A.A. Hodge:

2. The phrase to “impute sin,” or “righteousness,” in its scriptural usage signifies simply to set to one’s account, to lay. to one’s charge or credit as a ground of legal process. The thing imputed may belong to the person to whom it is imputed originally. In that case it is imputed in the sense of being simply charged to him, made the ground of a legal indictment preparatory to judicial process. Or the thing imputed may not be originally his, but may be made his by the imputation, because of the legal connection subsisting between the person to whom the thing originally belonged and him to whom it is imputed. Thus, not to impute sin to the doer of it is of course not to charge the guilt of his own sin upon him as a ground of punishment. To impute righteousness without works can only mean to credit a believer with the rewardableness of a righteousness which did not originate with himself. Rom. iv. 4-8. God in Christ not imputing their trespasses unto his people, is, of course, God for Christ s sake not charging their trespasses to them as a ground of punishment. 2 Cor. v. 19. Christ must be made sin for us in precisely the same sense that we are made the righteousness of God in him. 2 Cor. v. 21. But, as will be shown below, we are justified or pronounced righteous in Christ forensically, as a matter of legal relation, not made inherently righteous by the infusion of grace. The macula or pollution of sin might possibly be transmitted by generation. Otherwise it must ever remain the inalienable personal quality of the individual sinner. It is an absurdity, for which no class of Reformed theologians have ever been responsible, to represent personal character, either good or bad, as transferable from one person to another by imputation. All that can be imputed from person to person is the guilt or legal obligation to punishment of any sin, and that only in those cases in which the person to whom it is imputed has become in some way or other justly responsible for the action of the person the guilt of whose sin is imputed.

This usage of the word “impute”; is not a creation of “artificial theology” as is asserted by Dr. Young and by all those who maintain either the “Moral” or the “Governmental” theory of the Atonement. This is evident, because–

(1) this sense is embraced in the classical usage of the word logizomai. Its primary sense is to count, reckon. Then, when construed with a person in the dative and a thing in the accusative, it signifies to set down that thing to the account of that person, and is thus equivalent to the Latin term impurare.¹ Ainsworth defines imputare– “to ascribe, to charge; to lay the blame or fault on any one.” Suidas Lexicon–“logizo, reputo; et logisomai, computabo; et logioumai, numerabo, computabo; et logo, existimo, ut illud: et imputatem est ipsi in justitiam.”

(2.) The same is true of the usage of the Hebrew chashab in the Old Testament. The daughters of Laban complained (Gen. xxxi. 15) that their father “counted” them strangers–that is, regarded and treated them as strangers:

If any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings be eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offers it; it shall be an abomination, and the soul that eats of it shall bear his iniquity. Lev. vii. 18.

The sacrifice was offered as a matter of fact, but was not set to the credit of the offerer as acceptable or effective. The heave-offering of the Levites was to be “reckoned as though it were the corn of the threshing-floor, and as the fullness of the wine-press.” Numb, xviii. 27, 30. That Phineas slew the offending Israelite at Shittim a was counted unto him for righteousness unto all generations for evermore.” Ps. cvi. 31.

(3.) The same is true with regard to the New Testament usage of the word logizomai. Christ, referring to Isa. liii. 12, said: “For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors.” Luke xxii. 37. “Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?” Rom. ii. 26. “Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” Gal. iii. 6. “To him that works, the reward is not reckoned of grace, but of debt.” “To him that works not, but believeth on him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” David speaks of the blessedness of the man “to whom the Lord imputes righteousness without works–to whom the Lord will not impute sin.” & “Faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.” Rom. iv. 3-9.”God in Christ reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them.” 2 Cor. v. 19. “At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me; I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge,” 2 Tim. iv. 16. “He was numbered with the transgressors.” Mark xv. 28. “But also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be counted for naught,”² Acts xix. 27.

The Scriptures plainly teach, therefore, that all the guilt or obligation to punishment incurred by the sins of his people was imputed or charged to the account of Christ, as the legal ground of the execution upon him of the penalty involved in the case. Yet, notwithstanding that the guilt of all our sins is thus charged to Christ, and expiated in him, all their blame, shame, pollution and power, as inherent personal habits or principles, remain all the while inalienably ours. These sins are none the less ours, after their imputation to him, than they were before, (a.) The very force of the imputation is to make him alienee culpce reus; that is, penally responsible for another s sin. They must remain ours in order that they may be to him the sins of an other. (6.) Because personal moral qualities, and the pollution inherent in sinful ones, are inalienable and cannot be transferred by imputation, (c.) Because, as Owen pointed out long ago, to be alienee culpce reus makes no man a sinner, subjectively considered, unless he did unwisely or irregularly undertake the responsibility, (d.) Because our blessed Lord was a divine Person, and therefore absolutely incapable of personal sin in any sense or degree. While, therefore, he bore our sins, and consequently suffered the penalty involved, and hence was both regarded and treated by the Father, during the time and for the purpose of expiation, as vicariously guilty and worthy of wrath, he was all the while not one iota the less personally immaculate and glorious in holiness, and all the more the well-beloved Son of the Father, in whom he was well pleased.

All this the orthodox have always held and carefully expressed. We regard it, then, as an evident sign of weakness, and as an offense against honorable argument, when the advocates of the Governmental Theory (as for instance, Jenkyns, Fiske, and others), by studiously confounding the imputation of guilt with the transference of personal inherent sinful character, and by habitually setting forth the coarse and indiscriminating language of Luther on this subject as a fair representation of the Satisfaction Theory, disingenuously insinuate that at least the more self-consistent of the orthodox have held the blasphemy that Christ was made personally a sinner when he bore our sins upon the tree.  A. A. Hodge, The Atonement (London: T. Nelson And Sons, 1868), 158-162. [Some reformatting; some spelling modernized; footnote values modernized; footnote content original; and underlining mine.]

[Note: The point is, Christ is treated as though he were a sinner thereby answering the demands of justice due to our sins, but all the while we remain sinners, subject to the wrath of God. Neither actual sin-pollution or sinful acts are transferred to Christ.]

______________________

¹Liddell and Scott.

²Ei, ouden logisthenai

Becon:

1) What signifies this name Christ?  Anointed; whereupon ‘it may be gathered, that our Savior Christ is a King, a Priest, and a Prophet, which three were accustomed by the ceremonial law to be anointed. A King, because he, being the Son of God, alight to be Lord and Ruler of all things by inheritance: and because he hath conquered and subdued unto himself, by death, by bearing our sins, by redeeming us his inheritance out of the power of the devil, all the whole kingdom, power, and authority over death, sin, and the devil. A Priest, because he, once for all, hath entered into the most holy and innermost tabernacle of God, and hath offered, once for all, a perpetual sufficient sacrifice to satisfy for all men’s sins, and to purchase all men’s redemption; not ceasing now still to be a perpetual Mediator and Intercessor to God his Father for man, he himself being both God and man; making an end of and abolishing all sacrifices and ceremonies. which were but shadows and significations, to put the Jews in remembrance of his coming, before he came. A Prophet; for the true and only sufficient doctrine which he preached when here upon earth, and left behind him written by his apostles for our learning, binding our conscience to be subject to none other doctrine but to his alone. Heb. ii. vii. ix. x.   Thomas Becon, Writings of the Re. Thomas Becon (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication), 429.

2)

THE SUFFERINGS OF CHRIST.

The Gospel for the Sunday next before Easter, commonly called Palm Sunday.

And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished all these sayings, lie said unto his disciples, &c.–Matthew xxvi.

This day is read in the church, as you have heard, the story of the painful passion and dreadful death of our most loving Lord and sweet Savior Jesus Christ. And although the passion of Christ ought at all times, and every day, diligently to be remembered by us and every Christian, seeing it is that only and alone precious treasure, whereby we are delivered and set at liberty from all the power of hell, from Satan, sin, death, damnation, &c; yet the ancient fathers of Christ’s church, in times past, have well provided that we should have every year a certain peculiar time appointed for this purpose, in the which we might do and exercise this, either privately or publicly. For by this means the passion of Christ shall be more diligently inculcated and beaten into the youth, and also be the more surely en-grafted in the memory of the elder sort of people. Now forasmuch as the passion of Christ has in times past been marvelously abused by vain meditations and cogitations of superstitious and ignorant hypocrites, we will at this present leave all such vanity, and declare how the passion and death of Christ ought truly and profitably to be considered, weighed, and pondered, unto our singular consolation and comfort, and also unto the amendment of our life and conversation. This will be brought to pass if we diligently weigh, ponder, and consider these principal points following.

I. What the passion of Christ is.

II. What excited and moved him to suffer this passion.

III. How Christ both outwardly and inwardly suffered.

IV. What fruit and profit he has procured and gotten for us by his passion.

I. The passion of Christ is none other than an immeasurable dolor, sorrow, torment, and pain, which he, from a singular and unspeakable love towards us, sustained and suffered for our sins, that he might purge them and utterly put them away through his satisfaction, outwardly in his body, and inwardly in his soul, till at the last he died on the cross; which shall be opened and declared more plainly hereafter.

II. There are five causes that moved Christ to suffer his most dolorous and painful passion. The first is our sin, which could no otherwise be cleansed, and put away, but only by the passion and death of Christ. The second cause is, the great and unspeakable charity, love, and favor that Christ and his heavenly Father bore toward us men, which charity could not abide that we should perish and be damned in our sins. The third cause is, the everlasting counsel and providence of God, whereby he determined by this means to show his love and to deliver mankind from sin. The fourth cause is, the true and faithful promise which he made in times past. Out of which, afterwards follows the blindness and indignation of the Jews, which is the fifth cause.

Read the rest of this entry »

[comments below]

Cunningham:

III. It has been contended very frequently, and very confidently, that Calvin did not sanction the views which have been generally held by Calvinistic divines, in regard to the extent of the atonement,-that he did not believe in the doctrine of particular redemption, that is, that Christ did not die for all men, but only for the elect, for those who are actually saved,–but that, on the contrary, he asserted a universal, unlimited, or indefinite atonement. Amyraut, in defending his doctrine of universal atonement in combination with Calvinistic views upon other points, appealed confidently to the authority of Calvin; and, indeed, he wrote a treatise entitled, Eschantillon de la Doctrine de Calvin touchant la Pdestination, chiefly for the purpose of showing that Calvin supported his views about the extent of the atonement, and was in all respects a very moderate Calvinist. Daillee, in his Apologia pro duabus Synodis, which is a very elaborate defense, in reply to Spanheim, of Amyraut’s views about universal grace and universal atonement, fills above forty pages with extracts from Calvin in as testimonies in his favour. Indeed, the whole of the last portion of this work of Daillee, consisting of nearly five hundred pages, is occupied with extracts, produced as testimonies in favor universal grace and universal atonement, from almost every eminent writer, from Clemens Romanus down to the middle of the seventeenth century; and we doubt if the whole history of theological controversy furnishes a stronger case of the adduction of irrelevant and inconclusive materials. It was chiefly the surrey of this vast collection of testimonies, that suggested to us the observations which we hare laid before our readers in our discussion of the views of Melancthon.¹

It is certain that Beza held the doctrine of particular redemption, or of a limited atonement, as it has since been held by most Calvinists and brought it out fully in his controversies with the Lutherans on the subject of predestination; though he was not, as has sometimes been asserted, the first who maintained it. It has been confidently alleged that Calvin did not concur in this view, but held the opposite doctrine of universal redemption and unlimited atonement. Now it is true, that we do not find in Calvin’s writings explicit statements as to any limitation in the object of the atonement, or in the number of those for whom Christ died; and no Calvinist, not even Dr Twisse, the great champion of high Supralapsarianism, has ever denied that there is a sense in which it may be affirmed that Christ died for all men. But we think it is likewise true, that no sufficient evidence has been produced that Calvin believed in a universal or unlimited atonement. Of all the passages in Calvin’s writings, bearing more or less directly upon this subject,–which we remember to have read or have seen produced on either side,–there is only one which, with anything like confidence, can be regarded as formally and explicitly denying an unlimited atonement; and notwithstanding all the pains that have been taken to bring out the views of Calvin upon this question, we do not recollect to have seen it adverted to except by a single popish writer. It occurs in his treatise De Vera participatione Christi in cœna, in reply to Heshusius, a violent Lutheran defender of the corporal presence of Christ in the eucharist. The passage is this:–Scire velim quomodo Christi carnem edant impii pro huibus non est crncifixg et quomodo sanguinem bibant qui expiandis eorum peccatis non eat effusus.² This is a very explicit denial of the universality of the atonement. But it stands alone,–so far as we know,–in Calvin’s writings, and for this reason we do not found much upon it; though, at the same time, we must observe, that it is not easy to understand how, if Calvin really believed in a universal atonement for the human race, such a statement could ever have dropped from him. We admit, however, that he has not usually given any distinct indication, that he believed in any limitation as to the objects of the atonement; and that upon a survey of all that has been produced from his writings, there is fair ground for a difference of opinion as to what his doctrine upon this point really was. The truth is, that no satisfactory evidence has been or can be derived from his writings, that the precise question upon the extent of the atonement which has been mooted in more modern times, in the only sense in which it can become a question among mm who concur in holding the doctrine of unconditional personal election to everlasting life, ever exercised Calvin’s mind, or was made by him the subject of any formal or explicit deliverance. The topic was not then formally discussed as a distinct subject of controversy; and Calvin does not seem to have been ever led, in discussing cognate questions, to take up this one and to give a deliverance regarding it. We believe that no sufficient evidence has been brought forward that Calvin held that Christ died for all men, or for the whole world, in any such sense as to warrant Calvinistic universalists,–that is, men who, though holding Calvinistic doctrines upon other points, yet believe in a universal or unlimited atonement,-in asserting that he sanctioned their peculiar principles.

Read the rest of this entry »

Balmer:

LECTURE XIII. ON THE GOSPEL CALL.

Elements of the Gospel. Substance of the Gospel Call. Its Freeness. On Faith and Repentance as Conditions of Salvation. On the Use of this Term. The Universality of the Gospel Offer. Principles of the Divine Procedure. Infinite Value of the Sacrifice of Christ. Harmony of Unlimited Call with the grand Characteristics of the Scheme of Redemption. Consistency of the Unlimited Offer with the Interests of Holiness. Special Encouragement given to the Convicted and the Desponding. The Gospel Call Honest and Sincere. Express Declarations of Scripture. Conduct of God in giving the Means of Grace Outward and Inward. Forbearance and Kindness. Recorded Instances. Objections Answered. Quotation from Howe.

IN the application of redemption the Holy Spirit is the grand agent; and I therefore judged it expedient to state at considerable length the proofs which establish the reality of his influences. I have directed your attention also to what may be called the economy of divine influences; and have presented you with a brief sketch of the principal operations of the Holy Ghost. In the application of redemption the Spirit is the chief, but he is not the sole agent; for we ourselves are called to be active. The blessings of redemption are offered to us in the gospel, and we are invited and commanded to accept them with becoming readiness and gratitude. The next subject then, which presents itself for consideration, is the gospel call; under which are included its various overtures, and invitations, and requirements.

The gospel is the good news of salvation. It is the revelation of the scheme of mercy–a message or proclamation from the Omnipotent Ruler of the universe, calling on us to return to our allegiance, and to accept of pardon, sanctifying influence, and eternal life. It may tend to simplify our conceptions of the gospel, or the message of mercy, if we regard it as consisting of three parts, or comprehending three things,–a revelation, a call or invitation, and a promise. It contains, first, a revelation or declaration of the wonderful plan which God, in infinite love, has adopted for the deliverance of our fallen race from guilt and misery, and for raising them to imperishable happiness and glory. It is this part of the gospel more especially that is styled the testimony, or record, or witness of God–a term peculiarly significant and instructive. In its primary acceptation that term refers to the deposition or testimony given by a witness on oath in a court of justice. It intimates therefore that the Most High God condescends to present himself to his creatures in that character and attitude; that in addressing us in the gospel, he speaks to us in a manner the most solemn and emphatic, that what he declares to us is truth, nothing but truth, and the whole truth, respecting our immortal interests, which it is necessary for us to know. The gospel comprehends, secondly, a call or invitation, under which may be included its various overtures and proposals, its entreaties and exhortations, its demands and injunctions. The overtures and invitations and injunctions of the gospel spring up naturally out of its discoveries, and the great object of them is to call on man to believe its discoveries, and to accept of its blessings. These various overtures, and invitations, and demands, constitute substantially one call; but that call is exhibited in these diversified forms and aspects, because the author of it presents himself both as a benefactor, tendering blessings to our acceptance, and as a sovereign requiring our obedience. These overtures, and invitations, and requirements, are enforced by what may be regarded as the third part of the gospel, namely, by a promise, or a collection of promises; the import or amount of which is, that salvation shall infallibly be bestowed on all who are willing to accept it as the free gift of God, through Jesus Christ. The overtures and invitations of the gospel are enforced not only by “promises exceedingly great and precious,” but by denunciations the most terrific and alarming. These denunciations are dictated by boundless compassion, as well as by inflexible justice; they are naturally presupposed in the overtures and promises of the gospel; but, strictly speaking, they do not constitute an integral part of it, and are rather to be regarded as its necessary appendage or accompaniment.

It is the second part of the gospel that I am at present to consider; that is, its call or offer, comprehending its invitations, and exhortations, and requirements. And what I have to say in the discussion of this topic may be summed up in the following propositions:–

Read the rest of this entry »