Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Covenanted Reformation] Re: Federal view of imputation

Expand Messages
  • bob_suden
    I would agree, Edgar. It is precisely because NT is trying overturn reformed orthodoxy that he decries its defense. He can t afford an appeal to the
    Message 1 of 34 , Jul 5, 2009
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      I would agree, Edgar. It is precisely because NT is trying overturn
      reformed orthodoxy that he decries its defense. He can't afford an
      appeal to the confessions. (NT and Wilson, I know, but who is Campbell?
      Alexander? Church of Christ?)

      And while I don't think an appeal to his statement was justified in the
      recent controversy, I don't really care. More to the point, if anybody
      does leave the forum because of the discussion, they ought not to fool
      themselves by blaming it on somebody else.

      But that again, is just my personal and obnoxious opinion.

      cordially

      Bob


      In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Ic Neltococayotl"
      <puritanpresbyterian@...> wrote:
      >
      > Bob,
      >
      > You bring up a good point regarding NT Wright's jab at people being
      > "self-appointed guardians of orthodoxy". Nothing against Ben for
      > quoting him, my volley of artillery is against NT Wright.
      >
      > Are not ministers of God, appointed by God to shut up the mouths of
      > gain-sayers and those that speak errors and lead God's people astray??
      > If his jab is against ministers being "self-appointed guardians of
      > orthodoxy", then he should really re-read the New Testament where it
      > talks about ministers guarding the Truth against such teachers of
      errors
      > and heresy. NT Wright is such a person, i.e. a teacher of errors. So
      > the ministers that speak out and warn the flock are doing their GOD
      > appointed (not self-appointed) duty of guarding the Truth. NT Wright
      is
      > trying to perform a sleight of hand here by saying such rubbish.
      >
      > We lay people are also called to close our ears and not allow
      ourselves
      > to be lead astray by wolves in sheep's clothing. Therefore we too are
      > to warn our brethren to flee men like Campbell, NT Wright, and Douglas
      > Wilson, deniers of established Christian doctrines. That is God's
      > command to us...on what Biblical basis does Wright's critic stand
      then?
      > Maybe he found it elsewhere in 1 Hesitations 3:5 perhaps?
      >
      > -Edgar
      >
    • puritanone
      ... I reject that imputation and inheritance are foreign to our normal experience and practice. Actually, it is quite common in the parent-child relationship,
      Message 34 of 34 , Jul 6, 2009
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        > 2. I posed objection two as a difficulty in squaring the whole idea of
        > imputation with how we typically understand justice. My argument was that
        > we normally don't work things like that in our everyday holdings of people
        > morally responsible. I mean how often do we allow a deal people made
        > thousands of years ago to affect our moral standing with another party? How
        > often do we allow it that the good or bad merit of others can be made over
        > to ourselves? How often do we allow an innocent to be executed for the
        > guilty? These are extremely counterintuitive and go directly against almost
        > all of our moral practices, yet they stand at the heart of the Reformed
        > understanding of the Gospel.
        >


        I reject that imputation and inheritance are foreign to our normal experience and practice. Actually, it is quite common in the parent-child relationship, so it should not be at all surprising in the Adam-mankind and Jesus-adopted children relationships.


        Just some examples:

        1. Children who are born to rich parents are born rich; children who are born to poor parents are born poor.

        2. Children who are born to mortal parents will be mortal.

        3. Children often inherit the genetic diseases of their parents. Children of parents with healthy genes inherit those genes.

        4. The children of terrorist parents are more subject to have their house (along with themselves) blown up. (What is it like to be born the child of an Al Qaeda leader? Does the US military really have to wait until the wife and children are out before destroying the house in which a terrorist leader is residing? Do you think that the US military waits until everyone is out except the terrorist leader?)

        5. Rich parents buy their children presents which the children never worked for; penniless parents can buy their children nothing.

        6. Rich parents often open up a bank account for their children and put money in it for the children (a form of imputation), even though the children never earned it. Penniless parents do not do the same.

        7. When a rich couple walks through an orphanage and selects a child, upon adoption that child is immediately rich, even though the child did no more to earn it than the next child that never gets adopted.

        8. Parents are under no moral requirement to lay up money to the children of other parents, but they should lay up for their own children, "for the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children." But their own children did not do some special work to receive this blessing.


        Imputation and inheritance are alive and well in the real world we live and act in. We are very familiar with it in our moral practices. But some people try to suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

        - J. Parnell McCarter
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.