The First Command in Romans Tells the Justified to Impute Themselves Dead to Sin

Romans 6:9 “We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. 10 For the death Christ died He died to sin, once for all, but the life He lives he lives to God. 11 So you also must impute yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

The first command in Romans tells Christians to count themselves dead to sin, to “reckon yourselves” dead to sin.

It’s important to not forget that imperative. But it’s even more important to remember that we don’t make the indicative come true by obeying the imperative. The justified elect do not become dead to sin because they count themselves dead to sin. Nor do the justified elect become dead to sin because they are daily dying to sin.

On the contrary, the justified elect are commanded to count themselves dead to sin because Christ has died for them as their representative and substitute. Christs died for the elect so that they ARE dead to sin, as soon as they are legally “baptized into this death”.

There are not two different “deaths to sin”. Christ’s death to sin becomes by imputation the justified elect’s death to sin. It’s one and the same death. It’s Christ death as satisfaction to God’s law. The death to sin of Romans Six is not the regeneration or renewal of the justified sinner.

But there are two different imputations, two different countings. The justified elect impute themselves as dead to sin, declare themselves dead to sin, but their imputing and declaring are not what cause Christ’s death to sin for the elect. Nor is it their counting themselves dead to sin that which transfers righteousness from Christ to them.

It is not their imputing themselves dead to sin which creates an exchange of their sin to Christ. Christ already died for the elect. Christ already did not die for the non-elect.

There are two imputations, one by God’s agency and the second by human agency as a result (not condition) of God’s imputing. For the sake of completeness, we should also remember that God not only credits the sin of the elect to Christ but also credits the death of Christ to the elect. In addition God once credited the sin of Adam to all humans.

And don’t forget the second command in Romans. 6:12–“Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. 13 Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those WHO HAVE BEEN brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.”

Explore posts in the same categories: imputation

Tags: , ,

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

15 Comments on “The First Command in Romans Tells the Justified to Impute Themselves Dead to Sin”

  1. markmcculley Says:

    We don’t count our faith as being dead to sin, but also we can never know we are dead to sin (by God’s imputation) until after we have faith in the gospel. So the command of Romans 6:11 is more a matter of “reflex faith”, the faith we continue to have in the gospel AFTER we are justified. The command to impute ourselves dead to sin cannot be equated simply with the effectual call and our first hearing and believing of the gospel.

  2. Jack Miller Says:

    I think you would like John Stott’s commentary on Romans, especially as regards chapter six.

  3. mark mcculley Says:

    Well, sure I like Stott’s conclusions on Romans 6, but he has no right to them because he fails to teach individual election in the atonement. Therefore he cannot and does not really understand what the “death to sin” was. But you can find better stuff in Haldane and Smeaton.

    Smeaton, The Apostles Doctrine of the Atonement : To understand what is meant by dying with Christ, we need to see the connection between the previous chapter and Romans 6. In Romans 5:12-19 Paul described our standing in Christ, and then he added “where sin abounded, grace much more abounded.” Anticipating the objection that would be made to such a view of God’s grace, Paul says, “Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?” and then he rejects that thought with total abhorrence of the idea.

    But not content with his mere “God forbid” rejection of the thought, he then goes on to prove that this type of perversion of grace could not logically follow for a reason which touches the deep elements of God’s moral government, and makes it totally impossible. Paul argues from a fact-the great objective change of
    relation that comes from dying with Christ.

    We need to ask, then, what Paul means by these expressions that he
    uses, on which he makes his point so strongly (verse 12): “dying with Christ”, “dying to sin”, “buried with Christ”, “crucified with Christ”. One particular verse of Scripture will give us a key to the meaning of the above phrases: For Christ’s love compels us,
    because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all
    died. 2 Corinthians 5:14

    In this passage, Paul uses two expressions interchangeably; that is, “He died for all”, and “all died in Him.” He is describing the same thing from two different points of view. The first of these expressions describes the vicarious death of Christ as an objective fact. The second phrase speaks of the same great transaction, in terms that indicate that we too have done it. So then, we may either say, “Christ died for us”, or “we died in Him.” Both are true. We can equally affirm that He was crucified for us, or we were co-crucified with Him.

    We are not referring here to two acts-one on Christ’s side and another on ours. Rather,we have but one public representative, corporate act performed by the Son of God, in which we share as truly as if we had accomplished the atonement ourselves.

    It is a mistake to not carry Romans 5 into Romans 6. If we carry the thought of the representative character of the two Adams from the one chapter into the other, then the difficulty vanishes.

    All men sinned in the first man’s act of sin; for that public act was representative, and all Adam’s offspring were included in it. From God’s perspective, there have been but two men in the world, with the two families of which they are the heads; there have been just two public representatives.

    The idea of Christ being our Surety and the representation of His atonement as the act of “one for many”, run through this entire section of Romans. But the passage we are studying (Romans 6:1-8) contains one difference as compared with other passages, and that is that here we are described as doing what our representative did.

    Let us notice the expressions used in Romans 6:1-8: It is said that
    “we died to sin (verse 2). As this phrase is misunderstood quite
    frequently, we must discover what it really means. It frequently
    occurs in the writings of Paul in different forms, and it always
    alludes, not to an inward deliverance from sin, but to the Christian’s objective relation. It means that we are legally dead to sin in Jesus Christ.

    This is made very clear by two other expressions occurring in the section. The first of these passages applies the same language to the Lord Himself; for He is said to have died to sin once (verse 10). Now the only sense in which the Sinless One can be regarded as dying to sin, is that of dying to its guilt, or to the condemning power which goes along with sin, and which must run its course wherever sin has been committed. He died to the guilt or criminality of sin when it was laid on Him. He certainly did not die to sins indwelling power.

    The second of these phrases shows that this dying was the meritorious cause of our justification. “He that is dead has been justified from sin” (verse 7). The justification of the Christian is thus based on his co-dying with Christ; that is, we are said to have died when Christ died, and to have done what Christ did. The words undoubtedly mean a co-dying with Christ in that one corporate representative deed; that is, they mean that we were one with Christ in His obedience unto death, just like we were one with Adam in his disobedience.

    Christ’s death to sin belongs to us, and is as much ours as if we had born the penalty ourselves. And the justification by which we are forgiven and accepted has no other foundation. It is noteworthy that Romans 5 describes all this in the third person, whereas Romans 6 describes it in the first person, and from our own share in it.

    Paul also says in this section that our old man is crucified, or
    co-crucified with Him. The entire section of which this is a part is to be regarded not as an exhortation, but as the simple statement of fact; this passage does not set forth anything done by us, but something done on our account, or for our sake, by a Surety, in whose performance we participate.

    It might be asked, “can’t we understand that these statements designate two separate actions, one done by Christ, and a similar or parallel one by us?” NO. The acts are not two, but one, described from two different points of view. There is not one crucifixion on the part of Christ, and a second, parallel and similar but different, crucifixion on the part of His people. There is but one corporate act—the act of “one for many.”

    But what is the old man that is said to be co-crucified with the Lord? Does not this refer to our inward corruption? NO it does not. Such an explanation is untenable, as it would make the expression synonymous with the next clause which is not only bad theology but also inept reasoning. Instead, the first clause is made the condition of the second.

    The old man is crucified in order that the body of sin (sin within us, or the flesh) be destroyed. Now there must be a difference
    between the two clauses, as the former is in order to attain the
    latter. The old man said to be crucified with Christ, is therefore our standing “in Adam”, which is terminated so that we have a new relationship to God in the crucified Surety.

    To summarize, Romans 6:1-5 says we have been crucified with Christ, which tells us that our standing has changed from being “in Adam” (with its curse and condemnation) to being “in Christ” (with all of
    its blessings and benefits).

    The first five verses of Romans 6 are statements of fact, then verse 6 is an exhortation, so a one-sentence summary is, “because we were crucified with Christ, we should no longer be slaves of sin.”

    But to bring even more clarity to the mind of his readers, Paul says we were baptized into His death (verse 3). Christ is presented to us as laden with sin , and satisfying divine justice; and baptism, as a symbolical representation, shows our connection with Him, or rather our participation in that great corporate act which Jesus did on the cross, in the place of all His people.

    The death was the price of the life. The one was the cause, the other was the unfailing reward or consequence. The apostle declares that not only was the death of Christ a substitution in our place, but that the consequences of it being a substitutionary death are that we may be said to have done what He did. And, because of our oneness with Him, we are discharged from sin as a master.

  4. mark mcculley Says:

    John R. W. Stott, Men Made New: An Exposition of Romans 5-8 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1966), 45: “This is the crucifixion of our our ‘old self’. What is this ‘old self’? Is it not the old nature. How can it be if the ‘body of sin’ means the old nature? The two expressions cannot mean the same thing or the verse makes nonsense.

    The ‘old self’ denotes, not our old unregenerate nature, but our old condemned in Adam life—Not the part of myself which is corrupt, but my former self. So what was crucified with Christ was not a part of us called our old nature, but the whole of us as we were before we were converted. This should be plain because in this chapter the phrase ‘our old self was crucified’ (verse 6) is equivalent to ‘we…died to sin (verse 2).”

    mark: The crucifixion of the “old man” refers to a definitive break with the past in Adam and is something God declares to be true of the elect when God justifies them by imputation. The justified sinner is separated legally and positionally from the community of Adam by being placed into the death of Christ to sin.

    Colossians 3:9– “Do not lie to one another since you have put off the old man with its practices 3:10 and have been clothed with the new man that is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of the one who created it. 3:11 Here there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all and in all.” The “new man” in Colossians 3:10 is not something inside an individual.

    In Ephesians 2:15, the Jewish elect and the Gentile elect have been justified and reconciled, and together in Christ they form the “new man” which is a redemptive-historical society in which all have free and equal access to God and are seated with Christ in the heavenlies (2:5-6).

    Romans 6:6 is still thinking of the two humanities (and their heads) as in Romans 5:12-21.15 The “old man,” then, must be who the elect were “in Adam. The “old man” is not a sinful nature, and it’s not our corruption.

  5. markmcculley Says:

    Benjamin Keach, The Marrow of True Justification: The Biblical Doctrine of Justification Without Works, Solid Ground Books, Birmingham, Alabama USA, 2007, p 80—”None have an evangelical righteousness, but those who are justified before they have it. Christ is our legal righteousness by a proper imputation of His righteousness to us, and only then is our evangelical righteousness also.

    “Once we are justified, we need not inquire how a man is justified after he is justified. God has not appointed this personal evangelical righteousness, in order to our Justification before Him. By that righteousness of Christ which is out of us, though imputed to us, the Justice of God is satisfied; therefore all Works done by us, or inherent in us, are excluded in our Justification before God.”

    Paul Helm–Justification is not a mere threshold blessing; something which applies to people at their conversion and not subsequently. It is operative at all times, an, objective, perfect, judicial death of Christ, which is complete that is the ground of Christian assurance. So there is a sense in which the JUSTIFIED SINNER never leaves the law-court in which the judge declares them righteous for Christ’s sake. We need that declaration of forgiveness always to stand, and never to be relegated into something over and done with, or requiring to be supplemented by some other righteousness God now works in us. The one declaration of justification, grounded in Christ’s righteousness, must be enough o carry the believer to the final judgment and to vindicate us there. Once justified, always justified. A justification that requires in addition a faithful life makes no sense and gives no joy.

  6. markmcculley Says:

    Machen—It is not necessary to ask whether justification comes before regeneration or vice versa; in reality they are two aspects of one salvation.

    mark: Well yes, justification and sanctification are two aspects of one salvation. So also is our future glorification (freedom from the presence of sin and putting on immortality) one aspect of one salvation. But to say this does not answer either the priority or the order of application questions. If we are truly “federalists”, then legal imputation (of righteousness or guilt) comes before regeneration or corruption.

    The imputation of Adam’s guilt to us is not based on anything that is in us, but is something legally applied to us by God from the outside and not based on any sinful thought or action on our part. Not all Reformed are agreed on this, but I would argue that “original sin” is defined confessionally in terms of legal representation. (even though there are many “ ontological realists” who are more in the tradition of Jonathan Edwards and Shedd)

    This imputation from Adam to humans, is about God’s legal transfer of the guilt of Adam’s one action, his first sin. The guilt of Adam is “external” to Adam–it’s the value, the demerit of his action, as judged by God, and that guilt is transferred to every human (Christ, the God human, the second Adam, excepted). This guilt is not simply the liability or punishment for sin, but is the sin itself. Christ had to die because Christ bore the sins of the elect.

    1. When Christ “bears sins” or is “made sin”, this does NOT mean that Christ himself ever became corrupt. Christ had no need of regeneration, which is why Romans 6 is not about regeneration, but about legal placing into the death of Christ.

    2. The death of Christ was necessary legally—because the guilt of the elect was imputed by God to Christ, this guilt demanded his death, and his death demanded the remission of this guilt. Justice has been done, and those in Christ legally must in time come to have their guilt forgiven. This is historical good news !

    3. The guilt of the elect imputed by God to Christ is not the same as the guilt of Adam imputed by God to all humans, but the nature of the imputation of guilt is the same in both cases. We must teach an external (judicial) imputation. The most basic solution to all our problems is not a regeneration of our insides (though that is necessary for other reasons, for example, so that we hear and believe the gospel), because the most basic problem we have is that apart from the the death of Christ, God counts everyone’s sins against them.

    4. Emphasis on the external and forensic must have priority when we consider II Corinthians 5:21. “Become the righteousness of God in Christ” is about having an external righteousness imputed to us. Because that is so, the “made sin” of the first part of the verse must be seen as about external guilt being imputed to Christ.

    In other words, if the first part (made sin) is about some “inner corruption”, then 1. that says that Christ needed to be born again. God forbid! but 2. it would say that our righteousness is something found in us, or something in our faith, or something in Christ indwelling us.. The gospel is first of all about LOOKING to Christ outside us..

    This is not denying that regeneration is important, but it’s saying that the miracle of the new birth a result of God’s legal imputation. Romans 8: 3 For God HAS DONE what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh,

  7. markmcculley Says:

    Hugh Martin—-The Shadow of Calvary—he who believes in Jesus though ungodly, and who is counted righteous by God only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to him, is not the less entitled to rejoice in that righteousness, even while it is true that it is not his own; yes, while it is true that he has none of his own; yes, while it is true that he has nothing but sin of his own. He is entitled to rejoice, as one clothed in the glorious unsullied robes in which omniscient holiness can find no spot nor stain. While in himself, that is, in his flesh, there dwells no good thing, yet in the Lord he has righteousness, and in Him he will glory and make his joyful triumphant boast.

    The justified believer finds his joy in the righteousness of Christ augmented to the highest exaltation by the fact that this righteousness is not only not his own, but is the righteousness of one so beloved, so closely related to him as his living head, his elder brother—”my Lord, and my God.” Had it been the righteousness of one standing in no endearing relation to him (were this conceivable), one who in future should be nothing more to him than any other, or one never more to be heard of, or at least never to be enjoyed in the embrace of friendship and the offices of love: the believer’s joy in such a righteousness imputed to him would have been unspeakably less.

    The exulting delight, unspeakable and full of glory, which the believer cherishes in clasping to his heart that righteousness of Jesus which is all his boast before God and angels, and which evermore is as a cordial to his fainting heart, the ever-reviving fountain to him of life from the dead, the secret and inexpressible exultation of his joy in this righteousness of Jesus just springs from the remembrance that it is the righteousness of one He loves; of one who is all his salvation and all his desire; of one with whom He shall dwell forevermore

  8. markmcculley Says:

    “for God applies the righteousness of Christ unto us upon the condition, that we also apply the same unto ourselves by faith. For although any one were to offer another a benefit, yet if he to whom it is offered does not accept of it, it is not applied unto him, and so does not become his. Hence without this last application the former is of no account. And yet our application of the righteousness of Christ is from God; for he first imputes it unto us, and then works faith in us, by which we apply unto ourselves that which is imputed; from which it appears that the application of God precedes that which we make, (which is of faith) and is the cause of it, although it is not without ours, as Christ says, “You have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” (John 15:16)” HC Commentery, p 591, Ursinus. Lord’s Day 23

    Bill Evans—”Many Reformed theologians have sought to protect the gratuity of justification by temporally sequestering it from transformation of life so as to underscore that justification cannot depend upon sanctification … But the result here is that justification is abstracted from the ongoing life of faith. Thus it is that a good deal of conservative Reformed theology has been more or less unable to give a coherent account of the Christian life…..Much more satisfactory is the EARLY REFORMED CONCEPTION of the believer’s participation in Christ’s resurrection justification that has been more recently RETRIEVED by Geerhardus Vos, Richard Gaffin, and others….”

    In his introduction to the second edition of Gaffin’s By Faith, not by Sight, Mark Jones suggests that anybody who has a different order of salvation than Gaffin is antinomian.

    Mark Jones– “The position that faith followed imputation was not typical of Reformed thought in his day but rather was associated with antinomianism.”.

    Mark Jones—”Any view that posits faith as a consequence of imputation (John Cotton) is not the typical Reformed position.”

    Mark Jones—”The Lutheran view that justification precedes sanctification..ends up attributing to justification a renovative transformative element.”

    Mark McCulley– that’s the same accusation which Tipton made.

    Mark Jones is dogmatic that “union” precedes imputation, and that “faith” precedes “union”. Does that not end up attributing to “union” a renovative transformative element? Does that not end up attributing to “faith” a renovative transformative element?

    Is the atonement imputed to us on the basis of the Spirit’s work of giving us faith?

  9. markmcculley Says:

    become what you are?

    as a justified sinner
    i do not need to become a sinner
    and my daily sin does not make me a sinner
    because I am already sinner

    when I see Jesus on earth,
    I will not become Jesus
    but I will become something I am not now

    become what you are?

    what are we?

    we are imputed as righteous before God
    we are declared as righteous before God
    God’s word says that those who believe the gospel are righteousness before God

    so that is what we are

    what could we do to become what we are?
    does becoming what we are mean that we are not really what we are?

    i do not agree that the justified elect are in a process of becoming justified

    slaves of sin, free from righteousness
    or already slaves of righteousness

    no non-imputation of our sins without also the imputation of Christ’s death
    no remission of sins without also being declared justified before God
    no condemnation before God means justification before God
    my sins covered, passed over, and taken away, then also Christ my righteousness

  10. markmcculley Says:

    Mark Seifrid—-Calvin is able to speak of the condemning function of the Law with the same vigor as Luther himself ( Institutes 2.7.1-7). Yet in his eagerness to resolve the question of the unity of Scripture, he speaks of the Law as ….not bringing death but serving another purpose. According to this perspective, Law and Gospel do not address the believing human being in radically different ways, but only in differing degrees according to the measures of “grace” present within them. ….

    The embedding of the Law within grace qualifies law’s demand—while the Law works the death of sinners, it has a different effect on the righteous. For the Reformed the Law is no longer a “hard taskmaster,” who exacts full payment. It rather urges believers on to the goal of their lives, exciting them to obedience. In describing how the regenerate experience the Law, Calvin appeals directly to Psalms 19 and 119.

    Calvin regards the Law as addressing the believer as a regenerate person. This “regeneration” is not fully effective in us, but weak and impeded by the “sluggishness” of the flesh. —Calvin regards regeneration to effect a new state within the human being, which is partially present and active. The “flesh” is present as a power that exerts partial influence on us. For Calvin, the most important function of the Law lies in its speaking to us as regenerate persons, urging us onward to the goal that lies before us. In speaking to the regenerate, the Law has lost its condemning function–: it no longer works our death, but only furthers the new life which is partially present in us already.

    Luther finds a radically different anthropology in Scripture. The old, fallen creature exists as a whole alongside the new creature, who is likewise a whole. The picture of the human being is either darkness or light, without any shading of tones. There is no “intermediate state” in which we receive instruction but escape condemnation. In so far as the Law deals with our salvation (and does not merely guide our outward conduct), it pronounces our condemnation. The Law speaks even to us who are regenerate as fallen human beings. Being a Christian means again and again, in all the trials and temptations of life, hearing and believing the Gospel which overcomes the condemnation pronounced on us by the Law and by our own consciences in which that Law is written.

    Psalm 119 strikingly ends on the same note as Rom 7:24: “I have gone astray like a lost sheep. Seek your servant! For I do not forget your word” (Psalm 119:176). The whole psalm is summarized in this closing statement. The one who delights in the Law of God, who recounts it, meditates on it day and night, and clings to it, nevertheless does not yet know it in his heart and experience, and repeatedly appeals to the Lord to teach him. As he implicitly confesses in the opening of the psalm, his ways are not yet “established” in keeping the Lord’s statutes. He still is ashamed when he considers them (Psalm 119:5-8). In view of these petitions and the closing of the psalm, there is good reason, contrary to usual practice, to render the whole of Psalm119:9 as a question: “How shall a young man purify his way? How shall he keep it according to your word?” This petition recurs in varying forms, as the psalmist looks beyond the Law to the Lord, whom he asks to teach, instruct, and revive him (e.g., Ps 119:12, 18, 25-26, 29, etc.). The condition of the psalmist is not essentially different from that of the believing Paul, who likewise delights in the Law of God, but finds a different Law at work in him that makes him a prisoner of sin. What the psalmist sought from the Lord (and undoubtedly in faith received) is found, Paul with joy announces, in the crucified and risen Christ (Rom 7:25). In Psalm 19, too, the psalmist, even after his exalted praise of the Law confesses that a saving work of God beyond the Law is necessary in his heart: “Who can discern (their) errors? Make me innocent of hidden sins. . . . Then I shall be blameless and innocent of great transgression” (Ps 19:11-13). Admittedly, Psalm 1 lacks this element of confession. But the shadow of the cross lies across this psalm: who among us can claim to be that person here and now? As the psalm itself suggests in its promise that “his leaf does not wither,” the path of the righteous one whom it describes leads through testing and trial on its way to the “season” of fruit (Psalm 1:1-6).

    The sins of which we are aware, dangerous though they may be, are not the most dangerous ones. These hidden faults are more deeply rooted in our person and being than we can imagine, and finally consist in the desire to do away with God and to possess that which properly belongs to our neighbor.

    Admittedly, this perspective robs “progress” of its ultimacy. The goal and end of the Christian life is given to us already at its beginning in Jesus Christ. But this displacing of “progress” from its place of primacy prevents us from taking upon ourselves burdens that we were never meant to bear. What those need who do not feel themselves to be sinners is the careful, gentle, yet direct exposure of their sins—not merely the faults of our society or problems in our culture but the root sins of self seeking, pride, lust, envy, greed by which we deny God and mistreat one another

    om Mark Seifrid of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary:

    perspectives-on-our-inner-struggle” Paul does not speak of the Christian struggle with sin in Romans 7. He describes a battle already lost, long ago in Adam. Nevertheless, in sheer wonder, the long-lost battle has been decided in our favor by God in Christ. The Christian is thus called to walk the very narrow path marked by the intersection of the new creation with the present fallen world. On the one side we are subject to the danger of the despair that loses sight of God’s work in Christ. On the other hand, we are subject to the danger of a pride that falsely supposes that the power of salvation is now ours, if only we realize its potential. Such a pride in its own way also loses sight of God’s work in Christ. It brings a ‘therapeutic Christianity’ that turns outward achievements, whether individual, corporate, or social, into a measure of spiritual progress and a mark of the presence of the kingdom. It does not see that what has been accomplished in Christ is located abidingly in Christ, not in ourselves. Our salvation, and therefore all true progress, both individual and corporate, does not rest in our hands…

    As Paul tells the Philippians, progress is a progress in faith (Phil 1:21). It is not a turning inward but a being-turned-outward. It is hearing the address of the gospel afresh within the changing circumstances of life. To use Paul’s language, it is again and again ‘reckoning yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus’ (Rom 6:11)… Not only the first step but every step of Christian progress begins with Paul’s sober and realistic confession in Rom 7:25b […with my flesh I serve the law of sin]. It begins with the acknowledgment that as long as we remain in this body and life the unhappy truth that we ‘serve the law of sin’ remains.”

    -Mark A. Seifrid, Perspectives on Our Struggle with Sin

  11. markmcculley Says:

    Sadly, many (including Joyce Meyer) who talk about “imputed righteousness” are not at all talking about the fact that a. only the sins of the elect were already imputed to Christ or b. that the death of Christ was only for the sins of the elect.

    Many use the language of “imputed righteousness” but do not DEFINE THE RIGHTEOUSNESS as Christ’s death for a definite elect people. Some only refer to Christ’s infinite general fund of law-keeping, and others don’t relate “imputed righteousness” to God’s law in any way.

    some “name and claim it” people define “imputation” as what we do—for example, if we think something enough in a positive way, then it will happen. Some think our faith makes imputation happen. Others think our faith is the imputation. Other think that what God imputes is faith, and then they define the righteousness as our faith

    Joyce Meyer—“I didn’t stop sinning until I finally got it through my thick head I wasn’t a sinner any more. .The Bible says that I’m righteous and I can’t be righteous and be a sinner at the same time … All I was ever taught to say was, ‘I’m a poor, miserable sinner.’ I am not poor, I am not miserable and I am not a sinner. That is what I was and if I still am then Jesus died in vain.”

    Joyce Meyer—”If you stay in your faith, you are going to get rewarded”

    Kenneth Copeland—”The biggest failure in the whole Bible is God. The only reason you don’t think of God as a failure is that God never says any negative thoughts about being a failure.”

    Kenneth Copeland — “Jesus did not pay for your sins on the cross. He paid for your sins in hell. His work on the cross did not pay for your sins. His going to hell paid for your sins.”

  12. markmcculley Says:

    James 1:19 “Human anger does not produce the righteousness that God requires.”

    Psalm 76: 10—“Even human wrath shall praise you, for you are to be feared. Who can stand before you when your anger is roused?”

    Luke 11: 14 Now Jesus was driving out a demon that was mute. When the demon came out, the man who had been mute, spoke, and the crowds were amazed. 15 But some of them said, “He drives out demons by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons!” 16 And others, as a test, were demanding of Jesus a sign from heaven. 17 Knowing their thoughts, Jesus told them: “Every kingdom divided against itself is headed for destruction, and a house divided against itself falls.18 If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say I drive out demons by Beelzebul. 19 And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, who is it your sons drive them out by? For this reason they will be your judges.

    20 If I drive out demons by the finger of God, then the KINGDOM OF GOD HAS COME TO YOU. 21 When a strong man, fully armed, guards his estate, his possessions are secure.[ 22 But when one STRONGER THAN HE attacks and overpowers him, he takes from him all his WEAPONS HE TRUSTED IN, and divides up his plunder. 23 Anyone who is not with Me is against Me, and anyone who does not gather with Me scatters.

    Mark 9: 38 John said to Him, “Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in Your name, and we tried to stop him because he wasn’t following us.” 39 “Don’t stop him,” said Jesus, “because there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name who can soon afterward speak evil of Me.40 For whoever is not against us is for us

  13. markmcculley Says:

    sometimes sinners find their own Jesus, sometimes human law gives the living a break

    but God’s law still has something to say to those who are dead
    there is a resurrection to a second death

    Romans 7: a married woman is legally bound to her husband while he lives. But if her husband dies, she is released from the law regarding the husband. 3 So then, if she gives herself to another man while her husband is living, she will be called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law. Then, if she gives herself to another man, she is not an adulteress. 4 You also were put to death in relation to the law through the crucified body of the Messiah, in order to belong to another—to Him who was raised from the dead—in order to bear fruit for God.

  14. markmcculley Says:

    Romans 6: present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, offer yourselves to God, and all the parts of yourselves to God as tools for righteousness.

    Romans 6 is not an offer from God to us but the chapter does command us to offer ourselves to God

    God does not accept our offering ourselves as the righteousness by which God blesses us

    but God does accept the works and the offering of themselves of those who are justified by Christ’s death, not of the elect before they have been brought from death to life

    Each and every elect person is brought from death to life.

    None of the elect starts out alive and justified

    Romans 6: 9 We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death NO LONGER has dominion over him. 10 For the death he died HE DIED TO SIN once for all

    Romans 6 has no water but it does have a baptism which saves

    and that baptism is not by the Spirit or with the Spirit

    Romans 6 is not about a process of crucifying ourselves (or “our old nature”)

    Either we have been baptized into Christ’s death, or not

    Christ is not still in the process of dying.

    Christ died once, because of all the sins of the elect imputed, but Christ is not still dying but resurrected from the death

    sins were only temporarily imputed to Christ, but those sins will never be transferred again to Christ or to those who have once been baptized into Christ’s death.

    Being baptized into Christ’s death only happens once, but before that baptism into His death happens, the elect are still condemned in Adam.

    Romans 6 does not say “you don’t have to sin”

    1. What does “have to sin” even mean?

    2. Does it mean that we are sinners sometimes only?

    3. Romans 6 commands us not to sin–let not sin reign.

    4. Romans 6 tells us that we have “been brought from death to life”

    5. Romans 6 tells us that “sin will not have dominion over us” which does not mean that we will sin less. Any sin is “too much”

    6. Romans 6 tells us that “sin will not have dominion over us” because we (who still sin) do not have ANY sin counted against us, and this is because our record as sinners (old self, not old nature) died when Christ died.

    7. Christ’s record as a sinner (imputed guilt) died when Christ died.

    8. There is only one death to sin, and that is Christ’s death.

    9. Romans 6 does not command us to die, but looks to the one and only death of Christ.

    10. Those legally joined to Christ’s death are no longer under the law, and no sin is counted against them. After Christ died, no sin is counted against Christ, and Christ was no longer under the law.

  15. markmcculley Says:

    Romans 6—all who died with Christ will be raised with Christ

    not all will be raised with Christ, not all died with Christ

    died with Christ is not something in us

    died with Christ is not something still happening

    died with Christ is something that happened once
    and is now being imputed to all those for whose sins Christ died

    Christ bore sin

    if I were forgiving, I would not require death to do it

    I am not God

    do not judge God by what you think would or would not do

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: