaluation of Early Patristic Soteriology in Light of the New Perspective on Paul: Jordan Cooper: 9781620327586: Amazon.com: Books

The Lutheran World Federation's Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification:
http://download.elca.org/ELCA Resource Repository/Joint_Declaration_On_The_Doctrine_Of_Justification.pdf

 

[FireDragon76]

Frankly, I think its a bit problematic for Catholics to accept Byzantine theology in their churches and yet be overly critical towards Lutheran and Reformed theology. I think the JDDF points the way to more fruitful dialog and greater unity.

 

[JohnMartin]

Question- if man is justified by faith alone, why doesn't any scripture text actually say that?

For the same reason that we know that Mary is the Queen of Heaven and Earth but the Scriptures do not say that either. There are places in the Scripture which speak clearly and then there are things that must be figured out by using analogy, context, metaphors, and other means. Quite frankly, I have come to understand what Luther was driving Luther crazy. Roman doctrine is more about earning heaven and getting legal "points" for forgiveness than it is about Christ's once-and-forever finished work and our walking in it by faith and working on our divinization in a spirit of love rather than fear of going to hell for some minor infraction of the rules.

You can claim faith alone is derived from the text, but faith alone does not justify in James 2:24. Hence justification by faith alone is simply not derivable from the scriptures.

Question- If man is justified by faith alone, does he lose justification when faith is lost? If so, the elect do not have faith in heaven so how are they justified?

This is typical Roman "law talk" which approaches salvation as an issue of keeping the law (justification and sanctification) rather than a covenantal view of having a relationship with God. Our relationship with God is a covenant union. It seems to me that the real question is this: how close, how united are you to Christ, who is our divine Bridegroom, not "how well have you kept the rules?" The Orthodox Church doesn't view things this way

Furthermore, Scripture indicates that Christ has saved all mankind, not just a certain class of "the elect" (Romans 5:18 and other verses). As such then, our relationship is what is important. We should be teaching people what this means, i.e., that if you do not enter into the fullness of that relationship in this life, you will suffer in the next life.

Faith turns into vision in heaven, hence there is no faith in heaven, yet those in heaven are justified. The problem remains.

Question- If man is justified by faith alone, when the doctrine of faith alone is only ever derived from a text, why not derive other doctrines such as saved by patience alone, or saved by hope alone, when patience and hope also exist within the scriptures in association with salvation? After all, if justification by faith alone is not explicit within the text, why not derive other doctrines and claim those doctrines are implied, just as faith alone is implied within other texts?

This is a goofy question and almost not worthy of an answer. Go back and read Romans a couple of times. The basis of Protestant heresy is the fact that "faith" is mentioned in Romans, and Luther took it to its logical conclusion Patience and hope are not mentioned, but faith is mentioned quite a bit in the Scriptures.

Not so goofy when Paul says a man is saved by hope in Rom 8:24.

Question- The reformers taught the gospel teaching on justification by faith alone was the gospel that was not taught by Rome, but was taught by the early Church. If this is so, why is there almost no evidence whatsoever in Church history for the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness by faith alone? If there is no evidence from history for the reformed doctrine, why then believe their claims about Rome's false teaching, when the witness of history is against the reformation.

That is the $64,000 question, isn't it? You are correct on this one. Of course, if Rome had not started teaching the Gospel as Law to be kept rather than medicine to be taken, there would have been no problem. That and the false doctrine of indulgences being used by Tetzel to build a basilica in Rome. People do get tired of being flimflammed after a while. Orthodoxy had its own problems, but they more revolved around understanding the Person of Christ.

Yes the reformed doctrine is an invention not founded in church history.

Question- If a man is justified by faith alone by the Father imputing the righteousness of Christ to the sinners account, why is one of the proof texts Romans 4:5-8 -

5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. 6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7 “Blessed are those whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the one whose sin the Lord will never count against them.”

Where Rom 4:7-8 cites Ps 32:1-2, where Ps 32:2 says the Lord does not count sins against them and in whose spirit is no deceit (and therefore no sin)?

Ps 32:2 Blessed is the one whose sin the LORD does not count against them and in whose spirit is no deceit.

Question - Does not, "no deceit" infer the sinner has been cleansed from sin within his soul and thereby is not counted as righteousness? Why then believe God forgives sin and declares a sinner righteous whilst remaining a sinner, when Rom 4 and Ps 32 both infer the declaration of righteousness follows upon, or conforms to the interior restoration of the sinner, via an interior righteousness rather than the reformed understanding of imputed righteousness?

"Imputed Righteousness" as understood by Reformed (and by extension, Evangelical) teachers is a TOTAL FARCE created out of thin air by an utter lack of proper interpretation of the Greek word "logizomai" in Romans. What they say it means - that God sees us as utterly worthless and therefore "imputes" Christ's righteousness to us - and what it actually means - that God sees our true condition and "counts what is really there" are two entirely different things.

Good answer. The problems with faith alone theology are innumerable.

The Double Imputation Theory.

Problem - The reformers taught the double imputation as the great exchange. Christ became as sin and was punished in our place, and we sinners receive Christ's righteousness by faith alone, by the imputation of Christ's righteousness to our account.

And such teaching is utter nonsense!!!! It comes from Calvin's distorted anthropology in which he declared that no man is righteous, which goes against dozens of Bible verses, and therefore must be given an "alien righteousness." It also shows a complete lack of understanding of God's covenant relationship to mankind. For all the brilliant the Calvinists fancy themselves to be, they are utterly obtuse when it comes to covenant matters.

Good answer.

There is no “transfer” of righteousness in salvation but rather a declaration that sinners are all that Christ is – not that sinners actually are all that Christ is.

The above quote has many problems with regard to the following -

I just did a quick word search on Blue Letter Bible Online. Nowhere does it say that Christ is "declared sin" or "declared a sinner." Those are good questions.

Question - why believe the reformers when 1) they have no authority, 2) have no foundation in church history, 3) have no basis for their beliefs in scripture, 4) have no logical arguments, 5) require that God be a sinner, 6) require that men are both sinners and righteous, 7) have opinions that mutually contradict each other and contradict other generations of Protestants?

Very good questions. Now let me ask you one - why believe in doctrines such as The Immaculate Conception, indulgences, Purgatory, and merit, that were not taught by the Early Church?

The claim that these doctrine are not in the early church is your claim which I am currently not privy to. Lets us say that your claim is true. Do you have access to all of the oral tradition in the church fathers, or some of it, or only a small amount of it, and how would you know? If we only have access to something less than all of oral tradition, then we can at least posit that such doctrines were believed in the early church, which in turn are consistent with those same (or perhaps developed doctrines) found in fathers in later centuries.

In addition, we can posit that the rudiments, or seeds of say the Immaculate conception are found in the scriptures and the church fathers, where they speak highly of Jesus as God, and Mary as the second Eve. These truths and other associated truths can be used to conclude that god has revealed Mary was conceived without sin. For example, as Eve was created without sin, Mary as the second Eve, is fittingly created without sin. Such an argument from fittingness would not of itself prove God had revealed the IC, but it does go some way to show Mary is fittingly entitled the IC.

The other doctrines are more easily proven from the nature of God, heaven and the nature of the moral act in man.

Purgatory is shown below -

Men are punished for sin with temporal punishments within the Mosaic covenant.
Hence God punishes sin with temporal punishment.
If there is insufficient punishment in this life, then temporal punishment continues into the next life.
Such temporal punishment is termed purgatory.

Merit is shown below -

Man has free will.
What is willed freely is will with merit grated to him who wills.
Hence man merits.
When man repents and believes, he does so freely and hence merits eternal life.

Indulgences.

Man can merit.
Christians are in the one body of Christ and therefor act for each other with regard to salvation.
Salvation is in accord with merit as shown above.
Hence Christians can merit for each other with regard to salvation.
Indulgences are then the merits of those in Christ given to others within the body of Christ.

Indulgences are granted by the church through the power of the keys.

There is simply no reason to believe anything they say, so why not abandon the reformation and seek for something more historical, more scriptural as found within an institution that actually makes a claim of authority and has the historical credentials to back those claims?

That would be the Holy Orthodox Church. Rome has added to the teachings of the Early Church. And while I'm at it, who gave Rome the right to change the Creed?

What are yo referring to here, the creed of Constantinople compared to Nicea? If so, the church has the power through the keys to change the creed to express the faith. The faith can be expressed in more than one way without error.

1) God’s law.....

What is that which we call "The Law of God?" I believe it is not a set of rules, per se, but rather a description of one single thing which is the very essence of God - God is love. Jesus said that love fulfills all the law. Paul said that the Law was given as a "schoolmaster." What did he mean? I think he meant that man, in his fallen state and darkness of mind, soul, and understanding, lost the ability to understand and know what love is. The Law is the teaching to mankind of what love is. There will be no Law in heaven - just the love that the Law stands for and represents. You Romans have made it into a set of rules to be followed and that was never the intent.

Excellent post overall, but as you see, I do have some points with which I question you (speaking from the Orthodox perspective).

Yes God's law does express God's love.

JM

 

[david.d]

I don't have a problem with other people having different views in their faith because I haven't always had the same views I have now, so I'm not attacking anyone's belief. That is my way of saying don't get offended by what I'm about to say The problem I see with that definition of purgatory is we are the body of Christ, who became sin, literally, not by word or symbol or thought or lie, but became sin to be a sacrifice that cleansed all sin. If we are the body of Christ then we have already paid the wages of sin by the faith of Christ. Not by our faith, but by his faith and his righteousness. He was imputed with righteousness from the Father for His faithfulness unto us, the body of Christ. We are therefore justified by faith alone, but it is the faith of Christ and not our faith, not our works, not our righteousness, but Christ alone. So my belief is the closest thing we have to purgatory is living in a body of flesh.

 

[redleghunter]

I'm not a fan of scholastic theology, but here is a bit of food for thought, from the writings of St. Therese of Lisieux:



This does sound like the imputation of Christ's righteousness to me...

I think to really get the bottom of why Protestants confess justification by faith alone, we have to get beyond these sort of debates about biblical texts and delve into historical theology.

As LoE said, once you adopt a Latin view of salvation as a matter of merit, there are certain issues you have to deal with. Like how do you know you have enough merits to enter heaven? Especially when the loss of salvation looms so heavily? Well, a Protestant says, God gives the merits freely by applying Christ's merits to us. Not because he is blind to sin or sees us as something that we are not, but because he is merciful to sinners.

I would say that from the Lutheran perspective it is not true that salvation is merely forensic- we do not merely have an imputation of external righteousness but also an ontological union with Christ through his human nature. Nonetheless, we tend to take a more juridical approach as the default by talking about justification for pastoral reasons.

Given your interest in historical theology. Reference

Marius Victorinus' Commentary on Galatians

 

[now faith]

Forgive me if this has been said already,but it is simple to understand.
Yes faith alone is our salvation.
Gods grace gives us the Freewill choice to accept Christ by faith or walk away.

Ephesians: 2. 8. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9. Not of works, lest any man should boast.

The gift is the unmerited favor of God,we accept by nothing else but faith not works or magic or any other predestined idea.
Free will constitutes faith to believe or faith not to believe.

 

[Steven Beck]

Problems/Questions with faith alone theology and it's accompanied theory of double imputation are presented below.

On Faith Alone

Question - If a man is justified by faith alone and the scriptures say man is justified by faith (Rom 3:28, 5:1, Gal 2:16), why then add in the word "alone", when the word "alone" does not exist within any scripture text in the context of justification by faith?


Question- if man is justified by faith alone, why doesn't any scripture text actually say that?

Answer - Protestants say faith alone to distinguish from Catholic Doctrine which required following Catholic Church teaching, traditions and men.
Joh 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God,
Joh 1:13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.
If you read this correctly 'alone' is imputed.

Question- If man is justified by faith alone, but the scriptures say man is justified by faith, what assurance does the interpreter of the scriptures have that works infer all human action other than faith? Why not infer only works within the Mosaic covenant, such as circumcision?

Answer - It says justifies by faith therefore any works will not save you.

Question- If man is justified by faith alone, does he lose justification when faith is lost? If so, the elect do not have faith in heaven so how are they justified?

Answer - If any person 'loses' faith then they never had faith in the first place.

Question- If man is justified by faith alone, when the doctrine of faith alone is only ever derived from a text, why not derive other doctrines such as saved by patience alone, or saved by hope alone, when patience and hope also exist within the scriptures in association with salvation? After all, if justification by faith alone is not explicit within the text, why not derive other doctrines and claim those doctrines are implied, just as faith alone is implied within other texts?

Answer - read above. John 1:12, John 3:16, Romans 10:9 and Eph 2:8
Rom 10:9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Rom 10:10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.
Rom 10:11 For the Scripture says, "Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame."

Unfortunately faith and justification is explicit. You need to read more scripture.

Question- The reformers taught the gospel teaching on justification by faith alone was the gospel that was not taught by Rome, but was taught by the early Church. If this is so, why is there almost no evidence whatsoever in Church history for the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness by faith alone? If there is no evidence from history for the reformed doctrine, why then believe their claims about Rome's false teaching, when the witness of history is against the reformation.

Answer - You do not have access to early church history so how would you know?


Question- If a man is justified by faith alone by the Father imputing the righteousness of Christ to the sinners account, why is one of the proof texts Romans 4:5-8 -

Answer - Why not?

5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. 6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7 “Blessed are those whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the one whose sin the Lord will never count against them.”


Where Rom 4:7-8 cites Ps 32:1-2, where Ps 32:2 says the Lord does not count sins against them and in whose spirit is no deceit (and therefore no sin)?


Ps 32:2 Blessed is the one whose sin the LORD does not count against them and in whose spirit is no deceit.

Answer - you words are full of confusion. "No deceit" does not mean no sin. No deceit means the person is honest in words. Read what Jesus says in Luke.
Luk 18:13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!'
Luk 18:14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted."
The tax collector was honest about his sin.

Question - Does not, "no deceit" infer the sinner has been cleansed from sin within his soul and thereby is not counted as righteousness? Why then believe God forgives sin and declares a sinner righteous whilst remaining a sinner, when Rom 4 and Ps 32 both infer the declaration of righteousness follows upon, or conforms to the interior restoration of the sinner, via an interior righteousness rather than the reformed understanding of imputed righteousness?

The Double Imputation Theory.

Problem - The reformers taught the double imputation as the great exchange. Christ became as sin and was punished in our place, and we sinners receive Christ's righteousness by faith alone, by the imputation of Christ's righteousness to our account.

As Richard Lints as the Andrew Mutch Distinguished Professor of Theology and Vice President for Academic Affairs, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, says -



There is no “transfer” of righteousness in salvation but rather a declaration that sinners are all that Christ is – not that sinners actually are all that Christ is.

The above quote has many problems with regard to the following -

1) Christ is “declared a sinner” at the cross. Who does the declaring and why? Is it the Father who does so? Why declare Christ a sinner anyway? After all, the Father is God and need not do this, for He could have chosen another way to have Christ suffer on the cross.

2) Christ is “declared a sinner” at the cross. If the Father does the declaring, the Father has made a false statement, causing the Father to sin. Christ is then dying on the cross to save the Father from His own sin. Such is impossible, for the Father cannot sin.

3) Christ is “declared a sinner” at the cross. If the Father has made a false statement, then Christ is involved in the Father acting to sin, making Christ's action on the cross an occasion of sin. Because Christ knew the Father would sin, Christ should not have died on the cross, contrary to the Father's will to save the Father from sinning to save men from sin.

4) Christ is “declared a sinner” at the cross. But this only means Christ is declared a sinner for the sins of those who have faith. For those who do not have faith, Christ is not their savior. Hence the Father only declares Christ a sinner for the sins of the faithful, but not for the sins of the unfaithful. Somehow the Father has decided to declare Christ a sinner for those being save, but not for those not being saved. Hence the Father must make the declaration and thereby sin for the elect, and not declare for the unsaved and thereby not sin for the non elect. So for anyone to go to heaven, the Father is their sinful father. For those who go to hell the Father is the sinner who has chosen not to declare and not sin, but in not declaring for them, has decided to abandon them. In abandoning them He has decided not to be a Father, and thereby sin against them. The convoluted outcomes of the Father imputing sin to Christ at the cross shows the Reformed doctrine to be false.

5) Sinners are declared righteous. Again, if the Father does the declaring of righteousness, then He is involved in a lie and becomes the sinner. The cross then becomes a series of logical problems that end up making God into a sinner who needs to be saved from the salvation process.

Question - why believe the reformers when 1) they have no authority, 2) have no foundation in church history, 3) have no basis for their beliefs in scripture, 4) have no logical arguments, 5) require that God be a sinner, 6) require that men are both sinners and righteous, 7) have opinions that mutually contradict each other and contradict other generations of Protestants?

There is simply no reason to believe anything they say, so why not abandon the reformation and seek for something more historical, more scriptural as found within an institution that actually makes a claim of authority and has the historical credentials to back those claims?

RC Sproul says quite candidly that the double imputation theory is both central to the reformation and is the gospel.



The problems with the above statement are manifold.“Our sin is imputed to Jesus” – infers God has imputed sin to Jesus. Because all three persons of the Trinity always act together, all three persons of the Trinity acted to impute Jesus with sin. All three know Jesus has no sin, but impute sin to Jesus. Of course if Jesus is God, then He cannot sin. Hence the imputation of sin is a legal fiction. The legal fiction makes the imputation process very problematic, for God is then being unjust to both Jesus who does not deserve the imputation, and God who imputes the sin is also having an act measured by the law of God, which in turn must accuse God Himself of acting contrary to the law.

Furthermore, the process of imputing sin to Jesus infers -

1) God’s law becomes the ultimate measure of God’s acts, which are known to be a fiction in the context of imputing sin to Jesus. Yet God is the ultimate measure of all and is not measured by any law. Therefore the theory of imputation of sin means God is both under the law and acts disconcordant to the law. Such actions by God make God into a creature, who acts under law and is judged by law.

2) God’s law becomes a strict measure of human sin against God’s uncompromising righteousness. But simultaneously God’s law is broken by the same righteous, uncompromising God, who makes a fictional legal judgement about the imputation of sin to Jesus, which is itself a breach of law. The intrinsic contradiction within the theory of double imputation invalidates the theory.

3) God’s imputation of sin to Jesus is required to explain why Jesus suffered on the cross. Jesus suffering is His part in removing the just condemnation of God against sinners. Hence suffering caused by men on Jesus removes the breaches of law over the elect. This process means suffering and death removes an imputation of sin to the sinner and places the imputation of righteousness to the sinner. So the application of suffering to Jesus is required to remove the imputation of sin to Jesus, yet there is no legal basis for suffering of one man (be Him the God-man as Jesus) that actually causes God to be moved to impute righteousness to another man. Therefore the theory is based upon a lack of supporting evidence from the law that suffering of another can cause the imputation of righteousness to another. Hence the double imputation theory is merely a fiction invented by the reformers.

4) The legal imputation of sin must be a lawful act by God, for God always acts lawfully. Yet the legal imputation of sin to one who has not sinned is to state with legal force that a someone has breached the law without having done so. Hence the legal imputation of sin to another, is unlawful and cannot be done by the biblical God. Hence the double imputation theory is merely a fiction invented by the reformers apart from the biblical God.

5) God has inverted the natural order of justice and legally imputed sin to one whom is most unworthy of such an act. As the inversion is against the nature of God, the double imputation theory is merely a fiction invented by the reformers apart from the biblical God.

6) The imputation of sin to Jesus is against the divine majesty, which requires that God as the best will always be known by God as the best. By God imputing sin to Jesus, God knows Jesus as something other than the best. Therefore because the double imputation theory is against the majesty of God, the theory is false.

7) The imputation of sin to Jesus causes God to be most unmerciful to Jesus and most merciful to those who do not deserve the mercy. The theory then requires that God’s justice and mercy is said to be consistent with His nature as righteous, but is also most capricious. Capricious for the most just receives the harshest punishment and the most unjust is not punished. The capricious nature of God required in the double imputation theory means the theory is a false theory.

8) God imputing sin to Jesus means God must have acted to impute sin for a time, and then stop imputing sin to Jesus at another time. Such an action by God, means God’s mind about who Jesus is, must have changed. Yet God’s mind never changes. Hence the double imputation theory means God must change His mind about what Jesus is (sinner or God), and is then a false theory.

9) The imputation of sin to Jesus within the theory, is an act of God promoted by those who constructed a systematic theology outside the biblical text. As the reformers acted to construct the new theology, they did so without any legitimate authority or mandate from God to do so. Hence the theory implies that because the Reformers taught the double imputation theory without any regard for divine authority, anyone can give assent or freely chose to dissent from the theory without fear of sinning against God. Yet the Reformers taught the double imputation theory was part of the Gospel. Hence due to the lack of authority associated with the theory, there is no reason to give assent to the theory as actually being the real gospel, other than merely the opinion of those who invented the theory, and those who freely chose to embrace the theory. As the theory is not contained within any divinely authoritative institution, the theory cannot be from God and is therefore most certainly not the gospel as its adherents claim it to be. Hence the double imputation theory is a false theory.

10) The imputation of sin to Jesus is contained within the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Hence faith is not only required to believe Jesus died and rose from the dead to take away men’s sins, but that also Jesus became as sin in our place. The reformed understanding of justification means faith requires men to not only believe Jesus died and rose from the dead, but that God imputed sin to Jesus as part of the cross-resurrection event. But to redefine the cross that requires an imputation of sin to Jesus means the reformers have redefined what it means to have saving faith. Saving faith is changed from the biblical faith in the God of love, who does not deceive, to the nominalist god of Calvin and Luther who require faith to be ordered to giving assent to their own invented theory and not what God has revealed about the redemption in divine revelation. Hence because the double imputation theory requires a false, redefinition of faith, the theory is itself false.

11) Imputation of sin to Jesus means God acts in a non-legal way to legally impute sin to one who does not have sin. Such a non-legal act by God is against the nature of the reformers god, who always acts righteously and therefore legally. Hence the double imputation theory is a false theory which requires God to act against the nature of God as taught by the reformers.

The process if imputing righteousness to sinners infers -

1) Righteousness could easily be infused into the sinner, making the sinner ontologically righteous, but God chose not to do so. As God always acts in the best way to manifest His perfections, the double imputation theory requires that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness must manifest God’s perfections. Yet God’s action requires that He call sinners righteous when they are sinners. Such an act means God’s acting in the manner of a legal fiction promotes the perfections of mercy and righteousness. Yet God’s declaration does neither. For God to act in accord with a legal fiction is to defect from perfection and resemble the imperfection of a sinful creature. Hence the double imputation theory requires that God imitate sinners and not act as the biblical God with divine perfection. Therefore the double imputation theory is false.

2) Biblically righteousness is said to be infused into the sinner as new life through regeneration (Titus 3:5) or law of the Spirit who gives life (Rom 8:2). Such action by God within men, brings about the life of God within men, to help them overcome sin. According to God’s action within men, they are made righteous (Rom 5:19) in the new Adam. The new life within men then makes the double imputation theory both 1) superfluous, for men are regenerated and God does not need to call sinner righteous, and 2) inconsistent with what God does. God makes men righteous and then calls them righteous in accord with His work within men. Hence the double imputation theory is a false theory.

3) Righteousness is imputed to sinners who according to Calvin and Luther did not have free will after the fall. As such, because men do not have free will, sin is not from men’s choice, but from men’s sin nature. Yet for sin to exist without free will is against the nature of sin, which implies a free act by the sinner, by which God then imputes the guilt of sin and the associated punishment. Therefore, for righteousness to be imputed to the sinner, the Calvinist/Lutheran version of what a sinner is, means sin is unjustly imputed to the sinner, who really has not control over his own actions and cannot ever act freely to sin. Therefore, because the double imputation theory requires a false understanding of the nature of sin, righteousness imputed to the sinner by God is both unnecessary and a false solution to a false problem. As such, the double imputation theory is a false theory.

4) Righteousness is imputed to sinners, whereby the sinner remains a sinner. Thus righteousness is only ever credited to an account and not infused within the sinner to make the sinner into a saint. Yet it is said that the sinner is fit for heaven, for the sinner has been saved from sin by Jesus within the double imputation theory. The justice the sinner has imputed is the same justice the sinner will have when he gets to heaven. Yet biblically nobody will ever see God unless he is holy. As such, righteousness in heaven cannot be an extrinsic righteousness imputed to the sinner, but must be a righteousness infused within the sinner, making the man into a holy saint, fit for entrance into heaven. The legal imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinners account only has any application if the sinner is infused with grace and the Holy Spirit. Yet such is the doctrine of infused righteousness of the Catholic Church, which was rejected by the Reformers. As such, the double imputation theory is inconsistent with the nature of heaven and therefore false.

5) Righteousness is imputed to sinners by faith alone, yet faith is never discussed as being perfect or imperfect, like the strict requirements of keeping the law. Hence within the double imputation theory, God requires perfection within the law, but nothing is said about the perfection or imperfection of faith, which could be quite imperfect, for the sinner remains a sinner and must always acts with an imperfect intention - as Calvin taught. Yet if faith is perfect, then men can do perfect acts pleasing to God, whilst remaining sinners. If imperfect, then imperfect human acts are pleasing to God, contrary to the requirements of the law as taught by Calvinism.

The nature of faith within the double imputation theory is contrary to the nature of all other human acts within the theory that are said to be as dung before the Holy God. Yet God is somehow satisfied with only faith, regardless of its imperfection. For it is well recorded in history that many Protestants had faith, then lost faith, inferring faith was at some time imperfect. So the double imputation theory teaches imperfect human acts are unlawful and therefore sinful, but permits imperfect human acts of faith which save, whilst God always requires perfection within the law. Evidently the double imputation theory is eclectic regarding the nature of human acts as imperfect which both cause condemnation and justification. Therefore the theory is false trough the fallacy of eclecticism.

Comment - The entire process of imputing sin to Jesus, imputing righteousness to sinners, all done by faith alone, to sinners who do not have free will is almost completely false. Perhaps the only two truths that are contained within the theory are Jesus died and rose from the dead. Even so, these two truths are contained within a theory that is so false, that the Jesus who died and rose from the dead, did so for false reasons, making the cross a fiction that achieved nothing.

Answer - your whole theory is built on false assumptions building on false assumptions. First of all you should read scripture not what a bunch of reformers said. Jesus was never a sinner therefore you saying he was a sinner is incorrect. To clarify a legal point this is what can happen legally. A judge sentences a man for say 10 lashes of whip for a certain crime. However the judge who is not guilty of the crime decides to have mercy on the man and takes the 10 lashes himself. That is legal in that someone had to pay the penalty for the crime and it doesn't necessarily have to be the criminal. This is what the Father and Jesus cooked up. The law says that the soul that sins must die and Jesus who did no sin dies in our place. Now your argument would be that one man can only pay one other man's crime however Paul explained that sin came by one man therefore one man can take it away. Read Romans 5. Satan has never complained that God's solution was illegal therefore you complaint is of no account.

JM

 

[lastofall]

[for me anyway] that is wherein the ruin lies, that many will add some word or words beyond that which is written, which is where exaggeration and over-estimation abides; instead of learning to not think above that which is written, which ought to be the standard for any professing Christian, that they may cast down any and all imaginations, and any and all things that exalt themselves above the knowledge of God, otherwise it is not possible to bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.

 

[Daniel9v9]

Some good questions and thought provoking comments.

Instead of addressing each point individually, I'd say:

1. Faith alone does not mean a mere historical knowledge of Jesus Christ, Christian doctrine or tradition. It's more than a simple acknowledgement that there is one God, for even demons believe, and shudder. Faith is a living faith, for it is being born again in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

2. Man adds nothing to his own salvation. It is God alone that saves, for there is no other name under heaven that saves, but the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. It's impossible to merit salvation, for it is a gift from God, lest anyone should boast.

3. Man cannot prepare himself for salvation, because he is dead in sin and entirely unable to quicken or prepare himself. Likewise, when being born again - who can cause himself to be born? For man this is impossible, but for God it is possible. If we say otherwise, then this becomes Palagianism or Semipalagianism.

3. Good works does not precede justification, but follows. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. In short, we don't create ourselves in God, but we are created in Christ.

4. Good works are commanded by God and we are to do them. We are created in Christ for good works. This is why any faith without good works is dead. Just as a good tree cannot bear bad fruit. But good works are the fruit of the Spirit, that follows only after regeneration. Apart from Christ we can do nothing.

 

[-57]

Perish how? Eternally?

Or could Jesus be looking forward to those who would perish mortally when Jerusalem was destroyed in AD 70. He warned quite a bit about this, especially in Matthew 23 and 24.

And as bonus question, is it God's will that all be saved?

If so, then can God make all His holy will come to pass or not?

So, what is it...all are saved or some? You seem to be some what wishy washy.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

true faith is a faith that works.

those who truly love Christ will follow His commandments.


one would have to spend a lot of time dealing with the errors presented in the "double imputation theory" refutation. i suffice it to say...that's a mighty fine straw-man you built there.

 

[dqhall]

Problems/Questions with faith alone theology and it's accompanied theory of double imputation are presented below.

On Faith Alone

Question - If a man is justified by faith alone and the scriptures say man is justified by faith (Rom 3:28, 5:1, Gal 2:16), why then add in the word "alone", when the word "alone" does not exist within any scripture text in the context of justification by faith?


Question- if man is justified by faith alone, why doesn't any scripture text actually say that?


Question- If man is justified by faith alone, but the scriptures say man is justified by faith, what assurance does the interpreter of the scriptures have that works infer all human action other than faith? Why not infer only works within the Mosaic covenant, such as circumcision?


Question- If man is justified by faith alone, does he lose justification when faith is lost? If so, the elect do not have faith in heaven so how are they justified?


Question- If man is justified by faith alone, when the doctrine of faith alone is only ever derived from a text, why not derive other doctrines such as saved by patience alone, or saved by hope alone, when patience and hope also exist within the scriptures in association with salvation? After all, if justification by faith alone is not explicit within the text, why not derive other doctrines and claim those doctrines are implied, just as faith alone is implied within other texts?


Question- The reformers taught the gospel teaching on justification by faith alone was the gospel that was not taught by Rome, but was taught by the early Church. If this is so, why is there almost no evidence whatsoever in Church history for the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness by faith alone? If there is no evidence from history for the reformed doctrine, why then believe their claims about Rome's false teaching, when the witness of history is against the reformation.


Question- If a man is justified by faith alone by the Father imputing the righteousness of Christ to the sinners account, why is one of the proof texts Romans 4:5-8 -


5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness. 6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the one to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7 “Blessed are those whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the one whose sin the Lord will never count against them.”


Where Rom 4:7-8 cites Ps 32:1-2, where Ps 32:2 says the Lord does not count sins against them and in whose spirit is no deceit (and therefore no sin)?


Ps 32:2 Blessed is the one whose sin the LORD does not count against them and in whose spirit is no deceit.


Question - Does not, "no deceit" infer the sinner has been cleansed from sin within his soul and thereby is not counted as righteousness? Why then believe God forgives sin and declares a sinner righteous whilst remaining a sinner, when Rom 4 and Ps 32 both infer the declaration of righteousness follows upon, or conforms to the interior restoration of the sinner, via an interior righteousness rather than the reformed understanding of imputed righteousness?

The Double Imputation Theory.

Problem - The reformers taught the double imputation as the great exchange. Christ became as sin and was punished in our place, and we sinners receive Christ's righteousness by faith alone, by the imputation of Christ's righteousness to our account.

As Richard Lints as the Andrew Mutch Distinguished Professor of Theology and Vice President for Academic Affairs, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, says -



There is no “transfer” of righteousness in salvation but rather a declaration that sinners are all that Christ is – not that sinners actually are all that Christ is.

The above quote has many problems with regard to the following -

1) Christ is “declared a sinner” at the cross. Who does the declaring and why? Is it the Father who does so? Why declare Christ a sinner anyway? After all, the Father is God and need not do this, for He could have chosen another way to have Christ suffer on the cross.

2) Christ is “declared a sinner” at the cross. If the Father does the declaring, the Father has made a false statement, causing the Father to sin. Christ is then dying on the cross to save the Father from His own sin. Such is impossible, for the Father cannot sin.

3) Christ is “declared a sinner” at the cross. If the Father has made a false statement, then Christ is involved in the Father acting to sin, making Christ's action on the cross an occasion of sin. Because Christ knew the Father would sin, Christ should not have died on the cross, contrary to the Father's will to save the Father from sinning to save men from sin.

4) Christ is “declared a sinner” at the cross. But this only means Christ is declared a sinner for the sins of those who have faith. For those who do not have faith, Christ is not their savior. Hence the Father only declares Christ a sinner for the sins of the faithful, but not for the sins of the unfaithful. Somehow the Father has decided to declare Christ a sinner for those being save, but not for those not being saved. Hence the Father must make the declaration and thereby sin for the elect, and not declare for the unsaved and thereby not sin for the non elect. So for anyone to go to heaven, the Father is their sinful father. For those who go to hell the Father is the sinner who has chosen not to declare and not sin, but in not declaring for them, has decided to abandon them. In abandoning them He has decided not to be a Father, and thereby sin against them. The convoluted outcomes of the Father imputing sin to Christ at the cross shows the Reformed doctrine to be false.

5) Sinners are declared righteous. Again, if the Father does the declaring of righteousness, then He is involved in a lie and becomes the sinner. The cross then becomes a series of logical problems that end up making God into a sinner who needs to be saved from the salvation process.

Question - why believe the reformers when 1) they have no authority, 2) have no foundation in church history, 3) have no basis for their beliefs in scripture, 4) have no logical arguments, 5) require that God be a sinner, 6) require that men are both sinners and righteous, 7) have opinions that mutually contradict each other and contradict other generations of Protestants?

There is simply no reason to believe anything they say, so why not abandon the reformation and seek for something more historical, more scriptural as found within an institution that actually makes a claim of authority and has the historical credentials to back those claims?

RC Sproul says quite candidly that the double imputation theory is both central to the reformation and is the gospel.



The problems with the above statement are manifold.“Our sin is imputed to Jesus” – infers God has imputed sin to Jesus. Because all three persons of the Trinity always act together, all three persons of the Trinity acted to impute Jesus with sin. All three know Jesus has no sin, but impute sin to Jesus. Of course if Jesus is God, then He cannot sin. Hence the imputation of sin is a legal fiction. The legal fiction makes the imputation process very problematic, for God is then being unjust to both Jesus who does not deserve the imputation, and God who imputes the sin is also having an act measured by the law of God, which in turn must accuse God Himself of acting contrary to the law.

Furthermore, the process of imputing sin to Jesus infers -

1) God’s law becomes the ultimate measure of God’s acts, which are known to be a fiction in the context of imputing sin to Jesus. Yet God is the ultimate measure of all and is not measured by any law. Therefore the theory of imputation of sin means God is both under the law and acts disconcordant to the law. Such actions by God make God into a creature, who acts under law and is judged by law.

2) God’s law becomes a strict measure of human sin against God’s uncompromising righteousness. But simultaneously God’s law is broken by the same righteous, uncompromising God, who makes a fictional legal judgement about the imputation of sin to Jesus, which is itself a breach of law. The intrinsic contradiction within the theory of double imputation invalidates the theory.

3) God’s imputation of sin to Jesus is required to explain why Jesus suffered on the cross. Jesus suffering is His part in removing the just condemnation of God against sinners. Hence suffering caused by men on Jesus removes the breaches of law over the elect. This process means suffering and death removes an imputation of sin to the sinner and places the imputation of righteousness to the sinner. So the application of suffering to Jesus is required to remove the imputation of sin to Jesus, yet there is no legal basis for suffering of one man (be Him the God-man as Jesus) that actually causes God to be moved to impute righteousness to another man. Therefore the theory is based upon a lack of supporting evidence from the law that suffering of another can cause the imputation of righteousness to another. Hence the double imputation theory is merely a fiction invented by the reformers.

4) The legal imputation of sin must be a lawful act by God, for God always acts lawfully. Yet the legal imputation of sin to one who has not sinned is to state with legal force that a someone has breached the law without having done so. Hence the legal imputation of sin to another, is unlawful and cannot be done by the biblical God. Hence the double imputation theory is merely a fiction invented by the reformers apart from the biblical God.

5) God has inverted the natural order of justice and legally imputed sin to one whom is most unworthy of such an act. As the inversion is against the nature of God, the double imputation theory is merely a fiction invented by the reformers apart from the biblical God.

6) The imputation of sin to Jesus is against the divine majesty, which requires that God as the best will always be known by God as the best. By God imputing sin to Jesus, God knows Jesus as something other than the best. Therefore because the double imputation theory is against the majesty of God, the theory is false.

7) The imputation of sin to Jesus causes God to be most unmerciful to Jesus and most merciful to those who do not deserve the mercy. The theory then requires that God’s justice and mercy is said to be consistent with His nature as righteous, but is also most capricious. Capricious for the most just receives the harshest punishment and the most unjust is not punished. The capricious nature of God required in the double imputation theory means the theory is a false theory.

8) God imputing sin to Jesus means God must have acted to impute sin for a time, and then stop imputing sin to Jesus at another time. Such an action by God, means God’s mind about who Jesus is, must have changed. Yet God’s mind never changes. Hence the double imputation theory means God must change His mind about what Jesus is (sinner or God), and is then a false theory.

9) The imputation of sin to Jesus within the theory, is an act of God promoted by those who constructed a systematic theology outside the biblical text. As the reformers acted to construct the new theology, they did so without any legitimate authority or mandate from God to do so. Hence the theory implies that because the Reformers taught the double imputation theory without any regard for divine authority, anyone can give assent or freely chose to dissent from the theory without fear of sinning against God. Yet the Reformers taught the double imputation theory was part of the Gospel. Hence due to the lack of authority associated with the theory, there is no reason to give assent to the theory as actually being the real gospel, other than merely the opinion of those who invented the theory, and those who freely chose to embrace the theory. As the theory is not contained within any divinely authoritative institution, the theory cannot be from God and is therefore most certainly not the gospel as its adherents claim it to be. Hence the double imputation theory is a false theory.

10) The imputation of sin to Jesus is contained within the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Hence faith is not only required to believe Jesus died and rose from the dead to take away men’s sins, but that also Jesus became as sin in our place. The reformed understanding of justification means faith requires men to not only believe Jesus died and rose from the dead, but that God imputed sin to Jesus as part of the cross-resurrection event. But to redefine the cross that requires an imputation of sin to Jesus means the reformers have redefined what it means to have saving faith. Saving faith is changed from the biblical faith in the God of love, who does not deceive, to the nominalist god of Calvin and Luther who require faith to be ordered to giving assent to their own invented theory and not what God has revealed about the redemption in divine revelation. Hence because the double imputation theory requires a false, redefinition of faith, the theory is itself false.

11) Imputation of sin to Jesus means God acts in a non-legal way to legally impute sin to one who does not have sin. Such a non-legal act by God is against the nature of the reformers god, who always acts righteously and therefore legally. Hence the double imputation theory is a false theory which requires God to act against the nature of God as taught by the reformers.

The process if imputing righteousness to sinners infers -

1) Righteousness could easily be infused into the sinner, making the sinner ontologically righteous, but God chose not to do so. As God always acts in the best way to manifest His perfections, the double imputation theory requires that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness must manifest God’s perfections. Yet God’s action requires that He call sinners righteous when they are sinners. Such an act means God’s acting in the manner of a legal fiction promotes the perfections of mercy and righteousness. Yet God’s declaration does neither. For God to act in accord with a legal fiction is to defect from perfection and resemble the imperfection of a sinful creature. Hence the double imputation theory requires that God imitate sinners and not act as the biblical God with divine perfection. Therefore the double imputation theory is false.

2) Biblically righteousness is said to be infused into the sinner as new life through regeneration (Titus 3:5) or law of the Spirit who gives life (Rom 8:2). Such action by God within men, brings about the life of God within men, to help them overcome sin. According to God’s action within men, they are made righteous (Rom 5:19) in the new Adam. The new life within men then makes the double imputation theory both 1) superfluous, for men are regenerated and God does not need to call sinner righteous, and 2) inconsistent with what God does. God makes men righteous and then calls them righteous in accord with His work within men. Hence the double imputation theory is a false theory.

3) Righteousness is imputed to sinners who according to Calvin and Luther did not have free will after the fall. As such, because men do not have free will, sin is not from men’s choice, but from men’s sin nature. Yet for sin to exist without free will is against the nature of sin, which implies a free act by the sinner, by which God then imputes the guilt of sin and the associated punishment. Therefore, for righteousness to be imputed to the sinner, the Calvinist/Lutheran version of what a sinner is, means sin is unjustly imputed to the sinner, who really has not control over his own actions and cannot ever act freely to sin. Therefore, because the double imputation theory requires a false understanding of the nature of sin, righteousness imputed to the sinner by God is both unnecessary and a false solution to a false problem. As such, the double imputation theory is a false theory.

4) Righteousness is imputed to sinners, whereby the sinner remains a sinner. Thus righteousness is only ever credited to an account and not infused within the sinner to make the sinner into a saint. Yet it is said that the sinner is fit for heaven, for the sinner has been saved from sin by Jesus within the double imputation theory. The justice the sinner has imputed is the same justice the sinner will have when he gets to heaven. Yet biblically nobody will ever see God unless he is holy. As such, righteousness in heaven cannot be an extrinsic righteousness imputed to the sinner, but must be a righteousness infused within the sinner, making the man into a holy saint, fit for entrance into heaven. The legal imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinners account only has any application if the sinner is infused with grace and the Holy Spirit. Yet such is the doctrine of infused righteousness of the Catholic Church, which was rejected by the Reformers. As such, the double imputation theory is inconsistent with the nature of heaven and therefore false.

5) Righteousness is imputed to sinners by faith alone, yet faith is never discussed as being perfect or imperfect, like the strict requirements of keeping the law. Hence within the double imputation theory, God requires perfection within the law, but nothing is said about the perfection or imperfection of faith, which could be quite imperfect, for the sinner remains a sinner and must always acts with an imperfect intention - as Calvin taught. Yet if faith is perfect, then men can do perfect acts pleasing to God, whilst remaining sinners. If imperfect, then imperfect human acts are pleasing to God, contrary to the requirements of the law as taught by Calvinism.

The nature of faith within the double imputation theory is contrary to the nature of all other human acts within the theory that are said to be as dung before the Holy God. Yet God is somehow satisfied with only faith, regardless of its imperfection. For it is well recorded in history that many Protestants had faith, then lost faith, inferring faith was at some time imperfect. So the double imputation theory teaches imperfect human acts are unlawful and therefore sinful, but permits imperfect human acts of faith which save, whilst God always requires perfection within the law. Evidently the double imputation theory is eclectic regarding the nature of human acts as imperfect which both cause condemnation and justification. Therefore the theory is false trough the fallacy of eclecticism.

Comment - The entire process of imputing sin to Jesus, imputing righteousness to sinners, all done by faith alone, to sinners who do not have free will is almost completely false. Perhaps the only two truths that are contained within the theory are Jesus died and rose from the dead. Even so, these two truths are contained within a theory that is so false, that the Jesus who died and rose from the dead, did so for false reasons, making the cross a fiction that achieved nothing.

JM

I would not stay in a church where Christ is called a sinner. The Gospel of John is clear about Jesus being the manifestation of God's teachings on earth.

If a man is faithful to his wife, he does not commit adultery or other serious transgression. This faithfulness saves their relationship. Faith is not lawlessness, nor unnecessary or corrupt regulation. Going to Mass or Church Service alone is not proof of faith. God alone judges who is faithful.