“Imputation” describes a process that takes place in the mind of God, without which none of us could ever be judged sinner or saint. What may be known about this process must be known only by revelation through the scriptures, since God speaks through the Spirit to reveal His thoughts (1 Cor. 2:6-13). Difficulty in understanding our subject lies not in its obscurity or ambiguity; rather, generations of faulty exposition by sectarians and brethren alike have hidden its wonderful message. It will be our goal to learn proper definitions, relate this subject to other salvation terminology in a harmonious way, properly applying the truth to our situation.
It is true that our study of imputation is not “milk” but “meat” (Heb. 5:12-13). One cannot fully understand imputation without being cognizant of the entire scope of human redemption. Thus, imputation is related to the revelation of the divine wisdom of God, human nature (free will and responsibility), the nature of sin and of righteousness, justification, gospel and law, faith and works, the plan of salvation and, not in the least to be considered, grace. It encompasses the concept of how a righteous God can bring about the salvation of His sinful creature, man, and yet retain His own righteous nature (Rom. 3:21-26).
Generations of theologians have sought to understand man’s history, from his fall to his redemption. Many have attempted to put this research into a systematic relationship, resulting in volumes under the general heading of “Systematic Theology.” Perhaps the first, certainly one of the most influential, of such theologians to address this question was Augustine (354-430 A.D.). Drawing upon a faulty concept of the nature of man (that man inherited a sinfully depraved nature by natural generation), Augustine set in motion theological concepts that influenced and influences man throughout history until today. Not only Roman Catholicism, but the entire Protestant Reformation took direction from his ideas, however defective they were and are. For us to understand imputation in its Biblical purity and simplicity, we must not allow our thinking to be persuaded by the common fallacies of Augustinianism (later, know more popularly as Calvinism). The confusion that has arisen among our brethren on this subject has been due to the direct influence of Calvinistic definitions and ideas which are to be found in nearly all the commentaries and religious source material. We must not permit ourselves to be influenced beyond what the bible teaches. The blessing to be received by understanding imputation is great, resulting in an assurance that God’s saving grace is commensurate with man’s ability to receive it. Man is neither hereditarily morally depraved nor does he live sinlessly perfect; God is willing to extend His grace and man is able to receive it.
It is easy to take the Calvinist’s “transfer” in these instances, unsupported by any lexicon or dictionary, and make a case, arbitrarily. However, since no authority recognizes “transfer” to be an accurate definition, it is folly to permit it. Further, since one scripture will often explain these questions, we need to allow the Holy Spirit to intercede. This is exactly the case as Matthew records Jesus’ ministry and work. In Matthew 8:14-17, Jesus is said to heal Peter’s mother-in-law of a fever, cast out demons, heal all that were sick “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying Himself took our infirmities and bare our sicknesses.” Now, when Jesus cured Peter’s mother-in-law of a fever, did Jesus become feverish, transferring the fever to Himself? When He cast out demons, did He transfer the evil spirits to Himself? In what way did Jesus “take our infirmities and bare our sicknesses?” We are told that He “cast out” the spirits and “healed” the sick. Metaphorically, it can be said that He “took” and “bare” these things by “casting them out” and “healing them.” In the same manner, when Jesus “bare our sins,” He forgave them, not transferred them. Hebrews 9:26b sheds light by stating, “…but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself…So Christ was offered to bear the sins of man…” As the writer of the Hebrew letter quotes our passage from Isaiah 53 where Jesus was to “bear the sins of many,” he explains by inspiration that it means to “put away” or forgive sin. So also does every other passage (where remission, forgiveness, covering, blotting out, etc. is mentioned) agree. Jesus never transferred sins from anyone to Himself. He “bore them” in the sense that He cause them to be forgiven by dying in our stead, being “wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed.” Yes, Jesus took our punishment for us, was treated as a sinner would be treated and died on the cross as a substitute offering for sin. But the effect was to forgive sin, not transfer it. Any other position ignores divine testimony.
- Adam’s sins imputed (transferred) to mankind
- Mankind’s sin imputed (transferred) to Christ
- Christ’s personal righteousness imputed (transferred) to believers.
The difference is distinctive and immediately apparent. They attempt to transfer the guilt of Adam to mankind to support the doctrine of total hereditary depravity. We have seen the flaw in this (Ezek. 18). Next, they attempt to transfer sins to Christ to escape guilt. But the scriptural action here is forgiveness, as we noted in Isaiah 53 and Matthew 8, not transference (which incidentally, would not solve sin by shifting it elsewhere). Finally, they attempt to transfer righteousness from Christ to the believer, covering the sinner with a layer (covering, robe) of moral perfection, under which the depraved nature yet remains. This moral perfection of Jesus (called by some His “doing and dying”) supposedly provides the basis for the believer being saved and staying saved (salvation by faith alone, and once saved, always saved). Please note, however, that nowhere in the Calvinistic system is provision made for forgiveness of sins. Sin is moved about, shuffled around or said to be covered, but it is never cured. The Bible cures the sin problem by forgiveness through the blood of Christ.
Summarizing, we have been noting, to this point, that one becomes a sinner due to God’s imputation (considering actions, weighing, judging, and putting to one’s account his guilt). But our study would not be complete without a consideration of the Christian who sins. Some claim that God imputes sin to the alien; but not the Christian. But we need to observe that God always charges transgressors with their sins, whether sinner or saint. Sin is not more palatable to God simply because the one committing it is a child of God. The Christian, therefore, may so sin as to be finally lost in Hell (Gal. 5:1-4; 1 Cor. 10:11-12; etc.). Cleansing Christians of sin is not automatic or continual, but conditional, as with aliens. Rather than to imagine some situation whereby guilt is not imputed (sins of ignorance, secret sins, doctrinal sins, etc.) We need to affirm what the Bible clearly teaches: all sin is imputed, charged, reckoned to the transgressor, whether sinner or saint. By God’s grace, provision is made for forgiveness in both instances, but let us not seek to avoid the truth on either.
- “It has been erroneously assumed and falsely argued that to impute a thing to a person is to put to his account something that he does not have, or somewhat more than he has. The Presbyterian and Baptist Confessions of Faith, and a host of theologians of both schools, teach that the righteousness of Christ is imputed, or credited, to the sinner…The doctrine is wholly without scriptural support…When by the power of the gospel a man has been made clean and free from sin, God reckons righteousness to him, because he is righteous. God does not pretend that a man is righteous when he is not. The denominational doctrine of imputed righteousness reminds one of the children’s game of ‘play-like.’ And their doctrine discredits the gospel as God’s saving power, and belittles the merits and efficacy of the blood of Christ, for it teaches that some corruption remains in the regenerate, but he is counted righteous because he is clothed with the righteousness of Christ. That is ‘play-like’ theology. “But the gospel makes men righteous, just as a soiled garment may be made clean, as clean as if it had never been soiled, by carrying it through the process of cleansing. So the gospel takes the sin-defiled persons through a process of cleansing that makes him as clean as if he had never sinned. The Lord does not ‘play-like’ he is righteous; he makes him righteous by the gospel” (R. L. Whiteside, Commentary on Romans).
This speculation about the perfect life of Christ being transferred to the account of the believer provides the basis for twin doctrines that have led millions astray; namely, “justification by faith alone,” and “once saved, always saved.” “If a man is saved by the perfect life of Christ,” it is reasoned, “the perfect life of Christ will also keep him saved.” The basic fallacy in this concept continues to be the idea that sin or righteousness can be transferred from one to another. It is not a scriptural position; in fact, it violates many Bible principles.
What, then? Does the perfect life of Christ have nothing to do with our salvation? Indeed it does. The perfect life of Christ (His “deeds and doings”) provide the basis for His spotless sacrifice for sin. Though sinless when born into the world, Jesus was “perfected” through His sufferings and temptations so as to offer to God a tried and tested offering for sin. He went to the cross as the “Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world” (Jn. 1:29), tempted and tried yet without sin (Heb. 4:15). It was God’s merciful love that arranged “to make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering” (Heb. 2:10). Jesus was “made perfect” (mature, having reached a desired goal or end) by the “things which he suffered” becoming obedient unto death (Heb; 5:7-9). As a priest, Jesus prepared an offering (Heb. 8:3), His own body (Heb. 9:26), doing the will of God (Heb. 10:1-10). Thus, the perfect life of Christ provided what we could not, a sacrifice without spot or blemish. It stands as the perfect anti-type to all the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament types, made possible by the sinless “deeds and doing” of Jesus. Yes, the perfect life of Christ was essential to our salvation. Not, however, that His moral perfection could be “transferred” to our account or that he could live a life of legal and moral perfection in our place and for us. He was both priest and sacrifice, the One doing the offering as well as the Offering itself. By this one act, He shed the innocent blood needed for atonement for sin. It is through the blood that atonement is realized and by which reconciliation is offered. Surely no more basic foundational principle exists in the word of God than that the blood of Christ provides the basis for salvation. If we are saved by the perfect life of Christ, transferred by some mystical manner to believers, why did Jesus have to die? If His perfection becomes ours, the death on the cross is needless cruelty, a sadistic hoax. Like all false doctrines, it cannot be harmonized with the full gospel story. It must be rejected as both fanciful and erroneous while we continue to proclaim the true doctrine of imputed righteousness.
