imputation of sin is unhealthy imo but I like the jewish ritual of atonement
Imputation- do you agree?
by Lillith26 69 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Robdar
interestingly one of the things that "unadulterated" Judaism laments is the inability to deliver sacrifices to God in the temple.
I think it is in isaiah that God says that "at that time, each will die for his own iniquities"...later on another Jewish man said that you will die unless you have THE Sacrifice in your temple...
does the fact that "unadulterated" Judaism can't make the sacrifices mean that they no longer take the commandment literally or that they can't make the sacrifices?
Judaism has undergone massive changes. Unless you hang out with the ultra orthodx, a scary bunch to the rest of us, you will hear no talk of sacrifice.
Even though sacrifices were at one time offered, it wasn't because Jews believed in a Christian interpretation of the fall of man. Nor do Jews believe Adam was meant to live forever. Jews believe that each and every child is born with a clean slate free of sin.
Every year we offer attonement through fasting, prayer and asking for forgiveness from God for failure to fulfill his mitzvot. We believe God will forgive us if our repentance is genuine. Since we believe that God cannot forgive us for the sins we commit against another human we must also seek out the people we have wronged and ask their forgiveness.
I hope this answers your question.
Love,
Robyn
-
Narkissos
Imputation basically has nothing to do with genetics ("scientific" or pre-scientific), it is a legal concept developed especially in Roman law. It can be discerned in the background of Paul's rhetorics in the epistle to the Romans, but it is hardly central to his theology which draws on a number of other notions and metaphors, many of them have nothing to do with the field of law. Only with Augustine (who mixes it with a pre-scientific "genetic" paradgim) does it become essential to the Western doctrine of "original sin". And only much later in Calvin (whose first training was in law) does it become absolutely central (and, to an extent, dissociated from "genetics").
In sum, it seems a gross exaggeration to me to say (as the op does) that Christianity as a whole stands or falls with the doctrine of imputation. That may be true of strict Calvinism at best. To most of historical Christianity "imputation" plays at most a fringe role in theological technicalities.
-
AllTimeJeff
In sum, it seems a gross exaggeration to me to say (as the op does) that Christianity as a whole stands or falls with the doctrine of imputation. That may be true of strict Calvinism at best. To most of historical Christianity "imputation" plays at most a fringe role in theological technicalities.
Hi Narkissos. I am not sure I agree with this. From your typical "every man on the street" pov, if there is no sin, passed down from Adam, there is no need for the ransom, and thus, no Christianity. (John 3:16)
If the ransom (with the concept of imputation) isn't the key pillar of Christianity, then what is?
I realize it is a big generalization for sure, but all religions that claim to be Christian have the passage of sin, along with the need for Christs sacrifice in common.
For the record, I obviously disagree with the whole concept.
-
Narkissos
The closest parallels to the sense of legal (as opposed to real or "physical," including "genetical") "imputation" in Romans are found in some characteristic uses of the verb logizomai (bold in the NRSV translation which follows):
2:26: So, if those who are uncircumcised keep the requirements of the law, will not their uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?
4:3ff For what does the scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due. But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness. So also David speaks of the blessedness of those to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works:
"Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
blessed is the one against whom the Lord will not reckon sin."
Is this blessedness, then, pronounced only on the circumcised, or also on the uncircumcised? We say, "Faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness." How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the ancestor of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them, and likewise the ancestor of the circumcised who are not only circumcised but who also follow the example of the faith that our ancestor Abraham had before he was circumcised.
For the promise that he would inherit the world did not come to Abraham or to his descendants through the law but through the righteousness of faith. If it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath; but where there is no law, neither is there violation. For this reason it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his descendants, not only to the adherents of the law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham (for he is the father of all of us, as it is written, "I have made you the father of many nations")--in the presence of the God in whom he believed, who gives life to the dead and calls into existence the things that do not exist. Hoping against hope, he believed that he would become "the father of many nations," according to what was said, "So numerous shall your descendants be." He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was already as good as dead (for he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah's womb. No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God, being fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. Therefore his faith "was reckoned to him as righteousness." Now the words, "it was reckoned to him," were written not for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead,
6:11 So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
9:8: it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as descendants.The use of ellogeô in 5:13 is also interesting: sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law. The only other use is non-theological but similarly "legal" (as opposed to fact), Philemon 18: "If he has wronged you in any way, or owes you anything, charge that to my account."
This use of logizomai (legal 'imputation' as opposed to "fact") is very rarely if ever found in Paul before Romans; it may emerge (but not yet in a fully developed way) in 2 Corinthians 5:19: "in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us." It doesn't play the same in Galatians (3:6 quotes Genesis 15:6 but does not argue on logizomai) and is lost in (other) post-Pauline literature.
-
Narkissos
Hi ATJ,
From your typical "every man on the street" pov, if there is no sin, passed down from Adam, there is no need for the ransom, and thus, no Christianity. (John 3:16)
I think it depends a lot what street you have in mind... :) in an American (and perhaps also Scottish, Swiss, or Dutch, i.e. where Calvinism has had a decisive influence on the general idea of "Christianity") you are probably right...
Your quoting John 3:16 is characteristic: what role does "sin, passed down from Adam," or "ransom" play in the Gospel of John? Strictly none imo. They can be read into it but they are not found in it.
Christianity was not less (albeit differently) diverse at its NT stage than it is now.
Another thread (on the topic of redemption/ransom) might be worth revisiting: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/175312/1/Redemption-Reductions
-
BurnTheShips
If the ransom (with the concept of imputation) isn't the key pillar of Christianity, then what is?
Only in countries with a strong Reformation tradition. Especially if they are Calvinist.
BTS
-
Deputy Dog
Lillith As a Calvinist, it makes perfect sense to me. I think you've oversimplified things a bit. It's the idea that man sins, because he is already a sinner. Adam's fall proves that man has a will apart from God's. Salvation comes as a result of perfect obedience by Christ, and faith in God's promise to make us into the image of His son
-
myelaine
dear Robdar...
you said: "Since we believe that God cannot forgive us for the sins we commit against another human we must also seek out the people we have wronged and ask their forgiveness."
Leviticus 19:34-37..."The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. ‘You shall do no injustice in judgment, in measurement of length, weight, or volume. You shall have honest scales, honest weights, an honest ephah, and an honest hin: I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt. ‘Therefore you shall observe all My statutes and all My judgments, and perform them: I am the LORD.”
was Jesus human?...
love michelle
-
daniel-p
If there was original sin, than there'd be no point for anyone to overcome and be good. How else can someone be good, if they're flawed at the core? To use the lame bread tin analogy: if you bake a loaf of bread in a dented tin, you'll have a dented loaf, not a whole, undented loaf. So, if we're all dented, why is it there are so many good people in the world, who both practice good and aspire to goodness?