“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 14: GS / Sonship’s Double Imputation as the Only True Gospel
There seems to be discussion in the GS camp concerning the importance of “double imputation” verses “passive imputation” and its relevance to the gospel. The debate is articulated well by Steve Lehrer and Geoff Volker here: http://goo.gl/UxyaX .
I decided to post on this because I think it is an important element of their doctrine to be understood, and you will see why further along, but let’s lay some groundwork first. Here is Lehrer’s definitions of the terms that the debate is comprised of:
Active (or Preceptive) Obedience: The perfect obedience of Jesus Christ to the Mosaic Law.
Passive (or Penal) obedience: Christ’s sacrificial death by which He paid the penalty for the sins of the elect.
Imputation: Getting something that you did not earn. Imputation, rather abstractly, describes how all that Jesus accomplished for us gets to us. So, one might say that imputation communicates that all that Jesus did on the cross is placed or wired into your “spiritual bank account” when you believe.
Righteousness: Acceptance with God. Righteousness, in the context of salvation, is whatever it is that God requires in order to be accepted by Him.
Lehrer then explains the crux of the argument:
“Before we can begin to discuss the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, we must consider Christ’s passive obedience. The great reformed theologian Louis Berkhof believes that the passive obedience of Jesus Christ imputed to the believer has limitations as to what it does for the believer:
‘…if He (Christ) had merely paid the penalty (for the believer), without meeting the original demands of the law (for the believer), He would have left man in the position of Adam before the fall, still confronted with the task of obtaining eternal life in the way of obedience. By His active obedience, however, He carried His people beyond that point and gave them a claim to everlasting life.’
If only the passive obedience of Christ is imputed to the believer, according to Berkhof, this would not give him eternal life. He would have to obey God perfectly and earn eternal life on His own. The man who only has the passive obedience of Christ imputed to him would be in a spiritual Switzerland— stuck in neutral. Is the distinguished Louis Berkhof right? We don’t think so.”
And I’m not taking sides because I have a lot more to learn about Covenant Theology, which Lehrer thinks is ground zero for this debate. Neither I’m I prepared to accept his explanation of Covenant Theology as stated in this article. As Lehrer says, he believes the so-called passive obedience of Christ imputed to the believer is all that is necessary. However, I do think “passive” is a strange term indeed for Christ’s obedience to the cross because it was far from being a passive affair. Nevertheless, the crux of the matter seems to be whether or not Christ had to fulfill the original covenant broken by Adam (the Covenant of Works in Covenant Theology) via living a perfect life while here in the flesh, and in addition to paying the penalty for sin as well. Hence, double imputation. Lehrer says no, and you can read his lengthy argument via the link cited.
Apparently, the GS / Sonship movement is split concerning this issue, and he mentions Wayne Grudem as one who seems to hold to the double imputation view. But something is conspicuously missing here for I would imagine neither side is saying that one must believe in double imputation in order to profess a true gospel. Or are they? What’s conspicuously missing in Lehrer’s discussion is the practical implication for sanctification. If Christ died to pay the penalty of sin (the imputation of His so-called passive obedience), and lived to fulfill the covenant (the imputation of His active obedience) that God made with Adam, does that mean fulfilled works / obedience are also imputed to us, and thereby relinquishing our need / responsibility to perform?
Furthermore, if we believe we must work / obey in sanctification, could that be seen as an attempt to replace the works of Christ already imputed to us? Yes. In fact, when many proponents of GS refer to “the imputed active obedience of Christ,” this is exactly what they are talking about. Supposedly, righteousness, the fulfillment of the Works Covenant (if they are GS Covenant Theology types), and not only a substitution for the penalty of sin, but Christ’s substitution for our works as well would be imputed to us—eliminating any responsibility on our part to perform works. Before I became privy to this argument, I couldn’t see how Covenant Theology could be consistent with GS/ Sonship, but now I see the possibility and stand corrected accordingly.
But, in fact, does Lehrer avoid any discussion of how this debate effects our role in sanctification because the synthesis of justification and sanctification is assumed in these circles? I Don’t know, but the belief that double imputation fleshes itself out in sanctification, and is efficacious for the presentation of a true gospel is defiantly a reality in the movement. It is sometimes referred to as monergistic substitutionary sanctification, ie., Christ’s death (passive obedience) was not only a substitution for the penalty of sin, but his life fulfilled the Works Covenant and is also a substitution for any works that would be required by us in sanctification / regeneration, even for different purposes than earning salvation (which should be assumed since justification is a onetime act / declaration by God). There are probably some in the movement that think synergism in sanctification is unfortunate error, but most of the more prominent leaders in the movement such as Michael Horton believe it is a false gospel that results in the loss of justification (Christless Christianity p. 62).
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Christ had to live the sinless life to make satisfaction for sin. The only qualified blood would be from “the Lamb without blemish.” He fulfilled the Law by obeying perfectly.
Ok, let’s back up and look at the BIG picture. Christ ascended and exalted now shares His Life with us. Keep in mind that the huge difference in Covenants is the Spirit. The Second Adam is a Life giving Spirit and becomes Head of a Holy race, a transformed human race. Since man owes obedience, honor, and worship to the Creator, the source of existence, he must IMAGE and obey according to the Creator’s desire. The Father is the source of existence for the Son, honoring Mom and Dad for us has similarities etc.. This is what’s in it for God, THE GOSPEL GODWARD – HOLINESS (BE HOLY), restoration of the Image to an even higher level than the first Adam. It’s not just about THE GOSPEL MANWARD. Salvation is not just a bailout. What counts is a “New Creation.” So, the Life giving Spirit of God the Father and of Jesus Christ is poured out from heaven down into our hearts (infusion) along with Faith and Love which gives us the “LIFE,” transforming us into the likeness of Christ over time. Its about ENABLEMENT! Gifts for powers of imaging and performing. Being transformed by “Spirit of Grace” is something that MOVES us. Paul’s “Not I, but the grace of God that was with me.” “Sin will no longer be your master,” we’re not enslaved. Jesus asked in the gospels, “Why is it that you do NOT believe,” and “Why is it that you are UNABLE to hear what I say.” The man without the Spirit does not accept because he CANNOT accept. Our Lord said that “you will know them by their fruits.” If we had the Spirit on us “without limit,” as Jesus did, we would be just like Him who is the Image/Icon of God the Father. We need more of the Spirit, so we ask our heavenly Father. “It’s what’s in a man that counts,” and accounts for his actions. Jesus knew what was in a man and looked for it! “One of you is a devil.” “Here is a true Isrealite, in whom there is nothing false.” Jude said, “These are the men who divide you and do NOT have the Spirit.” John said, “Test the spirits to see whether they are from God.” Now we are a “new creation.” “Make a tree good, and it WILL produce good fruit.” Some Reformed Confessions say “we infallibly produce.” We were created for good works and are being equipped by God to perform them. The Holy Spirit is The Helper/Counciler in union with our spirit so we can know God, love, and obey. He moves us by revealing the importance and value of what God says. Isreal, without the Spirit, did not produce the good works, “fruit,” of the Kingdom and it was taken away. Gentiles will now produce the fruit. But some gentiles are like the Isrealites of the flesh, not born of the Spirit, so they do not belong to Christ, or the Father, or the Kingdom and are incapable of seeing or imaging God by producing good fruit. Instead they belong (ownership, possession) to the Devil and are his children, in slavery, carrying out demonic desires. Mark it well, GOOD WORKS are necessary, part of the divine objective. They are said to be “fruits of the Spirit.” The result of the Spirit being in us, inclining us, and moving us. We were called to strengthen feeble arms and weak knees. With God’s Helper we can do it.
These Sonship people are not led of the Spirit to the maturing of the saints. They are very confused and self deceived. I left a PCA church with another elder years ago because it switched to Sonship teachings. The paster wouldn’t listen. I wasted a year and a half enduring that stuff. Thanks for sounding the alarm. What you say is SO familiiar! Bill
LikeLike
Bill,
Thanks for this; for the most part, I concur, and readers will never know how much these notes encourage, inform, and help. What you have written here reminds me of things I often think about, but haven’t written much on; namely, that our relationship with Christ is a legitimate friendship. The Holy Spirit is our “Helper.” What’s a “helper”? Does Sonship look like the servant who hid his talent in the ground because of fear? (And in the case of Sonship, fear of the law?). Yes, I think there are many worrisome comparisons. Is Sonship the perfect storm in “the spirit of lawlessness that is already at work”? I wonder.
And, your comments make me wonder about one’s definition of man-centered theology that Sonship (PCA) / GS (Reformed Baptist) claims to debunk. “God does it all for me and gives me more joy too,” or “God enables me to love him through following His example of self-sacrifice”? I appreciate your clarification on GODWARD verses MANWARD.
John 17:17,
paul
LikeLike
Paul,
interesting that you should mention the parable of the talents, that’s been crossing my mind as well. I also see the scary storm behind all this, the power of darkness appears to be gaining. Thankfully, there are people like you exposing this terrible distortion of the truth. Some of your phrases from previous notes like “the total depravity of the saints”, “covert operation” etc. hits the nail on the head, describing what we heard here in Arkansas. We spent the 1980’s warning people about Antinomianism, studing the 10 commandments and Proverbs. John Gerstner came by the church and gave powerful lessons exposing the Lordship Salvation issue. However, somehow our Pastor flipped in the late 90’s and fell for Sonship. He taught semi – secretly in the back room. Eventually, gained advocates and boldly went to the pulpit for the whole congregation. Three of us elders were infuriated and couldn’t understand why the congregation was buying into it. I could see my welcome was over. I left probably 8 years ago and now checking back I’m amazed this movement has grown as it has. Your connection of Horton, Keller, Piper, with Sonship was eye opening for me. You are absolutely correct! It’s the same stuff!
Keep up the good work. I’m reading John Chalfant’s AMERICA A CALL TO GREATNESS, formerly named ABANDONMENT THEOLOGY: THE CLERGY AND THE DECLINE OF AMERICAN CHRISTIANITY. The book talks much about salvation and no responsibility. We’re being deceieved by our own pastors these days!
Bill
LikeLike
Bill,
Yep, big problem; the guys cooking all of this stuff up are full time while the laity have to try to hold down full time jobs, minister to their own families, and hope there is time left to earnestly contend for the faith. Fat chance.But if there is any chance at all, the likes of MacArthur and Sproul hanging out with these guys and giving them credibility just about snuffs-out what chance there is.
That’s why I point to some good in my own life that has come out of this.I have discovered the likes of Walter Chantry and John Gerstner. I haven’t made a final judgment yet, but I find them to be just as insightful as Mac while also being uncompromising and respecters of truth more than men. Therefore, my library is Mackless except for his Bible commentary that serves as a decent chain reference. I can no longer respect anybody that compromises. Chantry’s view of sovereignty flirts with fatalism a little bit here and there, but other than that, I find their teachings very edifying.
I have known about Adams for a long time and have always respected him, but I find a new appreciation for him as he also refuses to compromise the truth. That’s where I am right now, I can no longer stomach confusion or compromise.
paul
And PS: Know anybody who wants a bunch of free MacArthur books?
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Paul,
you are right. It’s hard to stomach all this confusion. Free books? Ha! I don’t know anybody wanting MacArthur books right now, even if they are free. If the economy gets any worse, I may need some firewood substitute. I’ve been out of this circle for many years. Sproul’s ministry is the one who warned me about Sonship. Three of us elders (old guys) in my PCA church knew this preaching was rendering the church worthless but we really didn’t know that much about the movement (covert operations by the pastor). We vividly remember gazing over the congregation after sermons wondering why people with a Bible under their noses could buy into it. Sproul’s Ligonear Ministry was very critical originally, we called them, and they also recommended Jay Adams booklet which was very critical. Surprised to hear Mac and Sproul are giving Horton credibility. No wonder this stuff is spreading like cancer. Sounds very, very serious when the seminaries and braintrust are deceived.
LikeLike
Burning material? Ok, let me know.
paul
> —–Original Message—– >
LikeLike
Flame on! These guys aren’t Muslims. They’ll take it like gentlemen. Surely they wouldn’t take it personnally either? Ha!
Arkansas Bill
LikeLike