why only bad stuff inhereted?

[billwald]

Why is only bad stuff inhereted? If Adam was able to impart his sin to his children then why wasn't Abraham et al. able to impart their righteousness?

 

[depthdeception]

Why is only bad stuff inhereted? If Adam was able to impart his sin to his children then why wasn't Abraham et al. able to impart their righteousness?

Because the doctrine of original sin is inconsistent.

 

[cygnusx1]

Why is only bad stuff inhereted? If Adam was able to impart his sin to his children then why wasn't Abraham et al. able to impart their righteousness?

do a google on imputed righteousness of Christ , you will see it is not all one way ........ sin (nature) inherited is but a shadow of Righteousness inherited.

Imputed righteousness

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search
Imputed righteousness is a concept in Christian theology directly related to the Protestant doctrine of justification. It is particularly prevalent in the theological school known as Calvinism.
"Justification is that step in salvation in which God declares the believer righteous. Protestant theology has emphasized that this includes the imputation of Christ's righteousness (crediting it to the believer's "account"), whereas Roman Catholic theology emphasizes that God justifies in accord with an infused righteousness merited by Christ and maintained by the believer's good works," (Elwell Evangelical Dictionary).
Imputed Righteousness therefore means that upon repentance and belief in Christ, individuals are forensically declared righteous. This righteousness is not the believer's own, rather it is Christ's own righteousness 'imputed' to the believer.
A primary line of argumentation for this doctrine maintains that perfect righteousness or holiness is necessary to be with God. All mankind "fall short of the glory of God" (Rom 3:23) because all their 'righteousness' is like filthy rags (Is 64:6) before the throne of God, and so all are "dead in their trespasses and sins" (Eph 2:1), and as a result "will not come into [God's] light for fear that their evil deeds will be revealed" (John 3:20). All mankind is in this predicament because all are the offspring of Adam and Eve (Rom 5) who originally sinned against God. As a result of Adam's fall, the world was cursed and sin entered the world. But upon confession of one's own sin and faith in Christ's death and resurrection, the sinner is justified and counted as having the righteousness of Christ.
Although all of Christianity would agree that Christ is the believer's chief representative and head before the perfect holiness of God, not all would agree that Christ's righteousness is imputed to the believer. In some circles, imputed righteousness is referred to as positive imputation - where the believer receives the righteousness of Christ. It stands in contrast to negative imputation - where the sin and judgment due to the repenting sinner is imputed to Christ. Virtually all would agree with the latter, but not all will agree with the former. The debate turns on a number of Bible verses not the least of which deal with what and whose righteousness was credited to Abraham when he believed God (Genesis 15:5-6).
Although Protestantism does not stand or fall on this doctrine, it is one of the classic doctrines of Protestantism and traces back through the reformers - chiefly John Calvin and Martin Luther. These men stood against the Roman Catholic doctrine of infused righteousness where the righteousness of the saints and of Christ is gradually infused to the believer through the sacraments. For the Catholic, infused righteousness either gradually dissipates as the believer takes part in worldly sins or is enhanced by good works. If the believer dies without having the fullness of righteousness, coming in part from the last rites, he or she will temporarily spend time in purgatory until the sinful status is purged from his or her record.
[edit]

See also

• Imparted righteousness
• Original sin
• Righteousness
• Salvation

[edit]

External links

• Imputed Righteousness Defended by William Romaine, preached in London, 1759.

• The Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness by John Gill.

• The doctrine of Justification by Faith, through the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ by John Owen.

• Imputed Righteousness: The Evangelical Doctrine by R. C. Sproul.

• Imputation (conservative Calvinist perspective)

 

[billwald]

If Isaac was righteous before Esau was born then why didn't Esau inheret righteousness?

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

The righteousness of Christ is imputed to all who believe without their ever deserving it.

They get it for Christ's sake in the same way that we get Adam's guilt for his sake.

We're dealing with covenants here, which are not contracts so much as systems of relationship with God imposed upon His people.

In the first case, that of Adam, he was a covenant head, he was the human representative before God for what is called the covenant of works. He was given a command, "Don't do this..." the command had consequences for disobedience "on that day you will surely die."

The penalty for his disobedience accrues to all of us who are descended from him.

But Christ is also a covenant head. He stands before God as the executor of a new and better covenant, what we call the covenant of Grace. The terms of this covenant are the perfect satisfaction of the law of God, the perfect obedience of Jesus Christ.

The benefits of His obedience accrue to all of those who place their trust in Him.

We are restored to fellowship with God, we are reconciled; we are made joint-heirs with Him. Christ's own righteousness is imputed (credited) to us by faith in exactly the same way as Adam's unrighteousness and sin were imputed to us by virtue of us being his heirs after the flesh.

The imputation goes further still.

Our sin as well as Adam's sin was imputed to (credited to) Jesus at the cross. He bore our sins there. The Bible says "He became sin who knew no sin".

So Adam's sin, and our sin, once imputed to us, are transferred to Christ and Christ's righteousness is imputed to us.

It's beautiful really:

God's justice is satisfied, His mercy is shown and He is glorified in the salvation of His saints.

You cannot have Christ for your Savior and Lord if you do not also have the sin and guilt of Adam.

 

[depthdeception]

We are restored to fellowship with God, we are reconciled; we are made joint-heirs with Him. Christ's own righteousness is imputed (credited) to us by faith in exactly the same way as Adam's unrighteousness and sin were imputed to us by virtue of us being his heirs after the flesh.

??? So we inherit sinfulness from Adam genetically? Is this what you mean by being "heirs after the flesh?" If this is so, how is the righteousness of Christ imputed to us "in exactly the same way?" Your perspective requires that Christ be born fundamentally different genetically than humans. However, your perspective also requires that salvation is the process of having Christ's grace imputed to the human person. But if this imputation is "exactly" the same as that of Adam, then salvation actually requires that we be genetically changed. Pure rubbish.

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

??? So we inherit sinfulness from Adam genetically? Is this what you mean by being "heirs after the flesh?" If this is so, how is the righteousness of Christ imputed to us "in exactly the same way?" Your perspective requires that Christ be born fundamentally different genetically than humans. However, your perspective also requires that salvation is the process of having Christ's grace imputed to the human person. But if this imputation is "exactly" the same as that of Adam, then salvation actually requires that we be genetically changed. Pure rubbish. [/color][/size][/font]

Who said anything about "genetics"?

Flesh is a principle which happens to inhere in our bodies.

Concupiscence comes with it.

If it were merely transferred "genetically" then it wouldn't be imputed, would it?

As covenant head, Adam's sin is imputed to all those also under his covenant; i.e. everyone born of his line, since the means of transmission of this concupiscence is fleshly.

As covenant head, Christ's righteousness is imputed to all those also under His covenant; i.e. everyone who believes, since the means of transmission of this grace is spiritual.

 

[depthdeception]

Who said anything about "genetics"?

Well, you did. Not explicitly, of course, but such is the logical conclusion of your position.

Flesh is a principle which happens to inhere in our bodies.

Concupiscence comes with it.

This is a dodge. We do not "have" bodies--we are bodies. Therefore, if "flesh" (whatever that means) inheres to anything, it is to us. It cannot be bifurcated between body and soul.

If it were merely transferred "genetically" then it wouldn't be imputed, would it?

How else would you define "imputed?"

As covenant head, Adam's sin is imputed to all those also under his covenant; i.e. everyone born of his line, since the means of transmission of this concupiscence is fleshly.

So it is genetic...

As covenant head, Christ's righteousness is imputed to all those also under His covenant; i.e. everyone who believes, since the means of transmission of this grace is spiritual.

If this is true, then Christ has not actually solved the problem of human sinfulness, for his imputation (spiritual) takes place on a different level than that of "Adam's imputation" (fleshly).

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

You're being ticky tack

 

[depthdeception]

You're being ticky tack

Because I take things to their logical conclusion? Guilty as charged.

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

Because I take things to their logical conclusion? Guilty as charged.

No, because you're not admitting a distinction between "fleshly" and "genetic".

 

[depthdeception]

No, because you're not admitting a distinction between "fleshly" and "genetic".

It has nothing to do with "admitting." The way in which you deployed your language concerning "fleshy" can lead to no other conclusion.

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

It has nothing to do with "admitting." The way in which you deployed your language concerning "fleshy" can lead to no other conclusion.

You're mistaken.

"Flesh" in this context, is a principle, not tissue.

 

[holyrokker]

You're mistaken.

"Flesh" in this context, is a principle, not tissue.

How can you tell the difference? The Greek word "sarx" is the word used 150 times in the New Testament.

It translates into English as -

- flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts
- the body
- the body of a man
- used of natural or physical origin, generation or relationship - born of natural generation

 

[holyrokker]

impute - verb/transitive = to ascribe to or charge (a person) with an act or quality because of the conduct of another over whom one has control or for whose acts or conduct one is responsible

It is a legal term. To say that Adam's guilt is imputed to us is to say that we are declared guilty because of his sin. It doesn't mean that we inherit his sin.

To say that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us is to say that we are declared righteous because of His righteousness.

 

[Adalbert]

??? So we inherit sinfulness from Adam genetically? Is this what you mean by being "heirs after the flesh?" If this is so, how is the righteousness of Christ imputed to us "in exactly the same way?" Your perspective requires that Christ be born fundamentally different genetically than humans. However, your perspective also requires that salvation is the process of having Christ's grace imputed to the human person. But if this imputation is "exactly" the same as that of Adam, then salvation actually requires that we be genetically changed. Pure rubbish. [/color][/size][/font]

We are Adam's offspring and inherit his propensities. His propensities are transferred genetically, whereas Jesus is a choice we make and avail ourselves of His propensities upon that moment.
One is fleshly, the other spiritual. One has no semblance to the other.
Though Adam we have a tendency to sin, through Christ we endeavor not to sin.

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

How can you tell the difference? The Greek word "sarx" is the word used 150 times in the New Testament.

It translates into English as -

- flesh (the soft substance of the living body, which covers the bones and is permeated with blood) of both man and beasts
- the body
- the body of a man
- used of natural or physical origin, generation or relationship - born of natural generation

It is clear form context, especially as Paul uses it, that it has a more nuanced theological meaning.

Here's just one passage (Romans 8:1-8) indicating this. Try to understand this passage as inferring the mere dictionary definition, it makes no sense:

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 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 for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

It is a legal term. To say that Adam's guilt is imputed to us is to say that we are declared guilty because of his sin.

I can live with that.

 

[hlaltimus]

Adam could not pass on any moral virtue because the fall effected his entire man with sin in some way or another. The very best quality in Adam then was tainted with the effects of sin, so the only way now to inherit true virtue is from another, untainted Adam and that is the last Adam, Christ.