# Doctrine of Imputation



## Justin Williams (May 13, 2009)

Would you all be able to recommend books that deal specifically with the doctrine of imputation? It would be of great help if one of the recommendations dealt with a discussion of the doctrine of imputation as it is understood and rejected by the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches.


----------



## WaywardNowHome (May 13, 2009)

As an extension to the OP, could someone post some verses that directly speak of Christ's imputation of righteousness?


----------



## DMcFadden (May 13, 2009)

Classic for brevity: Murray, _Redemption Accomplished and Applied_.

Old classics: John Gill, _The Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness_.
John Owen, _The doctrine of Justification by Faith, through the Imputation of the Righteousness of Christ_.

Contemporary: John Piper, _The Future of Justification_.
R.C. Sproul, _Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification_. 
James White, _The God Who Justifies_.


----------



## Casey (May 13, 2009)

Murray, _The Imputation of Adam's Sin_


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (May 13, 2009)

WaywardNowHome said:


> As an extension to the OP, could someone post some verses that directly speak of Christ's imputation of righteousness?



Romans chapter 5.


----------



## toddpedlar (May 13, 2009)

I second Murray's little booklet, The Imputation of Adam's Sin. I haven't read it but there's also a new book on Edwards and this topic. Finally, you can't go wrong with Owen's Treatise on Justification, found in Volume 5 of his works, or in this new reprint specifically of this treatise, which I highly recommend.


----------



## christiana (May 13, 2009)

Isaiah 61:10

2 Cor 5:21


----------



## wturri78 (May 13, 2009)

I've heard all of these recommended before. I know several people who highly respect Murray's book. I intend to read James White's book at some point in the future--he has a way of presenting doctrine in an understandable way without dumbing anything down.

Sproul's book on Faith Alone was very good from an historical perspective, especially contrasting with the Council of Trent and clarifying precisely what the Reformation meant by _sola fide_, but I found it somewhat lacking from an exegetical point of view. 

Of the handful of rebuttals I've read against the doctrine of imputation, the majority have been popular level Catholic apologetics that almost entirely missed the point or else badly misrepresented the Protestant position. Typically they aim more at the "faith alone" in the sense of "as long as I've accepted Jesus into my heart as *PERSONAL* lord 'n savior, I can do whatever I want and ride the train to heaven." That's not all that hard to refute. 

One meaningful and respectful article I read recently (OK, partially read because it's very long) critiqued the idea that God could declare somebody to be righteous who was not actually righteous. He focused specifically on Romans 4:1-8, doing a word study where the term translated "it was _counted_ to him as righteousness" and claims that in many other instances, the same word is used when God is describing something that inherently is what he says it is--not forensically declared to be. He was responding specifically to White's "God Who Justifies." Thus, he contends that when God counted faith to Abraham as righteousness, it was because Abraham's act of faith showed that he had inherent righteousness. 

I only mention that because it's perhaps the first well-written critique that actually addresses the issue rather than a distortion of it. At least it seems so at first glance. Here is the link if anyone is interested--perhaps someone can comment on whether one of the suggested titles above would directly counter this: Pugio Fidei


----------



## reformedminister (May 13, 2009)

WaywardNowHome said:


> As an extension to the OP, could someone post some verses that directly speak of Christ's imputation of righteousness?



Romans 4:7-11; 22-25


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 13, 2009)

Justin Williams said:


> Would you all be able to recommend books that deal specifically with the doctrine of imputation? It would be of great help if one of the recommendations dealt with a discussion of the doctrine of imputation as it is understood and rejected by the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches.



I second those recommended already. I would add the classic _Justification_ by James Buchanan. There's also a great little book by John L. Girardeau called _The Federal Theology: Its Import and Its Regulative Influence_ which deals with imputation under framework of federal/covenant theology. 

Regarding EO, there is not much interaction from the Reformed world over justification, largely because it wasn't until the last 100 years or so when we came into regular contact with them in a common language. But, they are identical in principal to Roman Catholicism. The only book lately that has made a conscious attempt to interact with EO from a Reformed perspective is Robert Letham's _Through Western Eyes_. It is a very helpful overview and he does review the differences on justification. Hope that helps.


----------



## chbrooking (May 13, 2009)

1Co 15:44b-49

Murray called this passage, “One of the most striking and significant rubrics in all of Scripture.” And Professor Murray was not prone to overstatement. This is a passage that gives us the most all-embracing outlook that we find in Scripture regarding the work of Christ.

On the one side, Adam is protos, first. In Paul’s thinking, there is no one before Adam. Christ, then, as we must never lose sight of in this passage, in His Adamic identity, is deuteros, second. What does that mean, that Adam is first and Christ is second. Just as there is no one before Adam, there is no one between Adam and Christ, at the level of Paul’s thinking. Christ is second -- no one matters between Adam and Christ. No one counts but these two. 

But Christ is not only second, but He is also eschatos -- last. There is no one after Christ. Christ is the eschatological man. 

So Adam and Christ are in view here not as individuals, but as they are representatives, heads. This is especially seen in v. 48:
As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.

As such, as they are representative heads, they bring in orders of life, environments of existence. Worlds. For which respectively they are determinative.


----------



## wturri78 (May 13, 2009)

Puritan Sailor said:


> Justin Williams said:
> 
> 
> > Would you all be able to recommend books that deal specifically with the doctrine of imputation? It would be of great help if one of the recommendations dealt with a discussion of the doctrine of imputation as it is understood and rejected by the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches.
> ...



I have made a bit of an effort over the last year to get a handle on EO beliefs about pretty much anything, and there doesn't seem to be any focused refutation of particular doctrines of justification, probably because it wasn't a sharp matter of conflict as it was in the western church. Although the differences seem very similar to those of Roman Catholicism, I would wonder how directly they can be compared since the EO understanding of "original sin," human nature, the nature of the atonement, etc. are quite different from both RCC and Reformed understanding. Their doctrine of the atonement sounds very much like the early understanding of the "ransom theory" wherein Christ paid the ransom to the Devil, or to death itself. In fact the EO point to Anselm's theory of substitution as a later development that steered the western church further from the original apostolic faith. And, one EO priest told me, "We [the EO] really don't see justification, sanctification, etc. as distinct concepts--they're all a part of the mystery of _theosis_." 

Interesting how both Catholics and Protestants are starting to pay attention to Orthodoxy in its own right. I guess for an ancient body, they're only just starting to really take a place on the radar of American Christianity. Could make for some interesting new discussions!


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 13, 2009)

wturri78 said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> > Justin Williams said:
> ...




Yes, that is the interesting thing about EO. They missed all the doctrinal wars of the West because they wrote us off as schismatics. But regarding justification, they are similar to Roman Catholicism. Justification is the gradual transformation of the person from sinner to righteous. EO calls the process theosis ending with deification. Rome would end this process with the exit from purgatory and entrance to glorification. But the means of facilitating this transformation process are the same, faithfulness to the Church and especially the sacraments.


----------



## greenbaggins (May 14, 2009)

A newer book that looks very interesting is this one. The man got his Th.M. from WTS, teaches at Erskine, and the book is recommended by Gaffin. I haven't read it myself, though.


----------

