tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post1005231070351961599..comments2023-08-22T00:51:32.299-07:00Comments on The World's Ruined: Justification: Basis is Imputation not Union...Jack Millerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.comBlogger63125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post-39521599367622085522014-03-28T03:59:32.030-07:002014-03-28T03:59:32.030-07:00I'm not going to respond to your taunt regardi...I'm not going to respond to your taunt regarding the Trinity. <br /><br />You are wanting to use words other than in the way they are found in Scripture. Since the word "impute" is used only in only one context (to describe two specific events), that should define what it means (vis-a-vis Scripture), and nobody should use it in another context when discussing Scripture. If you will admit to this basic principle, then perhaps we can further discuss what the word means.... from the context, and why it cannot be used to describe events other than the imputation of sins from Adam and the imputation of righteousness from Christ.<br /><br />The words in your list are not synonyms. As for your last sentence about what is clear, I agree.Hudsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05511526445868840330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post-65867496820161351692014-03-27T18:33:35.555-07:002014-03-27T18:33:35.555-07:00Hudson, you're using a straw man argument. The...Hudson, you're using a straw man argument. The Bible doesn't define words. It' not a dictionary. But nonetheless I will ask you, where does the Bible give a definition to the word 'impute?' Where does it say "impute means such and such?" Words are used in the Bible by human writers using their language-words with meanings that are common to their communication with others.<br /><br />How can you miss that in Scripture the word impute in rendered in various translations of the Greek as counted, credited, reckoned, accounts, attributes, ascribeth (Tyndale's Bible). All those words mean the same thing as impute, as well as the other synonyms which could be used because they mean the same thing. These several words are used in reformed writings to describe our guilt of sin being laid upon or put on Christ. <br /><br />As I wrote before, which you didn't respond to, by your logic there is no doctrine of the Trinity because there is nowhere in the Bible that say "the Trinity is..." This much is clear, the Bible and the confessions teach that the guilt of our sins was laid upon or transferred to our Surety, Jesus Christ, and he bore them on the cross.Jack Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post-41116690481424612532014-03-27T17:13:22.607-07:002014-03-27T17:13:22.607-07:00That's what I always say, when the Bible won&#...That's what I always say, when the Bible won't give you the words and definitions that you need, go to Merriam-Webster. As for the quotations you offer from the Bible, no problem, especially when it is said that God imputes righteousness. No problem with the quote from Calvin either, for the word "transfer" is not objectionable. But note Calvin does not say here that the type of transfer is imputation. <br /><br />I'm still waiting for you to show me from the Bible or from any of the Reformed confessions a statement using the word "imputation" in regard to the transfer of sin from us to Christ.Hudsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05511526445868840330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post-62011223692351096902014-03-27T15:50:50.195-07:002014-03-27T15:50:50.195-07:00Calvin: "or that our curse was laid upon him,...Calvin: "or that our curse was <i>laid upon</i> him, in order that we might be delivered from it.'<br />Isa. 53:6 - <br /><br />Using the Merriam-Webster synonyms for impute:<br /><br />The Father <i>laid the responsibility or blame for</i> our sins upon Christ.<br />The Father <i>applied</i> the guilt of our sins to Christ.<br />The Father <i>ascribed</i> the guilt of our sins to Christ.<br />The Father <i>assigned</i> the guilt of our sins to Christ.<br />The Father <i>attributed</i> to Christ the guilt of our sins.<br />The Father <i>put the blame</i> of our sins on Christ.<br />The Father <i>charged to</i> Christ the guilt of our sins.<br />The Father <i>charged upon</i> Christ the guilt of our sins.<br />The Father <i>transferred</i> the guilt of our sin to Christ.<br />The Father <i>fixed the burden of</i> our sins upon Christ.<br />The Father <i>fixed the responsibility for</i> guilt of our sins to Christ.<br />The Father <i>fixed upon</i> Christ the guilt of our sins.<br />The Father <i>placed the blame</i> of our sins to Christ.<br />The Father <i>placed the responsibility for</i> the guilt of our sins to Christ.<br />God <i>transferred</i> to Christ the wrath that was due our sins.<br /><br />Calvin: "We conclude, that he "did always those things that pleased" (John 8:29) his Father. Again, how would he have freed us from the wrath of God, if he had not <i>transferred</i> it from us to himself?"<br /><br />Beside assigning a negative, imputation can assign a positive:<br /><br />God <i>credits</i> faith in Christ as righteousness.<br />God <i>imputes</i> righteousness through faith without works.<br /><br />Or as the KJV puts it: Rom. 4:6 - Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God <i>imputeth</i> righteousness without works; 22 And therefore it was <i>imputed</i> to him for righteousness<br /><br />Or - NASB - Rom. 4:6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God <i>credits</i> righteousness apart from works; 22 Therefore it was also <i>credited</i> to him as righteousness. Jack Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post-73220727905804057292014-03-27T13:42:01.917-07:002014-03-27T13:42:01.917-07:00If it is in the WCF, then please point it out. As...If it is in the WCF, then please point it out. As for Calvin's teaching from Gal. 3, I have no problem with it, and the reason is that he does NOT say anything resembling "imputation of our sins to Christ." If Calvin wanted to describe the removal of our sin to Christ with the word imputation, don't you think that in all his writing it would be explicit and repeated? As it is, it's one instance that may well be a mistranslation.<br /><br />Don't you see that the definition of "impute" you are using is actually many definitions, and that they are not synonymous to each other?Hudsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05511526445868840330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post-75154999046803359822014-03-27T12:02:55.573-07:002014-03-27T12:02:55.573-07:00Here is Calvin's teaching from Gal. 3.
Galat...Here is Calvin's teaching from Gal. 3. <br /><br /><i>Galatians 3:13<br />13. Christ hath redeemed us. The apostle had made all who are under the law subject to the curse; from which arose this great difficulty, that the Jews could not free themselves from the curse of the law. Having stated this difficulty, he meets it, by shewing that Christ hath made us free, which still farther aids his purpose. If we are saved, because we have been freed from the curse of the law, then righteousness is not by the law. He next points out the manner in which we are made free. <br /><br />It is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree. Now, Christ hung upon the cross, therefore he fell under that curse. But it is certain that he did not suffer that punishment on his own account. It follows, therefore, either that he was crucified in vain, or that our curse was laid upon him, in order that we might be delivered from it. Now, he does not say that Christ was cursed, but, which is still more, that he was a curse, -- intimating, that the curse "of all men [59] was laid upon him" (Isaiah 53:6.) If any man think this language harsh, let him be ashamed of the cross of Christ, in the confession of which we glory. It was not unknown to God what death his own Son would die, when he pronounced the law, "He that is hanged is accursed of God." (Deuteronomy 21:23.) <br /><br />But how does it happen, it will be asked, that a beloved Son is cursed by his Father? We reply, there are two things which must be considered, not only in the person of Christ, but even in his human nature. The one is, that he was the unspotted Lamb of God, full of blessing and of grace; the other is, that he placed himself in our room, and thus became a sinner, and subject to the curse, not in himself indeed, but in us, yet in such a manner, that it became necessary for him to occupy our place. He could not cease to be the object of his Father's love, and yet he endured his wrath. For how could he reconcile the Father to us, if he had incurred his hatred and displeasure? We conclude, that he "did always those things that pleased" (John 8:29) his Father. Again, how would he have freed us from the wrath of God, if he had not transferred it from us to himself? Thus, "he was wounded for our transgressions," (Isaiah 53:5,) and had to deal with God as an angry judge. This is the foolishness of the cross, (1 Corinthians 1:18,) and the admiration of angels, (1 Peter 1:12,) which not only exceeds, but swallows up, all the wisdom of the world.</i><br /><br />If you agree with the above then we're are agreed on doctrine as to related to our sin and Christ. <br /><br />And we will apparently differ on the <b>definition of impute</b>, i.e. to lay the responsibility or blame for often falsely or unjustly, apply, ascribe, assign, attach, attribute, attribute vicariously, blame, charge to, transfer, charge upon, credit, fix the burden of, fix the responsibility for, fix upon, place the blame on, place the responsibility for.<br /><br />cheers...Jack Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post-26021817078013087822014-03-27T12:02:38.527-07:002014-03-27T12:02:38.527-07:00Hudson, I have to chuckle that you are hanging you...Hudson, I have to chuckle that you are hanging your hat on the use (and lack thereof) of the word 'imputation' all the while it's meaning is present in the sources - yes the WCF. As Mark said, one cannot have their own definitions. And as I wrote above, by your logic no one should teach the doctrine of the Trinity since the Trinity is not mentioned in Scripture. But you would say that the teaching that we put under the name Trinity is indeed in Scripture, and so it is. So too with imputation regarding the guilt of our sin and Christ who "bore our sins in his body on the tree that we might die to sin and live to righteousness" (1 Peter 2:24)<br /><br /><i>"might call" Reformed?"</i>... as in stalwart reformed past and present: Calvin, Owen, Berkof, Packer, Sproul, Smeaton, Hodge, Pink, Fesko, Baugh, Horton, and on and on? By the way, Calvin apparently does "repeat this mistake." He not only teaches imputation (transfer or laying on) of the guilt of our sin to Christ in the Institutes but also in his Antitdote to Trent as well as his commentaries on Lev. 16, Isa. 53, Romans 5, 2 Cor. 5, and Gal. 3. <br /><br />Jack Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post-38392029691642469962014-03-27T11:36:34.675-07:002014-03-27T11:36:34.675-07:00I read that piece you posted from Owen. http://bib...I read that piece you posted from Owen. http://biblicalsoteriology.blogspot.com/2009/12/john-owen-imputation-of-believers-sins.html For all his many words, he never once quotes any Scripture that says our sins are "imputed" to Christ. He only provides documentation that says God prevents Adam's sin from being imputed to us, and that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, and of course that God's wrath, our sins and the debt of sin are removed by means of remission, expiation, atonement, redemption, propitiation, each of which has a specific meaning not synonymous with "imputation."Hudsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05511526445868840330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post-43556732970367135752014-03-27T04:56:53.843-07:002014-03-27T04:56:53.843-07:00So it's settled. You have been unable to find...So it's settled. You have been unable to find in the Bible or any Reformed confession any reference to the expression "imputation of sins" to Christ, but rather only the "imputation of sins" from Adam and the "imputation of righteousness" to the man of faith. Yes, you've found plenty of other words to describe the transfer of our sins to Christ; expiation, redemption, propitiation, atonement, remission, etc, but that's not the same thing.<br /><br />The only thing you have found to support your assertion is from folks whom we might call Reformed fathers; Hodge, Berkhof, Sproul, Packer, and a few others who have failed (in this rare instance) to be regulated by Scripture and the confessions. What we are seeing is a game of "whisper down the lane", possibly beginning with a mistranslation of Calvin's french. I don't have a copy of the Institutes in french, so I can't verify that one way or the other, but I do know that if Calvin made this mistake, he didn't repeat it.Hudsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05511526445868840330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post-65910217222339700752014-03-26T15:54:06.009-07:002014-03-26T15:54:06.009-07:00A final thought... Our sins being imputed to Chris...A final thought... Our sins being imputed to Christ is a strictly legal matter before the law. It doesn't effect at all the sinless nature of Christ. In fact, it was absolutely necessary that Christ without blemish - sinless - be offered to take away the sins of the world. His sinless life of infinite value was sufficient to pay for the guilt of the elect's sins that he took upon himself. Once he died, the law was satisfied in that the wages of sin, i.e. death, had been paid as required by the Law. But because Christ was in himself sinless and not a sinner, death could not hold him, a righteous man. And thus by the Spirit of God he rose from the dead for our justification. So, imputation of sin to Christ is akin to the type in Leviticus with the two-fold offering for sin:<br /><br />"A twofold mode of expiation is here presented to us; for one of the two goats was offered in sacrifice according to the provisions of the Law, the other was sent away to be an outcast, or offscouring (katharma vel peripsema [242] ) The fulfillment of both figures, however, was manifested in Christ, since He was both the Lamb of God, whose offering blotted out the sins of the world, and, that He might be as an offscouring, (katharma,) His comeliness was destroyed, and He was rejected of men." Calvin Commentary Leviticus.<br /><br /><b>Lev. 16</b>: 18 And he shall go out unto the altar that is before Jehovah, and make atonement for it, and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about.<br />19 And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the uncleannesses of the children of Israel.<br />20 And when he hath made an end of atoning for the holy place, and the tent of meeting, and the altar, he shall present the live goat:<br />21 and Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, even all their sins; and he shall put them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a man that is in readiness into the wilderness:<br />22 and the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a solitary land: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.<br /><br />Again:<br />"the goat which departed alive and free, was an atonement, [243] that by its departure and flight the people might be assured that their sins were put away and vanished. This was the only expiatory sacrifice in the Law without blood; nor does this contradict the statement of the Apostle, for since two goats were offered together, it was enough that the death of one should take place, and that its blood should be shed for expiation; for the lot was not cast until both goats had been brought to the door of the tabernacle; and thus although the priest presented one of them alive "to make an atonement with him," as Moses expressly says, yet God was not propitiated without blood, since the efficacy of the expiation depended on the sacrifice of the other goat." Calvin Commentary Leviticus.<br /><br />Jack: A type of Christ's death on the cross: a spotless goat sacrificed as a perfect sacrifice for sins and a second goat upon which the sins of the people are laid (imputed) and put outside the camp, removed far from the people. Jack Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post-40612226806217237762014-03-26T14:35:28.954-07:002014-03-26T14:35:28.954-07:00"The negative aspect of justification may rec..."The negative aspect of justification may receive due expression in the recognition of <i>Christ's bearing the penalty of the sin of his people and so securing forgiveness for them</i>." - Of Works and Grace, M.G. Kline Jack Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post-82452474070517442312014-03-26T11:39:50.815-07:002014-03-26T11:39:50.815-07:00God forgives our debts against his holy Law becaus...God forgives our debts against his holy Law because Jesus our Savior, born under the Law and taking our place before the Law, paid our debts... Thus we are no longer under law but under grace.Jack Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post-56944242219594889812014-03-26T10:55:51.423-07:002014-03-26T10:55:51.423-07:00Hudson,
Let me refer to WCF 1.6: "The whole c...Hudson,<br />Let me refer to WCF 1.6: "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, <i>or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced</i> from Scripture..."<br /><br />Isn't that the logic that allows us to know the doctrine of the Trinity even though the word 'Trinity' is nowhere mentioned in Scripture? It's the same logic that follows on the Divines use of the term 'surety' as pertaining to Christ -<br /><br />WCF 8.3-4: "... he might be thoroughly furnished to execute <i><b>the office</b></i> of a mediator, and <i><b>surety. Which office he took</b></i> not unto himself, but was thereunto called by his Father... <i><b>This office</b></i> the Lord Jesus did most willingly undertake; which that he might discharge, he was made under the law, and did perfectly fulfill it..."<br /><br />Surety is defined as: someone who agrees to be <i>legally responsible if another person fails to pay a debt or to perform a duty.</i><br /><br />Christ before the Law legally took upon himself our debt, i.e. sin. - "forgive us our debts" or trespasses as in the Lord's Prayer.<br /><br />Christ took upon himself the office of surety for us sinners to discharge all requirements of demanded of the Law relating both to penalties (and in the day you eat of it you shall surely die) and as to meeting its requirements. In other words, our debt or guilt of sin was imputed (a law word) to Christ and he became legally responsible for it as our Surety. He discharged that debt of sin both by dying in our place and living perfectly before the law.<br /><br />"And you, being dead through your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, you, I say, did he make alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, <b>having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us</b>, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out that way, nailing it to the cross (Col. 2:13-14) [law phrase emphasized]<br /><br />This Jesus did as our legal Surety. And none of this excludes the truth that we were also adopted in love, made sons and daughters of God, co-heirs of Christ. Rather, it is Jesus performing fully the office of Surety that clears all charges in order that justice and holiness are served as the just basis for all other blessings of salvation given to us. To have a just foundation as regards God's holiness allowing God to be the just and justifier...<br /><br />You say this is error. With that statement you include just about any reformed theologian past and present. J.I. Packer teaches imputation of our sins to Christ:<br /><br />"So that now the righteousness of Christ is ours not only objectively (as they term it) but formally also”—that is, it is not only an ontological reality, “there” for our benefit in some general sense, but actually imparts to us the “form,” i.e., the characteristic, of being righteous in God’s sight.9 Our sins were reckoned (imputed) to Christ, so that he bore God’s judgment on them, and in virtue of this his righteousness is reckoned ours, so that we are pardoned, accepted, and given a righteous man’s status for his sake.So that now the righteousness of Christ is ours not only objectively (as they term it) but formally also”—that is, it is not only an ontological reality, “there” for our benefit in some general sense, but actually imparts to us the “form,” i.e., the characteristic, of being righteous in God’s sight.9 <b>Our sins were <i>reckoned (imputed)</i> to Christ, so that he bore God’s judgment on them</b>, and in virtue of this his righteousness is reckoned ours, so that we are pardoned, accepted, and given a righteous man’s status for his sake."<br />http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/sola-fide-the-reformed-doctrine-of-justification/<br /><br />It is mainstream soteriological doctrine. Again, what reformed theologians past or present denies this? <br /><br />blessings, bro...Jack Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post-6816914578515753812014-03-26T09:26:23.702-07:002014-03-26T09:26:23.702-07:00"Q. 72. What is justifying faith?
A. Justifyi..."Q. 72. What is justifying faith?<br />A. Justifying faith is a saving grace, wrought in the heart of a sinner by the Spirit and Word of God, whereby he, being convinced of his sin and misery, and of the disability in himself and all other creatures to recover him out of his lost condition, not only assenteth to the truth of the promise of the gospel, but receiveth and resteth upon Christ and his righteousness, therein held forth, for pardon of sin, and for the accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation."<br /><br />So you can readily see that there are two things going on, both of legal consequence. First there is "recovering him out of his lost condition", which is a legal matter pertaining to debt. The second, "accepting and accounting of his person righteous in the sight of God for salvation" is a legal matter pertaining to inheritance. The believer is not only a freed slave, but he is also an adopted son with an inheritance that the Bible describes as the clothing of righteousness... and the expression used here is "imputation of righteousness." Christ describes himself in several ways: redeemer, scapegoat, advocate, mediator, friend... and king with the power to both bequeath and adorn them that are invited to His banquet in the clothes of righteousness. We must not confuse or conflate these roles.<br /><br />Moreover, we must not add to the catechism an expression that it does not offer, namely that our sin is "imputed" to Christ. This is not the language of the WCF or of the WLC. While I won't go so far as to call it heresy, I must say that such language is unregulated and in error.Hudsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05511526445868840330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post-88148695300323575602014-03-26T09:23:36.243-07:002014-03-26T09:23:36.243-07:00Justification is defined in this Q/A 77 as God imp...Justification is defined in this Q/A 77 as God imputing the righteousness of Christ to the believer which is then defined as "sin is pardoned." Wouldn't you then have to agree that included <b>within imputation</b> is a righteousness that involves not only being clothed with Christ's perfect obedience but also the pardon or forgiveness of our sins which was accomplished by Jesus taking the death penalty of the law for sin upon himself in his death and resurrection? Jack Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post-37538172928798834932014-03-26T08:30:20.046-07:002014-03-26T08:30:20.046-07:00WLC Q. 77. Wherein do justification and sanctifica...WLC Q. 77. Wherein do justification and sanctification differ?<br />A. Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification, yet they differ, in that God in justification imputeth the righteousness of Christ; in sanctification his Spirit infuseth grace, and enableth to the exercise thereof; in the former, sin is pardoned; in the other, it is subdued: the one doth equally free all believers from the revenging wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life, that they never fall into condemnation; the other is neither equal in all, nor in this life perfect in any, but growing up to perfection.Hudsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05511526445868840330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post-11128315884685831662014-03-25T17:21:09.542-07:002014-03-25T17:21:09.542-07:00Hudson,
Please consider: imputation isn't an i...Hudson,<br />Please consider: imputation isn't an inheritance term. It is a legal accounting term. And that is how the Bible uses it.<br /><br />A simple, though not perfect, analogy: I am a debtor. I owe a debt and it is long overdue. I can't pay it and wish only that someone would pay it for me. Someone steps forward and and offers to incur my debt by putting it in his name. The Law Court agrees and imputes my debt to him. He now owes the debt. He is not a debtor and didn't incur the debt but he now owes it and I don't. The Law court legally considers him to be the debtor even though I am the one who went into debt. He pays the debt along with all penalties, I go free because before the law my debt is paid. My Surety goes free because the debt is paid. He is not a debtor and never was. The Law has no interest in me nor my Surety.Jack Millerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18281378425270530573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post-16438492154293829452014-03-25T15:14:27.107-07:002014-03-25T15:14:27.107-07:00Mark. First let's admit that we are not accus...Mark. First let's admit that we are not accusing each other of heresy. I think we agree on the content of the Gospel. We're only arguing about the words we use to describe it. Just thought we should make that clear. <br /><br />But the words are still important. We agree that our sins are "transferred" to Christ. You maintain that they are transferred by means of imputation which is a dependent on the laws of inheritance. I maintain that the transfer is by means of payment or remission, and as such is dependent on the laws of commerce (if you will). <br /><br />We are clothed in His righteousness because He (as King or as the the 2nd Adam) gives/imputes to us His righteousness. Yes, you can say that this is a transfer of righteousness, and you can also say that there is a transfer of sin, but you cannot say that both transfers are by means of imputation. This transfer of sin is by means of a purchase/redemption/remission. There are several words to describe it, but imputation is NOT one of them. Romans 4 does NOT say that our sin is "imputed" to Christ.Hudsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05511526445868840330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post-6146022892110686992014-03-25T11:26:31.966-07:002014-03-25T11:26:31.966-07:00I have got to go for now, but please keep trying t...I have got to go for now, but please keep trying to communicate with me. I want to be instructed, not only about the nature of our disagreement, but also about what I don't know yet, and what I know which is not correct.<br /><br />If only we could say what we mean, then perhaps we could mean what we say.<br /><br />http://markmcculley.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/union-is-not-the-indwelling-nature-and-made-sin-was-never-the-inward-nature/Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06233995709579822605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post-5779635856160934812014-03-25T11:17:17.620-07:002014-03-25T11:17:17.620-07:00Flavel--If we should once imagine, that the very a...Flavel--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.<br /><br />This supposition would render the blood of the cross altogether unable to satisfy for us. He could not have been the Lamb of God to take away the sins of the world, if he had not been perfectly pure and spotless, 1 Pet. 1.19.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 gospelMarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06233995709579822605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post-3400511515260985622014-03-25T11:15:41.591-07:002014-03-25T11:15:41.591-07:00Read Flavel----
They tell us, (1.) That the righte...Read Flavel----<br />They tell us, (1.) That the righteousness of Christ is subjectively and inherently in us, in the same fulness and perfection as it is in Christ; grant that, and then it will follow indeed, That Christ himself is not more righteous than the believer is. (2.) That not only the guilt of sin was laid on Christ by way of imputation: but sinfulness itself, was transferred from the elect to Christ: and that by God’s laying it on him, the sinfulness or fault itself was essentially transfused into him.<br /><br />First, 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, Isa. 53.5,6. 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<br /><br />God by imputing the guilt of our sins to Christ, thereby our sins became legally his; as the debt is legally the surety’s debt, though he never borrowed any of it: Thus Christ took our sins upon him, though in him was no sin, 2 Cor. 5.21, “He hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin.”<br /><br />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.<br /><br />As the guilt of our sins was by God’s imputation laid upon Christ, so the righteousness of Christ is by God imputed to believers, by virtue of their legal union with Christ; and becomes thereby truly theirs, for the justification of their particular persons before God, as if they themselves had in their own persons fulfilled all that the law requires, or suffered all that is threatened.<br /><br />No inherent righteousness in our own persons, is, or can be more truly our own, for this end and purpose, than Christ’s imputed righteousness is our own. He is the Lord our righteousness, Jeremiah 23.6, We are made the righteousness of God in him, 1 Cor. 5.21. Yea, the righteousness of the law is fulfilled in them that believe, Rom. 8.4.<br /><br />But notwithstanding all this, 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.<br /><br />The guilt of our sin was that which was imputed unto Christ, but the very transgression of the law itself could never be transfused from us unto him. 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.<br /><br />Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06233995709579822605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post-75851071166701459282014-03-25T11:06:00.148-07:002014-03-25T11:06:00.148-07:00Nobody here is denying the imputation of sin from ...Nobody here is denying the imputation of sin from Adam to all humans, Why would you think anybody is? Jack and I do believe that God imputed the sins of the elect to Christ, that Christ bore those specific sins, that specific guilt. One, why is it that you deny that sins were legally counted to Christ? Two, why would you think an imputation of sins to Christ in any way denies or "is at the expense of" the imputation of Adam's first sin? Three, you need to make some arguments, and give some definitions, not only your conclusions. Are you defining "original sin" as nothing but corruption, as not about guilt? I thought you were at least with us on the imputation of Adam's guilt, but your rejection of the double is confusing to me. I believe in three "imputations".<br /><br />1. God counts the sin of Adam as the sin of all humans, Christ excepted.<br />2. God counts the sins of the elect to Christ.<br />3. God then counts the death of Christ to the elect when God "baptises them into the death" (Romans 6). This is when the elect "receive the reconciliation" (Romans 5:11, 17, by imputation, not by faith in these two contexts). Another way to say this is "God counts the righteousness of Christ to the elect. The righteousness of Christ is the death of Christ. Do you disagree with the death of Christ as being any part of the righteousness Christ obtained after His incarnation?<br /><br />Romans 4---David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:<br /><br />7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,<br /> and whose sins are covered;<br />8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”<br /><br />Romans 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also shall reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06233995709579822605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post-56888157947124236362014-03-25T10:51:39.187-07:002014-03-25T10:51:39.187-07:00HudsonL Abraham's faith was imputed to him as ...HudsonL Abraham's faith was imputed to him as righteousness, but this also was not a transfer.<br /><br />mark. 1. it was the object of faith, not his faith, which was imputed to Abraham. And this was a transfer, a legal counting which took into account not what Abraham did (not like the one with Phinehas, which is about what he did) but what the seed of Abraham is going to do. The merits of Christ's (Abraham's seed) were at that time transferred and imputed to Abraham.<br />Neither of us is entitled to our own private language, where we simply stipulate how we are going to use a word, and then expect the other to use the word the way we do.<br /><br />My concern is not specific words or translations, but to get to the ideas, the concepts, and the reason we disagree. Imputation is always a counting. But sometimes imputation counts the sins of Adam in, and sometimes it does not. And sometimes imputation counts the death (the merits, the righteousness) of Christ in, and sometimes it does not.<br /><br />If we are going to communicate, Hudson, you are going to need to tell me why you have a dogmatic refusal of God being just by means of "transfer" in God's imputation. Are you a Socinian so that you think that justification of the ungodly cannot include God being just at the same time (forgiveness is gift therefore not justice, the Socinians argued). I hope not. I am not accusing you of denying penal substitution. I am trying to figure out why you have such a problem with "legal sharing". Do you think any giving or sharing that God does must be "not legal"? I am asking. I don't understand your objection.<br /><br /><br />Hudson: "Imputation" is done by Christ because He, as King, has the power and right to grant such an inheritance to anyone he wishes... not arbitrarily or in payment for services rendered but rather because the grant is made "before all worlds."<br /><br />mark: I am not saying that God elected the elect in Christ because of the cross. But election in Christ does mean that justice has to go out of the equation. election in Christ is first! The death of Christ is not the cause<br />of God’s election in love. God’s election in love is the cause of the<br />death of Christ. Jesus Christ is first. Jesus, the incarnate, the<br />eternal Son of God in the flesh, is the foundation of election by being Himself the object of election. “All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things.”<br /><br /><br />Hudson: Therefore it is consistent to say that we cannot use the word "impute" to describe the TRANSFER of sins to Christ. We must describe this transfer with terms such as a payment (a remission) for sin, and the guilt therefrom, or a propitiation, or an expiation, or an atonement. To use "imputation" is just to muddy the water.<br /><br />mark: I disagree. I don't get your "therefore" at all. This is where you sound to me like you have a "private language". Romans 4 uses the word impute, but the idea is also there in Romans 5 and in II Cor 5:21.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06233995709579822605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post-62144626039743710372014-03-25T05:45:38.848-07:002014-03-25T05:45:38.848-07:00"It is not being denied that the sins of the ..."It is not being denied that the sins of the elect were imputed to Christ and that Christ died to satisfy the law" No. You are using the word in a way that the Bible does not. We say that Christ took our sins because He had paid for them (remitted), a ransom for the debt which had formerly been imputed to us on account of Adam. Hudsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05511526445868840330noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3422410239991902086.post-68093501082536276842014-03-25T05:40:30.669-07:002014-03-25T05:40:30.669-07:00None of what you say here is about "imputatio...None of what you say here is about "imputation". You are describing a transfer, and the Biblical terminology is "atonement", "expiation", "remission".Hudsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05511526445868840330noreply@blogger.com