Pristine Grace
Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: 'I don't know'

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Africa
    Posts
    642
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    'I don't know'

    Generally I am quite good at avoiding questions that 'I don't know' the answer to but some question beg for an answer to be given.

    Unique to P-net is the set of really deep and searching questions that one is requested to answer before becoming a member of the forum.

    Since I joined I have gone there on odd occassions and noticed how profoundly my answers have changed, but not with the following three question. Everytime I come up with the same answer, 'I don't know.'

    Do you believe sin was imputed or imparted to Christ?
    ( Imputed / Imparted / Both / I don’t know)

    Do you believe Christ’s righteousness is imputed, infused into, or imparted to the elect?
    ( Imputed / Imputed and Imparted / Infused / I don’t know )

    When is righteousness imputed to the elect?
    ( At the cross / At the time of faith / I don’t know )

    I know they are not trick questions and have very definite answers, but they still leave me perplexed and irritated that I cannot arrive at a definite answer. Would someone please help me with this ?


  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Dothan, AL
    Posts
    4
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 'I don't know'

    Hello katoikei.

    I thought that I would share some of my thoughts regarding your questions.

    Do you believe sin was imputed or imparted to Christ?

    Let's define the terms used. My Oxford American Dictionary gives handy, short definitions.

    impute: to attribute, to ascribe
    impart: to give

    Here's my thinking. If sin was imparted to Christ, then sin was given to Christ, so that Christ possessed sin in His essence and in His nature. In other words, if sin was imparted to Christ, then he possessed sin. So ask yourself, Did Christ possess sin in His essence? Did Christ, who is verily God, have within Himself that which God hates above all else? Did Christ, who is verily God, possess as a quality of his being that very thing which God does not possess?

    As you can see, the way I understand the issue, we are speaking in no lesser terms than of God becoming not-God, even for just a moment. So, I ask you, can God stop being God?

    But we still have the doctrine ...

    2Co 5:21 Him who knew not sin he has made sin for us, that *we* might become God’s righteousness in him. (Darby Translation)

    Throughout the Hebrew scriptures, we have instances of the sin-offering (burnt-offering, etc.) being called sin.

    Genesis 4:7
    Exodus 29:14
    Exodus 30:10
    Leviticus 4:3
    Leviticus 6:25
    Numbers 8:8
    Psalm 40:6

    You'll see from these passages that the word for sin can also mean the sin-offering, provided context warrants such.

    The problem that some may see with this line of reasoning is that hamartia (sin) is used twice in 2Cor.5:21. It may be objected that we are using two separate meanings of the same word within the same sentence, playing "linguistic acrobatics" just to fit what they call our "preconceived theology."

    But this is no case of "linguistic acrobatics."

    A logical point: How can Christ be said to not had known sin if he had sin conjoined to His very essence at some point?

    Furthermore, we have other examples of the same word being used in two separate senses yet used within close proximity. Look again at Leviticus 4:3.

    if the priest that is anointed sin according to the trespass of the people; then for his sin (chatta'ah) which he hath sinned shall he present a young bullock without blemish to Jehovah for a sin-offering (chatta'ah).

    So you see the term chatta'ah is used twice in the same sentence, yet with two separate meanings. This term, chatta'ah, is translated within the AV as "sin" 182 times and as "sin-offering" 116 times.

    How did the translators know how to translate this term given both meanings are incorporated into this one word? By examining the context and using their minds.

    Just as we must do with 2 Corinthians 5:21.

    So we do not say that sin was imparted to Christ. And we have strong argumentation to refute such an error.

    So we review the option, "Sin was imputed to Christ." That is, that sin was attributed to Christ.

    To say that Christ was imputed with sin doesn't necessitate that Christ was imparted with sin. Nor does it mean that Christ was guilty of sin, or any other such rank heresy.

    Rather, to say that sin was imputed to Christ means that in Christ the due penalty of sin was exacted. Christ became the sin-offering of His elect, their sins being accounted to Him, and Him paying the ransom that was due for them.

    I hope that helps somewhat.

    I may get to your other questions sometime in the future.


    Billy





  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,849
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 'I don't know'

    Katman:

    Remember "It's not what you dont know, it's what you think you know, that just aint so!!"
    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
    GALATIANS 5:22

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Africa
    Posts
    642
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 'I don't know'

    Dear Brandan, Bob and Milt,

    I notice that all of you gentleman answered: 'imputed', 'imputed', 'at the cross'. Now inspite of the fact that I am aware there was a raging debate concerning the correct interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21; would it be possible for you to help me to come to a better understanding of these questions ?

  5. #5
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Hawaiian Islands
    Posts
    3,672
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    73
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    119
    Thanked in
    65 Posts

    Re: 'I don't know'

    There were actually two different controversies here on this issue: the 'Christ made sin' debate and the debate on 'common wrath.'

    On the issue of Christ made sin (2 Cor. 5:21), we took a stand that this meant by imputation only; i.e., sin was never imparted to Christ's actual person or experience. Conversely, the righteousness of God in Christ is imputed to the believer but never imparted--we are renewed in his image but never become equal in experience to what we are given in the person and work of Christ imputed to us.

    The matter of 'when' imputation takes place is more related to the issue of 'common wrath'. Those who proposed that Christ's righteousness is never imputed prior to experiential faith were stating that the elect are under wrath (i.e., hell-wrath) prior to that point in time.

    Our position is that God was in Christ, not imputing the trespasses of the elect unto them. Further, God purposed in Christ transcendant of time to impute only righteousness to the elect. So imputation is really 'from eternity to eternity'--there was/is never a time that Christ's righteousness is not imputed to the elect and it is also imputed transcendant of all time and space.
    I got four things to live by: don't say nothin' that will hurt anybody; don't give advice--no one will take it anyway; don't complain; don't explain. Walter Scott

  6. #6
    Administrator Greg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,136
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    18
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    15
    Thanked in
    8 Posts

    Re: 'I don't know'

    Quote Originally Posted by katoikei View Post
    Dear Brandan, Bob and Milt,

    I notice that all of you gentleman answered: 'imputed', 'imputed', 'at the cross'. Now inspite of the fact that I am aware there was a raging debate concerning the correct interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21; would it be possible for you to help me to come to a better understanding of these questions ?
    Try this on for size Kitty-Kat:

    http://www.predestinarian.net/showth...PUTED+IMPARTED
    Isaiah 45:7, (KJV), I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Africa
    Posts
    642
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 'I don't know'

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlyfavored View Post
    Highlyfavoured, I find the closing statements of Ian Potts of particular interest. link Not to say that the whole article is not. It is just that seeing as Bob has given such a clear explanation (above), perhaps we can go with that ?



  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Africa
    Posts
    642
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 'I don't know'

    Quote Originally Posted by Robert R. Higby View Post
    There were actually two different controversies here on this issue: the 'Christ made sin' debate and the debate on 'common wrath.'

    On the issue of Christ made sin (2 Cor. 5:21), we took a stand that this meant by imputation only; i.e., sin was never imparted to Christ's actual person or experience. Conversely, the righteousness of God in Christ is imputed to the believer but never imparted--we are renewed in his image but never become equal in experience to what we are given in the person and work of Christ imputed to us.

    The matter of 'when' imputation takes place is more related to the issue of 'common wrath'. Those who proposed that Christ's righteousness is never imputed prior to experiential faith were stating that the elect are under wrath (i.e., hell-wrath) prior to that point in time.

    Our position is that God was in Christ, not imputing the trespasses of the elect unto them. Further, God purposed in Christ transcendant of time to impute only righteousness to the elect. So imputation is really 'from eternity to eternity'--there was/is never a time that Christ's righteousness is not imputed to the elect and it is also imputed transcendant of all time and space.
    Dear Bob,

    I understand your teaching on imputation, but am I to understand that you teach justification apart from faith as well as apart from works ?

  9. #9
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,830
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    147
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    92
    Thanked in
    60 Posts

    Re: 'I don't know'

    Quote Originally Posted by katoikei View Post
    Dear Bob,

    I understand your teaching on imputation, but am I to understand that you teach justification apart from faith as well as apart from works ?
    Yes - Justification - that is constituted righteousness is separate from faith. Faith is the result of an actual justification and it is the means by which a person experiences his or her justification.
    This is my signature.

  10. #10
    Administrator Brandan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    5,830
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    147
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    92
    Thanked in
    60 Posts

    Re: 'I don't know'

    Scriptural support for Justification by Christ Alone apart from any conditions fulfilled on the part of man can be found in this document by Samuel Richardson.... http://www.5solas.org/media.php?id=576
    This is my signature.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,849
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 'I don't know'

    Quote Originally Posted by Darth Gill View Post
    Scriptural support for Justification by Christ Alone apart from any conditions fulfilled on the part of man can be found in this document by Samuel Richardson.... http://www.5solas.org/media.php?id=576
    This is one of the BEST treatistes written on the subject.
    But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law.
    GALATIANS 5:22

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Atmore, AL
    Posts
    9
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: 'I don't know'

    Re: 'I don't know'
    I notice that all of you gentleman answered: 'imputed', 'imputed', 'at the cross'. Now inspite of the fact that I am aware there was a raging debate concerning the correct interpretation of 2 Corinthians 5:21; would it be possible for you to help me to come to a better understanding of these questions?
    I also answered the three questions- 'imputed', 'imputed', 'at the cross'…

    It is a paradox of the spiritual sort.
    God is Righteous.
    Man is Sinful.
    Man made righteous by God being made sin.

    Makes no sense at least from the sinner’s perspective; but His thoughts are not our thoughts, and His ways not our ways. To this, we all can thank the Lord.

    The sinner, before trusting Christ as our sin sacrifice, are position ally and spiritually dead in our sin… “For as in Adam all die”… not contingent upon ones actions. When the sinner is dead in their trespasses and sin, that sin is reckoned or accounted to them, at least in the eyes of God. The magnitude of this position has eternal consequences… “For the wages of sin is death”. .

    The only hope that the sinner ever has of being made righteous is for God to impute it to them. The same way He did with Abraham (Romans 4)…. Not contingent upon anything he (Abraham) did. For by the works of the law shall no man be justified. For there is none righteous, no not one. This is the blessedness that David described, “God imputed righteousness without works.” In order for this imputation to occur, the Spirit says, “iniquities are forgiven and the individual sins are covered.” The sinner made righteous.

    The imputation of righteousness to the sinner can only be accomplished by God being mad sin… For He hath made Him (Jesus the Christ) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. When was the sinner made ”the righteousness of God in Him”? Before the foundation of the world- Calvary, the cross… “Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace!

    Peace
    Sinned

    “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path.”

  13. #13
    Just Grace
    Guest

    Re: 'I don't know'

    It is pure Grace. Even if you cannot say a word because you have not a tongue or able to write because you have no arms or legs, will not stop you being saved.

    It is all Grace.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •