The doctrine of imputation is hypocritical

[redleghunter]

Righteousness denotes that which is from good, and good is all that which belongs to love and charity. Righteousness is therefore, what good a man does.

Surely there is no righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.
(Ecclesiastes 7:20)

 

[Ripheus27]

Hi Ripheus, why do you believe that the Lord's death on the Cross was absolutely necessary for our salvation?

BTW, it would help me if you'd explain what you believe imputation is, because unless/until we're sure that we're both on the same page about the meaning of the terminology we're using, we could simply be talking past or around one another.

Thanks!

Yours and His,
David

I think it was necessary because if He didn't die, He couldn't be resurrected. Resurrecting someone who is still alive is impossible.

As for what imputation is, it is predicating something of X that actually "belongs to" Y. E.g. if I impute the sin of person Y to person X, I no longer judge, "Person Y sinned," but, "Person X sinned." So as I understand it, imputing our sins to Christ, or His righteous works to us, would amount to believing that Christ sinned and that we did His good works, which seems depraved.

 

[redleghunter]

I think it was necessary because if He didn't die, He couldn't be resurrected. Resurrecting someone who is still alive is impossible.

As for what imputation is, it is predicating something of X that actually "belongs to" Y. E.g. if I impute the sin of person Y to person X, I no longer judge, "Person Y sinned," but, "Person X sinned." So as I understand it, imputing our sins to Christ, or His righteous works to us, would amount to believing that Christ sinned and that we did His good works, which seems depraved.

2 Corinthians 5:21 is instructive in this matter.

See also Leviticus 16 for the types and shadows.

 

[bling]

This doctrine implies the opposite of what it is used for. Its purpose is to have it so that we are not saved by our own works. However, it would have things this way on the grounds that the works of Christ are made out to be ours. That is, God makes it out that His Son's works are our works, which thereby save us. This is quite unseemly, I believe, if not outright profane.

I got through reading all the post and can now comment.

I agree for the most part in what you are saying, but see a different logical and Biblical solution to the problem without imputing anything.

It would not be fair/just to impute sin especially.

You also bring up a lot about atonement which includes imputing sin and righteousness especially in the Theory of Penal Substitution, which is totally unjust but is a huge topic needing lots of words to explain, but can be experienced easily. (Will go into this later if you want).

You have a righteous concern about misusing and abusing scripture and I love the fact you avoid commentaries, but need to include the tapping into the Spirit and fellow critical thinking Christians.


If you really want to get into this you will need to go deeper, for example:

You quote:

“2 Cor 5:21 Him who knew no sin he made [to be] sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him.”

This is an extremely important verse to show imputing our sins to Christ, so the imputing of righteousness to man seems logical, BUT:

Is that even a good translation?

What does “Christ made to be sin” or “Christ made sin” mean: did Christ become a sinner, did a being become an intangible thing like “sin” and are there other scripture to help us with this?

If you go to the NIV there is an alternative translation for at the bottom where “sin offering” is given as an alternative to “being made sin” and we all know Christ was a “sin offering”, so what support is there for that translation?

Paul being a scholar of the Torah, used a Hebraism. In this case, the Hebrew word for "sin" was also used to mean "sin offering" (see the Hebrew word: chatta'ath), and thus to be "made sin" was a Hebrew way of saying "made a sin offering". the NASB cross-references to Romans 8:3 which uses "sin offering" in a similar text as 2 Corinthians 5:21

There is the analogy in 2 Corinthians 8:9; the cross-reference to the clearer statement in Romans 8:3 that Christ was sent "in the likeness of sinful flesh" to deal with sin; and the allusion to Sacrifice in 2 Corinthians 5:21 where it says Christ "knew no sin" in corresponding to the sacrificial animal being free of blemish (otherwise Paul saying "knew no sin" would be irrelevant here).

The Greek word for "sin" that Paul uses is used in the Greek Old Testament both to mean "sin" and "sin offering," with both usages even in the same verse such as in Leviticus 4:3.

You can certainly do a deeper study of 2 Cor 5: 21 and we can go into Ro.3-4.

Just talking about imputing sin:

We die because “we all sin” and not because Adam and Eve sinned.

We got “knowledge” of good and evil from Adam and Eve’s sin and curses but: is knowledge itself bad? Is death bad? Is having limited resources “bad”? Is having to “work” bad? Is it bad for us to be surrounded by needy people? Do all these things help willing mature adults to fulfill their earthly objective?

The results of Adam and Eve’s sin does not have to be we all were imputed with their sin, but it does mean all mature adults need to sin and will sin. Yes, seemingly “bad” stuff happens to us today like Christ had to go to the cross, satan is roaming the earth, tragedies of all kind happen, death happens, hell exists, and sin is allowed to happen, but these are all needed to help willing individuals fulfill their earthly objective and not because Adam and Eve sinned and those sins were imputed to us.

 

[redleghunter]

[Staff edit].
Psalm 14:
2The LORD looks down from heaven

upon the sons of men

to see if any understand,

if any seek God.

3All have turned away,

they have together become corrupt;b

there is no one who does good,

not one.

 

[St_Worm2]

I think it was necessary because if He didn't die, He couldn't be resurrected. Resurrecting someone who is still alive is impossible.

Hi Ripheus, millions, perhaps billions of bulls and goats were sacrificed by Israel to atone for the sins of the people, both corporately and individually as well. These animals were never going to be resurrected, so what purpose did these sacrifices serve?

I suppose I should also ask why you believe the Lord's resurrection is necessary for our salvation, especially since you believe His death was not (beyond the fact that death, as you pointed out above, is a necessary precursor to resurrection)? How does the Lord's resurrection save us/what does it do for us?

As for what imputation is, it is predicating something of X that actually "belongs to" Y. E.g. if I impute the sin of person Y to person X, I no longer judge, "Person Y sinned," but, "Person X sinned." So as I understand it, imputing our sins to Christ, or His righteous works to us, would amount to believing that Christ sinned and that we did His good works, which seems depraved.

That's right, Jesus chose to die for His bride. He chose to pay the price needed to redeem the ones He loved, because the ones He loved had no way to do that for themselves.

Is not dying for one's friends or loved ones the supreme act love? Why do you believe that this loving act of God's on our behalf is profane?

Yours and His,
David

Isaiah 53
5 ..He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.
6 ..All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.​

.

 

[Ripheus27]

Hi Ripheus, millions, perhaps billions of bulls and goats were sacrificed by Israel to atone for the sins of the people, both corporately and individually as well. These animals were never going to be resurrected, so what purpose did these sacrifices serve?

I suppose I should also ask why you believe the Lord's resurrection is necessary for our salvation, especially since you believe His death was not (beyond the fact that death, as you pointed out above, is a necessary precursor to resurrection)? How does the Lord's resurrection save us/what does it do for us?

In all honesty, I think the animal sacrifices were absurd, if not diabolical. I'm not an inerrantist/infallibilist/w/e about the Bible, either, so the mere fact that the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews claims that the animal sacrifices had some "prefigurative" value, or whatever, doesn't persuade me of the thing.

Now, how does the Resurrection save us? I actually didn't say it did in my picture of how Christ's righteousness saves us. Now the Bible says something like, "How much more we will be saved by His life!" at one point, so the Bible appears to say that the Resurrection saves us even more than the Crucifixion does.

Of course, this might all pertain to how many different ways/times Christ saves us. So maybe when it says that He saves us from sin, death, and the Devil, it means His Crucifixion, Resurrection, and [???] saves us. I won't claim to know at this moment.

Why do you believe that this loving act of God's on our behalf is profane?

That's a loaded question, is it not? I said a specific, and false, doctrine was profane, not an act of God on our behalf. Besides which, if it was all about spontaneous imputations of facts, I don't understand why God couldn't just forgive us without the Crucifixion or anything else in the first place. It's often said that because He is a holy God, He must punish all sin in some form or other, but I don't believe that, especially not if God is sovereign. The difference between Heaven and Hell is not the difference between Mercy and Justice but Mercy and Cruelty.

 

[St_Worm2]

In all honesty, I think the animal sacrifices were absurd, if not diabolical.

Hi again Ripheus, it was God who commanded them, and even performed them Himself at times, right from the get-go, for instance (Genesis 3:21).

Then He continued them .. cf Genesis 4:4-5; Genesis 8:20-21; Leviticus 16..... until His Son became the true and once forever Sacrifice when He offered Himself up by dying for our sins on the Cross (so that we could be both justified by His blood, and saved from His Father's wrath .. e.g. Romans 5:8-10). Does that mean that you believe God's ways are "absurd", and/or that He Himself is "diabolical"?

Neither sin, nor the way (the "scarlet thread") of redemption, is in any way a pretty picture, is it? Yet the Lord chose to come here as a man and die that horrible death on the Cross for us anyway.

I'll get back to the rest of your post later this evening because I need to run right now.

Yours and His,
David

Isaiah 53
5 ..He was pierced through for our transgressions,
He was crushed for our iniquities;
The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
And by His scourging we are healed.
6 ..All of us like sheep have gone astray,
Each of us has turned to his own way;
But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all
To fall on Him.​

 

[Ripheus27]

...it was God who commanded them, and even performed them Himself at times, right from the get-go, for instance...

That's in an allegorical legend, not direct historical fact (as far as I am concerned).

 

[FredVB]

As for what imputation is, it is predicating something of X that actually "belongs to" Y. E.g. if I impute the sin of person Y to person X, I no longer judge, "Person Y sinned," but, "Person X sinned." So as I understand it, imputing our sins to Christ, or His righteous works to us, would amount to believing that Christ sinned and that we did His good works, which seems depraved.

It is judgment that is transferred, from coming on us for what we deserve with all the sins in our lives, if we repent and are redeemed in Christ, to what Christ bore for us, that he alone could bear fully to completion. He had the judgment for sin instead, though he was without sin, that his perfect righteousness is left to be considered for those whose judgment he bore. It won't work without repentance coming to Christ in essential faith which leads to a changed life, without this it doesn't apply.

Sin has no bearing on what righteousness means. Righteousness denotes that which is from good, and good is all that which belongs to love and charity. Righteousness is therefore, what good a man does.

What? What does that mean? There isn't real righteousness with sin. Christ's righteousness, which was without sin, is considered for those he redeems, in place of all their sin in their lives that he bore the judgment for.

 

[St_Worm2]

That's in an allegorical legend, not direct historical fact (as far as I am concerned).

How much of Genesis do you hold to be a myth? Also, do you hold the various times that God commands the sacrifices, and details exactly how they are to be carried out, to by a myth as well?

Thanks!

--David

2 Chronicles 7
1 ..When Solomon had finished praying, fire came down from heaven and consumed the burnt offering and the sacrifices, and the glory of the LORD filled the house.​

 

[Ripheus27]

How much of Genesis do you hold to be a myth? Also, do you hold the various times that God commands the sacrifices, and details exactly how they are to be carried out, to by a myth as well?

I said "legend," not "myth." As far as the post-Genesis narrative goes, I assume the book becomes closer and closer to literally true, is literally true for more or less the duration of the Gospels, and then fades back into allegory through the close of Revelation. So the early claim that God commands animal sacrifices is part of the ancient allegory.

Because killing animals, incidentally, does nothing whatsoever to make up for sin. If it was a symbolic gesture, well, all sorts of symbolic gestures were possible that would not have been so questionable.

 

[St_Worm2]

I said "legend," not "myth."

Hi Ripheus, the slight difference in meaning between those two words seems insignificant in this case, IMHO anyway. At least if Genesis is considered to be a "myth", it could have been come directly from God to Moses.

Since you believe the Creation narrative to be a "legend" however, which parts of it do you believe are literal/true? Do you, for instance, believe that Adam and Eve were the first human beings and our first parents, and that decay and death entered our realm for the first time because of their sin (and that we, their progeny, all ended up being sinners/sinning personally because of their choice to disobey in the Garden of God)?

If you do not, how do you explain that which is the most universal trait among all human beings? We are ALL sinners, which means that we were made that way somehow, but if our progenitors were not the ones who are responsible for this race-wide defect, then there is only one other Being who could be.

As far as the post-Genesis narrative goes, I assume the book becomes closer and closer to literally true, is literally true for more or less the duration of the Gospels, and then fades back into allegory through the close of Revelation. So the early claim that God commands animal sacrifices is part of the ancient allegory.

What evidence do you have that such a thing might be true? On what basis, for instance, did you decide that Genesis is legendary/allegorical, and that the Gospel of John is fact?

As for your belief that God's commanding and/or personally performing animal sacrifices in the OT is nothing more than ancient allegory out of some Bronze Age exaggeration/superstition, then what do you make of all the statements (both direct and indirect) concerning those same OT animal sacrifices (by Jesus and by His Apostles in the Gospels, in Acts, and in the Epistles) nearly 1,500 years later in the NT (animal sacrifices that, BTW, were still being performed regularly when He walked among us)?

Thanks!

--David

 

[St_Worm2]

I actually didn't say it did in my picture of how Christ's righteousness saves us.

I agree with you, that Christ's righteousness is necessary for our salvation, but how does that work? IOW, in what way do you believe His righteousness saves us?

That's a loaded question, is it not? I said a specific, and false, doctrine was profane, not an act of God on our behalf.

I'm not sure why you believe it was a "loaded question" (well, yeah, I guess it was in a sense ).

That said however, if the Lord's death on the Cross is that which atones for our sins, and Biblically, it is, then how is the doctrine of imputation false or profane? For this "act" of Jesus' to accomplish its intended purpose, it had to be "applied" in some way to the sinners it was meant to save, yes? And it is by God crediting this action by His Son to our accounts (and likewise our sins to the Jesus' account) that He is able to consider our sins atoned for and declare us "just".

I don't understand why God couldn't just forgive us without the Crucifixion or anything else in the first place.

It's because we are fallen that such a thought even enters our minds. God is holy and righteous, but to be either, He must also be "just".

The other thing is this, do you believe that the One who is defined as our Abba, Father, and is described as "love" itself, would have sent His one and only Son, the Being He loves above all others, here to die that HORRIBLE death if there was any way whatsoever that it could have been avoided, if it wasn't ABSOLUTELY necessary for our sakes that He did so? If there was, if it wasn't absolutely necessary, that would mean that God is a sadistic monster instead of a loving Father, wouldn't it?

Thanks!

--David

 

[redleghunter]

[Staff edit].

Romans 3:
5But if our unrighteousness highlights the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unjust to inflict His wrath on us? I am speaking in human terms. 6By no means! In that case, how could God judge the world? 7However, if my falsehood accentuates God’s truthfulness, to the increase of His glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner? 8Why not say, as some slanderously claim that we say, “Let us do evil that good may result?” Their condemnation is deserved!

There is No One Righteous
(Psalm 14:1-7)

9What then? Are we any better? Not at all. For we have already made the charge that Jews and Greeks alike are all under sin. 10As it is written:

“There is no one righteous,

not even one.

11There is no one who understands,

no one who seeks God.

12All have turned away;

they have together become worthless;

there is no one who does good,

not even one.b

13Their throats are open graves;

their tongues practice deceit.c

The venom of vipers is on their lips.d

14Their mouths are full of cursing and of bitterness.e

15Their feet are swift to shed blood;

16ruin and misery lie in their wake;

17and the way of peace they have not known.f

18There is no fear of God before their eyes.”g

19Now we know that whatever the Law says, it says to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be justified in His sight by works of the Law. For the Law merely brings awareness of sin.

Righteousness through Faith

21But now, apart from the Law, the righteousness of God has been revealed, as attested by the Law and the Prophets.22And this righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no distinction, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

25God presented Him as an atoning sacrifice through faith in His blood, in order to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance He had passed over the sins committed beforehand. 26He did this to demonstrate His righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and to justify the one who has faith in Jesus.

27Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of works? No, but on that of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

29Is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, 30since there is One God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith.

31Do we, then, nullify the Law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the Law.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Christ's justificatory righteousness is defined as His obedience, which is a work. When it is said that "all our righteousness is as rags" and that this is why our works do not save us, well, that just goes to show that Christ's righteousness is His work. Again, no more with these word-games.

The reason why our works are worthless is because our works are unrighteous and sinful.
The reason why Christ's work is worthy is because His work is righteous and perfect.

Christ's holy and righteous obedience is not "as rags", because it is holy, perfect, and righteous. In contradistinction to our works which are unrighteous and fallen short of obedience.

And that is why we need a righteousness apart from ourselves, a righteousness apart from the Law; the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

So as I understand it, imputing our sins to Christ, or His righteous works to us, would amount to believing that Christ sinned and that we did His good works, which seems depraved.

As you say, that is as you understand it; and that's where the problem lay. No Christ did not sin, and no we did not do His good works.

Imputation means that we are the benefactors of what Christ has done, as grace from God. It does not transfer Christ's work into our work; it is Christ's work which we then benefit from as grace.

If I buy a house, clean it out, and set up the furniture, and say "Hey, come live in my house", you are benefiting of my work to buy, clean, and set up the house. It doesn't mean you did any of it, it means you benefit from it as a gift of kindness.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[redleghunter]

[Staff edit].
Romans 4:

Abraham Justified by Faith
(Genesis 15:1-7; Galatians 3:1-9; Hebrews 11:8-19; James 2:14-26)

1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, has discovered? 2If Abraham was indeed justified by works, he had something to boast about, but not before God. 3For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”a

4Now the wages of the worker are not credited as a gift, but as an obligation.5However, to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. 6And David speaks likewise of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

7“Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven,

whose sins are covered.

8Blessed is the man

whose sin the Lord will never count against him.”b

9Is this blessing only on the circumcised, or also on the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited as righteousness. 10In what context was it credited? Was it after his circumcision, or before? It was not after, but before.

11And he received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but are not circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised, but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

Abraham Receives the Promise
(Genesis 15:8-21; Numbers 34:1-15)

13For it was not through the Law that Abraham and his descendants were promised that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14For if those who live by the Law are heirs, faith is useless and the promise is worthless, 15because the Law brings wrath. And where there is no law, there is no transgression.

16Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may rest on grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.”c He is our father in the presence of God, in whom he believed, the God who gives life to the dead and calls into being what does not yet exist.

18Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as he had been told, “So shall your offspring be.”d 19Without weakening in his faith, he acknowledged the decrepitness of his body (since he was about a hundred years old) and the lifelessness of Sarah’s womb.

20Yet he did not waver through disbelief in the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21being fully persuaded that God was able to do what He had promised.22That is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.”e

23Now the words “it was credited to him” were written not only for Abraham, 24but also for us, to whom righteousness will be credited—for us who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.25He was delivered over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification.

 

[ViaCrucis]

.
Thank you, but what I am looking for is, "the righteousness of Christ is imputed to them that believe in him,"

Well it says specifically "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ".

Further: "And because of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, 'Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.'" - 1 Corinthians 1:30-31

Christ has become our righteousness.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bling]

I don't understand why God couldn't just forgive us without the Crucifixion or anything else in the first place. It's often said that because He is a holy God, He must punish all sin in some form or other, but I don't believe that, especially not if God is sovereign. The difference between Heaven and Hell is not the difference between Mercy and Justice but Mercy and Cruelty.

I think I told you we could dig deep into Atonement if you wanted to and I think you need to, but it is up to you, since it takes lots of words.

YES! God did forgive people in the past and can forgive us without the need for Christ to go to the cross!

You cannot “punish” sin because sin has no feelings, but you can punish the sinner and it would be better to see to the disciplining (a type of punishment and often translated wrongly as “punishment” in scripture).

The difference for us today between heaven and hell is the fact some humbly accepted Loving discipline and thus get to go to heaven and others refused to accept Loving discipline taking on a lessor objective, so they are punished with hell, but even their punishment was not vengeance against them (God cannot help them further), but they can help those still willing to accept discipline over punishment quicker.

The animal sacrifices of the past are meaningless and a waste if Christ did not go to the cross. God uses lots of stuff seemingly at great expenses, in our estimate, to help us understand, but remember these things are not of significant value to God who can create millions more with a word.

Much more can be said if you want to go further.