Truth Magazine

By Irven Lee

Large department stores, super markets, and other retail stores have many good things for sale. This is a wonderful convenience that we enjoy in this generation. Proper discipline leads to orderly conduct which is beautiful. There are likely many parents who would make a down payment and regular monthly payments for proper discipline for their children if it were available on the market and highly advertised. This purchase, of course, cannot be made because this item cannot be produced in the factory and sold through some market.

America wants to buy everything that it needs. Parents seem too much involved in searching for money, entertainment, and even in dissipation, so that they do not find time to bring their children up in the training and admonition of the Lord as taught in Ephesians 6:4. Many children are abused and neglected. Some are spoiled and pampered. A fortunate few are properly disciplined. Those exercised or drilled in obedience through instruction, love, and chasten-ing produce the peaceable fruit of righteousness (Heb. 12:11). The home is the place where this fruit should grow.

The Bible: A Child-Rearing Manual

Children are not all alike and training is not easy, but it is of great importance. The Creator has designed the child so that he is young for several years. This gives the parents time to search for skill in how to bring each into subjection or into submission (1 Tim. 3:4, 5). There is “know how” involved in this work, and this knowledge cannot be bought at the store just as the overall training is not on sale. Parents must seek this skill to find it. They may advise with good friends, but skill still must be developed. Advice may be very diverse and contradictory. The best advice is always from the Bible. This book is consistent and does not vary from generation to generation according to the trends of philosophers and psychologists.

After becoming aware of how precious the peaceable fruit of righteousness is and of the fact that each child must be skillfully disciplined to produce this fruit, each worthy parent sets out to drvelop his skill in harmony with scriptural advice. “Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him” (Prov. 22:15). “A foolish son is the calamity of his father” (Prov. 19:12). “Correct thy son, and he shall give thee rest; yea, he shall give delight unto thy soul” (Prov. 29:17).

We should feel free to search for wisdom in caring for children from both the Old Testament and from the New Testament. We do not live under the old law, but the facts of history from the Old Testament are still true. Our Lord’s death on the cross did not take away the history, the wisdom, or the picture of the goodness and the severity of God from the Old Testament. In fact, things recorded there were written for our example (1 Cor. 10:1-11; Rom. 15:4). In every age, the responsibility for child care has been on the family. Children of Solomon’s day were like children in our day in that all needed the proper training, and parents were the special ones to do it.

Discipline Produces Righteousness

“The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame” (Prov. 29:15). “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it” (Prov. 22:6). These verses show something in the contrast between the properly trained child and the untrained child. The difference is beyond words to describe. It is not easy to do the training, but it is worth all of the time and effort to obtain the finished product. The promise that the disciplined child will not depart from the right way is not teaching the impossibility of apostasy, but it is showing that training of the right type is effective and long lasting in its effect.

Punishment or chastening has its place as a tool for wise parents to use in nurturing their chidren. Many object to its use, but the Lord has always recommended it. He knows best. “He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes” (Prov. 13:24). “Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying” (Prov. 19:18). “Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beaten him with a rod, he shall not die” (Prov. 23:13, 14). This advice was needed long before Solomon’s day, and it has been needed ever since. The Dr. Spock type of permissiveness brought up a generation of city burners who were self-willed and resented all authority. They were a shame to our nation.

Let us notice parallel counsel from the New Testament. “Ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him: for whom the Lord loveth he chaseneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chaseneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons. Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness. Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby” (Heb. 12:5-11).

Corrective Discipline

If a child does not receive the chastening rod it is as if he did not have a father. Parents sometimes make mistakes. It is sad but true that some are abusive rather than corrective in the punishment they mete out to their children. This is not that which is recommended by the Bible. Firm and strict discipline is advised, but love for the children provokes this kind of exercise for them. The rose for chastening is not, of course, a club for abuse.

When a child shows a rebellious disposition his stubborn will should be brought into subjection. Inconsistent and ineffective chastening may only agitate the problem. It is very important that the punishment be adequate to get the job done. If the child can get his way by a louder squeal or by a vigorous physical effort, he is not in subjection. He makes his own decisions and is in no position to profit by his parents’ experience. Why should one cross him if he is to get his way anyway by some ugly maneuver? Such agitation may actually teach rebellion rather than obedience. The worthy effort teaches the child obedience and self-control. The child must learn self-discipline, and this is a final step after learning to respect his parents.

Discipline in the home is basic and important for proper conduct at school. Good teachers would be glad if all parents were good disciplinarians. Officers of the law and employers in industry and business wish the same. There would be less crime and more peace among neighbors if each adult had been taught respect for laws and for those in authority early in life. Obedience to God is more natural for one who has first been trained by a wise and determined father and mother.

Punishment is needed to make the child recognize the parent’s right to express his will. The child is not the one to take charge of things in the home. He is not the head of the family and should learn this lesson early in life. Every child should also be fully assured that he is loved and that he is a welcomed member of the family. The chastening is only part of the training process.

Bible Instruction

Instruction is very important in training a child in the way he should go. He at first is not capable of discerning the wise from the unwise. He is brought into subjection so that he will listen, and he can then be taught. It takes time and patience to do the teaching. This part of the training should begin early. Teaching Bible stories and principles of righteousness help parents see their children become worthy adults. They can be taught good manners and proper behavior just as the school child can be taught grammar and mathematics.

Communication

Time with the child is one of the most important elements in the successful process of child development. Parents should listen to the child, and the child should listen to the adults. Each can benefit from this two way conversation. It is our only hope of getting through to the little mind. A new generation should not be left to repeat all of the mistakes that have been made before them. If dialogue begins early and is continually encouraged there can still be communication when the child is as tall as the parent. In such conversations there can be the building of mutual love and understanding as well as instruction and correction.

Example

The example of the parents is very important in the training process. Law breakers could hardly teach respect for government. Alcoholics and drug addicts could not teach sobriety. Children are repulsed by hypocrisy, while they are still too young to discuss it and describe it with words. One important way of teaching is by showing or demonstrating the. right way.

Companions’ Influence

parents are not the only ones who influence the growing child. Each is influenced by his associates. If all parents were devout Christians and skilled disciplinarians there would be the ideal situation for child care and development, but the ideal is only a wish. Many young people are left to grow up as if they were animals. Children from good homes have some contact with these unruly neighbors. Parents have great need of wisdom in warding off these ungodly influences from evil companions. “Evil companionships corrupt good manners” (1 Car. 13:33). This danger is sometimes overlooked, and children are lost in spite of good examples at home and some worthy efforts at discipline. Let us all realize that young people face many temptations.

Families can well afford to encourage happy association with worthy companies by inviting the best into the home and by allowing their children to visit in better homes. It is the home that is responsible for providing the proper social life. The influence that children have on one another is very great.

Influence of Television

Television is a very dangerous force that is doing much harm in America today. Parents who would train their children in the way they should go should exercise much control over this powerful medium. Hollywood in all of its ungodliness is in charge of programs that are offered the young and the old. Atheism, immorality, violence, and alcohol with other harmful drugs are taught by song and drama. Their skills and popularity add to the danger. Are you training your children, or is this being done by money loving atheists?

Training, Not Forcing

Over the years each must make his own decisions. The successful parents do more than force their own wills on their children. They must train their sons and daughters to make wise choices and to choose worthy companions. Chastening is for the early years to bring about subjection. This is followed by instruction, worshiping together, encouraging, and continued firmness in the demand for righteousness.

A United Front

Both parents need to work together in matters of discipline. The children are almost certain to be lost unless there is agreement between the mother and the father in the training process. If one parent takes the part of the children against the other parent, failure is sure to come. A mother may fail to discipline and may object to the father’s use of chastening. 1 heard recently of a divorced couple who shared in the custody of the children. One of the neighbors observed that when the children were with the mother they behaved very much as young wild animals might with no sign of training. On the other hand, when they were with the father they were calm, well-behaved youngsters. It will be very hard for those children ever to develop into sober, law abiding adults because of the twisted experiences of their childhood. They are to be pitied. After they have grown up as law-breakers in one environment, it may be too late to make them understand why rules differ under different circumstances, and they will follow the course that seems good to them in bringing the most pleasure in this life. The mistakes in child training are made early, and the time of reaping comes later. All parents can agree that the heartache is great at harvest time.

Hyper-Active Children

Capable adults may easily observe that some children are much more active than others. In fact, some are hyperactive to such a degree that they need special help in learning to discipline themselves. In this age of wonderful achievements in medical science, there are doctors who can help the hyperactive children so that they require less punishment and pressure to bring them into subjection. There are doctors who obtained their M.D. degrees and then beyond this made a special study of the mind and nervous system. Such doctors can help the mentally ill, help the little one whose body is so keyed up that he runs a little like the steam engine that does not have a governor.

It is unfortunate that some feel that a child is disgraced if he goes to a skilled psychiatrist. Some infants are carried to highly trained surgeons immediately after birth because some part of the body is not functioning properly. It is sad for the little ones to need such help, but it is no disgrace. All through life physical problems may develop, and we look for those who are qualified to help in such cases. The seriously hyperactive child may appear to be an un-disciplined child because he cannot central his actions, when he may be in need of the help of a reputable physician. I am not a doctor, but I can suggest that you carefully observe your child and do your best to understand his needs.

A well disciplined child is a happy child, and the happy child is one whom everybody can enjoy. Every child deserves to be happy.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 15, pp. 449, 474-475
August 4, 1983

By David Holder

We hear much today about mind control. Such control is the power of the cults as well as the idea behind advertising. The inescapable fact is that something is going to control our thinking. And whatever it is that wields such control over our minds determines the kind of people we are. The writer of Proverbs observed, “For as he thinks within himself, so is he” (23:7). This should impress us with the fact that we must be concerned about our thinking. The reason that people do not do right and live right is that they do not think right. While mind control is the power of the cults and other such evils, it is also the power of the word of God. Paul teaches in Romans 12:2, “But be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” Each Christian needs to do some serious thinking about thinking.

The Danger Of Wrong Thinking

The Bible is replete with examples of and warnings about wrong thinking and its consequences. In the days of Noah, “the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). As a result, God destroyed mankind by the flood. In Isaiah 55:6-8 God called upon the unrighteous man to forsake his thoughts, “For,” God said, “my thoughts are not your thoughts.” Certainly God had not erred in His thoughts. It was the people whose thinking was not right.

There are several warnings in the New Testament regarding our thoughts, especially thoughts about ourselves. Paul speaks to all people in Romans 12:3 when he warns man ” . . . not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think.” 1 Corinthians 10:12 says, “let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.” And Galatians 6:3 reads, “If a man thinks himself to be something when he is nothing, he deceives himself.” The summary of the matter is, whether we like to “think” it or not, man is capable of wrong thinking. We can think ourselves into or out of just about anything. “Free thinkers” have thought their way out of morals, religion, and belief in the existence of God, just to name a few. Some professed Christians have thought their way into pride, immorality, and sin of all kinds. This clearly shows that what we think is important because our thinking is a determining factor in the way we live our lives. Hence, it is necessary that our thinking be controlled by the right things.

Controlling Our Thinking

Our minds are controlled by one or more of four basic influences: our own will, the will of other people, things of the world, or the will of God. A good example of how such influences work is to study the mind of Pilate, the Roman procurator who sentenced Jesus to die. When Jesus first came before Pilate, the governor found the Son of Goo guilty of nothing and desired to release him. This was Pilate’s own will. Luke records in 23:23 that “the people were urgent with loud voices, asking that he might be crucified. And their voices prevailed.” Pilate was influenced by the will of others. Finally, the people said to Pilate, “If you release this man, you are not Caesar’s friend” (Jn. 19:12). They held before Pilate the power and prestige of his position. This greatly influenced the decision he made. Without doubt, there were definite influences in control of Pilate’s mind at various times which led him eventually to sentence Jesus to death. Such makes an interesting study, but what does this have to do with our thinking today?

The conclusion is that there are certain factors which can and will control our minds if we so allow them. If it is our desire, however, to be right and acceptable to God, then our minds must be controlled by the will of God alone. After all, who knows more about our minds than He? And who is more worthy of such control than God? Examine carefully what God’s word has to say about such matters:

(1) “Whatsoever things are true, honorable, just, pure, lovely, of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things” (Phil. 4:8). How can we do right and think only of evil, immoral, and worldly things? Why is it that men sin and Christians forsake Christ and grow unfaithful? It is because their minds are dwelling on the wrong things. What the church and the world needs today is more people who think on such things as Paul lists in Philippians 4:8.

(2) “Bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5). Why would a man put his soul’s salvation into his own hand or into the hands of other people? Yet this is what so many people do through the thinking they are involved in. Their minds are controlled by some other will than God’s. The Bible teaches men to yield their will and thinking to the will of Christ. Paul exhorts, “Set your mind on the things that are above, not on things that are upon earth” (Col. 3:2).

The mind of man, without reservation, is the most complex thing on earth. If man could ever happen to figure out all things in the realms of science, technology, and medicine, never will he completely know his own mind. Probably the most difficult task we have as Christians is to control our own minds to the extent that we completely yield ourselves to the will of God. Rather than turning to cultism, agnosticism, or atheism as we search for peace and fulfillment in life, let us learn that true fulfillment and salvation come only from minds controlled by the will of God.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 14, p. 436
July 21, 1983

By Jimmy Tuten

For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous (1 John 5:3).

Jesus had told His apostles, and all His disciples for all time, that “if ye love me, keep my commandments.” He continued, “He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them he ii is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him” (John 14:14, 21, 23). And, to the contrary, He said, “He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings. . .” (John 14:24).

Many years later by the Holy Spirit, John told us again that our love of God is demonstrated and proven by keeping His commandments. We are to cultivate a deep and abiding faith “which worketh by love” (Gal. 5:6). Paul further defines such a faith as “the keeping of the commandments of God” (1 Cor. 7:19). There is no love of God, no respect for Him and His Son, if our will is not yielded to Their will. He who does not obey does not have the love of God abiding in him. Seven hundred years before Jesus came, the prophet Micah stated the basis of all acceptable obedience to Jehovah when he said, “He hath showed thee, O man, what is good: and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God” (Mic. 6:8). Saving faith is always that faith which loves God and sincerely does His will, willingly and cheerfully. God’s commandments “are not grievous” (burdensome, heavy, hard to keep). God has not required the impossible of us. Every commandment can be kept if we want to keep them. A command is “grievous” when we don’t want to do it. Genuine love for God makes obedience enjoyable.

Two brothers, one crippled and the other healthy, became lost while walking in the woods. The cripple tired quickly and had to be carried on the shoulders of his younger and small brother. He was carried some distance. Upon finding freedom they were met by a stranger who observed the situation and said, “My, that must have been quite a burden!” “No sir,” the lad said, “He’s my brother!” God’s commands are like that. Because they are what they are, they are not burdensome. This is the love of God.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 14, p. 435
July 21, 1983

By Tom Roberts

Introduction:

The Bible teaches imputation. It relates directly to salvation and only non-believers in the word of God would reject what the Bible teaches on this subject. But like many other Bible subjects, error seeks to give a false definition to a Bible word, then seek to impose this new definition upon Christians in the place of the Bible usage.

Examples:

Bible word	Shift in definition and usage	Resulting in the charge
“faith”	“faith only”	“You believe in salvation by works.”
“sing”	“play”	“You don’t believe in music.”
“works”	“justified by perfect law keeping” – only used allowed	“You are a legalist” any time any kind of work is used.
“imputation”	“personal righteousness of Jesus transferred”	“You think you are saved by your righteousness”

We need to be aware of this shift in definition and insist on clear definition, knowing that truth cannot be sustained by faulty definitions.

I. Personal Statement:

A. Attitudes have consequences (cf. Attitudes and Consequences by H. Hailey).

B. I make no apologies for a strong stand against what I perceive to be error. I do not speak for anyone else than myself but I want to be clearly understood. I do not believe that our subject can be left in the same categories with the “covering” question or carnal warfare, etc., since these matters are not being pushed into congregations as matters of faith. The position I hold is being branded as “legalism” (Gal. 3:10, etc.) which is clearly condemned by Paul. If I am guilty as charged, I am lost for none can be saved under that system. I would be guilty of preaching “another gospel” (Gal. 1:6-9). But if I “have the mind of Christ” (1 Cor. 2:16) on this subject, we are witnessing a widespread departure that needs to be opposed. One of these positions is sinful; both cannot be right.

C. Any study of imputation would be incomplete if it did not show adequately it’s ramifications in other areas of the Bible. Some of these include:

1 . The plan of salvation (faith, baptism, works, nature of man, justification, sanctification, etc.). All of these are directly affected by the meaning attached to imputation.

2. Security of the believer (does God charge sin to a Christian?).

3. Fellowship (with sectarians, with digressive brethren, indeed even in our attitude toward what may be perceived to be error).

4. Doctrine as distinct from gospel (as some confidently affirm).

5. Imputation’s own vital link with an entire theological system which stands or falls together.

D. Historically, I perceive errors on imputation to be a reversion to pre-restoration theology insofar as it affects churches of Christ. Denominations have always held these views, but not our brethren.

II. Definitions.

A. “Righteousness,” “justification.” Various translations use these words interchangeably. In the adjective, noun and verb forms, we have right, righteous, righteousness and just, justification and justify.

B. “Righteousness” “The virtue or quality or state of one who is just; (1)…in the broad sense, the state of him who is such as he ought to be, righteousness; the condition acceptable to God…” (Thayer). Its use in the Scriptures:

1. An attribute of God’s own personal character (Rom. 2:5).

2. God’s plan for making men righteous (Rom. 1:17; 3:21). In Romans 10:3, the Jews were not ignorant of God’s personal character, but of God’s plan of righteousness, the gospel.

3. The state of man who submits to God’s righteous plan (Rom. 10:4).

4. Example: I John 3:7.

5. Some seem to make more of this word than this definition by using it as “flawless perfection.” When one claims that he is righteous, he is charged with claiming perfection whereas he could be meaning “a right standing with God” based on forgiveness.

C. Justification: “The act of God’s declaring men free from guilt and acceptable to him; adjudging to be righteous . . . Rom. 4:25; 5:18” (Thayer). “A sense of acquittal . . .” (Vine).

D. Just: “Righteous, observing divine and human laws; one who is such as he ought to be. (1) In a wide sense, upright, righteous, virtuous, keeping the commands of God” (Thayer). “In the New Testament, it denotes righteous, a state of being right, or right conduct . . .” (Vine).

1. Example: Psa. 106:30, 31 – Phinehas.

2. He was not “flawlessly perfect” but “one such as he ought to be, keeping the commands of God,” or righteous before God.

3. Nothing is stated in these definitions of righteousness being something that is transferred from one person (human or divine) to another. It all takes place in the mind of God, not something transferred like a “pound of righteousness,” “an ounce of merit.” This use seems to carry the idea of “infuse” and seems to me to be an inconsistent use by those who want to transfer the personal righteousness of Christ to the believer. (One illus. – “pump poison out/food in.”)

4. What I understand righteousness to be and how I use it:

a. Eccl. 7:29 – “God made man upright.” God made man with the virtue or state or quality of one who is just, one who is as he ought to be, the condition acceptable to God. This was true with Adam at creation and is true with us at birth. Man is not born depraved.

b. But sin destroys this condition (Isa. 59:1, 2); it separates us from God and God charges us with sin (sin is imputed) not transferred or infused from someone else (Adam? Satan? our fathers?).

c. When God forgives, he brings us back to that condition we enjoyed before sin entered our lives. The action of God bringing us back to that “right standing” is imputation. (Note: Some are arbitrary with imputation in that they want to apply it (meaning transference) to righteousness but not to sin, limiting the action to Christ’s righteousness but not to Adam’s guilt. If it demands transference with regard to righteousness it will also demand it with regard to sin. The force of this is inescapable.

E. Impute, Imputation: “To reckon, calculate, count over, hence, a. to take into account, to make account of . . . 2. to reckon inwardly, count up or weigh the reasons, to deliberate. 3. by reckoning up all the reasons to gather or infer” (Thayer, p. 379). “To reckon, take into account, or, metaphorically, to put down to a person’s account” (Vine). “Reckon, think, credit, (logismos) thought. (Classical) is derived from (logo, word), count, collect, reckon. Its root (log-) put together, collect, harvest, suggests a regulated perception and an acceptance of given facts (emphasis mine, tr). Hence, logizomai means: (a) reckon, credit, rank with, calculate; (b) consider, deliberate, grasp, draw a logical conclusion, decide. According, logismos means (a) counting, calculation, (b) reflection, argument, thought, plan; (3) the ability to draw a logical conclusion. The concept implies an activity of the reason which, starting with ascertainable facts, draws a conclusion, especially a mathematical one or one appertaining to business, where calculations are essential. OT. Logizomai translates chiefly (Chasav, Heb.), think, account . . . The rabbi’s thinking was purely human; for them faith was a merit . . .” (The New International Dictionary of NT Theology, by J. Eichler, p. 822-826).

“With the exception of 1 Sam. 22:15 (where the word sum, signifying the set, place or appoint, is used), the idea of imputation is always represented by chasav. This word is largely used, and in slightly different senses. Our translators have rendered it by the word `think’ thirty-seven times; `imagine’ twelve times; `devise,’ thirty times; and `purpose,’ ten times. Hence it may be gathered that it signifies a mental process whereby some course is planned or conceived. Thus, it is applied to the `cunning’ workmen who contrived the various parts of the tabernacle, and refers not so much to their skill in manipulating their materials as to their inspired genius in devising the arrangements. It is rendered `find out’ in 2 Chron. 2:14, where we read of a certain person employed on the temple who was skillful to grave any manner of graving, and to `find out’ i.e., picture up in the imagination – `every device which shall be put to him . . . .’

“It is easy to see that a word which represents this process of the thought or imagination may be applied in various senses. Thus it is rendered regard, i.e., `pay attention to,’ in Isa. 13:17, 33:8.

“It is also used to express the estimation in which one person is held by another. Thus Job says (18:3) `Wherefore are we counted as beasts and reputed as vile in thy sight?’ . . . Isa. 53:3, 4 . . : silver `was nothing accounted of in the days of Solomon’ (1 Kings 10:21) . . . `The houses of the villages which have no walls shall be counted as the fields of the country,’ i.e., shall be dealt with on the same principle as the fields . . . 2 Sam. 19:19, `Let not my lord impute iniquity unto me, neither do thou remember that which thy servant did perversely.’ Neh. 13:3, `They were counted faithful.’ Ps. 44:22, `We are counted as sheep for the slaughter.’ Prov. 27:14, `He that blesseth his friend with a loud voice, it shall be counted a curse to him.’ Ps. 106:31, Phinehas’ deed was `counted unto him for righteousness.’ Hos. 8:12, `I have written to him the great things of my law, but they were counted as a strange thing.’

“In all these passages a mental process is involved whereby a certain thing or a course of action is subjected to a sort of estimation as to value or position . . . a few passages remain to be noticed, and they are important from their theological meaning: – Gen. 15:6, Abraham `believed in the Lord and he counted it to him (for) righteousness.’ God reckoned him as righteous, on the ground of his faith. Lev. 7:18, `It shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed.’ The offering shall not be reckoned as having been made. Lev. 17:4, `Blood shall be imputed to that man; he bath shed blood.’ . . . . The word chasav is generally rendered logizomai in the LXX, and the use of this word in the NT exactly accords with what we have gathered from the OT. There are several samples of the ordinary use of the word . . . .

“We see therefore that to reckon, to impute, and to account are one and the same thing, and that the word is used in Scripture to indicate what may be called a mental process whereby the love and mercy which exists in the Divine nature, and which was embodied in Christ, is brought to bear upon the case of every individual who believes in (and acts upon) the word of God . . . (Old Testament Synonyms, by Girdlestone, Associated Pub. Co., 1897).

F. Application of “imputation” to our study:

1. “Impute” never means “transfer.” If so, where is the source authority for this definition and where is the context that so demands it? If it can be proven that it means “transfer” even in a secondary sense, this would not justify making a secondary definition to be used in a primary sense. (Ex: Mk. lfi:16, “He that bath an opinion and is broken up into tiny bits and scattered shall be pickled.”?

2. If one insists on “imputing” to mean “transfer,” then it should be used uniformly with all three considerations:

a. Adam’s sin to mankind.

b. Mankind’s sins to Christ.

c. Christ’s personal righteousness to the believer.

3. “Abraham believed God and it was counted to him for righteousness” (Gen. 15:6; Rom. 4:3). “And it. The word `it’ here evidently refers to the act of believing. It does not refer to the righteousness of another – of God, or of the Messiah; but the discussion is solely of the strong act of Abraham’s faith, which in some sense was counted to him for righteousness. In what sense this was, is explained directly after. All that is material to remark here is, that the act of Abraham, the strong confidence of his mind in the promises of God, his unwavering assurance that what God had promised he would perform, was reckoned for righteousness. The same thing is more fully expressed in vv. 18-22. When, therefore, it is said that the righteousness of Christ is accounted or imputed to us; when it is said that his merits are transferred and reckoned as ours; whatever may be the truth of the doctrine, it cannot be defended by this passage of Scripture” (Barnes Notes on Romans, p. 101, emphasis theirs, tr).

“I have examined all the passages, and as the result of my examination have come to the conclusion, that there is not one in which the word is used in the sense of reckoning or imputing to a man that which does not strictly belong to him; or of charging on him that which ought not to be charged on him as a matter of personal right. The word is never used to denote imputing in the sense of transferring, or of charging that on one which does not properly belong to him. The same is the case in the New Testament. The word occurs about forty times . . . and in a similar signification. No doctrine of transferring, or of setting over to a man what does not properly belong to him, be it sin or holiness, can be derived, therefore, from this word” (Ibid., p. 102).

4. Some insist on impute being “transfer” while others agree that it means “put to one’s account” but insist nevertheless that it is the perfection of Christ that is imputed, whether “transferred” or “put down.” Both are wrong.

5. “It has been erroneously assumed and falsely argued that to impute a thing to a person is to put to his account something that he does not have, or somewhat more than he has. The Presbyterian and Baptist Confessions of Faith, and a host of theologians of both schools, teach that the righteousness of Christ is imputed, or credited, to the sinner . . . . The doctrine is wholly without scriptural support. If to impute means to consider a person somewhat more than he is, or to credit him with something which belongs to another, then to impute sin to a person would be to consider him worse than he is, or to charge to him the sins of another. Righteousness belongs to character, and it is absurd to think that personal righteousness can be transferred to another. When by the power of the gospel a man has been made clean and free from sin, God reckons righteousness to him, because he is righteous. God does not pretend that a man is righteous when he is not. The denominational doctrine of imputed righteousness reminds one of the children’s game of `play-like.’ And their doctrine discredits the gospel as God’s saving power, and belittles the merits and efficacy of the blood of Christ, for it teaches that some corruption remains in the regenerate, but he is counted righteous because he is clothed with the righteousness of Christ. That is `play-like’ theology.

“But the gospel makes men righteous, just as a soiled garment may be made clean, as clean as if it had never been soiled, by carrying it through a process of cleansing. So the gospel takes the sin-defiled person through a process of cleansing that makes him as clean as if he had never sinned. The Lord does not `play-like’ he is righteous; he makes him righteous by the gospel (Commentary on Romans, by R.L. Whiteside, pp. 98-99).

6. “From this it is also evident that we are justified before God solely by the intercession of Christ’s righteousness. This is equivalent to saying that man is not righteous in himself but because the righteousness of Christ is communicated to him by imputation – something worth carefully noting . . . . For in such a way does the Lord Christ share his righteousness with us that in some wonderful manner, he pours into us enough of his power to meet the judgment of God . . . (only thing omitted is Calvin’s quotation of Rom. 5:19 as proof.) To declare that by him alone we are accounted righteous, what else is this but to lodge our righteousness in Christ’s obedience, because the obedience of Christ is reckoned to us as if it were our own?” (Brief History of Calvin’s Theory, 1536 (first edition) 1539 (final edition) Institutes of Christian Religion, by John Calvin, Book III, Chap. XI, Section 23).

7. Examples could be given by the score to prove that our own brethren are now using imputation in this manner. If necessary, these quotations can be produced. In keeping with the guidelines of this class, we are avoiding any use of such quotations.

8. “Consistent Calvinists believe, that if a man be elected, God absolutely imputes to him Christ’s personal righteousness, i.e. the perfect obedience unto death which Christ performed upon earth. This is reckoned to him for obedience and righteousness, even while he is actually disobedient, and before he has a grain of inherent righteousness . . . .

And therefore, under this imputation, he is perfectly righteous before God, even while he commits adultery and murder . . . in point of justification therefore, it matters not how unrighteous a believer actually is in himself: because the robe of Christ’s personal righteousness which, at his peril, he must not attempt to patch up with any personal righteousness of his own, is more than sufficient to adorn him from head to foot: and he must be sure to appear before God in no other” (Check to Antinomianism, by John Fletcher, via. Dabney-Frost Debate, p. 197).

“But . . . the personal righteousness of Christ is not so much as once mentioned in all the Bible, with the doctrine of imputation: and yet some divines can make whole congregations of men . . . believe, that the imputation of Christ’s personal righteousness is a scriptural doctrine, and the very marrow of the Gospel! This garment of their own weaving they cast over adulterers and murderers, and then represent the filthy, bloody wretches as complete in Christ’s obedience, perfect in righteousness, and `undefiled’ before God”‘ (Ibid., p. 390).

9. The question before us takes on added signification when we note these concepts of imputation of the personal, righteousness of Christ being applied to matters which we all probably reject as wrong, yet imputation of this interpretation would permit. See below, material taken from Dabney-Frost Debate, p. 83, 118:

Dabney’s Third Article

Righteousness Imputed – Sin Not Imputed

“Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin” (Rom. 4:8).

“Blessing upon the man whom God imputeth righteousness apart from works” (Rom. 4:6).

I.

1. God imputes righteousness apart from works.

2. Separating is a work, therefore,

3. God imputes righteousness apart from separating.

II.

1. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin (Rom. 4:8).

2. One is made free from sin in baptism (Rom. 6:17); therefore,

3. Sin is not imputed to those baptized.

III.

1. Adultery is a sin (Matt. 19:18).

2. Sin is not imputed to the baptized: therefore,

3. Sin is not imputed to adulterers baptized.

IV.

1. “Sin is not imputed where there is no law” (Rom. 5:13).

2. Sin is not imputed to baptized adulterers; therefore,

3. Baptized adulterers are not reckoned as violaters of law . . . .

V.

1. The sin of adultery is forgiven in baptism (1 Cor. 6:9, 11).

2. God takes no account of sin, when one is baptized; therefore,

3. God takes no account of those married in adultery before baptism.

10. Bro. Frost’s reply: Denominational people use this to dismiss baptism:

1. God imputes righteousness apart from works.

2. Baptism is a work; therefore,

3. God imputes righteousness apart from baptism.

11. While we might view such arguments as the above as ludicrous, it hits closer to home when we hear argued that “Sin is not charged to those in Christ (a relationship)” or “Fellowship is in Christ and not doctrine; therefore, no doctrine should become a test of fellowship.” Brethren, don’t miss the point of all this discussion. Fellowship is the ultimate question before us. Imputation of the personal righteousness of Christ to the believer is being used to promote a wider fellowship with sectarians and this very thing is being practiced all around us. Attitudes have consequences! The formula by brother Dabney is not limited to the marriage question but is actually a panacea for all our problems. With one fell swoop; we may wrap our arms around any and all, ignoring what the Bible says about the doctrinal matters when we have “Christ’s personal righteousness” imputed to us. It is so simple, it can be reduced to “Filling in the Blanks.”

Fill In The Blank

“Sin is not imputed” (Rom. 4:8); “Lord will not impute sin” to those in Christ.

_______________ is a sin.

_______________ is not imputed.

We have seen this used on adultery. Try it with instrumental music, institutionalism, premillennialism, all shades of liberalism, taking the Lord’s supper on Wednesday night, etc. We might even try at on legalism!

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 14, pp. 434-435, 437-439
July 21, 1983