I was talking with a friend about original sin again and he said that he believed that we have "imputed" guilt, not "inherited guilt." What in the world is the difference? He asked if I believed that we are imputed Christ's righteousness. I told him that I believe we become righteousness and I would look into it! What do you say? -- Jason Reichert (Atlanta)
Imputed guilt and inherited guilt sound fishily like the same thing, since legally (imputation is a legal category) you are guilty if guilt if imputed to you! Romans 5:12 says simply that all died in Adam because all sinned. Sounds like we are all responsible for our own sin (Ezekiel 18), with no need for guilt from others' sin!
Advocates claim “Imputed righteousness” is supported by Rom 4:5-8, where we find "counted as righteousness." Yes, we are initially considered righteous, and thus blessed. Paul says nothing about Christ’s righteousness being imputed to them. The early Christians knew nothing of such a doctrine.
Consider the word of John Wesley: “These false teachers say that His righteousness is imputed to us; therefore, we need none of our own…. Men are supposedly in Christ, although they have not one jot of the mind that was in Christ. They think they are complete in Him, although they are as proud, as vain, as covetous, and as lustful as ever. They think they can continue in unrighteousness because Christ has fulfilled all righteousness. O simple ones!” – “A Blow at the Root or Christ Stabbed in the House of His Friends,” vol. 10, The Works of John Wesley, 367-369, condensed.
Thanks to David Bercot for his insight on "imputed righteousness," which he rejects on theological grounds and because it is not a doctrine of the early Christians. This article is copyrighted and is for private use and study only. © 2006. Reprints or public distribution is prohibited without the express consent of Douglas Jacoby.
