- Aug 14, 2024
- 1,381
- 468
NC Wright also had a problem with "imputation," as do I. But I don't go as far as Wright in his "reorientation" towards Paul's teachings. Here is some of the discussion I had with my brother on "imputation." I do share Wright's skepticism about our modern understanding of "imputation."
Back to the "imputation" thing again? Sometimes doctrines become a form of cold legalism, a dogmatic statement that is ritualistically parroted without any real understanding as to what it means. ;)
I do agree if Wright has a problem with "imputation," to some degree--not entirely, but to some degree. Christ's sinlessness was *not* being imputed to us, as I understand it. That would make *us* perfect!
Rather, he utilized his sinlessness to qualify us for what he gives us freely, not holding our wrongs against us. His sinless model is not a requirement that we be sinless, but rather, a requirement that we choose to live by his righteous spirituality.
It was the quality of his spirituality that was important--not its legalistic perfection. It was his love and a spirituality that comes from him alone that could be transmitted to us freely.
We did not have to be perfect to choose to live by it. Offering his spiritual life at the Cross demonstrated his willingness to give this life to anybody who wishes to express faith in him for his righteousness.
He did not use his sinlessness to transfer that sinlessness to us. That would make us perfect, or that would condemn us for not being perfect.
But he rather used his sinless life to give us an example of the quality of spirituality we should have, which only comes by a complete commitment to him and to his spirituality. There was no thought to transfer to us, at the same time, his perfection, since we would certainly have failed that!
Jesus gave us, unconditionally, access to his own spiritual righteousness so that we could live by it even in our imperfection. The hope was that in living by his spirituality, despite our imperfection, we would qualify to obtain his gift of Eternal Life, given to all those who show their faith in him.
Back to the "imputation" thing again? Sometimes doctrines become a form of cold legalism, a dogmatic statement that is ritualistically parroted without any real understanding as to what it means. ;)
I do agree if Wright has a problem with "imputation," to some degree--not entirely, but to some degree. Christ's sinlessness was *not* being imputed to us, as I understand it. That would make *us* perfect!
Rather, he utilized his sinlessness to qualify us for what he gives us freely, not holding our wrongs against us. His sinless model is not a requirement that we be sinless, but rather, a requirement that we choose to live by his righteous spirituality.
It was the quality of his spirituality that was important--not its legalistic perfection. It was his love and a spirituality that comes from him alone that could be transmitted to us freely.
We did not have to be perfect to choose to live by it. Offering his spiritual life at the Cross demonstrated his willingness to give this life to anybody who wishes to express faith in him for his righteousness.
He did not use his sinlessness to transfer that sinlessness to us. That would make us perfect, or that would condemn us for not being perfect.
But he rather used his sinless life to give us an example of the quality of spirituality we should have, which only comes by a complete commitment to him and to his spirituality. There was no thought to transfer to us, at the same time, his perfection, since we would certainly have failed that!
Jesus gave us, unconditionally, access to his own spiritual righteousness so that we could live by it even in our imperfection. The hope was that in living by his spirituality, despite our imperfection, we would qualify to obtain his gift of Eternal Life, given to all those who show their faith in him.
Last edited:
