{"id":278,"date":"2022-09-23T08:42:01","date_gmt":"2022-09-23T08:42:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/acutechristian.com\/?p=278"},"modified":"2022-09-25T07:53:51","modified_gmt":"2022-09-25T07:53:51","slug":"kmm","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/acutechristian.com\/?p=278","title":{"rendered":"How can one have the ability and not have at the same time to accept imputation of righteousness?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

We begin with the problem of sin. <\/strong>The inescapable, inevitable, and looming face of death stares us in the face all day long, and sometimes, because the mirror in which we see ourself(consciousness<\/em>) is muddied, we are not even able stare back into our own reflection and see the stains covering our face. Luckily, the doctrine of imputation<\/em> teaches us that Jesus’s righteousness is given to us as a cloak to wear in replacement of the sin we once bore as descendants of our natural head: Adam (Eph. 2:8\u20139). As Romans 5:19 states, “For as by the one man\u2019s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man\u2019s obedience the many will be made righteous.” God appoints the chosen to belong under Jesus, to which their sins are forgiven based on this imputation, just as Adam\u2019s sin is imputed to all people belonging to him(everyone prior to Christ’s arrival). Appoints <\/mark>is key here, as it leaves no room for doubt that 1. one cannot choose oneself to belong under Jesus’s representation and 2. once appointed, we are saved and right before God (Job 9:2). The way by which we are saved and counted as righteousness before God is through salvation by faith in Christ, otherwise called the doctrine of justification.<\/em> To be justified before God is to be counted as righteous, and to be counted as righteous is to have Christ’s righteousness replace our sin.<\/mark><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The type of righteousness through faith here is the protestant <\/em>understanding of external righteousness<\/strong> that is granted, and not a roman catholic<\/em> subjective righteousness<\/strong> that is partially carried out by us, where God justify sinners partly on the basis of his grace in Christ and partly on the basis of our own works, performed in co\u00adoperation with his grace. Biblical evidence in support of righteousness as an external quality positively imputed to us is seen in the broader context of Romans 3-4. The clearest evidence of this throughout the Bible would be Romans 4:16, Romans 3:28, Psalm 32, Genesis 15:6<\/em>, and though I recognize the question of the type of free will if we are to accept the above interpretation for the doctrine of justification and imputation which combine to form salvation, for now I accept it completely as is to avoid protestant and roman catholic debate(though one I clearly believe more) With the theological background now established, I draw your attention to the four premises below, and the logical dilemma it seems to imply:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Because sin cannot kill you by making God not impute righteousness, it can only kill you by taking away your ability to accept the imputation of righteousness.<\/p>

2. premise 1 implies we have the ability to accept imputation of righteousness.<\/p>

3. Response to premise 1, if sin can kill you by taking away your ability to accept imputation of righteousness, you never had that ability in the first place(John 2:19)<\/p>

4. This implies that once called, one does not have the ability to reject imputation of righteousness.(from premise 3)
Question: How can one have the ability and not have at the same time to accept imputation of righteousness?<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

This seems to violate the law of non contradictio<\/strong>n, one of the most fundamental tenants for any progress, theological or philosophical, to be made. Things cannot be true and not true at the same time, and while the dilemma is logical,<\/em> I want to clarify in saying that I mean metaphysical and physical possibility<\/em> of being able to both reject and accept imputed righteousness<\/strong> within my question. One way we can approach this is by denying premise 3. On the outset, the third premise seems almost impossible to deny. We know that no power of sin is greater than the power of Christ’s salvation, since sin cannot change God’s decision to impute righteousness. Therefore, this leaves sin the only option to take away your ability to accept such an imputation of righteousness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When you think about the premise more closely, it is not so immediately<\/em> true. The central belief that sways us towards believing the premise is true is that 1. once saved, we are saved eternal 2. if sin could take away our salvation, it would try with all its might to do so. <\/mark>The issue is deceptive because of the confusion in various senses of possibility when we use modal quantifiers <\/strong>within premises above. To reject premise 3 we can say that just because sin can take away your ability to accept imputation of righteousness, does not mean that it actually will(MacArthur<\/em>). Premise 3 is not metaphysically and physically possible, though logically possible as a conditional statement, the condition of sin being able to take away imputed righteousness does not occur, not because it cannot, but precisely because it CAN, and yet those who are saved are able to choose to reject it at every moment.<\/strong> It would be foolish to claim that every child born of their mothers and fathers DNA do not have a life of their own.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To be clear, “it”<\/em> here does not refer to sin, but to the “ability<\/strong> to accept imputation of righteousness.” The possibility of sin taking away our salvation exists at every moment, but is simply never exercised<\/em> for Christians. The conditional<\/strong> “If you live in sin, you will die” contains the antecedent<\/strong> “if you live in sin” and the consequent<\/strong> “you will die.” The consequent of death is rendered false by Christ, and the state of living in sin(antecedent within this conditional statement) remains true until sin is removed permanently at Judgement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n


But if something is possible but never occurs then to what extent is it even possible in the first place? <\/em>This sort of possibility seems only to exist as a logical one. Something actually occurring at least once seems to be necessary for us to claim it as a metaphysical and physical possibility given that otherwise it\u2019d just be a synthetic proposition. This is equivalent to the epistemic <\/strong>question: If a needle falls in the woods and no one hears it then does it actually fall?<\/p>\n\n\n\n


Locke says no:
<\/strong><\/mark>1. people derive knowledge through perception
2. the sound of a needle falling is a type of perception we call sensation
3. therefore if we are not there to experience it, it does not actually fall.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

One over many argument(from Plato): <\/strong><\/mark>Yes,<\/strong> because “there are separated, everlasting forms corresponding to every general term truly predicated of groups of things. Many different particulars can all have what appears to be the same nature and identity of nature does exist.”(Fine, 1995)
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another argument <\/strong>which responds yes does so by positing that the existence of meaningful general words necessitates the existence of universals, which are the meanings of those words.<\/p>\n\n\n\n


While I’d love to dive into the deep epistemic question of whether or not metaphysical existence requires instantiation, we shall for now keep constrained to the relevance of our problem: When our answer to the needle in a forest problem is no(if sin can take away our ability to accept imputation of righteousness, then it must do so at least once),<\/em> then it challenges the previous denial of premise 3. It also supports Alvin Plantinga’s<\/em> doctrine of trans-world depravity<\/strong>: if God gave us the ability to sin (which he did), <\/em>then someone HAS to sin at least once (which would, and did, lead to the fall of humanity).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Heres a recap of the train of thought for our central problem so far:<\/strong><\/pre>\n\n\n\n
We want to solve the initial question arising from the four premises that come from a consideration of the doctrine of imputation and justification: How can one have the ability and not have at the same time to accept imputation of righteousness?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Answer 1: <\/strong>In order for the dilemma to be legitimate, all four premises must be true. However, premise 3 is not. It appears true because the use of the modal quantifier <\/em>“can” is used in a logical<\/em> sense, when other premises are referring to “can” in a metaphysical and physical sense<\/em>. Just because sin can<\/em> kill you by taking away your ability to accept imputation of righteousness, does not mean you never had <\/em>that ability in the first place. This is because even though sin can<\/em> take away this ability, it never does.<\/em>
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Response:<\/strong> If sin can take away ability to accept imputation of righteousness but never does it, does it have that ability at all? To say someone has an ability to do something implies there is at least one possible instance<\/em> in which they do in fact do it, otherwise it is not metaphysical and physical sense of “can,” but a logical <\/em>sense of “can,” making answer 1 false.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
You can see why I am conflicted:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1. <\/strong>If sin can take away ability to accept imputation requires that it DOES do so at least once in metaphysical reality, then it implies the trans-world depravity state of reality that Alvin Plantinga describes:<\/strong> In all worlds where sin is possible, sin occurs at least once in those worlds. <\/em>It is easy here to lose track of the issue at hand and say that sin takes away the ability for non-Christians to accept imputation of righteousness, but not for<\/em> Christian’s. Keep in mind the thrust of this is that this is directed for Christians, sin in the eyes of God never occurs, past present or future(this is to keep out naive rejections like: but even Christians sin.) The question specifically comes from the fact that is is a directed question for Christians. You can think of it with the phrase added on: For Christians, if sin can take away ability to accept imputation requires that it does<\/strong> do so at least once in metaphysical reality?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The point is, saying existence of an ability does<\/strong> require metaphysical instantiation implies Plantinga’s view: God cannot actualize a world where the instantiation of [humans] only do what is right, therefore, God cannot actualize any morally perfect world containing the instantiation of [humans]. God had<\/strong> to allow sin to enter the world if he gave us the ability to choose sin. The problem is this denies God’s omniscience and omnipotence<\/em>. Could God not have created a world in which everyone acts perfectly according to whatever standard of law set out, and is morally good every moment of reality?<\/mark> God need not take away free will to create such a reality, as he can simply create a world in which the circumstances are laid out precisely so that every situation we face, we choose to do the right thing according to God’s law. It may be hard to imagine such a world, but just think about it: every time you donate your money, you get infinite feelings of pleasure. Or maybe pain does not trigger survival instincts, but instead gives humans a dopamine rush, prompting us to consistently throw our lives on the line for others. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
To some extent, this points to the very real necessity of suffering for perfect glory. We will let things be there, as that is a whole other topic, but you see the problem<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For the first core problem, <\/mark>I would say that to some extent, God indeed could not have created a world in which causal circumstances motivate perfect moral and free action from humans and maintained suffering as a necessity for glory. In order for true glory to exist, maybe it is the case that both the voluntary choice for human suffering for God as Christians and rebirth from a state of dead by law to alive in Christ are necessary. Certainly, the process of rebirth cannot occur if we were always alive in the law by being perfect obeyers of the moral law set out by God. Therefore, we can say it is logically possible that God couldn’t create a perfectly motivated moral world in the same sense it is logically possible for a bachelor to be married. It is a play on linguistics. In the metaphysical and physical reality we live in, it is not(for the reasons set out in this paragraph).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2. If sin can take away ability to accept imputation DOES NOT require it do so at least once in metaphysical and physical reality, then it implies we cannot deny premise 3 and say “can” refers to the logical possibility of being able to do something.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
For the second core problem,<\/mark> just because sin can<\/em> take away our ability to accept imputation of righteousness does not mean it must do so at least once in the metaphysical and physical reality we exist in. The most elegant and simple answer is more likely than not true. Case and point: Jesus Christ. Jesus is the best and only solution to this problem. Jesus was fully man and fully God, and sin did have the ability to take his righteousness, however, it was never once successful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There is much to expand on as to why suffering is inextricably linked to a created world designed for God’s glory, and ties into the existential question of why prefer to be created at all: wouldn’t a non existent life be better than an existence in which probabilities skew against you towards eternal damnation<\/em>, as Matthew 7:13-14<\/em> tells us only few are chosen.<\/em> In other words, if suffering is inextricably linked to glory of God, it feels like God’s glory is built on top of man’s suffering. Additionally, there is much to be expanded upon in terms of what I think of the doctrine of imputation, predestination, Alvin Plantinga’s A Defence of Free Will, Locke’s argument on perception, The One over Many argument, or John MacArthurs writings on justification by faith. I’ll leave it at that for now, I’ve made a list of some relevant readings below if your interested. Whew!<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Relevant Readings<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/www.ontology.co\/biblio\/armstrongdm.htm
https:\/\/www.gty.org\/library\/questions\/QA080\/is-it-possible-for-redeemed-people-to-lose-their-salvation
https:\/\/www.trinityfoundation.org\/journal.php?id=193<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Fine, Gail, On Ideas: Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato’s Theory of Forms (Oxford, 1995; online edn, Oxford Academic, 1 Nov. 2003), https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/0198235496.001.0001, accessed 19 Sept. 2022.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Plantinga, Alvin. God, Freedom, and Evil. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1977.
Plantinga, Alvin. The Nature of Necessity. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Some points I thought about but didn’t add in:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The power of sin is not the law, but in our inability to keep the law.
Justification by faith is made possible by the Holy Spirit.
Jesus does not abolish the law but fulfills it. By fulfilling it and being chosen<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
We begin with the problem of sin. The inescapable, inevitable, and looming face of death stares us in the face all day long, and sometimes, because the mirror in which we see ourself(consciousness) is muddied, we are not even able stare back into our own reflection and see the stains covering our face. Luckily, the…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/acutechristian.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/278"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/acutechristian.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/acutechristian.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/acutechristian.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/acutechristian.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=278"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/acutechristian.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/278\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":292,"href":"https:\/\/acutechristian.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/278\/revisions\/292"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/acutechristian.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=278"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/acutechristian.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=278"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/acutechristian.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=278"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}