Rom 8:29

[makesends]

Also God did impute human sin to Christ; otherwise he would have been sinning himself. : )

Huh? Do you mean, did NOT impute...sin to Christ?

 

[EarlyActs]

Huh? Do you mean, did NOT impute...sin to Christ?

I believe you are thinking that imputation is an actuality that the person/subject does. It is not. It is a regard or belief by another influential person that that first person is sinful. In accounting, it would be to regard someone as 'good for' $100K, for ex., when you see that they don't have it but have reason to think they will or that some 3rd party is going to supply it. Imputation is thus against the facts.

That's why there is the blessing of Ps 32 'the man to whom God does not impute his sin.' That means the guilt of it is treated as if it had not taken place; in reality it did.

Christ was made to be sin (was regarded as having) and punished as a sin offering, so that we could have the righteousness of God imputed to us. Christ never sinned, but was reckoned to have. 2 Cor 5. Nor are we perfect as Christians; Luther called it an 'alien' righteousness. Not like a man who came to my church a couple years ago and stood up to rebuke the teacher saying 'I haven't sinned in 2 years!'

The sin offering analogy is of God 'laying his hands' on the person bearing them; from the Levitical law about scape-goats. Likewise John the Baptizer said 'the Lamb takes away the sin of the world.' It is not that evil/sin has stopped, surely!

I have examples of Western Christian literature which shows this usage, from Shakespeare to Austen to Cody. In real estate, during the purchase period, some documents read that the buyer is imputed to have the amount needed to close, before bank approval or other proof. Let me know if you would like to see them. At least one script used the same idea, where a marriage engagement imputed a nationality to a foreign spouse that they would otherwise have been working illegally, before the person could gain citizenship, which would take months.

The Greek term is 'logizo' if you want to consider more. Another clarifying example is in Col 2, where the accusing Judaistic teachers 'dis-logizo' the believers. That means they consider them 2nd rate because all they have is Christ; they don't have the Law practices and traditions that would make them 'real' believers. So 'discredited' is closer than deceived (logizo is often about credit, Rom 4:3 6, 9, 10, 11, 22, 23, 24), but the effect is deception.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
● Rom 5:12 . .Through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and
thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.

The syntax of that passage is grammatically past tense. In other words; Adam's
mistake isn't passed on by heredity to each of us as we're born, no, it was
instantaneous for everyone, viz: all sinned together at the same time from first to
last even those who haven't been born yet. They've been accounted in on the caper
too.

Now the thing is: it is very easy to prove Jesus came into the world as one of
David's paternal grandsons and thus Adam's. So then, Jesus too was effected by
Adam's mistake.

NOTE: I am talking only of the original sin. I am not talking about the so-called fallen
nature. That's a bit more complicated.

FAQ: Was Adam's mistake a sin unto Hell?

REPLY: No; the appropriate retribution for Adam's mistake was basically the loss of
his immortality; which of course is why we all have to die at least once. The
consequences for our own mistakes is quite a bit more severe.

FAQ: If Jesus was effected by Adam's mistake, then how can it honestly be said he
was a lamb without blemish or spot?

REPLY: Jesus committed no sins of his own to answer for.

FAQ: Ezek 18:20 says a man's children aren't condemned for their father's sins.
How then was it right for God to make Adam's posterity share the consequences for
his mistake in the forbidden fruit incident?

REPLY: The secret to this is simply timing. According to Deut 5:2-4 and Gal 3:17,
the laws of God are not enforced ex post facto, i.e. they aren't retroactive.

That principle works to Christ's advantage too seeing as how he would've been
crucified too late to be of any use to sinners in the old testament. But according
to Micah 5:2, 1Pet 1:18-20 & Rev 13:8, Jesus was designated and scheduled to
give his life an atonement for the sins of the world prior to even one atom of the
creation's construction. In other words: he wasn't an emergency responder sent to
an unexpected train wreck.
_

 

[makesends]

I believe you are thinking that imputation is an actuality that the person/subject does. It is not. It is a regard or belief by another influential person that that first person is sinful. In accounting, it would be to regard someone as 'good for' $100K, for ex., when you see that they don't have it but have reason to think they will or that some 3rd party is going to supply it. Imputation is thus against the facts.

That's why there is the blessing of Ps 32 'the man to whom God does not impute his sin.' That means the guilt of it is treated as if it had not taken place; in reality it did.

Christ was made to be sin (was regarded as having) and punished as a sin offering, so that we could have the righteousness of God imputed to us. Christ never sinned, but was reckoned to have. 2 Cor 5. Nor are we perfect as Christians; Luther called it an 'alien' righteousness. Not like a man who came to my church a couple years ago and stood up to rebuke the teacher saying 'I haven't sinned in 2 years!'

The sin offering analogy is of God 'laying his hands' on the person bearing them; from the Levitical law about scape-goats. Likewise John the Baptizer said 'the Lamb takes away the sin of the world.' It is not that evil/sin has stopped, surely!

I have examples of Western Christian literature which shows this usage, from Shakespeare to Austen to Cody. In real estate, during the purchase period, some documents read that the buyer is imputed to have the amount needed to close, before bank approval or other proof. Let me know if you would like to see them. At least one script used the same idea, where a marriage engagement imputed a nationality to a foreign spouse that they would otherwise have been working illegally, before the person could gain citizenship, which would take months.

The Greek term is 'logizo' if you want to consider more. Another clarifying example is in Col 2, where the accusing Judaistic teachers 'dis-logizo' the believers. That means they consider them 2nd rate because all they have is Christ; they don't have the Law practices and traditions that would make them 'real' believers. So 'discredited' is closer than deceived (logizo is often about credit, Rom 4:3 6, 9, 10, 11, 22, 23, 24), but the effect is deception.

Oh, ok you are referring to the substitution. I thought you were talking about imputing Adam's sin to him, the way the rest of us are born imputed with Adam's sin.

 

[JIM]

Rhinoceros the supernatural let there be and it was good kind Same supernatural design with human mothers.

Yes even now all have sinned and continue to fall short of the "Let there be" God

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Yes, all have sinned; but that doesn't mean that everything that one does is sin. If there was one who, throughout his entire life, committed just one sin, then he would be another among the all that have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

 

[EarlyActs]

Oh, ok you are referring to the substitution. I thought you were talking about imputing Adam's sin to him, the way the rest of us are born imputed with Adam's sin.

All human sin was imputed to Christ. You sound like Adam could not be died for by Christ.

 

[JIM]

All human sin was imputed to Christ. You sound like Adam could not be died for by Christ.

If sin were imputed to Christ, He would then have been a sinner and not an acceptable sacrificial "lamb". Where do you think you read that sin was imputed to Christ?

 

[Mr GLee]

Yes, all have sinned; but that doesn't mean that everything that one does is sin. If there was one who, throughout his entire life, committed just one sin, then he would be another among the all that have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

It does mean they living in a body of death have no righteousness of thier own.

Its the righteousness of Christ the just and justifier of our new born again understanding or faith that works in us to both (the key) reveal his will and empower us to do it according to his good pleasure.

All sin and continue to fall short of His glory .All die not receiving the promise of a new incorruptible body

Salvation. . the better things that acompanies new birth. He promises he won't forget the good works we can miraculously offer towards his powerful name . The Faithful One.

Hebrews 6: 9 But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.

 

[EarlyActs]

If sin were imputed to Christ, He would then have been a sinner and not an acceptable sacrificial "lamb". Where do you think you read that sin was imputed to Christ?

That’s what Rom 5 and 2 Cor 5 are saying. “God made him who knew (did) no sin to be sin, so that we might …”

In an interesting word choice of ‘made’ Paul used the Leviticsl term for the scapegoat; the priest would ‘put’ the sins of a person on a goat, ie to make an offering. Obviously Christ did not do those sins but was considered or reckoned to have done.

Ever read Isaiah 53? It’s even more clear. It defines justification of ‘the many’ by this transaction.

 

[EarlyActs]

Yes, all have sinned; but that doesn't mean that everything that one does is sin. If there was one who, throughout his entire life, committed just one sin, then he would be another among the all that have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

But our predicament is worse than that on both accounts—both what is imputed and what is actually done. See the closing worship lines of Rom 11: people think they can make God owe them all the time, even good moral people. God , I’m putting you in debt to me….

These sins do not show to anyone but are part of our debt.

I think you are not familiar with crediting of sin or righteousness at all. Ie imputation. It is not actual doing. That is why ‘by our words we will be condemned and by our words we will be justified.’

I know there are three different verbs in that paragraph, but they are highly concentric.

Do you know the parable of the shrewd steward who reduced the debts of friends as he was losing his job?

Or the Pharisee in Lk 7 who did not think his debt amounted to much?

 

[makesends]

All human sin was imputed to Christ. You sound like Adam could not be died for by Christ.

I'm referring to Adam's sin imputed to all his progeny. Not what was put onto Christ at the cross. Christ indeed paid for Adam's sin; I expect to see Adam in Heaven.

 

[EarlyActs]

I'm referring to Adam's sin imputed to all his progeny. Not what was put onto Christ at the cross. Christ indeed paid for Adam's sin; I expect to see Adam in Heaven.

Right, that's it. One of the lines of Rom 5 is straining to make this clear, though it comes across a bit confusing.

Here the two actions are compared for similarity:
in the same way that Adam (who is a type[r] of the coming one) transgressed.[s 14b
"Way" is homoiamati (specifically of Adam's sin; proof that we now have sin-debt without that act)
"Type" is tupos. "of the One who was coming." So Adamic imputation affected us the way Christ's imputed righteousness would.

The odd thing is the next line:
15 But the gracious gift is not like the transgression.[
What I mean is that he suddenly shifts to the moral quality of Adam's sin when he had just been clarifying the similar mechanics of imputation. Of course, he can do as he likes, but it does sound odd.

But, in his mind, he was talking about the mechanics, bc in v18 he says:
18 Consequently,[aa] just as condemnation[ab] for all people[ac] came[ad] through one transgression,[ae] so too through the one righteous act[af] came righteousness leading to life[ag] for all people.

The connector is 'ara oun'. Oun is very familiar as therefore. The ara is rare but only doubles it. Like "thus therefore." NIV "Consequently" NASB "So then"

So in his mind, the similar comparison is about the imputation. This is repeated twice later.

I think there is a translation that went with "Nevertheless". This would mean 'even though the moral quality of the action imputed either way is totally different, imputation was how it ended up with us or in our account.' I think there is a line by Luther that goes: 'we are made righteous apart from works in Christ, because we were made sinners apart from works in Adam.' (This is made in the sense of debt, though, otherwise all Christians would claim perfectionism from it).

 

[EarlyActs]

Details on the shrewd/clever (NET) steward parable of Luke 16:

This is about a sinful man realizing that he will be judged for his administrative waste. Between the confrontation and the dismissal, he visits all the account-holders and tells them the great news, that the account is actually less behind than they thought, and this favor creates opportunities for him to survive the dismissal later.

He is praised by the owner of the business, not for the loss to the business, but for creating an opportunity for himself. Notice that conflict: it was wrong in one sense, but it created a welcome among those friends later. It is the difference between actual sin/moral wrong, and the use of a credit status to come out on top. Justification in Christ is not an excuse for any actual sin, of course, but it is our only hope to be welcomed later. The debt-reducing declarations are evangelism about justification by Christ.

 

[EarlyActs]

Details on the role of debt and love in Lk 7 when Jesus was anointed by a sinful woman:

The important thing is to notice the Pharisee mind about debt. The Pharisee (ie 'the pure') are very moral people, but for a human to believe that God is in debt to them, not vice-verca, is totally wicked. But the Pharisee has no way to do see his debt to God. Dickens captured a rank example of this in Mrs. Clennam in LITTLE DORRIT. She had been very harsh in dealing with another person's sins, yet said 'her conscience is totally clear before God.'

But this mindset prevents a person from loving. The Pharisee had accumulated so much righteousness it was oozing out his nose, but he didn't love Jesus for the sacrifice for sins which he would be making. The sinful woman did. She used funeral burial spices, and one thing they do is purge a whole house of any other smell. Think about what the Pharisee 'smelled' like!

The upshot: she who (thought she) owed a lot loved much; he who (thought he) owed little, loved little, not even a sincerely repentant woman, who knew Jesus was nothing if not a sacrifice for sin.

At this rate, it would be best if we all considered/imputed all sins to ourselves and loved God for his abounding grace, right? Best if we think of ourselves as Adam, as Cain the killer, as David the adulterer-murderer, as Judas the deceiver, etc.

To 'regard ourselves' that way is imputation, all the consequence, but not the facts.

(Correction underlined)