The Legal Exchange of Redemption

The Traditional Protestant position teaches that Christ was legally imputed our sins and that we are legally imputed his righteousness. But is there any basis for this teaching in the Bible? I believe that there is a strong basis for this in 2 Corinthians 5:21, it reads:

"For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

How should we understand this passage? Did Jesus actually sin or was it merely legal?

From this scripture verse we can develop the following argument

P1: Jesus becoming sin is either actual or legal

P2: It is not actual

C: Hence, it is legal

There are two reasons for supposing the truth of Premise 2. The first reason is biblical: the bible clearly and unequivocally teaches that Christ did not actually sin (Heb. 4:15). The second reason is philosophical: God being the greatest possible being it is rather impossible that such a being would be united with a sinful human nature. For if God could be united to such a sinful nature then we could think of a greater being, a being that was not united to a sinful nature. And then God would no longer be God, a clear contradiction. Thus, we are forced to conclude that the transaction is legal.

There is further Biblical evidence that the redemption event was legal in Colossians 2:13-14:

"13 And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, 14 by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross."

Given that the sin that Christ recieved was only legal in 2 Corinthians 5:21 and not actual then it is only reasonable to suppose that the righteousness spoken of in this context is legal as well. Thus, what we have here is a glorious transaction between sinner and a righteous man. A transaction that is only compatible with Protestant theology and not with Rome and Orthodoxy. We as sinners are as piles of dung covered in the snow of the glorious righteousness of Christ.

My Lap Top is being Repaired!

My lap top is broken and it will be in the shop for about three weeks. As a result of this I will not be able to respond to your comments or e-mails as quickly as I used to. The worst thing is my lap top had all my papers and Bible works on it. So as soon as I get it back I will make sure to respond to all the comments as soon as I can. Sorry about this.

In Christ Jesus,

Nathanael P. Taylor

An Argument For Original Guilt

Original Guilt is the doctrine that all of humanity is legally imputed the sin of Adam in the garden, even infants. But is there any good reason to believe in this doctrine? Some have objected that it simply is not fair because an agent s has no control over sin x, but yet agent s is held morally responsible for sin x. But perhaps there are good biblical reasons for thinking it is true. Here is two such scriptures that might suggest this:

Romans 8:10 "But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness."

and

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned

This is how Romans 5:12 and 8:10 might entail original sin:

P1: When people die it is only because of their sin (original or actual)

P2: Infants die

C3: Hence, infants have sin

P4: The sin that infants have is either actual or original

P5: The sin is not actual.

C6: Hence, the sin is original that infants have.


Most People tend to think that infants in the womb and one day old infants do not have the mental capacity to actually sin, but it seems clear that one day old infants and infants in the womb do die. The sin they die for is therefore, original rather than actual. This argument seems valid and sound to me. What do you think?