Does God Ever Impute Sin to the Elect in Christ?

[Robert R. Higby]

I do not believe that some of these later RCC statements can be harmonized with the Council of Orange:

CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom. 5:12).

Clearly, the fact that one is conceived in personal iniquity (in addition to physical death) is the result of imputed guilt in Adam.

Of course, RCC is split between the Augustinian and Semi-Pelagian camps--as is Protestantism. At least we should be clear on what the Augustinian position is.

[gerhard]

In a 1986 address, Pope John Paul II tried to reconcile the Council of Trent with the recent RCC Catechism. However, he did not address differences between the Council of Orange and the RCC Catechism. See http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19861001en.html#tocA1

The Tridentine decree contains another statement: Adam's sin is transmitted to all his descendants by generation and not merely by way of bad example. The decree states: \"This sin of Adam, which by origin is unique and transmitted by generation and not by way of imitation, is present in all as proper to each\" (DS 1513).
Therefore original sin is transmitted by way of natural generation. This conviction of the Church is indicated also by the practice of infant baptism, to which the conciliar decree refers. Newborn infants are incapable of committing personal sin, yet in accordance with the Church's centuries-old tradition, they are baptized shortly after birth for the remission of sin. The decree states: \"They are truly baptized for the remission of sin, so that what they contracted in generation may be cleansed by regeneration\" (DS 1514). . .
In this context it is evident that original sin in Adam's descendants does not have the character of personal guilt. It is the privation of sanctifying grace in a nature which has been diverted from its supernatural end through the fault of the first parents.

[gerhard]

The RCC's shift from Augustinianism to Semi-Pelagianism has had a far reaching effect on its sacramental theology which the RCC refuses to acknowledge. If original sin is only sin in an analogical sense, then no real sins are ever remitted in infant baptism. Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16 can no longer be used to defend infant baptism because no real sins are ever washed away in infant baptism. The Nicene Creed must be changed to "acknowledge one baptism for the remission of the analogical sins of children and the real sins of adults." The doctrine of Infant Baptismal Regeneration must be abandoned also. How can infants be regenerated in baptism when they were never degenerate to begin with? The RCC infant baptism is now very similar to the Baptist's adult baptism (i.e., a great symbol with little or no real meaning). No wonder more and more RCC couples are deferring child baptism to the age of RCC accountability.

[Robert R. Higby]

Well, needless to say, my rejection of the sacramental interpretation of Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16 has nothing whatsoever to do with the Augustinian vs. Semi-Pelagian debate. This is something we have gone over many times here!

[Ugly_Gaunt_Cow]

I answered "yes" to the first option.

I don't see how our sins could have been imputed to Christ unless it was first imputed to us, or in other words "substitutionary atonement".

Rom 5:19, (NASB), For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

2 Cor 5:21, (NASB), He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Heb 2:17, (NASB), Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

1 Pet 3:18, (NASB), For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;

Heb 1:3, (NASB), And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

This list goes on...

[gerhard]

Well, needless to say, my rejection of the sacramental interpretation of Acts 2:38 and Acts 22:16 has nothing whatsoever to do with the Augustinian vs. Semi-Pelagian debate. This is something we have gone over many times here!

I know you're not an Augustinian or a Semi-Pelagian. And I don't want to get into an off-topic sacramental discussion. However, baptism is, at least historically, very pertinent to the non-imputation of sin to the Elect (Nicene Creed). A fifth option might be, "Yes, God imputes all the personal sins of the Elect to them until they are baptized unto Christ."

In the Nicene Creed, RCC, EO, Lutherans, Calvinists, etc. all confess that baptism remits the sins of the Elect (whether they believe it or not is another matter!). But, how can the sins of the Elect be remitted if they have no sin?

Semi-Pelagian RCC and EO will continue to baptize their infants because they value tradition above doctrine. Augustinian Lutherans and Calvinists will continue infant baptism. Their babies are sinful. However, Semi-Pelagian Protestants will eventually discontinue infant baptism. Doctrine will trump tradition.

Of the four options presented, I have eliminated option 3: "Yes, God imputes all of the personal sins of the Elect to them unless and until they repent." Option 3 implies that some of the Elect may never repent of their personal sins. Eternally personally sinful, unrepentant, elect persons would be an oxymoron.

[Robert R. Higby]

Gerhard: In the Nicene Creed, RCC, EO, Lutherans, Calvinists, etc. all confess that baptism remits the sins of the Elect (whether they believe it or not is another matter!).

I think that I am expressing the views of all P-Net facilitators here. We can only affirm 'one baptism for the remission of sins' if it is referring to Holy Spirit union with Christ (as affirmed in all 4 gospels as the 'greater and more perfect' baptism than John's) and not a water application supported by church power.

Even so, the 'for' the remission of sins is 'unto' the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) and refers to a personal enlightenment regarding the ESTABLISHED FACT TRANSCENDENT OF TIME AND SPACE of the justification of all the elect. The first rejoicing of a particular elect believer that he/she is included is in view, NOT an historical moment that remission of sins started where it did not exist before.

[GraceAmbassador]

Of the four options presented, I have eliminated option 3: "Yes, God imputes all of the personal sins of the Elect to them unless and until they repent." Option 3 implies that some of the Elect may never repent of their personal sins. Eternally personally sinful, unrepentant, elect persons would be an oxymoron.

Good observation!

I think the word "unless" and the word "until" should be replaced by "when", as in "when they repent" because that implies a surety that they will eventually repent. The ELECT does repent because Grace is irresistible and the Calling is effectual.

Milt

[Robert R. Higby]

I will be happy to drop the word 'unless' from the poll. I still deny option #3 after removing it (see the poll now), of course, because this would imply that God imputes justness to the elect only at the moment of repentance going forward.

[Brandan Kraft]

I answered "yes" to the first option.

I don't see how our sins could have been imputed to Christ unless it was first imputed to us, or in other words "substitutionary atonement".

Rom 5:19, (NASB), For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

2 Cor 5:21, (NASB), He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Heb 2:17, (NASB), Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

1 Pet 3:18, (NASB), For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;

Heb 1:3, (NASB), And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,

This list goes on...

Scott, if the Lord imputed sin to the elect before the cross, how do you explain OT saints?

[Ugly_Gaunt_Cow]

Scott, if the Lord imputed sin to the elect before the cross, how do you explain OT saints?

I didn't think that was the nature of the question being presented in the poll. Maybe I'm wrong? I'm assuming the questions were asked in the sense of post-incarnate Christ dealing with a New Covenant community - or, that's how it reads to me based on the other questions. Regardless, "if the Lord imputed sin to the elect before the cross, how do you explain OT saints?" is the wrong question.

I would ask HOW were the OT Saints justified, and state the OT saints were justified by faith in Christ, and the sacrifices of the Mosaic economy were a prefigure of that. As the Lord's tables helps us to remember and to hope in the covenant of redemption/grace, so did the sacrifices required by the law.

If God did not imputed sin to the elect, "pre" or "post" Calvary, then why the need for "blood-letting" atonement at all?

[Robert R. Higby]

Scott: If God did not imputed sin to the elect, "pre" or "post" Calvary, then why the need for "blood-letting" atonement at all?

God certainly recognizes the sinful state of all elect humans "pre" and "post" Calvary and that this state is deserving of wrath. He is the one who determined to plunge them into this state in preparation for dispensing His everlasting Grace to them in the New Covenant. But He does not reckon or credit this state to them in His presence. He was/is in Christ not reckoning their trespasses to them--both within time and transcendent of time. This imputation is simply not declared within time to specific individuals until faith is given. It was ratified/sealed within time before the bar of God's justice for all the elect corporately in the obedience of Christ unto death.

[Ugly_Gaunt_Cow]

Scott: If God did not imputed sin to the elect, "pre" or "post" Calvary, then why the need for "blood-letting" atonement at all?

God certainly recognizes the sinful state of all elect humans "pre" and "post" Calvary and that this state is deserving of wrath. He is the one who determined to plunge them into this state in preparation for dispensing His everlasting Grace to them in the New Covenant. But He does not reckon or credit this state to them in His presence. He was/is in Christ not reckoning their trespasses to them--both within time and transcendent of time. This imputation is simply not declared within time to specific individuals until faith is given. It was ratified/sealed within time before the bar of God's justice for all the elect corporately in the obedience of Christ unto death.

Well, put Brother. I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Brandan Kraft]

Well, put Brother. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Scott, I don't understand. What Bob said was absolutely correct, and you say you agree with him, yet you voted differently in the poll. Do you want to change your vote? Do you believe God RECKONED or IMPUTED the sins of the elect AGAINST the elect before the cross? Thanks.

[gerhard]

The best answer is the eternal non-imputation of sin to the Elect (2 Tim. 1:9). The imputation of sin prior to Christ's death and resurrection applies to all men, not specifically to Elect men. The imputation of sin prior to regeneration and repentance applies to all unbelievers, not specifically to Elect unbelievers.

[GraceAmbassador]

Note in the scripture given that "the purpose and Grace of God" was GRANTED US in Christ Jesus for all eternity.

I am reminded of our explanation (and Gill's) here many times (in terms of God's predisposition and immutability) that "what God purposed in His heart, is the same as accomplished in his heart". Why would God purpose something He was not willing to, or incapable of accomplishing? If Jesus Christ was the means by which His purpose and Grace was granted to us from eternity, and Jesus is eternal, why then is so far fetched to believe that it is a completed fact that we have, thus, received Grace in eternity and later received the knowledge of this Grace? Paul is teaching that the knowledge of such things is now revealed since the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ. Paul also states that this is exactly what he was called to preach! (verses 10-11). Also, notice how Paul freely uses terms such as "eternity" and "now" here as he does in Ephesians 2, adding terms such as "times past" and "ages to come" without any fear of being confronted concerning "when this happened, or when that took place, etc."

It is no wonder that Paul claims that "for this reason I suffer..." when the modifier of "for this reason I suffer" is his calling to preach EXACTLY the message of the Gospel which included the truths in verse 9!

Imagine if preachers would PREACH today what Paul was called to preach: The purpose and Grace of God was granted to us in Jesus Christ from eternity! I think the controversy about this issue would be over!

Thanks!
Milt

[gerhard]

The grace of God granted to the Elect from eternity is a much neglected doctrine. Preachers emphasize the grace of God granted to men in the Atonement, Justification by Faith Alone, Gospel Preaching, Baptism, and the Lord's Supper. These graces of God all have specific dates in the church calendar (Good Friday, Easter Sunday, Reformation Day, Pentecost, Christ's Baptism, Maudy Thursday). What's lacking is an Election Day festival. What would be an appropriate day to celebrate the grace of God that is without beginning or end?

[GraceAmbassador]

what a great idea and a great question!

[Highlyfavored]

How about every day?

[GraceAmbassador]

that would be super!

We could divulge our beliefs by having an Election day Celebration every time the USA has a political election. We can preach to whatever audience we have that we celebrate that "my election is sure" and that we were not chosen by men, and that it is ETERNAL and that there will be no need for "recounting" on that one! Plus, our MANDATE and PRIESTLY OFFICE will be FOREVER!

Milt