Imputation of what?
Protestants hold that there are three imputations described in the Bible: from Adam to us, from the elect to Christ, and from Christ to the elect. But what are these imputations of?
(1) Is it Adam's sin, the guilt for his sin, the liability to punishment for his sin, or the punishment itself that is imputed to us?
(2) Is it the elect's sins, the guilt for the elect's sins, the liability to punishment for the elect's sin, or the punishment itself that is imputed to Christ?
(3) Is it the righteous deeds of Christ, the righteousness of those deeds, the liability to God's favour for those deeds, or the favour itself that is imputed to the elect?
I'm confused; can anyone out there help me?
Thanks!
(1) Is it Adam's sin, the guilt for his sin, the liability to punishment for his sin, or the punishment itself that is imputed to us?
(2) Is it the elect's sins, the guilt for the elect's sins, the liability to punishment for the elect's sin, or the punishment itself that is imputed to Christ?
(3) Is it the righteous deeds of Christ, the righteousness of those deeds, the liability to God's favour for those deeds, or the favour itself that is imputed to the elect?
I'm confused; can anyone out there help me?
Thanks!
posted by Daniel Hill | 6/13/2006 05:46:00 pm
4 Comments:
Daniel, how do you sleep at night? I often ponder 2Cor5:21, but I'm also beginning to reconsider how helpful imputation is as a theological motif or idea. There are probably very few texts in the NT that imply actual imputations of anything - I know that is a sweeping statement, but the current debates on justification in the NT are very interesting. And, some leading scholars, e.g. Dunn, think that the Adam and Christ comparision in Roms 5 should not be taken as a formal statement of imputation of anything, either righteousness or sin. I guess you know all this - and I guess you've read Henri Blocher's little book on Original Sin - a great little contribution to a massive topic. It all comes down to the transition from NT exegesis to theological statement - and this is increasingly difficult in my experience of trying to formulate what I believe.
Daniel,
To answer the question:
1. We sinned in Adam. The federal link is such that we actually sinned in him. Thus we became guilty and thus we were liable for punishment.
2. Christ came as our substitute and took our sins upon Him. Thus He bore the guilt that came with it, and thus was made liable to punishment for it.
3. Christ fulfilled the Law for us (He performed righteous deeds), so His righteousness was transferred to us when we were united to Him by faith. It was as if we performed the righteous deeds and were thus righteous. As the second Adam he fulfilled that righteousness of the Law that Adam did not. Under the terms of "the Covenant from all eternity", God blessed us completely from His grace for something that Christ did.
To what extent that Christ was the second Adam? I don't know. Were the blessings of the Covenant made with Christ the same as those promised to Adam (apart from the redemptive aspects of course)? All that it says was that if Adam kept the Covenant he would not die (in every sense). I question those who go beyond this (Deut. 29:29).
I know this isn't what you're asking but it has always worried me about imputation:
If we do absolutely nothing to receive the gift of imputed righteousness in what snese is it our righteousness? If we do do something to receive it, or at least not to obstruct it, how do we avoid works righteouness?
Thanks for the helpful comments, David and Timothy.
Thanks for the question, Tom. I'll answer in an actual post.
Post a Comment
<< Home