# Imputation



## JKLeoPCA (Mar 7, 2007)

Just reviewing some things on Imputation, being it was said that if justification is the hinge of which the church swings, then Imputation is the hinge pin, without it the rest does not matter. I also had stumbled across an old statistic (about a year old) that 66% of evangelical _pastors_ do not even know what the term means. 

So kinda just using you all as a sounding board here.  

_Logizomai_ (transliterated) is the Greek for “Imputed.” So it is the verb form of Logos (Word). The lexicon I’m using has this to say as part of the definition. 

“This word deals with reality. If I "logizomai" or reckon that my bank book has $25 in it, it has $25 in it. Otherwise I am deceiving myself. This word refers to facts not suppositions.”

So this is the Word or Speech in action. So if I understand this correctly then it is about the same as in the beginning when God breathes into man the breath of life. God calls life into being, where their was none. There is no righteousness in us, but when God justifies those who are His own, His power in that legal declaration actually produces in us exactly what it's stating to be there. So that which is spoken into us, also exorcizes out of us, our sin. The sin is not swept under a rug anywhere, but is directly also imputed to Christ. 

I guess what really caught my attention in reviewing this was in the definition that it is in relation to *facts*. So Justification can never be a legal fiction, because God is calling into being, in us, that which we did not have. This makes it clear that the righteousness we had to have was that of perfect obedience, which is what we are given in Christ’s perfect life. The great exchange as Luther called it. He answers for our sins, we get the reward of His obedience. 

Would it not then, in just this term, over throw the Arminian point of view that if God imputed the sins of the world (universal sense) to Christ, as the word definition indicates, then all would have been imputed with righteousness. But I guess their reply would be that such is the case which renders men open voids of which they are left with the ultimate choice to believe or not. But it would also beg alot of questions about there not being anything in scripture about spititual neutrality, or of the removal of all sins but the one of unbelief.... 

That's a very base view of it, but I think that enough to start some conversation, maybe.


----------



## Staphlobob (Mar 7, 2007)

JKLeoPCA said:


> Just reviewing some things on Imputation, being it was said that if justification is the hinge of which the church swings, then Imputation is the hinge pin, without it the rest does not matter. I also had stumbled across an old statistic (about a year old) that 66% of evangelical _pastors_ do not even know what the term means.



The stats probably come from White Horse Inn. I know they'd asked questions of pastors their opinion of "imputation", and most of them claimed they'd never heard the word; or had heard it somewhere, but couldn't remember what it stood for. Sad, but true.

These are people who are out there pastoring, preaching, and teaching congregations. I could understand if these guys were products of liberal seminaries. But they were supposedly "evangelicals" who'd graduated from legitimate schools. Kind of scary.

BTW, I just received an e-newsletter from 9 Marks Ministries. One of the things they're highlighting is an online seminary for laypeople. I've not looked into it very closely, but my initial response would be positive considering the source. The site is http://biblicaltraining.org/


----------



## JKLeoPCA (Mar 7, 2007)

It is very likely that I got the stats from the WHI. I listen to them a lot, but the stat was written down in some notes, and I rarely take notes while listening to those guys. 

So any other words of wisdom out there on imputation?


----------



## py3ak (Mar 7, 2007)

In Romans 4 it seems that the non-imputation of sin necessarily implies the imputation of righteousness.


----------



## JKLeoPCA (Mar 9, 2007)

I went to my usual multi-denominational site, for fun and debate, and here is the reply I got to roughly the same post from a guy who goes by "The Baptist." 

While I believe in the doctrine imputed righteousness, I have a bit of a problem with the way it is explained by the adherents of Reformed theology:




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by JKLeoOPC
> Logizomai (transliterated) is the Greek for “Imputed.” It is the verb form of Logos (Word). The lexicon I’m using has this to say as part of the definition.





Actually, lego would be the verbal form from which logos is derived. The word logizomai is also a derivative of lego, and rather than carry the meaning of "to speak, to say" it has the related connotation of "to calculate, to count," "to set down as a matter of account or record." Thus the word is actually declarative of what stands to be true about someone or something, as per your example:

“This word deals with reality. If I "logizomai" or reckon that my bank book has $25 in it, it has $25 in it. Otherwise I am deceiving myself. This word refers to facts not suppositions.”

However, the rest of your post goes beyond the meaning of the word logizomai and teaches something that the Word of God does not:



> So as a verb this is the Word or Speech in action (Rom. 4:17). So correctly understood this is the same as in the beginning when God breathes into man the breath of life. God calls life into being, where their was none. God can speak a thing in such a way as not to describe it, but also to cause it to come into being ex nihilo, or out of nothing.



This not only takes too much liberty with what the word logizomai means, but it also contradicts your example. Simply because you declare there is $25 in your bank book, that does not translate into the idea that you spoke the $25 into existence. You are only declaring or giving an account of what is actually there. 




> Quote:
> There is no righteousness in us, but when God justifies those who are His own, His power in that legal declaration actually produces in us exactly what He is stating to be there, also out of nothing, or based upon nothing within us.





The "legal declaration" made by God, i.e. that a person is righteous, is not that which produce righteousness in man but is a recknoning or an accounting of the righteousness that one attains by faith:

What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, who followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. Rom. 9:30

To put it another way, faith is the basis upon which a man becomes righteous:

For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Rom. 4:3

And,

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Rom. 4:5

Abraham was not righteous because God declared him righteous, but because Abraham believed God. And it was this faith that was declared as righteous by God in order that we all may know that a man is justified by faith and not by the works of the law.

But now, the righteousness of God apart from the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets, even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe; for there is no difference. Rom. 3:21-22

So once again, a man is made righteous by faith, and as a consequence is declared righteous by God:

Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him, but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus, our Lord, from the dead. Rom. 4:23-24

And,

For with the heart man believes unto righteousnes, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Rom. 10:10 

Again, notice how Abraham's faith came first, and then the declaration or imputation, or an accounting, of his righteousness that came by faith:

And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was also able to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Rom. 4:21-22




> Quote:
> So that which is spoken into us, also exorcizes out of us, our sin. The sin is not swept under a rug anywhere, but is directly also imputed to Christ.





This will go so show the flaw of your previous argument. You stated that "imputation" is to produce in us righteousness, and so if this be the case then the opposite must also be true, i.e. that the imputation of our sin to Christ will likewise produce sin in him. But we know the Scriptures tell us he was without sin; and instead, he became the sin offering for us. What this means is that died vicariously for our sins, he bore our punishment, not that our sins were actually produced in him. 




> Quote:
> What really catches my attention, in reviewing this, was in the definition that it is in relation to facts. So Justification can never be a legal fiction (God unjustly calling something to be that which it is not), because God is calling into being, in us, that which we did not have. This makes it clear that the righteousness we had to have was that of perfect obedience, which is exactly what we are given in Christ’s perfect life. This is the Great Exchange as Luther called it. Jesus answers for our sins, we get the reward of His obedience.





There is nothing in Paul's doctrine of justification that implies the perfect obedience and righteous acts of Jesus is somehow transferred to us and in us by God. Rather, we are told by Paul that it was our obedience to the Gospel (by faith) that resulted in our reaping the benefits of Christ's vicarious death:

But God be thanked, that whereas ye were the servants of sin, ye have obeyed from the heart [i.e. faith, Rom. 10:9-13) that form of doctrine which was delivered unto you. Being, then, made free from sin, ye became the servants of righeousness. Rom. 6:17-18

So to put it simply, God's imputation of righteousness does not produce anything more than a simple but legal and divine account of the righteousness of a man who has obtained that righeousness by faith in Jesus Christ. The reason why this conflicts with the Reformed view is precisely because they do not believe man plays any part whatsoever in his salvation and justification, not even where it concerns the exercising of faith. And so the Reformers were forced by their beliefs to formulate an erroneous view of imputation. 

The Baptist

------

Fun stuff. I am currently but slowly formulating a reply, but any thought or assistance would be helpful due to time restraints. Just thought some might like to see some of the argument that is used against this doctrine still in our day.


----------



## JKLeoPCA (Mar 9, 2007)

Here is my humble reply thus far, but would like any imput any would like to offer. 




> While I believe in the doctrine imputed righteousness, I have a bit of a problem with the way it is explained by the adherents of Reformed theology:
> 
> Actually, lego would be the verbal form from which logos is derived. The word logizomai is also a derivative of lego, and rather than carry the meaning of "to speak, to say" it has the related connotation of "to calculate, to count," "to set down as a matter of account or record." Thus the word is actually declarative of what stands to be true about someone or something, as per your example:
> 
> “This word deals with reality. If I "logizomai" or reckon that my bank book has $25 in it, it has $25 in it. Otherwise I am deceiving myself. This word refers to facts not suppositions.”



I agree with what all you have said up to this point, but only to a point. We have no righteousness, just like if the man did not have $25 to begin with. But if God says, yes there is righteousness in Abraham, then it is really and truly there, out of nothing that he previously had, or could have offered. Later you will refer this to faith, but it would have to be faith given, not faith already present, or it is just something righteous we already did have. It's like God is waiting (in your view) for someone to all the sudden have faith in God and then He checks it off as if just counting what was already there. With a correct view of righteouness, there is none to find in man aside from the imputation of Christ's righteouness. 



> However, the rest of your post goes beyond the meaning of the word logizomai and teaches something that the Word of God does not:
> 
> This not only takes too much liberty with what the word logizomai means, but it also contradicts your example. Simply because you declare there is $25 in your bank book, that does not translate into the idea that you spoke the $25 into existence. You are only declaring or giving an account of what is actually there.


As just mentioned, in respect to righteousness, if we started with none, then how is God calling us righteous, unless He put it there? 



> The "legal declaration" made by God, i.e. that a person is righteous, is not that which produce righteousness in man but is a recknoning or an accounting of the righteousness that one attains by faith:
> 
> What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, who followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith. Rom. 9:30
> 
> ...


Yet I would add that faith clings to the promise of God that Christ’s righteousness is for me. I am counted, reckoned, clothed in, possess Christ’s righteousness, and not a righteousness that is my own. And again to ask, where did the faith come from, if not from God? Also the "legal declaration" is reference to Justification, not directly that of the work of Imputation. 



> And,
> 
> But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Rom. 4:5
> 
> ...


This is the key of where the two side differ. To you God declares one righteous based upon man exorcizing a faith that is inherent in man. If man does A, God will do B. My view holds that God in declaring one righteous, also takes it upon Himself to make that person righteous. So the person is regenerated, out of which faith and every other saving grace flows. 



> And,
> 
> For with the heart man believes unto righteousnes, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Rom. 10:10
> 
> ...


So are you equating faith to righteousness? In other words, would you say that faith is a righteous act of man? That is what the semi-Pelagian view has always supported, that faith is not the gift of God, but the one righteous deed, or 1% man does to secure, or procure from God the other 99% of the offer of salvation. 




> This will go so show the flaw of your previous argument. You stated that "imputation" is to produce in us righteousness, and so if this be the case then the opposite must also be true, i.e. that the imputation of our sin to Christ will likewise produce sin in him. But we know the Scriptures tell us he was without sin; and instead, he became the sin offering for us. What this means is that died vicariously for our sins, he bore our punishment, not that our sins were actually produced in him.



Perhaps you forget this verse?

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
2 Cor. 5:21

Also this seems to indicate a lack of knowing what it is to have Christ as a vicar, or substitute, or to stand in our place, so that we can stand in His place.




> There is nothing in Paul's doctrine of justification that implies the perfect obedience and righteous acts of Jesus is somehow transferred to us and in us by God. Rather, we are told by Paul that it was our obedience to the Gospel (by faith) that resulted in our reaping the benefits of Christ's vicarious death:



What then is righteousness but to have a right standing before a Holy God? Who lives up to that but Christ? It is not that we just need our sins atoned for, for that would just bring us back to where Adam was. God grants the reward of salvation based upon a perfect life lived, and that is surely not based upon our lives, but upon Christ’s alone. So there is no benefit of His death, without the benefit of his life. 



> But God be thanked, that whereas ye were the servants of sin, ye have obeyed from the heart [i.e. faith, Rom. 10:9-13) that form of doctrine which was delivered unto you. Being, then, made free from sin, ye became the servants of righeousness. Rom. 6:17-18
> 
> So to put it simply, God's imputation of righteousness does not produce anything more than a simple but legal and divine account of the righteousness of a man who has obtained that righeousness by faith in Jesus Christ. The reason why this conflicts with the Reformed view is precisely because they do not believe man plays any part whatsoever in his salvation and justification, not even where it concerns the exercising of faith. And so the Reformers were forced by their beliefs to formulate an erroneous view of imputation.



I think you are confusing Imputation with Justification now. Man plays only the part of something that is dead being brought back to life. That gives the dead nothing to praise itself for, not even faith, but gives all glory to God. So everything that we find in a man/woman of faith is the workmanship of God. 


tips or suggestions? That was throw together kinda fast, but plan to repost to him sometime tomorrow (friday).


----------



## py3ak (Mar 12, 2007)

Hi John,

I'm sorry I didn't post more sooner. This is obviously a vitally important question. Anyway, even now I am not saying a lot, but I did want to direct you to an article by B.B. Warfield on imputation.


----------



## JKLeoPCA (Mar 13, 2007)

To those who are interested in how the discussion is goin. Well, here is the reply I got back, from just posting basicly what I had planned post above. 

___________________________________

Hi John,


Quote:


> Originally Posted by JKLeoOPC
> We have no righteousness, just like the man would not have started out with $25. But if God says, yes there is righteousness in Abraham, then it is really and truly there, out of nothing that he previously had, or could have offered. Later you will refer this to faith, but it would have to be faith given, not faith already present, or it is just something righteous we already have.





The idea that faith is “given” by God for salvation is really an erroneous conclusion drawn from Eph. 2:8. In reality the gift of God is his grace–the gift of eternal life–because it is not merited through works but is obtained through faith. In other words, faith is not the gift of God but the medium through which we obtain his gift:

Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom also we have access by faith into this grace in which we stand.... Rom. 5:1-2.

There is a gift of faith mentioned in 1 Cor. 12:9, but the context is clear that this is a gift bestowed upon believers and not unbelievers, and even that not all believers have this gift of faith just as not all had the gift of tongues. Now, Paul also tells us precisely how the unbeliever comes to faith:

So, then, faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Rom. 10:17

In other words, the unbeliever becomes capable of believing not because God gives him any alledged gift of faith but because God, through the Gospel, gives the ungodly something of which to put his faith in and be saved. 




> Quote:
> As just mentioned, in respect to righteousness, if we started with none, then how is God calling us righteous, unless He put it there? This is why in Reformed Theology we call it an alien or foreign righteousness, because it had no origin or foundation in us, but comes 100% from Christ.





Actually, God is calling Abraham righteous because of his belief in God:

And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was also able to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Rom. 4:21-22

So we see here God’s reason for giving an account of Abraham’s righteousness, and not that his accounting of it made Abraham righteous, at least not any more than making an account of the $25 in your bank book created that $25 in there. The $25 had to have already been there in order for you to make an account of it.




> Quote:
> Yet I would add that faith clings to the promise of God that Christ’s righteousness is for us. I am counted, reckoned, clothed in, possess Christ’s righteousness by faith, and not by a righteousness that is my own. And again to ask, where did the faith come from, if not from God? It is not faith in the righteousness of faith, it is always faith in the righteousness of Christ given to us.





We are not talking about any righteousness of our own, but the righteousness that is apprehended by faith:

What shall we say then? that the Gentiles who followed not after righteousness have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of God which is of faith. Rom. 9:30

Keep in mind that believing is not doing man’s work, but the work of God, i.e. what God requires from us in order to become righteous:

This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. Jn. 6:29




> Quote:
> This is the key of where the two sides differ. To you God declares one righteous based upon man exercising a faith that is inherent in man. If man does A, God will do B. The Reformed view holds that God in declaring one righteous, also takes it upon Himself to make that person righteous. So the person is regenerated, out of which faith and every other saving grace flows. Aside from God regenerating first by the Holy Spirit, man will not respond in faith or belief or anything to God.





Unfortunately for the Reformed position, Paul actually equates regeneration with salvation rather than make regeneration a state prepatory for salvation:

Even when we were dead in sins, hath made us alive together with Christ (by grace are ye saved). Eph. 2:5

If one is alive from the dead he is no longer dead in his sins and trespasses, and if he is no longer dead then he is most certainly saved.

Paul also tells us that we were saved by God’s mercy, “by the washing of regeneration of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5). It is the Spirit’s regeneration that washes us of our sins and changes our hearts and spirits within, just as the prophets foretold (Ezek. 36:25-27). So consequently regeneration does not precede faith and neither is the cause of faith, but is rather the resulting consequence of having believed. 




> Quote:
> Here is a brief added not in Calvin’s commentary on Romans 4:5,
> “Some have stumbled at this sentence, -- "his faith is counted for righteousness," and have misapplied it, as though faith were in itself the cause of righteousness, and hence a meritorious act, and not the way and means of attaining righteousness. Condensed sentences will not submit to the rules of logic, but must be interpreted according to the context and explanations elsewhere found. "His faith" means, no doubt, his faith in the Promise, or in God who promises, or in him who, as is said in this verse, "justifies the ungodly:" hence what is believed, or the object of faith, is what is counted for righteousness. This accords with the declarations, -- that "man is justified by faith," Romans 3:28, and that "the righteousness of God" is "by faith," Romans 3:22. If by faith, then faith itself is not that righteousness.





Faith is indeed a meritorious act, precisely because it is to do the work of God and not man. When we do what God requires of us in terms of faith, he rewards that obedience. And God’s word tells us so:

But without faith it is impossible to please him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Heb. 11:6

So perhaps you can explain to me why it is that Calvin is teaching contrary to the Scripture that faith is not a meritorious act? 




> Quote:
> Speaking of this righteousness, Pareus says, "It is not ours, otherwise God would not gratuitously impute it, but bestow it as a matter of right; nor is it a habit or quality, for it is without works, and imputed to the ungodly, who have habitually nothing but iniquities; but it is a gratuitous remission, a covering, a non-imputation of sins."



I think another big problem with the Reformed position is that it confuses justification with the imputation of righteousness. The former describes how God makes a man right in his eyes by faith, while the latter is an accounting or declaration of a man’s righteousness on account of his faith. It’s the difference between actually depositing $25 into one’s bank account and declaring what is actually in one’s bank account. 



> So are you equating faith to righteousness, or that faith earns righteousness? In other words, I would have to conclude that your saying that faith is a righteous act of man? That is what the semi-Pelagian view has always supported, that faith is not the gift of God, but the one righteous deed, or 1% man does to secure, or procure from God the other 99% of the offer of salvation. If we are righteous by faith, then faith is not the righteousness, but that which clings to the righteousness of Christ.





Listen to Paul, who uses Abraham as his example:

And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised. Rom. 4:11

For the promise that he should be the heir of the world was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. Rom. 4:13

You see, what you need to understand about faith is that it is that which declares God’s righteousness in forgiving us our sins and justifying us from all our transgressions when we believe in the sacrifice of Christ:

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. To declare, I say, at this time, his righteousness, that he might be just, and the justifier of him who believeth in Jesus. Rom. 3:25-26)

In other words, when we believe on Jesus and what he did on the cross we are declaring that God is true, that his promises are true, and based on this one act alone God forgives our sins, justifies us from all things, and makes the declaration that we are righteous indeed.

But lest you think there is room for boasting here on account of faith, Paul teaches just the opposite:

Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? Nay, but by the law of faith. Therefore, we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. Rom. 3:27-28

And the reason for this being, again, is because faith agrees with God, that we are condemned sinners who need to be justified by God and not by performing the works of the law, which is why Calvinists greatly err when they charge us with boasting when we claim we must do something (i.e. believe) in order to be saved, because faith is not of the law and it is quite erroneous of anyone to try and equate it with works.




> Quote:
> Perhaps you forget this verse (verses but this one does fine by itself)?
> 
> For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 2 Cor. 5:21
> ...





Jesus took our place in death; he did not become sin or a sinner for us. When Paul said “he became sin for us” what he meant was Jesus became our sin offering, just as Isaiah taught in Isa. 53. Under the old sacrificial system personal guilt was transferred to an innocent victim, so that the innocent victim vicariously suffered the punishment due to the guilty party. That the sacrificial animal bore the guilt of the sinner did not change the character of the victim itself as being without blemish. So I’m not really sure what you’re trying to demonstrate here with this verse.




> Quote:
> So you do declare faith to be a righteous act on mans part that saves him. Man’s obedience is the key. That sounds a lot like works, and not by grace. But I know the slight of hand whereas it is an obedience but not a work, somehow. What then is righteousness but to have a right standing before a Holy God? Who lives up to that but Christ. It is not that we just need our sins atoned for, for that would just bring us back to where Adam was, but God grants the reward of a perfect life lived, and that is surely not based upon our lives, but upon Christ’s alone.





You have to be careful not to confuse the obedience of faith with the works of the law. A righteous standing before God comes as a result of God’s justification. But God will not justify anyone who does not believe. Consequently, that makes faith the requisite for justification. It is God who justifies; but faith acknowledges our need for God to justify us and puts us in the right disposition to be justified by God.

And again, there is nothing in Paul’s doctrine that teaches Jesus’ perfect righteousness and obdience is somehow transferred to us. That is a distortion of what he taught. 




> Quote:
> First I think you miss point of those verses. Why did they obey from the heart if not that they were first regenerated so as they could obey.





They obeyed because they were fully persuaded that God would keep his promises, just as Abraham was fully persuaded by God’s message to him. That’s why people obeyed from the heart unto righteousness, and not have righteousness imputed in order that they may obey and believe. Calvinisim just has it all backwards, and which is why I can confidently say it does not preach the Gospel of Christ. It is another gospel altogether.




> Quote:
> In the one verse I guess you over look that is states that the person is made free from sin. Man plays only the part of something that is dead being brought back to life. That gives the dead nothing to praise itself for (especially not obedience), but gives all glory to God. Faith is not in and of itself anything we contribute to getting God to look our way or earn salvation.





Here’s another error of Reform theology...that “dead in sin” means “unable to respond.” If that is what it really means, then by the same token you would have to take the phrase that we are “dead to sin” in the same way, i.e. that Christians are unable to respond to sin, which you know isn’t the case. What this reveals is that there is a fundamental flaw in the Reformed camp as to what “dead” means. And again, you are making the mistake that to believe is to have something of which to glory in, which it does not by virtue of what I said previously: that faith agrees with God that we are sinners who need to be justified by God. That is a humble confession, not one borne out of pride or the search for self-glorification.




> Quote:
> The only righteousness that faith has, and it does not have it, but only grasps, clings, and holds onto it) is that of Christ’s perfect righteousness. In and of itself, even if it had some form of righteousness, it would be nothing but filthy rags, which would only count as to offend God all the more. These are the problems I have with the non-Reformed Theology positions about Imputation.





I noticed that in much of what you wrote, you used a minute amount of Scripture to support your arguments. It seems to me your beliefs are more or less based on your own reasoning rather than what the Scriptures explicitly teach. 

Once again, nowhere does Paul teach Christ’s perfect righteousness is somehow transferred to us. Just because you repeat it a million times doesn’t make it true. 

From my perspective the Reformed position plays down the truth about faith, and it does this because it has attached itself to an erroneous view of predestination. For you God determines beforehand who will and will not be saved and controls every aspect of the salvation process, which is why you believe that a man chosen for salvation can do nothing to resist it. And quite frankly, that is more akin to the Greek philosophy of fate than it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Baptist
_____________________

I've not had the time to formulate a responce yet.


----------



## JKLeoPCA (Mar 13, 2007)

py3ak said:


> Hi John,
> 
> I'm sorry I didn't post more sooner. This is obviously a vitally important question. Anyway, even now I am not saying a lot, but I did want to direct you to an article by B.B. Warfield on imputation.



Thanks for that link. I'll read that tonight.


----------

