theo 7

Is this imputation of sin to christ the same type as that of righteousness? Let us say yes. I could easily say no and say the acts of sin, trangressions, are transfered whereas Christ's works are not. Is the image of flesh, forensically (or rather substitutionally*) punished for iniquity in christ? Or rather does the substitution transfer the works, as demerit, to Christ for punishment?

Now, I tend to believe the first one. Christ seems to only be able to take up sin because he is in our likeness as fully man. This tends toward favoring a imputation of the sin in the same lines of as his image in us. It is by union with christ. Christ became fully man or flesh not an just an image though. Thus the image of flesh was truly flesh in Christ. He was fully man descended through Adam, but not adam, to crush the serpant head. He was sinless. It is clear that this imputation is not just by partial likeness, via an image with more to be revealed but a complete likeness of man which provided total satifaction. Thus our attributes (iniquities) were counted as his and punished under the law. He died fully as God said man would. He also died a death that only God could. Sin was thus condemned in the flesh. He died so that His people will live in the spirit.

Yet, we know we shall be like Christ. This is in our humanity not in his divinity. New humanity will resemble nothing less than the image bearers of God when in heaven. It will look like unfallen humanity but we can be certain it will be more glorified. It will be in constant communion with christ. What it will we, we do not know, for christ has not appeared.

The sin is laid on the offering and the guilt is removed. The offering is certainly still sinless without the evil deads but the guilt and attributes of the sinner is transfered and punishment carried out. The nature of the offering isn't imparted to the person but the outward quality or state of being sinless is. Now, is righteousness rejected by rejecting merit? No. Is iniquity rejected by rejecting demerit? No.

Now I tend to believe that demerit and merit are figments of our imagination to give worth to our choices as being external, rather than who we are internally as revealed in our works. Demerit often follows guilt and merit often follows righteousness but that which is internal determines what is external. The effects cannot outweigh the causes.

I am still not sure where I stand on Covenant of Works. Or if I am going more for Image bearing. He who knew no sin, was made sin.

*Why is it that we aren't called substitutionally righteous. This makes more sense than saying forensic, alien, or imputed. His righteousness in place of ours.