It was Not Our Imputing that made Christ Die

Before we jump to the redemptive historical complexity of union and identification with the death (when are the elect in Christ by imputation? 2000 year ago? Before or after faith?), we need to focus on Christ’s death to sin.

Does “Christ’s death to sin” (Romans 6) mean that Christ was unregenerate and then positionally cleansed by the Holy Spirit? God forbid. Does it mean that Christ was carnal but then infused with the divine and became a partaker of the divine nature? Again, God forbid. Does it mean that Christ by being in the environment of the old covenant needed a deliverance from “the flesh” and from the physical body? Once more, God forbid.

What does it mean that Christ died to sin? It means that the law of God demanded death for the sins of the elect imputed to Christ. As long as those sins were imputed to Christ, He was under sin, he was under law, He was under death.

Now death has no more power over Him? Why? Because the sins are no longer imputed to Him, but have been paid for and satisfied. The gospel is not about just about God justifying, but also about God being just and justifier.

Liberals say that it’s not forgiveness if God had to pay for it. Arminians say it’s not justice for God to condemn a person without giving Jesus to die for that person, and that Jesus has done that, so now God can justly condemn those who won’t accept it.

A lot is written about imputation these days. A lot of it‘s Arminian or Lutheran talk of an exchange made by the sinner’s faith. Little is written about the imputation of Adam’s sin, but even less about God’s imputation of sins to Christ. I think at least part of the reason for the silence is that “ministers” don’t want to talk about whose sins are imputed or when they are imputed. (See for instance, the new book by southern baptist Vickers)

This is not the time to think through the timing. (Even when we agree with Owen’s use of impetration, where sins which have been imputed to Christ are still imputed to the elect until their justification, we still have the question if imputation logically immediately precedes or follows faith.)

But if we content ourselves with saying that the sins of “believers” are imputed to Christ, we not only avoid the good news of election but also (by lack of antithesis) contribute to the evangelical consensus that the efficacy of Christ’s death depends on believing.

The gospel tells how believing is the effect of the cross. The gospel tells us which Christ is the object of believing (the Arminian “Christ” is an idol and a lie).

Is God Reconciled by what God did or what the Sinner needs to Do?

One response to my question would be to point out that the Bible does not ever talk about God being reconciled. Period. Since God is timeless, there can be no such thing as before and after with God, no such thing as propitiation, no such thing as a transition from wrath to favor.

I agree that God is the subject of Reconciliation, the one who reconciles. I disagree with Socinians who deny that God is the object of His own Reconciliation.

Let me channel John Murray for a minute. First, Romans 5:17 speaks of “receiving the reconciliation”. Surely, this does not mean overcoming your enmity in order to overcome your enmity! It means to passively receive by imputation what Christ did.

Second, Matthew 5:24 (sermon on the mount) commands “leave your gift there before the altar and first be reconciled to your brother.” So, even though sinners are the objects of reconciliaton, though sinners receive it, this reconciliation is not only the overcoming of the hostility of the elect, but what God has done in Christ to overcome God’s own judicial hostility to elect sinners.

Do You impute Your Sins to Christ, Or Did God Already Impute the Sins of the Elect?

Many “Reformed” folks talk about the objectivity and justice of the cross.. But then they continue to make ultimate salvation depend on “appropriation” done by the sinner.

Even if you say that grace has to overcome the bondage of your will to “take it” (the word appropriate sounds like “steal” to me, but Sproul uses it so it must be ok: it means go get it with your empty hands), there are two problems with leaving out the idea that God already did or didn’t impute a person’s sins to Christ.

One, there is no notion here that Christ’s death purchased the work of the Spirit and faith for the elect. Even if God by grace gives the faith, if you leave out of your gospel God’s imputation, if you disconnect the death from election, that faith you talk about God giving is not a result of Christ’s work, even though the Bible teaches that it is (I Peter 1:21;II Peter 1:1; Eph 4:7-8; Phil 1:29).

Two, there can be no notion of a penalty for specific sins imputed, and therefore those Calvinists who teach a governmental view of the atonement (Andrew Fuller, Richard Baxter) end up with a propitiation that does not propitiate, a ransom that does not redeem, and a reconciliation that does not reconcile.

The Calvinists who “offer” an universal objective atonement cannot talk about God’s imputation of the guilt of the elect to Christ. They cannot even talk about God’s imputation of the elect’s penalty to Christ. They can only think of the cross as one “means of grace” people can use to get God’s wrath averted.

Sinners become the deciders, whenever you leave out the good news that God is the imputer and that God has already imputed the sins of the sheep to the Shepherd (and not the sins of the goats ).