I feel always a little bit betrayed when I consider that one alleged proof-text of double-imputation: 2 Cor 5:21: "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (ESV) That "might become" seems fairly significant, no? But don't jump to any hasty conclusions. [grabbing BGAD lexicon] Um, I did not find a verse reference for the exact form in the Greek, but the subjunctive after the "in order that" strongly implies the "might." Anyway, it most assuredly does not say, "possess the righteousness of God". It says "in order that we might become the righteousness of God." As in, we are not currently displaying it. Same problem in Romans 1 and 3: However full our forgiveness and security may be, the text really isn't talking about an alien righteousness; it's talking about the character of God shown forth in us as a whole. In fact, it may be significant that the verse ends with the "in him," so that it reads, "in order that we might become the righteousness of God in him." [that is Christ] All that "reconciling the world to himself" in Christ in v. 19 is intriguingly couched in present-tense (or at least ongoing aspect) type of verbs. Which means, it seems to me, that it's not over, in some sense. Though the mercy of God is always available through the work of Christ, and indeed we enjoy great benefit and blessing now as sons of God, so long as we are not yet what we hope to be, we can't get complacent. We know this, but we (Reformed) are always trying to deny it. This text is about union with Christ. The problem is, if union with Christ is essentially what we want and need now and forever, (and what the Scripture teaches) then imputation cannot be true, because the union would not be real, but only legal. For our lives and actions to matter, for holiness to matter, we must participate. But participation implies the possibility of non-participation. See where this is leading? Sheesh. R. Scott Clark is absolutely right to disavow "union with Christ" as the dominant soteriological motif of the New Testament if we are to remain consistent monergists. The problem is, the Scripture doesn't seem to balk at participation like Reformed systematic theology does. Perhaps I am being unfair. But those middle-ages synergists are looking pretty smart right now. I hate it when that happens.
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...
Comments