For the Sake of the True Gospel STOP Saying that Christ’s Righteousness is Imputed to Us
Originally published December 3, 2013
Please stop picking up on every little jingle that sounds good and mindlessly repeating it. In Christian circles, every hour on the hour, whether on TV, radio, or a blog, we see or hear, “the imputed righteousness of Christ,” or “we have the righteousness of Christ” etc. Is this technically true? And why does it matter? The fact is, the Bible never states that the righteousness of Christ has been imputed to us, but rather states in many, many, many places that the righteousness of God the Father has been imputed to us. Is that distinction, or if you will, technicality, relevant? Yes it is; very much so.
Why the constant emphasis on the righteousness of Christ being imputed to us when the Bible emphasizes the righteousness of the Father instead? Well, this is a tradition originally promoted during the Reformation out of necessity. It is the righteousness of Christ that must be imputed to us because the Reformers taught that Christ had to keep the law perfectly during His life in order to secure our justification. Hence, righteousness had to be secured by someone fulfilling the law. So, since the righteousness had to be earned or established by Christ, it can only come from Him. If this approach creeps you out—it should.
Reformed types call this the active obedience of Christ. His death on the cross is the passive obedience of Christ. This makes Christ the primary procurer of our salvation and devalues the role of God and the Holy Spirit. God calls and declares us righteous (imputation), Christ died for our sins (the imputation of our sins to Christ), and the Holy Spirit regenerates (the new birth). Salvation is Trinitarian. If God doesn’t call and impute righteousness, no salvation. If Christ doesn’t die for our sins, no salvation. If the Holy Spirit doesn’t regenerate, no salvation.
A Trinitarian view of salvation keeps law in its proper place, a Christocentric view of salvation causes all sorts of problems with the law. It posits the idea that the law had to be fulfilled as a standard for justification—that’s a huuuuge problem.
We are justified APART from the law. This makes it possible for us to aggressively obey the law in sanctification without it affecting our justification.
Adding to the creepiness is the idea that since the law is a standard for our justification, and we can’t keep it perfectly, the perfect obedience of Christ is continually applied if we live by the same gospel that saved us. This also necessitates the death of Christ being perpetually applied to our lives as well (the Calvin Institutes 3.14.11).
When Christians speak of the imputed righteousness of Christ, they are unwittingly partaking in a distortion of the Trinity. Because the Reformers were Platonists, they believed that Christ was the true, good, and beautiful, and everything else, and everyone else, are shadows. And I do mean everyone else, including the Father and the Holy Spirit. Consider these quotes by Reformed teachers:
Christ alone means literally Christ alone, and not the believer. And for that matter, it does not even mean any other member of the Trinity!
~ Geoffrey Paxton
The pastor who makes anything or anyone other than Christ the focus of his message is actually hindering the sanctification of the flock…We don’t ‘see’ Christ literally and physically, of course (I Peter 1:8). But His glory is on full display in the Word of God, and it is every minister’s duty to make that glory known above all other subjects.
~John MacArthur Jr.
And in regard to the Holy Spirit:
But to whom are we introducing people to, Christ or to ourselves? Is the “Good News” no longer Christ’s doing and dying, but our own “Spirit-filled” life?
~Michael Horton
The Gospel According to Joni Eareckson Tada
Originally published October 21, 2013
Though Joni Eareckson Tada has experienced monumental life setbacks, namely, quadriplegia and breast cancer, she has lived a life of experience and accomplishments that others can only dream of. Also, it cannot be denied that she has propagated a gargantuan mass of good works that has benefited much of the world.
And she is a self-proclaimed Calvinist. THEREFORE, her good works and her life testimony have become an endorsement for Calvinism, because that is what she has proclaimed herself to be. Good works are not a pass for who you are, or how you define yourself, they endorse what you believe. And Tada believes Calvinism. She has even proclaimed that all of her good works, even a smile that she might give someone, flows from her Calvinistic beliefs (Crystal Cathedral: Hour of Power ; May 3rd, 2009).
That’s my point here. Everything Tada is, in turn, sells what she believes—that’s the choice she has made. So, the question/issue becomes the following: is Calvinism true?
The very definition of a Christian is someone who loves the truth (2Thessalonians 2:10). In reality, and regardless of appearances, only truth sanctifies (John 17:17). The greatest errors are closest to the truth, and every landfill full of the dead is located at the end of a road paved with good works.
Tada has stated that shortly after her tragic diving accident that left her paralyzed, she was looking for answers (Scott Larsen: Indelible Ink ; Waterbrook Press 2003, Joni Eareckson Tada, chapter 1):
That was when Joni asked a friend to help her understand God’s sovereignty. Wisely, he gave her meat to chew on~hers was no simple, slightly uncomfortable situation~and started her on Berkhof’s Systematic Theology and John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion. Still just a few years out of high school, Joni found Calvin too heavy, so her friend replaced it with Loraine Boettner’s The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination.
“Somewhere in its pages I realized I was reading something mansized. Rather, God-sized. Perhaps it expressed the unspoken desire of my soul: to encounter towering biblical doctrine like the Himalayan peaks that rise to the breathtaking height of Mount Everest. To apprehend a God who was much, much bigger than I ever imagined when I was on my feet.”… “I realized that my suffering was the key to unlocking the hieroglyphics of God’s foreordained will. I was about to embark on the adventure of my life.”
Calvinism might have given Tada answers that invigorated her will to live on, but one searches in vain for her concern that Calvin taught a true gospel. And he didn’t. Calvin’s view of God’s sovereignty was the issue, not his gospel. Is there a difference? Obviously there is. Calvin believed that God is completely sovereign, and also believed that we have to ask for forgiveness of daily sins in order to keep ourselves saved:
Secondly, this passage shows that the gratuitous pardon of sins is given us not only once, but that it is a benefit perpetually residing in the Church, and daily offered to the faithful. For the Apostle here addresses the faithful; as doubtless no man has ever been, nor ever will be, who can otherwise please God, since all are guilty before him; for however strong a desire there may be in us of acting rightly, we always go haltingly to God. Yet what is half done obtains no approval with God. In the meantime, by new sins we continually separate ourselves, as far as we can, from the grace of God. Thus it is, that all the saints have need of the daily forgiveness of sins; for this alone keeps us in the family of God (John Calvin: Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles; The Calvin Translation Society 1855. Editor: John Owen, p. 165 ¶4).
Calvinism is no different than any other Christ + something else false gospel. In the case of Calvinism—keeping ourselves saved by perpetual re-repentance for sins in sanctification that remove us from grace:
In the meantime, by new sins we continually separate ourselves, as far as we can, from the grace of God… Thus it is, that all the saints have need of the daily forgiveness of sins; for this alone keeps us in the family of God.
Oh, and by the way, Calvin said such forgiveness can only be found in the institutional church and administered by ordained pastors (CI 4.1.21,22). This Protestant absolution was exemplified by Tada confidant John Macarthur Jr. during the 2013 Shepherds Conference. During a general session, MacArthur shared that a young Aids victim requested that MacArthur seek forgiveness for sins on his behalf. MacArthur agreed to the request accordingly.
During the aforementioned message at Crystal Cathedral’s Hour of Power, Tada stated that God brought said grievous trials into her life so that she would live by the cross daily:
And so God, bless his heart, forces us down the road to Calvary where we are not humanly inclined to go. It’s not our natural inclination to go to the Cross every day. And so God gives us suffering like a sheep dog. It is a sheep dog snapping at your heels, driving you down the road to the Cross where otherwise you might not normally go. You’re driven there by the overwhelming conviction that you just have nowhere else to go. And so God permits the broken heart. He permits the broken home. He permits, he allows, he ordains, he plans even the broken neck until we become broken… Even Jesus himself said blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the Kingdom of God. Who are the poor in spirit? Those who come to Jesus every day in empty-handed spiritual poverty, asking him to show them the reason for living that day. Because we’re all richer when we recognize our spiritual poverty.
Come now, are born-again Christians spiritually impoverished? We need to seek God’s purpose for our life daily? Our smiles are not even our own smiles, but we have to get them from God?
“I have no strength for a smile for this woman who’s going to come to the bedroom door in just a moment, and I’ve gotta give her a smile. And Lord, I don’t have a smile… So God, please give me your smile. I have no smile for this woman, but you’ve got a smile. May I please borrow your smile?” And not but a moment goes by and I have a smile. It’s already a miracle. I’ve experienced a miracle before 7:30 a.m. when my girlfriend walks to the door and I can smile, not in spite of my paralysis but because of it. My paralysis has driven me every single morning to the cause of Jesus Christ where I tell him how much desperately I need him. And so that smile is already hard-fought for and hard-won by early morning. That’s the first nugget of wisdom. Begin your day needing Jesus Christ desperately (Ibid).
Is this really the essence of the Christian life? We have to plead and beg God for even a smile? It is, if we also have to go back to the cross daily to beg God for salvific forgiveness. That’s Calvinism; daily resalvation. You have eternal security IF you beg God for smiles every day, and IF you were elected.
You are elected IF you practice a daily application of Christ’s death on the cross. You are elected IF you believe that even the slightest sin in your Christian life separates you from grace.
Tada is sacrificing her stellar life on the altar of Calvinism. Her good works point people to John Calvin who plainly taught a false gospel. What she believes and what she does cannot be separated. There is time to go back to the beginning and once again look for answers.
This time, pick up a Bible, not the Calvin Institutes.
paul
The Problem with Church: Your Pastor Doesn’t Think You’re Righteous
“We are saved by the new birth, not the blind following after confused scholars. Why are you submitting yourself to people who declare you unrighteous in practice when God states otherwise? Why are you submitting to people who deny your literal kinship to God?”
Most Christians, and more pastors than we would like to think, don’t even know who we are. However, in our day, the vast majority of pastors view justification as a forensic declaration only while the individual remains fundamentally unchanged, or unrighteous after “salvation.”
So, did salvation make us righteous, or are we only declared righteous? Most Christians don’t know, and even if they think they know, they can’t defend it from the Bible. If your defense is the words “new birth,” those with the prevailing view can cite a plethora of Bible verses that will seemingly prove you wrong because said verses are not defined in context of sanctification or justification, two subjects that Christians have little or no knowledge of to boot.
Why is it ok that the debate regarding justification rages in conservative evangelical circles? In his review of the book Justification: Five Views, Matthew Barrett states,
This review has only touched the surface of the debate, which is not likely to stop anytime soon. The ongoing centrality of the debate also demonstrates Luther’s maxim, namely, that justification is the doctrine on which the church stands or falls. This being the case, it is essential that we think hard about the biblical text lest we fail to understand properly how we are made right before a holy God.[1]
Barrett is a Southern Baptist scholar, and posits a comfortable mentality in Christian circles: how we are saved is such an important topic that we should continue to debate it. Why is this acceptable? Because deep down, most Christians think they are saved by showing faithfulness to a Christian institution of their choice. Secondly, the laity, per what they have been taught for decades, don’t think they are responsible for knowing the truth because they aren’t capable of knowing what the spiritual elite know (as if they have come to any conclusions after 500 years of post “Reformation”).
Therefore, “Christians” en masse, follow those who offer nothing definitive regarding the gospel we claim to be saved by without even blinking an eye. And we think Eastern mysticism is illogical? Renowned Southern Baptist pastor Paul Washer has even said that the truth of the gospel has an eternal depth that we will never fully know[2] which brought objection on that point from likeminded Calvinist Joel Taylor[3].
One of the views of justification offered in the aforementioned book is that of Dr. Michael Horton. He is the host of a Reformed radio show titled The White Horse Inn. In one show, he critiqued the position of scholar NT Wright regarding justification, and remarked that his show continues to discuss the question “What is the gospel?” In the critique, even though it concerned justification, Horton pointed out the positive aspects of Wright’s teachings, even though one must conclude that Horton was complementing the use of perceived facts in the commission of theological felony. It’s befuddling to say the least.[4]
In regard to justification, Barrett stated his agreement with Horton in the review. And what is that view of justification according to Barrett?
Horton shows that the righteousness imputed is not a substance or commodity but a legal status. Additionally, Wright has neglected a third party, namely, Christ the mediator. It is the active and passive obedience of Christ, not “the essential divine attribute of righteousness” in God that is credited to believers…
Third, Horton gives a needed defense of imputation, reminding us that this doctrine is indispensible since it is the way “God gives this righteousness or justice to the ungodly through faith.” Horton shows that while the exact term may not be used, the concept of imputation infiltrates Paul’s letters at every turn. I leave it to the reader to take an in-depth look into the passages Horton examines, but Horton is correct when he writes, “These passages unmistakably teach that the righteousness by which the believer stands worthy before God’s judgment is alien: that is, belonging properly to someone else. It is Christ’s righteousness imputed, not the believer’s inherent righteousness—even if produced by the gracious work of the Spirit.” If Horton is right, and I think he is, then the other views need some serious adjustment.
This confusion regarding the gospel is unacceptable and there is only one answer: the laity must retake their rightful position as God’s priests in his called out holy nation. In that nation, we must be unequivocal in our understanding of the gospel; we are not only declared righteous, WE ARE RIGHTEOUS born again beings after the nature of God. His attribute of righteousness is imputed to us because we are born of Him and His seed resides IN US (1John 3:1-10). When we were saved, we were made the righteousness of God (2Corinthians 5:21).
We are justified by faith alone, but that faith includes believing that something has actually happened that we desire: the death of the old us with Christ and the resurrection of a new us with Christ. The old us was under the law of sin and death, the new us loves that same law because it guides us in loving God and others. We are saved by the new birth, not the blind following after confused scholars. Why are you submitting yourself to people who declare you unrighteous in practice when God states otherwise? Why are you submitting to people who deny your literal kinship to God?
The contention always presented is that of present sin. This, in and of itself is a smoking gun. This argument makes NO distinction between justification and sanctification. Therefore, it makes no distinction between sins against justification and sin against family relationship. This is a denial of the new birth. It also makes perfect law-keeping justification’s standard.
The apostle Paul spent most of his ministry refuting that idea from many different angles.
paul
Endnotes:
1. http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/justification_five_views
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mMQ12nmDow
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment