Most Important Doctrines

Johann

Well-known member
I acknowledge that of all the articles of faith, none appears harder to reconcile with reason and common sense than the doctrines of imputed sin and imputed righteousness. How sin can justly be imputed to the personally innocent, or righteousness to those who are personally sinful; how one can deserve condemnation because another has sinned, or justification and a reward because another has been obedient—at first view, looks hard to conceive, if not utterly impossible ever to comprehend. Nevertheless, these doctrines are true, and worthy of our serious consideration. For the knowledge of our fall in Adam, and its dreadful consequences, and our recovery by Christ, are the two great things on which the whole structure of true religion moves, and which go linked together, as it were, hand in hand. As the former cannot be thoroughly understood without taking a survey of the latter, so the latter cannot be comprehended without a sound knowledge of the former. It is therefore of very great importance both to be established in the belief of the doctrine, and to acquaint ourselves with the nature and consequences of Adam's sin.

2. In my last letter I have stated the immediate consequences of the fall of our first parents with respect to themselves; I will now point out those which relate to their posterity. These effects are generally called original sin, and consist of two parts, that which is imputed to us, and that which is inherent in us; the former is called the guilt or punishment of Adam's sin, and the other is called depravity.

3. The word original sin, indeed, is not found in the sacred Scriptures, yet that which is intended by it, being so clearly grounded on the word of God, the name cannot disgust any who have not a quarrel against the thing, no more than the name of trinity, sacraments, &c.

4. It is called original sin, because it is in every one from his original; it may say to every one, "As soon as thou wast, I am"; or because it is derived from Adam, the original of all mankind, out of whose blood God has made us all; or because it is the original of all other sins.

5. The two parts of original sin should never be considered as separate from each other, but as most closely united; but to view them fully, they must be considered as distinct in our ideas.

In the present letter I shall confine myself to that part called "the depravity of our nature." To present the subject in a clear light we shall consider its nature, properties, reality, and consistency with the character of God. First, depravity consists in a want of all that is good, an aversion to it, and a propensity to all evil.

6. There is a privation of all that is good. By the first act of sin, as has been shown, there was a loss of original purity and righteousness; the image of God, wherein man was created, was defaced and blotted out, and it left our first parents destitute of all that is holy and good. Hence their posterity could not derive from them any dispositions or principles that are holy or good. For they could not communicate to their offspring what they themselves did not possess.

The copy cannot be better than the original, nor the effect nobler than the cause. No stream can rise higher than the fountain: it is no wonder, therefore, if that which is poisonous brings forth a poisonous seed. The natural constitution of every thing is transmitted by natural generation. Hence it is said of Adam, that he "begat a son in his own likeness, after his image." What the apostle said of himself is true of all: "I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing" (Rom 7:18). No grace, no holiness, nothing that is truly and spiritually good. There is neither seed nor fruit, neither root nor branch, neither inclination nor motion, neither habit nor act that is good or acceptable in the sight of God. Hence the Holy Ghost has declared us to be "without strength, not sufficient of ourselves to do a good action, to speak a good word, or so much as to think a good thought."

7. Nor are we allowed to understand it, that the mind of man, in its present state, is "like a fair sheet of paper, capable of any impress." Alas! it is far otherwise. There is in every man not only a want of original righteousness, but an awful propensity to all evil, and an astonishing aversion to all good. Saith Bishop Beveridge:

"The uprightness and integrity of man wherein he was first created, is now lost, the whole soul and body corrupted, the whole harmony of man dissolved; so that we are not only deprived of grace, but defiled with sin; the image of God is not only razed out, but the image of the devil is engraven upon our souls; all men, and all of men being now quite out of order."

Sin is the natural man's element; and as the fish is averse to come out of the water, so is the sinner averse to emerge from the mire of sin, in which he delights to lie. Hence said the Lord Jesus Christ to the Jews in his day, " Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life" (John 5:40). They were not only naturally unable to come, but they had no inclination to the duty. But the awful nature of this depravity will appear more fully, if we consider its properties.

8. a. It is incorporated with our very nature; it has a real being in us before we have a visible being in the world. The old man is furnished with all its members before we are formed, quickened before we are alive, and born before we come into the world. What David confessed of himself is true of all mankind: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me" (Psa 51:5). With the beginning of our existence we have the snares of sin in our bodies, the seeds of sin in our souls, and the stain of sin upon both. This is what the wise man called "foolishness bound up in the heart of a child," that proneness to evil and backwardness to good, which is the burden of the regenerate and the ruin of the unregenerate. By nature we bear the image of the earthly man in his fallen condition, which image is called the "old man," "the body of sin," "the flesh," "sin indwelling," "the desires of the flesh and of the mind," which plainly shows that our corrupt dispositions and propensity to evil is hereditary to us, and transmitted from parents to their children, and is therefore entailed upon all, and natural to all that partake of the human nature in its fallen state; so that it is impossible to be a man and not to have this universal fault and corruption of nature; and the reason why one man imitates another in actual transgressions is, because it is natural for him to do so.

Evil examples only stir up, discover, and make known what was hid in the heart. Thus the viper of natural corruption, by the heat of temptation, revives, and makes its poisonous and malignant nature manifest; it was there before, else external example would not have produced it. Cain would never have murdered his brother Abel if he had sinned only by example. It is certain that corrupt examples have a powerful influence on the human heart, because it is already corrupt and prone to evil; therefore the company of wicked men, the wanton and profane, should be most carefully shunned and avoided; for "evil communications corrupt good manners"; by these, indeed, an alteration is made in the manners or actions of men, but the fountain of all our thoughts, words, and works is poisoned already and made bitter by original sin. We observe,

9. b. This corruption is universal. It extends to every individual of the human race, (the second Adam excepted,) and to every part of each individual. When the question is asked, "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?" i. e. how can a holy or righteous person be born of a sinner, the answer is peremptory—"Not one" (Job 14:4). All of every nation, people, kindred and tongue, are sharers in this depravity. What difference soever there be in their climates, colors, and external conditions of life, yet the blood from whence they spring taints them all. Both Jews and Gentiles, rich and poor, male and female, bond and free, equally derive their being and nature from Adam; therefore his depravity of nature is in them all; none is exempt, for we are his offspring; herein the prince and the beggar, the philosopher and the fool, are upon a level; and in him that is least sensible of it, it is most manifest.

10. That all men are not equally wicked, riotous, and immoral, is manifest, and we allow it; which is probably owing to the difference of their bodily constitutions, education, and temptations. Many also are withheld under various restraints, and so prevented from doing the evil and committing the sin which their natures incline them to: thus, for want of power or opportunity, they cannot do the evil which they otherwise would do. When Hazael was informed by the prophet that he would commit such evil as to set cities on fire, dash out children's brains, and rip up women with child, he was angry. But he did that afterward when king, which he seemed to detest so much as to think he should never be guilty of them unless transformed into a dog. Poor Hazael! he was not acquainted with the desperate corruption of man's heart, which habitually inclines him to the most barbarous, and cruel, and bloody acts.

11. And as the whole world lies in wickedness, so the whole man is full of it. "The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint; from the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it" (Isa 1:5,6). Saith Mr. Clarkson:

"There is an ocean of corruption in every man. And as the sea receives several names from several shores and coasts, so does this from the several parts and faculties. In the mind it is enmity, in the thoughts vanity, in the apprehension blindness, in the judgment darkness and error, in the will rebellion, in the conscience searedness, in the heart hardness, in the affections carnality, in the memory unfaithfulness, in the fancy folly, in the appetite inordinancy, in the whole body vileness."
 
I acknowledge that of all the articles of faith, none appears harder to reconcile with reason and common sense than the doctrines of imputed sin and imputed righteousness. How sin can justly be imputed to the personally innocent, or righteousness to those who are personally sinful; how one can deserve condemnation because another has sinned, or justification and a reward because another has been obedient—at first view, looks hard to conceive, if not utterly impossible ever to comprehend. Nevertheless, these doctrines are true, and worthy of our serious consideration. For the knowledge of our fall in Adam, and its dreadful consequences, and our recovery by Christ, are the two great things on which the whole structure of true religion moves, and which go linked together, as it were, hand in hand. As the former cannot be thoroughly understood without taking a survey of the latter, so the latter cannot be comprehended without a sound knowledge of the former. It is therefore of very great importance both to be established in the belief of the doctrine, and to acquaint ourselves with the nature and consequences of Adam's sin.
First of all, there is no imputation of evil into one's account because of evil done by another. What actually happened is that we all suffer the consequences of Adam's sin which is death. We are not guilty of Adam's wrong doings. There's no Biblical basis for imputation of evil. We are guilty of our own sin, not of another's sin. To be guilty of another's sin would render our entire legal system utter chaos, let alone render spiritual accountability utter chaos in the spiritual world.

As for "imputed righteousness", what is true is that Christ is our Expiation. Those who believe "in Christ", are positioned "in Christ" and as such are imputed his righteousness.
 
First of all, there is no imputation of evil into one's account because of evil done by another. What actually happened is that we all suffer the consequences of Adam's sin which is death. We are not guilty of Adam's wrong doings. There's no Biblical basis for imputation of evil. We are guilty of our own sin, not of another's sin. To be guilty of another's sin would render our entire legal system utter chaos, let alone render spiritual accountability utter chaos in the spiritual world.

As for "imputed righteousness", what is true is that Christ is our Expiation. Those who believe "in Christ", are positioned "in Christ" and as such are imputed his righteousness.
Ditto it’s the old heresy of Augustine and Gnosticism that taught this and brought it into the church that took the bait hook, line and sinker.
 
First of all, there is no imputation of evil into one's account because of evil done by another. What actually happened is that we all suffer the consequences of Adam's sin which is death. We are not guilty of Adam's wrong doings. There's no Biblical basis for imputation of evil. We are guilty of our own sin, not of another's sin. To be guilty of another's sin would render our entire legal system utter chaos, let alone render spiritual accountability utter chaos in the spiritual world.

As for "imputed righteousness", what is true is that Christ is our Expiation. Those who believe "in Christ", are positioned "in Christ" and as such are imputed his righteousness.
Lev_7:18 And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it: it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity.

Lev_17:4 And bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer an offering unto the LORD before the tabernacle of the LORD; blood shall be imputed unto that man; he hath shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people:

Rom_4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Rom_4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

Rom_4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;

Rom_4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

Rom_5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Jas_2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.


let us work with the Scriptures and not give our opinions.
 
Lev_7:18 And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it: it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity.

Lev_17:4 And bringeth it not unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, to offer an offering unto the LORD before the tabernacle of the LORD; blood shall be imputed unto that man; he hath shed blood; and that man shall be cut off from among his people:

Rom_4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Rom_4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

Rom_4:23 Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;

Rom_4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

Rom_5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Jas_2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.


let us work with the Scriptures and not give our opinions.
I see that you offered no verse that supports imputation of someone else's evil into your account. All the verses you forwarded support imputation of righteousness which perfectly align with what I wrote.

Yes, let's do "work with the Scriptures and not give our opinions".

You can summarize the article if you want and let the audience decide if it's worth their time to read it.
 
I see that you offered no verse that supports imputation of someone else's evil into your account. All the verses you forwarded support imputation of righteousness which perfectly align with what I wrote.

Yes, let's do "work with the Scriptures and not give our opinions".

You can summarize the article if you want and let the audience decide if it's worth their time to read it.
Let's see how imputation is used in the Hebrew text-

Hebrew Word: hashab
Strong's Reference: H2803
Definition: think, plan, make a judgment, imagine, count. (ASV and RSV mainly similar, though RSV avoids the translations imagine and count. )

OTW Number: 767 a
Transliteration: hesheb
Strong's Reference: H2805
Definition: ingenious work.

OTW Number: 767b
Transliteration: heshbon
Strong's Reference: H2808
Definition: reckoning, account.

OTW Number: 767c
Transliteration: hishshabon
Strong's Reference: H2810
Definition: device, invention.

OTW Number: 767d
Transliteration: mahashaba
Strong's Reference: H4284
Definition: thought, device

The basic idea of the word is the employment of the mind in thinking activity. Reference is not so much to "understanding" (cf. bin), but to the creating of new ideas. The root appears mainly in the Qal stem, but also in both Niphal and Piel, and once in Hithpael. The verb alone appears 121 times.

Six clear variations of the basic thought of this root can be distinguished in the OT. The most frequently used is that of "planning," "devising." This variation is employed in reference to both man and God, and it appears in both Qal and Piel. Israelites, for instance, are warned not to "devise" evil against a brother (Zec_7:10). In one verse, Gen_50:20, there is reference to both man and God, as Joseph uses the word twice; first in saying that his brothers "meant" (planned) evil in their earlier treatment of him, but that God "meant" (planned) it for good.

The next most frequent use is in the sense of "making a judgment." This too is employed in reference to both man and God, and it appears in Qal and Niphal. The well-known text, Isa_53:4, uses it: "We did esteem (Judge) him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted." God is the subject as Job exclaims, "He counts (judges) me for his enemy" (Job_33:10). The uses in Niphal are simply the passive of Qal.

A third use, rather infrequent, is that of merely running thoughts through the mind, meditating (Qal and Piel). Malachi speaks commendably about those who feared the Lord and "thought" about his name (Mal_3:16). The Piel is employed (without any clear distinction in meaning) as David shows surprise, in respect to the identity of man, that God should take "account" (have thoughts) of him (Psa_144:3).

A fourth variation means "to impute," actually a specialized sense of "to make a judgment." This variation occurs three times in Qal and three in Niphal, the latter simply being the passive. It refers to both God and man. Shimei, after having blatantly cursed David, beseeches David not to "impute" sin unto him (2Sa_19:20). More significantly, God is spoken of as imputing. Abraham believed God and God "counted" (imputed) it to him for righteousness (Gen_15:6; Rom_4:3). David states that the man is blessed to whom the Lord "imputes" not iniquity (Psa_32:2; Rom_4:8).

A fifth variation means "to invent," a use found only in the Qal. It is employed of Bezaleel, chosen by God to be head builder of the tabernacle, describing a part of his work as "devising" (inventing) artistic productions, using gold, silver, and brass (Exo_31:4; Exo_35:32, Exo_35:35). Uzziah, king of Judah, placed in Jerusalem, war machines "invented" by clever men (2Ch_26:15).

The last variation means "accounting," "bookkeeping," used only in the Piel. In the time of the aged high priest, Jehoiada, when repairs were being made on the temple, the word is used to say that the priests "reckoned" (accounted) not with the workmen in connection with money for the project, because the workers were honest. In the Mosaic legislation, the word is used several times in respect to the "accounting" necessary for figuring the fluctuating value of properties and produce, in the light of an approaching year of Jubilee (Lev_25:27, Lev_25:50, Lev_25:52; Lev_27:18, Lev_27:23). The one use of the Hithpael is simply a reflexive of the second variation noted, "to make a judgment" (Num_23:9).

mahashaba. Thought, device. This noun derivative appears in three basic meanings: "thought," "plan," and "invention," all three corresponding to basic variations noted for the verb. It is used to mean "thought" in Gen_6:5, "Every imagination of the 'thoughts' of his heart was "evil." The second, "plan," occurs when the Israelites are made to say, in contrast to God's will for them, that they would follow their own "devices (plans) and do as they wanted" (Jer_18:12). The third is used in reference to a skilled worker, whom Hiram of Tyre sent to Solomon to work on the temple. He was described as being able to work out any "invention" necessary for the task (2Ch_2:14). L.J.W.

Hebrew Word: heshbon
Strong's Reference: None
Definition: See no. 767b.

Hebrew Word: hishshabon
Strong's Reference: None
Definition: See no. 767c.

As for you not reading the article-not my problem.
 
--continue-

FALL OF MAN. A term of theology that is not found in Scripture, though the essential fact
is a matter of Scripture record and of clear though not frequent reference. The particular

E.MCC. E. McChesney
account is in Gen. 3. The most explicit NT references are Rom. 5:12–21; 1 Cor. 15:21–22,
45–47; 2 Cor. 11:3.

The character of the primitive record in Genesis has been the subject of much discussion.

Some have contended that the account is purely literal; others, that it is figurative, poetic, or
allegorical; still others, rationalistic or semirationalistic, relegate the whole matter to the
realm of the mythical. This last view, of course, cannot be consistently held by anyone who
accepts the Scriptures as of divine authority.

It must be admitted that the account leaves room for many questions both as to its form
and its meaning in relation to incidental details. But still, the great underlying, essential facts
are sufficiently clear, especially when the account is taken in connection with other
Scriptures. They are as follows:

Bible Doctrine. The Fall of our first ancestors was an epoch or turning point in the moral
history of the race. It was in itself an epoch of great and sad significance and of far-reaching
results.
Man at his creation was in a state of moral purity. In connection with his freedom there
was of necessity the possibility of sin. But still there was no evil tendency in his nature. God
pronounced him, with other objects of His creation, “good.” He was made in the image and
likeness of God.

As a moral being man was placed by God in a state of probation. His freedom was to be
exercised and tested by his being under divine law. Of every tree in the garden he might
freely eat, except the tree of knowledge of good and evil. At one point there must be restraint,
self-denial for the sake of obedience. “For what will a man be profited, if he gains the whole
world, and forfeits his soul?” (Matt. 16:26).

The temptation to disobedience came from an evil source outside himself. In Genesis only
the serpent is mentioned. In the NT the tempter is identified as Satan, who employed the
serpent as his instrument (1 Cor. 11:3, 14; Rom. 16:20; Rev. 12:9).

The temptation came in the form of an appeal to man’s intellect and to the senses. The
forbidden fruit was presented as “good for food” and “desirable to make one wise.” Thus the
allurement was in the direction of sensual gratification and intellectual pride.
At the beginning of the sin lay unbelief. The tempted ones doubted or disbelieved God
and believed the tempter. And thus, under the strong desire awakened by the temptation, they
disobeyed the divine command.

By this act of disobedience “sin entered into the world, and death through sin.” Shame
and alienation from God were the first visible consequences. The image of God, which
contained among its features “righteousness and holiness of the truth,” was marred and
broken, though not completely lost. (See Image of God.) Expulsion from Eden followed. The
ground was cursed on account of sin. Sorrow and toil and struggle with the evil in human
nature became the lot of mankind.

Theological Views. The theological treatment of this topic should be particularly noted:
A favorite view of rationalistic or evolutionist theologians is that the Fall was a necessary
incident in man’s moral development. The Fall is sometimes, therefore, spoken of as “a fall
upward.” It was a step forward from the savage or animal state to the practical knowledge of
good and evil and thus, through the experience of sin, toward the goal of developed moral
purity. But this view ignores the essential evil of sin. It makes sin only an imperfect or
disguised good and is, for that reason and others, opposed to the plain teaching of Scripture.
The Calvinistic types of theology regard the Fall in two ways: (1) the supralapsarian, or
most rigid view, includes the Fall under the divine decree; (2) the sublapsarian, the less rigid
but less logically consistent view, represents the divine decree as relating to the condition
produced by the Fall. Out from the race fallen in Adam God elected a certain number to
salvation.

The Arminian theology regards the Fall not as predetermined by a divine decree but as
foreseen and provided against by divine grace. It asserts that, but for the redemptive purpose
of God in Christ, the race of fallen descendants of Adam would not have been permitted to
come into existence. When man fell he did not “fall upward,” but he fell into the arms of
redeeming mercy. Probation is still the condition of mankind. For though man is fallen and
therefore under the bondage of sin, through Christ (the second Adam) man has his moral
freedom restored to such an extent that he can avail himself of the provisions God has made
for his salvation.

The Fall and Archaeology. The so-called Myth of Adapa has often been adduced as
offering a parallel to the Bible account of the Fall of man. This claim, however, is illfounded. There is not the slightest reason to look for the Fall in the literature of the
Babylonians, as such a concept is contrary to their whole system of polytheistic speculation.
In Genesis man is created in the image of a holy God. But the Babylonians, like other ancient
pagan peoples (notably the Greeks and the Romans), fashioned their gods, good and bad, in
the image of man. Such deities schemed, hated, fought, and killed one another. They were of
such dubious moral character, it was impossible that they be thought of as creating anything
morally perfect.

Neither could man formed out of the blood of such deities (the Babylonian
notion) possess anything but an evil nature. No fall was possible because man was created
evil and in heathenistic thought had no state of innocence from which to fall. Nevertheless,
further features of the legend of Adapa are interesting by way of similarity or contrast. The
“food of life” corresponds to “fruit” of the “tree of life” (Gen. 3:3, 22). The two accounts are
in agreement that eternal life could be obtained by eating a certain kind of food. Adam,
however, forfeited immortality for himself because of the sinful desire to be “like God” (3:5).
Consequently, he was exiled from the garden lest he should “take also from the tree of life,
and eat, and live forever” (3:22). Adapa was already endued with wisdom by the gods. He
failed to become immortal not because of disobedience or presumption, like Adam, but
because he was obedient to his creator, Ea, who deceived him. The Babylonian tale, like the
biblical narrative, deals with the perplexing question of why man must suffer and die. In
contrast, the answer is not that man fell from his moral integrity and that sin into which he
fell involved death, but that man forfeited his opportunity to gain eternal life in consequence
of being deceived by one of the gods. The origin of human sin is not at all in view in the
Adapa story. This is basic in the theologically pivotal third chapter of Genesis. The two
narratives, the biblical and the Babylonian, are poles apart despite superficial
resemblances. E.MCC.; M.F.U.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. Murray, The Imputation of Adam’s Sin (1959); E. E. Sauer, The King of the
Earth (1962); J. G. Machen, The Christian View of Man (1965); J. Daane, International
Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1982), 2:247–79; D. MacDonald, The Biblical Doctrine of
Creation and the Fall (1984).
 
--as to imputation-

IMPUTATION. One of the major doctrines of Christianity. It has produced a great deal of
theological controversy (see Hagenbach and Shedd, History of Doctrine).


The actual word
impute means to “reckon over unto one’s account.” The case of the apostle’s writing to
Philemon concerning whatever his runaway slave Onesimus might owe him gives a perfect
scriptural illustration of the meaning of the phrase: “charge that to my account” (Philem. 18).
Three major imputations are expounded in Scripture:

Of Adam’s Sin to the Race.

This is the clear teaching of Rom. 5:12–21. Verse 12 clearly
indicates that death has come upon all men “because all sinned.” The tense of the verb sinned
is the aorist and does not therefore concern the sin of men in their daily experience.

But the
passage clearly indicates that all men sinned when Adam sinned and thereby incurred upon
themselves the penalty of physical death as a consequence. In demonstrating that this passage
does not have reference to personal sins, we call attention to the apostle’s observation that
between the time of Adam and Moses, before the Mosaic law was instituted, all died.

Likewise all irresponsible persons such as infants and imbeciles died, although they were
never guilty of willful sin as in the case of Adam. Many theologians object to this teaching of
real imputation, that is, of reckoning to each person that which is antecedently his own.

But
Scripture furnishes a close parallel in the record of Levi, who was supported by tithes and is
specifically said to have paid tithes while being in the loins of his great-grandfather Abraham
(Heb. 7:9–10), that is, when Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek.

Of the Sin of the Human Race to Christ.

This involves a judicial imputation inasmuch
as the sin was never antecedently Christ’s and when laid upon Him became His in a fearful
sense. The truth of the gospel lies in this grand fact. Although the theological term impute is
not employed with regard to the laying of the sin of Adam’s race upon the Sin Bearer, the
idea is obviously contained in such expressions as “caused the iniquity of us all to fall on
Him,” “He Himself bore our sins,” and “made Him who knew no sin to be sin” (Isa. 53:5–6;
1 Pet. 2:24; 2 Cor. 5:21).

Of the Righteousness of God to the Believer. The great theme of the book of Romans
has to do with the doctrinal expression of imputation of the righteousness of God to the
believer as it pertains to his salvation. It is quite obvious, therefore, that this truth is of great
consequence to the Christian’s salvation. The Pauline epistles in general clearly show that
this phase of imputation is the groundwork of the Christian’s acceptance and standing before
an infinitely holy God. Only this righteousness can find acceptance for salvation, and through
it alone one may enter heaven. The pregnant phrase “the righteousness of God” (Rom. 1:17;
3:22; 10:3) signifies not merely that God Himself is righteous but that there is a righteousness
that proceeds from God. Since no human being in God’s eyes is righteous (3:10), it is clear
that an imputed righteousness, the righteousness of God Himself, is sinful man’s only hope of
acceptance with the Holy One. Possessing this righteousness is the only thing that fits one for
the presence of God (Phil. 3:9; Col. 1:12). When this righteousness is imputed by God to the
believer, it becomes his forever by a judicial act, since it was not antecedently the believer’s.
It is thus patent that this demands a righteousness that is made over to the believer, just as
Christ was made to be sin for all men (2 Cor. 5:21). By the believer’s baptism by the Spirit
“into Christ” this righteousness is made a legal endowment by virtue of the death of Christ.
Indeed, imputed righteousness becomes a reality on the basis of the fact that the believer is
“in Christ.” As hitherto one was “in Adam” (Rom. 5:12–21), so by the Spirit’s baptism (6:3–

4) he is now placed in the resurrected Christ and is a recipient of all that Christ is, even of the
“righteousness of God” that Christ is. It is a transcendent truth that Christ is made to the
believer the righteousness “from God” (1 Cor. 1:30), and, being “in Christ,” the believer
“might become the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Cor. 5:21). The glory of this “in Christ”
position is beyond description or human comprehension, “for by one offering He has
perfected for all time those who are sanctified” (Heb. 10:14). The “fulness” of Christ (John
1:16; Col. 1:19; 2:9–10) becomes the believer’s portion in Christ, “for in Him all the fulness
of Deity dwells in bodily form, and in Him you have been made complete.” The basis of the
legality of such imputation, resulting in such a position for the believer, resides in the fact
that Christ offered Himself “without blemish” to God (Heb. 9:14). This means that Christ not
only was made a sin offering, but His death (by which remission of sin is made legally
possible on the basis that He substituted for those who believe and presented Himself as an
offering well-pleasing to God) also made possible a release of all that He is in infinite merit,
bestowing this merit on the meritless. When others did not possess and could not gain a
standing and merit before God, He released His own self in infinite perfection for them (see 2
Cor. 8:9). As the cross furnishes the legal basis for the remission of sin, so it furnishes
likewise the legal basis for the imputation of righteousness. Both aspects of a sweet savor and
a non-sweet savor in the estimation of the Father are typically expounded in the five offerings
of Lev. 1–5. There was that in the death of Christ that was a non-sweet savor to God
manifested in the terrible words “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” (Ps. 22:1;
Matt. 27:46). The character of the perfect, sinless Lamb of God (Heb. 9:14) suggests the
sweet savor aspect. Thus the sweet savor aspect of Christ’s offering, and its accomplishment
in the believer by his union with Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit, is the legal
ground for the imputation of God’s righteousness to the believer. Foundational to essential
Christian teaching and the essence of the gospel are these three imputations. They are typical
in the Mosaic system; antitypical in the Christian era. M.F.U.
BIBLIOGRAPHY: L. S. Chafer, Systematic Theology (1948), 2:296–315; 3:243–44; 5:143–44;
7:191–94; W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology (1952), 2:148–257; J. Murray, The
Imputation of Adam’s Sin (1959); C. Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans
(1965), pp. 221–99; G. C. Berkouwer, Sin (1971), pp. 436–65; H. Bavinck, Our Reasonable
Faith (1978), pp. 224–30, 240–46; F. B. Westcott, The Biblical Doctrine of Justification
(1983), pp. 165–82, 188–209
 
A fourth variation means "to impute," actually a specialized sense of "to make a judgment." This variation occurs three times in Qal and three in Niphal, the latter simply being the passive. It refers to both God and man. Shimei, after having blatantly cursed David, beseeches David not to "impute" sin unto him (2Sa_19:20). More significantly, God is spoken of as imputing. Abraham believed God and God "counted" (imputed) it to him for righteousness (Gen_15:6; Rom_4:3). David states that the man is blessed to whom the Lord "imputes" not iniquity (Psa_32:2; Rom_4:8).
Not even in the definition do I see any mention of an imputation of someone else's evil into your account. Have you exhausted all your resources?

Christ has the power to impute righteousness into our accounts because he took on our sins. But there's no way that anyone else can do that for us.
 
Last edited:
What God promised in Genesis was made REAL at the cross. Jesus made the perfect SIN OFFERING that CLEANSES HUMANS FROM SIN.

The rest of it is "Religion" and "Theology".
Do you know haw many times "doctrine" is mentioned in Scriptures?

Although I agree with your post-no harm in hermeneutical studies-or exegetical, since I have all the time in the world.
 
There's only ONE foundational Doctrine that's VITAL in Christianity.

What God promised in Genesis was made REAL at the cross. Jesus made the perfect SIN OFFERING that CLEANSES HUMANS FROM SIN.

The rest of it is "Religion" and "Theology".
How true! I was discussing this exact same topic with a friend this morning and we both reached the same conclusion as you Bob.
 
Back
Top Bottom