tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post115311336222989193..comments2024-03-10T10:40:32.319-07:00Comments on Pyromaniacs: The Great Exchange (Part 1)Phil Johnsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comBlogger62125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-3944198032929117782013-03-01T11:37:29.156-08:002013-03-01T11:37:29.156-08:00Can I just say that this is such a wonderful and s...Can I just say that this is such a wonderful and succinct post describing the glory of Christ?<br /><br />I saw this 03/01/2013, but noticed the post was written July of 2006, less than two weeks after this HAPPENED TO ME. I praise God that pryo is still here today for me to read and for the grace of Christ to me that month.Michael Coughlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01151414777657994736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1153369902900840712006-07-19T21:31:00.000-07:002006-07-19T21:31:00.000-07:00Raja,If you are still reading this thread, I must ...Raja,<BR/>If you are still reading this thread, I must say I am not prepared to say too much more about the connection between justification and union with Christ as I understand it. This is still fresh in my mind and your comments on this thread sparked further interest in the matter.<BR/><BR/>Apart from this side discussion, I have not been convinced of the arguments against imputation. I find it interesting the respect Bird pays to John Piper's work, "Counted Righteous in Christ." I think Piper did a fine job defending imputation and I look forward to PJ's up-coming posts.MSChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05419145542442539462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1153278951536340512006-07-18T20:15:00.000-07:002006-07-18T20:15:00.000-07:00E~D: However, at least God would not be neurotic, ...E~D: <I>However, at least God would not be neurotic, only schizophrenic. . . . I do not understand why punishment is necessary for the display of God's justice. . . . Sins cannot be abstracted from persons, for sin does not have an ontological existence unto itself.</I><BR/><BR/>I think I'll pass on the invitation to run around the mulberry bush <A HREF="http://teampyro.blogspot.com/2006/06/back-again.html" REL="nofollow">again</A>. <BR/><BR/>So, for now at least, let's have a cease fire. Phil has promised more posts on the topic, so let's be gentlemen and let him finish, shall we?Taliesinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06250806687440204400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1153264754323490742006-07-18T16:19:00.000-07:002006-07-18T16:19:00.000-07:00Scott,That's really interesting - at this point I'...Scott,<BR/><BR/>That's really interesting - at this point I'm not sure that there's got to be one picture/model for how this works. It could be that Paul employs more than one imagery to describe our reception of Christ's righteousness. Moreover I'm not sure that representationalism is a necessary component to Bird's view - maybe you could flesh that out a bit more. I didn't see the distinction of metaphorical vs. actual union as being at stake in the discussion, since an experiential union with Christ could just as easily serve as the instrumentality of recieving Christ's righteousness. But again, I haven't really thought much about this particular debate - and it'll be fun to follow up on the sources you mentioned. How do you speak of the dying and raising of Christ and its impact upon the believer as it relates to justification as per the experiential emphasis you've mentioned? <BR/><BR/>Chris,<BR/><BR/>If you're not arguing for such an idea inherent in katallasso, we don't have a disagreement. If you're arguying for logizomai as inherently communicating a bookkeeping metaphor, we disagree. The word means to "consider" or to "reckon", in justification contexts. No, the Corinthians would not have understood it to be a word-picture from bookeeping. Words by themselves rarely are so picturesque, and Greek isn't special in that regard.<BR/><BR/>Jeremy,<BR/><BR/>I'm not "peddling" anything. What do I possibly have to gain from anyone being convinced by this view? I don't care whether you embrace it or not - I just happen to think it better explains the language in the texts used to describe imputation. Amd as I recall it hasn't been soundly refuted here. In fact, in the treatment of 2 Co. 5:19-21 within this post, it was largely conceded. Disagreement and refutation are two different things, and your vocalization of the former doesn't entail the latter.Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1153238650313480892006-07-18T09:04:00.000-07:002006-07-18T09:04:00.000-07:00Why is Raja still peddling Bird's Incorporated Rig...Why is Raja still peddling Bird's Incorporated Righteousness article? How many times does it have to be refuted?Jeremy Weaverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02552780649310262425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1153238631795788822006-07-18T09:03:00.000-07:002006-07-18T09:03:00.000-07:00Raja-If you want to argue for an accounting metaph...Raja-<BR/><BR/><B>If you want to argue for an accounting metaphor here, you'll have to find other features in the text beyond freighting in extended classical definitions from the word katallasso (and logizomai, for that matter).</B><BR/><BR/>I'm not arguing for such an idea inherent in katallasso, rather that, in this particular context, katallasso is qualified by logizomai. Are you suggesting that the bookeeping/accounting metaphor should not be understood as inherent in logizomai? How does Paul use logizomai, particularly in texts clearly relating to justification? Would not the Corinthians have understood some bookeeping sense when Paul used the term?Chris Pixleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06553175247140991812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1153235861389115462006-07-18T08:17:00.000-07:002006-07-18T08:17:00.000-07:00Raja,I read Bird’s JETS article, “Incorporated Rig...Raja,<BR/>I read Bird’s JETS article, “Incorporated Righteousness” and I believe he makes some valid points regarding the connection between justification and union with Christ. I think it is particularly apropos for the present discussion of 2 Cor. 5:21 since Paul says we have become the righteousness of God “in Him” (en auto). <BR/><BR/>However, Bird’s argument hinges on his understanding of union with Christ which as I suspected is understood as representational. This understanding is simply assumed without argumentation. Given that, if I understand his argument correctly, imputation is unnecessary for the following reason: the locus of righteousness is found strictly in the person of Christ (no one would deny that), but the benefit of Christ’s righteousness for the believer is limited to His being their representative. In other words, since Bird seems to tie justification primarily to federal union (to me this is a dubious and reductionistic treatment ignoring a wider array of data), then no transactional dimension of justification can be seen. I am not so sure that proves much even for those who hold to federal headship. It seems to me like so much sound and fury signifying nothing. Why can’t righteousness be imputed under Christ’s representation? It seems to me that imputation has the same forensic overtones that federal representation does.<BR/><BR/>In either case, I think a stronger case for imputation can be made from understanding union with Christ as that which is in some way real and not merely representational. This is the reason for bringing up Gal. 2:20 (cf. also Rom. 8:10; 2 Cor. 13:5; Gal. 1:16; Eph. 3:17). I think it is fair to say believers are “in Christ” in the same way that Christ is in the believer. This treats the “in Christ” formulas as locative. In other words, the fact that the believer is joined ‘really’ to Christ and Christ to the believer makes the notion of imputation of sin and righteousness via exchange much more palpable in my mind. <BR/><BR/>This does not mean that our union with Christ is ontological (let us dispense with E~D’s silliness), although there is an organic connection (i.e. think of John 15 – the Vine and Branches motif along with other metaphors describing the believer’s relationship to Christ that are perhaps less metaphorical than we usually think). I think union with Christ points to the experiential transformation of conversion. Although the objective reality of justification is not experiential, I think its connection to union ties it to the whole matrix of salvific ideas, both objective and subjective. In other words, ultimately we cannot isolate any one dimension of salvation be it the ideas of redemption, reconciliation, atonement, regeneration, adoption, union, or justification, etc…<BR/><BR/>This is not a finely tuned argument on my part, but merely the results of my ongoing reflections on some of the issues involved in the bigger picture.MSChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05419145542442539462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1153233019014405912006-07-18T07:30:00.000-07:002006-07-18T07:30:00.000-07:00Exist~dissolve "What of 1 John 2:28-3:3 . . . It s...<B>Exist~dissolve</B> <I>"What of 1 John 2:28-3:3 . . . It seems that this pretty explicitly says that we shall be 'like' Christ, not simply considered to be like Christ."</I><BR/><BR/>You have confounded justification with glorification. <B>Taliesin</B> cited a passage where Paul is expressly dealing with justification and explaining the principle of imputation. You deflected to a passage where the apostle John is dealing with glorification. (And you did so without even acknowledging the plain truth of the passage that was originally cited. Not a very fruitful way to discuss such a weighty issue.)<BR/><BR/>No one denies that we will be made "like Christ" when we are glorified. What we deny is that our standing with God right here and now is somehow dependent on the future reality of <I><B>what we will be,</B></I> rather than the accomplished fact of <I><B>what Christ has done for us.</B></I><BR/><BR/>In other words, if I'm justified by being made "like Christ," then my full justification must await my glorification. But that's contrary to the plain statements of Romans 5:1, Romans 8:1, and a host of other NT references.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1153230014655232922006-07-18T06:40:00.000-07:002006-07-18T06:40:00.000-07:00broken--No argument here but your insistence on on...broken--<BR/><BR/><I>No argument here but your insistence on ontology only lends to my point. Being made righteous by faith in Christ is not negated by the fact that we are being made righteous in faith.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Huh?<BR/><BR/><I>Nor does any of this negate as to how we are able to come to Christ by faith...again consult Romans 4 in light of your protests.</I><BR/><BR/>Again, Romans 4 is a decently sized chapter. More specific references would be helpful.<BR/><BR/><I>Because your objection to Phil's use of "credited" is absurd in light of this passage. You cannot strip Paul down to a single verse, mine it as you like, but then deny the consideration of all other relevant passages in light of the one you are protesting.</I><BR/><BR/>Stripping Paul down to one verse---oh, you mean like the verse with "credited" in it? Pretty convenient.<BR/><BR/><I>Yes, righteousness not by identification. Yes, not by the culturs of Judaism. Yes, by faith in Christ. But no, you cannot then "conjure" for yourself some phantom link between imputation of righteousness and Judaism in order to demonize the argument with ghosts that just aren't there. We are credited righteousness by faith in Christ. It's Christ's righteousness that we are given, not the righteousness of self found under Judaic law, customs and observances.</I><BR/><BR/>But it is not "credited." We are "born of God," as 1 John says. This, again, is ontological language, a fundamental change in the very constitution of who we are. <BR/><BR/><I>You need to show how your concerns over the ontologoical and the forensic are mutually exclusive. I don't see this as either/or at all, it's a both/and situation.</I><BR/><BR/>I've already discussed at length my objections to forensic language. If you have a specific question about what I have said, I will be more than willing to answer it. HOwever, I do not wish to rehash everything that I have said to this point.Exist-Dissolvehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17197236965102469206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1153229708842202282006-07-18T06:35:00.000-07:002006-07-18T06:35:00.000-07:00taliesin--Not if God has a purpose in doing so. If...taliesin--<BR/><BR/><I>Not if God has a purpose in doing so. If God's purpose is to reveal both justice and mercy, love and wrath, holiness and grace, He has to ordain a reality which would allow for both to be displayed.</I><BR/><BR/>So God's "justice" can only be displayed if evil exists? According to this logic, it would seem that evil is actually necessary to God's existence. Odd, indeed. However, at least God would not be neurotic, only schizophrenic.<BR/><BR/><I>So what God desires is not to punish the Son for such a creation but to punish sin as a display of justice and mercy - that is displaying both His righteousness in punishing sin and His grace in forgiving sinners.</I><BR/><BR/>I do not understand why punishment is necessary for the display of God's justice. If God is truly "just," it would seem that any act would be a display of justice. Therefore, if punishment of sin is a necessary requisit to God displaying justice, my previous comment about sinfulness being necessary to the existence of God is spot on. Of course, it is odd that God would react so strangely to something inherent to God's nature, but that is what schizophrenics do, I suppose.<BR/><BR/><I>So, using this principle we can correctly infer that when Peter writes, "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed."(1 Peter 2:24 ESV) he literally means our sins were placed on Christ and punished on the cross?</I><BR/><BR/>Sins cannot be abstracted from persons, for sin does not have an ontological existence unto itself. Therefore, I would suggest that the interpretation should follow along the lines of something like Christ becoming prey to the consequences of human sinfulness. <BR/><BR/><I>In Romans 4 Paul repeatedly states that Abraham had righteousness credited to him because he believed. He is not made righteous. He does not become righteous. Faith is credited (imputed) to him transactionally as righteousness.</I><BR/><BR/>What of 1 John 2:28-3:3:<BR/><BR/>And now, little children, abide in him, so that when he appears we may have confidence and not shrink from him in shame at his coming. If you know that he is righteous, you may be sure that every one who does right is born of him. See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him. Beloved, we are God's children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. And every one who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure.<BR/><BR/>It seems that this pretty explicitly says that we shall be "like" Christ, not simply considered to be like Christ.Exist-Dissolvehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17197236965102469206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1153228676309292572006-07-18T06:17:00.000-07:002006-07-18T06:17:00.000-07:00raj,I thought because of the context, Cent was exp...raj,<BR/><BR/>I thought because of the context, Cent was expounding on the meaning of this word. It's context that releases the meaning of a word, isn't it?donsandshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03665794015011057098noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1153203890391477782006-07-17T23:24:00.000-07:002006-07-17T23:24:00.000-07:00Calvdispy,That's interesting, Scott (I just realiz...Calvdispy,<BR/><BR/>That's interesting, Scott (I just realized who you are!) - I'll have to look into that. Thanks for the references!<BR/><BR/>Steve,<BR/><BR/>I was saying to donsands that the presence of this word isn't sufficient to prove a book-keeping metaphor. I was telling Phil the same thing. The word doesn't necessitate it (donsands), and it doesn't rule it out (Phil). In short, the word itself isn't enough to justify the presence of such a metaphor in the passage. <BR/><BR/>So no, I'm not backpeddling.Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1153203166434404082006-07-17T23:12:00.000-07:002006-07-17T23:12:00.000-07:00Raja,Taking a second Look at the grammar of Col. 1...Raja,<BR/>Taking a second Look at the grammar of Col. 1:27, I think I agree with you. However, what is your thought on Gal. 2:20? Specifically the phrase, "Christ lives in me [ev emoi]". I think this is a significant phrase expressing union with Christ considering its connection with the use of sunestauromai (i.e. the 'sun' compound - "crucified together with [Christ]"). I believe Paul coined certain 'sun' compound verbs to express our union with Christ in his death and resurrection. However, is union no less expressed in the "Christ lives in me" phrase?<BR/><BR/>I question the strictly federalist view of union with Christ as represented in many reformed circles as incorporation (or what some call "corporate solidarity"). Both John Murray (cf. art. "Definitive Sanctification") and Richard Gaffin (cf. book "Resurrection and Redemption: A Study in Paul's Soteriology") reject the corporate view of union and opt for an experiental view. I have been persuaded by their careful arguments. This is based on a strictly locative understanding of the "en Christo, et. al." formulas as first propounded by A. Deissmann with some qualifications (I think Deissmann over-simplified the data). I think this has profound implications for our understanding of union and may nuance our understanding of justification though I must think through those notions. I just find it interesting that you bring up union in connection with justification. However, I question the incorporation view if it represents the standard federalist interpretation of union.<BR/><BR/>Forgive my ramblings, I am sort of thinking out loud.MSChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05419145542442539462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1153200816884044992006-07-17T22:33:00.000-07:002006-07-17T22:33:00.000-07:00Calvdispy,Well, I take the "en" in Col. 1:27 passa...Calvdispy,<BR/><BR/>Well, I take the "en" in Col. 1:27 passage as "among you" (i.e. among the body of believers in Colossae), and I take the "in Christ" passages you mentioned to refer to our Spiritual (as in "by the Holy Spirit") union with Jesus by which Paul says you have died with Him (Col. 2:20) and you are raised to new life with Him (Col 3:1). This is also present in Ro. 6:1-7. We are placed "in Christ" by faith, and by this union that we have Christ's righteous standing before God.Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1153199918405627252006-07-17T22:18:00.000-07:002006-07-17T22:18:00.000-07:00Raja,Do you regard the "en christo/ en auto/ sun c...Raja,<BR/>Do you regard the "en christo/ en auto/ sun chirsto/ sun auto" and the various "sun" compound verbs (e.g. Rom. 6:4, 6, 8) as a reciprocal ways of expressing the indwelling of the Holy Spirit or as Col. 1:27 says, "Christ in you..."?<BR/><BR/>I am in process of reading the ETS article. I am trying to understand what you are saying.MSChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05419145542442539462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1153199831862565702006-07-17T22:17:00.000-07:002006-07-17T22:17:00.000-07:00By the way, Chris - to answer your question, yes o...By the way, Chris - to answer your question, yes of course "not counting our trespasses" further qualifies how Christ reconciled us to God - but one can affirm this without saying that the word "reconcile" pictures a financial exchange and the word "counting" depicts a ledger with my account balance listed. Reconcile in this context means "reconcile". "not counting our tresspasses against us" means "not counting our tresspasses against us".<BR/><BR/>God has brought us into fellowship with Himself in Jesus Christ by not regarding our sins because of the work of His death and resurrection. I can teach that without referring to these words as clever "finanical metaphors" which are only "really clear in the Greek" - because they're not.Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1153199017743445892006-07-17T22:03:00.000-07:002006-07-17T22:03:00.000-07:00Chris, I think we're talking past one another. Ta...Chris, I think we're talking past one another. Take a look at what I wrote to Phil under <B>1)</B>, and see if that helps to clarify (and my responses to exit-dissolve, while you're at it). <BR/><BR/>My only disagreement with Cent was the idea that the word katallasso is an intentional market-place metaphor. In other words, my very point was our agreement that "lexical definitions only go so far in interpreting a text" - a sound interpretation can't rest on a dubious word study. If you want to argue for an accounting metaphor here, you'll have to find other features in the text beyond freighting in extended classical definitions from the word katallasso (and logizomai, for that matter). In theological contexts within Hellenistic Judaism, this is the word people used to refer to a restored relationship, change in status, with God - no subterranean depiction of the exchange of coinage present.<BR/><BR/>But neither the existence of such a metaphor, or such connotations of these words, are necessary for seeing an implied transaction in this passage - but it must be admitted that such a transaction is implied, not somehow smuggled into a "rich" word-picture present behind these two words.Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1153198069905943602006-07-17T21:47:00.000-07:002006-07-17T21:47:00.000-07:00Incidentally, Phil, I don't think the distinction ...Incidentally, Phil, I don't think the distinction between Christ transferring His righteousness to us and us recieving our righteousness "in Him" is too complex a notion, and I didn't say that one couldn't affirm the doctrine of our union with Christ or justification and still hold to imputation. That, of course, would be nonsense. All I'm saying that the picture of incorporation fits the actual texts involved much better and puts greater significance on Paul's repetition of the "in Christ" terminology throughout his letters. Our faith unites us to Jesus and causes us to share in His death and resurrection, resulting in our justification.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, in that it maintains penal substitutionary atonement, the propitiation of God's wrath, the forensic nature of our justification and the rejection of Catholic notions of infused righteousness, it's something of an overstatement to call it "a radical departure".Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1153197553204681012006-07-17T21:39:00.000-07:002006-07-17T21:39:00.000-07:00Raja-You shouldn't be THAT surprised that I take N...Raja-<BR/><BR/><B>You shouldn't be THAT surprised that I take NT lexicons over Webster's in this case.</B><BR/><BR/>Who said anything about Webster's?<BR/><BR/><B>Furthermore, the fact that "not counting their trespasses against them" further qualifies "reconcilliation" doesn't mean that it "defines" it,</B><BR/><BR/>Is not qualification a means of further defining what is meant by the use of a particular term. Sure, qualifiers may not define a thing in its entirety, but certainly they provide some explanation as to what is meant <I>in part</I>. In Paul's case, he seems clearly to be arguing that the reconciliation he envisions involves the "not counting" of an indivudual's sins against them. In other words, this reconciliation--the restoration of a relationship--could not happen if one's sins were still counted against them by God. Thus, Paul is partly defining the nature of this reconciliation.<BR/><BR/><B>as you know from the myriad of grammatical options for participial qualification.</B><BR/><BR/>Yes, I am familiar with the variety of uses of participial phrases in the NT. As I recall, I sat through the same classes you did ;-) Would you care to offer an interpretation of the phrase that might counter the idea that Paul is using transactional language here?<BR/><BR/><B>What's more straightforward - to see the word "reconcilliation" as meaning "reconcilliation with God" in the sense of re-established relationship, or as a subtle accounting metaphor? You could argue that the word "logizomai" intends to conjure accounting imagery - but I take the controlling metaphor to be the one actually explicitly mentioned in the text, namely the one of "ambassador" for a King.</B><BR/><BR/>You've simply made an arbitrary choice (and Phil has rightly suggested that's it's based on the false notion that only one idea can be present in the text). I'm arguing that, by use of logizomai, Paul is <I>expliciltly</I> drawing our attention to the transaction of justification that is essential to biblical reconciliation. As Phil has stated, both ideas are present in the text.<BR/><BR/><B>Again, since the majority opinion of NT lexicons in theological contexts support the vanilla meaning of "reconciliation" as opposed to the accounting word-picture, it may be time to define your use of the word "flimsy".</B><BR/><BR/>I'm familiar with what the majority of NT lexicons have to say about the meanining of katalasso. But you know as well as I do that strict lexical definitions only go so far in interpreting a text. A term's full gloss is determined by it's usage in a particular context. That's why I argue that Paul's use of katalasso in 2 Cor 5 can only be rightly understood in light of his use of logizomai as a qualifier.Chris Pixleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06553175247140991812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1153197068993488502006-07-17T21:31:00.000-07:002006-07-17T21:31:00.000-07:00Ugh. I meant "great" not "breat". That's one lett...Ugh. I meant "great" not "breat". That's one letter away from an admin deleted post. I typed all of that pretty fast. Or "bast", if you will (it seems to me, as it were).Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1153196919279734252006-07-17T21:28:00.000-07:002006-07-17T21:28:00.000-07:00Phil,1) I didn't argue for a non-forensic understa...Phil,<BR/><BR/>1) I didn't argue for a non-forensic understanding of reconilliation, I didn't even argue that the word ruled out an accounting word-picture - I just said that the WORD BY ITSELF doesn't freight all of that stuff in, and that the lexicons are right to suggest that whatever interpretation of the passage you may take, reconcilliation means the plain old removal of offense and restoration of a relationship. Nothing hinges on the nonsense about "accounting metaphors" which stands behind the word reconcilliation in 2 Co. 5:21 - you can have a robust Reformed interpretation without it, and the points I made about the meaning of the word in this context stand, however insignificant they are. <BR/><BR/>2) I realize that a "it seems to me" argument (whatever that is) might not be convincing to you - it's just that my view is actually in the text. It says that we are made righteous "in Him" - not <B>through</B> Him, not <B>because</B> of Him, but in Him. If you want to argue that this isn't incompatible with the picture of "exchange", that's fine with me - but the picture of "incorporation" is much more than an "implication" of this text - it's actually in the text. So, I'll take the concession you offered when it comes to <B>THIS </B>text, anyway. <BR/><BR/>Whatever your view of building systematic theology I'm sure you'd agree that we have to find out what one text is saying (and this one is pretty clear) before we harmonize it with another. It'll be breat to see what you've got cooking from other passages in the rest of the series. <BR/><BR/>I'm curious to know, however, what's at stake in your mind if <B>a)</B> substitution is clearly affirmed, and <B>b)</B> the forensic nature of our righteousness is clearly affirmed and the denial of infused righteousness is also stressed such that <B><I> the only difference being proposed</I> is that identification with Christ is the instrumentality for these things instead of an exchange from one party to another</B>. <BR/><BR/>Calvdispy,<BR/><BR/>As for 1) and 2), check out <A HREF="http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:MuEjC-iBbfYJ:www.etsjets.org/jets/journal/47/47-2/47-2-pp253-275_JETS.pdf+incorporated+righteousness&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2&client=firefox-a" REL="nofollow">Michael Bird's article</A> for a sensible Reformed expression of the view. As for 3), no, no, no, a thousand times no.Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1153196122880104252006-07-17T21:15:00.000-07:002006-07-17T21:15:00.000-07:00Raja,1) How do you define "incorporation"? 2) Wher...Raja,<BR/>1) How do you define "incorporation"? 2) Where have you borrowed this term? 3) Does your understanding of incorporation rule out substutionary atonement?MSChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05419145542442539462noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1153195073373837192006-07-17T20:57:00.000-07:002006-07-17T20:57:00.000-07:00Raja: " I take the controlling metaphor to be the ...<B>Raja:</B> <I>" I take the controlling metaphor to be the one actually explicitly mentioned in the text, namely the one of "ambassador" for a King."</I><BR/><BR/>Chris's point was that <B>both</B> ideas are prominent in this context. The "ambassador" idea applies to the preacher and evangelist, who proclaims the <I>message</I> of reconciliation. The <I>work</I> of reconciliation, accomplished by Christ, is where the forensic aspects apply.<BR/><BR/>This doesn't strike me as a particularly complex distinction. It certainly doesn't warrant the elimination of imputation from Paul's doctrine of justification. Ditto for the truth of our union with Christ. Your insistence on either/or in both cases (either reconciliation or imputation and either union with Christ or imputation) makes no sense whatsoever.<BR/><BR/>I realize that argument is not unique to you, and it's gaining popularity—but that doesn't make it any less unjustified. Since it's such a radical departure from the historic Protestant consensus, it's going to take a lot more than a "well, it seems to me..." type of argument to persuade me.Phil Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00649092052031518426noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1153194195290983652006-07-17T20:43:00.000-07:002006-07-17T20:43:00.000-07:00Chris,You shouldn't be THAT surprised that I take ...Chris,<BR/><BR/>You shouldn't be THAT surprised that I take NT lexicons over Webster's in this case. Furthermore, the fact that "not counting their trespasses against them" further qualifies "reconcilliation" doesn't mean that it "defines" it, as you know from the myriad of grammatical options for participial qualification. <BR/><BR/>What's more straightforward - to see the word "reconcilliation" as meaning "reconcilliation with God" in the sense of re-established relationship, or as a subtle accounting metaphor? You could argue that the word "logizomai" intends to conjure accounting imagery - but I take the controlling metaphor to be the one actually explicitly mentioned in the text, namely the one of "ambassador" for a King. <BR/><BR/>Again, since the majority opinion of NT lexicons in theological contexts support the vanilla meaning of "reconciliation" as opposed to the accounting word-picture, it may be time to define your use of the word "flimsy".Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21212024.post-1153193559728243192006-07-17T20:32:00.000-07:002006-07-17T20:32:00.000-07:00Phil,Of course Morris didn't deny imputation - but...Phil,<BR/><BR/>Of course Morris didn't deny imputation - but he admitted that identification with Christ in his death and resurrection is what makes the doctrine tick, along with the essential notion that it is a status we're talking about with the word "righteousness". I think he's right about that.<BR/><BR/>Instead of viewing Christ's righteousness as something which is given to us, and is now found in us (though it's Christ's), the concept of incorporation says that our righteousness is found in Christ, in whom we are placed by faith. His death becomes our death, and His resurrection and vindication becomes our resurrection and vindication.<BR/><BR/>Here's Morris again on the idea of righteousness as "status" and how this impacts the debate over "imparted" versus "imputed" righteousness:<BR/><BR/><B>"When we have grasped the fact that the righteous are those accepted by God, some of the controversy concerning imputed and imparted righteousness seem beside the point. What difference does it make whether we impute or impart a status? Denney has well said on this matter: “the distinction of imputed and infused righteousness is unreal. The man who believes in Christ the propitiation – who stakes his whole being on sin-bearing love as the last reality in the universe – is not fictitiously regarded as right with God; he actually is right with God and God treats him as such. He is in the right attitude to God the Redeemer, the attitude which has the promise and potency of all rightness or righteousness in it, and it only introduces intellectual and moral confusion to make artificial distinctions at this point.” Those who come relying trustfully on the work of Christ for their acceptance with God are accepted as righteous, and if we bear in mind the essentially forensic nature of the term “righteous” there seems little need to dwell unduly on imparted or imputed righteousness. By the same token it may be possible to cavil at Denney’s inclusion of a reference to the “promise and potency of all rightness or righteousness”, for men are justified on Paul’s view not on account of any merit of their own, potential or actual, but only on account of Christ’s work and of their faith."</B><BR/><BR/>And, of course systematic theology is necessary. It's how systematic theology should be constructed that might spark debate. <BR/><BR/>As for your point about the New Perspective (as it relates to this question), you should note that some of its harshest critics (such as Mark Seifrid and Francis Watson) also opt for a view which emphasizes incorporation over imputation.Sharad Yadavhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12150204571738424517noreply@blogger.com