Martin Q. Blank said:
It's not a legal declaration of righteousness while in reality you're not. Christ's righteousness is imputed to the believer. It becomes his. He is ontologically righteous.
"He" meaning the believer?
But that's not what Luther espoused, is it? Snow covered dung heap, etc etc.What about "legal" or "forensic" imputation? Isn't that integral to Sola Fide?
It feels like your understanding of imputation is veering into infusion, but forgive me if I'm misunderstanding.
Further to this point, this is quite a deep dive that I commend to all of us who care about this important subject.
https://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=13-06-041-b&readcode=&readtherest=true#therestThis is an article I stumbled across from back when I subscribed to Touchstone. It's written by an Orthodox Theologian, It's lengthy but worth reading if you have some time. He critiques Sproul's criticism of Roman Catholicism and "faith alone" from an Orthodox perspective. He also reviews a book by two Finnish Lutheran scholars who have a very different opinion on what Luther actually said about justification. Quite interesting.
A couple of quotes to stoke interest:
Quote:
The doctrine of justification by faith alone apart from works is an attack not only on an orthodox doctrine of salvation, but on orthodox Christology and anthropology as well, since it divides the faith of Christ, by which we are justified, from the work of Christ, by which also we are justified, misplacing the justifying work of Christ in man, as well as the works of Christ that the man of faith receives as his own. Those who propose it habitually confuse the works of the law, by which St. Paul teaches that no man is justified, with the work of Christ in us by which both Paul and James assure us that we are, and in which their teaching on justification is one. So fearful are they that a justifying work might be attributed to unjust man that they cannot attribute the work of Christ to a just one. None of the works of the just are therefore the works of justification, but merely those of becoming better (sanctification), when in fact the "becoming better" is also justification since it is growth not simply toward, but in the righteousness of Christ. It cannot be one without being the other as well.
And
Quote:
The center of the point of contention is not Christ himself, but man in Christ, who partakes of his being, and hence has himself a divided nature while still in the flesh, as St. Paul teaches in Romans 7. The doctrine of simul justus et peccator, while formally correct, is misleading when it is read in accordance with abstract concepts of righteousness and sin, instead of meaning that man as the object of salvation is at once Adam and Christ. As Adam he is lost and helpless; in Christ, through true obedience to the Father, he is not: his cooperation in his salvation is true co-operation, his person is truly, by substitution, but still truly, that of Christ, and because of this, grace frees him to merit what he undeservedly receives. He is Adam and Christ, disobedient and helpless on one hand and obedient and full of grace and its power to obey on the other. As in the character of such paradoxes, any combination, mixing, or separation of the categories produces error.
