John Thomson has been producing some excellent articles on the biblical basis and historical pedigree of the imputation of Christ’s active obedience in justification. His latest offering is particularly good. Since taking some time out of blogging, my mind on the matter has solidified somewhat.
Here are some conclusions:
- The imputation of Christ’s active obedience is a text-less doctrine. Find me a text which clearly states that Christ’s law keeping is credited to sinners in justification and I’ll happily retract this assertion. I believe that this doctrine is borne of systematics rather than exegesis. Now someone may object that it is a “good and necessary consequence” of exegetical study. But I find it hard to stomach that such an essential element of the “standing or falling of the church” doctrine is not clearly spelled out in Scripture. Surely if Paul had meant “the righteousness of Christ’s life” imputed to us he’d have at least said it somewhere? The problem with insisting upon adherence to such a formulation, given it’s scant biblical testimony, is to open the door to those who actually engage the text of Scripture yet teach a muddled or heretical view of justification. Norman Shepherd springs to mind.
- Justification is by imputation. The essential element of justification in the reformation was that it denoted a righteousness located outside of ourselves (i.e. extra nos). It was not infused righteousness or imparted righteousness but an alien righteousness located in Christ. Despite texts of Scripture teaching that “faith is credited as righteousness” the reformers were unanimous that, if other Scriptures were to be done any justice, faith had to be instrumental in receiving an alien righteousness. Indeed WCF XI.1 says that God justifies the ungodly ”not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness”. I must confess that, in the past, I have been duped by biblicist arguments for seeing faith itself as righteousness. The problem with this view, not least because it rails against the collective wisdom of the reformers, is that it makes justification by grace, through faith, on the basis of faith. Christ’s work is not what is definitive. I repent of ever thinking along these lines.
- Justification is by the imputation of Christ’s cross work. Justification is forgiveness. Justification is pardon. The banking metaphor which contends that our sins create a negative equity before God (which the cross makes up for and brings our account back to zero) and Christ’s life puts us back in the black is a concept foreign to the biblical categories. In Romans 4 to be counted righteous is to have sins pardoned. There is no mention of an active/passive obedience distinction in the work of Christ credited to us. Just as Adam’s sin in the garden (and not his subsequent life) is imputed or covenantally reckoned to us, so Christ’s work on the cross is imputed and covenantally reckoned. It is the “one act” of each man which has eternal consequences for their posterity. Why is only the cross work of Christ needed as our righteousness? Why does pardon equal righteousness and forgiveness equal holiness? The reason lies in the fact that we are cleansed from all sin by Christ’s blood. In other words: sins of commission and omission are forgiven. We are reckoned blameless, which means that not only are our evil deeds forgotten, but so are all of our failures to do good. The offenses to God caused by our lack of perfection are forgotten. So to have these offenses expiated is to be viewed as if we’d lived a perfect life (even the life of Christ!) This perspective explains the biblical texts a lot better, e.g. by one sacrifice he has perfected for ever those who are being sanctified, etc.
Advertisement
Like this:
One blogger likes this post.
Excellent title. I like it. Thanks for commendation and comments.
Hello,
not quite sure how I’ve reached your blog, but the first bullet point in this post is intriguing. Would Romans 5 v 19 fit the bill – “by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous” ?
Have you ever looked at the book by James Buchanan, ‘The Doctrine of Justification’? First published 1867, and with the subtitle ‘An outline of its history in the Church and of its exposition from Scripture.’
Buchanan says “He obeyed in suffering, and he suffered in obeying” (“He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross”) – making the point I think that the distinction between ‘active obedience’ and ‘passive obedience’ does have some usefulness in terms of conceptualising what scripture reveals, but shouldn’t be pushed too far.