Theology Club: Imputation of Christ's Righteousness

[godrulz]

And thus Arminian thinking is illogical.

Arminians are wrong about EDF and SFK. That does not mean they are wrong about everything or that they do not agree with other principles in common with our Open Theism.

I would be quicker to vilify Calvinism over Arminianism. I would also not make EDF a hill to die on. We are right on this point, but it is not an essential, salvific issue at all.

 

[Lighthouse]

Arminians are wrong about EDF and SFK. That does not mean they are wrong about everything or that they do not agree with other principles in common with our Open Theism.

I would be quicker to vilify Calvinism over Arminianism. I would also not make EDF a hill to die on. We are right on this point, but it is not an essential, salvific issue at all.

Are you honestly not smart enough to understand the point I'm making?

The idea that God has EDF and still is able to change His mind is illogical. Is that seriously too complicated for you to understand?

 

[godrulz]

Are you honestly not smart enough to understand the point I'm making?

The idea that God has EDF and still is able to change His mind is illogical. Is that seriously too complicated for you to understand?

I reject EDF and affirm that God changes His mind. When I was Arminian, I believed EDF and that God changes His mind. I don't think this is defensible, but it is not the end of the world. It is a technical, academic point that most have not thought through. This does not mean they do not love Jesus or this point is really a big stumbling block.

Calvinism as a whole is far more problematic and more clearly impugns God's character and ways (vs a fairly technical, philosophical issue that is not in your face like TULIP).

 

[Lighthouse]

This does not mean they do not love Jesus or this point is really a big stumbling block.

I never said it was, so why are you trying to be a stumbling block?

You split a lot of hairs for someone who isn't that sharp.

 

[2COR12:9]

Strange that our whole destiny, for fortune or ill is all based on pure luck. Would the inheritance of the few, be worth the arbitrary fate of the damned, born simply to be sent down the wide road of destruction, never given a chance? This representation, is the starkest contrast imaginable, of who I see God to be revealed as, in the person of Jesus Christ.

If this were correct, wouldn't the most loving thing God could do, would be to not create mankind at all, knowing the cost of billions upon billions of souls sent to burn in the lake of sulfur, were never even capable of choosing God at all? What's the point of the cross, if none are given the right to accept such a gift of sacrificial love?​

 

[Nang]

Strange that our whole destiny, for fortune or ill is all based on pure luck. Would the inheritance of the few, be worth the arbitrary fate of the damned, born simply to be sent down the wide road of destruction, never given a chance? This representation, is the starkest contrast imaginable, of who I see God to be revealed as, in the person of Jesus Christ.

If this were correct, wouldn't the most loving thing God could do, would be to not create mankind at all, knowing the cost of billions upon billions of souls sent to burn in the lake of sulfur, were never even capable of choosing God at all? What's the point of the cross, if none are given the right to accept such a gift of sacrificial love?​

Yes, this is the actual complaint against God Almighty.

We don't like you being the sovereign Determiner and rule over all things! You should never have created man!

I ask you . . . Who does that sound like?

 

[2COR12:9]

Yes, this is the actual complaint against God Almighty.

We don't like you being the sovereign Determiner and rule over all things! You should never have created man!

I ask you . . . Who does that sound like?

If I thought that illustration of God that I presented was true, then that's exactly what I would sound like. Fortunately, I give thanks that God is the sovereign ruler over all things. The difference is that I believe God is just that, the ruler, over the creation as He ordained it to be, which included giving people the right to choose. I see nothing in scripture that reveals sovereignty to be the equivalent to some form of divine puppetry. The biblical metanarrative of God's story, will always reveal to me a God that calls us to make choices; not a God who calls us to make choices that He never truly intends for us to make, because He will really make them for us, whilst leading us to believe we have made them ourselves, which is not only a contradiction but it's duplicitous, not to mention it would be logically impossible for me to repent, or have faith in God, when I was not capable of ever making this choice. Therefore it could never be me believing. It would be God believing in Himself, not God making me capable of believing in Him.

The real conundrum comes when someone is then punished by God for what they are not guilty of. If God has not ordained a realm, in which someone is allowed to make free will choices, within the constructs and parameters He has laid out for them in creation, then they can not be guilty of disobeying or rejecting God when they were never given the option. So people would have no moral obligation whatsoever, because they have no control of there destiny, if it has all been predestined by God from birth to fire. How then can God be intrinsically just, when condemning such to punishment, when that person never was allowed to perform any moral duty, apart from what God had coercively contrived them to do. If this were the case, who would truly be guilty?

Now my view never negates God's incessant influence and call, or possible intervention, it also does not relieve God's creation, of their responsibilities.​

 

[Nang]

The real conundrum comes when someone is then punished by God for what they are not guilty of.​

What descendant of Adam is not guilty of sin?

If God has not ordained a realm, in which someone is allowed to make free will choices, within the constructs and parameters He has laid out for them in creation, then they can not be guilty of disobeying or rejecting God when they were never given the option.

Adam was given the responsibility to choose to respond to God's natural law and obey God's formal commands. Adam failed on both counts, freely.

Since then, all of Adam's seed has been held in bondage to the falsehoods of Satan that Adam chose to heed, instead of heeding the word, will, and holy commands of God.

Since then, there has been no spiritual freedom existent in the nature of man to choose to serve God or do what is morally right. Man is totally corrupted by sin and only inclined to do what is evil.

Only the grace of God and the imputation of Christ's righteousness, can free the will of sinners, to serve righteousness as they should.

So people would have no moral obligation whatsoever, because they have no control of there destiny, if it has all been predestined by God from birth to fire.

I disagree. Man was created morally accountable to live according to the laws of God, and even though Adam failed and cast all mankind into bondage to sin, death, and the devil . . . the laws have not changed and man is still held accountable . . . for what he is not unable to perform

That is why God sent His Son as Savior, to do for fallen men, what they should but never would be able to do for themselves.

How then can God be intrinsically just, when condemning such to punishment, when that person never was allowed to perform any moral duty, apart from what God had coercively contrived them to do. If this were the case, who would truly be guilty?

Your scenario is faulty. All men inherited the sin nature of Adam, and all men are sinners. None are righteous or able or willing to serve God. (Romans 3:10-19) All men are imputed with the guilt of Adam, for he was federal head of the entire human race.

Only by the grace of the federal head of all redeemed men, Jesus Christ, are the sons of God imputed with His righteousness and justified in the sight of God.​

 

[COLA76]

What is the effective difference between people not being able to choose a relationship with God because God ordains everything they do and not being able to choose a relationship with God because someone else chose poorly and now they are cursed? This attempt to disassociate the inability to choose from God (although it seems that you do not really believe there is a disassociation because then God would not be completely sovereign) does not address the problem of morally irresponsible people being punished for something that could not be otherwise.


If Adam was in a close relationship with God and still freely chose to sin, why is it so inconceivable that people born without being in relationship with God continue to freely sin today while also having the ability to choose to be in relationship with God? To say that free choice ended with Adam resolves nothing.

 

[Nang]

What is the effective difference between people not being able to choose a relationship with God because God ordains everything they do and not being able to choose a relationship with God because someone else chose poorly and now they are cursed? This attempt to disassociate the inability to choose from God (although it seems that you do not really believe there is a disassociation because then God would not be completely sovereign) does not address the problem of morally irresponsible people being punished for something that could not be otherwise.


If Adam was in a close relationship with God and still freely chose to sin, why is it so inconceivable that people born without being in relationship with God continue to freely sin today while also having the ability to choose to be in relationship with God? To say that free choice ended with Adam resolves nothing.

Federal Headship.

Adam was created federal head (representative) of the human race.

Jesus Christ was sent from heaven as federal head (representative) of the spiritual sons of God (the church).

I Corinthians 15:45-49

 

[godrulz]

Federal Headship.

Adam was created federal head (representative) of the human race.

Jesus Christ was sent from heaven as federal head (representative) of the spiritual sons of God (the church).

I Corinthians 15:45-49

Federal Headship is Augustinian theory. Transducianism is also not biblical.

Adam's sin did affect the whole human race, but not as you think.

 

[Nang]

Federal Headship is Augustinian theory.

Augustine was a Christian and a brilliant philosopher. Much smarter than either you or I. Federal headship is biblical. (I Cor. 15:45-47)

Transducianism is also not biblical.

No such thing as "transducianism."

Adam's sin did affect the whole human race, but not as you think.

Care to enlarge upon this claim?

 

[COLA76]

Federal Headship.

Adam was created federal head (representative) of the human race.

Jesus Christ was sent from heaven as federal head (representative) of the spiritual sons of God (the church).

I Corinthians 15:45-49

The verse you provided does not assert this claim at all, and your assertion of Adam's headship does not address any of the issues I raised.

 

[Nang]

The verse you provided does not assert this claim at all, and your assertion of Adam's headship does not address any of the issues I raised.

Uh, well, perhaps Romans 5:12-21 will help you see . . .

The two Adams are contrasted with each other in Scripture for a purpose.

Through the first, earthly Adam, sin was imputed to all mankind.

Through the last Adam, the Lord from heaven, Jesus Christ, many were imputed with righteousness.

"Imputation" being a legal rendering.

Imputation of sin and guilt cursed all men to a death sentence.

Imputation of righteousness removed that curse, and justifies many.

Adam represented all the former. All men are his biological seed.

Jesus Christ represented the latter who were justified in His blood. All these are His spiritual seed. Romans 4:13-16, 9:7; Galatians 3:16; Hebrews 2:16-18

 

[COLA76]

Uh, well, perhaps Romans 5:12-21 will help you see . . .

The two Adams are contrasted with each other in Scripture for a purpose.

Through the first, earthly Adam, sin was imputed to all mankind.

Through the last Adam, the Lord from heaven, Jesus Christ, many were imputed with righteousness.

"Imputation" being a legal rendering.

Imputation of sin and guilt cursed all men to a death sentence.

Imputation of righteousness removed that curse, and justifies many.

Adam represented all the former. All men are his biological seed.

Jesus Christ represented the latter who were justified in His blood. All these are His spiritual seed. Romans 4:13-16, 9:7; Galatians 3:16; Hebrews 2:16-18

If you actually read Romans 5:12 it says that death spread to all people as a result of sin, and also that all people sinned. It does not say Adam's sin was imputed to all people. Paul uses Adam to contrast Christ because sin entered the world through the act of the first lone sinner, and humanity is saved from sin by the act of a single man. It is not setting up Adam as any sort of representative for humanity, and it is not saying that all people are condemned for Adam's sin. Paul specifically noting that all have sinned should dissuade the reader from such a concept of the imputation of sin and guilt.

 

[Nang]

If you actually read Romans 5:12 it says that death spread to all people as a result of sin, and also that all people sinned. It does not say Adam's sin was imputed to all people.

The wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23

Imputation is the legal rendering of what has been deservedly earned.

The gift of God is etenal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23

Imputation of His righteousness is the legal rendering of what has not been deservedly earned.

Another comparison of the two Adams. . .

Paul uses Adam to contrast Christ because sin entered the world through the act of the first lone sinner, and humanity is saved from sin by the act of a single man.

Correct.

It is not setting up Adam as any sort of representative for humanity, and it is not saying that all people are condemned for Adam's sin.

How many humans do you know of that escape the wages of death, apart from God's grace gifting men faith in the righteousness of Jesus Christ?

Paul specifically noting that all have sinned should dissuade the reader from such a concept of the imputation of sin and guilt.

How? Why?

Did not all the seed of humanity abide in the body of Adam? Do not all souls experience death? Are not all persons accursed and separated from God?

How can any sinner escape consignment to death and then the judgment? (Hebrews 9:27)

Only by being found as the spiritual offspring of Jesus Christ, who "was offered once to bear the sins of many. ." (Hebrews 9:28)

Another comparison to the fate of the seed of the first Adam, and the seed of the last Adam, Jesus Christ.

There is no escaping the death sentence earned through the fall of the first Adam, than by being given faith in the substitutional suffered by the last Adam, Jesus Christ.

All sin is placed at the feet of the first Adam. The only salvation for humanity was worked and brings glory to the last Adam, Jesus Christ.

 

[COLA76]

The wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23

Imputation is the legal rendering of what has been deservedly earned.

The gift of God is etenal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23

Imputation of His righteousness is the legal rendering of what has not been deservedly earned.

Another comparison of the two Adams. . .


How many humans do you know of that escape the wages of death, apart from God's grace gifting men faith in the righteousness of Jesus Christ?

No one is disputing that sin leads to death, a spiritual death at that. The point is that each is punished for their own sin, not the sin of the first sinner.

How? Why?

Did not all the seed of humanity abide in the body of Adam? Do not all souls experience death? Are not all persons accursed and separated from God?

How can any sinner escape consignment to death and then the judgment? (Hebrews 9:27)

Only by being found as the spiritual offspring of Jesus Christ, who "was offered once to bear the sins of many. ." (Hebrews 9:28)

Another comparison to the fate of the seed of the first Adam, and the seed of the last Adam, Jesus Christ.

There is no escaping the death sentence earned through the fall of the first Adam, than by being given faith in the substitutional suffered by the last Adam, Jesus Christ.

All sin is placed at the feet of the first Adam. The only salvation for humanity was worked and brings glory to the last Adam, Jesus Christ.

As I said, Paul specifically notes that all have sinned, not that all are condemned by the sin of the first sinner. All sin is not placed at the feet of the first sinner, but the initiation of sin into the world. The first sin did bring death, spiritual death, into the world. I do not dispute that, as a result, life is only given through faith in Christ.

 

[godrulz]

Adam's sin was the occasion of sin entering the human race leading to physical depravity. It was not the cause of subsequent individuals being condemned sinners. Moral depravity is personal, volitional, not genetic. The soul that sins is the one that dies (Ezek.).

We are sinners because we sin, not because we are conceived, not fault of our own.

Making sin genetic leads to a defense for homosexuality, etc.

 

[Lighthouse]

godrulz doesn't think sin and righteousness are things to be imputed or not imputed.

 

[godrulz]

godrulz doesn't think sin and righteousness are things to be imputed or not imputed.

Sin and righteousness are not 'things'. There are various theories of imputation held by men of God through the centuries.

Sin is volitional, so you cannot impute it from Adam, etc. One concept relates to not counting them against us due to justification/forgiveness. This does not mean they are physically added at some point or physically removed (they are choices, not objects).

A view that says while we are sinning it is actually righteous in God's sight is wrong.