question of imputation

[RandyPNW]

Sorry for jumping in late on this, for I do like the topic and read most of this thread, which is a huge topic bringing in many different doctrines.

I really do not know where to start with you on this topic, for I take it much further than you.

You do good to realize: “The sin of Adam was not imputed to us”, but what did happen is where I will begin with mostly questions:

1) Would it be fair/just of God to provide Adam and Eve with a better “nature”, than you and I have?
2) Why would our “nature” have to change from Adam and Eve’s nature, if they sinned with only one way to sin and we have (with knowledge/our conscience) of “Good and Evil” having tons of ways to sin?
3) Is “knowledge” bad in and of itself?
4) What was Adam and Eve’s unspoken objective, and do we not have that same objective?
5_ Was and is “never ever sinning” the objective and was that ever possible for Adam and Eve or us today?
6) What did Adam and Eve lack in the Garden which God could not give to them?
7)What wonderful lessons can we learn from Adam and Eve’s Garden experience, which we need to know? Was the Garden a lousy place for anyone to fulfill their objective, might be nice to know?
8) Knowledge of Good and Evil is written on every mature adult’s heart (conscience), so we do have tons of ways to sin, but is that bad and is there a purpose for sin?
9) Yes, physical and Spiritual death came with sin, so we experience a strong need for forgiveness, but is that not good for the unbeliever?
10) If Adam’s sin is not imputed to us, then could we also be wrong about Christ’s righteousness being imputed to us?

Hi Bling, you have lots of good, thoughtful questions. I do have some answers, and I will try them out on you. I have taken liberties by inserting numbers in place of the "bullets" to make it easier for me to answer.

1) Not only is it "fair" for God to give us new natures--He already does this, when we not just respond to His Word, but also fully commit to it. We are embracing not just obedience, but a New Nature when we *completelly change* our orientation from selfishness and independence to partnership with dependency.

2) It doesn't matter how many ways we have to sin. It was just one sin that established our independence from God's Word. That's what changed our nature from dependence to independence. God conceded our right to be independent, and the 1st act in this changed our own nature.

3) No, knowledge itself is not bad. It was Adam and Eve's determination to violate God's strict rules that created our sin. If God had allowed Man to have the knowledge of good and evil there would've been no violation. But God set it up as a test to see if Man would choose judgment apart from God's mandate.

4) The objective in violating God's mandate is independent judgment, to be a kind of one's own god.

5) "Never ending Sin" is what the Lost do. They choose to exercise independent judgment from God forever.

6) To say God cannot do something is to question His omnipotence or to create a logical absurdity. God cannot violate His own Word. If such a course of action is hypothetically appliled, God cannot supply that. For example, God cannot provide a mandate to sin against Himself to Adam and Eve.

7) Eden is a wonderful lesson in God's kindness and bounty. His nature is viewed as "good" from His overwhelming generosity in providing for a happy environment.

8) It is bad not in coming to know what evil is but rather, to use that knowledge to participate in it. Adam and Eve wanted to know evil by doing it, ie by rebelling against God's Word. And God's Word had mandated that they not come to know evil via rebellion.

Man could've come to know what evil is by another route, which is not mentioned. That is, they did not have to get their knowledge of evil from that particular tree, where Satan hung out. They were choosing not just a tree but a place that God considered dangerous, perhaps because of who was there (Satan).

9) Believers and unbelievers alike want forgiveness, whether they know God or not. But unbelievers may want forgiveness in the wrong way. They may want their rebellion sanctioned and okayed, and God will not forgive by that means, since it it a choice to remain in the original sin.

10) I don't believe either Sin or Righteousness is "imputed" to us--the word itself is too abstract for me. I know what people are trying to say, feeling that God must see something good in us in order to save us. Since there is nothing good in us that actually gets us saved, we are viewed as the recipients of imputation.

For me, what people mean by "imputation" can be better said in the word "forgiveness." We are viewed as restored by looking only at our compliance with God's Word, God forgiving the part where we don't comply with it. When we accept that it is wrong to rebel against God's Word, God chooses to treat us as if we had never sinned in the 1st place. Forgiveness--not imputation.

 

[bling]

Hi Bling, you have lots of good, thoughtful questions. I do have some answers, and I will try them out on you. I have taken liberties by inserting numbers in place of the "bullets" to make it easier for me to answer.

1) Not only is it "fair" for God to give us new natures--He already does this, when we not just respond to His Word, but also fully commit to it. We are embracing not just obedience, but a New Nature when we *completelly change* our orientation from selfishness and independence to partnership with dependency.

First off: I am not talking about being given the blessing which come from accepting God’s Love compared to those who have not accepted God’s Love. I am talking about every mature adult prior to humbly accepting God’s Love as pure undeserved charity, which includes Adam and Eve prior to sinning.

Let me define “Fair/just” as treating everyone equally in the areas that really matter. For example: “The Rich man and Lazarus” were equally treated in the one important matter of salvation, neither claimed an injustice.

All mature adults have the opportunity to initially feel the burden of hurting others (sin) and the only true relieve comes with the acceptance of God’s help (forgiveness/mercy/charity/Love/grace). Now over time any and all will harden their hearts, but that is everyone who refuses God’s help.

2) It doesn't matter how many ways we have to sin. It was just one sin that established our independence from God's Word. That's what changed our nature from dependence to independence. God conceded our right to be independent, and the 1st act in this changed our own nature.

Adam and Eve prior to sinning and after sinning, were fully dependent on God even if they did not realize it, but prior to doing anything “wrong”, they would feel worthy of their creators help, since He does have responsibility for His creation. Being “separated” from God does not mean we are independent and should see and even greater dependency.

3) No, knowledge itself is not bad. It was Adam and Eve's determination to violate God's strict rules that created our sin. If God had allowed Man to have the knowledge of good and evil there would've been no violation. But God set it up as a test to see if Man would choose judgment apart from God's mandate.

The Bible does not say Adam and Eve sinned out of a “determination to violate God’s strict rules”, so where do you get that from? Eve coveted/lusted after the fruit of knowledge. She was selfishly wanting the fruit. She did not seek out wise council from God or Adam (he was not deceived). She was to be helping Adam, so why was she hanging around this one tree? She could reason like you said: “Knowledge is not bad in itself”, so why is God holding us back from eating it? The serpent does not “cause” Eve to do what she does not want to do, but does provide lying support for her doing what she want to do (never say: “The devil made me do it.”) She can still have a “love” for God and Adam, but does not have a Godly type Love, which would cause her to obey.

4) The objective in violating God's mandate is independent judgment, to be a kind of one's own god.

I am asking about “man’s object” from the very beginning. Why did God create man in the first place?

5) "Never ending Sin" is what the Lost do. They choose to exercise independent judgment from God forever.

The question is: 5. Was and is “never ever sinning” the objective and was that ever possible for Adam and Eve or us today?

6) To say God cannot do something is to question His omnipotence or to create a logical absurdity. God cannot violate His own Word. If such a course of action is hypothetically appliled, God cannot supply that. For example, God cannot provide a mandate to sin against Himself to Adam and Eve.

As far as man is concerned, God cannot create being fully like Christ, since Christ is not a created being. We can become like Christ, but we cannot be a clones of Christ from the beginning, so what is the big difference?

Everything is driven by the objective and the objective is not to just live forever in heaven nor just not to sin, yet eternal life is one of the results of our fulfilling our earthly objective.

Has God given man a mission statement? (this is always good to have)

You can take any command in scripture and have Biblical support for calling that command “Man’s Objective” since Biblical said do it, but there are two overriding commands all other commands are bases on and subordinated to.

Would “Loving God and secondly others with all our heart, soul, mind, and energy” be our Mission statement given as two commands?

This Godly type Love is defined by Jesus’ words and deeds (you can also use 1 Cor 13 and 1 John 4), so what is that?

Is God this ultimate Lover? Would that “Love” compel even God to make beings that could Love like He Loves (this “Love of God” is totally unselfish [a measurement for pure Love] and thus is not for God’s sake at all, but is totally for the sake of others [which would also be God’s sake])?

So, if God is not doing anything for His own sake and everything for the sake of others, would He be expecting or needing anything from man or would God just be trying to give the greatest gifts He could give to man?

Are there something God just cannot do: like make another Christ, since Christ was never made but always existed?

Could God place this Godly type Love in a person at his/her creation (an instinctive love) or would an instinctive love be like a robotic love and not like God’s Love?

Could God just force His Love on man against the “will” of man or would that be like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun?

What does man need that he does not have instinctively in order for man to fulfill His Mission?

Man must have a very limited amount of autonomous free will to make at least the one choice to humbly accept or reject God’s Love (forgiveness/mercy/grace/charity).

Man’s objective seems to be to obtain and grow this Godly type Love to fulfill the mission (statement) of Love God and secondly others with all our heart, soul, mind, and energy.

Our “objective” while here on earth is to just accept God’s gift as it was given as pure charity, this will enable us to fulfill our mission.

God is not trying to get you to do something, but is trying to give you something.

The problem is not sin (unforgiven sin is a huge problem), because God will forgive our sins which helps us to Love (…he that is forgiven much will Love much….Luke 7) God hates sin, but does allow it, so we can more easily accept His Love (in the form of forgiveness the easiest way for us to accept His charity). The problem is always our fulfilling our objective.

The easiest way for humans to accept God’s charity (Love) is out of a huge need and that need is the relief from the burden of hurting others in the past (sin). By a free willing acceptance of God’s forgiveness, we accept God’s Love (mercy/grace/charity) and thus we will Love much (a Godly type Love, automatically given) since Jesus has taught us (we also see this in our own lives) “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…” Luke 7: 36-50.

This world is “very good”, but not “perfect” like heaven is perfect and does not have the same purpose as heaven. This messed up world is actually the very best place for willing individuals to fulfill their earthly objective.

Death is not “bad” in and of itself for now, but the way good people go home and the way bad people quit doing bad stuff.

It is truly tragic and unfortunate that Christ had to be tortured, humiliated and murdered in order to help willing humans in their fulfilling of their objective, but God is willing to make huge sacrifices to help willing individuals. It is also very sad other humans who had the opportunity to fulfill their primary earthly objective continued to refuse God’s charity to the point they would never of their own free will accepted God’s charity. These refusers of God Loved are still Loved but will go to their death and destruction as a help to some other humans who have not refused God’s help to the point of never accepting His help.

The problem being humans (due in part to the needed survival instinct) do not like accepting Charity from a Giver that paid a huge price for the gift.

7) Eden is a wonderful lesson in God's kindness and bounty. His nature is viewed as "good" from His overwhelming generosity in providing for a happy environment.

We can also see how the Garden is a lousy place for humans to fulfill their earthly objective.

8) It is bad not in coming to know what evil is but rather, to use that knowledge to participate in it. Adam and Eve wanted to know evil by doing it, ie by rebelling against God's Word. And God's Word had mandated that they not come to know evil via rebellion.

Man could've come to know what evil is by another route, which is not mentioned. That is, they did not have to get their knowledge of evil from that particular tree, where Satan hung out. They were choosing not just a tree but a place that God considered dangerous, perhaps because of who was there (Satan).

Again, the Bible does not suggest that is their motive.

9) Believers and unbelievers alike want forgiveness, whether they know God or not. But unbelievers may want forgiveness in the wrong way. They may want their rebellion sanctioned and okayed, and God will not forgive by that means, since it it a choice to remain in the original sin.

???

10) I don't believe either Sin or Righteousness is "imputed" to us--the word itself is too abstract for me. I know what people are trying to say, feeling that God must see something good in us in order to save us. Since there is nothing good in us that actually gets us saved, we are viewed as the recipients of imputation.

For me, what people mean by "imputation" can be better said in the word "forgiveness." We are viewed as restored by looking only at our compliance with God's Word, God forgiving the part where we don't comply with it. When we accept that it is wrong to rebel against God's Word, God chooses to treat us as if we had never sinned in the 1st place. Forgiveness--not imputation.

I could not agree with you more on the importance of forgiveness (Luke 7), but instead of being covered in Christ’s righteousness (becoming invisible to God), we are given the indwelling Holy Spirit (God’s own Spirit) and Godly type Love, so in that way it is God’s righteousness and not our own, but just do not quench the Spirit.

 

[Clare73]

I agree with you that Adam's sin, or individual transgression, is not inherited--jut his spiritual nature of rebellion against God's Word. But I disagree with you that Adam's sin is "imputed" to us. Why would Sin be inputed to us

So that no one, including infants, is free of guilt before God.

God has shut up all men in sin so that their only hope/salvation is by his mercy alone (Ro 11:32).

if we were not originally guilty of it?

And why would Christ's righteousness be imputed to us if we were not worthy of it?

I know this is a popular way of saying it. But it has never really made sense to me, except to try to explain how we got to be sinners without having committed Adam's sin. What I would prefer to say is not that God "imputed" Adam's sin, or individual transgression, to us, but that we inherited his Sin Nature.

Nevertheless, it is both. . .but the sin nature does not condemn us, only sin does.

Nor is it is about our preference, it is about what God says (Ro 5:17).
Adam's sin is imputed to those of Adam (Ro 5:17), just as Christ's righteousness is imputed to those of Christ (Ro 5:18-19).

The work of one Man produces something in the Child of that Man. If the Work of Adam was defective, then his Work of Reproduction is going to produce flawed spiritual results his Children. If Adam infected himself with spiritual rebellion, his work of reproduction is going to produce those same results in his Children, just like a virus can be transmitted from parent to child.

We are born with these flawed spiritual results, but not their guilt.

The word of God disagrees with you (Ro 11:32, 5:17-19).

We obtain guilt when we unavoidably act in concert with the Sin Nature we were born with. Then we become guilty and require a remedy, particularly in light of the fact we were not responsible for producing the original Sin that was passed on to us!

We are born guilty (Ro 11:32), with Adam's sin imputed to us (Ro 5:17), by nature objects of wrath (Eph 2:3).

 

[tdidymas]

So that no one, including infants, is free of guilt before God.

God has shut up all men in sin so that their only hope/salvation is by his mercy alone (Ro 11:32).

And why would Christ's righteousness be imputed to us if we were not worthy of it?

Nevertheless, it is both. . .but the sin nature does not condemn us, only sin does.

Nor is it is about our preference, it is about what God says (Ro 5:17).
Adam's sin is imputed to those of Adam (Ro 5:17), just as Christ's righteousness is imputed to those of Christ (Ro 5:18-19).


The word of God disagrees with you (Ro 11:32, 5:17-19).

We are born guilty (Ro 11:32), with Adam's sin imputed to us (Ro 5:17), by nature objects of wrath (Eph 2:3).

Why did you pay no attention to my question? All the verses you cite can be interpreted that death and condemnation are due to sins committed out of the sinful nature, rather than being due to the idea that man is automatically guilty of Adam's sin. Even Rom. 11:32 can be interpreted this way. It says God commited all to disobedience; it doesn't say they are committed to guilt. Guilt is incurred after the disobedience, not before. So again, can you please exegete scripture (as opposed to mere 'prooftexts') or provide a link where the doctrine that the sin of Adam is imputed to mankind?

 

[RandyPNW]

First off: I am not talking about being given the blessing which come from accepting God’s Love compared to those who have not accepted God’s Love. I am talking about every mature adult prior to humbly accepting God’s Love as pure undeserved charity, which includes Adam and Eve prior to sinning.

I was just giving you an example of God's giving a Good Nature to people. I believe God created Man in His image, with a Good Nature. And even though we've obtained an Independent Nature, we are still being offered a Good Nature, if we completely commit to His Word.

Adam and Eve prior to sinning and after sinning, were fully dependent on God even if they did not realize it, but prior to doing anything “wrong”, they would feel worthy of their creators help, since He does have responsibility for His creation. Being “separated” from God does not mean we are independent and should see and even greater dependency.

I don't believe Adam and Eve were "fully dependent on God" in their minds. That's why they did not depend on God's advice when eating of the Fobidden Fruit.

Choosing to eat Forbidden Fruit was an act of Independence. From that point on Man was saddled with an Independent Nature, subject to the temptation to bypass God's laws and mandates.

This Independent Nature is by definition a Sepration from God's Word, being inclined against cooperating with God in it. It does not necessarily recommend dependency upon God, since many who "go their own way" continue to "go their own way." They see absolutely no need to depend upon God or to take His commands seriously.

The Bible does not say Adam and Eve sinned out of a “determination to violate God’s strict rules”, so where do you get that from?

Actually the Bible does indicate that Adam and Eve sinned out of a determination to violate God's strict rules. God had mandated that they not eat of the Tree of Knowledge, but they determined to ignore this demand. They may not have wanted to truly separate from God, but in choosing to disobey His Word that's precisely what they did, and that's precisely what made them acquire a Sin Nature.

Eve coveted/lusted after the fruit of knowledge. She was selfishly wanting the fruit. She did not seek out wise council from God or Adam (he was not deceived). She was to be helping Adam, so why was she hanging around this one tree?

I think Eve rationalized away God's command, thinking it was not wrong *to her* to pursue her own interests, whether it was knowledge, or some capacity that God was holding back from her. At any rate, she hung out down by the "bad tree" simply because she was not yet placing her trust and dependency on God. Either that, or Satan had already reached out to her mind from a distance, tempting her.

I am asking about “man’s object” from the very beginning. Why did God create man in the first place?

God said it was to create a mortal image of Himself in Christ, and then, to provide for him many brethren. Our minds are programmed to think only so far. We cannot see behind the programming. I'm sure God didn't "feel alone all by Himself in some infinite space!"

The question is: 5. Was and is “never ever sinning” the objective and was that ever possible for Adam and Eve or us today?

Of course it was possible that Adam and Eve never sin from the start. But once infected with a Sin Nature whatever Good Nature we've obtained from God is necessarily marred by the continuing presence of our Independent Sin Nature. As long as we live in our fallen mortal bodies, we are legally subjected to what we have willfully given them over to. Even in the presence of Grace we have to yield to a flawed presentation of Christ's Righteousness.

As far as man is concerned, God cannot create being fully like Christ, since Christ is not a created being.

Christ is a combination of Creation and being Uncreated. He is the Divine and infinite Word made mortal flesh. What material and temporal reality he was endowed with is designed by God's Word to express the infinite God in finite expressions or pictures. The expression originates from Eternity. The created part came in time.

We can become like Christ, but we cannot be a clones of Christ from the beginning, so what is the big difference?

The big difference between Christ and us is that he was divine and we are not. We can eventually become perfect like him. We can draw upon his resources even now to express, in part, his own righteousness. But we can never become God ourselves.

Everything is driven by the objective and the objective is not to just live forever in heaven nor just not to sin, yet eternal life is one of the results of our fulfilling our earthly objective.

The objective is actually of those things, to live forever with God in heaven, albeit we will live on the earth. Our spirits may extend to be with God in heaven in some sense? We avoid sin now because we know, from experience, that it separates us from God. Having received Sin Natures we know that our relationship with God is tenous and limited. We can still contact God, but it is a somewhat weak relationship. God rightly doeesn't entirely trust us. If we are to be with God forever, which is our objective, we must look forward to a sinless existence.

Has God given man a mission statement? (this is always good to have)

To live in God's image is our original mandate, to reflect His likeness and to manage our part of the earth. We don't know what future skills and jobs we will have. What we have now are designed to get to the next stage in our existence. I imagine there will be corresponding interests, jobs, and goals.

You can take any command in scripture and have Biblical support for calling that command “Man’s Objective” since Biblical said do it, but there are two overriding commands all other commands are bases on and subordinated to.

Would “Loving God and secondly others with all our heart, soul, mind, and energy” be our Mission statement given as two commands?

No, I think these are the 2 major guardrails to keep us on point. If anything we do lacks love, we've gotten off the beaten path. Our mission statement involves us acting like chlidren of God on our planet. It isn't just our playpen--it is our canvas, as if we are all painters. If God created the earth it is our job, as sons and daughters, to be creative with the things God made for us to create with. It is because He has chosen to enjoy fellowship with us, and also probably because He is entertained by His own works.

This Godly type Love is defined by Jesus’ words and deeds (you can also use 1 Cor 13 and 1 John 4), so what is that?

Is God this ultimate Lover?

The Apostle John says that God is love in 1 John. God's love is distinguished from all other loves as the source of all love.

Would that “Love” compel even God to make beings that could Love like He Loves (this “Love of God” is totally unselfish [a measurement for pure Love] and thus is not for God’s sake at all, but is totally for the sake of others [which would also be God’s sake])?

You place being "love" for God as on opposite end of the spectrum from being "love" for others. Why? I see being "love" for God as the unselfish love that is for all others, including for God.

God is not selfish in wanting us to love Him. Since He is the source of all love, it is logical for Him to want us to love Him and turn to Him for our love.

Are there something God just cannot do: like make another Christ, since Christ was never made but always existed?

God is limited by what He chooses to do. The extent of the things He can do may depend on the environment in which He chooses to work. If the environment He chooses to work in does not allow, for example, colors, then by definition He can only do things in Black and White.

Could God place this Godly type Love in a person at his/her creation (an instinctive love) or would an instinctive love be like a robotic love and not like God’s Love?

By definition Man was created as children in God's own likeness, so that we can make our own determinations. So love, being available, is not imposed upon Man as by a robotic program.

Could God just force His Love on man against the “will” of man or would that be like a shotgun wedding with God holding the shotgun?j

Yes. God didn't want a "shotgun wedding."

What does man need that he does not have instinctively in order for man to fulfill His Mission?

Having been born with an Independent Nature it is partly instinctive to want to do good and partly instinctive to rebel against God's authority. As Christians we have both good and bad natures. Non-Christians have only a bad nature, but have access to God's Word that can give them good characters. That is, they trend towards rebellion against God's mandates, but can grow accustomed to following God's Word in certain areas of their lives. They may not be obeying God's Word out of obedience, but they can do well by subconsciously living according to God's Morality.

Man must have a very limited amount of autonomous free will to make at least the one choice to humbly accept or reject God’s Love (forgiveness/mercy/grace/charity).

Fighting our inclination towards rebellion to not just do good but to also obey God is the battle we've been called to fight in the struggle for redemption. There is a reason much of the world is nonChristian. There is a reason that among the 2 billion or so Christians in the world relatively few are Born Again. And even fewer walk in righteousness on a regular basis. "Narrow is the way...."

Those who succeed bring the most glory to God and find the best reward in God's good pleasure. Many, however, will be saved and bring glory to God by revealing His love and mercy.

Our “objective” while here on earth is to just accept God’s gift as it was given as pure charity, this will enable us to fulfill our mission.

Yes, it's all God's gift to us. But we have a responsibility to make Him proud by our righteous behavior.

God is not trying to get you to do something, but is trying to give you something.

It is both giving to us and trying to get from us.

The problem is not sin (unforgiven sin is a huge problem), because God will forgive our sins which helps us to Love (…he that is forgiven much will Love much….Luke 7) God hates sin, but does allow it, so we can more easily accept His Love (in the form of forgiveness the easiest way for us to accept His charity). The problem is always our fulfilling our objective.

Being "forgiven much sin" does not render equal those who live in sin and those who live in righteousness. It is saying that once a sinner repents he or she obtains equal footing with those who live in righteousness. Even moreso, those forgiven much have a greater appreciation for God's mercy. For those who've sinned, and repented, they enjoy God's glory in mercy. Those who have lived consistently in righteousness enjoy God's glory in faithfulness and in perseverence. Both produce great love for God, but they are different kinds of love, equally blessed. It's just that the righteous can learn from those who've received mercy and appreciate God's great love.

The easiest way for humans to accept God’s charity (Love) is out of a huge need and that need is the relief from the burden of hurting others in the past (sin). By a free willing acceptance of God’s forgiveness, we accept God’s Love (mercy/grace/charity) and thus we will Love much (a Godly type Love, automatically given) since Jesus has taught us (we also see this in our own lives) “…he that is forgiven much will Love much…” Luke 7: 36-50.

Yes, it was guilt that drove me to repent as a backslidden Lutheran. I am no longer a Lutheran, however.

This world is “very good”, but not “perfect” like heaven is perfect and does not have the same purpose as heaven. This messed up world is actually the very best place for willing individuals to fulfill their earthly objective.

I think the world is adequate for our work that is leading to redemption and to the Kingdom of God being placed here forever. It's just that some major renovations will have to be done.

Death is not “bad” in and of itself for now, but the way good people go home and the way bad people quit doing bad stuff.

Yes.

It is truly tragic and unfortunate that Christ had to be tortured, humiliated and murdered in order to help willing humans in their fulfilling of their objective, but God is willing to make huge sacrifices to help willing individuals.

I wouldn't quite put it in those terms, that Christ was tortured to help us in our objective. Christ was tortured to become an atonement for sin on God's behalf. It was necessary for God to express His willingness to forgive our sins *in the flesh.*

The problem being humans (due in part to the needed survival instinct) do not like accepting Charity from a Giver that paid a huge price for the gift.

I don't think Sin is logical. Rejecting God's Kingdom is not logical. But Pride is, in itself, at least consistent with itself. It does not want to submit to authority. Men reject God's gift because there is a price tag--one must submit to the God who created us. He has the Builder's Manual.

I could not agree with you more on the importance of forgiveness (Luke 7), but instead of being covered in Christ’s righteousness (becoming invisible to God), we are given the indwelling Holy Spirit (God’s own Spirit) and Godly type Love, so in that way it is God’s righteousness and not our own, but just do not quench the Spirit.

I think it is our obwn willful obedience to God's Word and our part in letting God's Word inspire us that gives us our purpose and fulfillment. When we do things in partnership with God consistently, we produce Signs and Wonders that recommend Eternal Life to others. This does for others things that no other charity can do--it gives them Eternal Hope. And we can say we played a part in that.

 

[RandyPNW]

So that no one, including infants, is free of guilt before God.

Infants do not incur guilt as much as they inherit a Sin Nature, which must of necessity be separated from direct access to God. The parents' work, even in reproduction, produces flawed results. Sinful parents produce sinful children. It is not being "imputed," but rather, spread like a spiritual virus.

God has shut up all men in sin so that their only hope/salvation is by his mercy alone (Ro 11:32).

Yes, all men are "shut up in sin" because they are the products of sinful parents. It is God's legal process at work. Imperfect people cannot produce perfect results.

And why would Christ's righteousness be imputed to us if we were not worthy of it?

Again, I don't use the word "imputation." But something is indeed credited to those unworthy of Heaven. What is being credited is a piece of their lives that indicate they want to follow God's Righteousness forever and always.

It's like looking for a single sign that someone wants to drive onto the ferry to cross the river. Blinking headlights, arms waving..watever. It was enough for Abraham to demonstrate Faith by his Righteousness in order to indicate to God he wanted to pass over to God's side and into Eternity. He could not earn it, he did not deserve it, but he could in fact indicate that he did enough for God to accept him onto that ride.

Nevertheless, it is both. . .but the sin nature does not condemn us, only sin does.

The Sin Nature separates Man from God to some extent, though not entirely. Willful sin is an expression of not wanting God's help or redemption, or it could just be stubborness.

Nor is it is about our preference, it is about what God says (Ro 5:17).
Adam's sin is imputed to those of Adam (Ro 5:17), just as Christ's righteousness is imputed to those of Christ (Ro 5:18-19).

Rom 5.17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

One trespass "resulting in condemnation" is not referring to "imputation" at all! One righteous act does not "impute" but "results in" justification and life for all people. You've added the word "impute."

The word of God disagrees with you (Ro 11:32, 5:17-19).

We are born guilty (Ro 11:32), with Adam's sin imputed to us (Ro 5:17), by nature objects of wrath (Eph 2:3).

You are adding the word "impute." The word may be interchangeable with "credit," but in context what is credited is not sin and righteousness, but rather, acceptance of token righteousness on behalf of later receiving the whole thing. "Faith" is synonymous with "token righteousness," as I see it. It is an expression of acceptance of our need for better and eternal righteousness.

A credit token, if we have one, may be worth much less than the dollar value it represents. Nevertheless, God accepts the "credit token" as sufficient to obtain much more than it is actually worth.

 

[Clare73]

Why did you pay no attention to my question? All the verses you cite can be interpreted that death and condemnation are due to sins committed out of the sinful nature, rather than being due to the idea that man is automatically guilty of Adam's sin. Even Rom. 11:32 can be interpreted this way. It says God commited all to disobedience; it doesn't say they are committed to guilt. Guilt is incurred after the disobedience, not before. So again, can you please exegete scripture (as opposed to mere 'prooftexts') or provide a link where
the doctrine that the sin of Adam is imputed to mankind?

What is the sin that condemned men and caused their death between Adam and Moses when there was no law and therefore no sin was charged against them (Ro 5:12-14)?

It was the sin of Adam imputed to them, which imputation was the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteousnes (Ro 5:18-19).

 

[Clare73]

Infants do not incur guilt as much as they inherit a Sin Nature, which must of necessity be separated from direct access to God. The parents' work, even in reproduction, produces flawed results. Sinful parents produce sinful children. It is not being "imputed," but rather, spread like a spiritual virus.
Yes, all men are "shut up in sin" because they are the products of sinful parents. It is God's legal process at work. Imperfect people cannot produce perfect results.

Again, I don't use the word "imputation."

Nevertheless, Scripture does (Ro 5:13), as well as "to reckon, to put down to a person's account" (Ro 4:6, 8, 11, 22 23, 24, 2 Co 5:19),
and I have no authority to alter that or to go outside it to create my own use and meaning.

 

[RandyPNW]

What is the sin that condemned men and caused their death between Adam and Moses when there was no law and therefore no sin was charged against them (Ro 5:12-14)?

It was the sin of Adam imputed to them, which imputation was the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteousnes (Ro 5:18-19).

To say there was "no law" before the arrival of the Law of Moses is not to suggest there was no law at all! It is, I think, only talking about there not being an official documentation of law prescribing requirements for Israel following the introduction of sin into the human race.

Clearly, there was law built into God's Word from the very beginning when God said He made Man, male and female, in His own image, after His own likeness. That is a moral imperative!

And even more, later God told Adam to manage the Garden while avoiding the tree of knowledge (of good and evil). That is clearly "law!" So I'm not sure what you mean to quote Paul here that there was "no law?" Quoting Paul is fine. I just think he needs to be explained sometimes so that the context, and therefore the meaning, is understood.

Before the Law came to Israel people were already under sin and already condemned by the law of God's Word, which is in the conscience of every Man. Otherwise, Cain would not have known what it was to murder his brother Abel.

Paul's point is clear, that the Law of Moses just enhanced the law of God's Word which was already known. The Law just made clear what was already known that Man was legitimately disqualified from the garden, and therefore from the Tree of Life.

Eternal Life could *not* come by the record of human works, regardless of all the good he does. Just one sin keeps him out of God's presence forever, apart from the mercy and sanctioon of God.

It is *God's Atonement* that allows us to be accepted. We must therefore meet *His terms* to be accepted for this Atonement, which I believe is Repentance as a representation of "Faith."

Faith does not exist in isolation. Faith has substance and an appearance, and it is, I believe, a kind of "token Righteousness." It is not "earning our Atonement," but rather, qualifying for it like entering into a drawing for a prize. The prize is free, but we have to enter into the drawing.

Protestants try so hard to disqualify any kind of "righteousness" from any qualification for Atonement. But I think they have a very hard hill to climb. Jesus clearly said to Israel that in order for them to see the Kingdom of God they had to "repent!"

 

[RandyPNW]

Nevertheless, Scripture does (Ro 5:13), as well as "to reckon, to put down to a person's account" (Ro 4:6, 8, 11, 22 23, 24, 2 Co 5:19),
and I have no authority to alter that or to go outside it to create my own use and meaning.

Clare, I *clearly* said that to "reckon," "credit," or "impute" in one sense is allowable, biblically. How "imputation" is used is different from how it is being used in the discussion and argument I'm engaging in.

What is "imputed" or "credited" to us is not said to be sin or righteousness. You have inserted "imputation" into statements that simply say sin or righteousness "resulted" from Adam and from Christ.

And what the Bible actually says is "credited" to us is the right to access Eternal Life by the atonement of Christ. We are, therefore, "forgiven" and not imputed a righteousness that we have an insufficiency in.

To imput perfect righteousness to us is to remove Christ's forgiveness! He can forgive us only when it is fully recognized that we were and continue to be disqualified by our own flawed record of righteousness.

That is defined as "Grace," and not "Divine Forgetfulness!" Imputation would take place in order to "forget" that we've ever done anything wrong, or that we continue to do wrong. And I find that to be absurd and irrational--at best an imperfect use of the word "imputation."

 

[Clare73]

To say there was "no law" before the arrival of the Law of Moses is not to suggest there was no law at all!

It is to state that man was not accounted guilty of law-breaking before the Decalogue (Ro 5:12-14).

He was, however, counted guilty of Adam's sin imputed to him (Ro 5:17, 18-19), which was the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteousness (Ro 5:18-19).

 

[Clare73]

Clare, I *clearly* said that to "reckon," "credit," or "impute" in one sense is allowable, biblically. How "imputation" is used is different from how it is being used in the discussion and argument I'm engaging in.

I use Biblical terminology (imputation) only in its Biblical usage.
I see that usage as unable to be improved upon. . .not to mention the confusion (and non-Biblical mind) caused by having one's own definition apart from Scripture.

 

[RandyPNW]

It is to state that man was not accounted guilty of law-breaking before the Decalogue (Ro 5:12-14).

He was, however, counted guilty of Adam's sin imputed to him (Ro 5:14, 17, 18-19).

That is the misinterpretation I was talking about. Man was certainly accounted guilty of law-breaking before the Decalogue!

And I just showed you how that is true in the sense that "law" as a concept is built into God's Word for Mankind. Cain *knew* that he had broken God's inherent law in the Word that Man live in God's own Image and Likeness. Mankind had obtained the "knowledge of evil," and can only know that if it is 1st understood what "God's Law" is.

So Paul was talking about how there was not yet existing a formal, documented law for Israel prior to the giving of the Decalogue. And his point was that there is a preexistent kind of law in God's Word by which Mankind was already deemed "sinners" and worthy of "death."

Paul is showing that the Law merely enhanced the preexistent "law" built into God's Word so that Israel could continue in relationship with God despite the continuing existence of sin in Israel. It was not designed to remove the reality of sin, but rather, to underscore its existence to show the need for God's Grace.

 

[RandyPNW]

I use Biblical terminology (imputation) only in its Biblical usage.

That is *not* true, and I already showed you how you used a statement that did not use "reckon, credit, or impute" in it while insisting that it included it in principle. The verses you quoted did *not* have any of those words in them. That may be why you didn't even quote them, but only included their references?

Rom 5.
14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[Clare73]

That is the misinterpretation I was talking about. Man was certainly accounted guilty of law-breaking before the Decalogue!

Nope. . .he was counted guilty of Adam's sin imputed to him, not guilty of his own sin when there was no law to sin against (Ro 5:12-14).

 

[RandyPNW]

Rom 5.14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!

18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

One thing that always disturbed me about the above statement was my confusion over what Paul meant by saying, Adam was a pattern of the one to come, or Christ. How did Adam's sin by breaking a law present a "pattern" of Christ?

Obviously, if Paul said that Adam broke a law, then law must've preexisted the more formal Law of Moses given to Israel! So this was the "law of conscience" that is resident in God's Word having created Adam in God's image.

This previewed the coming of Israel's Law, which was designed to perpetuate Israel's relationship with God despite the disqualification of God's law of holiness, resident in His Word. Dying under the law of conscience, so to speak, was just like the Law of Moses to Christ, indicating that Israel was disqualified for eternal life, requiring the death of Christ to perpetuate Israel's relationship with God by mercy and by grace.

 

[Clare73]

That is the misinterpretation I was talking about. Man was certainly accounted guilty of law-breaking before the Decalogue!

Man died between Adam and Moses because he was guilty of law-breaking when there was no law to break (Ro 5:12-14).
What sin was charged against him?
Adam's sin was charged against (imputed to) him (Ro 5:17).

 

[Clare73]

Rom 5.14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

How is sinful Adam a pattern of the righteous Christ to come?

The imputation of Adam's sin to all those of Adam is the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of righteousness to all those of Christ (Ro 5:18-19).

 

[RandyPNW]

Man died between Adam and Moses because he was guilty of law-breaking when there was no law to break (Ro 5:12-14).
What sin was charged against him?
Adam's sin was charged against (imputed to) him (Ro 5:17).

Perhaps you did not read #96 above, because I did not post it directly to you. In that message I said this:

Rom 5.14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

Obviously, if Paul said that Adam broke a law, then law must've preexisted the more formal Law of Moses given to Israel! So this was the "law of conscience" that is resident in God's Word having created Adam in God's image.

Claire, these things cannot be put much more clearly--Paul said that Adam broke existing Law! "As Adam did," Paul said. And what did Adam do, according to Paul? Adam broke the law, or God's command!

So why are you saying that there was "no law to break," when I've just explained Paul's remark as commonly misunderstood? Obviously, Adam had not broken the Law of Moses, given as a single step towards Israel's redemption. But he did break God's "command," or "Law," indicating that he was already positioned for a redemptive law himself, though it required the death of those who had transgressed the Law.

And by extension, it would require Christ to "die for sinners" in order to forgive them. All this was built into the Law of Moses, and had preexisted, in a sense, in the Law of Conscience that Adam had violated.

 

[Clare73]

Perhaps you did not read #96 above, because I did not post it directly to you. In that message I said this:

Rom 5.14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

The imputation (Ro 5:17) of Adam's sin of law-breaking, which caused the deaths of all those between Adam and Moses when there was no law to condemn them, is the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteousness (Ro 5:18-19).

Obviously, if Paul said that Adam broke a law, then law must've preexisted the more formal Law of Moses given to Israel!

Are you unfamiliar with the law Adam broke, "Thou shalt not eat of it."