4 comments so far
I never thought about the imputation in detail before, so this is a good post to refer to whenever the topic would come up in discussion with someone.
Hey there,
Yeah this is actually a big and important issue. In the 17th century, some theologians actually described imputation as transference of sin and guilt. Owen’s double payment argument functions by this assumption. Owen and others spoke of imputation as transference, even using this word as the preferred term. The problem is, imputation is not transference. Ive dubbed this idea, “Forensic Crispianism.”
This defective view of imputation has its counterpoint in the Romanist idea of infused righteousness.
Think of Christ’s righteousness imputed to the believer. This imputation entails no transference of righteousness, it does not leave him and move to you, or anything like that. You are covered by his righteousness, but it is not transferred to you.
Rather, the always innocent Christ is treated as though he was a sinner, charged and punished as though he was guilty. He never becomes guilty in any sense. On the other hand, the Christian is treated as though he were righteous.
I am planning on posting further on this.
Thanks for stopping by.
David
Ps, you might be interested in reading Fuller on this:
Andrew Fuller (1754-1815) on the True Meaning of Imputation (Part 1)
and
There is a sense in which, by Christ becoming actual sin, would be unable to suffer in His Holy Being the punishment for sin. I’ve obviously not thought through this much but this idea occurs to me, that at transference of guilt Christ would become the sinner suffering for the sin. Well, anyway…
[…] object to the notion of imputation as transfer of sin and transfer of merit include A. A. Hodge, James Richards and John […]