Some Comparative Theological Concepts and Definitions

       Some Comparative Theological Concepts and Definitions

Ø   Impute: To ascribe goodness or guilt to a person as coming from another. To account or reckon one virtue as being another, specifically the virtue of faith as counting for righteousness (Gen.15: 16; Ro.4: 9).

Ø     Imputation: A legal (forensic) term meaning, “to reckon as,” and refers to a type of judgement in which the quality of one person is ascribed to another, or when one quality or virtue of a person is counted as another which the person does not have.


Theologically, imputation is a very significant concept, especially among Evangelical Protestant Christians. Most significantly this term explains the fundamental principle by which God the Father has ordained for salvation to work.
      Jesus Christ through active obedience to the Father’s will perfectly fulfilled the Law of righteousness. Also, by a free act of His own will Jesus passively submitted to the penalty for the sins of others. Based upon these actions of Christ, God, who is the sovereign judge of all creation, has decreed to offer an exchange to whoever will freely accept it by faith. The righteousness of Christ may be imputed to the unrighteous sinner and accounted as his own righteousness, while at the same time, the guilt of the sinner is accounted to Christ and paid for by His willing sacrifice on their behalf. In this way both parties are full, willing, and responsible participants in the transaction. The entire plan is initiated and executed by God and God alone. All parties are personally responsible for their choice to participate or not.

             
           In addition to this classical use of the term “imputed”, some Christian theologians and some Christian denominations hold to the belief that God has imputed the sin and guilt of Adam to all of mankind (Augustinian original sin). This necessitated the virgin birth in order to prevent the inheritance of sin by Jesus (holding to the theory that sin is somehow only passed on by males). Many others believe that this idea of universally imputed guilt goes beyond the plain reading of the scriptures which state that it is the consequences of Adam’s sin that has been passed on to all of mankind, not the sin (Ro.5: 14). Those consequences being death, expulsion from the Garden of Paradise and no access to the Tree of Life. As regarding sin, man is born with the propensity to sin not the necessity to sin. He is born into a world filled with sin and corrupted by sin, but every individual sin is an act of the free will of the sinner. The inevitability of sin is acknowledged but not the irresistibility of sin. In this way, the full and normal humanity of Jesus is preserved. His temptations were real, like they are for all men, but He chose not to sin. The virgin birth is seen, as it is stated in Isaiah 7:14, to be a sign of the true Messiah’s birth. To sum up, every man is actually personally responsible for all of his sin. Every sin is a choice. There is no imputation without the willing consent of each one involved.

           

Ø    Infuse:  In a theological sense this is a technical term. Infusion stands in contrast to imputation. It is used mostly by Roman Catholic theologians to describe the process by which supernatural grace is imparted to a soul. It is infused directly into the soul as liquid is poured into a receptacle (whereas imputation is applied or put on outside as a garment). This supernatural grace is understood to be a substance that becomes part of the soul transforming it. Thereby enabling the person to perform actual works of righteous merit. Most Protestant theologians, who see grace as the divine favor of a gracious God, reject this concept.

Ø   Intrinsic:  Belonging to the real nature of a thing; not depending on any 
     external thing; essential,  inherent. (Some see all men as intrinsically evil, 
     some see Jesus as intrinsically divine)

Ø  Extrinsic: Outside of a thing; not of the thing itself. (Some hold to the idea that faith is extrinsic to man)

Ø   Extra Nous: Outside of us.

Ø  Fide Non Nostrum: Faith not of us.

Ø  Iustitia Aliorum: Righteousness of another.

Ø  Simul Iustus Et Peccator: At the same time just and a sinner.

Ø  Non Posse Non Peccare: The inability not to sin. 
      (The bondage of the will)

Ø    Posse Non Peccare: The ability not to sin. (Freedom of the will)

Ø  Non Posse Peccare: The inability to sin. (Impeccability)

Ø    Posse Peccare: The ability to sin. (A human quality, not a divine one)

Ø    Possibilitas Boni Et Mali: Equal ability to do good or evil, no inherited irresistible or uncontrollable urge or drive towards either. In Judaism this is expressed as the concept of “Yetzer Hatov” and “Yetzer Hara” i.e. “the good inclination and the evil inclination” (the evil being the stronger drive and therefore must be mastered through the training of obedience to God’s Law-“Tikkun Hamiddos”).

Ø     Monophysitism: A Christological belief concerned to emphasize the divine nature of Jesus Christ over the human to the point of total dominance and even the consumption into one nature. (As regarding the nature of the “being” of Christ, some see a third "kind" or tertium quid).

Ø    Dyophysitism: The view that Jesus Christ, after the incarnation, had two natures, divine and human. (Orthodoxy)

Ø     Monothelitism: The idea that the acts of Jesus Christ were the expression of one divine/ human will. That Jesus did not posses two wills.

Ø     Dyothelitism: “Two wills”, the orthodox Christian position affirmed at the Council of Constantinople (AD 680-681) that Jesus Christ had two wills, one human and one divine. “Two natural wills and two natural operations indivisibly, incontrovertibly, in confusedly.”