> I think it's clear that Romans 8 is not about imputation.

It's not clear in the least, as I've been saying and giving multiple verses of evidence to support that it IS very much about imputation.

> nothing in the text or in the commentary you've provided suggests that Romans 8 is about imputation as opposed to sanctification.

I've already covered the verses, the terms, and the grammatical structure. I don't know what more I can do. But it's not about imputation *as opposed to* salvation; it's about both.

> The Greek fathers are not the final authority, but they are evidence of how early Christians who were fluent in the language of the New Testament understood the text.

I agree.

> The absence of any mention of forensic imputation in their writings, and their repeated assertion that Romans 8 is about sanctification, lends strong weight to that interpretation of the text.

I disagree, but I've already covered this ground.

> (and the fact that its meaning wasn't debated before the Reformation ought to tell us something).

Yeah, it does tell us something. (1) The meaning in the ancient world was not debated. (2) The RCC took quite a rabbit trail to the side of biblical theology, (3) The Reformers brought up this text, among others, to bring a righting influence to the tilts of Catholic theology.

> The point of contention that Paul is addressing isn't whether a person is required to comply with the moral obligations of the law after being justified by faith.

Paul was saying that their "righteousness" (obeying the Law) was an inadequate grounds for salvation. Keeping the law never atones for anything. After salvation, what was incumbent on them was to live in the Spirit by grace through faith, not by works of law (Galatians 4-5). The moral obligations of the Law are never binding on us; we live morally because we are "in Christ" and walk in the Spirit. Throw the rule books away and live by the Spirit. Be done with your lists and requirements; walk in the light.

> is it possible for a person to have a justifying faith in Jesus that is completely devoid of hope and charity?

Of course not. Faith without works is dead. By their fruit you will know them. He who has been redeemed walks in the light and has put aside the works of darkness.

I'm learning a lot from the conversation. You've given me a lot of challenging ideas to think about it, and I hope I've done the same for you.

I agree with your definition of imputation, but I think it's clear that Romans 8 is not about imputation. It certainly involves God working in us, but nothing in the text or in the commentary you've provided suggests that Romans 8 is about imputation as opposed to sanctification.

The Greek fathers are not the final authority, but they are evidence of how early Christians who were fluent in the language of the New Testament understood the text. The absence of any mention of forensic imputation in their writings, and their repeated assertion that Romans 8 is about sanctification, lends strong weight to that interpretation of the text.

The meaning of Romans 3 has been hotly debated by scholars across all denominations since the Reformation (and the fact that its meaning wasn't debated before the Reformation ought to tell us something). One thing is clear though. The point of contention that Paul is addressing isn't whether a person is required to comply with the moral obligations of the law after being justified by faith. He is clear throughout his letters that the moral obligations of the law are binding on us after initial justification, and if we do not comply with them, we will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

The real disagreement between us seems to be whether progress in moral improvement (sanctification) is an imperative on which our ultimate entry into the Kingdom of God is conditioned, or if sanctification is the automatic outgrowth of having faith, with the result being that our entry to the Kingdom of God is conditioned only on having faith. This too has been debated endlessly since the Reformation, but I would ask you this: is it possible for a person to have a justifying faith in Jesus that is completely devoid of hope and charity?

I don't really understand why we're doing this. (Not trying to be nasty or anything.) Nothing I say is going to change your mind.

> Imputation is not God's work in us. Imputation is God treating us as if we were as righteous as Jesus.

I disagree. Imputation is the conferring of a status on the basis of an action that God takes. It distinctly IS God's work in us, because we don't change our own status. God changes our status (salvation is by grace; justification is a work of the Holy Spirit in us). He imputes salvation and a status of right standing before God to us, which is treating us as if we are righteous.

> There is nothing about πληρωθῇ that suggests the word has anything to do with imputation, nor that it necessarily means God is the one doing all the work and not man. πληρωθῇ is used throughout the New Testament to refer to a requirement or prophecy being fulfilled by actual human actions:

The passive voice indicates that the work of fulfilling is not ours, but God's to do in us. It is the act of God in Christ that creates new life in the believer through His Spirit (Kittel Vol. 6 p. 292). "The fulfillment spoken of here is in no sense something achieved by Christians themselves, it is something which God, the author of all, works in us through the Spirit as a consequence of the Christ-event. There is a fulfillment of the moral demand, but this righteousness is entirely the creation of God operating through the Spirit" (Fitzmyer, Anchor Bible Commentary Vol. 33, Romans, p. 487).

> Moreover, none of the Greek fathers I have found mention forensic imputation in their discussion of Romans 8:4.

This is moot. Because the Church Father don't address it is meaningless. The Church Fathers aren't Scripture, and they aren't authoritative. They are of academic interest.

> Romans 3.27

The point of Romans 3 is that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin (3.9). The whole world is accountable to God (3.19). Therefore no one will be declared righteous by moral living (Rom. 3.20)! "This doesn’t mean the Mosaic law in its ritual or ceremonial aspect, but the law in a deeper and more general sense, as written both in the Decalogue and in the hearts of the Gentiles, and embracing the moral deeds of both Gentiles and Jews" (Vincent's Word Studies of the NT, Vo. 3 pp. 36-37). Apart from any moral living, the righteousness of God has been made known (3.21). We are justified by grace, not by moral living (3.24)—a justification that is imputed to us, freely, by his grace, not by works (3.27-28).

> You are attempting to distinguish between moral transformation and spiritual transformation. While I acknowledge that there may be a distinction of order, in that spiritual transformation (the Spirit dwelling in us and changing our nature) precedes moral transformation (bearing the fruit of righteous living), the Bible is clear that moral transformation is a necessary result of spiritual transformation. If we are not morally transformed, we will not inherit the Kingdom of God (Galatians 5:21).

I agree with this. Atonement is on the basis of grace and imputed justification, and moral transformation is a function (the fruit) of justification. Without sanctification (which includes other things beside moral transformation, but it does include it), there is every reason to doubt our salvation. But our moral transformation is a result of the atonement process, not a condition of it.

Imputation is not God's work in us. Imputation is God treating us as if we were as righteous as Jesus. There is nothing about πληρωθῇ that suggests the word has anything to do with imputation, nor that it necessarily means God is the one doing all the work and not man. πληρωθῇ is used throughout the New Testament to refer to a requirement or prophecy being fulfilled by actual human actions: [url]https://biblehub.com/greek/ple_ro_the__4137.htm[/url]

Moreover, none of the Greek fathers I have found mention forensic imputation in their discussion of Romans 8:4. Athanasius uses it to refer to Saint Anthony actually triumphing over the devil's temptations: [url]http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/can.htm#h4[/url]

John Chrysostom discusses Romans 8 at length and never mentions any sort of forensic imputation. Commenting specifically on Romans 8:4, he says, "For in this passage he shows that the Font will not suffice to save us, unless, after coming from it, we display a life worthy of the Gift." [url]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210213.htm[/url]

John Damascene comments on Romans 8:4, " For the Spirit helpeth our infirmities and affordeth power to the law of our mind, against the law that is in our members." [url]https://www.orthodox.net/fathers/exactiv.html#BOOK_IV_CHAPTER_XXII[/url] This is moral transformation - the Spirit gives victory to our mind in its struggle against the sinful desires of our flesh.

Chrysostom does see an analogy for penal substitution in 2 Corinthians 5:21 ([url]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220211.htm[/url]) and Galatians 3:13 ([url]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/23103.htm[/url], wherein he cross-references Isaiah 53), but he is clear that this does not result in a once-for-all forensic imputation of righteousness, regardless of how we live:

[quote]For from the grace we reap no benefit towards salvation, if we live impurely; nay, we are even harmed, having this greater aggravation even of our sins, in that after such knowledge and such a gift we have gone back to our former vices.[/quote]

Romans 3:27 is clearly not talking about the need for moral living, because Paul immediately follows it by asking, "Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also?" The point of contention in Romans 3 is not whether a person needs to live a moral life after coming to faith, but whether the ceremonial requirements of the Mosaic law are binding on Gentile converts. This is also the context for the other passage you cite (Romans 9:31-32).

Your concluding sentence goes back to the point I tried to address as (1) in my previous reply, but you say that I misunderstood you. You are attempting to distinguish between moral transformation and spiritual transformation. While I acknowledge that there may be a distinction of order, in that spiritual transformation (the Spirit dwelling in us and changing our nature) precedes moral transformation (bearing the fruit of righteous living), the Bible is clear that moral transformation is a necessary result of spiritual transformation. If we are not morally transformed, we will not inherit the Kingdom of God (Galatians 5:21).

> Christians aren't called to moral transformation through our own effort but are rather called to participate in God's life and to walk by the Spirit as a new creation, and

Um, no, this isn't what I said (and, ironically, you agreed with it). We are called to moral transformation, but moral transformation is not what atonement is about. Instead, moral transformation is part of the sanctification process after atonement.

> The New Testament does in fact teach that all of our sins were imputed to Jesus, He was punished for them, and His righteousness is imputed to us, and this imputation of righteousness does not depend on the moral progress we make in this life.

Correct. I agree with this summary statement.

> Regarding your second point, I don't think you've made your case. The only verse you cite for penal substitution is Romans 8:3.

Yeah, just because I didn't go into it fully. Your post was long and my response was setting up to be even longer. So in my laziness (and fatigue) I just responded to the verse you yourself gave.

> This says that God condemned sin in the flesh. It does not say that God condemned Jesus.

Romans 8.3 says that God sent Jesus in the likeness of sinful flesh concerning (with relevance to) sin, and thereby condemned sin in humankind. 2 Cor. 5.21 says God treated Jesus, who had no sin, as sin for us. Jesus bore our sin and its guilt (Isa. 53.4) and became the representative of sin, condemned by God (Isa. 53.4-6 and implied by Romans 5.15-19). The "for us" of 2 Cor. 5.21 and Isa. 53.4 show it to be substitutionary. God condemned the sin of humanity, and that condemnation took place in the flesh of Jesus (Gal. 3.13).

> Verse 4 doesn't say anything about imputation.

The righteous requirements of the law are πληρωθῇ (filled to overflowing) in us. The passive indicates that the work is not ours to do but rather God's to do in us: imputation. Christ met it all in our place (substitutionary; Rom. 3.21-26), through no effort of our own (Rom. 3.27; 9.31-32), and having nothing to do with any process of moral transformation. It is Christ that has done all the work, and it the Spirit who appropriates it to us (8.4). When Paul write there is no condemnation for those in Christ because the Spirit has set us free from the law (Rom. 8.1-4), he is not making our sanctification the cause or ground of our justification, but rather its necessary fruit.

> The chapter is describing a transformation in our lives by the Holy Spirit, which is the direct result of the sacrifice Jesus made on the Cross.

Clearly, but it's not moral transformation, but rather a spiritual transformation of our nature (8.4).

Thank you for taking the time to read through my argument and post a thoughtful reply.

The two main arguments that I'm seeing in your response are:

1. Christians aren't called to moral transformation through our own effort but are rather called to participate in God's life and to walk by the Spirit as a new creation, and
2. The New Testament does in fact teach that all of our sins were imputed to Jesus, He was punished for them, and His righteousness is imputed to us, and this imputation of righteousness does not depend on the moral progress we make in this life.

Regarding your first point, I agree with you. I think we are using different words to describe the same thing. Moral transformation means participating in God's life, walking by the Spirit and living as a new creation. When we do this, we live moral, righteous lives. We do not practice the sins that Paul lists in Galatians 5:19-21, but rather we bear the fruit of the Spirit that Paul describes in Galatians 5:22-23. This is what I mean by "moral transformation". To be clear, I do not believe it is solely by our own effort that we live righteous lives, but it is always by relying on and cooperating with God's grace that we can do so. And God's grace comes to us first - it is a gift per Ephesians 2:8.

Regarding your second point, I don't think you've made your case. The only verse you cite for penal substitution is Romans 8:3. But Romans 8:3 does not say that God punished Jesus with the punishment that we deserve, it simply says: "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh."

This says that God condemned sin in the flesh. It does not say that God condemned Jesus. And Paul doesn't describe the consequence as any sort of dual imputation, rather he explicitly says in the following verse that the consequence is that the requirement of the law will be fulfilled in us: "so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."

Verse 4 doesn't say anything about imputation. It says that the requirement of the Law will be fulfilled in us, the reason being, not that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, but that we walk according to the Spirit. This is "moral transformation" - we fulfill the requirement of the Law by living morally righteous lives by the power of the Holy Spirit. Paul reiterates this point in the following verses, where he says the change is that our mind is not set on the flesh but on the Spirit, with an explicit warning in verse 13 that if we live according to the flesh, we will die. There is no hint of forensic imputation in Romans 8. The chapter is describing a transformation in our lives by the Holy Spirit, which is the direct result of the sacrifice Jesus made on the Cross.

OK, it's quite a project for this kind of forum and this amount of space, but I'll enter the game.

I disagree with your thesis. We'll have to see if there's room to play it all through, since you've posted so much material.

> Matthew 5.48

This verse has nothing to do with atonement. The verse is neither requiring moral perfection, nor is He making reference to our union with God. The context is about loving all people (even those who oppose the community of God), not just one's friends. God loves his enemies (Rom. 5.8), and so should we. The term is τέλειοι, which connotes maturity and full development, though those are too weak to capture the full force of Jesus's point. Instead, disciples of Christ, just as the people of Israel were, are to reflect God's identity in the world. That identity is decisively manifest in the practice of loving enemies. The parallel of Mt. 5.48 in Mt. 5.45 and in Luke 6.32-36 makes it clear that "perfect" here means "indiscriminate" or "unconditional"—a quite conceivable, even attainable imperative. Because God does not discriminate, his disciples are called upon likewise not to discriminate in choosing the objects of their love.

> Heb. 12.14

Hebrews 12.10 indicates that holiness is a status. We are disciplined to become more moral people but to have a share in God’s life (Heb. 12.9). The end goal is a status of righteousness (Heb. 12.11), not a moral life.
The holiness here is not one we attain by righteous living, but instead by identifying with Christ (12.2-3) so that we do not miss the grace of God (12.15).

> Gal 5.19-21

The whole point of Galatians is that we not be bound by rules, lists, and requirements. We are free in Christ to live by the Spirit (Gal. 3.2-3, 10-11, 25; 4.30; 5.1, 4, 13, 16, 18. We never attain the goal by human effort (3.3). To claim that moral transformation is the only proper understanding of the atonement is to nullify the book of Galatians. We are to live by the Spirit; we are not under the Law (Gal. 5.18). Of course those who live this way won't inherit the kingdom of God. It's not that moral transformation is the only proper understanding of the atonement, but rather that when we live by the Spirit we no longer gratify the desires of the sinful nature (Gal. 5.16).

> Romans 8.3-4

Atonement in the OT was mostly a covering. The term *kipper* is more like expiation or "clearing" than atonement per se. By virtue of the death of the animal, the flood accomplished the ritual role of a deterrent to expunge anything that would desecrate the sanctuary (whether unacceptable behavior or ritual uncleanness). Here in Romans 8.1-4, Paul suggests Christ's death was penal.

[list]- v. 1 – no condemnation
- v. 2 – why condemnation no longer exists: Christ freed you from sin and death
- v. 3 – why condemnation no longer exists: God's Son became sin, and condemned sin.
- v. 3 – sacrificial language: an allusion to the OT's sin offering
- v. 3 – God condemned sin in the flesh (penal judgment)
- v. 3 – "in the likeness of sinful flesh" support the penal nature of Jesus's death
- v. 4 – to fulfill the righteous requirement of the law in us.[/list]

There is nothing in here about moral transformation.

[list]- The condemnation (8.1) were were due is because of our status as "dead in our sins". Righteousness was imputed to us (Rom. 3.24; 6.23; 7.24) as a new status.
- The transformation is one from death to life, not from badness to goodness (Rom. 8.2).
- No amount of moral transformation would help us (8.3). We were transformed by a substitute (8.3)
- The righteous requirements weren't met in us by moral transformation but rather by Christ imputing righteousness, salvation, and life to us (8.4), regardless of our moral condition (5.8).
- Romans 8.3 speaks explicitly of penal substitution: the law, weakened by our sinful nature (not sinful behavior, mind you) was powerless to remove our condemnation. So God sent His Son in our likeness as "sinful man" (substitutionary) to deal with the problem of sin by condemning sin itself.
- Now our nature is changed. It speaks not of moral transformation but of new creation (2 Cor. 5.17). [/list]

This is getting long. I could write pages and pages more. Without even getting much past your first point, I think your case fails, and radically so. We could talk about this until Jesus returns, and there is so much more I want to write. But I'll stop here so there can be dialogue. I can return to more critique of your thesis later, if warranted, but I think I've sufficiently presented a rebuttal to your case.

Moral Transformation is the only correct understanding of the atonement.

[b]Thesis:[/b] The atonement consists in the moral transformation that Jesus brings to those who believe in Him. All other theories of the atonement are either flawed or simply another way of stating moral transformation.

[b]Premise 1:[/b] Union with God requires moral perfection. Jesus states this clearly in Matthew 5:48, and the author of Hebrews tells us the same in Hebrews 12:14: "Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord."

Likewise, Paul admonishes us that if we persist in sin, we will not enter the Kingdom of God: "Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God" (Galatians 5:19-21).

[b]Premise 2:[/b] Jesus offered Himself as a sacrifice that brings reconciliation between God and man. The word "atonement" appears in only a few English translations of the New Testament. The KJV translates καταλλαγή (reconciliation) in Romans 5:11 as atonement, and the NIV translates (ἱλαστήριον) (propitiation) as atonement in Romans 3:25 and Hebrews 9:5. 1 Peter 3:18 tells us "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God." The same author tells us earlier "He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed." (1 Peter 2:24, alluding to Isaiah 53:5). This shows us the sense in which Jesus died for our sins - He died to save us from our own sins by healing us and changing us so that we would sin no longer (Romans 6:6). Thus, Paul can explain the accomplishment of the Cross as follows: "For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit" (Romans 8:3-4).

The above verses (and many others) are all describing moral transformation as the result of the atoning work of Jesus on the Cross. Thus, moral transformation is the correct understanding of the atonement, and it is the only correct understanding because none of the other theories add up (or else they point back to moral transformation).

[b]Ransom Theory:[/b] The New Testament tells us in many places that Jesus gave his life as a ransom (Matthew 20:28, 10:45), but in only 2 verses are we told from what we were ransomed:

"who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed" (Titus 2:24)

"knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers" (1 Peter 1:18)

Thus, we were ransomed from our sinful way of life. We were set free from slavery to sin (Romans 6:6) so that we can live a righteous life. This is moral transformation.

[b]Christus Victor:[/b] The author of this theory, Gustaf Aluen, explains it as follows: "The work of Christ is first and foremost a victory over the powers which hold mankind in bondage: sin, death, and the devil." This is fine, as long as we keep in mind that sin is the cause of death, and the devil's activity is to tempt us to sin. "The wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23) and "the sting of death is sin" (1 Corinthians 15:56). When understood in this sense, Jesus freeing us from sin means that sin will no longer rule in our lives (Romans 6:14), which is moral transformation. Too often, however, it seems that Christus Victor is presented as Jesus triumphing over external forces in the world without any corresponding imperative on us to live righteously, which reverses the order of the New Testament: It is because Jesus empowers us to live righteously that death and corruption will not be masters over us (Romans 8:13).

[b]Satisfaction Theory:[/b] As a Catholic I am bound to hold that Jesus offered satisfaction for sins, but what does this mean? Jesus did offer Himself as a pleasing sacrifice to the Father (Ephesians 5:2), but what was the effect of this sacrifice? Is it simply that God is so pleased with the sacrifice of Jesus that He automatically forgives our sins, without any moral transformation on our part? The author of Hebrews tells us the opposite: "how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God (Hebrews 9:14)

This is moral transformation - the sacrifice of Jesus transforms us from sinners into righteous people.

[b]Penal Substitution:[/b] The problem with penal substitution is that it simply is not stated in the New Testament. There is no verse in the New Testament that says, "Jesus took the punishment that you deserve" or anything of the sort. The only explicit mention of Jesus taking our punishment is Isaiah 53:8: "He was cut off out of the land of the living For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due."

The problem is that Isaiah 53 is talking about temporal punishment designed to discipline a sinner to change their ways. This is clear in verse 5: "The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed."

Chastening is discipline. It is not the eternal sentence of death or Hell for sin. And it leads to ... moral transformation. Jesus took much of the severe discipline it would take to get us to repent and morally transform our lives, but the Bible never says He took on our eternal punishment. Moreover, the New Testament authors never refer to Isaiah 53 to support the notion that Jesus took any sort of penal substitution.

[b]Conclusion:[/b] All theories of the atonement point back to, and are based on, moral transformation. Jesus suffered, died and rose again to empower us to repent, to stop sinning and to start living righteously. It seems to me that people have created these other theories because they do not like the responsibility that moral transformation places on the believer. It is much easier to accept a Gospel where Jesus accomplished X and therefore I don't have to do anything, than to accept a Gospel where Jesus accomplished the ability for us to live morally outstanding lives—that is a frightening Gospel indeed, but the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.