Double Imputation means that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us.
imputed: To pass into one's account. I can think I have $10,000 in my account, but until it's imputed to my account, it's in my imagination.
If the doctrine of "Double Imputation" meant that my sin is imputed to Christ and His righteousness is imputed to me, I'd be good.
But "Double Imputation" means that Christ's righteousness is imputed to me...and so is the sin of Adam.
I am not only guilty of my sin...I'm "accounted guilty" for eating the fruit in the garden.
I know a person who looks at a certain doctrine and "just can't believe that." and I'm in the same boat here. I try to "get it" and just can't.
I'm going to cite Patten's article, and respond with my thoughts...
Most particularly, the doctrine of imputation is being questioned. This is quit understandable.
It's important to MY thoughts that I make the distinction that it's not "imputation" - it's "DOUBLE imputation I struggle with.
Perhaps John Calvin defines Original Sin most concisely as “The deprivation of a nature formerly good and pure.” More specifically, from a Reformed Evangelical perspective, it refers to the fall of humanity from its original state of innocence and purity to a state of corruption and guilt (distinguished later). It is the cause of man’s translation from a state of unbroken communion before God to one of spiritual death and condemnation.
I'm in full agreement. Because of Adam, sin entered into the world and we are all sinners - in our own right. We are sinners, and it's because of our nature that we inherited from Adam.
We inherit the nature, not the sin.
Patten refers to Romans 5:18 and says
Romans 5:18 states that the transgression of Adam resulted in our condemnation. So then, we are not only destined to die physically because of Adam’s sin, but we are also condemned to eternal death.
But he doesn't quote it, or verse 19.
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousnessleads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners
The "for" at the beginning is there for a reason.
Because of Adam's sin we were MADE SINNERS - it doesn't say we were made guilty of Adam's sin.
At the end of the day, I just don't see it.
We inherit the nature, not the sin. Maybe someday I'll be able to buy into the doctrine. But not this day.