Last year, here in New York City, Mockingbird hosted a theological discussion group on the topic “Does Sanctification Really Exist?” I have been thinking recently that we should host a follow-up called, “Does Imputation Really Exist?” My answer would be, “No, it does not, at least not in the way we have been saying that it does.”
I have had many conversations over the last few years with friends talking about the positive effects of imputation on their lives. Imputation from their friends, teachers, pastors, spouses etc, where they feel like they have been regarded as better than they truly are, and that that regard has made all the difference. But I have come to the conclusion that the imputation they have spoken of, that they have benefited from greatly, is actually not imputation at all.
Let me explain – when I was a sophomore in High School I entered a mountain bike race. I was terrified and it showed. I literally came in last place; the race had ended 3 hours before I even arrived. But still, there at the finish line, all alone, enthusiastically screaming at the top of her lungs was my mother. She was identifying me in that moment as a winner, perhaps the greatest mountain biker to ever live, and boy did I go home feeling like hero. Looking back, I have been tempted to say that she “imputed” victory to me. But this was not imputation. It was encouragement. She was being a mom. Sure, she denied that I was a loser and classified me instead as a winner. But if we call that imputation, in the framework of a theological discussion, we not only compromise our understanding of what imputation really is, and why we need it, but we give my mother power she simply does not have. We begin to think we have something to offer, which we don’t. We miss the point, which is that we are fallen and need Christ’s eternal, imputed holiness. We will never get it on our own. I may become a champion Mountain Biker when I grow up with or with out my mom’s support, but I will never be holy without the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.
So I think discussing of “imputation” outside of the imputed righteousness of Christ can be deadly. After all, outside of Christ, “righteousness” is empty. Some of the greatest and most murderous dictators of our time were given free reign to wipe out millions because of the “imputed righteousness” granted to them by public opinion. My friend after years of “imputing” to her abusive husband was finally sent to the hospital for 3 weeks.
Imputation of any consequence comes from Christ alone.
COMMENTS
53 responses to “Does Imputation Really Exist?”
Leave a Reply
Dusty –
I think that this is the beginning of an important conversation, and something I have thinking about as well. To wit:
I completely agree that “imputation” can become enabling and that nothing, absolutely nothing imputes any kind of real righteousness, except the cross.
That being said, I think that there is something to the insight that people become how they are treated. That is to say, when someone is loved (aka treated as different than they are, a form of imputation), they often become more lovely, although not in all cases.
I am not quite sure how to reconcile all this. How do we love the unlovable, as Jesus did, while still “calling a thing what it is?” (Forde).
Any ideas?
This is a brilliant insight, and touches on the problems which arise from using words like “law”, “gospel”, “grace” and “imputation” in vague and general ways without much clearly defined content. We do not want to go down the road of methodism and have “imputation” and “grace” become a psychological “method” whereby we attempt to accomplish desired behavioral goals in other people by “imputing” to them the behaviors we desire. God is love, not a behavior modification guru. Because we are loved by God when we fail “70 times 7” every day, we have some chance of loving the other who does the same, with eyes wide open to the fact of mutual and continuing failure. You have hit on an extremely important distinction: only God can judge; only God can impute.
RJ
I would say that imputation means nothing to someone who doesn’t feel destitute in their own estimation of themselves. That is why I can treat someone as righteous, but it does them no good because they already think they are righteous. That concept in human relationships only works if the recipient of the imputation sees themselves as needy.
Therefore, this is where we must speak the truth to people, especially the truth about human sinfulness and God’s wrath. In other words, the Law always preceeds the Gospel. And yes, in some sense we are called to tell people that they are sinners and under the wrath of God. Until they understand this, imputation in meaningless.
Dusty, I agree with you that only our mystical union with Christ effects true imputation.
Also, I would just add what i think is imputed to us through the gospel.
The Law demands two things: 1. Perfect obedience 2. Punishment for disobedience. Jesus Christ satisfied both of these demands in his substitutionary work. He perfectly obeyed the Law of God and suffered the punishment for disobedience to it. Our union with Christ causes us to be seen by God as 1. perfectly righteous and 2. to have satisfied the punishment of the Law.
WOW Dusty! What a great post.
I’ve always loved the imputation part of the Gospel, “the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were” (Romans 4:17) And so when I heard about how we can impute others with “good” amidst the “bad”, I loved that too.
But as I read your post, I realized that I often feel forced, or even manipulative, when I’m trying to “impute” something to someone. I think that speaks to your point that we are all sinful and truly it is only Christ who has the power to change us. And no matter how hard I try, I cannot impute anything, let alone righteousness, to anyone else. Encouragement sounds better to me; it kind of puts us all on an equal level, we’re all sinners, saved by grace, encouraging each other.
Dusty,
I completely agree…you are not a world class mountain biker no matter what your mom says:) (Couldn’t resist). Seriously, I do agree wholeheartedly. imputation is something that God alone can and does do through his Son Jesus Christ.
As humans, we can certainly make people feel better or worse about themselves by the way we treat them, at least for a moment or two. BUT this has no lasting effect to who they really are, as David points out, in light of the law. They may become seemingly more lovely, as RJ points out, but as we all know this means nothing when it comes to Matthew 5. If they are not changed by Christ on a heart/motivations level, then it is all for naught. As Michael rightly says, it would seem that this type of “imputation” is not for anyone’s benefit other than ours because then the person becomes “easier to deal with”, but all of their real problems remain.
Sweet pic by the way.
Hear, hear, Dusty!! Thank you for your wonderfully clarifying post! I fully agree with you in the eternally significant meaning of imputation: it is the gift God has given to us through his Son, Jesus, and we are crash-and-burn-mountain bikers receiving it (thank you Sarah).
I also agree that people in our lives are given to encourage us–they are mediators of God’s unconditional love to us (brought about by Jesus’ imputed righteousness). They are parents, friends, teachers, psychiatrists, strangers–anyone who has been used to enable our hearts to believe Jesus has really done all the things he has done for us. And I bet you that they are used unawares…I hope that we are too (similarly unaware). This rings true with the idea of the spontaneous fruit of the Holy Spirit that flows from us as a gift of our new being–not out of us “trying to improve someone” but rather happening when we have no idea. Usually out of brokenness (ie: our last-place-ness at the finishline…and I speak as a first grade repeat).
Wow, such a great post and comments. I just have one comment on the nature of Christ’s imputation.
All I would add is that there is something substantially different about Christ’s imputation as compared to our/my own. Because He is a our priest/king, declaring that justice has been satisfied by His blood, there is nothing false or hollow about His imputation. As Tim Keller said so well (paraphrasing): Christ, as our advocate with the Father, does not plead for mercy and “one more chance” but rather, declares justice fulfilled. There cannot be two punishments for one crime. This is why we are able to argue against the claim that Christianity is a “legal fiction”. On the other hand, when I try to impute righteousness to someone else artificially, it may come across as condescending and hollow to myself and the recipient.
Manipulation will not cure when death is the antidote.
However, true Holy-Spirit-inspired sacrificial forgiveness of the unlovable will always hit its mark.
Thanks again for the great discussion.
(caution: just a layman’s thoughts, I could be a heretic) 🙂
finally someone is clarifing imputation. it is a delusion to think that we have the ability to impute anything good. often imputation is described as being complimentary, charitable in our actions towards loved ones(nevermind our enemies), or giving people the benifit of the doubt when they do no deserve it, that version of imputation just cheapens the reality of Christ’s imputation in our lives.i think that the act of imputation is Christ’s alone.
Dusty, I agree that we should be clear that the term “imputation” can only be understood in light of the cross, but a declaration of truth and love to another is more than simply an encouragement.
Consider absolution offered after confession. I used to hate the idea of the priest saying absolution. I struggled with the association of forgiveness with the priest. But I realize now it is the word of God to a sinful world and the priest is merely the spokesperson. We need to hear the words, “You are forgiven.”
When we talk about imputation, it is never about us or anything we have to give, but it is certainly more than simply encouragement. It is the word of truth spoken in love.
I don’t want to delve too far into semantics. I think whether we call it “encouragement” or “grace” or “imputation”, or however we define it, matters a little less to the recipient of it than the way it’s received. It must be experiential, and really, that’s all that will matter to sufferers.
To the extent that imputation DOES exist, I think it’s safe to say that, without the involvement of the Holy Spirit, our motivations for imputing are self centered, self righteous and self serving.
It is indeed a good thing that we are “unaware” of our sometime “part” in true instances of imputation (or grace or encouragement or whatever you want to call it).
great discussion. .
I do think that too closely tying our ability to “impute” to what occurs theologically does run the risk of devaluing the message–its similar to when someone says (incorrectly) that they can express the love of God or be like Jesus–even though there are hints and echos of truth in those statements. . .
As I see it, the problem is that it is so easy to turn a descriptive term of the result of God’s prior action into an active term of our participation in the Gospel. . . much like we do with Grace or Law.
These words do not represent tools given to us; rather, they are descriptive terms indicating–and helping us make sense of our lives theologically—what has been shown/given (Grace), what is used (Law) and how we are viewed on account of Christ (imputation).
When I “try” to impute its the same as “trying” to love–it’s a lie and its condescending.If If we take the “classic” example of the nerd being loved by the cheerleader–the miracle is not that he was being “imputed” a pretend love, but that through the miracle of imputation, he was actually loved.
I think that this is how it works pastorally. We find ourselves loving–or thinking someone is beautiful, funny, tolerable:)–despite the other person because, agreeing with Michael, I find that when I am given the power to love it HAS to be through imputation, because nobody is worthy of love. . .esp me.
May I also add to Dusty’s (excellent) observation that ‘imputation’ in human-human relationships is virtually non-existent in the NT. Rom 4, is the locus classicus for how the term probably ought to be used in its Pauline sense.
However, I’d never realized how just insidious the theology of glory was until reading this post. It is possible to make too much of one’s own encouragement isn’t it? How easy it is to impute (sorry) to oneself the role of the Lord…as if others are to measure themselves by what we, ‘the strong’, think about ‘the weak’. All this time I’d thought I was being clever and biblical. Thank you Dusty for observing this fine distinction between imputation and encouragement.
That said, I wonder if some of us might also be onto something with the idea that whatever it is that we do when we love people freely is a fruit of our own imputation. Could we also just consider this ‘encouragement’ a mere recognition of another’s imputed righteousness? Therefore, is our encouragement a filtering of the world through the theological lens of Divine-human imputation? It seems like it to me. I could be wrong, but I think we are simply sticking with what is true metaphysically even if it appears false existentially.
Perhaps this is yet another area where the idea of passivity is relevant. That is to say, if I am actively “trying” to impute righteousness in the form of love to another, it is a sham, but if I am doing it passively, i.e. I “can’t help it”, it is genuine love, and obviously this kind of love can only come from one place, and it ain’t me!
I think you’re exactly right RJ
Dylan, you wrote:
Therefore, is our encouragement a filtering of the world through the theological lens of Divine-human imputation?
that’s precisely what is happening, I think–and I never want to be out of the “encouragement” business, as it were. .
but, the problem is when I try to “encourage” that which I actually don’t love, thinking that somehow I can be a conduit of God’s love through my duplicity–that seems like the opposite of love.
In reality, this “love” is presumptuous and, ironically, based in and on the law! If I treat people based upon a higher standard that I have for them, or “impute” to them better looks or manners or taste in clothing, or whatever, then all I”m really doing is baptizing my own legalistic standards in the language of Justification.
On the other hand, when love which “is no respecter of persons” rises–ex nihilo–out of the ashes of my previously stone-cold heart, then that is the miracle of “imputation.”
I think that Jaydee’s on to something worthwhile and deely relevant to the L/G ethic.
As far as terminology goes, I think that Dusty has correctly pointed to how speaking about OUR imputation of others as an ethical norm devalues Christ’s imputation.
Yet, I would like to still hold on to the spirit of imputation as descriptive of love. Love keeps no record of wrong, love is patient (long-suffering injustices), Love treats the enemy as though he were his friend (Luke 10:25-37) etc.
RJ (and others),
I definitely agree that this is about passivity. As PZ taught us, with the help of Banner I think, actual love that is the fruit of the Holy Spirit is unconscious. As soon as we become aware that we are loving it instantly becomes a work and ceases to be fruit because our ego gets involved. We cannot help but start to think pretty highly of ourselves, and our reliance upon grace gets thrown out the window.
If it were not unconscious then it would be the same thing as simply telling people to love each other (as Jady already pointed out), which is law and therefore impossible.
Ross, I found your comparison of our attempts to describe imputation on human terms to Jesus’ parables helpful. I wonder though if we are not so far gone as to be able to hear even the implication of being able to do something without seizing that opportunity in our sin and effectively giving God the finger. I think about this often whenever I am talking in descriptive terms. I’ve found that it doesn’t really matter if I am being descriptive or not, people hear what they want to hear and usually that is the law (prescription). Thankfully, the law always does its work, and they end up feeling the need for grace anyway.
Good discussion! Thanks Dusty.
Sorry, that last comment was me, and not my lovely wife Kate. I forgot to sign in:).
Amen. Real Love can only be the unselfconscious fruit of Christ’s Love for us. Also, good point Sean. We are all too willing to grab onto description and make it our prescription.
I read something by C.S. Lewis recently, illustrating the idea that God’s imputed righteousness changes from the inside out. (He also said you could take or leave his description, which I suspect quite a few of us might not like it, but anyway…) He said that God imputed Christ’s righteousness onto us, and therefore “pretended” to see Him where we stood. And that His “pretending” was actually the way He changed us into the people we were meant to be.
His examples: A mother pretends her child understands English long before the child actually can understand anything. And the child obviously grows to understand. Or, a master will often pretend his dog is a human being, and the dog will often grow to be very much like a human being.
This is obviously a crude example, which is helpful in the sense that it is obviously about Christ and not some underhanded prescription of how we should treat others. But then again, perhaps these are not helpful illustrations of the effect of Christ’s imputation. Any thoughts?
I own two yellow labs and can testify that imputation does NOT work on dogs! … they have no concept of guilt apart from conditioned responses.
dusty-
great post, and i love all the comments (wowza). one small issue though, and perhaps i’m nitpicking: i’m not sure the mountain bike example is what i normally think of as imputation. in that your mother’s regard of you as a winner does not precede the race. maybe i’m out to lunch here, but i think the pastoral form of imputation you’re referring to would happen before the race. thoughts?
dz
A couple of thoughts on this most interesting discussion:
1. I think there is an important distinction to be made between imputing righteousness to someone and simply being wrong about them, or naive, or misguided. Imputation necessarily implies a knowledge of, and sympathy for, how undeserving the person being imputed to is. So the case of the murderous dictators probably is not imputation, but something more like an error in judgment.
2. Absolutely, it stops being imputation and becomes manipulation as soon as, well, it becomes manipulation. As soon as a desire to control and effect a certain outcome we desire for our own reasons comes into play, of course there is a problem. But ethically speaking that is true of any action or behavior whatsoever, not imputation specifically.
3. In terms of the NT, I am sure Dylan is correct that the concept appears in a technical, Christ’s righteousness sense primarily in the places he refers to. However, you could argue that by definition any loving interaction between Christ and a sinner in the Gospels is imputation in practice. ‘Evil may not sojourn with thee’ (Psalm 5:4).
4. Relatedly, I am not sure about this strong dichotomy between treating others on the basis of ‘imputation’ and the true and proper imputation of Christ’s righteousness. When does this ‘true’ imputation take place, and what does it look like? Is it only, say, before the judgment seat, or in conversion? Is there no carry-over in how we treat others day-to-day, or at least how we wish we could treat them? What would it mean to for one sinner to love another sinner on a basis other than imputation? Is there any alternative other than basing it on worth?
Finally, I think Browder is definitely on to something about how it is received mattering more than how it is intended (thank God!). I also think the comments about passivity and descriptiveness speak very well to the problem Dusty has raised. I can’t quite figure out what to make of the mother’s encouragement example. Perhaps regardless of the specific case, the reason she encourages is rooted in a fundamental unconditional love for her son, regardless of outcome. It is not that she imputes victory in the race to him specifically, but just a general and total affirmation and sense of his worth no matter what. In that sense, maybe it is imputation after all?
I guess the real question is whether any true love for an unworthy object, whether from God or between people, is technically a form of the dynamic that the term imputation helps to describe, or if there is real love of a different kind. My vote for now is that there isn’t, but am still thinking it through.
I think it is worth going back to Dusty’s initial suggestion that we create a forum for this conversation. This is wonderful dialogue, but I wonder if there is a way it can be refined?
After reading through and thinking on all of this some more… all I have is a bunch more questions 😉
Would “encouragement” be the best way to describe, specifically, the bike race story? Encouragement in what way? Is mom encouraging the son to… do better or try harder?
Isn’t imputation bacically just calling something that is bad good, or treating someone who is unworthy as if they are worthy after all?
And, all of Simeon’s questions as well 🙂
In the absence of another forum. . . some thoughts. . .
I think that the CS Lewis analogy does damage to the simul that Luther and subsequent Reformers were so quick to protect, because the idea that God loves us based upon a future–as of yet only forseen–righteousness is, essentially, the Catholic position and the basis for a continued disagreement. The standing objection from those hung up on “imputation” is that it essentially negates the new covenant of Grace as opposed to Law because it posits that the work of Christ was to allow the Law’s fulfillment in us–eventually-as opposed to its end and fulfillment in Christ. . .
more on that later.
I think that that Dusty’s initial post hits on some frustrations with our inability to regularly translate imputation in a relational context. It can sometimes come across like “imputation” is merely another word for “tolerance,” in which the Law of demand is still recognized and simply ignored–although as has been pointed out, when it still exists then it is still felt by the one being “tolerated.”
To Simeon’s questions, I think that imputation is the only way to operate, even when its imperfect, because its grounded in the message of Love that is predicated upon an understanding of the Gospel that is seen as something completely different than righteousness according to the Law–not promise of it being fulfilled.
I think that some of my relational problems with “imputation” stem from my confusion over the fact that, theologically, it does not say to me that God loves what you are going to become, nor does he pretend to Love you because of Jesus, but He actually does love you, even though you are unworthy of that love.
I think this understanding of it is a constant reminder to me of my own inability to “impute” when I do not first love, and brings me back to Romans 7:25 on a daily basis. Someday, I hope that I won’t notice the imperfections and flaws of those whom I’m “trying” to Love, until then, I’m thankful for any existence of genuine Love, and hopeful that despite my failed attempts, the constant awareness of my own (vertical) imputed righteousness before God will translate in some small way to a (horizontal) manifestation.
Wow. A lot of response here! I think a problem here for me is that we are looking at the term imputation, in this conversation, only through the lens of the gospel. That causes us to think that imputation means ‘loving the unlovable’ which ultimately I don’t think it means.
Loving the unlovable is not exclusive to Christianity. Look at the classic example Jady mentioned of the nerd being loved by the cheerleader–I would say that there is no imputation in that. There might be pity, or compassion, or something else, but not imputation. Otherwise the movie “Revenge of the Nerds” would be up there on my shelve next to “Passion of the Christ”.
Even if ‘loving the unlovable’ is a miracle that we have a passive relationship to, I still don’t feel comfortable calling it imputation. Again I think the problem is we’re viewing imputation through the lens of gospel only, when we should be looking through the lens of Law/Gospel. Through the lens of Law/Gospel it becomes about our need for holiness, not just our need to be loved. And holiness is exclusive to Christianity, indeed, it is exclusive to Christ. We, the unlovable and unacceptable, are loved and accepted beause of imputation.
I think we’re off track when we suggest imputation is a means by which we ‘impute love’ to the unlovable. Rather it is God imputing holiness to the unholy.
I think part of the confusion is around the fact that we are not clear in our definition(s) of “imputation”. In many ways it seems the way we think about it is simply a matter of demeanor toward another. Imputation is much more than this.
Imputation happened at the cross. It is an objective event where our sin and the punishment for it was given to Christ, and his perfect obedience to the law was given to us. It is an actual exchange. We may not understand this or experience it explicitly, but it happened and is true all the same. It is the same thing that we come back to every time when we realize our failures every day: that he has dealt with those very failures once and for all. He gave us something that we could not give ourselves and we cannot give to others.
SO, when God looks at us he is not simply “pretending” that our sin isn’t there as C.S. Lewis suggests (which I know was an attempt to explain it in “on the ground terms” as are all of our attempts and that is the reason for this discussion). No, God is actually looking at the wounds of his Son. He does not see our sin, he sees the blood of His only Son shed for us. It is the same defense we have when we are accused by the Law, our sin, and the devil. We can look to His wounds suffered on the cross and know the definitive, objective truth that we are saved. Indeed, there is therefore no condemnation for those of us in Jesus Christ.
The basic truth is that we do not love each other. Love only comes from the outside, and when it occurs between two people it is a fruit of him loving us first. Most of the time what we call love is broken and twisted, but it does not hinder God’s ability to work through it. I agree with Sim that the way that it is received is what really matters. It shows that God indeed works through our weakness, our flawed versions of love in his mercy. BUT when it comes to us and our ability to impute, I think we are much safer assuming that we are sinning in our very attempts to love. To assume otherwise would be, as Dylan rightly wrote, evidence of the theologian of glory in us.
Dave, not nitpicky at all bro! But I can assure you that my mother’s regard of me as a winner not only proceeded the race but probably proceeded my birth. Her lifelong dream was to be a mother, and she finally got the chance to be when I was born.
I wrote my last comment while Jady and Dusty wrote theirs, and I just want to say that I agree with them, and did not mean to essentially repeat what they already said.
Everyone is writing some great stuff by the way! We need to have a get together where we can all talk about stuff like this. Oh yeah, that’s right! The Mbird conference is coming up in March:)
I’m getting a little confused in regards to the terminology being used.
Dusty, are you using the terms “holiness” and “righteousness” interchangably? I thought it was Christ’s righteousness that was imputed to us. When I hear “holiness” I think more about sanctification than when I hear “righteousness” which gets me thinking on justification.
Isn’t the imputation of Christ’s righteousness more like a covering of our sin than some sort of ontological change? We are still sinners, but viewed by God as good, right?
Any clarification would be helpful.
Thanks!
Thanks Simeon,
You cleared some things up for me, I think. And your #4 articulated something that I was trying to say much better than I could have said it. Every good thing comes from him, so if we are to actually love someone else, it will be with His love. So the horizontal must be made up of the same stuff (divine love) as the vertical, otherwise it’s worthless.
Hey Mike,
Great questions!
I don’t think there is a difference between righteousness and holiness. If we are righteous before God because of what Christ did then we are holy too. They both refer to our standing in light of the law, and Christ has taken care of that for us. Sanctification and justification happened at the same time. “It is finished.”
Luther’s simul justus et piccator tells us that we are indeed still sinners, and we are simultaneously justified as righteous. So, it is not simply a covering over of our sin, but a removal of it because the Law has been satisfied completely by Christ on the cross. We are dead to the Law because we have died with Christ. This is obviously a mysterious truth in regards to our experience, but it is where our hope lies.
Jady, your comment is helpful to me as well. I think you’re right on about imputation itself. God need not pretend. He loves us the way we are because of Christ, not because of who we might become in the distant future. But it seems the EFFECT of imputation for the believer is that it not only marks us as Christ’s own, but it actually changes us as individuals – it does away with the “old Adam” and makes our hearts desire to fulfill the law. Faith in Christ’s imputed righteousness actually makes US change. I know this is sketchy territory, and I understand the ongoing battle with Catholicism, but I’m getting this stuff from Luther’s Commentary on Romans.
“Faith, however, is a divine work in us. It changes us and makes us to be born anew of God (John 1); it kills the old Adam and makes altogether different men, in heart and spirit and mind and powers, and it brings with it the Holy Ghost…”
“Hence it comes that faith alone makes righteous and fulfills the law; for out of Christ’s merit, it brings the Spirit, and the Spirit makes the heart glad and free, as the law requires that it shall be. Thus good works come out of faith.”
Of course he stresses simul justus et peccator all the way through. But maybe he is also getting at something pretty powerful about the effect of trusting in grace (unconditional love, imputed righteousness) – that it makes us into the people we were meant to be.
So then Luther might agree with George MacDonald’s idea that “Love loves unto purity.” Or perhaps he would not at all. I don’t know, but this has occupied my thoughts for quite a while now so I appreciate you all’s take.
Addressing point 2. of Simeon’s comments: My working definition of “imputation” is that I ascribe what I think are good attributes to the other that I know they do not possess and treat them as if they possessed those attributes. The problem with this, in my view, is that I do not have any “good” to ascribe or impute, because I am just a fellow sinner exactly like the other guy. If I presume to “impute” righteousness to the other, I am of necessity taking the high ground over someone else in my moral magnanimity. This is a problem with this version of “imputation” that is an inherent, peculiar weakness. The practical problem with this version of “imputation” is that the supposed benefactor of my moral largess quickly realizes that I am attempting to “impute” what I deem morally “good” to them, and they rightly resent it. I have seen this happen. On the other hand, if I see the other as exactly like me: in dire need of being the recipient of Christ’s imputed righteousness every second, and that we both can only stand before God, not on our own merits, but on the exact same ground: the constantly imputed righteousness of Christ,then, and only then, are we free to love each other without any form of judgment. I think this distinction is very important to make. All of us stand on morally equal ground as the passive beneficiaries of Christ’s imputed righteousness, now and always. None of us are in a positon to be out there “imputing” anything. The beauty of the Rite I liturgy is that, saying it together, we share exactly this sense of real morally egalitarian Christian community.
Ross. . . thanks for your comments, and I too have been preoccupied by this question for quite some time, and I don’t see any end in sight! Some late night thoughts–
I completely agree with your point, and far be it from me to argue w/Luther:) I’m struggling with the idea that “fulfillment of the Law” has been done–Christ the end of the Law–so what we “become” or “are” re: Imputation and New Adam and all that is something altogether different than that which came through adherence to the Law—the “people that we are meant to be” are those who Love, “against which there is no Law”–
BTW: I don’t think that you’re in sketchy territory at all and, in fact, are beautifully describing the “process” of sanctification–death to life rather than sick to well–in a compelling and thoughtful way!
And Michael–I think that you are right. Actively “imputing” implies that I know the good to which you should be attaining and, as such, is patronizing. On the other hand, when I find myself given to love–thanks in no small part to being firmly rooted in Rite I:)– it must necessarily involve imputation, because without that I wouldn’t have any idea of what love was at all. (cf. 1 Jn 4:19).
Dear Dusty & Friends,
Here is post 40
Dusty Fingers—You are exactly right. Only the Father can charge, credit, i.e. impute, Christ's righteousness, holiness, i.e. blameless status to us sinners. When we as Christians try to push imputation into a Christian ethic, or discuss it as such, it loses its par excellence and demotes itself to a use of the law. And we all know how folks react to the law. Christian faith is active in love, which could look like a glimpse of real imputation, as well as many other things, but will never be as good as or even better than "The Real Thing"…child.
JDK- Library cam is on, where is Dieter?
Dusty, funny that Drake and I were tossing around the cheerleader/nerd analogy last night and couldn’t quite make it right… I think you (and others!) are helpful in clarifying what imputation is. It’s not just loving the unlovable, but it’s the crediting of an account. Maybe I’m being redundant, but the word literally means (I think?) to SETTLE an account, so it’s a once and for all, done and finished, kind of thing. When Christ imputes his righteousness onto us, he is settling our account with God with his own blood. Kind of like when the Good Samaritan pays the innkeeper to take care of the beat-up guy, and tells him that he’ll pay whatever else the man needs, right?
My problem is with the claim that calling one’s mother’s encouragement imputation is to give one’s mother too much power; as well as possibly to confuse human imputation/encouragement with divine imputation.
For myself, one’s human parents have all the power! They can bless or they can curse. They have extraordinary power when it comes to the words and action of prior love in the education and raising of children. So I am fine with accepting the mother in the story as having powerful power. The story made me want to meet her.
Also, I would not want to draw too sharp a distinction between theological imputation and the imputation that takes place in human interactions. They are very close to being the same thing functionally, that is.
In other words, is my imputation towards Mary or, more importantly for me, her imputation towards me, really different in quality, impact, and received significance from the conceptual and invisible imputation I believe I have received from Christ Jesus on account of the Cross?
Perhaps in concept, but not in practice!
St. John asked, “How can we love God Whom we have not seen if we love not our neighbor whom we have seen?” Imputation from Christ to us operates through our human imputation to others.
In everyday life, encouragement is the same thing as imputation. It works the same. Of course it could be used in a manipulative manner, say in a dating relationship or in order to get anything one wants. But deep down, the receiver of such manipulation usually senses something is not exactly sterling. In any event, manipulative or dishonest loving is almost always unmasked eventually.
To sum up, encouragement from one’s parents is a marvellous thing. There is far too little of it. (“It’s the only thing/There is just too little of”: Bacharach/David) What most children and young people receive is, sadly, closer akin to… college admissions! We can be grateful for parents who actively encourage us, no matter what the field of encouragement is. They are God’s speakers to our deaf and cowering hearts.
Moreover, human imputation in practice is the form divine imputation takes for us, at least most of the time, in everyday life. You could call encouragement, therefore, a sacrament; and would not be off the mark.
That, at least, is how I am seeing it.
I for one want my wife to love me for the wreck I am, rather than for the caring husband she “imputes” me to be. On the other hand, our love for each other rests entirely on the fact that we stand together as needy recipients of Christ’s imputed righteousness. So, in this sense, we see each other as the broken people we both are AND as the whole people we are by God’s “inestimable love.” So, if “human imputation” means that we see the other, not with some quality we would imagine for them, but, in some imperfect way, with the righteousness given to them in Christ, then I am for it %100.
One cannot beat George Herbert’s poem “Aaron” for the life-giving word of imputation in the life of the preacher.(or even the lawyer, for that matter)
What a great thread and subject! Mockingbird Theologians uncharacteristically talking straight-up theology.
I think it's hard to talk about imputation without talking about infusion/impartation as well. For me imputation without infusion is like grace without law, or faith without works; without one, the other is unrecognizable. One of my favorite quotes that deals with the contrast between infusion and imputation as they play out "on the ground" comes from Alister McGrath and his Wife Joannes' book "Self-Esteem: The Cross and Christian Confidence". Note: they call infusion "internal" and imputation "external". Here is the quote:
(pp. 97-99) “So how does the doctrine of justification by faith relate to self-esteem? The key linking concept is that of righteousness. For the Christian, it may be helpful to think of positive self-esteem as a psychological sign of having comprehended that one is counted as right with God, and thus with oneself.
“Earlier, we noted a distinction between internal and external styles of attribution in relation to self-esteem. The Greek verb translated ‘to justify’ really has the sense ‘to count someone as righteous’, or ‘to esteem someone as righteous’. There are two quite different ways of thinking about the idea of being justified in the sight of God. The first way involves an internal style of attribution, in which the following style question is asked: ‘what is it about me that would allow anyone to count me as righteous?’ This way of thinking can lead to despair if the person’s self-view is negative, and to an unmerited conceit if the person holds a good opinion of himself or herself.
“The internal-attribution style naturally leads to the triumphalist view that we can do something to establish our righteousness. If we can justify ourselves by works (the Pelagian idea), our emotional investment tends to fall on our achievements and spurs us on to attempt to achieve more. Our sense of personal security and esteem thus comes to rest upon what we do and the way we feel about it.
“The second approach concerns an external style of attribution, in which the question being asked is: ‘What is it about God that makes him see me as righteous?’ This style of attribution creates a sense of expectancy for action on the part of God, rather than a feeling that we out to be achieving something. This vital shift in the frame of reference moves us away from a human-centered, works-orientated approach to our personal worth, and instead points us firmly towards a God-centered, faith-orientated approach. (As we noted earlier, ‘faith’ does not mean a human work, but a work of gift of God within us.)
“Justification is thus about our status in the sight of God. It is about the way we are viewed by that most significant of all others – God. The Greek work translated “righteousness’ is not simply a moral idea. It is far more than that, embracing central Christian ideas such as ‘being in a right relationship with god’ and ‘being regarded as of worth by God’. Believers thus regard themselves (rightly!) as sinners; but in the sight of God, they are also righteous on account of their justification. God reckons believers as righteous on account of their faith. Through faith, the believer is clothed with the righteousness of Christ, in much the same way, Luther suggests, as Ezekiel 16:8 speaks of God covering our nakedness with his garment. For Luther, faith is the right (or righteous) relationship to God. Sin and righteousness thus coexist; we remain sinners inwardly, but we are righteous extrinsically in the sight of God. By confessing our sins in faith, we stand in a right and righteous relationship with God. From our own perspective we are sinners; but in the perspective of God we are righteous."
And, lastly, as one who believes that the fundamentals of sanctification are entirely tied to and derived from justification, I just want to throw a quote from Fitz Allison into the mix:
"Justification by Faith is Imputation."
<><, JAZ
Sort of related to Paul’s point above – I think _one_ way we come to understand God’s imputation of righteousness to us is via our relationships with significant others (parents, spouses, etc.). Not that such imputation is extended “perfectly” the way God’s is, but we are social creatures, and we learn from social interactions. So one way in which we learn about imputation is via our social interactions. I think of human-to-human imputation as an absence of “if-then” conditions in the relationship. There is no “if-then” because all such conditions are perceived to be satisfactorily fulfilled even as it is blatantly obvious that they have not been fulfilled at all. (Read: UNCONDITIONAL LOVE – a very very difficult thing to give.) So, while I agree that encouragement, on the part of the giver, can easily become manipulation, I also think that imputation, on the part of the receiver, is not necessarily dependent on the giver. I know that in the past I have encouraged or praised someone half-heartedly (just to get them off my back or something) but somehow, the encouragement meant more to them than I had intended. Just because the act of my imputation was not perfect, to my shame God did use it in some way that I did not understand.
Also, I do not believe imputation and love are different (i.e., I do not believe that you first have to impute righteousness to someone before you love them). The cognitive act of imputing righteousness to someone is too weak to engender real love. Imputation implies some sort of rationality which I do not believe is the force behind real love for another person. I think that, at a human level, love precedes imputation – you feel love for a person, which is why you can see them (and their flaws) accurately, realistically, and also see them as something they are not. “For God so LOVED the world, that he gave his only begotten son…” (not “For God gave his only begotten son, so that he would love the world…”).
Imputation as it has been discussed here is far too calculated, too cognitive, too “heady” to be a real force in our lives. It starts with love, or at least, the feeling of love. I’ll bet that every single person here who feels strongly about the importance of imputation feels this way because they have FELT LOVED. Their understanding of imputation is preceded by feeling love (yes, it may be warm and fuzzy) by the person who imputed righteousness to them.
I know defining “imputation” has been one of the themes of all these comments, so just to throw it out there: How is imputation different to or the same as unconditional acceptance?
This is so good to be thinking about, thank you all.
Following Bonnie, I understand that imputation of Christ’s righteousness to one another means seeing one another with eyes of love, as Christ sees us. I know that I am incapable of seeing that way unless I have received a word of love –
This word comes to me from reading the Bible, from hearing it preached, and also from receiving kind words and deeds, which I know are sent from the Lord, for they are undeserved. Every time I’m given a good word the result is that I am able to see those around me through eyes of love, once again, for a while. Imputing loveliness to someone else comes solely from being loved, I don’t have it in me to be anything but manipulative or self preserving except when I’ve been able to realize that I am loved, and I am convinced that the Holy Spirit sends those messages. What we pass along is a poor copy, but since all love comes from above, even a tiny candle makes a difference in the darkness of the world, for it is Christ’s light we are giving and receiving.
One more thought, Bonnie’s last question on my mind: I wonder if we humans don’t tend to tie worthiness to love, or vice verse. It is true that we are reckoned righteous solely through Christ’s death on the cross, and thereby reconciled to God. Yet could we not say that our ability to love one another comes not so much from being found worthy in his eyes, and thus in each others’, as it comes from taking in the overflowing abundance of His eternal love which brought about reconciliation, while we were yet sinners?
I love all these comments, and i really think they have all helped to flush out the subject of imputation.
I think one of the main issues I have had with the “relational or horizontal imputation” talk is that very often it has become something for us to do and focuses on our behavior toward one another as something to correct. (I think this is what was meant in the discussion of preferring to talk about it being a fruit of God’s imputation to us.)
What I mean is, I have too often heard phrases like, “You need to just remember imputation when you are speaking with that difficult person.” or “Just one-way love her.” or “I haven’t voiced my objections to them at all, and all I have done is try to love them, and it’s not working.” or “I’m beginning to resent them because I am suppressing my emotions for their sake.” I am guilty of uttering some of these phrases by the way. This is the kind of unhelpful, human-centered, works focused talk that inevitably arises out of emphasizing our ability to impute. As you can see the imputation talk is often misunderstood and misused in way that ends up encouraging self-righteousness and/or suppression and denial.
I know we mean it to be descriptive, but the theologian of glory (sinner) in us doesn’t care how it is meant. We seize the opportunity, as it were, to turn it into something that we can do. The sad thing is that when it is put into the kinds of phrases above the impossibility of it becomes very real. This is why I appreciated Dusty’s post on this subject because it brings our sinful use of the term to light.
I agree with Bonnie that love precedes imputation and that imputation is a real fruit of love. I just think that it could also be placed in the same category that Forde put sanctification, and that was that it is very dangerous to talk about often because the theologian of glory is awakened, so to speak, when we focus on imputation as something that we do. I know we want to emphasize it as simply something that happens, which I am okay with. i just wish we didn’t jump from description into prescription so quickly. I fear it is inevitable.
Does this ring true to anyone else?
I think it is too much thought on the subject.
I agree with you Anonymous. I felt like I was chasing my own tail on this subject, but then I imputed myself into believing that I actually know what I’m talking about.
Bonnie and Robin and Sean, I think that your comments are really helpful–what breadth of insight we have on this blog!
For the record, this discussion has been, and is, extremely helpful for me in fleshing out the way imputation works interpersonally, in both good and bad ways,and I am surprised by the depth of feeling in my own reaction to the initial post and subsequent comments.
This message of imputation, like that of the Gospel, has changed my life in so many ways, that there is, literally, no going back, and for that I’m eternally grateful; however, it is something so powerful that, unlike Anonymous argues, it requires more than a little thought and discussion to wrestle out. . .
I, of course, was just kidding. This has been a great discussion.
Wow! 53 comments!
This thread deserves a:
“World record headquarters! Can I help you?”
Bonnie, I wonder if there is way to much emphasis put on human relationship as the primary conduit for understanding imputation. I know so many people who have no understanding of what love actually is (they think they do) because they have been manipulated by human love and its attempts at imputation their whole life. We just don’t love freely!
I think this is one of the reasons why Protestants, rightly, do not believe marriage is a sacrament. Sin is so deeply engrained within us that our attempts at imputation turn into manipulation, and our reception to human imputation turns into co-dependency. We end up seeking from people what they can not give, perfect love, assurance, and forgivness.
Therefore I think Dusty is absolutely right. Like that famous painting by Lucas Cranah with Luther pointing alone to the crucified christ. The cross, there and there alone is true imputation found.
I agree with Jacob and would add that human attempts at imputation, when they are not directed toward an attempt to “improve” someone, are often merely an attempt to avoid conflict. Conflict is unfortunately a part of real love in this world, as anyone who has been married for more than 5 minutes can verify. The best testimony to this truth is Paul’s letters to the Galatians and Corinthians I. Not much imputing going on there, and a wholelota conflict, but even more love. And, ultimately, mutual repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation (II Corinthians).
I agree with Dusty 100% in that “true” imputation – imputation in its purest form, imputation that is untainted – can only come from Christ.
I differ from some of the responses here in that I don’t think there is enough love going around, and therefore there is not enough imputation at the human level. I differ from Jake in his point that “there is way to much emphasis put on human relationship as the primary conduit for understanding imputation.” I personally don’t think that enough emphasis is placed on horizontal imputation!
The fact that Christians LOVE the idea of accountability and “speaking the truth in love” (read: me telling you what’s wrong with you so that I feel better about myself) suggests to me that there isn’t enough imputation at a human level. We don’t trust others and instead we want to fix them. Christians want to fix other people all the time – isn’t that a sign of a _lack_ of horizontal imputation?
I think Dusty makes an important point in questioning the *validity* of horizontal imputation – i.e., whether human-to-human imputation is imputation at all. However, we run into the problem of being paralysed by our own imperfection – and I think the consequence of it is even less love. Sure, I agree that it’s a far cry from Christ’s imputation of righteousness to us, but if we discount horizontal imputation as “fake” or “not good enough”, then do we not do it? Do we just stop imputing righteousness to our brothers and sisters because our imputation is impure? I guess what I’m trying to figure out is what would be the logical and practical consequence of such a perspective. What do you think?
This critique of horizontal imputation can be applied to love. Christ’s love is perfect. Our love is not. Our love for others is often faulty or tainted. Yet Christ’ command is for us to love our neighbours as ourselves. Does that mean we don’t call it love? More importantly, does it mean we don’t try to love others even if our love is imperfect?
Mike, I can see how imputation can be used as a strategy to avoid conflict. I don’t think I’ve ever actually seen or experienced that. My experience is that there is never enough imputation and too much blame/accusation, leading to conflict that is not constructive!
I agree with you, Bonnie, that there is way too much so-called tough love going around and massive doses of blame (just ask George Bush and Ted Haggard). I am certainly not a fan of accusation and “accountablity” groups make me want to smoke crack. I am anti-human imputation, but I am also pro-LOVE and pro-forgiveness and pro-cutting the other guy all the slack in the world. But those are not the same as “imputation” as I understand it being used here. I vote for loving the other person for who they really are, warts and all, not for who I impute them to be. And, I want the person loving me to love and forgive me for who I am, warts and all, and not the “imputed” me of their imagination. We can let God do the imputing and we can all be on the receiving end together. God can do some things that I cannot and should not do, even imperfectly, and imputing righteousness to others is one of them. That is why I said earlier that only God can judge and only God can impute. I am not called to judge, even imperfectly, and I am not called to impute, even imperfectly. That does not mean that I don’t think and hope and pray and search for the best in others. It just means that I do not have the authority, and should not attempt, to declare them to be someone they are not. In the end, it’s not going to be good for either one of us. So I vote for love, love, love, and leave the imputing to God.