A
Study on Justification
David H. Linden,
University Presbyterian Church, Las Cruces, NM USA
Revised: April, 2022
These notes are meant to
parallel lectures I give on the doctrine of justification. My lectures never
cover enough of this subject, so the parallel paper is intended to help fill
that void and leave my hearers with something more to ponder than hastily written
notes taken down during a lecture. This is not a research paper; its endnotes do
not cite sources but merely provide help for further study.
I am alarmed to find in our
age that this doctrine is fading while the more experiential doctrines of regeneration
and sanctification fill the vacuum.[i]
For so many, “What God is doing in my life today” takes greater precedence over
what he did on the cross, and over the moment when we were pronounced righteous
in his sight. Thus the imperfect pushes out the perfect! [ii]
I also observe meetings of Christian workers where the focus is entirely on
methods and the delivery of some message the content of which is hardly ever
discussed. Protestants today are more familiar with Luther's name and picture
than his world-changing discovery of justification.
Sinners ought to have a
little interest in God’s verdict concerning our crimes, one announced for
believers before the Judgment Day. That we may walk out of his court acquitted,
in spite of our sinfulness, is a matter that raises profound questions about
God’s justice and the surprising grace of our Mediator. He, Jesus Christ our
Lord, unlike any lawyer on earth, assumed our entire burden legally in his life
and his death on the cross. God has provided us with the benefit of the verdict
of Christ’s good record as our own. That is outside us on our record. When his
work in us is done our lives will also be perfected.
This is no small thing. If it
can be treated lightly, it is the same as saying, “Who cares what God thinks?” when
justification occurs in the mind of God, not our experience. Forgiveness
happens only in the Forgiver. What God thinks and declares about us, should be
the chief thing in any enlightened self-interest. Here is a most basic element
of our identity in Christ. When we speak of our new life, we speak of the
superstructure. Justification is the foundation. And that foundation rests on
our Savior’s obedience and blood. Our Christian experience does not rest on the
sand of our imperfect progress.
Justification is not just a
nice doctrine. It is the key doctrine in our acceptance by God. Since it
happens once, it cannot be repeated in the daily dynamics of Christian living,
but it is the reason our walk with God can even begin. And in our many sins, it
is the sure foundation on which our confidence to run the race is built. With
heaven secured, we are more prepared to face life on earth. With our status as righteous irrevocable,
we may, in God’s enabling grace, work on our condition.
Session 1: The Three Questions ???
1.) Is there a Holy
God Who requires righteousness of all men? [iii]
2.) Does he find it in
any man?
3.) How can
unrighteous people acquire the righteousness God requires?
1. Righteousness is required. One of the
fundamental mistakes made in theology, and thus in our assumptions of God, is
the notion that God does not require what we cannot produce. If God does not
act and have standards that are suited to his character, then it means that his
own holiness is just a personal whim and he can create a universe where there
are rebels against him, but he has no basis to demand otherwise. That is a
revelation of one of the evils of modern democratic society. It is that moral standards can never be
imposed.[iv]
The increasing consistency in this attitude is killing our civilization; order
is being built on anarchy. God is the great King not the elected President of a
republic. His will is absolute as well as right. His rule is not based on the
consent of the governed. He just demands
that we be holy because he is holy (1 Peter 1:14-16).
It is good that God is God,
and that the Righteous Lord loves righteousness and hates iniquity (Hebrews
1:8). He governs without embarrassment according to his holy principles,
absolutely unmoved whether or not he has the support of men or angels agreeing
with him. God is God. He thinks He is God, and he is God. He bows to no one and
will have his way. Though God will put down evil with a rod of iron (Revelation
19:15). He is not hasty in his judgment (Exodus 34:6,7) - a truth that should make men respect him greatly and
be quick to repent. That he has delayed judgment is no proof he has discarded
it according to Isaiah 48:9-10:
For
my own name’s sake I delay my wrath;
for
the sake of my praise I hold it back from you,
so
as not to cut you off ...
How
can I let myself be defamed?
I
will not yield my glory to another.
It is good news that God
cannot change, but if we stand before him in our sin, his holiness is hardly
good news for us. The gospel includes that God may change both the status and
condition of sinners.
God gave his law on Sinai and
elaborated on it in the Sermon on the Mount. He did not give his law as an
option, nor require righteousness as a bluff to get mankind to do his will. All
ten commandments are imperatives. The ring of authority in “I the Lord your God
am a jealous God” shows the tone of his commandments (Exodus 20:5). God is both
sincere and serious. He is determined to have a new heaven and a new earth, the
home of righteousness (2 Peter 3:13). He will have it, since his words in 2
Peter are not divine daydreaming but a statement of fact.
Furthermore, God is
interested in his glory and will not allow his statements, promises or
standards to be the laughing-stock of those who hate him. He will not have his
law or its requirements ignored. Every suffering soul in hell is pitiful
witness that God is not to be trifled with. He is a consuming fire who rewards
those who hate him to their face (Deut. 7:10). He insists on perfect
righteousness in angels, men and himself. May all glory and praise be to God
and a joyful fear of him in us.[v]
He requires righteousness of all mankind.
2.) God does not find righteousness in us The eyes of
the Lord are open to all the ways of men; he rewards everyone as his conduct
deserves (Jeremiah 32:19). He has repeatedly told us that there are none
righteousness, no not one (Romans 3:10-20). His word even judges our thoughts
and attitudes. Nothing in all creation is hidden from his sight; everything is
uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give an account
(Hebrews 4:12,13). The law leaves every excusing mouth silenced (Romans 3:19).
God searches the heart, not
merely our external deeds. Saul of Tarsus was an eminent self-righteous
Pharisee of his day who excelled above his peers. He thought he kept the law so
well that it would declare him righteous (Philippians 3:5,6). Maybe he meant he
had a righteousness that fully met the standards of his fellow Pharisees. In
the eyes of his peers he was fine, but he had never heard at that point the
Sermon of the Mount. Paul did have one disconcerting run-in with the law he
felt he obeyed so perfectly. It said, "Thou shalt not covet," Romans
7:7-12. In his early estimation he had kept the law perfectly, as long as it
was an observance that could be recorded on a video camera. But the command not
to covet was a command directed to the heart; and that command of God made his
sin sinful even to self-righteous Paul. What went through his mind when he
read, "Let the evil man forsake his thoughts"? He probably assumed it
applied to others. I suspect that Paul evaded the words of Scripture and did
not admit it. Others could not observe covetousness in his heart, but God
could. Paul's dirty little secret was that he actually was a sinner, a truth so
suppressed by the deceitfulness of the heart that he could avoid admitting his
need of real righteousness. He was like a man wearing cow manure for a tuxedo
to a banquet and asking others how they like it. (See Philippians 3:8; Matthew 22:11-13.)
I admit a measure of
speculation concerning Paul’s conviction of sin prior to his conversion. That
Paul was a law-breaker at the same time he considered himself righteous is
absolutely clear. When with clearer insight, he later referred to himself as a
blasphemer, his reference was to the self-righteous period of his life (1 Tim.
1:12-14). What emerges in the New Testament is the failure of the most
religious of men to rise to the goal of being righteous before God, and they
end up as the most miserable of sinners whose righteousness is the frequent
target of the ridicule of Jesus. If the pros can't do it, who can?
We are doomed unless God can
find some way to solve what is for us unsolvable. Unless he intervenes, we are
left with insulting his righteous standards by imagining that we have attained
them. To profess that we measure up is really to suggest that God's holy nature
is on the level of our sinfulness. Conversely, it would be to imagine our
iniquity as divinely accepted perfection, which is an arrogant compliment to
ourselves. This shows how our pride twists reality to such an extent that we
glorify our sin as satisfactory to God. We should fall on our faces and cry
out, "God be merciful to me a sinner." The publican's prayer comes
out of our Lord's teaching on justification, where he opposed sinners'
confidence in their own righteousness (Luke 18:9-15).
3.) How can unrighteous people acquire the
righteousness God requires?
The
gospel of Jesus Christ can only be understood when the need for it is
appreciated. [vi] The option of a holy God not requiring
righteousness of us is impossible. The possibility of sinful men having a
righteousness of their own that meets God's approval is equally impossible.
God has shut us up with no option apart from his intervention. This intervention we often call salvation since its purpose is to restore to normal. It is often called redemption since it is a rescue where a price is paid to release the one redeemed from the bondage of an enemy, with the motive of making him the possession of the Redeemer. Salvation is the sole activity of whoever may properly be called Savior. In the Christian faith this is God alone, and the divine Person assigned that task of intervention is our Lord Jesus Christ.
How shall this be solved or
can it be? God has decreed all things and he has "engineered" a
situation that calls for the exhibition of his grace. God is gracious, but
grace by its very definition, can never be demonstrated unless there is a
situation where he could justly refuse it and still graciously act on behalf of
the undeserving. God's grace can only be shown in a context of sin. God is who he
is, and he of his own will and desire to express himself, has chosen to show
mercy where he will show mercy and compassion where he will show compassion
(Rom. 9:15). That his grace would be on display is a certainty of his nature.
That it would ever be shown to us who are saved is a kindness we have never
deserved, and has come based on no good in us. Better people than any of us in
our sins, have gone into perdition, while God chose to save the man who could
call himself the chief of sinners (1Tim. 1:15).
If God requires righteousness
of us that we do not have, if we are ever to have it, God himself must provide
it for us. It is as simple as it is profound, and there is no other way. In the
action that makes the gospel to be a gospel, God has addressed our sins by
GIVING us a righteousness we do not have (Romans 1:17, 3:21,22; 4:23-25; 5:17;
10:3,4). We do not deserve it; we cannot produce it. Yet we must have it or be
banished from God's favor and presence forever.
It is a primary emphasis
of these lectures that the righteousness God provides must be human
righteousness. God is righteous, but
if he simply provided his own to us, it would mean that his requirement of
human righteousness in human beings has been set aside. A righteousness
produced anywhere else than in a human life, means that God has actually
abandoned his requirement of righteousness in us. This cannot be; therefore
another human must appear on the scene, and the only scene where humans live is
this planet, so someone has to come here and be born here under the law of God,
and keep it perfectly with all his heart, soul, mind, and strength.[vii]
This is a necessary part of the task of such a person. Much is required of
Christ, the other Adam, for him to be our Redeemer.
Some Necessary Features of
the Redeemer:
·
The substitute must be fully human, and therefore physical with an
entrance into the world by means of a woman. Otherwise there would be the
creation of second human race, not a redemption of the fallen one. He must be
flesh and blood.
·
He must be vulnerable to sin, even though this One who is holy God
could never sin. He must feel its power in the weakness of human flesh (Romans
8:3).
·
He must resist sin and overcome it in a test that displays his human
righteousness. For his righteousness to stand as credible, he must be tempted
in all the ways that Satan tempts sinners.
·
There must be a connection to us, or his obedience to God would be a
lovely thing to find out about, but one that would do us no good at all. Two
doctrines are necessary for this connection:
1) Our Union
with Christ so that he has a claim on us and acts as the representative for
us. This union is the underlying foundation of all that God has planned, done,
and does for us in the Redeemer that he has sent.
2) Because of
this genuine relationship between him the law-keeper, and us the law-breakers, there
will be a transfer of both benefits and liabilities. In Scripture, this
transfer is called imputation.
·
The Redeemer must be not only human but also a male who stands in the
same relation to God and to us as our father Adam. Adam was the head of the
human race; Eve was not.
·
The requirement of righteousness can never be met if the opposite of
righteousness is still on our record to contradict it. There must also be the
removal of sin. This too, falls to the Redeemer.
·
The burden our Lord had to bear was so heavy that it could not be borne
by a mere man but only by One who, by his nature as God, had the power to
consume the wrath of God against our sin; resist all the intensity of sin's
promotion by the devil; sin’s modeling by the world and in the weakness of
human flesh. Only God could assume such a load. This is most clear when we see
that God has an eternal punishment for our sins, and only a transcendent and
infinite person who inhabits eternity can carry an eternal penalty in a moment
of time. The human Redeemer must be God himself.
Redemption is not the
obligation of God. It is gracious from start to finish, and though God, of the
necessity of his gracious nature, has shown it to some objects of his wrath,
not one of us who have benefited from his salvation, had to be his choice.
Apart from his love for us and looking only from the standpoint of our
non-existent merit, he could have passed by all who are elect and chosen others
as a bride for Christ entirely of them, leaving each of us in our sins to curse
God eternally in our suffering, while they enjoyed him forever. God would not
be unjust to redeem no one at all.
The gospel, in a very key
Biblical passage, is that God has provided a righteousness for the sinner who
believes. This is the theme introduced in Romans 1:17 and then resumed in
Romans 3:21. The righteousness of God is the righteousness that comes from God
to be imparted to sinners who trust God.[viii]
But that opens the next important subject.
Session 2: The Three Righteousnesses: RRr
1. The
Righteousness of God in his personal behavior
2. The
Righteousness of Jesus Christ as a human being
3. The
righteousness of redeemed believers in this life
The first of these is
perfect. It is the Righteousness of all Persons of the Trinity including the
Son. The second is perfect but
very different in kind. It is a Righteousness of response to the Father, a
HUMAN Righteousness lived solely in the life of Jesus of Nazareth in his time
on earth. The third is a consequence of God's salvation begun in
justified sinners. (Thus the two upper case “R’s” and the lower case “r”.)
This third righteousness is transplanted, the result of the divine initiative
in us, where those chosen by God are called by God to be joined to Christ. This
results in our being regenerated as a new heart for God is given to us, enabling
us to believe in the Lord Jesus as the condition of justification. Therefore God can appropriately treat us as
righteous persons to whom he gives the Holy Spirit. The Spirit indwelling
believers then enables us to live unto righteousness and to die unto sin. Thus,
finally, righteousness is actually being produced in the soil of the human
heart where sin once reigned.
It is not our purpose now to
pursue the righteousness of the believer who has been glorified. That is a
perfect righteousness but still one that, while it has become native in the
heart, was totally caused by the operation of the Holy Spirit acting within. Sanctification
has no imputation and justification has no implantation! Since we are
always contingent beings never independent of the Lord who sustains our life,
we may view all the righteousness in us, even in the eternal state, as a
fulfillment of Isaiah 61:3: "They will be called oaks of righteousness,
a planting of the Lord for the display of his splendor." The redeemed
will not boast of their works in their justification, for we had none. Neither
shall we boast of our good works in our full sanctification because we are
still his workmanship, apart from which we would never have walked in good
works (Ephesians 2:10). God has engineered a salvation where all the glory is his.
If that seems selfish, remember he knows all truth and knows himself to be the
core of all things and the sole producer of righteousness in us.[ix] He cannot picture himself, contrary to his
own truth, as being anything less than the Savior he is. It is a part of his
revelation that his Name is I AM THAT I AM. "I, even I, am the LORD,
and apart from me there is no Savior" (Isaiah 43:11). All salvation is
of the Lord including our sanctification (Jonah 2:9).
1.) The Righteousness of God Righteousness in any person is tied to the
conduct and acts of that person (Deuteronomy 6:25; Ezekiel 18:20). If the deeds
are unrighteous so is the person. God
acts righteously because he is righteous. External acts reveal internal
disposition. Our Lord taught that evil comes out of the heart (Matthew 15:19).
What is within will eventually show. Therefore righteousness may be defined as
those deeds that flow from a righteous person. In the case of God, it is
whatever God does. I cannot stress too much how important that is. He is
righteous in his kindness and righteous in his wrath, which is one reason the exercise
of vengeance is withheld from us. God is not, and cannot be embarrassed at any
action, word or decision he has ever made. If we say man is without shame, we
mean he is so evil as to be beyond feeling. When we say God is without shame,
we mean that he is so righteous as to be beyond any evil. One of the favorite
sins of sinners is to ascribe to God unrighteousness, when men with sin
disagree with his decisions and commandments.
The righteousness of God
is never imputed to anyone.
Imputation can only occur where there is a union of two parties, in some kind
of a peer relationship. This is not possible with God unless he would become
man. Amazingly, Christ is not ashamed to call us brothers (Hebrews 2:11).[x]
For righteousness to be imputed to us he had to stoop to our level. He took on himself
the seed of Abraham (Hebrews 2:16). He had to share in our humanity in order to
die, and he had to share in our humanity in order to produce in himself human
righteousness, so there would actually be something to impute to us. The divine
righteousness is unavailable to be imputed to sinners. The righteousness of
the God who commands our obedience can never be looked upon as the
righteousness of the one responding in obedience. God does not confuse himself
with us. He looks for righteousness in us to be presented to him as the basis
of his approval of us. Only real human righteousness will do. The divine has
"non-transferable" stamped all over it. We have none to present, and
God has none in himself that he may consider to be human - these impossibilities only highlight the task our
Lord Jesus was sent to do.
An
alternate view [xi] I stress this issue because it has been
asserted that God does not impute righteousness to us, but simply produces
it in us, and therefore it is the righteousness of God since it has God as its
source. And so, as this suggestion goes, he declares us righteous because he is
looking at the improvements in our lives that he has graciously begun. In other
words, God declares us righteous by looking at our improvements.[xii]
This other view sees only a
divine repair being gradually produced in the sinner. That is, justification
rests on righteousness being replicated in the human heart damaged by sin. But
unless we are sinless, God is put in a situation where he would have to lie,
pretending that something in our lives could be the basis of his saying we are
righteous. This is plainly false in a volume of Scripture that asserts the
sinfulness of believers (1 John 1:8-10). Justification is not based on God
ignoring any sin and choosing instead to reflect on man's supposed “good
parts”. Justification is based only on his appraisal of the righteousness of
Christ.
Paul, as a Christian, did not
count himself to have arrived at a perfect native righteousness (Philippians
3:12). His gospel was not of his works of law-keeping before his conversion,
nor was it of what a wonderful regenerated fellow he was afterwards. He was
justified based on the ALIEN righteousness of Christ (Philippians 3:9). In our
new Spirit-caused obedience, we are still unable to obey fully, so our NATIVE
righteousness does not compare with the obedience of Christ. We do not offer
such a product to God for him to accept as perfect righteousness; it is
contaminated and imperfect. That would just be another way of being justified
by the works of the law, which is explicitly impossible. "... A man is
justified by faith apart from observing the law" (Romans 3: 28). We
were not justified by our works as unbelievers when we had no good works, nor
later as believers when we do.
The alternate view above has
a lot of good sounds in a very false assertion. It sounds good because the
righteousness of the believer is real! Good words are employed in a bad
doctrine, because in it no other righteousness is imputed to the needy. The
gospel is not that God imputes OUR righteousness to us. This alternate view is
an explanation of salvation that:
1) Cuts out the human righteousness of Christ,
and thus it cuts out the Savior. To depart from the Savior as the source of the
righteousness God gives in the gospel, is to be cut off from the divine
solution. No matter how the words are used, the only acceptable and available
righteousness there is, has been declined. The sinner is left naked, still in
his sin and lost. The alternative view is a bubble with the imagery and wording
of salvation, yet without the content of Christ’s obedience.
2) Followed to its end, it is a contradictory
scenario that would have God requiring complete righteousness of all men (Deuteronomy
6:1-9) and yet actually not finding it in us but declaring us righteous anyway.
Perfect obedience to him as God is the minimal requirement that he could have
of us. (That it is also the maximum, is not part of this discussion.) God must
be treated as God; if he did not require this of us then he would cease to be holy.
Fancy footwork will not solve our alienation. It would take the blood, sweat
and tears that flowed from Jesus Christ.
The Bible emphasizes the
blood of Christ, which is shorthand to refer to his sacrifice on the cross, and
a way of connecting to the sacrificial principle of the Old Testament. No
wonder we are told that we are saved by his blood (Acts 20:28; Hebrews 9:13). I
mention "sweat and tears" above because they are also part of his
life of obedience to God. It was the will of God that Jesus should honor Joseph
and work in his carpenter shop, if Joseph could even afford one. Had Jesus
refused to do so - an impossibility - there would be no righteousness to impute to us and we would all be
damned. Our salvation directly depends upon his every act of obedience
throughout his lifetime culminating in his obedience unto death. His blood
alone atoned, but his sweat and tears are part of the perfect obedience that
qualified him as Redeemer.
2.) The Righteousness of Christ God is
looking for righteousness to come back to him from his intelligent creatures.
In his holy angels he receives it. From humans, since the Fall and prior to
their salvation, he has received none at all. So a new man has been sent, One
not originally man, but who became man, and so is called in 1 Cor. 15:47-49
“the Man from Heaven”. Jesus was born of a woman under the law (Galatians 4:4).
The gospel is not that we may receive divine righteousness from Jesus, but that
we may find human righteousness from Jesus the divine man.[xiii]
Justification has two sides.
There is a positive and negative side. Something MUST BE there, and God has
provided it through Christ. And something MUST NOT BE there and God has removed
it through Christ. Neither of these is possible without imputation which, in
this case, is God’s judicial decision to assign what came from one to another,
provided there is a willingness of both parties to give and to take, and that
the two are in covenantal union. (We shall deal more with imputation
later.) Our focus here is on the
positive side, not on sins removed, but on righteousness provided.
If God is not going to play
make believe, by pretending that we have a righteous response of obedience when
we do not, then whatever righteousness he imputes must be real, human,
historical, tested, and perfect - something that passes divine scrutiny. We need to
remind ourselves often how out of the loop we are. We are beggars, and in
ourselves apart from Christ, under the divine wrath and curse and deserving
every bit of it. We lack and come short, but we have a Redeemer who is without
sin, who, fully obedient, always did what pleased the Father. If we can have his
righteous status transferred to us, and of course our guilt transferred to him,
then all will be well. This was the Father's plan and the Son's assignment, and
all this with the absolute delight of the Holy Spirit. That we should embrace
the righteousness of Christ as our delight is the issue in our conversion to
God.
Faith in the righteousness
of Christ Paradoxically, our first act of obedience
and (imperfect) righteousness is to accept the Righteousness, so alien to us,
and so freely given to all who repent and believe. But this act of faith is not
meritorious, not the ground of our salvation, and not self-generated. It is
only the instrument by which we receive, as we cast ourselves upon the merit of
Christ. Without faith it is impossible to please God. Here is a faith that does
not look at ourselves but at Christ. It is a faith that receives what it cannot
give or produce. Thus Christ is exalted and the Father is pleased.
That we may have the
righteousness of Another is at the heart of the gospel. Clearly, it is not a
righteousness that we have produced, or it would be ours apart from Christ.
Somehow it must be received. God deals with those he has eternally viewed as
united with Christ, those whom he "had designs" to save, to bring
them to Christ. They are Christ's by right, given him by his Father before the
world began, and it then became Christ's assignment to go and get them as his
bride. Jesus once said of us who believe. "I have other sheep [Gentiles]
who are not of this fold [Israel], I must bring them also" (John 10:16).
"They will listen to my voice", which means that he will make the
deaf to hear; he has given us life and a new heart to turn us from our
hostility to him. This is just another way to say he has given us life from
above, the new birth. With a changed heart, we have a delight in the provision
of God. We are pleased to receive a gift from One we are now inclined to
respond to, and we take the gift offered us. That "gift followed many
trespasses and brought justification" (Romans 5:16).The act of
receiving is faith; the gift received is the righteousness of Christ and all
else that he provides as our Mediator. To reject a gift is to reject its giver.
When we receive the gift of righteousness, we receive the One who produced it.
We receive Christ himself.
The faith we have in Christ
does not offer anything in us to God; faith only takes what God gives. It receives;
it rests upon Christ as he is offered to us in the gospel; we buy without
money, since we have no currency with God to offer (Isaiah 55:1,2). And yet
faith is not a dead thing. There is no such thing as an unresponsive response.
We do take; we embrace; we accept Christ and all the benefits that are in him,
even when faith is like a mustard seed, so small that we cannot grasp how
massive is the heritage into which we have entered.
Faith in Christ means that we
now have a righteousness we can point to. God has never revised his requirement
for a full obedience to him. We have acquired it in Christ. We curse our own
native righteousness as unclean (Isaiah 64:6) and seize that of the only
obedient man. Paul had more claim to self-generated righteousness than any
sinful man recorded in Scripture. Later he received Christ and then spoke this
way of his law-keeping, his false obedience, and all his works: “ ... I
consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a
righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through
faith in Christ - the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith (Philippians
3:8,9).
Receiving the righteousness
of Another is the heart of justification. From the standpoints of God’s saving
acts, justification coupled with propitiation/resurrection is the dual heart of
the gospel. The way to gain Christ is to discard the competition to his
righteousness, namely ours! Paul trashed his that he might gain Christ’s. The
rejection of his own was repentance; the reception of Christ's was faith. For
Paul to retain his own righteousness would be to insult Christ’s as if they
were on a par. To reject his own was
part of receiving the Lord’s. No one looks to Christ with an eye on his own
righteousness.
In Romans 9:30 – 10:13, Paul
sets up a contrast of two ways of justification. The Jews who were rejecting
the gospel Paul preached were not insensitive to the law. They knew
righteousness was required. But they blundered in supposing their own would do,
and that Christ's was not needed.
Philippians 3 is Paul's theological explanation of his conversion, and
Romans 10 reports the theological rejection by his beloved brothers in the
flesh, his fellow Jews. They did not know the righteousness that comes from
God, and so they sought to set up their own in competition with his, and in so
doing did not submit to God's provision of righteousness. In not submitting to
it, they rejected the wisdom of God, the kindness of God, the gift of God, the
Son of God, and all hope of ever being truly justified in his sight. They
rejected forgiveness and all who did so to the end, have gained eternity
without Christ, while one Gentile after another trusted in Christ and became
sons of Abraham by faith in the Seed of Abraham, Jesus Christ.
The gospel is that God is so
satisfied with the obedience and death of Christ that he would require nothing
at all from us, either as law fulfillment or as atonement for our sins. If God
is satisfied with Christ's work, and he is, and if in Christ he offers full
forgiveness plus a status of "righteous", and he does, we too should
be satisfied with such a provision and grab it with all our hearts. Such
grabbing is faith. The gospel is a promise that lays no reconciling burden upon
us, and that gives all things to us. We are worse than fools to reject it; we
are rebels not only against the holy requirements of God, but despisers of the
grace that would meet them for us. How horrible to face God in unbelief when
the Christian gospel is doubly good. It is peace extended and wrath averted.
Rejection of Christ reverses both, because peace is scorned and wrath remains
in place (John 3:36).
The one who believes in Jesus
has this assurance. We need not look to our own performance to see if
the goodness is enough. We look to Christ. We need not think about what our
sins deserve so that we might make restitution to God with some kind of penance
to merit our forgiveness. We look to Christ. Such looking is faith (John 6:
40). We need only be satisfied that his life was good enough; his death was
death enough, and his Father pleased enough with him, and peace floods our
hearts. And even if we have clouded
emotions, because of lingering guilt over current sins, the work of Christ
still secures the status of the one who has believed in Jesus. The believer is
totally justified even with sin remaining in our conduct. Luther was right; we
are presently just and sinful at the same time. Confusion will upset our
hearts. But we have assurance as we contemplate Christ, his worth, his work and
the promises tied to him. This never fails to result in real righteousness in
us. Though ours flows from Christ, it never compares to his.
3. The righteousness of redeemed believers The
righteousness of God and that of Jesus as a man, is perfect. In fact his human
righteousness is as perfect as the righteousness of God. Perfection is painted
over the whole canvas. Perfect obedience is our calling as Christians, but it
is not our experience. Our justification is not in jeopardy, though any sin
without repentance gives us reason to question whether we have justification.[xiv]
Scripture tells us that the one born of God will not live in sin, yet affirms
that we have sins (1 John 1:5-10 and 1 John 3:4-10). Our justification is
pointed solely at Christ's righteousness and our sanctification is solely
focused on ours. Our discussion has moved from alien righteousness (Christ's)
to native righteousness (ours). My burden here is to convey that the native
righteousness implanted in us, is defective because it is mixed with sin, and
yet is real - a proof in our
experience of the presence of the Living God within, in the Person of the Holy
Spirit.
Many pitfalls await us, but
the primary one I address here is the distinction between justification and
sanctification. Both have real righteousness in view, one utterly perfect and
the other highly not so. Justification
is an act of God where a righteous status is granted us, and
sanctification is a process of growth involving struggle with sin where the
goal is never reached in this life. Holiness is never absent in the believer
(Hebews12:14,15), and sin is ever present.
It would be an insult to the
Holy Spirit to deny that the righteousness in us is real. It is not bitter
fruit because the fruit of the Spirit in us cannot be false; it has God as its
source. But we are children learning to walk, learning to obey and die to sin.
It is crucial to not destroying the gospel itself, that we see that the
obedience and good works that are now a part of our experience is never ever
the basis of God's declaring us righteousness. Nor is our experience even the venue
of justification. If God looked on our lives as the ground of his declaration, he
would pronounce us sinners, because in ourselves, we are. The word “righteous”
is used of us in two very different senses:
A. Justification In Christ we are righteous only in the
sense that he has represented us and obeyed God for us so this new status
was bestowed on us. This righteousness is not home grown. It is imputed. It
is our standing in God's court.
B.
Sanctification In Christ we
have received into our lives the Spirit who changes our behavior in a change
of condition that is a qualitative change, not a mere improvement where the
old is fair and the new is better. The old is the dead works of flesh hostile
to God; the new is the fruit of the Spirit, which is pure and good but which
has not yet fully transformed our behavior to full obedience. What he has done
is not to be despised, nor may we ever confuse it with the perfection of
Christ. "Righteous" in this second sense, is a statement of our transformed
conduct.
If one views the real change
in us when we have come to Christ and received God's Spirit - if this change is believed to be the basis of God's
justifying declaration, then the righteousness of Christ has been discarded,
instead of our own. Hypothetically, justification could be on the basis of
Christ or ourselves, not both! If on ours, it means that his obedience is
disregarded and set aside, and we deal with God on our own with all the horrors
of divine scrutiny upon us again, as we stand unrepresented by a Mediator. We
are back to nakedness before God lacking the righteous linen of Christ,
condemned for our sins and resting in ourselves as if there were no Savior at
all. We must learn to distinguish which righteousness is the ground of our
hope, namely his, from the righteousness that is the focus of our duty, namely
ours. Our is real; his is real; but ours is a consequence of justification, and
his is the ground. His is the cause; ours is the effect. The cause is perfect
while the result is still underway. I think God has refused to allow us a
perfect sanctification in this life so that we will always have a keener sense
of the righteousness of Christ.
Session 3: The Crucial Understanding of Imputation
A Definition of
Justification
Justification is a gracious act of God concerning
undeserving sinners in which he both pardons us for all our sin,
reversing our condemnation, and with this acquittal, bestows upon
us the status of righteous persons. Justification occurs only upon our response
of faith in Jesus Christ when we believe the promise of the gospel. The full
guilt of our sin was imputed to Christ and its full penalty assumed by him in
human history on the cross. The needed righteousness is given on the sole
condition of faith, and has been imputed to us entirely on the human obedience
of the Lord Jesus Christ our Redeemer, who having become man obeyed and died in
our place.
While this definition is my
own construction, it is one that has drawn from many godly sources as the
Scriptures have been assimilated by many who have gone before. It comes from
Luther and the other Reformers, the Puritans at the Westminster Assembly in
London in the 17th century, to Miss Catherine McKenzie, who taught me about
God's promise of a Lamb to come, as she instilled into the hearts of the little
children in her Sunday School class the stirring story of Abraham offering
Isaac. My gratitude to my parents, my teachers in all the schools where I
studied, especially my mentor, Robert L. Reymond, is so great I cannot type
these words with dry eyes.[xv]
What a precious heritage and what a precious gospel has been trusted to us to
teach, explain, defend and spread to all nations. Special credit is due the
Westminster Confession and both Westminster Catechisms. One would do well to
read carefully Questions 70-73 & 77 in the Larger Catechism and to memorize
Q. 33 in the Shorter Catechism:
Justification
is an act of God's free grace, wherein he pardons all our sins, and accepts us
as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us,
and received by faith alone.
Some distinctions in a good definition of
justification
·
Justification is not based on our experience. It takes place outside
our experience; the specific place is the mind of God. Forgiveness can occur
only in the Forgiver, not the forgiven.
·
It always impacts our experience as a consequence. We have peace with
God, the result of forgiveness. We have first the objective peace of
reconciliation and then the subjective peace we feel.
·
It is transcendent, occurring only in the courtroom of God.
·
As transcendent, it cannot be known apart from revelation. It has been
revealed to us in the Scriptures, the Word of God, and is unknowable by any
other means.
·
It is a newly established relationship into which we are brought and in
which we are to begin the Christian life. In the experience of regeneration we
are alive, in the transcendence of justification we have been established as
righteous persons; in adoption we are brought near as sons and daughters. Being
a Christian can only follow becoming
a Christian.
·
Justification is unalterable with no vicissitudes of friction, offense,
or the need of further forgiveness, as is the case with our chastening as
children of God, and our need of sanctifying cleansing.
·
It is perfect; we have been justified (Romans 5:1).
·
It is unrepeatable, the final sentence of acquittal that can never be
rescinded. We have been “sentenced” to eternal life and heaven.
·
Justification is judicial or forensic. When acquittal/justification
versus condemnation are seen as exact opposites, it helps us understand both.
As forensic, righteousness is imputed to our record. It is not and cannot be
imputed into our hearts. As a judicial ruling or recognition as righteous,
justification is a truth about us in Christ, not new life instilled in us.
·
The act of justification is synonymous with the moment of imputation of
righteousness to us. Justification from
the divine perspective works by imputation.
·
There is a response on the human side - faith. In our faith we do not a) impute our sins to
Jesus or b) his righteousness to us. Only God can do that. But we do believe his
promise in the gospel that God has done (a) and will do (b) for the sinner who
believes.
·
There is no saving justification from the human side, since it is a
unilateral divine act. We never justify ourselves. To justify ourselves is to
justify our sin. God never justifies sin; he justifies sinners who have been
united to Christ.
·
It is not legal fiction. No fiction is involved since the
obedience of Christ and his suffering on the cross are real history. It is legal,
for because of Christ it is a ruling of God in our favor, a forensic
reality, but not a mere legality. In justification, we have been given the
legal rights of righteous persons. To diminish justification's legal aspect is
to leave us with nothing but our personal condition. God cannot look at our
behavior and declare us righteous. So to remove the legal side of our salvation
is to remove justification entirely.
·
It is an act, not a process.
·
Regeneration produces faith, and faith is the condition of
justification but never its basis. The
basis is the obedient life of Jesus under the law, and his sacrifice on the
cross.
·
Justification is the basis of the reception of the Holy Spirit, the
chief gift of God to those who have become his children. The Spirit then
unleashes all the stream of blessing that follows in this life and the
next.
Justification by Imputation
One of the saddest issues in
this doctrine is the resistance there has been and is to this doctrine.[xvi]
To reject imputation is to destroy the only way my sins can be “laid on”
Christ, which is a reference to imputation without using the word! Imputation
is the "mechanism" of accounting and transfer. With those who do not accept
justification, imputation is the specific concept usually being rejected when
justification is labeled a "legal fiction". When I hear people say,
"O justification by faith" I often want to say, "Yes, and
justification by imputation!" Most evangelicals know that justification is
not by works and is by faith. But that has reference only to our response. How
does God justify? What does he do? He certainly does not exercise faith. We
believe and God imputes.
Our legal standing is the
issue here. We have a stark choice when we read in 2 Corinthians 5:21 that God
has made him to be sin for us. Either it is legal imputation, or it is a
statement of his commission of sin. There is no other option. Our choice is
between blasphemy or the gospel. Imputation alone protects the character of
Christ. Without it, Paul has said that Christ is a sinner, but with imputation he
is the sinless sinbearer of the sins of others.
God laid our sins on Jesus
(Isaiah 53:6). Sins are not material objects that have a certain size or
weight. The load on Christ is an accusation he accepted for us, not a ton of
bricks, but the verdict of "Guilty". The One without guilt, assumed
guilt for us, so that he could take its penalty, so we could be relieved of
sin's sentence. How does the real thing such as our personal sin and his righteousness,
get transferred? By the gracious agreement of the Father and Son in a transfer
called imputation.
We may speak of it as
transferred charges, resulting in exchanged consequences, an accounting of the
liabilities of one against the assets of another. It is not that Jesus just
took our penalty, he took our place as guilty while being personally innocent.
He never sinned, so how could he become sin for us, according to 2 Corinthians
5:21? Sin outside his experience was transferred to his account. The Innocent
One assumed the guilt of our sin, but not the commission of our sin. Who did
it? I did. Who took it? he did. And so he was condemned and treated as the
guilty one which he had legally become, so that the ones who committed the
sins, might be legally justified and receive the treatment the Righteous One deserves.
Thus guilt was transferred to Christ when sentenced for us, and the
"sentence" of righteousness was transferred/imputed to believers.
In Romans 4, the apostle repeatedly speaks of righteousness being
imputed, such as v.5 “And to the one who does not work but believes in him who
justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness…” Paul had shown
earlier that we do not have any, therefore to receive it requires an external
source. And that source is Christ. The law and the gospel have combined to
close one source and open another. That leaves us with just how it can be done.
At this point imputation becomes everything to keep all the work of Christ from
being merely a nice idea. Without imputation there may be a place for sin to
go, but it cannot get there.
Imputation is at the core of our
salvation, yet the word is now rarely used. I suspect that this is just another
evidence of the decline of transcendence in evangelical life.[xvii]
When a modern Christian is faced with the choice of his own experience and what
occurs in the mind of God, his modern appetites drive straight to the
experiential. Who cares what goes on in the mind of God? Who cares? Only the one who trembles before God
concerning his sin is interested in justification. That the vocabulary of
justification is in decline reveals that the doctrine itself is as well. The
more recent expressions of “accounted” or “credited” are not common coin in
current gospel communication either. If the concept fades, the gospel itself
will be less and less understood. The subject is not exotic; it is basic.
Illustrations of
imputation
A. Sarah is a good piano player.
B. Sam stole the teacher's purse!
C. Christ became sin for us.
D. That sinner has been justified.
Each sentence has an
imputation in it. Let us say that the facts are that Sarah IS a good piano
player, but that it was Ned who stole the teacher's purse, not Sam. The
imputation of a talent to Sarah is true.
It adds nothing to her but recognizes something about her. If this were
the model of imputation, God would impute righteousness to Christ and none to
us. That kind of non-representational imputation adds nothing to Christ, and
gives nothing to us. An imputation of what we are and have done is a recipe for
our condemnation. We need to be delivered from this kind of imputation since a
statement of what we are in ourselves is synonymous with condemnation. An
imputation to us of what we are not in ourselves, but what we are seen to be in
Christ, is justification.
Poor Sam is being maligned.
He did not steal the purse and so a falsehood is being imputed to him. This too, is not the imputation in our
salvation. Christ is not falsely accused, nor did he say that he did what he
did not. In taking the sinner's place he does not pretend to have done what we
have done. That would be a legal fiction, because he did not sin. Conversely,
when we receive his righteousness the Father is not saying, “I approve of the
way you fed the five thousand, and the way you replied to Pilate.” We are not
talking nonsense! The specific deeds of Christ are not imputed to anybody, only
the merit of his obedience giving us the same righteous status he has.
Adam's sin was imputed to all
his race because he represented us and acted for us, such that his status as
sinner became ours. Adam’s transgression was his decision to sin. In that
moment he decided that he would be a sinner and that we would be as well. See
Romans 5. In Adam we sinned. Just as parents can decide their children's
citizenship, so did Adam. He decided that we all would be sinners. The guilt of his transgression became ours.
The human race had a representative government with Adam as its head. When he
fell, we did too. His individual decision was an individual one for him but a
corporate one for us.[xviii]
But we have been sent
another Leader, thank God, who stepped in as the representative of his people.
He too decided for us by obeying God and willingly taking on personal
responsibility for our sin. There is nothing vulgar about such a kindness. He
chose to fulfill a role for us as head of the new human race, which involved
absorbing the cost and penalty of the sin of those he represented. This is an
intervention in depth with massive consequences. For him it meant the cross and
for us it means the glory of his presence. His was a gracious, deliberate,
personal involvement in our legal tangles.
"...When we were still powerless, Christ died for [in the place of]
the ungodly" (Romans 5:6).
What Christ did was assume a
unique "power of attorney" for us, not just in oral pleading but in
assuming personally our charges and thus the penalty of our transgressions.
Imagine a lawyer who personally pleads guilty for us and takes on both guilt
and punishment in our place! In this sense, our loving capable Savior stepped
in to solve the entire mess for us at his own expense. He has not sent us a
bill but a receipt stating full payment. This should be believed as the
doctrine of the Christian faith and as the gracious message it is. It compels
us to love and good works or, if not, one can only wonder if it is truly
understood, or whether the benefits of imputation have ever been experienced. Those forgiven will forgive; those justified
will give thanks to God. Some may struggle with the truthfulness of him
"being made sin for us" (2 Corinthians 5:21). If so, it is still what
the Scriptures say. The depths and
mysteries of salvation are past our finding out!! (Romans 11:33)
Our
union with Christ underlies the doctrine of imputation. Justification is
not like Simon being tapped to carry the cross because he was big and strong
and nearby. The Roman soldier who did that was being arbitrary and authoritarian.
Christ has received us even before we became his in faith and consciousness.
The Father gave us to him before the world began (John 6:37; Ephesians 1:3-11).
In his assignment to redeem, Christ was acting on behalf of his own. If a rich
man marries a poor woman, a woman deeply in debt, at the instant of their
union, her debts should become his. Since betrothed to us in God's eternal
plan, he took on our troubles before we had them, assuming all responsibility
for them in his humiliation on this earth. And he did it before we committed
the very transgressions for which he suffered.
Love gives good and suffers
harm. Cannot the greatest Lover of all step in by embracing our trouble? Can he
not say, "You just lay that to my account, and give the blessing I deserve
to her! Treat me as you would her, and her as you would me.” Cannot God be this
gracious?
The grace of Christ taking
the place of his helpless and undeserving people, and giving us what we need,
and enduring what we deserved, is at the core of our faith and the new model of
all healthy human relationships. It is foundational to our ethics: we are to
forgive as we have been forgiven, and treat as God has treated us (Ephesians
4:31). Why would some Christians seek to disparage the way God has transferred
sin and righteousness, when we the poor have become the beneficiaries and God
the One receiving the glory? In imputation, Christ is just bringing home the
groceries and taking out the trash. What a wonderful Husband he is.
Only by imputing sin to
Christ does God protect his glory against the charge that he has done nothing
about the forgiven sin in us he professes to despise. Only by imputation can
sin get to Christ, or his righteousness to us. Everything depends on it.
Conclusion
The obedience of Christ, in living a righteous life under the law and meeting the law's penalty for us on the cross, is the sole basis of justification. To this great and complete work we add nothing, but receive all its benefits by faith alone, benefits made ours by divine imputation. May this gospel of grace delight you heart, remove your fear, seize your mind, fuel your worship, spur your service, and produce a harvest of good works. God has sent and looked at Christ in our place. If the Father fixes his eyes on Christ, may we in believing the gospel do the same, for in that gospel a righteousness from God has been revealed (Romans 1:17).
Endnotes:
[i] See No Place for Truth, or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology? by David F. Wells (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993). "Evangelicals … have lost interest … even in those doctrines that articulate Christ's death such as justification, redemption, propitiation, and reconciliation. It is enough for them simply to know that Christ somehow died for people," p. 131.
[ii] This sentence has understandably troubled hearers. It is not that the Holy Spirit does imperfect work. It is just that his work in us is intended to be incomplete prior to glorification. At the coming of Christ, the saving ministry of the Spirit will be seen to be as complete as the saving ministry of Christ. But we are left now with the perfect righteousness of Christ as a gift in justification, and our own developing righteousness as our experience in sanctification. We must not confuse the perfection of one with the imperfection (so far) of the other, yet the light of much current preaching is often turned to the improvements within us, the wrong place to worship, and away from the righteousness of Christ, the real place for unhindered delight.
[iii] Many teachers begin this subject with the question, "How can a man be right with God?" This is an equally appropriate way to open the question. It is of a sinful man looking up at a holy God. We can also begin with a Holy God looking down at sinful men.
[iv] Here I recommend Wells' latest book, Losing our Virtue, Why the Church Must Recover Its Moral Vision (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998).
[v] For excellent coverage of righteousness from a different perspective, see "Four Aspects of Divine Righteousness" by Fred G. Zaspel in Vol. 6 Number 4 of Reformation and Revival Journal, Fall 1997, pp. 67-85.
[vi] A recent translation of John Bunyan's The Pilgrim's Progress in Modern English, revised and updated by L. Edward Hazelbaker (North Brunswick, NJ: Bridge-Logos, 1998) is commendable. See chapter 19, "The Pilgrim's Deal with Ignorance" pp. 189-199. Bunyan connects a confidence in the wrong righteousness with an inadequate conception of sin. I think Hazelbaker's translation conveys Bunyan's doctrine faithfully.
[vii] Again I must recommend the translation above of The Pilgrim's Progress in Modern English, chapter 18, "Hopeful Tells of his Conversion." See p. 183, "…Unless I could obtain the righteousness of a Man who never sinned…" "… Did you think there was such a Man to be found…?" "'And did you ask who this man was,' asked Christian…"
[viii] After this paper was published a reader wrote me concerned that "imparted" in this sentence could be taken for infused righteousness. His concern is valid. If that is what any reader would take from "imparted" then I would thereby confuse the reader seriously. Justifying righteousness is only imparted by imputation. I choose to leave word "imparted" in place, because the vocabulary of how we receive righteousness is varied. In Romans 5:17, justification is a gift. This divine act of giving is what is meant by "imparted" in this study.
[ix] Zaspel has said it better than me, "It would be unrighteous, inconsistent with his own being, were he not to require us to live to glorify him." Ibid. p. 71
[x] I do not think we should call him "brother", because I think the divine condescension should not have a response of peer-like speech on our part. We are his bride and he is our husband, yet we call him our Lord and our God. This is my opinion. Years later I have relented because of the way Hebrews 2 speaks.
[xi] Quoting the Council of Trent, the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, © 1994, says in ¶ 1989, "Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inner man." Further, "Justification is the acceptance of God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness here means the rectitude of divine love…" ¶ 1991 (Italics are in the original). So I say, this righteousness, if it is a change in us, cannot be the obedience of Christ for us outside of us, an obedience distinguished from all righteousness in us, because ¶ 1991 continues to focus justification on the change in the one justified. The Catechism is speaking from Romans 5:5, but in that verse Paul was speaking of the already justified. The Catechism uses his words not as a description of a result of justification but as a description of a process of justification, thereby confusing an act of God based on Christ's obedience with the Spirit's work when love is poured into one already justified. It says justification is a work, ¶ 1994. I reply then that it cannot be an act. And probably worst of all is the teaching of merit after the sections on Justification and Grace. It says, "… No one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification," but it goes on to add that, if moved by the Holy Spirit, "we can then merit for ourselves and others the graces needed for … the attainment of eternal life." ¶2010 (Italics in original.) Rome has an ambivalence whether eternal life is a gracious gift or a partially merited attainment. A gift cannot be partially earned and still be a gift! In the new Catechism, the righteousness upon which justification rests is clearly not that of Christ imputed to us, but is primarily, after much grace, the defective righteousness growing up in our hearts, weeds and all. But in the gospel, God has provided a righteousness that he has no qualms in accepting as absolutely suitable. This is still lost in the great shuffle of human improvements buried under the language of grace, but when all is peeled back, there is still the sinner's cooperation to contribute his deeds to his justification. Sinners' righteousness is no match for Christ's. If we cannot see the distinction, God does! Roman theology lacks a sharp "either/or", and serves its people a "both/and" - his righteousness and ours!
[xii] Bunyan deals with this error with vigor! Ignorance said, "I'll be justified before God from the Curse through his gracious acceptance of my obedience to his law..." Part of Christian's long reply to this was, "…You believe with a false faith because it takes justification away from the personal righteousness of Christ and applies it to your own." Hazelbaker p.193.
[xiii] We must be very careful here. The expression, "It's only human!" reflects an expectation that human sin is natural. But we were not created sinners; our sin is a terrible departure from God's original human creation. In order to stress that Christ has come as the last Adam to obey for us as a man, I have used such language as "human righteousness from Jesus the divine human." We must not lose that this is called "the righteousness that comes from God." John Murray says it is God-like in its quality, and this is what we would expect from the only man in history to exhibit the untainted "image of God" in his humanity. His righteousness has God as its source or sender, and the human man in whom it was produced by the Holy Spirit, is God the Son. So it is proper to say that a divine quality characterizes the human obedience of Christ. I also refer the reader to what is said earlier in this article in the last paragraph of "Some Necessary Features of the Redeemer".
[xiv] There is now a doctrine making its rounds in Western Canada that we are to confess our sins but once, only at conversion. It argues from the vantage of full forgiveness in justification, but fails to comprehend the imperfect righteousness of our sanctification. Of course, our confession of sins must not be a repudiation of the perfection of justification. But that perfection has not resulted yet in a perfection in us, so that it is a sin not to confess our sins. There is enough disobedience to warrant it. Plus praying the Lord’s Prayer was commanded by the Lord. See Sinclair B. Ferguson, "Repentance, Recovery and Confession" in Here We Stand, a Call from Confessing Evangelicals, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996). Ferguson is not the example of the error, but is a good study on repentance. Nor was his article written to refute the error mentioned.
[xv] Two of these men died on the same day, Nov. 15, 1998, my father, John Angus Linden, and the man who first taught me the book of Romans, Mr. Mark Bredin of New Brunswick Bible Institute. Their memory is sweet and their works do follow them.
[xvi] I have written elsewhere on one glaring example of this in Charles G. Finney's Doctrine of Justification in Reformation and Revival Journal, Fall 1997, Vol. 6 Number 4. Finney deplored the idea that Christ's righteousness was imputed to believers. He held vigorously to an anti-evangelical notion that God justifies on condition of the sinner's obedience to God, not Christ's. This is a shock to most who hear it for the first time, so we have no recourse but to urge people to read his theology for themselves, published by Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis as Finney's Systematic Theology © 1994.
[xvii] This burden is set out so well in David F. Wells' God in the Wasteland, the Reality of Truth in a World of Fading Dreams (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994). If we lose the transcendence of God, justification is an impossible doctrine to sustain. The trend today is to be preoccupied with our experience while the holy obedience that saves us happened entirely outside that preoccupation.
[xviii] See The Imputation of Adam's Sin, John Murray (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1979) or a shorter treatment of the subject in his commentary on Romans 5:12-21 in his The Epistle to the Romans, pp. 178-210. This commentary was formerly part of The New International Commentary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959 & 1965) but has been replaced by a more recent one. Murray's volume is still in print at this writing and is highly recommended.