__________________ Benjamin P. Glaser
Pittsburgh, PA,
Fairmount ARP Church Candidate Under CarePittsburgh Theological Seminary & Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary "The benefit of deliverance becomes the more precious in the same proportion in which we are brought to apprehend the magnitude of the evil from which we have been rescued"
-- Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Backwoods Presbyterian For This Useful Post:
The reformed / evangelical doctrine that in justification Christ's righteousness is imputed unto us as the only possible satisfaction of God's perfect justice.
I am troubled by this because it implies a denial that justification is in any sence grounded on an infusion of Christ's righteousness in us.
I can not prove to my satisfaction the imputation of Christ's righteousness exclusively to the exclusion of infusion of Christ's righteousness.
I sometimes wonder if the infusion/imputation issue is not what is at the bottom of the New Perspctive on Paul and of the related Federal Vision contraversy at lest as it applies to the Rt. Rvd. N. T. Wright.
__________________
Thomas Yeutter,
Mason, MI
Member St. Patrick's Anglican Church, Comstock, MI
Ezra 7:10 For Ezra had set his heart to study the law of the Lord and to do it and to teach its statues in Isreal.
I voted for the fourth commandment and spiritual gifts.
The imputation of Christ's active obedience was also one I struggled with, but was able to resolve fully after a brief period.
__________________
T W Hopper
Member, Presbyterian Reformed Church
Currently between churches since PRC closed here - attending Crossroads Christian Church.
Canberra, Australia.
I voted for the baptism debate. My problem is that I see both sides of the issue. What do I do? Write the choices down and play "eenie, meenie, miney, mo"?
Also, I didn't grow up with any teaching on the Sabbath, so I'm still trying to figure out how to honor the 4th commandment.
And the tongues issue--well, let's just say that I grew up cessationist, decided I didn't have a good reason to be, so I'm (for now) a non-cessationist who doesn't believe the current "practice of tongues" is valid.
And the tongues issue--well, let's just say that I grew up cessationist, decided I didn't have a good reason to be, so I'm (for now) a non-cessationist who doesn't believe the current "practice of tongues" is valid.
You may find the PCA "Pastoral Letter" on this helpful:
The reformed / evangelical doctrine that in justification Christ's righteousness is imputed unto us as the only possible satisfaction of God's perfect justice.
I am troubled by this because it implies a denial that justification is in any sence grounded on an infusion of Christ's righteousness in us.
I can not prove to my satisfaction the imputation of Christ's righteousness exclusively to the exclusion of infusion of Christ's righteousness.
I sometimes wonder if the infusion/imputation issue is not what is at the bottom of the New Perspctive on Paul and of the related Federal Vision contraversy at lest as it applies to the Rt. Rvd. N. T. Wright.
It is at the bottom. Because infusion is a pernicious Roman doctrine that denies true justification by faith alone. This was the cornerstone of the Reformation. The gospel of infusion is another gospel.
"The heart is the main thing in true religion...It is the hinge and turning-point in the condition of man's soul. If the heart is alive to God and quickened by the Spirit, the man is a living Christian. If the heart is dead and has not the Spirit, the man is dead before God." (J.C. Ryle)
The imputation/infusion debate was the debate between the Reformers and the Roman Catholics, the Reformers all unanimously rejecting infusion as being part of the basis of justification. If it is not clear to some, then read John Owen's works, volume 5, James Buchanan's book on justification, and John Fesko's brand new book on justification. But do not call into question the doctrine for which the Reformers died. This is a Reformed board.
I agree that Biblical civil law is applicable today, but to what extent as the answer denotes, I am unsure of.
__________________ Andrew DeShazo, Deacon, Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Memphis, TN "All of us stumble in many ways, but if anyone is never at fault in what he says, then he is mature, able to control his whole body."(James 3:2)
I agree that Biblical civil law is applicable today, but to what extent as the answer denotes, I am unsure of.
You would choose the civil law issue.
__________________
Evie B.
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Attending Park Street Church, Boston
"Remember not the former things, nor consider the things of old. Behold, I am doing a new thing; now it springs forth, do you not perceive it? I will make a way in the wilderness and rivers in the desert." --Isaiah 43:18-19 (ESV)
I chose civil law and specifics of the 4th commandment...
__________________
Mason
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA)
New York, NY
"Come now, and let us reason together," says the Lord, "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall be as wool." - Isaiah 1:18
It is at the bottom. Because infusion is a pernicious Roman doctrine that denies true justification by faith alone. This was the cornerstone of the Reformation. The gospel of infusion is another gospel.
I agree that I can prove imputation from the Bible. How, from the Bible, do I disprove infusion, or show that the two are mutually exclusive?
The imputation/infusion debate was the debate between the Reformers and the Roman Catholics, the Reformers all unanimously rejecting infusion as being part of the basis of justification. If it is not clear to some, then read John Owen's works, volume 5,
Thanks. I have pulled Owens off the shelf. I had not read this volume in nearly thirty years.
The Eastern Orthodox Churches teach infusion without the Romish denial of imputation. I suspect this is also where N. T. Wright is coming from.
It is at the bottom. Because infusion is a pernicious Roman doctrine that denies true justification by faith alone. This was the cornerstone of the Reformation. The gospel of infusion is another gospel.
I agree that I can prove imputation from the Bible. How, from the Bible, do I disprove infusion, or show that the two are mutually exclusive?
They are shown to be mutually exclusive by implication and deduction, and by explicit declaration.
Imputation of Christ's righteousness is our justification. Justification was decreed in eternity (before we had done good or evil), secured at the cross, and applied at the point of man's conversion. Now, from whence cometh this belief through which we are justified? The Author and Finisher of our Faith. Who is the active Person in the Golden Chain of Redemption?
Thomas, it goes like this, and this is the final word on this poll post about it. Further comments will be deleted.
Infusion automatically makes justification a process that is dependent at least partly on our Holy-Spirit-inspired works. That was the whole reason that Rome pushed infusion. Imputation and infusion are exclusive precisely because they operate with diametrically opposite methods. Imputation is by definition outside of us, and declares us righteous by reckoning Christ's righteousness as ours. Infusion is like a shot in the arm (Reformers talk about sanctification this way). The problem with putting infusion into justification is that what is infused is the Holy Spirit for the purpose of works. And since Paul rejects works over and over again as playing any part in justification, infusion can therefore play no part in justification. Imputation-reckoning-outside righteousness on the one hand; infusion-Holy Spirit-works on the other hand. No one should want to show up at the judgment seat of God dependent on their own works, Spirit-inspired or otherwise. We are dependent solely on the ground of Christ's righteousness. Period. End of story.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to greenbaggins For This Useful Post:
The doctrine most unclear to voters, by far, is that related to keeping (and violating) the Fourth Commandment (Sabbath, Lord's Day).
Second is a basic eschatological position.
Then, closely followed by the validity of certain baptisms, exclusive psalm singing in worship, and the extent to which civil biblical law applies today.
__________________________________________________ _______________________
Below are a few resources I have found helpful in studying some of these difficult issues, biblically. Not every doctrine in the poll is referenced, but most are:
The extent to which biblical civil law applies today (i.e. theonomy)
Basic millennial eschatological position
The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes, (first edition), GI Williamson, “Millennial Views,” et. Seq. p 260-267 (includes one page chart).
Linear Mode
