question of imputation

[Clare73]

You make assertions in which you have nothing to back it up. Time is simply a term used to indicate motion, or some change in physical reality.

Time is the measurement of change.

There is no time in eternity.

But if God planned creation and mankind before the beginning, then there was motion of thought in God, which means there was time. In the eternal future, there will be time, because there will be motion of thought and deed in eternal reality. The term "timeless" merely means time indeterminate. So your assertion is false.

Your epistemology limps a little.

See ya' in Glory!

 

[tdidymas]

I am stating that if God does not apply the benefits of Jesus' death to them, they do.

Are the baby rattlesnakes in my backyard where my children play any less my enemy than the adult rattlesnakes?
Do I cut the baby rattlesnakes a break because they are babies?
I do not. . their unchanging nature is rattlesnake, and I kill them as vigorously as I do the adult snakes.
Human babies are no less God's enemies (Ro 5:10) than human adults. . .and just as with the rattlesnakes, time will prove that fact.

So yes, dead infants who are not the elect to whom God applies the benefits of Jesus' death, go to hell.

It sounds to me like you're changing your tune here, since earlier you said that anyone must believe in Christ to be saved, but now you're saying it's "the elect to whom God applies the benefits of Jesus' death." And how do you know if all infants who die are not elect and are saved? And if you apply this same idea to everyone, then any adult might be saved without believing in Jesus if they never heard the gospel but are the elect of God? It seems to me that you are not consistent in the application of grace, apparently just to save your doctrinal error.

But here is a fact: Paul said in Rom. 7:9 "For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." Consider this statement carefully:
1. Early in his life he was "without the law"
2. Early in his life he was "alive"
3. After knowing the commandment, "sin revived, and [he] died"

Isn't it then obvious that he is talking about spiritual life and death? Doesn't this obviously imply that before he knew the law that he was "without the law," and that he was spiritually alive, because no sin was imputed to him? Doesn't this also imply that Adam's sin is not imputed to everyone, and the sin imputed to anyone is the sin they commit against the law?

Correct, Adam's guilt is not inherited, his sin/guilt is imputed. (Ro 5:17 ,18-19).
Feel free to address Ro 5:17, 18-19.

If guilt is imputed, it is inherited. But here is how wrong you are: A person must believe in Christ in order to be redeemed, and only those redeemed are the elect of God. So if your earlier statement is correct, then no infant who dies early can be God's elect, because they have no opportunity to hear and understand the gospel so as to believe in Christ and be saved. So according to your earlier statement saying "they have Adam's sin counted against them, which guilt of for all is removed only by faith in Jesus Christ," then no infant dying early could possibly be saved, and they all went to hell, according to your erroneous logic.

But of course, now you're backing off by saying "if God doesn't apply the benefits of Christ's death" - which implies that anyone might be saved without believing in Christ. But it's inconsistent with your earlier statement and the scripture both. Most certainly King David's child who died had no opportunity to know Christ or believe the gospel, and yet David implied that he went to heaven. But show me one single verse of scripture that says any dead infant ever went to hell.

Contraire!. . .Man does not inherit his father's sin (Eze 18:20).

You are confusing sinful nature with our personal guilt of Adam's sin by imputation (Ro 5:17, 1819).

No, you're the one confusing the two. I'm making the distinction. I'm saying everyone has a sinful nature, according to this definition by Jonathan Edwards: "the innate sinful depravity of the heart" (i.e. "original sin"). This sinful nature is inherited by virtue of the fallen nature of man, and this is what makes people sinners. The sin of Adam is not imputed, only the sins people commit are imputed to their account. So then, if an infant dies early in life, they are saved by virtue of the fact they did not commit any sin that could be imputed to them.

People are judged according to their own sins, not according to the sin of someone else (namely Adam). Infants are not eternally judged because of what Adam did. People are culpable for their own sin, not Adam's. The idea that Adam's sin is imputed to sinless infants so that they are cast into hell is repugnant. There is no scripture you have cited that can't be well interpreted without the idea of imputation of Adam's sin. They all indicate that people die spiritually because of their own sin, not because of Adam's sin. Therefore your idea of imputation of Adam's sin is mere conjecture and opinion.

No one inherits his father's sin (Eze 18:20). We do inherit his nature. . .two different things, one (sin) being a matter of guilt and punishment, the other (nature) a matter of disposition (which does not incur guilt until an actual offense).

Obviously it's two different things.

Adam's sin is imputed to (not inherited by) those of Adam, (Ro 5:17, 12-14), and is the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation (not inheritance) of Christ's righteousness to those of Christ (Ro 518-19).

Stop harping on impute vs. inherit, it's obviously different. I disagree with your eisegesis of these verses. I've already explained it, so please reread what I wrote.

Sin was imputed before Moses (Ro 5:17), that's why they all died between Adam and Moses when there was no law to sin against to cause their deaths. The sin of Adam has been imputed since the fall.

Stop harping on this, after I've already explained how you are wrong in this matter.

You are confusing imputed (reckoned, accounted to) with incurred (personally committed).
No sin was incurred (personally committed) between Adam and Moses when there was no law to sin against, but they died anyway. . .due to the sin of Adam imputed (reckoned, accounted) to them when they had not personally incurred sin (Ro 5:17, 12-14, 18-19).

I'm not confused. I've explained this to you clearly before, but you refuse to address what I'm saying. I've already explained how you are wrong in this matter. So stop repeating yourself like a parrot. Address what I've said.

Yes, the imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:17, 12-14, 18-19).

Wrong again. I explained it to you, but you refuse to accept clear reasoning. Claiming that "sin was in the world" before Moses is "the imputed sin of Adam" is eisegesis - a very strained interpretation that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Eze 18:20 states that man does not inherit his father's sin.
Imputation is not inheritance.

Again, you're wrong. It clearly says the son will "not die" for his father's sin, and the son "shall not bear the iniquity of the father," and that means neither for Adam's. This means Adam's sin is NOT imputed to others.

That is your personally drawn implication, which is not in agreement with (Ro 5:17, 18-19)

Your interpretation is wrong, according to the preponderance of evidence in scripture.

That is redundant. . ."Mortality occurred because they are mortal."

No, it isn't. We are created mortal creatures, and is the reason why we originally needed the tree of life. If Adam and Eve had eaten from the tree of life, they would still be alive today, and is the reason they were expelled from Eden. Therefore, anyone who physically dies, it happens because they are naturally mortal. But you are confusing the physical with the spiritual, as if they were the same thing, but they aren't.

Mortality occurred, and occurs, because of sin (Ro 6:23).

Again, you confuse mortality with spiritual death, it's not the same thing. Rom. 6:23 is talking about spiritual death and life.

Correct, they do not inherit the guilt of their father.

Imputation is not inheritance.

You're splitting a hair that doesn't exist, which means you're making a distinction without a difference.

Actually, I am defending Scripture. . .in Ro 5:17, 18-19.

No, you're not. You're defending your erroneous interpretation.

Eze 18 has nothing to do with imputation, the subject here.

It has everything to do with it, since it clearly states "the son will not bear the iniquity of the father" and "he shall not die for the iniquity of his father" - it means Adam's sin is not imputed. People do not die for Adam's sin.

It is not symmetrical, it is two clear contrasting parallels of Ro 5:18, 19. . .of the imputation of Adam's sin (Ro 5:17) to those of Adam contrastingly paralleled with the imputation of Christ's righteousness to those of Christ (ROo5:18-19).

Finally we agree that it's not symmetrical. My point is that Christ's righteousness is imputed to believers, but Adam's sin is not imputed.

"Commit" (incur) and impute are not the same thing.

Incur is the result of one's own action. . .I commit (incur the guilt of) the sin of disobedience.
Impute is the result of God's action. . .God reckons/regards all those of Adam as guilty of Adam's sin (Ro 5:17, 18-19), which is the pattern (Ro 5:14) for God reckoning all those of Christ as righteous with the righteousness of Christ (Ro 5:18-19).

Committed sin and imputed sin are not the same thing.
Infants are not guilty of committed sin, but they are guilty of Adam's imputed sin (Ro 5:17).

You restate the obvious, and I disagree with your assertion. According to what I already wrote, Adam's sin is not imputed to anyone else.

It's not just about a "contrast,' it is a contrasting parallel, as seen in Ro 5:18-19. . ."as with Adam". . ."so also with Christ."

You break the parallel.

No, I did not "break" the contrast, only your erroneous conclusion about it. The "parallel" is that death came through Adam, but life came through Christ. That's the contrast, and is clearly stated by Paul. What you're doing is adding conjecture of imputed sin.

Precisely!. . .so what sin was committed by them?

There was no law and therefore no sin between Adam and Moses (Ro 5:12-14), yet they all died.
What sin caused their deaths?

I've already proven you wrong on this statement, and you are evading that fact. Stop repeating yourself like a parrot.

Correct, the guilt of Adam is imputed (Ro 5:17).

More useless repetition.

No, the sin nature does not cause death. Only the occurrence of sin itself causes physical death.

Here again, since you confuse physical and spiritual death, you continue to erroneously think that a commission of sin causes physical death. This is where you are going wrong. If you think "occurrence" of sin causes physical death, then you have to believe in the imputation of Adam's sin, as that's the only way to explain how infants die. But you are wrong on both counts. Here is biblical proof:

Adam and Eve did not physically die the same day they sinned. But God said "in the day you eat of it, you will surely die." He didn't say "begin to die" or any such thing. And since they did not die physically that day, it means that God was talking about spiritual death. If he was talking about physical death, then his "prophecy" that they would die that very day was false. This is proof that God was speaking of spiritual death.

You have not reckoned with Ro 5:17.

Feel free to explain it, being true to its words and context, as well as true to the rest of the NT.

I addressed this before, but you are ignoring it. So I'll add to it here:
Rom. 5:12 says, "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned" - it doesn't say "because Adam's sin is imputed to them" - it says "because all sinned"
Sin is a spiritual matter, and Paul is not confusing spiritual death with physical death. He's talking about spiritual death, which is incurred because of the sin of the individual committing it, not because Adam's sin is imputed.

In 5:17 "death reigned through that one man" means that people spiritually die because of the sin nature inherited from Adam. This is clear by the language of the context of v. 15-19. To read into it that Adam's sin is imputed is both conjecture and inconsistent with the whole of scripture. I've already explained how in Rom. 7:9 that Paul says he was "alive" (spiritually) before he knew the law, and he died after sinning. James 1:15 concurs with this.

But from now on, if you keep repeating yourself and pay no attention to what I wrote, then I'm done.

 

[tdidymas]

Time is the measurement of change.

There is no time in eternity.

How then will anyone have any fellowship with anyone else, if everything is frozen? There will be no relationships, no expression of life, no nothing if there is no time. Hogwash!

Your epistemology limps a little.

See ya' in Glory!

Seems yours is completely broken, since you can't explain what you claim. Your assertion falls flat.

 

[Clare73]

It sounds to me like you're changing your tune here, since earlier you said that anyone must believe in Christ to be saved, but now you're saying it's "the elect to whom God applies the benefits of Jesus' death." And how do you know if all infants who die are not elect and are saved?

I don't. . .and why do I need to?

And if you apply this same idea to everyone, then any adult might be saved without believing in Jesus if they never heard the gospel but are the elect of God? It seems to me that you are not consistent in the application of grace, apparently just to save your doctrinal error.

All the accountable elect of God come to saving faith before they die.
Scripture does not treat of the unaccountable children, which can be resolved in more than one way.

But here is a fact: Paul said in Rom. 7:9 "For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died." Consider this statement carefully:
1. Early in his life he was "without the law"
2. Early in his life he was "alive"
3. After knowing the commandment, "sin revived, and [he] died"

Isn't it then obvious that he is talking about spiritual life and death? Doesn't this obviously imply that before he knew the law that he was "without the law," and that he was spiritually alive, because no sin was imputed to him? Doesn't this also imply that Adam's sin is not imputed to everyone, and the sin imputed to anyone is the sin they commit against the law?

We don't get to imply contrary to what Scripture states.

Scripture presents imputation (Ro 5:17, 18-19) and you are confusing it with incurring.

"Imputation" is God accounting/crediting. . . sin/guilt or holiness/righteousness. . . to one apart from one's own personal performance.

"Incurring" is one's actual personal performance of the sin which incurs guilt of the sin.

If guilt is imputed, it is inherited

Indeed not. . .they are not the same thing.

Our sinful nature is inherited and does not condemn us,
while Adam's guilt is imputed to us (Ro 5:17, 18-19), making it our own, and does condemn us,
just as Christ's righteousness is imputed to us (Ro 5:18-19), making it our own and does save us..

But here is how wrong you are: A person must believe in Christ in order to be redeemed, and only those redeemed are the elect of God. So if your earlier statement is correct, then no infant who dies early can be God's elect, because they have no opportunity to hear and understand the gospel so as to believe in Christ and be saved. So according to your earlier statement saying "they have Adam's sin counted against them, which guilt of for all is removed only by faith in Jesus Christ," then no infant dying early could possibly be saved, and they all went to hell, according to your erroneous logic.

Unless you are assuming God has no provision for an elect infant dying without saving faith.
The NT does not speak much of the nature of salvation for infants, since the NT is a presentation of the gospel to the accountable.

But of course, now you're backing off by saying "if God doesn't apply the benefits of Christ's death" - which implies that anyone might be saved without believing in Christ.

Precisely. . .the gospel is addressed to the accountable, which infants are not.
One's understanding of the principles of the gospel for the accountable gives one the understanding of the principles of the gospel for the unaccountable.

But it's inconsistent with your earlier statement and the scripture both. Most certainly King David's child who died had no opportunity to know Christ or believe the gospel, and yet David implied that he went to heaven. But show me one single verse of scripture that says any dead infant ever went to hell.

When you show me one single verse of Scripture that says either "God is Trinity" or "God is sovereign."

No, you're the one confusing the two. I'm making the distinction. I'm saying everyone has a sinful nature, according to this definition by Jonathan Edwards: "the innate sinful depravity of the heart" (i.e. "original sin"). This sinful nature is inherited by virtue of the fallen nature of man, and this is what makes people sinners. The sin of Adam is not imputed, only the sins people commit are imputed to their account.

Ro 5:17, 18-19 disagree with you.

You don't understand the NT use/meaning of imputed; i.e., to account to, to reckon to, to credit/debit to someone,
as distinct from inherited and incurred.

Apart from a Greek dictionary, we really have no basis for discussion.

 

[tdidymas]

I don't. . .and why do I need to?

All the accountable elect of God come to saving faith before they die.
Scripture does not treat of the unaccountable children, which can be resolved in more than one way.

We don't get to imply contrary to what Scripture states.

Scripture presents imputation (Ro 5:17, 18-19) and you are confusing it with incurring.

"Imputation" is God accounting/crediting. . . sin/guilt or holiness/righteousness. . . to one apart from one's own personal performance.

"Incurring" is one's actual personal performance of the sin which incurs guilt of the sin.

Indeed not. . .they are not the same thing.

Our sinful nature is inherited and does not condemn us,
while Adam's guilt is imputed to us (Ro 5:17, 18-19), making it our own, and does condemn us,
just as Christ's righteousness is imputed to us (Ro 5:18-19), making it our own and does save us..

Unless you are assuming God has no provision for an elect infant dying without saving faith.
The NT does not speak much of the nature of salvation for infants, since the NT is a presentation of the gospel to the accountable.

Precisely. . .the gospel is addressed to the accountable, which infants are not.
One's understanding of the principles of the gospel for the accountable gives one the understanding of the principles of the gospel for the unaccountable.

When you show me one single verse of Scripture that says either "God is Trinity" or "God is sovereign."

Ro 5:17, 18-19 disagree with you.

You don't understand the NT use/meaning of imputed; i.e., to account to, to reckon to, to credit/debit to someone,
as distinct from inherited and incurred.

Apart from a Greek dictionary, we really have no basis for discussion.

It's obvious to me now you can't listen to reason. I'm done here.

 

[Jan001]

As I said earlier, I believe our righteousness is a joint venture between our obedience to God's Word and the Holy Spirit working Christ's Righteousness into our obedience. It is a combination of our obedience and Christ's virtue, which is transmitted to us via the Holy Spirit, who now indwells us.

I don't believe that the Holy Spirit comes and goes in us with respect to His indwelling. Yes, the sense and blessing of His presence comes and goes, but not His position in us as an eternal indwelling after we have accepted Christ for a New Birth. We've become New People, in a sense, even though we still have the trappings of our old lives through our flesh, which remains infected with Sin.

It is true that if we did not have the Holy Spirit's grace in us, as his grace is in all other created things, we would cease to exist. However, it only takes one egregious (deadly, mortal) sin to separate us from our divine life in Christ Jesus (God).

2 Corinthians 13:5 Examine yourselves to see whether you are living in the faith. Test yourselves. Do you not realize that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless, indeed, you fail to meet the test!

1 John 5:16-17 If you see your brother or sister committing what is not a mortal sin, you will ask, and God will give life to such a one—to those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin that is mortal; I do not say that you should pray about that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not mortal.

Matthew 5:21-24 You have heard that it was said to those of ancient times, ‘You shall not murder’; and ‘whoever murders shall be liable to judgment.’ 22 But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire. 23 So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24 leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother or sister, and then come and offer your gift.

Every mortal sin must be repented of and confessed in order to be forgiven. If a person neglects to repent and confess even one mortal sin before he dies, he will not inherit eternal life. This is why it is wise to repent and confess all our known sins. Jesus is our judge, and he knows our heart's intentions, our degree of culpability, and all extenuating circumstances associated with all our sins.

3 John 1:11 Beloved, do not imitate what is evil but imitate what is good. Whoever does good is from God; whoever does evil has not seen God.

Luke 13:23-28, Hebrews 10:28-30

I believe that "Baptism saves us" only as it symbolically represents our Salvation at the point where we initially believed in the Word of Christ. And that is *before Water Baptism."

And so, Water Baptism is simply an initiation ceremony into Christianity, representing Salvation that we have already obtained. It is a public ceremony testifying publicly that we have chosen to become New People. And the water symbolically shows our Salvation in the removal of the pollution of our old way of life.

That is, the physical water does not actually cleanse us, as Peter argued. It is *symbolic* of our cleansing by God's Word, which has indeed cleansed us when we allowed Christ to rule in our lives.

The baptism commanded by Jesus Christ in Matthew 28:18-20 is necessary for salvation.

John 3:5 Jesus answered, “Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit.

Mark 16:16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned.

Born of water and the Spirit:

Acts 2:38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 22:16 And now why do you delay? Get up, be baptized, and have your sins washed away, calling on his name.’


Peter tells his readers that baptismal water is not like bath water. Peter claims that bath water merely cleans dirt from our physical bodies, but baptismal water cleans our souls, which gives us a good conscience (reconciliation) with God.

1 Peter 3:21 And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

 

[Jan001]

......So I suppose it is a acceptable to state that Christ is imputing to us the righteousness of Christ because he acknowledges that his righteousness in us is being generated along with a dispensation of grace, to cover our imperfections. It may just be the semantics of the thing, but I can't actually see Christ's perfect righteousness, which is sinless, imputed to us in any practical sense because once it is in us, through the Spirit, it comes to be tainted with our flawed ways of handling it.

I don't think Christ "imputes" his righteousness to us. Instead, he "makes" us righteous (sanctifies us) by forgiving (washing away) both Adam's sin and all the sins that we have previously committed when we receive the baptism he commanded in Matthew 28:18-20. Romans 5:12

This baptism (Matthew 28:18-20) washes away all our sins. The Holy Spirit then sanctifies us by indwelling within us, and his presence puts us in a right relationship with God. If the Holy Spirit is dwelling within us at the time of our death, Jesus will know that we are his true followers. (John 10:27, Acts 5:32) If his Holy Spirit is not present, Jesus will then claim he never knew us. Matthew 7:21-26, Luke 13:23-27

1 Corinthians 6:9-12 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor those habitually drunk, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

 

[fhansen]

Yes, our position with Christ in heaven is, as I see it, "in grace." We have legal standing with Christ who is in heaven. We are not in heaven with him, obviously, but we are with him positionally, or legally, because he sits there upholding the stand he took for us on the cross in forgiving us of our sins.

For me, it is not so much imputation of righteousness, which is not understandable for me, but God recognizing that He doesn't hold our imperfections against us, and sees, instead, an example of our operating together with Christ's righteousness within us, through the Spirit.

So I suppose it is a acceptable to state that Christ is imputing to us the righteousness of Christ because he acknowledges that his righteousness in us is being generated along with a dispensation of grace, to cover our imperfections. It may just be the semantics of the thing, but I can't actually see Christ's perfect righteousness, which is sinless, imputed to us in any practical sense because once it is in us, through the Spirit, it comes to be tainted with our flawed ways of handling it.

The idea in any case is that God must justify the ungodly in order for us to be right in His eyes for entrance into heaven, so either He simply freely declares us to be just, or He freely makes us just as we turn to Him in faith. The ancient church believed the latter-and that we play a role in this in that we can walk in that justice, with the Spirit, or we can also turn back away from it and to the flesh instead. The former belief is that the gospel is all about a reprieve from man's obligation to be personally righteous, by grace, while the latter is that man is finally given the authentic means to that very righteousness, by grace.

 

[RandyPNW]

I don't think Christ "imputes" his righteousness to us. Instead, he "makes" us righteous (sanctifies us) by forgiving (washing away) both Adam's sin and all the sins that we have previously committed when we receive the baptism he commanded in Matthew 28:18-20. Ro

ans 5:12

This baptism (Matthew 28:18-20) washes away all our sins. The Holy Spirit then sanctifies us by indwelling within us, and his presence puts us in a right relationship with God. If the Holy Spirit is dwelling within us at the time of our death, Jesus will know that we are his true followers. (John 10:27, Acts 5:32) If his Holy Spirit is not present, Jesus will then claim he never knew us. Matthew 7:21-26, Luke 13:23-27

1 Corinthians 6:9-12 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor those habitually drunk, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God..

Of course, much of the language you use is biblical but has to be understood as a form of "Christianese," or abbreviated doctrinal communication. Don't take me wrong--this is entirely legit and necessary. But there are other issues that beg for more explanation.

Yes, we have had our sins "washed away." But the reality is that we've been made righteous even while we continue to live in sinful bodies.
So what is really being "washed away" is our legal guilt, as our mindset is changed from self-centeredness to Christ-centeredness, along with the indwelling Spirit who continually prompts us in the direction of our renewed minds.

 

[RandyPNW]

The idea in any case is that God must justify the ungodly in order for us to be right in His eyes for entrance into heaven, so either He simply freely declares us to be just, or He freely makes us just as we turn to Him in faith. The ancient church believed the latter-and that we play a role in this in that we can walk in that justice, with the Spirit, or we can also turn back away from it and to the flesh instead. The former belief is that the gospel is all about a reprieve from man's obligation to be personally righteous, by grace, while the latter is that man is finally given the authentic means to that very righteousness, by grace.

Yes, in my view it makes no sense to be imputed righteous if we do not simultaneously actually *become* righteous.

Some may argue that since Christ died for us while we were yet sinners, we had to have had righteousness imputed to us before we became Christians. But his dying for us is not, I think, an act of "imputation." Rather, it is an act of forgiveness.

He makes us righteous on the basis of his sacrificial act of forgiveness. And he does so by imparting his Spirit to us through his word as a permanent endowment, so that we may not only do righteousness, but also live in righteousness. Righteousness is not imputed but imparted, as I see it.

 

[fhansen]

You are right, in the sense that imputation is a forensic righteousness; it is 'applied to' the believer, irrespective of what we have or have not done. We are thus judged "not guilty".

But the question does not stand on its own, but in the context of the imputation of sin to us. See the discussions contrasting the effects of the sin of Adam vs the work of Christ, in Romans 5 and 2 Corinthians 5. By the imputation of sin to us, regardless of what we have or have not done (although we have sinned), we (the human race) are judged guilty, because of Adam's sin. But the imputation of righteousness frees us from that forensic guilt, and we are no longer considered God's enemies.

But is this the full story? Didn't something more fundamental happen to man at the Fall, something more than to be declared guilty but a change that guaranteed that all would sin, inevitably, once they were able to at least?

 

[Mark Quayle]

But is this the full story? Didn't something more fundamental happen to man at the Fall, something more that to be declared guilty but a change that guaranteed that all would sin, inevitably, once they were able to at least?

Yes, of course more than just imputed guilt happened! Original sin is a very real, and universal principle. We are not just accounted guilty but are actually guilty, with inherited sinfulness. We are sinful at the core, dead in our sins, until we are [re-]born from above.

 

[fhansen]

Yes, of course more than just imputed guilt happened! Original sin is a very real, and universal principle. We are not just accounted guilty but are actually guilty, with inherited sinfulness. We are sinful at the core, dead in our sins, until we are [re-]born from above.

Ok, but this is why I think that more than a forensically declared righteousness is necesarry in order for us to be right in God's eyes. With Adam's sin of disobedeince all became actual sinners, unrighteous. With Jesus' act of obedience the many become righteous. We are not just forgiven of sin but made just, as new creations.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ok, but this is why I think that more than a forensically declared righteousness is necesarry in order for us to be right in God's eyes. With Adam's sin of disobedeince all became actual sinners, unrighteous. With Jesus' act of obedience the many become righteous. We are not just forgiven of sin but made just, as new creations.

In the same way as all the law and prophets hang on the two commandments —Love God with all your being; Love your neighbor as yourself— so it is with all who are reborn of God: We do have a tendency to get as precise as we can, (and rightly so), but it can mislead us. Within, or hanging onto that forensic righteousness, is the fact of actual righteousness by being IN CHRIST. It is almost a pun, but it can be deciphered in the fact that we cannot see what God sees. We think WE know what is morally right and wrong, and to some degree we can, but we don't see what God sees.

You probably have the idea as most Christians do, that it is the responsibility of the believer to follow Christ, to be Christlike, to obey, to repent of any sin, to "keep short accounts" with God, to grow in grace and to be victorious (whatever those mean), and you are right, and so are they. Far be it from me to say otherwise. But what we don't consider is not only that GOD is the judge of how well we do those things, and not us, but more to the point, that those things do not look like what we think. We may well be very successful in our endeavors, we may be putting on the armor of God, eschewing evil and so on, but the guy who weeps at God's feet, begs for mercy and realizes how badly he NEEDS God, is the one who is Christlike, who is most clearly IN HIM.

John 17 is a killer. The better we come to know God (i.e. theology's "sanctification") the better we see how far we have to go, and how little we have to offer him, and how badly we need him. THAT is becoming actually righteous. And that produces deeds in keeping with God's righteousness.

Beyond that, is the fact that whatever is not done in faith is sin. If, as I cannot see it possible otherwise, faith is a gift of God, and produced by the Spirit of God indwelling the believer, and it is not a matter of degree but of quality, and is altogether valid and cannot fail, though we fail, then it is the Spirit of God working in us both to will and to do of HIS good purposes. That is his righteousness —becoming one with Christ.

 

[fhansen]

In the same way as all the law and prophets hang on the two commandments —Love God with all your being; Love your neighbor as yourself— so it is with all who are reborn of God: We do have a tendency to get as precise as we can, (and rightly so), but it can mislead us. Within, or hanging onto that forensic righteousness, is the fact of actual righteousness by being IN CHRIST. It is almost a pun, but it can be deciphered in the fact that we cannot see what God sees. We think WE know what is morally right and wrong, and to some degree we can, but we don't see what God sees.

Ok-a few thoughts. Catholicism could say that the law gives us an idea of what righteousness "looks like", but love gives us the authentic means to fulfill it. Related to this, Augustine said the following in On the Spirit and the Letter:
"The law was given that grace might be sought; and grace was given that the law might be fulfilled." (De Spiritu et Littera)

But what we don't consider is not only that GOD is the judge of how well we do those things, and not us, but more to the point, that those things do not look like what we think. We may well be very successful in our endeavors, we may be putting on the armor of God, eschewing evil and so on, but the guy who weeps at God's feet, begs for mercy and realizes how badly he NEEDS God, is the one who is Christlike, who is most clearly IN HIM.

We would say that God is not only the judge of our actions but also the proper source of them, as per Eph 2:10, for example. And we don't need to forego one for the other: doing the right thing and overcoming sin, vs being humble-just the opposite, in fact; the former can't truly occur in any real way without the latter. IOW, doing the right thing can and should be Spirit-moved and led, certainly not a matter of legalism, for one.

John 17 is a killer. The better we come to know God (i.e. theology's "sanctification") the better we see how far we have to go, and how little we have to offer him, and how badly we need him. THAT is becoming actually righteous. And that produces deeds in keeping with God's righteousness.

I'm not sure I understand here. To know God is to come to value Him and His ways over the world's, to turn to Him and wish to be like Him as we repent of our own ways. It's to encounter an infinite, ineffable love and be drawn to-and changed by- it. And if we're not, then we should question whether or not we really know Him to begin with (also from John, in his first letter).

Beyond that, is the fact that whatever is not done in faith is sin. If, as I cannot see it possible otherwise, faith is a gift of God, and produced by the Spirit of God indwelling the believer, and it is not a matter of degree but of quality, and is altogether valid and cannot fail, though we fail, then it is the Spirit of God working in us both to will and to do of HIS good purposes. That is his righteousness —becoming one with Christ.

Yes, becoming one with Christ, becoming connected to the Vine, is both the essence and the source of any and all human righteousness.

 

[fhansen]

Righteousness by faith is no God sticking something in you.

It is God's view of you as you stand in Christ.

But it includes the new birth -- new creation of 2 Cor 5 and the indwelling Holy Spirit which is "Christ in you the hope of glory"

So...it is "God sticking something in you" after all? I mean, the new birth with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is a far cry from only being viewed differently by God. That union, that grafting into the Vine, itself, is what man's justice/righteousness, his change, from being ungodly, consists of. And faith, as I understand it, is the means to get us there.

 

[Jan001]

Of course, much of the language you use is biblical but has to be understood as a form of "Christianese," or abbreviated doctrinal communication. Don't take me wrong--this is entirely legit and necessary. But there are other issues that beg for more explanation.

Yes, we have had our sins "washed away." But the reality is that we've been made righteous even while we continue to live in sinful bodies.
So what is really being "washed away" is our legal guilt, as our mindset is changed from self-centeredness to Christ-centeredness, along with the indwelling Spirit who continually prompts us in the direction of our renewed minds.

We were made righteous, but we must be found righteous at the time of our death in order to be worthy to inherit eternal life.
God is always ready to forgive us our sins if we repent and confess our sins. God is both merciful and just. Acts 11:23, 1 John 1:9, 3 John 1:3, Revelation 2:10


Paul laments:

The Inner Conflict​

Romans 7:14-26 For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am of the flesh, sold into slavery under sin.[c] 15 I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. 17 But in fact it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me.

21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do what is good, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God in my inmost self, 23 but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, with my mind I am a slave to the law of God, but with my flesh I am a slave to the law of sin.

Life in the Spirit

Romans 8:1-4 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit[a] of life in Christ Jesus has set you[b] free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin,[c] he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.[d]

 

[Jan001]

Yes, of course more than just imputed guilt happened! Original sin is a very real, and universal principle. We are not just accounted guilty but are actually guilty, with inherited sinfulness. We are sinful at the core, dead in our sins, until we are [re-]born from above.

I do not believe that people are inherently evil. I believe we have a tendency to sin (concupiscence) because of Adam's sin, which all mankind inherited. There are many righteous OT & NT people mentioned in the bible.

Genesis 6:9 These are the descendants of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God.

Psalm 34:19 Many are the afflictions of the righteous, but the Lord rescues them from them all.

Matthew 1:19 Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly.

 

[fhansen]

We were made righteous, but we must be found righteous at the time of our death in order to be worthy to inherit eternal life.
God is always ready to forgive us our sins if we repent and confess our sins. God is both merciful and just. Acts 11:23, 1 John 1:9, 3 John 1:3, Revelation 2:10


Paul laments:

The Inner Conflict​

Romans 7:14-26 For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am of the flesh, sold into slavery under sin.[c] 15 I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. 17 But in fact it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me.

21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do what is good, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God in my inmost self, 23 but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, with my mind I am a slave to the law of God, but with my flesh I am a slave to the law of sin.

Life in the Spirit

Romans 8:1-4 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit[a] of life in Christ Jesus has set you[b] free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin,[c] he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.[d]

Yes, there is no condemnation for those who walk according to the Spirit, because:
"...we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God." Rom 8:12-14

 

[RandyPNW]

We were made righteous, but we must be found righteous at the time of our death in order to be worthy to inherit eternal life.
God is always ready to forgive us our sins if we repent and confess our sins. God is both merciful and just. Acts 11:23, 1 John 1:9, 3 John 1:3, Revelation 2:10


Paul laments:

The Inner Conflict​

Romans 7:14-26 For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am of the flesh, sold into slavery under sin.[c] 15 I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. 17 But in fact it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me.

21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do what is good, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God in my inmost self, 23 but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind, making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, with my mind I am a slave to the law of God, but with my flesh I am a slave to the law of sin.

Life in the Spirit

Romans 8:1-4 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit[a] of life in Christ Jesus has set you[b] free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin,[c] he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.[d]

If you hope to be perfect on the day of your death, you're engaging in wishful thinking. It's best to simply be found pursuing God the best you can. The small things will not prevent you from being saved.

Paul said his mind is ever on the Law of God, even while knowing he cannot achieve its perfection. And so, we pursue Christ as the basis of our righteousness, which is called "Grace."

Paul did not mean his mind was on doing the requirements of the Old Covenant. Rather, he meant that the Law pointed to Christ's perfection.