DogmaHunter
Code Monkey
- Jan 26, 2014
- 16,757
- 8,531
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
I don't really intend to play your games. You intentially tried to muddy the waters by presenting a meaning for imputation that is not inline with the biblical definition.
No. I never heared the term before, just googled it and clicked the first link that came up.
Instead of playing riddle games, you also could have just explained the concept right after you brought it up yourself, instead of asking a question and then ranting about getting an answer that you didn't like.
Now, if you were actually serious in learning I would have expected you to post something like the following:
My "seriousness" in learning is expressed by an ability to read your mind to see what it is that you actually meant?
Imputation "is used to designate any action or word or thing as reckoned to a person. Thus in doctrinal language (1) the sin of Adam is imputed to all his descendants, i.e., it is reckoned as theirs, and they are dealt with therefore as guilty; (2) the righteousness of Christ is imputed to them that believe in him, or so attributed to them as to be considered their own; and (3) our sins are imputed to Christ, i.e., he assumed our 'law-place,' undertook to answer the demands of justice for our sins. In all these cases the nature of imputation is the same (Rom. 5:12-19; comp. Philemon 1:18, 19)."
....I trust you see and understand the difference.
Sure. But you know, you just used a bunch of fancy words to say the exact same thing.
I don't see how this changes anything.
1. off spring is still being held accountable for the "crimes" of ancestors
2. scapegoats are still being killed to abolish the "guilt" of others.
I still have to call such practices / concepts / ideas as being totally morally bankrupt. Calling it "imputation" doesn't change that. At all.
You haven't given me a single reason to rethink my position.
Upvote
0