Double Imputation: Christ stood in the place of the elect... (1)
"XIV. Both may be said in a sound sense, viz, that our sins, as many of us as are elect, are ours not Christ's, and that the same sins are Christ's, and no more ours. They are ours, because committed by us, and because by them we brought upon ourselves the guilt of eternal death, and thus far they will remain ours for ever: that is, it will be always true that we committed them, and, in so doing, deserved the wrath of God. For what is done, can never become undone, and thus they are not Christ's, because he did not commit them, neither did he contract any personal guilt. Neither could they become his sins; because the nature of things does not suffer that the same numerical act which was committed by us, should be done by Christ. But the sins which we committed became Christ's, when imputed to him as Surety, and he on account of his suretiship took them upon him, that in the most free and holy manner he might satisfy for them; and they cease to be ours, in as much as for the sake of Christ's satisfaction, we neither ought, nor can, in the judgment of God, be brought to condemnation or satisfaction in our own person on their account. And these things seem so evident to me, that there can be no difference as to the matter itself among the orthodox...
"... as what I say is orthodox: because as Christ representing the person of the elect, was made sin for them; so also on the other hand, the elect considered in the person of Christ become the righteousness of God in him: and because his righteousness is as much their righteousness, as their sins were his sins; both by imputation: [3.] but an imputation so valid, that as he could not but be punished on account of their sins imputed to him, so they cannot but be saved on account of his righteousness imputed to them."
Herman Witsius. Conciliatory, or Irenical Animadversions, p 27, 33
Moo- “The image of crucifixion is chosen not because Paul wants to suggest that our “dying with Christ” is a preliminary action that the believer must complete by daily “dying to sin,” but because Christ’s death took the form of crucifixion. The believer who is “crucified with Christ” is as definitely and finally “dead” as a result of this action as was Christ himself after his crucifixion (as Paul stresses in v. 10: the death Christ died he died “once for all”). Of course, we must remember what this death means. This is no more a physical, or ontological, death, than is our burial with Christ (v. 4) or our “dying to sin” (v. 2). Paul’s language throughout is forensic, or positional; by God’s act, we have been placed in a new position. This position is real, for what exists in God’s sight is surely (ultimately) real, and it carries definite consequences for day-to-day living. But it is status, or power-structure, that Paul is talking about here.” https://www.dbts.edu/journals/1997/nature.pdf
Jack. Sorry to hit you with this again, but I've never gotten a satisfactory answer.
I don't deny the forensic removal of our sins, that He himself took our sin by both "propitiation" and "remittance", standing in our place covenantally, bearing our shame, paying our penalty, etc., but can you please provide me with wording from any of the Reformed confessions prior to Dort that says something akin to "sins which we committed became Christ's, when imputed to him as Surety". This use of the word "imputed" seems to be a post-Dortian formulation.
Prior to then, "double imputation" always referred to 1. imputation of sin from Adam and 2. imputation of righteousness from Christ. The word "impute" describes something that is passed downward but never upward. Sons and subjects do not "impute" their inheritance and their behavior to their father or king, but only the other way around. Again, I'm willing to follow you, but not if the earlier Reformed confessions don't use the word in that way.
Hudson, why the requirement of "prior to Dort" and "any Reformed confessions?" During the time frame you designate the Reformation was still unfolding. Isn't that like saying show me, prior to Luther, where justification by faith ALONE is taught in the Creeds in order to validate that doctrine that we now accept as the foundation of salvation?
"Moreover the kind of death is not without mystery. The cross was cursed, not only by human opinion but by the decree of God's law (Deut. 21[23]). So when Christ was affixed to a cross He made Himself subject to the curse. It was necessary that this be done: that the curse which we deserved served and which was prepared for our sins be transferred to Him, in order that we might be delivered from it. That had been previously done as a figure in the law. For the victims which were offered for sins were called by the same name "sin" [Lev. 4:1-5:13; 16]; by that name the Holy Spirit wanted to signify that these victims accepted all the curse due to the sin. What was done then by representative figure in the Mosaic sacrifices was fulfilled in truth by Jesus Christ, who is the substance of the figures. That is why, in order der to obtain our redemption, "He made His soul a sacrifice for sin;' as the prophet says, in order that all the curse which we deserved as sinners, being cast back on Him, might no longer be imputed to us (Isa. 53[10, ii]). The apostle declares this more clearly when he says that "the One who had never known sin was made sin for us by the Father, in order that in Him we might obtain righteousness before God" (2 Cor. 5[21]). For the Son of God, being pure and clean of every vice, took and clothed Himself with the shame and ignominy of our sins and, on the other hand, covered us with His purity. This is also shown in another passage of St. Paul where it is said that sin was condemned as sin in the flesh of Jesus Christ (Rom. 8[3]). For the heavenly Father destroyed the strength of sin when its curse was transferred to the flesh of Jesus Christ. It is clear now what this sentence of the prophet means, that "all our sins were placed on Him" (Isa. 53[6]), that, desiring to wipe out the stains of sins, He first accepted them in His person in order that they might be imputed to Him."
The question of the imputation of Christ's active obedience did not formally arise until 1572 so it's anachronistic to ask prior documents to speak to it. There were no major Reformed confessions until Dort. It was still being debated at Westminster.
Nevertheless, I argued in Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry, the default move of the Reformed, as witnessed in the Heidelberg Catechism, was to impute to the believer all that Christ did. This seems to be be the clear teaching of HC 60. The default move was not to say that Christ had to qualify himself and that only his suffering at the end of his life is imputed.
From 1572 there was a noisy minority among the Reformed who openly questions IAO, most notably Piscator. He was rebuked repeatedly by French Reformed Synods for it. There was a small minority at Westminster who opposed IAO but the majority held it and the language adopted arguably supports it. The Standards certainly do not imply a denial of IAO.
If Christ’s active obedience is not accounted as our righteousness, then how can Christ be our righteousness? Piscator responds that when sins are forgiven, someone is counted not only as not having done any sins but also as having done all things required. “Man’s justification consists in remission of all sins: and therefore not only of sins of committing,but also of sins of omitting.”
Piscator would not agree that if only Christ’s passive obedience is imputed to us, then we ourselves must supply positive righteousness. Rather, once Christ’s satisfaction is imputed to us, we are in a state of having done everything required because our sins of omission are forgiven.
Thus, for Piscator, the source of our righteousness in justification is only Christ’s satisfaction of the law by death imputed to us. Piscator emphasizes that faith itself is excluded as a part of our righteousness before God. The consequence is that all of our works are excluded from our justification. While Christ’s satisfaction imputed to us is the sole source of our righteousness, we are by nature unrighteous. Further, even the righteous acts that we do after grace and faith are excluded from our justification, which, according to Piscator, continues to rest solely in the satisfaction of Christ imputed to us.
Piscator argues against Bellarmine that all of our works are excluded from our justification before God. He argues from the fact that Paul “speaks of works in general, whether they be done by the strength of free will or by grace,because Romans 4 speaks of Abraham’s works, those which he had done of grace and faith” Even those works that flow out of faith are clearly excluded from our justification.
The same pronunciation that gave us comfort in this life that we have a righteous standing before God will then be pronounced openly by the Lord Jesus Christ: “You are righteous on the basis of My satisfaction imputed to you.” What are the results of this justification? For Piscator, we are not only forgiven of our sins, but we also have a right to eternal life, for when someone is justified, God “receives them into favor, and adopts them for sons and heirs of eternal life.” The reason why this can occur, according to Pisactor, is because God has said, “Do this, and you will live” (Lev. 18:5, Mt. 19:17, Gal. 3:12). “It comes about that he to whom God forgives sins, is so accounted as if he had not only committed nothing which God has forbidden in his law, but also omitted nothing of that which he has commanded: and therefore, as if he had perfectly fulfilled the law of God.”
Hudson, Apparently Calvin disagrees with you as does every other Reformed orthodoc theologian I can think of. As I said in our earlier go around, I think you have a wrong definition / understanding of 'imputed.'
"that "all our sins were placed on Him" (Isa. 53[6]), that, desiring to wipe out the stains of sins, He first accepted them in His person in order that they might be imputed to him."
Btw, what does Isaiah mean when he writes that "all our sins were placed on him"? Certainly not that he became the author of thse sins as if he did the sins. It means that the guilt of those sins were place on him. He took the sinners place, willingly accepting the legal guilt and thus legally dying for the elect thereby satisfying the law which required death due to sins. God tranferred (imputed) the guilt of our sins (including Adam's disobedience) to Christ and suffered death for us. He gave us (imputed) Christ's righteousness, which the second Adam accomplished for us in our place, resulting in eternal life. Double imputation.
Mark. Yes, Jesus Christ declares “You are righteous on the basis of My satisfaction imputed to you. But you have provided no evidence of Jesus declaring "You are righteous on the basis of your sin IMPUTED to Me." It's a misuse of the word, and was never used in that way by any Reformer until well into the 17th century (Turretin as I recall).
Jack, the reason why it's important to mark the history of this phraseology is that it is not a clarification of the Gospel but rather a new thought altogether. And incidentally I DO believe that justification by faith ALONE is taught in the Creeds. Don't you?
I believe that it (JBFA) is there in substance. But by your own standard, notice that the phraseology justification by faith alone is not there. You're applying your standard inconsistently. In this case you are saying that the substance of a doctrine can be present without the exact wording. I agree. Whereas you say the phrase sins imputed to him have to be present in order for the doctrine to be present. You've undercut your own argument.
Just to make clear that this is not a dispute about Christ's "active obedience", here is a clear description of "double imputation": Romans 5:19. "For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by that obedience of that one, shall many also be made righteous." No mention of the imputation for which you are trying to make a case.
Jack. Are you suggesting that using a word where it is clearly the wrong word is OK because you can define it any way you want so long as you mean well? If that is true, then having a conversation on anything of substance is pointless. The fact is that Scripture, the Creeds and our Reformed Confessions all know what "impute" means and doesn't mean, and these authorities NEVER use the word in the way you have.
Your usage of the word "impute" is a novelty, and in my mind it is significantly troublesome for it means that our sin becomes the PROPERTY of Jesus Christ. This is not true. He remits it, suffers for it, dies for it, buries it in the depths, and draws it out of us day by day by prayer and supplication. But He does not own it in the way that we own the sin of Adam and that we own the righteousness of Christ.
As for Isaiah 53:6, I obviously think you are wrong to use the word "impute" when the text actually says "... the Lord hath LAID UPON him the iniquity of us all."
As for the quotation you provided from Calvin's Institutes, can you tell me what the original french or latin says? And can you tell me why this English turn of phrase, supposedly authoritative as early as 1541, was not used in any of the Reformed Confessions?
Those who teach a governmental view of the atonement (Andrew Fuller, Richard Baxter) end up with a propitiation that does not propitiate, a ransom that does not redeem, and a reconciliation that does not reconcile.
Those who “offer” an "universal objective sufficient for everyone" atonement cannot talk about God’s imputation of the guilt of the elect to Christ. They cannot even talk about God’s imputation of the elect’s penalty to Christ. They can only think of the cross as one “means of grace” people can use to get God’s wrath averted.
Sinners become the deciders, whenever you leave out the good news that God is the imputer and that God has already imputed the sins of the sheep to the Shepherd (and not the sins of the goats ).
II Corinthians 5:21 21 For our sake God made Christ to be sin who knew no sin, in order that in Christ we would become the righteousness of God.
Leon Morris: “The verb is active and the subject is God. In this imputation both the Father and the Son are exceedingly active.” The Cross in the New Testament, p 220
As God legally constituted Christ not only to be the sin offering for the elect but also (and first) guilty of the guilt of the elect, even so God legally constitutes the elect not only to be justified before God but also (and first) makes that righteous relationship to be real by crediting the legal merit of Christ’s death to the elect.
If Christ "made sin" does not mean imputation, does it mean that Christ was corrupted?
John Owen–“but it will be said that if our sins, as to the guilt of them, were imputed to Christ, then God must HATE Christ. But it is only inherent sin, not imputed sin which makes a person hateful to God. Christ being perfectly sinless and holy in Himself was glorious and lovely in the sight of God. Indeed Christ’s active taking upon Himself the guilt of the elect was high ACT OF OBEDIENCE to God.” The Doctrine of Justification, volume 5, p 203
Isaiah 53:12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.
Hebrews 9: 27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to BEAR THE SINS of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
I Peter 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, in order that we would die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.
John Flavel---We thankfully acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ to be the Surety of the New Testament, Heb. 7.22, and that as such, all the guilt of our sins were laid upon him, That is, God imputed, and he bare it in our room and stead. God the Father, as supreme Lawgiver and Judge of all, upon the transgression of the law, admitted the surety-ship of Christ, to answer for the sins of men, Heb. 10.5,6,7. And for this very end he was made under the law, Gal. 4.4,5. A
We thankfully acknowledge, that Christ hath so fully satisfied the law for the sins of all that are his, that the debts of believers are fully discharged. His payment is full, and so therefore is our discharge and acquittal, Rom. 8.1,31. The guilt of believers is so perfectly abolished, that it shall never more bring him under condemnation, John 5.24. And so in Christ they are without fault before God.
We cannot say, that over and above the guilt of sin, that Christ became as completely sinful as we are. He that transgresses the precepts, sins: and the personal sin of one, cannot be in this respect, the personal sin of another. There is no transfusion of the transgression of the precept from one subject to another. This is utterly impossible; even Adam’s personal sins, considered in his single private capacity, are not infused to his posterity.
The guilt of our sin was that which was imputed unto Christ. I know but two ways in the world by which one man’s sins can be imagined to become another’s. Either by imputation, which is legal, and what we affirm; or by essential transfusion from subject to subject. We have as good ground to believe the absurd doctrine of transubstantiation, as this wild notion of the essential transfusion of sin.
If we should once imagine, that the very acts and habits of sin, with the odious deformity thereof, should pass from our persons to Christ and subjectively to inhere in him, as they do in us; then it would follow that our salvation would thereby be rendered utterly impossible. For such an inhesion of sin in the person of Christ is absolutely inconsistent with the hypostatical union, which union is the very foundation of his satisfaction, and our salvation. Though the Divine nature can, and doth dwell in union with the pure and sinless human nature of Christ, yet it cannot dwell in union with sin.
If the way of making our sins Christ’s by imputation, be thus rejected and derided; and Christ asserted by SOME OTHER WAY to become as completely sinful as we; then I cannot see which way to avoid it, but that the very same acts and habits of sin must inhere both in Christ and in believers also. For I suppose our adversaries will not deny, that notwithstanding God’s laying the sins of believers upon Christ, there remain in all believers after their justification, sinful inclinations and aversations; a law of sin in their members, a body of sin and death.
Did this indwelling sin pass from them to Christ? Why do they complain and groan of indwelling sin (as in Romans 7) if indwelling sin itself be so transferred from them to Christ? Sure, unless men will dare to say, the same acts and habits of sin which they feel in themselves, are as truly in Christ as in themselves, they have no ground to say, that by God’s laying their iniquities upon Christ, that Christ became as completely sinful as they are; and if they should so affirm, that affirmation would undermine the very foundation of their own salvation.
Nothing which Christ did or suffered, nothing that he undertook, or underwent, did, or could constitute him subjectively, inherently, and thereupon personally a sinner, or guilty of any sin of his own. To bear the guilt or blame of other men’s faults makes no man a sinner. So then this proposition, that by God’s laying our sins upon Christ (in some OTHER WAY THAN BY IMPUTATION of guilt) he became as completely sinful as we, will not, ought not to be received as the sound doctrine of the gospel.
Romans 3:25–”Christ Jesus, whom God put forth as a propitiation by His blood, to be received by faith…”
Andrew Fuller (Reply to Philanthropos, Complete Works,II, p499) comments: The text does not express what Christ WAS as laying down His life , but what He IS in consequence of it.”
Nathan Finn–“Andrew Fuller embraced governmental language and was actually much closer to Jonathan Edwards, who also allowed for a governmental aspect . Both men combined a universal sufficiency with a particular efficacy, the limitation being in God’s covenantal design rather than in the nature of propitiation itself.”
Abraham Booth did not use the careless language of Tobias Crisp (or of Luther) about Christ becoming a sinner. Booth rejected any idea of Christ having a fallen human nature. But Booth did teach that “imputation” has two aspects. First, and always, God counts and declares the truth about a person. But second, and sometimes, God puts into effect a legal solidarity between persons. Thus God counted the sins of the elect to Christ, and then counts the death of Christ to the elect.
The righteousness of Christ is His death and that death is real, nevertheless some say it's a fiction for God to count that death as the death of the elect? Thus the two senses of “imputation”. First, a legal “transfer” (although I prefer sharing, since it’s still Christ’s death). Second, on the basis of that REAL TRUTH, God then declares the justified elect sinner to be righteous, to be justified.
For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. - 2 Corinthians 5:21
Hudson, in what sense was Christ 'made sin'? Did he actually become the essence of sin and thus corrupted? Scripture tells us no. So in what sense was he made sin? The guilt of sin was accounted to Christ and he therefore he was able to legally and justly pay for our sins. In the same way, what does it mean that we 'become the righteousness of God'? We don't actually become the inherent righteousness of God. Rather, Christ's legal satisfaction (death) for sin and his perfect obedience (righteousness) are legally accounted to us through faith in him. This double imputation or accounting is the great exchange! Praise the Lord.
Jack. I'm perfectly happy with expressions like "Christ was made sin..." I don't need to squeeze the word "impute" into this context. Again, "double imputation" refers to the property we inherit from Adam (our sin) and the property we inherit from Christ (our righeousness). I don't need to have a doctrine of triple imputation, and if neither Scripture nor the Creeds nor the Confessions tell me to use the word "impute" in that way, then I'm not going to use it. Period.
make māk/Submit verb 1. form (something) by putting parts together or combining substances; construct; create. "my grandmother made a dress for me" synonyms: construct, build, assemble, put together, manufacture, produce, fabricate, create, form, fashion, model "he makes models" 2. cause (something) to exist or come about; bring about. "the drips had made a pool on the floor"
And you still have not provided any example from any of the Reformed Confessions that uses the word "impute" in the way you have. When changing the Confessions, the burden of proof is on the man demanding the change. If none of them require the innovation, then neither do I.
When sin is imputed to the seed of Adam, it becomes the property of all men. We own it and cannot rid ourselves of this inheritance. When righteousness is imputed to the seed of Christ, it becomes the property of the Elect. We own it and in similar fashion we cannot be dispossessed of this inheritance. Double imputation. But when Christ is "made" sin for our account, it does NOT become his property. He does NOT own it. It is not His inheritance. Instead He redeems it, remits it, etc. He "makes" it HIs for the singular purpose of destroying it which in fact He does in the depths of hell. All these words have their own meanings. They are not synonyms.
Hudson, all you have is some "soundbites, some dogmatic assertions. You don't have arguments for your "insteads", your either ors. Was Christ under the law, as Romans 6 teaches? Is Christ now no longer under the law, as Romans 6 teaches? How did Christ get under the law if Christ was never imputed with the sins of the elect"?
Hudgon-- But when Christ is "made" sin for our account, it does NOT become his property. He does NOT own it.
mark: The Scripture never says this. You need to define it. Are you saying that God never imputed guilt or sin to Christ?
Hudson---Instead He redeems it, remits it, etc.
mark----First He was imputed with the guilt, then He's not. First He was under the law, now that His death has satisfied the law for the imputed guilt, now He's not under the law. No either or, a before and after.
Romans 6 is about Christ the public representative of the elect first being under condemnation, being under sin and death. Romans 6:7 “For one who has died has been justified from sin. 8 Now since we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death NO LONGER has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died HE DIED TO SIN once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God.
Christ was never under grace and is still not under grace. Christ was under the law because of the imputed sins of the elect. Romans 6 is about Christ’s condemnation by the law and His death as satisfaction of that law. Christ after His resurrection is no longer under law. Christ’s elect, after their legal identification with Christ’s death, are no longer under law.
The death of the justified elect is the SAME legal death that Christ died. The “definitive resurrection” of the elect in Romans 6 is the result of being set apart with Christ (and His death) from being under law.
Christ was never under the power of sin in the sense of being unable not to sin. Christ was always unable to sin. The only way Christ was ever under the power of sin is by being under the guilt of sin. The guilt of the elect’s sin was legally transferred by God to Christ. Christ’s death to sin was death to the guilt of sin, and since the elect are united with His death, the death of the elect is also a death to the guilt of sin. Romans 6:7: “For one who has died has been justified from sin.”
Yet many commentators tell us that “set free from sin” must mean the elect’s definitive transformation by the Holy Spirit so that the justified cannot habitually sin (or that their new nature cannot sin) They tell us that justification was in Romans chapter five and that chapter six must be about something more if it’s to be a real answer to the question “why not sin?”. But Romans 6 does not talk about Christ or His people not habitually sinning. Romans 6 locates the cause of “sin not reigning” in “not being under the law”
Christ was never under the power of habitual sin , and the definitive death of the justified elect is His death.
Romans 6:14 does not say, For sin shall not be your master, because the Holy Spirit has changed you so that you cannot habitually sin, but only occasionally and always with repentance. Romans 6:14 says, “For sin shall not by your master, because you are not under law but under grace.”
Hudson, as I've written before, your definition of imputation is idiosyncratic. That said, in the confessions, remission (cancelling the debt) of sins embodies inputation of our sin to Christ... our debt of sin being legally accounted to Christ. His dying our death for sins allows God to cancel our debt. Christ didn't personally owe that debt, but he willingly took it to himself and paid it.
Like the old hymn: "I owed a debt I could not pay. He paid a debt he did not owe. I needed someone to wash my sins away."
How did Jesus wash my sins away? By taking my place before the law. What does that mean? He allowed my sins to be put on his account before the law though he was sinless. Not that he was constituted sin, but forensically accounted as a sinner in order to satisfy for my debt of sin.
Please stop asking me to fight with you respecting words like "cancel" or "remit" or "satisfy" or "forensic." We don't disagree on any of them, but they have nothing to do with the issue at hand. I'm not going to play the shell game.
I'm just want you to show me even one example from any Reformed confession that says sin is "imputed" to Christ. And the reason it's not there is because to put it there would be idiosyncratic... or worse. Yet that's what you accuse me of. I am in conformance with the confessions. As far as I know the word "impute" is NEVER used authoritatively in the way you demand. It has a specific meaning that does not change with the winds of time and fashion. You have the burden of proof to demonstrate otherwise.
Easy pilgrim, no one is "asking you to fight." And I've already conceded that the phrase "inputation of our sins" isn't found in the confessions yet it's substance is.
But take the Westminster Standards. How would you explain that the Divines who wrote those documents arguably to a man held or wrote about the elect's sins being imputed to Christ.
As I write before, the phrase 'justification by faith ALONE' (except James which is to the negative concerning our works as evidence of faith) can't be found in Scripture or previous to Luther or at least the late Medieval period. Are we to throw out that doctrine? No, because the substance is in Scripture as well as earlier Creeds and writings. The same with the doctrine of the elect's sins being imputed by God to Christ for their salvation.
I'm done as I don't want to "fight" and neither of us is inclined to accept the other's view. But I am glad for this opportunity to put forth the Reformed understanding of double imputation. Blessings...
"How would you explain that the Divines who wrote those documents arguably to a man held or wrote about the elect's sins being imputed to Christ. " I won't attempt to explain such a thing because I'm not convinced it's true. Indeed, Mark demonstrated above that the matter was in dispute at Westminster. I don't know whether it's true or not, but If there was universal agreement such as you assert then it would have made it into the confession. I believe in "double imputation" where the word is used in an identical way (Adam's sin and Christ's righteousness), but not in triple imputation where your third usage has a totally different meaning.
Hudson, can you cite one Reformed theologian, past or present, who has defined "double imputation" as where the two words are used restricted to Adam's sin to us (which is true) and Christ's righteousness to the elect (which is true)? I've never read any reference to double imputation except for the one I've put in my post and comments, i.e. our sins to Christ and his righteousness to us. Again, I'm happy to leave it here.
Moo- “The image of crucifixion is chosen not because Paul wants to suggest that our “dying with Christ” is a preliminary action that the believer must complete by daily “dying to sin,” but because Christ’s death took the form of crucifixion. The believer who is “crucified with Christ” is as definitely and finally “dead” as a result of this action as was Christ himself after his crucifixion (as Paul stresses in v. 10: the death Christ died he died “once for all”). Of course, we must remember what this death means. This is no more a physical, or ontological, death, than is our burial with Christ (v. 4)
ReplyDeleteor our “dying to sin” (v. 2). Paul’s language throughout is forensic, or positional; by God’s act, we have been placed in a new position. This position is real, for what exists in God’s sight is surely (ultimately) real, and it carries definite consequences for day-to-day living. But it is status, or power-structure, that Paul is talking about here.” https://www.dbts.edu/journals/1997/nature.pdf
Jack. Sorry to hit you with this again, but I've never gotten a satisfactory answer.
ReplyDeleteI don't deny the forensic removal of our sins, that He himself took our sin by both "propitiation" and "remittance", standing in our place covenantally, bearing our shame, paying our penalty, etc., but can you please provide me with wording from any of the Reformed confessions prior to Dort that says something akin to "sins which we committed became Christ's, when imputed to him as Surety". This use of the word "imputed" seems to be a post-Dortian formulation.
Prior to then, "double imputation" always referred to 1. imputation of sin from Adam and 2. imputation of righteousness from Christ. The word "impute" describes something that is passed downward but never upward. Sons and subjects do not "impute" their inheritance and their behavior to their father or king, but only the other way around. Again, I'm willing to follow you, but not if the earlier Reformed confessions don't use the word in that way.
Hudson, why the requirement of "prior to Dort" and "any Reformed confessions?" During the time frame you designate the Reformation was still unfolding. Isn't that like saying show me, prior to Luther, where justification by faith ALONE is taught in the Creeds in order to validate that doctrine that we now accept as the foundation of salvation?
ReplyDeleteFrom Calvin's 1541 French version Institutes:
ReplyDelete"Moreover the kind of death is not without mystery. The cross was cursed, not only by human opinion but by the decree of God's law (Deut. 21[23]). So when Christ was affixed to a cross He made Himself subject to the curse. It was necessary that this be done: that the curse which we deserved served and which was prepared for our sins be transferred to Him, in order that we might be delivered from it. That had been previously done as a figure in the law. For the victims which were offered for sins were called by the same name "sin" [Lev. 4:1-5:13; 16]; by that name the Holy Spirit wanted to signify that these victims accepted all the curse due to the sin. What was done then by representative figure in the Mosaic sacrifices was fulfilled in truth by Jesus Christ, who is the substance of the figures. That is why, in order der to obtain our redemption, "He made His soul a sacrifice for sin;' as the prophet says, in order that all the curse which we deserved as sinners, being cast back on Him, might no longer be imputed to us (Isa. 53[10, ii]). The apostle declares this more clearly when he says that "the One who had never known sin was made sin for us by the Father, in order that in Him we might obtain righteousness before God" (2 Cor. 5[21]). For the Son of God, being pure and clean of every vice, took and clothed Himself with the shame and ignominy of our sins and, on the other hand, covered us with His purity. This is also shown in another passage of St. Paul where it is said that sin was condemned as sin in the flesh of Jesus Christ (Rom. 8[3]). For the heavenly Father destroyed the strength of sin when its curse was transferred to the flesh of Jesus Christ. It is clear now what this sentence of the prophet means, that "all our sins were placed on Him" (Isa. 53[6]), that, desiring to wipe out the stains of sins, He first accepted them in His person in order that they might be imputed to Him."
Hudson,
ReplyDeleteThe question of the imputation of Christ's active obedience did not formally arise until 1572 so it's anachronistic to ask prior documents to speak to it. There were no major Reformed confessions until Dort. It was still being debated at Westminster.
Nevertheless, I argued in Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry, the default move of the Reformed, as witnessed in the Heidelberg Catechism, was to impute to the believer all that Christ did. This seems to be be the clear teaching of HC 60. The default move was not to say that Christ had to qualify himself and that only his suffering at the end of his life is imputed.
From 1572 there was a noisy minority among the Reformed who openly questions IAO, most notably Piscator. He was rebuked repeatedly by French Reformed Synods for it. There was a small minority at Westminster who opposed IAO but the majority held it and the language adopted arguably supports it. The Standards certainly do not imply a denial of IAO.
For more see the chapter on this in CJPM.
If Christ’s active obedience is not accounted as our righteousness, then how can Christ be our righteousness? Piscator responds that when sins are forgiven, someone is counted not only as not having done any sins but also as having done all things required. “Man’s justification consists in remission of all sins: and therefore not only of sins of committing,but also of sins of omitting.”
ReplyDeletePiscator would not agree that if only Christ’s passive obedience is imputed to us, then we ourselves must supply positive righteousness. Rather, once Christ’s satisfaction is imputed to us, we are in a state of having done everything required because our sins of omission are forgiven.
Thus, for Piscator, the source of our righteousness in justification is only Christ’s satisfaction of the law by death imputed to us. Piscator emphasizes that faith itself is excluded as a part of our righteousness before God. The consequence is that all of our works are excluded from our justification.
While Christ’s satisfaction imputed to us is the sole source of our righteousness, we are by nature unrighteous. Further, even the righteous acts that we do after grace and faith are excluded from our justification, which, according to Piscator, continues to rest solely in the satisfaction of Christ imputed to us.
Piscator argues against Bellarmine that all of our works are excluded from our justification before God. He argues from the fact that Paul “speaks of works in general, whether they be done by the strength of free will or by grace,because Romans 4 speaks of Abraham’s works, those which he had done of grace and faith” Even those works that flow out of faith are clearly excluded from our justification.
The same pronunciation that gave us comfort in this life that we have a righteous standing before God will then be pronounced openly by the Lord Jesus Christ: “You are righteous on the basis of My satisfaction imputed to you.” What are the results of this justification? For Piscator, we are not only forgiven of our sins, but we also have a right to eternal life, for when someone is justified, God “receives them into favor, and adopts them for sons and heirs of eternal life.” The reason why this can occur, according to Pisactor, is because God has said, “Do this, and you will live” (Lev. 18:5, Mt. 19:17, Gal. 3:12). “It comes about that he to whom God forgives sins, is so accounted as if he had not only committed nothing which God has forbidden in his law, but also omitted nothing of that which he has commanded: and therefore, as if he had perfectly fulfilled the law of God.”
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2007/03/28/the-denial-of-the-active-obedience-of-christ-piscator-on-justification/
Great stuff, Mark. Thanks!
DeleteScott. I don't see how one can read the Nicene Creed without affirming the imputation of Christ's active obedience.
ReplyDeleteJack, to say "He made Himself subject to the curse" or ""all our sins were placed on Him" is not the same as to say our sins were IMPUTED to Him.
ReplyDeleteHudson, Apparently Calvin disagrees with you as does every other Reformed orthodoc theologian I can think of. As I said in our earlier go around, I think you have a wrong definition / understanding of 'imputed.'
Delete"that "all our sins were placed on Him" (Isa. 53[6]), that, desiring to wipe out the stains of sins, He first accepted them in His person in order that they might be imputed to him."
Btw, what does Isaiah mean when he writes that "all our sins were placed on him"? Certainly not that he became the author of thse sins as if he did the sins. It means that the guilt of those sins were place on him. He took the sinners place, willingly accepting the legal guilt and thus legally dying for the elect thereby satisfying the law which required death due to sins. God tranferred (imputed) the guilt of our sins (including Adam's disobedience) to Christ and suffered death for us. He gave us (imputed) Christ's righteousness, which the second Adam accomplished for us in our place, resulting in eternal life. Double imputation.
DeleteMark. Yes, Jesus Christ declares “You are righteous on the basis of My satisfaction imputed to you. But you have provided no evidence of Jesus declaring "You are righteous on the basis of your sin IMPUTED to Me." It's a misuse of the word, and was never used in that way by any Reformer until well into the 17th century (Turretin as I recall).
ReplyDeleteJack, the reason why it's important to mark the history of this phraseology is that it is not a clarification of the Gospel but rather a new thought altogether. And incidentally I DO believe that justification by faith ALONE is taught in the Creeds. Don't you?
I believe that it (JBFA) is there in substance. But by your own standard, notice that the phraseology justification by faith alone is not there. You're applying your standard inconsistently. In this case you are saying that the substance of a doctrine can be present without the exact wording. I agree. Whereas you say the phrase sins imputed to him have to be present in order for the doctrine to be present. You've undercut your own argument.
DeleteJust to make clear that this is not a dispute about Christ's "active obedience", here is a clear description of "double imputation": Romans 5:19. "For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by that obedience of that one, shall many also be made righteous." No mention of the imputation for which you are trying to make a case.
ReplyDeleteJack. Are you suggesting that using a word where it is clearly the wrong word is OK because you can define it any way you want so long as you mean well? If that is true, then having a conversation on anything of substance is pointless. The fact is that Scripture, the Creeds and our Reformed Confessions all know what "impute" means and doesn't mean, and these authorities NEVER use the word in the way you have.
ReplyDeleteYour usage of the word "impute" is a novelty, and in my mind it is significantly troublesome for it means that our sin becomes the PROPERTY of Jesus Christ. This is not true. He remits it, suffers for it, dies for it, buries it in the depths, and draws it out of us day by day by prayer and supplication. But He does not own it in the way that we own the sin of Adam and that we own the righteousness of Christ.
As for Isaiah 53:6, I obviously think you are wrong to use the word "impute" when the text actually says "... the Lord hath LAID UPON him the iniquity of us all."
ReplyDeleteAs for the quotation you provided from Calvin's Institutes, can you tell me what the original french or latin says? And can you tell me why this English turn of phrase, supposedly authoritative as early as 1541, was not used in any of the Reformed Confessions?
ReplyDeleteThose who teach a governmental view of the atonement (Andrew Fuller, Richard Baxter) end up with a propitiation that does not propitiate, a ransom that does not redeem, and a reconciliation that does not reconcile.
ReplyDeleteThose who “offer” an "universal objective sufficient for everyone" atonement cannot talk about God’s imputation of the guilt of the elect to Christ. They cannot even talk about God’s imputation of the elect’s penalty to Christ. They can only think of the cross as one “means of grace” people can use to get God’s wrath averted.
Sinners become the deciders, whenever you leave out the good news that God is the imputer and that God has already imputed the sins of the sheep to the Shepherd (and not the sins of the goats ).
II Corinthians 5:21 21 For our sake God made Christ to be sin who knew no sin, in order that in Christ we would become the righteousness of God.
Leon Morris: “The verb is active and the subject is God. In this imputation both the Father and the Son are exceedingly active.” The Cross in the New Testament, p 220
As God legally constituted Christ not only to be the sin offering for the elect but also (and first) guilty of the guilt of the elect, even so God legally constitutes the elect not only to be justified before God but also (and first) makes that righteous relationship to be real by crediting the legal merit of Christ’s death to the elect.
If Christ "made sin" does not mean imputation, does it mean that Christ was corrupted?
John Owen–“but it will be said that if our sins, as to the guilt of them, were imputed to Christ, then God must HATE Christ. But it is only inherent sin, not imputed sin which makes a person hateful to God. Christ being perfectly sinless and holy in Himself was glorious and lovely in the sight of God. Indeed Christ’s active taking upon Himself the guilt of the elect was high ACT OF OBEDIENCE to God.” The Doctrine of Justification, volume 5, p 203
Isaiah 53:12 Therefore I will divide him a portion with the many, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong, because he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors.
Hebrews 9: 27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28 so Christ, having been offered once to BEAR THE SINS of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
I Peter 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, in order that we would die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.
John Flavel---We thankfully acknowledge the Lord Jesus Christ to be the Surety of the New Testament, Heb. 7.22, and that as such, all the guilt of our sins were laid upon him, That is, God imputed, and he bare it in our room and stead. God the Father, as supreme Lawgiver and Judge of all, upon the transgression of the law, admitted the surety-ship of Christ, to answer for the sins of men, Heb. 10.5,6,7. And for this very end he was made under the law, Gal. 4.4,5. A
ReplyDeleteWe thankfully acknowledge, that Christ hath so fully satisfied the law for the sins of all that are his, that the debts of believers are fully discharged. His payment is full, and so therefore is our discharge and acquittal, Rom. 8.1,31. The guilt of believers is so perfectly abolished, that it shall never more bring him under condemnation, John 5.24. And so in Christ they are without fault before God.
We cannot say, that over and above the guilt of sin, that Christ became as completely sinful as we are. He that transgresses the precepts, sins: and the personal sin of one, cannot be in this respect, the personal sin of another. There is no transfusion of the transgression of the precept from one subject to another. This is utterly impossible; even Adam’s personal sins, considered in his single private capacity, are not infused to his posterity.
The guilt of our sin was that which was imputed unto Christ. I know but two ways in the world by which one man’s sins can be imagined to become another’s. Either by imputation, which is legal, and what we affirm; or by essential transfusion from subject to subject. We have as good ground to believe the absurd doctrine of transubstantiation, as this wild notion of the essential transfusion of sin.
If we should once imagine, that the very acts and habits of sin, with the odious deformity thereof, should pass from our persons to Christ and subjectively to inhere in him, as they do in us; then it would follow that our salvation would thereby be rendered utterly impossible. For such an inhesion of sin in the person of Christ is absolutely inconsistent with the hypostatical union, which union is the very foundation of his satisfaction, and our salvation. Though the Divine nature can, and doth dwell in union with the pure and sinless human nature of Christ, yet it cannot dwell in union with sin.
If the way of making our sins Christ’s by imputation, be thus rejected and derided; and Christ asserted by SOME OTHER WAY to become as completely sinful as we; then I cannot see which way to avoid it, but that the very same acts and habits of sin must inhere both in Christ and in believers also. For I suppose our adversaries will not deny, that notwithstanding God’s laying the sins of believers upon Christ, there remain in all believers after their justification, sinful inclinations and aversations; a law of sin in their members, a body of sin and death.
Did this indwelling sin pass from them to Christ? Why do they complain and groan of indwelling sin (as in Romans 7) if indwelling sin itself be so transferred from them to Christ? Sure, unless men will dare to say, the same acts and habits of sin which they feel in themselves, are as truly in Christ as in themselves, they have no ground to say, that by God’s laying their iniquities upon Christ, that Christ became as completely sinful as they are; and if they should so affirm, that affirmation would undermine the very foundation of their own salvation.
Nothing which Christ did or suffered, nothing that he undertook, or underwent, did, or could constitute him subjectively, inherently, and thereupon personally a sinner, or guilty of any sin of his own. To bear the guilt or blame of other men’s faults makes no man a sinner. So then this proposition, that by God’s laying our sins upon Christ (in some OTHER WAY THAN BY IMPUTATION of guilt) he became as completely sinful as we, will not, ought not to be received as the sound doctrine of the gospel.
Romans 3:25–”Christ Jesus, whom God put forth as a propitiation by His blood, to be received by faith…”
ReplyDeleteAndrew Fuller (Reply to Philanthropos, Complete Works,II, p499) comments: The text does not express what Christ WAS as laying down His life , but what He IS in consequence of it.”
Nathan Finn–“Andrew Fuller embraced governmental language and was actually much closer to Jonathan Edwards, who also allowed for a governmental aspect . Both men combined a universal sufficiency with a particular efficacy, the limitation being in God’s covenantal design rather than in the nature of propitiation itself.”
Abraham Booth did not use the careless language of Tobias Crisp (or of Luther) about Christ becoming a sinner. Booth rejected any idea of Christ having a fallen human nature. But Booth did teach that “imputation” has two aspects. First, and always, God counts and declares the truth about a person. But second, and sometimes, God puts into effect a legal solidarity between persons. Thus God counted the sins of the elect to Christ, and then counts the death of Christ to the elect.
The righteousness of Christ is His death and that death is real, nevertheless some say it's a fiction for God to count that death as the death of the elect? Thus the two senses of “imputation”. First, a legal “transfer” (although I prefer sharing, since it’s still Christ’s death). Second, on the basis of that REAL TRUTH, God then declares the justified elect sinner to be righteous, to be justified.
What you are saying here, Mark, is that the novel use of the word "imputation" in the 17th century did not go totally unnoticed.
ReplyDeleteFor our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. - 2 Corinthians 5:21
ReplyDeleteHudson, in what sense was Christ 'made sin'? Did he actually become the essence of sin and thus corrupted? Scripture tells us no. So in what sense was he made sin? The guilt of sin was accounted to Christ and he therefore he was able to legally and justly pay for our sins. In the same way, what does it mean that we 'become the righteousness of God'? We don't actually become the inherent righteousness of God. Rather, Christ's legal satisfaction (death) for sin and his perfect obedience (righteousness) are legally accounted to us through faith in him. This double imputation or accounting is the great exchange! Praise the Lord.
That's all folks...
Jack. I'm perfectly happy with expressions like "Christ was made sin..." I don't need to squeeze the word "impute" into this context. Again, "double imputation" refers to the property we inherit from Adam (our sin) and the property we inherit from Christ (our righeousness). I don't need to have a doctrine of triple imputation, and if neither Scripture nor the Creeds nor the Confessions tell me to use the word "impute" in that way, then I'm not going to use it. Period.
ReplyDeleteHudson, you make assertions as if that settles it. But you didn't answer my question, in what sense was Christ made sin?
ReplyDeletemake
ReplyDeletemāk/Submit
verb
1.
form (something) by putting parts together or combining substances; construct; create.
"my grandmother made a dress for me"
synonyms: construct, build, assemble, put together, manufacture, produce, fabricate, create, form, fashion, model
"he makes models"
2.
cause (something) to exist or come about; bring about.
"the drips had made a pool on the floor"
And you still have not provided any example from any of the Reformed Confessions that uses the word "impute" in the way you have. When changing the Confessions, the burden of proof is on the man demanding the change. If none of them require the innovation, then neither do I.
ReplyDeleteWhen sin is imputed to the seed of Adam, it becomes the property of all men. We own it and cannot rid ourselves of this inheritance. When righteousness is imputed to the seed of Christ, it becomes the property of the Elect. We own it and in similar fashion we cannot be dispossessed of this inheritance. Double imputation. But when Christ is "made" sin for our account, it does NOT become his property. He does NOT own it. It is not His inheritance. Instead He redeems it, remits it, etc. He "makes" it HIs for the singular purpose of destroying it which in fact He does in the depths of hell. All these words have their own meanings. They are not synonyms.
ReplyDeleteHudson, all you have is some "soundbites, some dogmatic assertions. You don't have arguments for your "insteads", your either ors. Was Christ under the law, as Romans 6 teaches? Is Christ now no longer under the law, as Romans 6 teaches? How did Christ get under the law if Christ was never imputed with the sins of the elect"?
ReplyDeleteHudgon-- But when Christ is "made" sin for our account, it does NOT become his property. He does NOT own it.
mark: The Scripture never says this. You need to define it. Are you saying that God never imputed guilt or sin to Christ?
Hudson---Instead He redeems it, remits it, etc.
mark----First He was imputed with the guilt, then He's not. First He was under the law, now that His death has satisfied the law for the imputed guilt, now He's not under the law. No either or, a before and after.
Romans 6 is about Christ the public representative of the elect first being under condemnation, being under sin and death. Romans 6:7 “For one who has died has been justified from sin. 8 Now since we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death NO LONGER has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died HE DIED TO SIN once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God.
Christ was never under grace and is still not under grace. Christ was under the law because of the imputed sins of the elect. Romans 6 is about Christ’s condemnation by the law and His death as satisfaction of that law. Christ after His resurrection is no longer under law. Christ’s elect, after their legal identification with Christ’s death, are no longer under law.
The death of the justified elect is the SAME legal death that Christ died. The “definitive resurrection” of the elect in Romans 6 is the result of being set apart with Christ (and His death) from being under law.
Christ was never under the power of sin in the sense of being unable not to sin. Christ was always unable to sin. The only way Christ was ever under the power of sin is by being under the guilt of sin. The guilt of the elect’s sin was legally transferred by God to Christ. Christ’s death to sin was death to the guilt of sin, and since the elect are united with His death, the death of the elect is also a death to the guilt of sin. Romans 6:7: “For one who has died has been justified from sin.”
Yet many commentators tell us that “set free from sin” must mean the elect’s definitive transformation by the Holy Spirit so that the justified cannot habitually sin (or that their new nature cannot sin) They tell us that justification was in Romans chapter five and that chapter six must be about something more if it’s to be a real answer to the question “why not sin?”. But Romans 6 does not talk about Christ or His people not habitually sinning. Romans 6 locates the cause of “sin not reigning” in “not being under the law”
Christ was never under the power of habitual sin , and the definitive death of the justified elect is His death.
Romans 6:14 does not say, For sin shall not be your master, because the Holy Spirit has changed you so that you cannot habitually sin, but only occasionally and always with repentance. Romans 6:14 says, “For sin shall not by your master, because you are not under law but under grace.”
Hudson, as I've written before, your definition of imputation is idiosyncratic. That said, in the confessions, remission (cancelling the debt) of sins embodies inputation of our sin to Christ... our debt of sin being legally accounted to Christ. His dying our death for sins allows God to cancel our debt. Christ didn't personally owe that debt, but he willingly took it to himself and paid it.
ReplyDeleteLike the old hymn: "I owed a debt I could not pay. He paid a debt he did not owe. I needed someone to wash my sins away."
How did Jesus wash my sins away? By taking my place before the law. What does that mean? He allowed my sins to be put on his account before the law though he was sinless. Not that he was constituted sin, but forensically accounted as a sinner in order to satisfy for my debt of sin.
Please stop asking me to fight with you respecting words like "cancel" or "remit" or "satisfy" or "forensic." We don't disagree on any of them, but they have nothing to do with the issue at hand. I'm not going to play the shell game.
ReplyDeleteI'm just want you to show me even one example from any Reformed confession that says sin is "imputed" to Christ. And the reason it's not there is because to put it there would be idiosyncratic... or worse. Yet that's what you accuse me of. I am in conformance with the confessions. As far as I know the word "impute" is NEVER used authoritatively in the way you demand. It has a specific meaning that does not change with the winds of time and fashion. You have the burden of proof to demonstrate otherwise.
Easy pilgrim, no one is "asking you to fight." And I've already conceded that the phrase "inputation of our sins" isn't found in the confessions yet it's substance is.
ReplyDeleteBut take the Westminster Standards. How would you explain that the Divines who wrote those documents arguably to a man held or wrote about the elect's sins being imputed to Christ.
As I write before, the phrase 'justification by faith ALONE' (except James which is to the negative concerning our works as evidence of faith) can't be found in Scripture or previous to Luther or at least the late Medieval period. Are we to throw out that doctrine? No, because the substance is in Scripture as well as earlier Creeds and writings. The same with the doctrine of the elect's sins being imputed by God to Christ for their salvation.
I'm done as I don't want to "fight" and neither of us is inclined to accept the other's view. But I am glad for this opportunity to put forth the Reformed understanding of double imputation. Blessings...
"How would you explain that the Divines who wrote those documents arguably to a man held or wrote about the elect's sins being imputed to Christ. " I won't attempt to explain such a thing because I'm not convinced it's true. Indeed, Mark demonstrated above that the matter was in dispute at Westminster. I don't know whether it's true or not, but If there was universal agreement such as you assert then it would have made it into the confession. I believe in "double imputation" where the word is used in an identical way (Adam's sin and Christ's righteousness), but not in triple imputation where your third usage has a totally different meaning.
ReplyDeleteHudson, can you cite one Reformed theologian, past or present, who has defined "double imputation" as where the two words are used restricted to Adam's sin to us (which is true) and Christ's righteousness to the elect (which is true)? I've never read any reference to double imputation except for the one I've put in my post and comments, i.e. our sins to Christ and his righteousness to us. Again, I'm happy to leave it here.
ReplyDeleteI think Reformed theologians references to double imputation will show as to meaning what is put forth by Witsius in this post.
Delete