Does Union with Christ Make Imputation Redundant?

Over at the Zondervan blog Koinonia, Con Campbell examines the question: Does Union with Christ Make the Imputation of His Righteousness Redundant? Listen to Con’s explanation:

YouTube Preview Image

  • Jonathan McGill

    So, imputation language was helpful to communicate the alien nature of that righteousness we share in via union? I don’t know, still seems unnecessary nowadays, especially since that’s not how I’ve heard the doctrine of imputation thrown around from the pulpit (we’re a bit less careful than Luther and Calvin). The abstracted accounting metaphor is much more popular and I think the NPP proponents have done us a good service by trying to dislodge that from our consciousness. Let’s have that talk about participatory righteousness next!

  • Jason

    I haven’t delved into this discussion for over a year, but this sounds like double talk to me. By the end of the video he seems to be articulating a New Perspective position.

    (@ 2:49) “And so that idea of imputation is still I think useful to indicate that our righteousness in the first instance does not belong to us it is entirely Christ’s. But then we also want to say it’s not as though he gives up his righteousness and throws it over to us or something like that. But we share in his righteousness by our union with him.”

  • Jordan Barrett

    It’s just as hard to reconstruct a doctrine of the Trinity from the texts of Scripture as it is imputation. But that’s not (and shouldn’t be) the problem. They’re both external concepts that help explain/describe internal details.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X