The Timing of Justification and Imputation

[Brandan Kraft]

According to RbF's profile, he believes that God actually hates the elect at some point in time. This makes God a timely being dependent upon what happens in time.

[Righteous by Faith]

We are not dealing with what can or could happen, but rather with what the Bible says does happen. Romans 4 says that Abraham was justified before he was circumcised. (The bigger point is that Abraham is the father of all who believe the gospel, and the even bigger point is that the gospel is Christ crucified and resurrected.) But what sense does it make to say that Abraham was justified before he was circumcised, if indeed all the elect are born robed in the rightousness, even while they remain in Arminianism, conditionalism, and the works of the law?

Once upon a time a promise came to Abraham and be believed it. His believing it was not righteousness. The righteousness of Christ (not yet earned) was the righteousness of faith. Romans 4:11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. Justification is not righteousness. Justification is a legal declaration when righteousness is imputed. Without Gill or Plato, Romans 4 is clear about imputation by God being in time.

Romans 4:13 For the promise did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. Read the paragraph following...

II Peter 1:1 to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savour Jesus Christ


ibp

[Brandan Kraft]

Justification is not just a declaration. It is a real accounting of one as righteous, and that is in Christ from eternity. If we are talking about declaration of righteousness, then yes, I agree that comes at the time of faith to each and every individual. Concerning Romans 4, that is talking about the experience of the elect. He experieced justification by faith alone. But that is not at all talking about God's view of Abraham!

[jmgipson]

We are not dealing with what can or could happen, but rather with what the Bible says does happen. Romans 4 says that Abraham was justified before he was circumcised. (The bigger point is that Abraham is the father of all who believe the gospel, and the even bigger point is that the gospel is Christ crucified and resurrected.) But what sense does it make to say that Abraham was justified before he was circumcised, if indeed all the elect are born robed in the rightousness, even while they remain in Arminianism, conditionalism, and the works of the law?

Once upon a time a promise came to Abraham and be believed it. His believing it was not righteousness. The righteousness of Christ (not yet earned) was the righteousness of faith. Romans 4:11 He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. Justification is not righteousness. Justification is a legal declaration when righteousness is imputed. Without Gill or Plato, Romans 4 is clear about imputation by God being in time.

Romans 4:13 For the promise did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. Read the paragraph following...

II Peter 1:1 to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savour Jesus Christ


ibp

By your statement we are not dealing with what can or cannot happen. So by your statement there is not yet a righteousness to impute. Abes out of luck.

John

[Righteous by Faith]

you will notice that none of my questions about Romans 4 got answered. He asked a question, and I answered it. I asked a question, and he jumps to the profile. No need. Look at my posts. I believe that those who rely on the works of the law are under the curse. I can and perhaps deal with all of these metphsical speculations about God not being present in time. But I want to stick with Galatians 3:10. Are you saying that you never relied on works of the law? If you ever did, then Galatians says that you were under the curse. Now, you can try to avoid answering that by saying this means that I think that curse means so and so. But stick with "curse of the law". Were you ever under the law? How could you be, if you were born with that perfect robe of righteousness?

We became dead to the law by the body of Christ. Romans 7:4. This does not mean that we became dead to the law when Christ became dead to the law. We have to be baptised by God into that death. Baptised into the death is not water, is not what man does. Baptised into the death is what God does. When were the elect united to the death of Christ? That is the question. Romans 6:17 you were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the mind to the standard of doctrine ....having been justified from sin, have become slaves of righteousness...

God is the imputer. The elect were never goats, but they were under the law and after imputation are free from the law, justified. Romans 6:7 One who has died has been justified from the law.

[Righteous by Faith]

Justification is not just a declaration. It is a real accounting of one as righteous,

rbf: We need to define terms, not simply repeat soundbites. What does real mean. Fortner thinks it means impart or infuse. We agree that it does not. There is nothing more "real" than the legal accounting, reckoning, declaring of God, that a person is no longer under the law and no longer under the curse.
Think of marriage. If you say to your girl, the sex is real and what need is there for legal stuff, you are wrong. Real marriage is legal marriage. See Romans 5:19 by the one man's obedience the many will be made righeous.
This means that there has been a legal transfer of Christ's work (finished in His death and resurrection) to the one baptised into that work.

I think we disagree about many things, but this is not one of there. Nothing mere about it. Legal is real. Accounting is real.

Romans 7:5 (after the marriage illustration) For while we were living in the flesh, our works of the law, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. But now we are released from the law...

Or are you saying that you were never bearing fruit for death, that despite your experience and knowledge, you were born bearing fruit for God?

and that is in Christ from eternity. If we are talking about declaration of righteousness, then yes, I agree that comes at the time of faith to each and every individual. Concerning Romans 4, that is talking about the experience of the elect.

rbf:that is the thing which you need to prove. As a latecomer, you can refer me to the posts where you have proved it. Or do you have footnotes in your bible which tell us what to read above: as in, works of the law means experience of works of the law, and curse means experience of the curse, but not really....

He experieced justification by faith alone. But that is not at all talking about God's view of Abraham![/quote]

rbf: so the seal given to Abraham was not given by God but by Abraham?
And Romans 4:6 about David is not about God counting righteousness to David, but only about David singing about it? And Romans 4:17 is not about God giving life to the dead but only about people who thought they were dead finding out that they were never dead but only thought so....?

[Brandan Kraft]

you will notice that none of my questions about Romans 4 got answered. He asked a question, and I answered it. I asked a question, and he jumps to the profile. No need. Look at my posts.

Look, are you going to whine about me, or are you going to suck it up like a man and answer my questions? Blah blah blah blah. Are you here for serious discussion, or do you have an agenda to promote?

I believe that those who rely on the works of the law are under the curse.

I agree. But what do you mean by "curse?" Do you think it means they are cursed to hell, even the elect?

I can and perhaps deal with all of these metphsical speculations about God not being present in time.

I didn't say He wasn't present in time. I'm saying that He doesn't RESIDE in time as time is something that He created. Tell me, where does time come from. If you believe God is a timely individual, than you and I cannot be united in doctrine. And know this is not a mystical understanding as it's derived from scripture and has been plainly revealed to all who would bother to investigate this issue.

But I want to stick with Galatians 3:10.

OK, good, we'll stick with Galatians. You're not going to hop around on me now, are you?

Are you saying that you never relied on works of the law?

No.

If you ever did, then Galatians says that you were under the curse.

Yessir, I sure was. All men are cursed with a covenant of works.

Now, you can try to avoid answering that by saying this means that I think that curse means so and so. But stick with "curse of the law". Were you ever under the law? How could you be, if you were born with that perfect robe of righteousness?

The curse of the law does not mean that God hated the elect! The curse was GIVEN to drive His elect to them, so that they could see the robes of righteousness that had alrady been given to them in Christ. You cannot comprehend this because you hold to an unbiblical understanding of eternity and are for all intents and purposes an infralapsarian. You should update your profile accordingly.

We became dead to the law by the body of Christ. Romans 7:4. This does not mean that we became dead to the law when Christ became dead to the law.

As far as God was concerned, God's people died to the law by the body of Christ (Rom 7:4). When Christ died, as far as the law of God is concerned, the Christian is dead as well. The law can make no demands or requirements upon the Christian. The only thing it brings is misery to the Christian who would ignorantly place himself under it as it is a curse.

We have to be baptised by God into that death. Baptised into the death is not water, is not what man does. Baptised into the death is what God does. When were the elect united to the death of Christ?

Well the elect were first united to Christ in the mind of God in eternity. It is in His earthly work in time that the elect look to for their salvation, and thus their union to Him.

That is the question. Romans 6:17 you were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the mind to the standard of doctrine ....having been justified from sin, have become slaves of righteousness...

You see only one aspect of justification, and stumble all over yourself because of it. Men are justified by faith, but that justification is only a declaration to the individual of what has already been accomplished for them in Christ. It is reckoned to them as righteousness. But a true imputation is an eternal and immanent act of God. God does not live in time as you would suggest, and if you believe he does, then there can be no further dialogue as we will be talking about two different things.

Regards,
Brandan

[Brandan Kraft]

rbf: so the seal given to Abraham was not given by God but by Abraham?

NO!

And Romans 4:6 about David is not about God counting righteousness to David, but only about David singing about it? And Romans 4:17 is not about God giving life to the dead but only about people who thought they were dead finding out that they were never dead but only thought so....?

Rom 4:6-7, (GILL)
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man,.... the apostle having instanced in Abraham, the father of the Jewish nation, cites some passages from David, king of Israel, a person of great note and esteem among the Jews, in favour of the doctrine he is establishing; who in a very proper and lively manner describes the happiness of such persons:

unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works. This righteousness cannot be the righteousness of the law, or man's obedience to it; for that is a righteousness with works, is a man's own, and not imputed; and indeed is not a righteousness in the sight of God: nor does man's blessedness lie in, or come by it; no man is, or can be instilled by it, nor saved by it, or attain to heaven and eternal happiness by the means of it; but the righteousness here spoken of is the righteousness of Christ, called the righteousness of God; and is better than that of angels or men; is complete and perfect; by which the law is honoured, and justice is satisfied. This is freely bestowed, and graciously "imputed" by God. Just in the same way his righteousness becomes ours, as Adam's sin did, which is by imputation; or in the same way that our sins became Christ's, his righteousness becomes ours; and as we have no righteousness of our own when God justifies us, this must be done by the righteousness of another; and that can be done no other way by the righteousness of another, than by imputing it to us: and which is done "without works"; not without the works of Christ, of which this righteousness consists; but without the works of the creature, or any consideration of them, which are utterly excluded from justification; for if these came into account, it would not be of grace, and boasting would not be removed. Now such who have this righteousness thus imputed to them, are happy persons; they are justified from all sin, and freed from all condemnation; their persons and services are acceptable to God; it will be always well with them; they are heirs of glory, and shall enjoy it.

7 Saying, blessed are they,.... These words are cited from Ps 32:1, and contain the proof of the happiness of justified persons. In this citation the singular number is changed into the plural, to take in all sorts of men, Jews and Gentiles, and very agreeably to the sense of the original; for the word yrva may be rendered "blessed are they", or, "O the blessednesses"; that is, of everyone of them,


whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered: such whom God justifies by imputing the righteousness of his Son to them, he removes their iniquities from them, which is meant by their being "forgiven", and that "as far as the east is from the west", Ps 103:12; he casts them behind his back, Isa 38:17, and into the depths of the sea, Mic 7:19, so that they shall never be found more: such whom he clothes with the robe of righteousness, and garments of salvation, Isa 61:10, "their sins are covered"; from the eye of divine justice, and shall never be seen more, or be brought against them to their condemnation, and therefore must be happy persons. The [e] Jews tell us, that "on the day of atonement Satan comes to accuse Israel, and he particularizes their sins, and the holy blessed God he particularizes their good works, and takes a pair of balances, and puts their sins against their good works, and weighs the one against the other; and when the two scales of the balances are alike, Satan goes to bring in other sins to overweigh; what does the holy blessed God do? he takes the sins out of the scale, and hides them wlv yryprwp txt, "under his purple garment"; and when Satan comes and finds no iniquity there, as it is said "the iniquity of Israel shall be sought for, and there shall be none", Jer 50:20; and when Satan sees this, he says before him, Lord of the world, "thou hast taken away the iniquity of thy people, thou hast covered all their sin", Ps 85:2. Selah.'' The purple garment they explain by wlv Mymxr lv vwblm, "his garment of mercy"; which is true of the mercy of God covering the sins of his people, through the purple blood of his Son; which is the purple covering of Christ, So 3:10, under which the saints go safe to glory, and by which blood their crimson and scarlet sins are blotted out, so as never to be seen more. [e] Caphtor, fol. 59. 1, 2.

[jmgipson]

I would even add verse 8 in there Brandan: Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. He did not impute and then unimpute. He decided in eternity not to impute my sin to me but to the captain of my salvation.
John

[Brandan Kraft]

I would even add verse 8 in there Brandan: Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. He did not impute and then unimpute. He decided in eternity not to impute my sin to me but to the captain of my salvation.
John

Amen John!

[Brandan Kraft]

Those who suggest that God's view of His elect change are saying that God changes. Period. There can be no change in God, and to suggest that God viewed His elect as unrighteous and then later in time sees His elect as righteous because of any condition met have totally destroyed the concept of God. God changes men, but He Himself does not change. This is something that I will always trumpet, and I challenge men who would prick against this to prove otherwise. They cannot, and they will not. They will promote their vain speculations and attempt to change the topic. Don't be persuaded by their perverse philosophies that are not at all rooted in Scripture. They can and will twist the Scriptures and stand upon on isolated exegeses. But they cannot harmonize their strange doctrines with the complete revelation of God.

[Righteous by Faith]

Look, are you going to whine about me, or are you going to suck it up like a man and answer my questions? Blah blah blah blah. Are you here for serious discussion, or do you have an agenda to promote?

gbf: my agenda is serious. 1. it is to get you to see that there are
more views than you now know. You think in terms of general justification in eternity, or general justification at the cross, or a justification conditioned on faith. But there is a fourth view, in which imputation is before faith, but the elect are imputed by God with righteousness right before they are called. 2. So it would be a success for me if you at least understand what this view is, and did not lump it in with faith being a condition. Then my agenda would be to get you to read Romans 4, not merely in terms of Gill's agenda...

I agree. But what do you mean by "curse?" Do you think it means they are cursed to hell, even the elect?

rbf: trying to find jargon that you would recognise, who about Gill's "law-enmity". Before and after, under law and not under law. According to Romans 1, God's wrath is being revealed, not simply will be. Now those who are not yet justified are still under the wrath. One visible way we can see this is that they do not know and love the gospel. It is not knowing and loving the gospel which is the rightousness, but anybody who is justified does know and love the gospel. Is that begging the question?
You do that every time you assume that election in Christ before creation means justification in Christ before creation.

I am a supralapsarian, but Gill rejected supralapsarainism because he had no room for a before and after in history. But Romans 6 and Galatians 3 and Philippians teach such a before and after.

I didn't say He wasn't present in time. I'm saying that He doesn't RESIDE in time as time is something that He created. Tell me, where does time come from. If you believe God is a timely individual, than you and I cannot be united in doctrine.

rbf: I do think we will have to help you unlearn what Plato and Augustine (baptismal regeneration) and Gordon Clark (speaking peace to Arminians) what had to say about time. But we can't do everything at once. It is my impression that your apriori notions about what God can do are more important to you than these texts, which you reduce down to human experience.

Hebrews teaches that the Lord Jesus learned obedience, which is not to say that He was ever disobedient. I cor 15:45 says that the last Adam became the life-giving spirit. I hope you agree that Jesus was and is God, and that He remained God even though now incarnate. God's redemptive actions in history are temporally successive. I could refer you to the discussion in supralapsarian Reymond's systematic. But let me say this:
God accomplished His purposes in the fullness of time. God has decreed that all the blessings of salvation will be given to all those in eternal union with Christ. But not all those blessings have yet been given.

God is not ignorant of time but rather is sovereign over time. For example, there is not only one covenant, but two ages, two covenants. This doesn't mean that God changed God's mind, but that it was always God's purpose to have these ages, these covenants.

II Cor 6:2 now is the time of God's favor, now is the day of salvation. Suffering now will be followed later by glory. I Peter 1:3-7 All events are God working IN HISTORY. The sequence is foreordained by God's decree But God brings the decree to pass in time. Even before the incarnation, God was not only there but here, not only then but now

[jmgipson]

According to Romans 1, God's wrath is being revealed, not simply will be. Now those who are not yet justified are still under the wrath.

Which would be the reprobate.

1 Thess 5:9
9 For God hath not appointed us to wrath , but to obtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, KJV

Hmmm. Did He decide this when we believed. I think not. The elect were never appointed to wrath. So there will never be a not yet. It is a done deal.

[Brandan Kraft]

gbf: my agenda is serious. 1. it is to get you to see that there are



more views than you now know. You think in terms of general justification in eternity, or general justification at the cross, or a justification conditioned on faith. But there is a fourth view, in which imputation is before faith, but the elect are imputed by God with righteousness right before they are called. 2. So it would be a success for me if you at least understand what this view is, and did not lump it in with faith being a condition. Then my agenda would be to get you to read Romans 4, not merely in terms of Gill's agenda...

Well this is in direct violation of our posting policies.... As stated in our FAQ

Further, one may not attempt to publicly or privately (pm system) convert someone to his position. Persuasive techniques will not be effective against those who are grounded in predestinarian doctrine and they will be seen as a distraction and nuisance.

Further, I'm completely aware of your position. It is the position of Marc Carpenter and Andrew C. Bain.

Hebrews teaches that the Lord Jesus learned obedience, which is not to say that He was ever disobedient. I cor 15:45 says that the last Adam became the life-giving spirit. I hope you agree that Jesus was and is God, and that He remained God even though now incarnate. God's redemptive actions in history are temporally successive. I could refer you to the discussion in supralapsarian Reymond's systematic. But let me say this: God accomplished His purposes in the fullness of time. God has decreed that all the blessings of salvation will be given to all those in eternal union with Christ. But not all those blessings have yet been given.

They have all been given in Christ, just not yet experienced.

God is not ignorant of time but rather is sovereign over time. For example, there is not only one covenant, but two ages, two covenants. This doesn't mean that God changed God's mind, but that it was always God's purpose to have these ages, these covenants.

I don't recall denying this.

II Cor 6:2 now is the time of God's favor, now is the day of salvation. Suffering now will be followed later by glory. I Peter 1:3-7 All events are God working IN HISTORY. The sequence is foreordained by God's decree But God brings the decree to pass in time. Even before the incarnation, God was not only there but here, not only then but now

I agree. But you have failed to show to me that imputation is an event. If imputation is something that God does in time, please tell me where it takes place. Where are the accounts of men? You say that God owns them, but where?

[Righteous by Faith]

You cannot comprehend this because you hold to an unbiblical understanding of eternity and are for all intents and purposes an infralapsarian. You should update your profile accordingly.

rbf: we need to define terms. You don't even know that Gill rejected supralapsarianism because of his view of timelessness. You seem to know that Clark was supra and believed in timelessness. But there is no way that you can that separating the accomplishment of righteousness and the imputing of righteousness says anything about order and sequence in the decree. Gill denies sequence in the decree. I teach this order

1. the election of some sinners to salvation in Christ (and the non-election of the rest of sinners)

2. to apply Christ's redemption/reconciliation/righteousness to the elect sinners

3. to redeem the elect sinners by the cross work of Christ

4 that humans should become sinners, beginning with Adam

5 that the world and humans should be created

in other words, just plain old supralapsarianism: begin with the end and go back to the beginning.

now where in my posts, do I deviate from this. You remind of Phil Johnson: make one statement with which he disagrees, and then he thinks he knows all of what you believe and where you will disagree. Be patient, there's time if this is helpful, and if not, who cares

my prooftext for sequence in decree: Ephesians 3:9-11 redemption is the purpose of creation, not plan b

[jmgipson]

rbf: we need to define terms. You don't even know that Gill rejected supralapsarianism because of his view of timelessness. You seem to know that Clark was supra and believed in timelessness. But there is no way that you can that separating the accomplishment of righteousness and the imputing of righteousness says anything about order and sequence in the decree. Gill denies sequence in the decree. I teach this order

1. the election of some sinners to salvation in Christ (and the non-election of the rest of sinners)

2. to apply Christ's redemption/reconciliation/righteousness to the elect sinners

3. to redeem the elect sinners by the cross work of Christ

4 that humans should become sinners, beginning with Adam

5 that the world and humans should be created

in other words, just plain old supralapsarianism: begin with the end and go back to the beginning.

now where in my posts, do I deviate from this. You remind of Phil Johnson: make one statement with which he disagrees, and then he thinks he knows all of what you believe and where you will disagree. Be patient, there's time if this is helpful, and if not, who cares

my prooftext for sequence in decree: Ephesians 3:9-11 redemption is the purpose of creation, not plan b

This is Infra not supra. God Loves and hates out of Mankind unfallen. Romans 9 is very clear on this.

It is more like this:

God decreed that he would glorify himself by the atoning work of Christ.


To accomplish this, he decreed that he would manifest his mercy by redeeming those whom he has chosen for salvation, and to manifest his wrath by condemning those whom he has chosen for damnation (Romans 9:10-24).


To accomplish this, he decreed that all human beings would become sinners, so that he may convert the chosen ones for salvation, and condemn the rest as reprobates.


To accomplish this, he decreed that Adam would be the representative of all human beings, and that Adam would bring about the fall of mankind by his disobedience.


Then, upon Adam's disobedience, God began to execute his plan, and decreed that humanity would be divided into two groups, that is, the elect and the reprobates (Genesis3:15). Since then, the two groups have been in constant conflict. (This is the enmity God put between the two seeds.)

[Brandan Kraft]

Gill denies sequence in the decree.

I do too as did Gordon Clark! There was not a timely sequence in the decree of God. There was only a logical sequence. There are not multiple decrees of God. Just one - from eternity. And from that single decree all comes into existance.

1. the election of some sinners to salvation in Christ (and the non-election of the rest of sinners)

2. to apply Christ's redemption/reconciliation/righteousness to the elect sinners

3. to redeem the elect sinners by the cross work of Christ

You are teaching that salvation isn't accomplished until it's applied. This is fullerism. In 2, if you intended the benefits of redemption, we wouldn't have a problem. But God's view of the elect is not based on what happens in 2 as you would have us to think.

[Brandan Kraft]

This is Infra not supra. God Loves and hates out of Mankind unfallen.

Actually, that was a very good ordering of the decrees in line with supralapsarianism by rbf, and I don't think rbf is infra. I'm almost certain he would say that God loved the unfallen elect and hated the unfallen reprobate, but later hates the elect in time. That is the position of Carpenter based on my correspondence with him.

[jmgipson]

Actually, that was a very good ordering of the decrees in line with supralapsarianism by rbf, and I don't think rbf is infra. I'm almost certain he would say that God loved the unfallen elect and hated the unfallen reprobate, but later hates the elect in time. That is the position of Carpenter based on my correspondence with him.

Brandan,
The supra that I am accustomed to does not have men fallen in God's election. This falls in-line with the thinking of passing over the rest which I understand as infra.

John

[Righteous by Faith]

But you have failed to show to me that imputation is an event. If imputation is something that God does in time, please tell me where it takes place. Where are the accounts of men? You say that God owns them, but where?

rbf: I would not presume to speak for Carpenter and Andrew Bain, but I do think we agree on justification. As I do with Anthony lawson and Scott Pprice, and with Bill Parker's old position (before he converted to "at the cross" without ever telling his congregation about it). But I dare not speak for any of these gentleman. Since you know about this view, it would be helpful for you to acknowledge it when you are talking about views. There is a difference between disagreeing with Scott Price and not understanding him: you know what his view is--imputation in time before faith. I agree. Imputation has real effects. If one is imputed with righteousness, then one no longer will believe a false gospel. But you seem to be saying that you were justified even while you were imputed with that righteousness, so that the righteousness was for a while without effect!
Interesting, I say it is not effective until imputed. You say: imputed long before effective.

To answer again, Justification is before God. God's mind counts, reckons righteousness. God's mind counts, reckons sin. Where there is God's law, God's mind counts sins as sin. Where God credits righteousness, there is no condemnation. Two states. Either or.
I don't see where we disagree about it being God who justifies or who counts or even how God counts. (we both can avoid speculations about things we don't know) The question is: did God ever count Abraham's sins against him? God can and does count. We can agree about that.

Galatians 3:25 the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that the object of faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God through faith...

not faith to become sons, but become sons and thus obtain faith;
not faith to become imputed with righteousness, but imputed with the righteousness that faith receives

Gal 3:27 For as many of you as were baptised into Christ have put on Christ.

God is the baptiser, God is the imputer.

I define this imputing as legal crediting, as lagal declaration.
I now pronounce you man and wife...

faith is not what imputes, faith is not imputed

btw, part of my agenda is to understand your view: so you teach that people who are already justified really do works of the law (not just experience their work as that though it really isn't)? You teach that people who are already justified are under the curse?
If that is so, are people already justified still under the law? What gets them from under law if not righteousness imputed?