Legally Sharing in Another’s Person’s Action

Romans 4:24-25 “IT will be counted to us who believe in Him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised up for our justification.”

Romans 8:32 “He who did not spare His own Son but delivered him up for us all, how will He not also WITH HIM graciously give us all things?”

1. Christ and His death are the IT. Faith is not the IT. Christ and His death are the object of faith. But Christ and His death are the IT credited by God.

2. We can distinguish but never separate His person and work. Also we can distinguish but never separate his death and his resurrection (and also the life of obedience before His death).

3. Though this sounds difficult, we are saying that God counts according to truth. God counts righteousness as righteousness! a. The righteousness counted as righteousness is not our righteousness (not our works of faith) but legally “transferred” to us when Christ marries us, so that what is His is still His but now ours also. b. Justification is not only the righteousness, but the righteousness imputed to the elect.

4. Imputation means two different things. One, the transfer, the legal sharing of what belongs to another. Two, the declaration. God is justified, declared to be just, without transfer. God is counted as just because God is just.

Some folks relate Romans 5:13-14 to infants, but I think it’s about the Mosaic law. Until the Mosaic covenant, there are no commands like Adam had commands. This means that a.. the Mosaic covenant leads to death. b. Most importantly for the context, this means that God is NOT counting the sins in between against them.

So why are the people between Adam and Moses dying? They are dying because of Adam’s sin imputed to them (verse 12). They are legally sharing in the guilt (not only the punishment of) Adam’s first act of sin. No sins of their own counted: no matter, Adam’s sin is counted against them.

The elect have been born guilty, condemned, not justified. They are unrighteous ( prior to justification). Therefore, the crediting of Christ’s righteousness to them must be done if God is to save them. God saves them, by crediting them with Christ’s righteousness

This righteousness by which the elect reign and which leads to life is not what God works in us, but imputed. Like they once legally shared in Adam’s act of sin, now the justified elect legally share in Christ’s one act of righteousness.

Guilt to Adam, then corruption. Righteousness to the elect, then regeneration. So many people have that wrong, even people who believe in sovereign predestination. Augustine, for example, thinks of sovereign regeneration as the righteousness.

Even Calvin, on the first Adam side of things, puts corruption before guilt. In other words, Calvin taught a mediate imputation of guilt. First, he said, we got corruption from Adam, and then the guilt.

But we “federalists” say that it would not be just for God to give us corruption from Adam until first God legally gave us Adam’s guilt. If we don’t get the first Adam side right, it will make it hard to understand the Christ (last Adam) side of things.

Romans 5:17 we “receive” the free (for no cause) gift of righteousness, not by our faith, but passively, by God’s imputation. The IT imputed is not our faith, because the righteousness (the death of Christ for the elect) is the IT which is imputed.

Advertisements
Explore posts in the same categories: imputation

Tags: ,

You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.

2 Comments on “Legally Sharing in Another’s Person’s Action”

  1. David Bishop Says:

    “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.” Matthew 5:17-19

    After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said to fulfill the Scripture, “I thirst.” A jar full of the sour wine stood there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a hyssop branch and held it to his mouth. When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. – John 19:28-30

    This is the work that actually saves. This is the work that cannot be added to, completed, finished, or perfected. It would be the height of human arrogance to think this work needs my moral obedience in order to complete it.

    Two men went up to the Temple to pray, Jesus said. Both believed the Lord was God. Both believed their prayers would be heard. Both believed they were of the elect. Nevertheless, only one went home justified. The other wasted his time rambling on about how he had done this and that for the Lord.

  2. markmcculley Says:

    the difference between sharing and transfer
    if there is sharing by transfer, then can be a complete and total switching
    Christ took the guilt of my sins, I now have no guilt for my sins past or future
    (and Christ now also has no guilt for any sins, having expiated by His death for all the sins He bore (not for all sins, not for all sinners)
    But after transfer, there can be a sharing in which both parties still have what is shared
    the righteousness of Christ belongs to us and to Christ
    the merit and the value meaning of the death of Christ still belongs to Christ, and also belongs to us
    saying it’s like a contract, or even saying it is a contract, is not a bad thing (take that Torrance)
    Christ now belongs to us, because God has by imputation made the death of Christ belong to us
    the union guys don’t like that, they say it’s not real and actual
    the union guys say that the death belongs to us, because Christ belongs to us
    but what is their problem in my saying—-Christ belongs to us, because Christ’s death belongs to us?
    their problem is they won’t want transfer but only sharing, they want synergism
    they don’t want only the legal, they always want more than a contract
    (that’s not earnest enough for them–are you serious–enough)
    which is their way of saying—-no contract
    no contract for us, no law for us


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: