Imputation

Knight said:
I explicitly affirmed that Christ took upon Himself the penalty for sin. That is not the same thing as sin being imputed to Christ's account.

Please define how you are using the word "imputation." I have already outlined that I think it means "consider," "regard," "reckon," etc. If you agree with that, ask yourself if Christ was literally considered, regarded, or reckoned to be a sinner by the Father. The verses you cite do not address this question... unless you think Christ was somehow literally made sin? See pg. 440ff. of Samuel Baird's The Elohim Revealed (link) for how he interprets 2 Corinthians 5:21. Note how he begins:
Click to expand...
Please correct me if I am getting the wrong end of the stick here - you are saying that Jesus Christ as the holy sinless Son of God took upon Himself the sins of the world, not becoming evil Himself, but bearing the weight of the guilt and penalty of sin, and suffering the divine judgment of wrath in our place?

To which I think we would all agree here (I hope!).

I agree with you Ryan that it is dependent upon how one defines "imputation". I'm in agreement with Anthony that typically sin is said to be imputed to Christ's account in the punitive sense, but see your (Ryan's) point here that sin may not be said to be imputed to Christ in the actual sense to His Person (otherwise it would be to call Christ a sinner).
 
Are there any reformed theologians that you can name that hold this position? Or any other material in general you can send me ?

Was the penalty of our sin imputed to Christ on the cross or when we believe ?

I understand imputation as reckoned or accredited . A legal transaction . As if I send money from one account to another. Prior to this post I’ve never seen any push back against this. I thought this was the reformed understanding.

You make a good point about Jesus actually becoming sin.
 
alexanderjames said:
Please correct me if I am getting the wrong end of the stick here - you are saying that Jesus Christ as the holy sinless Son of God took upon Himself the sins of the world, not becoming evil Himself, but bearing the weight of the guilt and penalty of sin, and suffering the divine judgment of wrath in our place?

To which I think we would all agree here (I hope!).

I agree with you Ryan that it is dependent upon how one defines "imputation". I'm in agreement with Anthony that typically sin is said to be imputed to Christ's account in the punitive sense, but see your (Ryan's) point here that sin may not be said to be imputed to Christ in the actual sense to His Person (otherwise it would be to call Christ a sinner).
Click to expand...
Well said , I’d agree with all this .

I’m still confused about how the elect can born dead in sin when our sin was imputed to Christ on the cross
 
Polanus1561 said:
Related to this is how Christ was the lamb slain before the foundation of the world.
Click to expand...
For sure . I’ve always held to the position that He the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world in the sense that upon the intra Trinitarian (Pactum Salutis ) there’s no way that God decree couldn’t come to pass , so because of the surety of it actually happening . We can say He was the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world . I could be wrong .
 
This is a question we are really limited in. I have no problem pleading Deut 29:29 to this

also, Beeke 3:521-522

1. God decreed justification in eternity through Christ. God’s salvation is “not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began” (2 Tim. 1:9). God “hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love” (Eph. 1:4). Christ is “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev. 13:8), the Redeemer “foreordained before the foundation of the world” (1 Pet. 1:20). Therefore, God decreed the justification of his elect ones in Christ before he created anything.


However, the elect are not thereby always justified. The person who does not believe in Christ is presently under God’s condemnation (John 3:18), whether or not he is elect. “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him” (3:36). Until God makes them alive with Christ, the elect are “children of wrath, even as others” (Eph. 2:3), “having no hope, and without God in the world,” and so “far off” from God and his people (vv. 12–13). Brown asked, “In what state are the elect before justification?” and answered, “Though God loves them with an everlasting love, and his providence secretly makes way for their union to Christ; yet, in respect of the law, and of God as a judge, they are in a state of wrath and condemnation.”
Click to expand...
 
I appreciate you sending this by Beeke.

Such a hard thing to understand how God can love us with an everlasting love yet we are also under His wrath .
 
Anthony DeNicola said:
Well said , I’d agree with all this .

I’m still confused about how the elect can born dead in sin when our sin was imputed to Christ on the cross
Click to expand...

Forgive me if I sound like a broken record! The way in which you are speaking still suggests that you are thinking of what Christ did on (at the time of) the cross as a sort of literal monetary transaction. That you said 1 Peter 2 uses the word "paid" (when it does not) evidences this. Christ did not literally pay off our sins as if our sins were things that, due to Christ's payment, can no longer count against us as a debt. If this were true, then Owen's double payment objection would indeed ironically apply against his own position, for then our [future] sins should have indeed been already paid off by Christ. This seems to be your confusion, but if I am mistaken, then it is I who am still confused by what you mean when you say, "our sin was imputed to Christ."

We had not sinned at the time of the cross, because we didn't even exist yet. When we are born, we are born of Adam, in Adam. We are sinners and under God's wrath. This is proof, contrary to what you are saying, that our sin was not imputed to Christ on (at the time of) the cross - at least, not in the sense of a monetary transaction. His sacrifice does not automatically discharge any "payment" for sins that would otherwise be owed to God. Again, if this is not what you mean, you will need to specify what it is you mean when you say, "our sin was imputed to Christ."

A better try than a money transaction in which Christ made a payment (past tense) for [future] sins at the time of the cross would be to consider Christ's crucifixion as a sort of scheduled credit card payment. That is, Christ's sacrifice is like a payment scheduled to hit our bank account when we come to faith. Before we come to faith, we "owe" God, for this payment has not hit our account. In fact, OT believers were absolved of their debt on credit, so to speak, as Christ had not yet sacrificed Himself - but even in this case, such only occurred when they came to faith in He who was to come.

As the many participants in this thread have mentioned, the key is union with Christ. Whatever metaphors we try to use to capture what Christ did and accomplished, if they fail to capture that we are in Adam until we are in Christ - dead in sin until alive in Him - said metaphors have limited utility (at best).
 
Last edited:
Knight said:
As the many participants in this thread have mentioned, the key is union with Christ. Whatever metaphors we try to use to capture what Christ did and accomplished, if they fail to capture that until we are in Adam until we are in Christ - dead in sin until alive in Him - said metaphors have limited utility (at best).
Click to expand...
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but I think the first "until" is out of place.
 
Knight said:
Forgive me if I sound like a broken record! The way in which you are speaking still suggests that you are thinking of what Christ did on (at the time of) the cross as a sort of literal monetary transaction. That you said 1 Peter 2 uses the word "paid" (when it does not) evidences this. Christ did not literally pay off our sins as if our sins were things that, due to Christ's payment, can no longer count against us as a debt. If this were true, then Owen's double payment objection would indeed ironically apply against his own position, for then our [future] sins should have indeed been already paid off by Christ. This seems to be your confusion, but if I am mistaken, then it is I who am still confused by what you mean when you say, "our sin was imputed to Christ."

We had not sinned at the time of the cross, because we didn't even exist yet. When we are born, we are born of Adam, in Adam. We are sinners and under God's wrath. This is proof, contrary to what you are saying, that our sin was not imputed to Christ on (at the time of) the cross - at least, not in the sense of a monetary transaction. His sacrifice does not automatically discharge any "payment" for sins that would otherwise be owed to God. Again, if this is not what you mean, you will need to specify what it is you mean when you say, "our sin was imputed to Christ."

A better try than a money transaction in which Christ made a payment (past tense) for [future] sins at the time of the cross would be to consider Christ's crucifixion as a sort of scheduled credit card payment. That is, Christ's sacrifice is like a payment scheduled to hit our bank account when we come to faith. Before we come to faith, we "owe" God, for this payment has not hit our account. In fact, OT believers were absolved of their debt on credit, so to speak, as Christ had not yet sacrificed Himself - but even in this case, such only occurred when they came to faith in He who was to come.

As the many participants in this thread have mentioned, the key is union with Christ. Whatever metaphors we try to use to capture what Christ did and accomplished, if they fail to capture that we are in Adam until we are in Christ - dead in sin until alive in Him - said metaphors have limited utility (at best).
Click to expand...
Ryan, thanks alot for this. This has been the most helpful thus far.

Your properly reperesnetd me. If i may, can i ask some questions? these are genuine questions as this is my first time hearing abotu this postions.

What other reformed theologians speak of the atonement like this. Any material you could send?

Who's sin was Jesus paying for on the cross ? just OT saints and the elect who were alive at that time?

Could it be than that someone who Christ died for could go to hell and pay for their sins?
 
Reminds me of the Passover. It wasn't only the fact that the lamb had been slain that the Lord was looking for as he passed over the houses in Egypt. It was the lamb's blood on the doorposts, the blood applied after the lamb was slain.

The killing of the Passover lamb didn't automatically deter the judgment of God.
 
Anthony DeNicola said:
Such a hard thing to understand how God can love us with an everlasting love yet we are also under His wrath
Click to expand...
Those with children may understand to some degree. I think this is one of the reasons God gave us familial examples of His relationships. Not the same, but one of the best pictures we have been given, just like the pictures of birth and marriage, as well as death and divorce. As a father, I love my children with a love that will always last and began before they were born, but that does not mean that they cannot also be under my wrath at times. Even after conversion some of the elect may still "fall into grievous sins... incur God's displeasure, and grieve His Holy Spirit, come to be deprived of some measure of their graces and comforts, have their hearts hardened, and their consciences wounded... and bring temporal judgments upon themselves."(WCF 27.3)
CHSalzgeber said:
It's certainly comforting to hope that all infants go to heaven (Spurgeon) or at least elect infants (others such as yourself, which is either my position also in some nuanced sense, or closer to my actual position), but I believe in every case we provide such comfort, we are arguing from an absence of evidence and in hope
Click to expand...
I took and still take a lot of comfort from the evidence of 1 Corinthians 7:14 which seems to communicate that the child of a believer is "set apart" ("holy") in a special way, which in my understanding of confessional statements, both makes them part of the visible Church and seemingly gives hope that such children are counted among the elect.

This text is one of the proofs offered in WCF 25.3: "The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation." This text is also used in WCF 28.4 to refer to "infants" who do not "actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ" which provides more evidence for hope.
 
Anthony DeNicola said:
Who's sin was Jesus paying for on the cross ? just OT saints and the elect who were alive at that time?

Could it be than that someone who Christ died for could go to hell and pay for their sins?
Click to expand...
Jesus paid for the sins of the elect in all ages (see WCF VIII.VI).

It could not be. All those for whom Christ has purchased redemption have that redemption certainly and effectually applied to them (see WCF VIII.VIII).
 
Anthony DeNicola said:
What other reformed theologians speak of the atonement like this. Any material you could send?

Who's sin was Jesus paying for on the cross ? just OT saints and the elect who were alive at that time?

Could it be than that someone who Christ died for could go to hell and pay for their sins?
Click to expand...

If you look back to earlier posts, I link to Samuel Baird's The Elohim Revealed (pgs. 440ff., 605ff.) and Dabney's Systematic Theology (pg. 777 ff.). I recall that Pierced for Our Transgressions was a book that helped me find answers to objections to penal substitution. Regarding Reformed recommendations, others may know more than I do.

No one for whom Christ died can go to hell. I'll expound on that below.

As established in my previous posts, to say that Christ paid for sin is a metaphor. The better question to ask is what the metaphor means. I'll also expound on that below. [And pardon my emphases in what follows, they are not intended to be hostile!]

Note that you keep asking or talking about Jesus paying for someone's sins. When you are talking about someone and how their sins can be "paid for," the metaphor of "payment" either has to refer to the intent of Christ's sacrifice for that person or about the application of His sacrifice to that person. The same people for whom Christ's sacrifice is intended are the same people to whom Christ's sacrifice will be applied, although when these two things happen are different (intent = eternal; application = upon conversion). Therefore, as I already said, no one for whom Christ died can go to hell.

Now, the intent and application of Christ's sacrifice are each distinct from the nature of Christ's sacrifice itself. To see this, consider Mike's allusion to the Passover sacrifice. The slaughtered lamb is the sacrifice. The act of slaughter was distinct from the application of the blood to the doorposts. For whom was the slaughter intended? To whom did it apply? To everyone inside the house of a doorpost that has blood on it. But notice that these questions, like yours, are about the people in the house (who are sinners and in need of a substitute), not about the slaughtered lamb. That is, these questions are about intent and application of sacrifice, not about what the actual slaughter of the lamb itself means.

Christ is the Passover lamb, and His slaughter was on the cross. When you talk about what happened "on the cross" or "at the time of the cross," you should not so much be thinking about the intent or application of Christ's sacrifice; rather, you should be thinking of the nature of Christ's sacrifice itself. Christ's sacrifice itself was accomplished on or at the time of the cross (unlike intent and application), and it was accomplished irrespective of persons for whom the sacrifice was intended or to whom it was to be applied. The nature of this sacrifice [at the time of it] was that Christ bore the wrath of God as such. The nature of the sacrifice does not entail that it was "for you" or "for me" per se (which, incidentally, is why Christ would not have had to do one thing different for His sacrifice to have been intended for or applied to more or fewer people that it actually is intended for and will be applied to).

Language like "for you" or "for me" turns us away from the cross itself to questions of intent and application which I have already addressed. Likewise, we can ask why this this sacrifice necessary, but this would turn us away from what happened on or at the time of the cross - it would turn us away from the nature of the sacrifice - to the intent of it. There is nothing wrong with such questions, of course, but as noted, the intent of the sacrifice of Christ was settled from eternity in the covenant of redemption, whereas application happens when we come to faith (at which point Christ's sacrifice can legitimately be viewed as substitutionary for the wrath that God would otherwise be obligated to lay upon me, a sinner).

On the other hand, if you are talking about what happened on or at the time of the cross itself, you are asking about the sacrifice itself. The sacrifice just is the Son voluntarily obeying His Father's will, even to the point of being put to grief by Him unto death.

If you can keep straight the distinctions between the intent, nature, and application of Christ's sacrifice, you might find that most questions you have (about metaphors or otherwise) will answer themselves.
 
One more point that may help to illustrate the importance of distinguishing between the intent, application, and nature of Christ's sacrifice:

Strictly speaking, does Jesus pay for sins? No. We might use this language informally, but strictly speaking, the payment metaphor in Scripture is used in reference to debt or something one owes (Matthew 18:23ff.). Surely, we do not owe God sins. Rather, our sins are that which incur the debt we owe God. What, then, is the debt we owe to God? What is it that our sins incur?

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Thus, when we see the payment metaphor "cash out," we also see why a literal, pecuniary understanding of the atonement is inadequate: Christ did not give up a sum of money, which is variable or might fluctuate based on circumstances (e.g. 10000 talents vs. 100 denarii). Christ gave up something fixed or constant: His life unto death. As I said before, the nature of Christ's sacrifice itself was fixed irrespective of persons for whom the sacrifice was intended or to whom it applied. That is, God might have freely and graciously elected and converted more or fewer than the number of people He did, for He was under no obligation to save any. But in order to save any - no matter the number - the nature of the sacrifice necessary for such purposes and ends would have remained the same, for sin obliges punishment.

On that note, notice that in this context, "debt" entails a reference to persons. Here, not only do people owe debts, but the debt owed (death) has to do with one's own person. Of course, Christ Himself owed no debt, whereas we do (due to our sin). Therefore, the payment metaphor will always touch on the intent or application of Christ's sacrifice, for as I said before, such things do pertain to or respect persons. On the other hand, the payment metaphor typically does not directly address the nature of the currency, debt, or that which is owed (e.g. what is a talent, a denarii, or death itself).

To summarize: the payment metaphor is ill-equipped to address questions about what happened on or at the time of the cross, what Christ's sacrifice meant, or what His sacrifice accomplished at that time. The payment metaphor is well-designed to address questions about the intent or application of Christ's sacrifice [for us and to us].
 
Knight said:
If you look back to earlier posts, I link to Samuel Baird's The Elohim Revealed (pgs. 440ff., 605ff.) and Dabney's Systematic Theology (pg. 777 ff.). I recall that Pierced for Our Transgressions was a book that helped me find answers to objections to penal substitution. Regarding Reformed recommendations, others may know more than I do.

No one for whom Christ died can go to hell. I'll expound on that below.

As established in my previous posts, to say that Christ paid for sin is a metaphor. The better question to ask is what the metaphor means. I'll also expound on that below. [And pardon my emphases in what follows, they are not intended to be hostile!]

Note that you keep asking or talking about Jesus paying for someone's sins. When you are talking about someone and how their sins can be "paid for," the metaphor of "payment" either has to refer to the intent of Christ's sacrifice for that person or about the application of His sacrifice to that person. The same people for whom Christ's sacrifice is intended are the same people to whom Christ's sacrifice will be applied, although when these two things happen are different (intent = eternal; application = upon conversion). Therefore, as I already said, no one for whom Christ died can go to hell.

Now, the intent and application of Christ's sacrifice are each distinct from the nature of Christ's sacrifice itself. To see this, consider Mike's allusion to the Passover sacrifice. The slaughtered lamb is the sacrifice. The act of slaughter was distinct from the application of the blood to the doorposts. For whom was the slaughter intended? To whom did it apply? To everyone inside the house of a doorpost that has blood on it. But notice that these questions, like yours, are about the people in the house (who are sinners and in need of a substitute), not about the slaughtered lamb. That is, these questions are about intent and application of sacrifice, not about what the actual slaughter of the lamb itself means.

Christ is the Passover lamb, and His slaughter was on the cross. When you talk about what happened "on the cross" or "at the time of the cross," you should not so much be thinking about the intent or application of Christ's sacrifice; rather, you should be thinking of the nature of Christ's sacrifice itself. Christ's sacrifice itself was accomplished on or at the time of the cross (unlike intent and application), and it was accomplished irrespective of persons for whom the sacrifice was intended or to whom it was to be applied. The nature of this sacrifice [at the time of it] was that Christ bore the wrath of God as such. The nature of the sacrifice does not entail that it was "for you" or "for me" per se (which, incidentally, is why Christ would not have had to do one thing different for His sacrifice to have been intended for or applied to more or fewer people that it actually is intended for and will be applied to).

Language like "for you" or "for me" turns us away from the cross itself to questions of intent and application which I have already addressed. Likewise, we can ask why this this sacrifice necessary, but this would turn us away from what happened on or at the time of the cross - it would turn us away from the nature of the sacrifice - to the intent of it. There is nothing wrong with such questions, of course, but as noted, the intent of the sacrifice of Christ was settled from eternity in the covenant of redemption, whereas application happens when we come to faith (at which point Christ's sacrifice can legitimately be viewed as substitutionary for the wrath that God would otherwise be obligated to lay upon me, a sinner).

On the other hand, if you are talking about what happened on or at the time of the cross itself, you are asking about the sacrifice itself. The sacrifice just is the Son voluntarily obeying His Father's will, even to the point of being put to grief by Him unto death.

If you can keep straight the distinctions between the intent, nature, and application of Christ's sacrifice, you might find that most questions you have (about metaphors or otherwise) will answer themselves.
Click to expand...
Ryan, I want to thank you again. Please forgive me if for my incompetence at times. Im trying to work this out in my head.
who said,
The nature of this sacrifice [at the time of it] was that Christ bore the wrath of God as such.
Click to expand...
I think you are talking about at the time of the cross. I don't understand this if the imputation of our sin wasn't reckoned to Christ at the time of the cross. My biggest struggle right now is the nature of the atonement. Its hard for me to wrap my head around sin not being imputed to Christ on the cross.

also, does this view reject penal substitution?
 
Last edited:
Anthony DeNicola said:
Ryan, I want to thank you again. Please forgive me if for my incompetence at times. Im trying to work this out in my head.
who said,

I think you are talking about at the time of the cross. I don't understand this if the imputation of our sin wasn't reckoned to Christ at the time of the cross. My biggest struggle right now is the nature of the atonement. Its hard for me to wrap my head around sin not being imputed to Christ on the cross.

also, does this view reject penal substitution?
Click to expand...

I won't pretend to have figured out all questions pertaining to this deep subject, but there is a difference between saying that Christ was ever considered or regarded as a sinner by His Father (which is false) and that Christ bore the wrath of God (which is true). If you think there is a contradiction between these statements, can you be more specific why you think that? Again, how are you defining the word "impute"?

What I am saying is not a denial of penal substitution. Our sin incurs a penalty. Upon whom is this penalty for sin exacted? On whom does it obtain? Well, in the case of unbelievers, it is exacted upon themselves. As all who are of the first Adam are born in sin, they are all unbelievers on whom the penalty is being exacted from conception, for the wrath of God is continuously upon them.

For want of a substitute, so would it ever be. In the case of believers, however, they are united to Christ, so a penalty is not exacted upon themselves, as if they can any longer be considered apart from Christ. For the believer, we can say the penalty which would otherwise have been continuously exacted upon us is satisfied by Christ; hence, He is our substitute. But in saying so, we must be careful to avoid suggesting two things (at least):

1) Christ's self-sacrifice is equivalent to the penalty which is continuously exacted upon an unbeliever; in both cases, the party bears the wrath of God. However, this does not mean Christ was actually a sinner. That a penalty is exacted upon an unbeliever is obligated due to his sin - for God is just. By contrast, Christ's sacrifice of Himself was voluntary, not obligatory - for God is merciful. Christ freely and willingly assumed the equivalent of the penalty for sin, which is why it is possible to say that He bore God's wrath yet was ever considered by God to be the beloved Son.

2) At the time of His sacrifice, that which was exacted upon Christ was not quantitatively or qualitatively affected by the number of persons His sacrifice was intended to satisfy. That is, it has already been shown why a literal, pecuniary view of the atonement is false. Thus, when we are talking about the nature of Christ's sacrifice - what it entails and what it means - it is no more relevant to count the number of penalties that will no longer be exacted (once the sacrifice is applied) than it is to count the number of sins that will no longer be imputed (once the sacrifice is applied). Such computations conflate the nature of Christ's sacrifice with its intent and application, on which see my previous posts.

If someone thinks I am wrong, I am open to correction (as well as their reasons for disagreement).
 
Anthony DeNicola said:
Ryan, I want to thank you again. Please forgive me if for my incompetence at times. Im trying to work this out in my head.
who said,

I think you are talking about at the time of the cross. I don't understand this if the imputation of our sin wasn't reckoned to Christ at the time of the cross. My biggest struggle right now is the nature of the atonement. Its hard for me to wrap my head around sin not being imputed to Christ on the cross.

also, does this view reject penal substitution?
Click to expand...
It seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you are wanting to move straight from the sinner to Christ and are confused by language about "paying for my sins back then". And you're confused by the thought "if my sins were paid for back then, than how can I be born a sinner?" Well first off the scriptures says we are born sinful and guilty, that ought to settle it.
But as far as wrapping your head around it, if that were all scripture told us it would be confusing. Thats the rhetorical question Calvin starts chp. 1 book 3 of his Institutes with (I'm paraphrasing from memory here) "Since Christ earned all the benefits of salvation for his people, how do they become mine in the here and now?" So what if he earned it they're not mine here and now?
You can go the route of straight reference to Christ's death and wind up with "eternal justification" and Karl Barth's "impossibility of sin" view and be confused. Or you can take Calvin and scriptures route and tack on the third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. I'm born a sinner guilty and deserving God's wrath until in the here and now the Holy Spirit unites me to Christ and all the benefits of redemption become mine.
I think instead of where you're beginning, which seems to be confusing you, begin where Calvin did and than look at his answer. Than compare that with scripture and the confessions and perhaps by reframing the problem you'll how union with Christ answers Calvin’s rhetorical question "how do the benefits of salvation (the atonement being one) become mine?" I hope that helps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top