Stop Saying That Jesus’ Righteousness Is Imputed to US Because it’s NOT True
Christians ought to speak the truth and not throw around spiritual bumper stickers that are not true. Jesus’ righteousness is not imputed to us. Actually, the statement is a false gospel.
First, it’s Calvinism. Are you a Calvinist? If not, just stop saying that Jesus’ righteousness is imputed to us. It was God the Father’s righteousness that is imputed to us, not Christ’s. Does it really make that much difference? Yes, it makes a huge difference.
For the very much most part, the Bible attributes our righteousness to God the Father, a few verses could be cited to imply Jesus’ righteousness is imputed to us, but the arguments are weak. Nevertheless, why are we not emphasizing what the Bible clearly emphasizes and instead emphasizing the righteousness of Christ being imputed to us?
The reason is because the contrary emphasis is tied to the false gospel of Protestantism which hinges its gospel on the idea that Christ came to fulfill the law rather than end it. Fulfillment verses ending is the difference between a true gospel and a false gospel.
So, fulfillment posits the idea that Christ not only came to die for our sins, but also had to live a perfect life so His perfect obedience to the law could be imputed to us as well. This turns the true gospel completely upside down and rejects the new birth. The power of sin is death and condemnation, and any violation of the law is sin—that’s why Christ came to end that law, not fulfill it. There is no life in that law even if Christ did fulfill it, and if He did fulfill it for our justification, there is not one seed, but two. Christ came to end that law, there is therefore no condemnation for us and the power of death is broken.
I say “that” law, and not “the” law because there are two laws. John Calvin and his heretic buddies only recognized one law, and that is a huge problem. Yes, it is one law as far as the same words, but with two different relationships to life and death. For the unbeliever, it is “the law of sin and death,” for the believer, it is “the law of the Spirit of life.” When the Bible talks about fulfillment of the law, it is talking about the fulfillment of the law of the Spirit of life “through us” (Rom 8:4).
Also keep in mind that the law couldn’t be completely fulfilled to begin with because of future unfulfilled prophecy. Not only that, when Christ said He came to fulfill the law, the New Testament had not even been written, and most of it, actually all of it, was written after His ascension. Keep in mind that there is unfulfilled Bible prophecy in the Old Testament as well.
Here is where we get into a huge problem: the idea that there is one law and the atonement is two-fold; His death for sin, and obedience to the law by Christ because the one law of sin and death is the standard for righteousness. Think about this, if there is one law, the law of sin and death, and it is the standard of righteousness, then the perfect demands of that law must continue to be satisfied in order to keep us saved. That’s the crux of Protestant heresy—a one law that must be perpetually satisfied in order to keep us saved.
But when we believe, we are no longer under that law because it is ended for us. We are no longer “under law,” but “under grace.” That means that we are now under the law of the Spirit of life. When we sin, we cannot be condemned, but unfortunately, we grieve the Holy Spirt who has sealed us until the day that our bodies are redeemed.
This is where it is necessary for the Reformed heretics to say that Jesus’ righteousness (obedience) is perpetually applied to the law of sin and death in our stead. That law is not ended, it must be perpetually satisfied for us. This is what those heretics are talking about when they verbalize the truism, “Jesus 100% for us.” This keeps “Christians” under law and not under grace in regard to justification. Sanctification fulfills the law of the Spirit of life and is completely separate from Justification. This is why Protestantism calls for a sanctification by faith alone; if we live by faith alone in sanctification, the same way we were justified (“We must preach the gospel to ourselves every day”), the perfect obedience of Jesus will continue to satisfy the law of sin and death in our stead.
The contra Reformation gospel frees the Christian to aggressively obey God in sanctification because the only possible motivation is love because the other law is ended and has nothing to do with our justification. That is a finished work that has nothing to do with our Christian life. We are free to aggressively love without fear instead of being afraid that we are not properly living by faith alone which supposedly circumvents the satisfaction of the law via Jesus.
Learn to interpret your Bible accordingly: “Is this a justification verse, or a sanctification verse, and which law is being addressed?”
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Reblogged this on Clearcreek Chapel Watch.
LikeLike
This may not be a very big point, more like an observation. Those who would ask, why quibble over whether it’s God’s righteousness or Christ’s righteousness, they are begging the question. I would turn it right around on them. Ok, say your’re right, and it’s not a big difference. So if it’s not a big difference, then why does reformed/protestant orthodoxy specifically emphasize Christ’s righteousness when Scripture clearly emphasizes the Father’s. It seems they are the ones with the hangup. To me this indicates purposeful disinformation with an agenda.
LikeLike
Good point.
LikeLike
Faith itself? What was Abraham’s faith IN? He believed God’s testimony of the promise. Matthew Henry seems to be saying that the righteousness of God is imputed to believers. Faith is the instrument that is used. Matthew Henry also seems to be placing the importance on the resurrection.
Romans 4:13-22
“God honours faith; and great faith honours God. It was imputed to him ( Abraham) for righteousness. Faith is a grace that of all others gives glory to God.”
Romans 4:23-25
“Christ did meritoriously work our justification and salvation by his death and passion, but the power and perfection therefore, with respect to us, depends on his resurrection. By his death he paid our debt, in his resurrection he received our aquittance, Isaiah 53:8. When he was discharged, we, in him and together with him, received the discharge from the guilt and punishment of all our sins. This last verse is an abridgement or summary of the whole gospel.
Faith clearly is the instrument by which we receive the righteousness of God, the redemption which is by Christ; and that which is the instrument by whereby we take or receive it, it cannot be the thing itself, nor can it be the gift taken and received. Abraham’s faith did not justify him on its own merit or value, but by giving him a part in Christ.”
Faith is a grace that of all others gives glory to God. Faith, not suffering.
If I missed the nuances, please, point them out.
http://www.christnotes.org/commentary.php?com=mhc&b=45&c=4
LikeLike
David, it would be a little difficult to discuss faith with you since you subscribe to a sacramental view of baptism, wherein water baptism is the occasion of regeneration, but is limited to those who are able to make a personal confession beforehand. You believe that faith only gives you the right to become a child of God and when you are baptized you actually become one.
LikeLike
A Christian is baptized into Christ by the Holy Spirit NOT water baptism. In Acts 10:44-48 Cornelius and those present with him believed and received the baptism of the Holy Spirit; following this they were baptized with water. If water baptism was necessary for salvation why did the Holy Spirit indwell them as believers before they were baptized in water? Water baptism does not save. The denomination you belong to believes that water baptism regenerates. I doubt if you are willing to investigate that they are wrong.
LikeLike
Romans 6 teaches that the elect are baptized into Christ’s death, not by water, but also not by the Holy Spirit. The imputation by the Father is legal identity with Christ’s death under God’s law for the sins of all the elect.
Galatians 3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” (Deuteronomy 27:26)
11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall LIVE by faith.” (Habbakuk 2:4)
12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall LIVE by them.” (Leviticus 18:5)
13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— (Deuteronomy 21:23)
Even elect Gentiles (who were never under the Mosaic covenant) are saved because of Christ’s bearing the curse of the Mosaic law. Some who reject the need for law-keeping imputed are Socinians who deny the need for any law satisfaction at all. If forgiveness is sovereign, they claim, there is no need to satisfy the law at all in any way, Thus the Socinians say, if there is any need to satisfy the law, then there cannot be any forgiveness. They play off God’s sovereignty against God’s righteousness.
I am not doing that. But I am contrasting Christ’s death as the satisfactory curse of the law over against the traditional idea that the law cannot be satisfied by death but only by “active obedience”, which is how the Reformed tradition often refers to the Mosaic law-keeping of Christ. Christ’s death can keep you from death, we are told. But if you want life from the law, then Christ’s death won’t get you that, because for that, you need to be imputed with Christ’s Mosaic law-keeping.
But what is being kept from death if not life? The tradition seems to say that Christ’s death only gets us back to where Adam was, which was life on probation, which was life only because no sins were yet counted toward us. The tradition says that Adam could have gotten immortality if only he had kept the law (the tradition even tends to say that Adam was keeping the Sabbath, since it equates “moral law” with “Mosaic law”), and therefore the tradition says that Christ got immortality for us not by His death but by His law-keeping.
LikeLike
“I am contrasting Christ’s death as the satisfactory curse of the law”
Christ’s death did not “satisfy” the law in any way. It ENDED the law. The law was NEVER intended for justification. Abraham was righteous (justified) 430 years before the law was even given. The law was ADDED to be a guardian. It took OT saints into protective custody, and their transgressions were imputed to the law until the “promise” came. Once the promise came, the guardian was no longer needed because when Christ ended the law, He took away every transgression that had been imputed to it (the scapegoat).
Love is the fulfilling of the law, so every time a believer obeys the law, he if fulfilling it because he is showing love to God and to others.
LikeLike
2 Pe 1:1 Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:
LikeLike
So, where in this verse do you get it that Jesus’ righteousness is imputed to our sanctification as a substitute? And by the way, we don’t post anonymous comments, Keep that in mind if you decide to reply further.
LikeLike