RC Sproul was played on the radio today, and he talked about a double imputation that took place, where my sin was given to Christ and his righteousness was given to me.
However, doesn't this cause an issue? If by imputation I am made righteous, then by imputation Christ was made and died a sinner.
I've thought that Christ died as an innocent sacrifice, and due to that sacrifice, it paid my sin debt, and God is able to judge me as righteous.
In other words, Christ was judged as my sin should have been judged, so God can judge me as righteous, justice having been carried out against my sin on Christ.
My righteousness is reckoned (calculated) to me, not imputed to me in the sense RC Sproul seems to say.
Double imputation?
Re: Double imputation?
In our day, the word "justice" seems almost synonymous with "punishment". When a person is punished for a crime, we say, "Justice has been done."
However, in the Bible, the word "justice" (even in the Old Testament) seems to be used most frequently with regard to God' people receiving fair treatment by God by way of vindicating them against injustices done to them by evil people.
As I see it, it is impossible to "pay" for wrong doing; indeed, I dont think the concept makes sense. In the penal substitution view, Christ dies to "pay for" our sin, so that we don't have to pay for them. But the proponents of this view state that we cannot pay for them anyway, since the sin load is too great. So if we are sent to an everlasting hell, we go on paying for them for all eternity, and yet can never complete the payment. But when Christ paid for them, according to this view, then God was "satisfied". Why would the Father be satisfied to see his own Son die in agony, and why would His doing so satisfy the Father. If one of your children did a terrible wrong to you, would you be satisfied to see one of your innocent children heavily punished in his place?
I would like to invite you to read George MacDonal's essay on "Justice" from Unspoken Sermons Series III. You can read it by clicking on the link below:
http://www.online-literature.com/george ... ermons/31/
However, in the Bible, the word "justice" (even in the Old Testament) seems to be used most frequently with regard to God' people receiving fair treatment by God by way of vindicating them against injustices done to them by evil people.
As I see it, it is impossible to "pay" for wrong doing; indeed, I dont think the concept makes sense. In the penal substitution view, Christ dies to "pay for" our sin, so that we don't have to pay for them. But the proponents of this view state that we cannot pay for them anyway, since the sin load is too great. So if we are sent to an everlasting hell, we go on paying for them for all eternity, and yet can never complete the payment. But when Christ paid for them, according to this view, then God was "satisfied". Why would the Father be satisfied to see his own Son die in agony, and why would His doing so satisfy the Father. If one of your children did a terrible wrong to you, would you be satisfied to see one of your innocent children heavily punished in his place?
I would like to invite you to read George MacDonal's essay on "Justice" from Unspoken Sermons Series III. You can read it by clicking on the link below:
http://www.online-literature.com/george ... ermons/31/
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Re: Double imputation?
Thanks Paidion. I'll check out the essay. It does strike me that a payment seemed needed, a better sacrifice as Hebrews refers to.
However, more my question here is the application of righteousness to us, and the problem that came to mind with this idea of double imputation. If we can be made righteous through imputation then Christ was made and died a sinner rather than an innocent sacrifice.
However, more my question here is the application of righteousness to us, and the problem that came to mind with this idea of double imputation. If we can be made righteous through imputation then Christ was made and died a sinner rather than an innocent sacrifice.
Re: Double imputation?
Also, as stated in my first post, I believe justice is more a reckoning (calculation) of position, than a punishment inflicted.
Judging is the perception of standing.
Christ stood righteous, and allowed himself unjustly to be perceived as sinner, and I as sinner am justly allowed to be seen as righteous due to his sacrifice.
Perception of Christ is a far cry from imputing upon Christ it seems. One can be untrue (perception), and one makes it true (imputation).
I'll read the essay when I get to a computer.
Judging is the perception of standing.
Christ stood righteous, and allowed himself unjustly to be perceived as sinner, and I as sinner am justly allowed to be seen as righteous due to his sacrifice.
Perception of Christ is a far cry from imputing upon Christ it seems. One can be untrue (perception), and one makes it true (imputation).
I'll read the essay when I get to a computer.
Re: Double imputation?
Hi Jaydam,
Consider the Greek word logizomai (Strongs' #3049) and how Paul uses the word:
[All scripture quotes New American Standard Bible (NASB)]
Romans 2:26
26. So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded (Greek. logizomai) as circumcision?
Logizomai means to reckon or credit someone with something. In 2:26 Paul informs us that an uncircumcised man will be reckoned, or counted, to be something he clearly is not. In the same way we are considered to be perfectly righteous, though we are not:
Romans 4:1-8
1. What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2. For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited (logizomai) to him as righteousness.” 4. Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited (logizomai) as a favor, but as what is due. 5. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited (logizomai) as righteousness, 6. just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits (logizomai) righteousness apart from works:
7. “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven,
And whose sins have been covered.
8. “Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account (logizomai).”
So I am partly in agreement with Sproul. Now about Christ I disagree with Sproul.
Luke 22:37
37. For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘And He was numbered (logizomai)
with transgressors’; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.”
So Jesus said He must be reckoned to be a sinner, though He was not.
1 Peter 1:18
18. knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, 19. but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.
Peter informs us Jesus was suffered as a sinner, though He was unblemished, as the sacrificial lamb must be.
1 Peter 2:24
21. For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, 22. who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; 23. and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; 24. and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.
That He "bore our sins in his body" is figurative, a metonym. How could a sinful action of ours be physically in His body? He never sinned, but was treated (reckoned) as though He was a sinner and He suffered the penalty that we should suffer. He suffered in our place.
Metonyms are rather common in the bible. A metonym refers to something by that which is related to it, such as we ask "is the pot boiling?" when we mean the contents in the pot.
Consider the Greek word logizomai (Strongs' #3049) and how Paul uses the word:
[All scripture quotes New American Standard Bible (NASB)]
Romans 2:26
26. So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded (Greek. logizomai) as circumcision?
Logizomai means to reckon or credit someone with something. In 2:26 Paul informs us that an uncircumcised man will be reckoned, or counted, to be something he clearly is not. In the same way we are considered to be perfectly righteous, though we are not:
Romans 4:1-8
1. What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2. For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited (logizomai) to him as righteousness.” 4. Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited (logizomai) as a favor, but as what is due. 5. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited (logizomai) as righteousness, 6. just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits (logizomai) righteousness apart from works:
7. “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven,
And whose sins have been covered.
8. “Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account (logizomai).”
So I am partly in agreement with Sproul. Now about Christ I disagree with Sproul.
Luke 22:37
37. For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘And He was numbered (logizomai)
with transgressors’; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.”
So Jesus said He must be reckoned to be a sinner, though He was not.
1 Peter 1:18
18. knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, 19. but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ.
Peter informs us Jesus was suffered as a sinner, though He was unblemished, as the sacrificial lamb must be.
1 Peter 2:24
21. For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps, 22. who committed no sin, nor was any deceit found in His mouth; 23. and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; 24. and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.
That He "bore our sins in his body" is figurative, a metonym. How could a sinful action of ours be physically in His body? He never sinned, but was treated (reckoned) as though He was a sinner and He suffered the penalty that we should suffer. He suffered in our place.
Metonyms are rather common in the bible. A metonym refers to something by that which is related to it, such as we ask "is the pot boiling?" when we mean the contents in the pot.
Re: Double imputation?
Thanks Homer. I think we are mostly on the same page at least. My problem with Sproul was that I feel Jesus cannot be imputed with my sin in the same sense Sproul says I am imputed with Christ's righteousness. Because if the imputation of Christ's righteousness upon me makes me right in God's eyes, and judged so, then my sin imputation upon Christ would, in the same way, cause Christ to be seen as sinner in God's eyes and judged as such. I don't see that God ever saw Christ as a sinner, I don't see that Christ could have died a sinner.
Yet, doing more reading since my last post, I'm surprised how many "big name" people consider Christ died as an actual sinner upon the cross. It appears even Luther did. I always thought Christ died as the blameless sacrifice, innocent, but if he died a sinner that means he died guilty and would have deserved what he got. I don't see that aligns with the style of sacrifice the Bible call him. The implications of thinking in such a manner seem almost heretical to me.
From the scriptures you provided, I still see that our righteousness appears to be a decision from God regarding us, not an imputation exchange of sorts.
Yet, doing more reading since my last post, I'm surprised how many "big name" people consider Christ died as an actual sinner upon the cross. It appears even Luther did. I always thought Christ died as the blameless sacrifice, innocent, but if he died a sinner that means he died guilty and would have deserved what he got. I don't see that aligns with the style of sacrifice the Bible call him. The implications of thinking in such a manner seem almost heretical to me.
From the scriptures you provided, I still see that our righteousness appears to be a decision from God regarding us, not an imputation exchange of sorts.
Re: Double imputation?
The word translated as "justified" is supposed by many to mean "counted righteous". I don't think it ever has that meaning. It does sometimes have the current meaning of "justified" but it often means "made righteous", and as I see it, this is the meaning it has in Romans 4. That is why Abraham would have had something to boast about if he could have been a righteous person though self-effort in works.Romans 4:1-8
1. What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2. For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited (logizomai) to him as righteousness.”
Verse 3 does not say Abraham's belief was counted to him AS righteousness, that is, in the sense of being counted INSTEAD OF righteousness or IN PLACE OF righteousness. If that had been Paul's intent, he would have uses the Greek word "anti". Rather Paul used the word "eis" whose primary meaning is "into" but is often used in Greek as "for the purpose of" or "with a view to", or "toward". Abraham's faith was counted to him toward righteousness, righteousness being the result of this faith. We appropriate the enabling grace of God (Titus 2) through faith. That is how practical righteousness is obtained. God is not interested in counting us righteous when we are not. He is interested in MAKING us righteous through our faith and His enablement. God wants ACTUAL righteousness, not merely POSITIONAL righteousness (the latter being but a mental construct with no actual reality).
Paul's main theses is that we cannot become actually righteous by striving to fulfill the law. If we could we would have "earned salvation". Instead God's enabling grace, made available by the sacrifice of His Son, together with our faith results in our righteousness. We cannot achieve righteousness through self-effort. And neither will God sovereignly make us righteous. But together, our faith and God's enabling grace results in righteousness. In another place Paul warned, "Working together with him, then, we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain."(2Cor 6:1). If we simply have faith that God will make us righteous, then any grace of God we receive will be in vain. We must "work together with Him", put some effort into doing what Jesus taught us. We cannot become righteous by faith alone, as James clearly taught. (James 1:14-26).4. Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited (logizomai) as a favor, but as what is due. 5. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited (logizomai) as righteousness, 6. just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits (logizomai) righteousness apart from works:
7. “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven,
And whose sins have been covered.
8. “Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account (logizomai).”
Jesus was not reckoned as a sinner by the Father, only by those who had Him put to death. That is why they put Him to death. They considered Him to be an imposter—posing as the Messiah, but clearly not so in their eyes since He made no attempt to free them from the power of Rome.Luke 22:37
37. For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘And He was numbered (logizomai)
with transgressors’; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.”
So Jesus said He must be reckoned to be a sinner, though He was not.
I think "He bore our sins in his body" is literal. It comes from Isaiah 53.That He "bore our sins in his body" is figurative, a metonym. How could a sinful action of ours be physically in His body? He never sinned, but was treated (reckoned) as though He was a sinner and He suffered the penalty that we should suffer. He suffered in our place.
The word "bore" often means "endured". Jesus endured the sins of his crucifiers (we human beings), all the pain and wounds which we inflicted upon Him.He bore our sins, and was grieved about us: yet we counted him to be in misery, and in calamity, and in affliction. And he was wounded by our sins, and was bruised by our iniquities (Isaiah 53:4,5 translation from the Septuagint)
We counted him to be in misery, calamity, and affliction. He was wounded and bruised because of our sins and iniquities against Him.
And Peter tells us WHY he endured all the pain and misery in his body on the tree:
I know I am expressing a quite different paradigm from that which has been brought to us by medieval Catholicism and Protestantism. But I believe this to have been the teaching of the early church, the early catholic church and I think even the current Eastern Orthodox Church (if I understand them correctly).He himself endured our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. (1Pet 2:24)
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Re: Double imputation?
I suggest reading Wright's "What Paul Really Said". One of his points, and the point that Piper is primarily fighting against in their ongoing debate, is that dikaiosune can be translated as either righteous or justified at the translator's whim. Therefore in each case the translator had to make a choice, but we don't usually see this choice (they don't usually explain their choice) or the differences in the definitions of the words. The following can mean radically different things depending on which term you choose assuming that righteousness is moral perfection and justification is the declaration that someone is on God's side. For an interesting exercise, print the section below and circle the answer you prefer, then compare it to your favorite version of scripture:
Rom 4:1 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh?
Rom 4:2 For if Abraham was [justified / made righteous] by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as [justification / righteousness]."
Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.
Rom 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who [justifies / makes righteous] the ungodly, his faith is counted as [justification / righteousness],
Rom 4:6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts [just / righteousness] apart from works:
Rom 4:7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered;
Rom 4:8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin."
Rom 4:9 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as [justification / righteousness].
Rom 4:10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.
Rom 4:11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the [justification / righteousness] that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that [justification / righteousness] would be counted to them as well,
Rom 4:12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
Rom 4:13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the [justification / righteousness] of faith.
Rom 4:14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void.
Rom 4:15 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.
Rom 4:16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,
Rom 4:17 as it is written, "I have made you the father of many nations"—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.
Rom 4:18 In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, "So shall your offspring be."
Rom 4:19 He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah's womb.
Rom 4:20 No unbelief made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God,
Rom 4:21 fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised.
Rom 4:22 That is why his faith was "counted to him as [justification / righteousness]."
Rom 4:23 But the words "it was counted to him" were not written for his sake alone,
Rom 4:24 but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord,
Rom 4:25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our [righteousness / justification].
Rom 5:1 Therefore, since we have been [justified / made righteous] by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Rom 5:2 Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Rom 5:3 Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance,
Rom 5:4 and endurance produces character, and character produces hope,
Rom 5:5 and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.
Rom 5:6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
Rom 5:7 For one will scarcely die for a [righteous / just] person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—
Rom 5:8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Rom 5:9 Since, therefore, we have now been [justified / made righteous] by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
Rom 5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.
Rom 5:11 More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
Rom 5:13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
Rom 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
Rom 5:15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
Rom 5:16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought [righteousness / justification].
Rom 5:17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of [justification / righteousness] reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
Rom 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of [justification / righteousness] leads to [justification / righteousness] and life for all men.
Rom 5:19 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 [just / righteous].
Rom 5:20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,
Rom 5:21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through [justification / righteousness] leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Doug
Rom 4:1 What then shall we say was gained by Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh?
Rom 4:2 For if Abraham was [justified / made righteous] by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
Rom 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as [justification / righteousness]."
Rom 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.
Rom 4:5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who [justifies / makes righteous] the ungodly, his faith is counted as [justification / righteousness],
Rom 4:6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts [just / righteousness] apart from works:
Rom 4:7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered;
Rom 4:8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin."
Rom 4:9 Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? For we say that faith was counted to Abraham as [justification / righteousness].
Rom 4:10 How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised.
Rom 4:11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the [justification / righteousness] that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that [justification / righteousness] would be counted to them as well,
Rom 4:12 and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
Rom 4:13 For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the [justification / righteousness] of faith.
Rom 4:14 For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void.
Rom 4:15 For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.
Rom 4:16 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,
Rom 4:17 as it is written, "I have made you the father of many nations"—in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist.
Rom 4:18 In hope he believed against hope, that he should become the father of many nations, as he had been told, "So shall your offspring be."
Rom 4:19 He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead (since he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah's womb.
Rom 4:20 No unbelief made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God,
Rom 4:21 fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised.
Rom 4:22 That is why his faith was "counted to him as [justification / righteousness]."
Rom 4:23 But the words "it was counted to him" were not written for his sake alone,
Rom 4:24 but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord,
Rom 4:25 who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our [righteousness / justification].
Rom 5:1 Therefore, since we have been [justified / made righteous] by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Rom 5:2 Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
Rom 5:3 Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance,
Rom 5:4 and endurance produces character, and character produces hope,
Rom 5:5 and hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.
Rom 5:6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.
Rom 5:7 For one will scarcely die for a [righteous / just] person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die—
Rom 5:8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
Rom 5:9 Since, therefore, we have now been [justified / made righteous] by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
Rom 5:10 For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life.
Rom 5:11 More than that, we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
Rom 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—
Rom 5:13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
Rom 5:14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.
Rom 5:15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.
Rom 5:16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought [righteousness / justification].
Rom 5:17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of [justification / righteousness] reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
Rom 5:18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of [justification / righteousness] leads to [justification / righteousness] and life for all men.
Rom 5:19 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 [just / righteous].
Rom 5:20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,
Rom 5:21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through [justification / righteousness] leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Doug
Re: Double imputation?
I say "righteous" and "righteousness" all the way!
However "righteousness" in the sense of actual righteousness wouldn't work with your quote of Romans 4:3 because of that little word "as", which is a mistranslation of "eis". But when "eis" is translated corrrectly as I indicated in my post above, "righteousness" works in this verse also.
Even the English word "justified" never means "counted righteous" except in a particular interpretation of Paul's words. The word "justify" in English means to show that one's behaviour conforms to a particular set of requirements or rules. I am aware of no other meaning in the secular world. Oh yes, there is one other meaning: "to position text so that the edges form a straight line." Check it out in any dictionary, albeit some dictionaries such as the Oxford, place the following definition under Theology: "Declare or make righteous in the sight of God."
When I was a teacher, I was able to justify what I was doing in the classroom by showing that it conformed to the requirements of the local school board as well as the requirements of the Department of Education.
The Greek word "dikaios" is also used in the same way in the following verse:
But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29)
However "righteousness" in the sense of actual righteousness wouldn't work with your quote of Romans 4:3 because of that little word "as", which is a mistranslation of "eis". But when "eis" is translated corrrectly as I indicated in my post above, "righteousness" works in this verse also.
Even the English word "justified" never means "counted righteous" except in a particular interpretation of Paul's words. The word "justify" in English means to show that one's behaviour conforms to a particular set of requirements or rules. I am aware of no other meaning in the secular world. Oh yes, there is one other meaning: "to position text so that the edges form a straight line." Check it out in any dictionary, albeit some dictionaries such as the Oxford, place the following definition under Theology: "Declare or make righteous in the sight of God."
When I was a teacher, I was able to justify what I was doing in the classroom by showing that it conformed to the requirements of the local school board as well as the requirements of the Department of Education.
The Greek word "dikaios" is also used in the same way in the following verse:
But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?” (Luke 10:29)
Paidion
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.
Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.
Re: Double imputation?
Here we have the well known story Jesus told of the Pharisee and the tax collector:
Luke 18:9-15, New American Standard Bible (NASB)
9. And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: 10. “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11. The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’ 13. But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ 14. I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
So when the tax collector went home "justified" (dikaioo, verb form, passive), was he actually righteous/justified or credited with being so, though he was not? Note that the Pharisee considered himself to be righteous (dikaios, adjective), though the implication is that he was not.
I see very little difference between righteous and being justified. If we are considered to be righteous because we are in Christ, is it not imputed as a gift to us? Paul didn't count his own righteousness as adequate:
Philippians 3:9, American King James Version
9. And be found in him, not having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
It seems that if we are not credited as righteous, then many a new Christian, who might have many sinful things in his life that need to be corrected, would only become righteous until he progressed to a certain level (and who would know what that would be?) and established his own. IMO from day one, when you become Jesus' own, you are righteous/justified in God's eyes.
Luke 18:9-15, New American Standard Bible (NASB)
9. And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: 10. “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. 11. The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: ‘God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 12. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’ 13. But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ 14. I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
So when the tax collector went home "justified" (dikaioo, verb form, passive), was he actually righteous/justified or credited with being so, though he was not? Note that the Pharisee considered himself to be righteous (dikaios, adjective), though the implication is that he was not.
I see very little difference between righteous and being justified. If we are considered to be righteous because we are in Christ, is it not imputed as a gift to us? Paul didn't count his own righteousness as adequate:
Philippians 3:9, American King James Version
9. And be found in him, not having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
It seems that if we are not credited as righteous, then many a new Christian, who might have many sinful things in his life that need to be corrected, would only become righteous until he progressed to a certain level (and who would know what that would be?) and established his own. IMO from day one, when you become Jesus' own, you are righteous/justified in God's eyes.