"[O]n the question of whether God imputes the righteousness of Christ to the believer[:]
Whether or not Scripture specifically refers to such imputation, it is clearly implicit in our union with Christ. Remember that 'imputation' means to reckon the righteousness or guilt of one person to another. But to be one with Christ is certainly to have his righteousness as our own. In him we become the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21). Far from rendering imputation unnecessary, union with Christ is impossible without imputation, and vice versa. I am convinced that the church will make no progress on the justification issue until this point is fully understood and appreciated."
---John Frame in _Always Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology_, ed. A.T.B. McGowan, 2006, p.12
"the whole atonement transaction presupposes the ancient confusion of criminal law with tort law, as if the sins of the world merely required a fine which a generous friend could pay off for us. Once one sees the logical difference between the two, as we have long ago drawn the distinction between astronomy and astrology, we should see that the atonement doctrine really has nothing at all to do with justice as we define it. The closest analogy in our justice system might be a friend posting bail for a criminal pending trial. This is a buying of someone's freedom by paying the price he cannot pay for himself. But I doubt that this is really adequate. And nothing else is." -Robert M Price, Damnable Syllogism
ReplyDelete"union with Christ is impossible without imputation,"
ReplyDeleteAmen.
As Abrahm was imputed righteousness, and his sins are imputed to our Beloved Savior. What a God we have! What a marvelous truth, that is foolish to the non-religious, and a thorn in the self-righteous flesh of the religious.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"the whole atonement transaction presupposes the ancient confusion of criminal law with tort law, as if the sins of the world merely required a fine which a generous friend could pay off for us. Once one sees the logical difference between the two, as we have long ago drawn the distinction between astronomy and astrology, we should see that the atonement doctrine really has nothing at all to do with justice as we define it. The closest analogy in our justice system might be a friend posting bail for a criminal pending trial. This is a buying of someone's freedom by paying the price he cannot pay for himself. But I doubt that this is really adequate. And nothing else is." -Robert M Price, Damnable Syllogism
2/07/2008 12:35 PM
************
i) This post has reference to internal disputes and thus was not meant as an apologetic for the atonement. It's acceptability is presupposed by those the post was meant for. Thus your comment is illegitimate as a response to this post.
ii) This post isn't about the atonement per se.
iii) the quoted section isn't the doctrine of the atonement. So, not only are you grasping to move the post into terrain it wasn't meant to be in, you're not even commenting on the proper subject, you also simply show your ignorance of Christian theology. You've got off on a bad foot. You're doing nothing to dispel the so-called "myth" that atheists are a bunch of hacks and don’t bother to study those who they "refute."
iii) 'Justice' as you define it? I don't even see how you can objectively account for the normativity and telos inherent in this concept given other parts of your worldview. Besides that hiccup, you're offering us a disproof by definition. Some atheists don't like the ontological argument because they say it just defines God into existence.
iv) "In the case of torts, the plaintiff is the victim of an alleged wrong and the unsuccessful defendant is either directed by the court to pay damages to the plaintiff (the usual remedy) or else to desist from the wrongful activity (so-called "injunctive relief")."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/tort-theories/
Given that, your citing Price looks rather ridiculous now.
Priceless!
ReplyDeleteSo, not only are you grasping to move the post into terrain it wasn't meant to be in, you're not even commenting on the proper subject
ReplyDeleteOk, Paul, I don't have to go off topic to refute you and John Lame.
In heaven (which is what 'union with Christ' means, I assume) people will no longer have sinful desires & they will no longer sin right? But if sin is no longer a component of themselves, in what sense is the righteousness imputed at that point?
Maybe imputed righteousness might have been required for their justification, forgiveness, regeneration, etc. But once they're in the door, there is nothing 'imputed'. So imputed righteousness is only necessary as a means to the 'union' and discarded once that is achieved.
And if you don't mind me saying so, to this heterosexual atheist, all this union talk and marriage supper of the lamb talk sounds a bit... light in the loafers. I'm not surprised at why Catholic, Episcopal, etc. clergy are overrepresented in this area. Are you sure all this type of talk is healthy?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"Ok, Paul, I don't have to go off topic to refute you and John Lame."
Okay. Sounds good.
"In heaven (which is what 'union with Christ' means, I assume)..."
Bzzzt! Wrong. You know, you could either spend your time anonymously commenting on our blog and calling people you don't know names, or you could use that time to study up on those you "refute." I'm not going to tell you what to do. I'm not your mommy. But, which option would make your mom proud?
"people will no longer have sinful desires & they will no longer sin right?"
We won't have sinful desires in heaven, no. And, they will not sin either, correct.
"But if sin is no longer a component of themselves, in what sense is the righteousness imputed at that point?"
Again, you simply embarrass yourself by your ignorance of Christian theology. Perhaps that is why you post anonymously?
Imputation is done in time, in the here and now. It is a legal, declarative act. And "act in which God counts sinners to be righteous through their faith in Christ on the basis of Christ's perfect 'blood and righteousness,' specifically the righteousness that Christ accomplished by his perfect obedience in life and death." --Piper, _Counted Righteous: Should We Abandon The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness?_, p.43.
Next, your very question confuses *justification* or *imputation* with *definitive sanctification.* Imputation is an *external,* legal, *declarative* act. A *crediting* to our account. Something *outside* of us.
So, not only are you confused, your confusions are confused.
"Maybe imputed righteousness might have been required for their justification, forgiveness, regeneration, etc. But once they're in the door, there is nothing 'imputed'."
In the Reformed *ordo salutis*, regeneration is viewed logically, if not always temporally, prior to imputation.
You also seem to be treating this concept in Roman Catholic fashion. As an *infusion* of righteousness rather than *imputation*.
Thus B.B. Warfield, "The theological use of the term "imputation" is probably rooted ultimately in the employment of the verb imputo in the Vulgate to translate the Greek verb logizesthai in Ps. xxxii. 2. This passage is quoted by Paul in Rom. iv. 8 and made one of the foundations of his argument that, in saving man, God sets to his credit a righteousness without works." ---Warfield in The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge.
And so this is a *credit* to your account and as such is the basis on "which God can and does *treat the believer as just*, even though the believer well knows that he continues to experience sin and failure in this life" (White, _The God Who Justifies_ p. 112).
"So imputed righteousness is only necessary as a means to the 'union' and discarded once that is achieved."
No, for one of the things it means is that we are *viewed as* (again, note the external language) have Christ's active obedience credited to our deficient account as well as his punishment for sins in our place, by which said sin is also imputed to Christ as he died on that tree.
"And if you don't mind me saying so, to this heterosexual atheist, all this union talk and marriage supper of the lamb talk sounds a bit... light in the loafers. I'm not surprised at why Catholic, Episcopal, etc. clergy are overrepresented in this area. Are you sure all this type of talk is healthy?"
I never thought of it that way. Nice to know where your head is at, though. Anyway, I don't know why you would mock the way Mammaw Nature made someone. It's not like those priests are "off" how they are "supposed" to be. Can't have those norms in a naturalistic universe. You wouldn't want to act like someone who believes in purpose in this purposeless universe, right? Anyway, rather than mock homosexuals, why don't you spend your time studying Christian theology. I mean, if you're going to "interact" with it 'n all. Or is looking like an Appalachian mountain nullifidian fundy, who secretly wants to join Fred Phelps' "God Hates Fags" organization but can't due to religious reasons, the appearance you want to portray? Perhaps that's why you post anonymousely?