Is Adam's Guilt Transferred to Us? Is Christ's Righteousness Transferred (Suppose We are Not Righteous in Our Behavior)?
There is a problem in
the doctrine of salvation from hell that most denominations also believe in. Their
theory surrounds the word “imputation.” First, let’s
define the word “impute.” That's the translation of the Greek word
"logizomai" in Scripture. Unger’s Expository Dictionary
(highly reputed and reliable) defines "logizomai" as: “To reckon, to
put down to a person’s account; to charge with, or credit with.” The theorists
believe that imputation leads them to three doctrines: (1) The guilt of Adam’s
sin is imputed to all mankind; (2) The sins of Christ’s people are imputed to
Christ; and (3) the righteousness of Christ is imputed to His people. However,
note that their usage of "impute" also means a transfer
from one person or party to another person or party. This is a distortion, an
important one. To read carefully the definitions of the word I gave you from Unger’s
above, you do not get that it has to be a transfer from one person to another.
It seems to say it is a simple charge on the books, for whatever reason.
Let’s look at
the three verses in the New Testament where "impute" appears.
First, here's Romans 4:11:
And he (Abraham) received the sign of
circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while
still uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all those who
believe, though they are uncircumcised, that righteousness might
be imputed to them also
This is a
difficult verse, but there is no way God is doing a transfer of
righteousness—unless you twist the verse and say that Abraham is the “father,”
and his faith is transferred through the generations of believers. That’s
impossible, since you’re effectively saying Abraham is our savior. No,
it’s simply saying, if they believed, they get the same righteousness before
God that he did. No transfer is going on.
Imputed next
appears in Romans 4:21-24:
21 and (Abraham)
being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. 22 And
therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.” 23 Now it
was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, 24 but
also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up
Jesus our Lord from the dead
Abraham's
conviction in God's faithfulness and ability to perform, is also credited to
our account IF WE BELIEVE, as you can see. Again, Abraham's belief
doesn't transfer to us. Finally, the last usage of the
"logizomai" is in Romans 5:13:
13 For until the
law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Sin is not
laid to the charge of the sinner, IF he does not know that he has sinned, and
no Law exists for him to know about. (I don't want to get into a discussion
about when sin is debited to Old Testament people before Law). This has nothing
to do with Christ, or any transfer.
That's it,
the only verses with the word logizomai. No transfers are implied.
You know, the
Jews of Jesus' day believed in at least one of the three transfers of the
faulty doctrine listed above. Namely, transfer of righteousness. But Jesus has
a few things to say about that in John 8:37-44:
37 “I know that you are Abraham’s
descendants, but you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in
you. 38 I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you
do what you have seen with your father.”
39 They answered and said to
Him, “Abraham is our father.”
Jesus said to them, “If you were Abraham’s children, you
would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now you seek to kill
Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did
not do this. 41 You do the deeds of your father.”
Then they said to Him, “We were not born of fornication; we
have one Father—God.”
42 Jesus said to them, “If
God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and came
from God; nor have I come of Myself, but He sent Me. 43 Why
do you not understand My speech? Because you are not able to listen to My
word. 44 You are of your father the devil, and
the desires of your father you want to do
The Jews insisted that they were OK with God since Abraham was
their father (ie, they were in his lineage). They had circumcision, further
"proof" of their righteousness. But He assures them they were
lost in unbelief--after all, they slandered who Jesus’ Father was. They
believed Jesus was fathered by Joseph, before he and Mary were wed. Jesus’
father was the Holy Spirit, so implying that Jesus was the result of
fornication was a blasphemy. And, don’t forget, they killed Him. He bluntly
tells them that they obtained no righteousness from Abraham; no transfer there.
So, in all three verses where impute appears, we have shown that
no transfer was going on. And Abraham’s credit of righteousness was not passed
along to the Jews.
The real
meaning of "impute" should not be distorted on the guilt side of the
ledger either--but their theory has done it. They took their distorted
definition and applied it to Adam’s descendants, smearing us with guilt because
of Adam’s sin.
Does
Scripture indicate that Adam’s guilt is charged to all of his children,
and grandchildren, etc. all through history? Their theorists say
"yes." Well, I think their flaw warps out as this: they
make it a gigantic cross-generational curse that God has attached
to Adam's descendants. However, Scripture denies guilt-transfer: Deuteronomy
24:16 says cross-generational curses can’t happen. Ezekiel 18:20 also says it:
“The soul who
sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father
bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon
himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
These verses
clearly show that cross-generational curses are not charged by God; they are
not part of God’s plan for eternity. Thinking carefully, Adam was created
with the ability to not sin; he could make a free choice to sin or not.
Unfortunately, he chose the latter. The actual result is: We are
born with a tendency to sin. This is a disadvantage that we got
from Adam. But it is a tendency; it is not a guilt transfer. They have
different meanings. The fact that we all sin is from our choices.
Beside our leaning toward sin, we also got from Adam his
mortality. It was necessary for God to put mortality on us: If we
live forever, our abilities to sin will have no limit. And sin would become
immortal in us. Bad thought. We prefer release from that bondage, and we obtain
immortality--when true believers go to heaven.
Despite our inheritance, assuming we are of accountable age, we
decide--on our own--whether to sin in a situation or not. Freedom of
choice. No cross-generational curse; we are responsible from our own
sins. Thankfully, God has put a void in everyone’s hearts that can only
be truly happy by seeking Him. He gave us His Word, which points to the way of
salvation; He gave us His Son, who showed us how to live--and died for our
sins. From all that wonderful love and mercy, do we, seeing His love,
cling to Him as Savior of our souls? Or do we choose to rebel all our lives
against this mercy? We have choices to make, and mostly reasonable minds to
make them. What’s important, in summary, is that our tendency to sin does
not mean that we inherited guilt. Believing this theory may have a
dangerous consequence: ie, some people believe that they are beyond getting
saved.
But there are
other favorite verses presumably backing their theorists that we need to deal
with. Such as Romans 5:12.
Therefore,
just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus
death spread to all men, because all sinned—
This verse does not say that Adam’s guilt is transferred to us.
But a simple study reveals a simple truth: Why is “death spread to all men”? As
the verse says, because “all sinned.” We are only responsible for our own sin.
We can’t blame Adam or God for sin that we chose to do. We can only blame
Adam for our tendency to sin. But the fact is, we each make the choice to sin;
the responsibility is ours.
I should add, this theory can lead to another evangelism
problem. To some unsaved people who conclude, “God isn’t fair. Sticking me with
guilt for Adam’s sin,” it is easy for them to refuse accountability for
their sin. But God lays it on us, and promises judgment will come for all
those who did not seek shelter in Jesus. But the theory makes it tougher to
reach them with the Gospel in that way too.
The other
favorite verses for their theorists are I Corinthians 15:21-22:
For since by
man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in
Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.
In the phrase
“as in Adam all die:” does it say, we all die because we have his sin guilt on
us? No. It simply says mortality is passed on.
Now let’s
take a look at the second imputation “leg” of the theory: The sins of His
children are imputed to Christ. Their key verses: Isaiah 53:4-5:
Surely He has
borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten
by God, and afflicted. 5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was
bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by
His stripes we are healed.
Now I don’t
have any argument here at all (as long as we are talking believers). Christ
made a substitutionary suffering as it is spelled out here—He is innocent, but
He paid for our sin. Our sins were imputed, or laid on, Christ. That includes a
transfer, thank God.
On to the
third claim of the theory: The righteousness of Jesus being imputed to
believers. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, a conservative
evangelistic work, has this to say: “It is not meant that Christ’s people are
made personally holy or inwardly righteous by the imputation of His
righteousness to them. But it means that His righteousness is “set to their
account” so that they are entitled to all the rewards of that perfect
righteousness.”
The phrase
“set to their account” suggests it’s a bookkeeping transaction in heaven; His
righteousness is transferred in the ledgers of heaven to us—without the
necessity of our being personally holy, as they say, or efforts in doing
so. Or doing a thing except accepting Christ. Those who have read my other
articles on eternal security know where I’m going with this. Yes, salvation is simple
initially; once we repent of our sin, and accept who Christ is, God looks over
our past sins. BUT if we don’t live a godly life, we could lose our salvation.
Their theory says nothing about the future; it implies that it’s a “one and
done;” that when we are saved, we get Christ’s righteousness for our whole
lives. Dietrich Bonhoeffer would call this theology “cheap grace,” and I
wholeheartedly agree. They sometimes also say, in essence, that behaving
righteously just comes naturally out of our love for what God has done. The Encyclopedia
sets the bar lower; it says, “The righteousness which God demands is not to be
found among people.” Is that so? Well, try typing the word “righteous” in a
Biblical search engine (such as biblegateway.com). You’ll find over a hundred
references of verses that dispute that, such as Genesis 7:1:
Then the LORD
said to Noah, “Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have
seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation.
God told Noah
he was righteous—because his belief was evidenced in his behavior. There
are over a hundred verses, Old and New Testaments, just like that one.
Then search for “blameless.” Lots more. Sorry, Encyclopedia,
defending this defective argument should not have to include twisting the word
"righteous." Having God call us "righteous" in our behavior,
after we put our trust in Him, is attainable. In fact, God expects
His children to behave righteously. His demand for righteousness after we
accept what Jesus did does not mean He expects perfection, praise Him.
Believers can sin now and then, and still be "righteous." He
does commend His believers who strive to make their lives a righteous living
for Him. If we do not abide with Christ, we are denying Him. He will then
deny us (John 15:1-6). I have other blogs on that subject.
One more of
the theory’s favorites: Isaiah 64:6a:
But we are
all like an unclean thing, And all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags;
This contempt for righteous behavior seems to contradict over a
hundred Biblical verses that show God loves the people who seek to be
righteous. Is that possible? Let’s analyze this verse further to avoid accusing
God for a Scriptural contradiction. One question is this: What is the occasion
for Isaiah’s prayer here? In context, it is a prayer of penitence
and intercession that Isaiah was making on behalf of the unfaithful Israelites,
to plead for God's mercy. It follows the typical form that the penitential
prayer of that culture does: When a repentant Jew petitions God for mercy, they
invariably amplify their wrong and magnify their smallness, which amplifies the
greatness of the Lord for even considering mercy upon us. Such magnifying
distorts reality, but for a good purpose—to glorify God’s majesty. But let’s
return to reality instead of this ritual: Does God have to agree with Isaiah's
version of man’s smallness? No. Think about it: If God really felt this way,
why does He go to the trouble of calling certain people righteous over a
hundred times? Scripture must be taken in context, and with the assumption that
every word is originally God's Word, and that any copy errors are not
significant to salvation.
Now it so happens that this verse was a favorite verse of Martin
Luther. It seems he went, from a few verses like these above, to construct a
theological system—ignoring hundreds of verses that disagreed with his
theology. He concluded, let's forget works altogether--salvation is all about
just belief in what Christ has done. True, in an absolute sense, none of us are
righteous as God—we’re all short of the glory of God. But God, in His love, has
always considered His faithful ones, who have walked in obedience, not
perfectly, but enough to call them “righteous.” That God could call us
righteous despite His hatred of sin, is His mercy showing forth. I love His
self-description in Exodus 34:6:
And the LORD
passed before him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and
gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, 7 keeping mercy
for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means
clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and
the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation.”
There are
many wonderful stories in His Word about His patience with stumbling mankind.
As I point out in another blog, this theology does not lead you into sweaty
uncertainty. Yes, be fearful of God before sinning. Do some things
that intentionally remove them in our lives, so we can bear the fruit of
sanctification. Confess known sins, and repent of them regularly.
Believe that God forgives. Doing those should eliminate most
uncertainty. You can't, Scripturally, expect certainty that we would all
like to have. We would get complacent--like the Jews did.
We thus conclude that of the three imputations, two were
biblically incorrect --by emphasizing one or two Scriptures, and ignoring many
other ones. Only the imputation of our sin on Christ was correct. As long as we
keep in mind, it’s not a “one-in-done” transfer. They demean righteous
behavior, they teach cross-generational curse, as well as the cheap grace of
ignoring the necessity of a godly life to maintain salvation. We do not get guilt
for Adam's sins.
Read my other blogs to get more on this picture. Or,
better, read Scripture!
Acknowledgements: David Bercot, Atonement #2.
No comments:
Post a Comment