A Letter to a Christian Newspaper:

Sir:

     Regarding imputed sin. I believe the idea is thoroughly Scriptural, though acknowledging that there is much controversy concerning what is meant by the term. I understand it to mean that all those who die do so because of sin, even He who did not sin as the first Adam, i.e. the Second Adam. I base this on Romans 5.12 ff.. All men are thus imputed with sin, and all men thus die, though one man knew no sin personally. In taking upon Himself the form of a man, Christ voluntarily imputed Himself with sin for our sakes. Though He kept Himself free from actually sinning, He was born to die just like other men, and die He did. He also showed human frailty and the curse of growing older. Indeed, Isaiah makes it clear that Christ was marred by human sin and even looking at Christ showed that He was suffering the consequences of sin. This is the whole point of the Incarnation. In a leading Christian newspaper this week, the editor said that Christ did not sin because He was God. How wrong! Christ did not sin because He was a man whose purpose was to ‘tabernacle with us’ as man and to be tempted in all points like all men. Unlike all other men, He triumphed over sin. One who is not put under sin and thus under the condemning law cannot triumph over sin because He has nothing to do with sin. Sin is imputed everywhere where man is placed under the justice of God and the work of the law. Praise be to God, Christ was no exception, otherwise we would be still waiting for a Redeemer.

     One of my main quarrels with the BOT is that they support Fuller who scorns both imputation of sin and imputation of righteousness. Fuller even denies that Christ placed Himself under the law and rejects the truth of Christ’s vicarious death. Anyone following the writings of the ‘Banner Boys’ in the internet these days, notices that imputation is rarely discussed but when it is, it is explained away as a mere figure of speech, a metaphor or a piece of imagery. They then believe they have given all the explanation needed. Like Cardinal Belarmine at the Council of Trent, they say, ‘This is the truth, not because the Bible says so, nor because tradition says so, but solely because we, the Council, say so.’ We are thus not to do any thinking ourselves. Fuller, like Trent and the BOT, argue that salvation is a working together of God and man. Notice that they criticise Huntington because He taught that Christ met all conditions of the law on our behalf. They would have the Father’s provisions and man’s agency producing salvation, thus leaving the full and complete work of Christ and the Holy Spirit out of the salvation plan. Anyone who belittles the work of Christ in salvation is an Anti-Trinitarian.