R. C. Sproul’s Double Imputation Doublespeak.
There are a number of things that are disturbing about what Sproul says here:
1. Jesus Christ had no righteousness UNTIL He kept the law perfectly!
2. The real meaning of “double imputation” means our sin is imputed to Christ and His OBEDIENCE is imputed to us.
3. This means the standard for righteousness is perfect law-keeping.
4. This is heresy because the Bible says that righteousness is APART from the law! (Romans 3:21, 28).
5. “Redemption” is conflated with “salvation”.
So according to authentic protestant orthodoxy, not only do believers have no righteousness of their own, but EVEN JESUS had no righteousness of His own! In other words, Jesus was not righteous because He was the Son of God, He was only righteous because He kept the law perfectly!!!
You people who call yourselves “christians” and go to church every Sunday and listen to garbage like this week after week and read all manner of books from authors like this, you might want to rethink some things!
~ Andy
My Reply to Linda: Yes, I Am a Christian, But Not Sure You Are
Originally published December 15, 2015
I no longer have patience for the evangelical regurgitation of orthodox talking points. Protestants don’t own their own faith that they have seen in the Bible with their own study. What they think they see and understand is what Protestant academics have told them, including the idea that only they have authority to tell them what to believe. So, what is wrong with church? Church is wrong with church because it is predicated on a false gospel. That’s right, the Protestant Reformation was a false reformation founded on a false gospel. And this is why Dr. James White and others have refused to debate me publicly; the Protestant gospel as stated in its orthodoxy is the biblical definition of a lost person…under law as opposed to under grace.
Martin Luther and John Calvin et al proffered a gospel that is under law, but that is supposedly OK because Jesus keeps/kept the law for us, and that obedience is imputed to our Christian status. This is a perpetual covering of sin, or sometimes referred to as “atonement,” but not an ENDING of sin that requires no further justification. Hence, we must “preach the gospel to ourselves every day” to “keep ourselves in the love of God” (CJ Mahaney) etc. White and others know that this is a simple matter of theological math, and do not intend to address it until enough people catch on. The only case they can make presently is for a historical-redemptive interpretation of Scripture that interprets every verse as a justification verse. Sanctification is defined as progressive justification via Protestant talking points.
One day in my personal Facebook account I noticed the following comment to me by a “Linda”:
“Are you a Christian Paul? And secondly do you believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God? That would be my two questions for you. Romans says, ‘There is none righteous, no not one.’ That includes you and me. This doesn’t mean that we never do a kind act or good deed. It means that we don’t and can’t do enough of them to be declared ‘RIGHTEOUS’ by God. We could never do enough good deeds and kind acts to get us into heaven. Therefore we need the righteousness of Christ imputed unto us in order to go to heaven. God imputes this kind of righteousness to those who believe and accept HIS son Jesus and his shed blood as atonement for their sins and their UNrighteousness. We are part of God’s family by adoption. Nothing can make us righteous enough to go to heaven. The righteousness that is applied to our never dying soul can only come from Christ. The ‘part and parcel’ of our own being is puny compared with what God demands. In one place in scripture our puny ‘part and parcel’ is described as ‘filthy rags.’ So our own human effort at righteousness is from our flesh. Our flesh is not saved from sin and unrighteousness. Only our soul is. We are not capable of learning and loving enough to be declared righteous enough for heaven. We could learn and love enough to help another person with a kind act or good deed. But that does not fit our soul for heaven. I don’t understand your third question……’Christ imputing sin’ ????”
Her comment was in reply to previous comments I had made in regard to a post. She was replying to a comment I made regarding her initial comment.
“I am a never dying soul whom Christ died and rose for, approved of by God because I have HIS righteousness. Just by learning and loving we are different. Better means ‘improved in some way.’ Not hard questions for me.”
Here is my reply.
“Linda, where does the Bible say you have the righteousness of Christ? That’s the first question. The second: Are we only approved of God because we ONLY have the righteousness of Christ and none of our own? What about the new birth? If we are literally born of God and now part of His lineage, would that not make us righteous? Do you mean to say that we have a righteousness LIKE Christ’s because we are a member of the same family, or ONLY His righteousness and none that is part and parcel with our own being? Are we truly righteous, or only declared righteous? Third question: was Christ’s role in salvation an imputation of sin AND righteousness, or just sin? On the one hand, you seem to state that we only have the righteousness of Christ, but on the other, you say we learn and love. How exactly do we learn and love if we ourselves are not righteous people? So, I am not trying to be a jerk here, I am simply resolute that Christians should have a clear definition of who they are. Yes, I know exactly what the Reformers believed about our identity, but I would like to see your clarification.”
This is the extreme Protestant cognitive dissonance resulting in the train wreck we call “church” that I no longer have patience for. People who are serious about following Christ need to take their true gospel and leave the institutional church for home fellowship networks. The institutional church is part and parcel with the authority that demands a denial of the obvious. Authority has replaced truth. Nevertheless, I do believe evangelicals will have to eventually address their under law gospel.
I will make this as simple as possible as I am weary of addressing it. Much, much, thanks to Andy Young who is helping to carry the water on this as well. Linda’s response is pretty much the Protestant gospel talking points that we hear often, and pregnant with cognitive dissonance. All in all, her answers to my questions are, “NO.” Please start by noting that. This is where we discuss another disservice the Reformers performed: adding chapters and verses to the Bible. This circumvents the need to read all of Scripture in context. You can form a theological argument by using John Immel’s pet peeve: Scripture stacking. Basically, Linda is using the same verses to argue for the same Protestant talking points that she has received from Protestant academics. As a result, if one examines her statements, the blatant contradictions are stunning.
Where to start? ALL of our works are filthy rags (Isiah 64:6), yet, we can do some stuff that is good? So, “all” doesn’t really mean “all”? Per the usual, Protestants profess a double false gospel because they don’t rightly understand the gospel taught by the father of the Reformation, Martin Luther. In fact, Luther taught that EVERY deed of man is evil, even those that appear good because man’s “good” deeds always have a flawed motive. Calvin taught the same. Hence, if one believes that we can do a good deed, that is “mortal sin” and cannot be forgiven by the church. But, if one believes that every work we do, even works that appear good, are actually evil, all of our sin can be forgiven by revisiting the same gospel that saved us, and that revisitation is only valid under the auspices and oversight of the clergy. This is Luther, this is Calvin, this is the Protestant gospel. I have documented this backwards and forwards as those who follow TANC Ministries know.
Now, for the Protestant part of this that Linda got right, and in fact a mainstay of Protestantism, but still a false gospel. Luther and Calvin orthodoxy already condemns her to hell, but they would agree with her making the law the standard for justification. Biblically, there is NO law in justification. The Bible testifies about justification, but law and justification are mutually exclusive. It doesn’t matter who keeps the law, there is no law in justification. What determines justification is the new birth. The law is strictly for love in the Christian life. Again, the law informs us about justification, and here is the information: law is not the standard for justification, the new birth is. The apostle Paul wrote the epistle of Galatians to make this very point. Again, I predict that folks are going to start catching on to this in the future and the who’s who of evangelicalism are going to have to make a defense; good luck to them as that attempt will be interesting. The Protestant under-law-gospel, also stated by Linda, has Christ fulfilling God’s “demands” in our stead when God’s only demand regarding justification is that we be born again.
In order to make the law the standard for justification, the Reformers resorted to Saint Augustine’s Neo-Platonism, which later became Gnosticism and wreaked havoc on the first century church. We see this in Linda’s talking points about “the flesh.” ALL of our works come from where? Right, the flesh which, like the Reformers, she deems as inherently evil. That’s Gnosticism. The Bible teaches that our bodies, or members, are “weak” not inherently evil. When the Bible speaks of the “desires of the flesh” and the “deeds of the flesh,” that speaks of when our members are used for sinful purposes. Obviously, if Linda would stop long enough to read her own Bible with her own understanding given to her by God, she would see that our body, or “flesh,” can also be used for holy purposes (Romans 12:1 among many other passages). And, what is more obvious than the fact that our bodies are declared to be the temple of God? Actually, a word study reveals that the Holy of Holies is being referred to.
This brings us to Linda’s Protestant confusion in regard to the difference between salvation and redemption. The former is the saving of the soul, the latter is the saving of the mortal body which can be used for evil or good depending on which desires we are obeying. Christians, through the new birth, have the ability to obey the desires of the Spirit stated in the Bible and the ability to say “no” to evil desires that remain part of the body’s weakness and mortality. Because Christ ended the law through the new birth, sin has been stripped of its ability to enslave and condemn. If Christ obeys the law for us, we are still under it and enslaved to sin. The old us that died with Christ violated the whole law with every sin; the new us that was raised with Christ fulfills the whole law with one act of love. Christ didn’t come to obey the law for us—He came to END the law. Christ didn’t come to cover our sin—He came to END our sin.
A book could be written here, but time won’t allow it; nevertheless, let’s address Linda’s confusion, typical among Protestants, in regard to gift and reward. We cannot birth ourselves, but we can obtain the baptism of the Spirit by faith alone in “the promise” (see Galatians chapter 3). Once the gift is received, it is ours to utilize by loving God and others. Exercising the gift is not taking credit for the gift. The Bible states that God would be unjust to forget our good works and service to the saints (Hebrews 6:10). “Unjust”? Yes, because as those literally born of Him (1 John chapter 3), and literally a part of His literal family, our reward is due us as siblings working for the Father. As a slave to the former master, we could only earn death wages—now we can earn true reward. Read the Parable of the Talents and see what the outcome is for those who fear and want to give God back only what was given and nothing more. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the new birth.
As a policy, I don’t judge the salvation of others. I believe that there are Protestants who are confused enough about Protestantism to be saved. So, yes Linda, I am saved, but I find your assurance that you are saved indicative of your confusion. Protestant orthodoxy CLEARLY states that the motor of sanctification moving justification forward is doubt of salvation because being under condemnation is part and parcel with being under law…the standard for justification according to Protestantism. In Calvin’s words, if “Christians” are not still under condemnation, what further need is there for Christ and His righteousness?
So Linda, I am saved, but I recommend that you start thinking for yourself. All of the Protestant academics you trust will not stand in your stead at the judgment. You will be standing there alone.
And you better have more than a covering with sin underneath it, you better be a literal child of God before Him.
paul
Sin, Sin, Sin, Sin, Sin, Sin, Sin, Sin
Originally published on July 28, 2015
Got sin? You do if you are a Protestant, and you have a lot of it. The “T” in TULIP doesn’t stand for total depravity for no good reason, no pun intended. The only good thing is focusing on the bad thing: your nasty, wicked self.
Sin is a really big deal in Protestantism because we get ourselves into heaven by dwelling on the fact that we are “sinners.” If we can do any good work, if ALL of our works are NOT filthy rags—that’s not living by “faith alone” for our justification. Supposedly, if we think we can do anything good, that’s not living by faith alone in what Jesus has accomplished for us, but rather living in the “confidence of the flesh.”
The foundation of Protestant soteriology is the idea that “Christians” live under the possibility of condemnation and should fear accordingly. Christians remain under the condemnation of the law and remain covered by professing that they can do no good work. By continually returning to the same gospel that saved us for forgiveness of works, both good and bad, the righteousness of Jesus continues to be imputed to us. Hence, “We have no righteousness of our own in salvation or the Christian life.”
In contrast, the emphasis of our Christian lives should be LOVE. We still sin, but it is not sin unto condemnation, but rather sin against our Father as a family matter. We may receive chastisement, but we are in no danger of condemnation. Not so with the Protestant gospel: the “Christian” remains under eternal condemnation and is only covered through faith alone by returning to the same gospel that saved us. This is why Protestantism has always been weak in the area of discipleship. This is why there is an obsession with making saved people rather than disciples. And by the way, the only place we can find continued forgiveness for “sin that removes us from grace” (Calvin/Luther) is under the “authority” of the local church. Go figure.
Even in Baptist churches, pastors bemoan the fact that “10% of the congregants do 90% of the work.” Well, duh, I am surprised that even 10% are doing anything as the focus is keeping oneself saved by focusing on how inept we are.
More and more in counseling, I am telling people to stop focusing so much on sin. Clearly, especially in the Protestant contemporary biblical counseling movement, the specific instruction is to “find the sin beneath the sin” as a means of growing your salvation as if salvation grows to begin with. If our focus is sin- searching as a means of spiritual wellbeing, and good works tempt us to think we did something good (again, Luther/Calvin), what in the world will be the results? Well, look around for yourself—it’s called “the church.”
A focus on sin will not prevent sin or promote love. If there is something to be gained by finding sin, it will be far from us to fight against it. Why would we cut off our supply of blessings by making the cross smaller? It becomes a supply and demand issue.
The Bible endorses a focus on love, not sin-searching. We are to look for ways to love God and others, not ways to find the “sin beneath the sin” or some endeavor to “peel back the layers of sin.” No doubt, there is a CONTROL conspiracy involved with this supposed method of sanctification as well. Stripping people of an accurate evaluation of self is a very efficient way of controlling them. Being worthy enough to hold others accountable for their own good will not get you into heaven—only returning daily to the same gospel that saved you for a fresh set of downs to get into the salvation end zone.
And what will eventually happen to any marriage if the constant focus is your spouse’s sin? No wonder then that the present-day biblical counseling movement (mostly sponsored by Reformed churches) is overflowing with marriage counseling cases. Week in, and week out, teaching will knock down any notions that either spouse can do any work that is not “filthy rags.” And, the only real sin is not knowing that everything you do is sin; if you don’t know that, you may find yourself in so-called church discipline. We do know this: those who will not accept this premise are deemed “unteachable.”
We have not been given a spirit of fear under the law of sin and death and its condemnation. We, instead, have been given the Holy Spirit and boldness to love God and others without any fear of condemnation.
We are to be enslaved to love—not to a fear of condemnation.
paul
Dear Reformed Brother, Was Jesus Righteous Before He Kept the Law?
Time and time again, this ministry has demonstrated that the reformed standard for justification is perfect law-keeping rather than the new birth. Here is a summary of the salient premises (what reformed theology must assume to be true to arrive at their conclusion). It goes something like this:
- Man is totally depraved.
- Because man is totally depraved, no one can keep the law perfectly.
- Because no one can keep the law perfectly, we need someone to keep the law on our behalf.
- Jesus is the only one who ever kept the law perfectly.
- Because Jesus kept the law perfectly, we must depend on Jesus to keep the law for us.
- God “declares” us righteous because Jesus’ obedience is imputed to us.
- When God looks at us He doesn’t “see” our sin, He only sees Christ (covering/atonement)
There might be a few more details one could add in there, but the conclusion is this:
The standard for righteousness is perfect law-keeping.
The list of problems with this line of reasoning is extensive, not the least of which is the fact that the Bible says righteousness is apart from the law. But when we keep thinking about the ramifications of the above assumptions, the conclusions are obvious. In this construct, a believer is only declared righteous as long as he keeps living by “faith alone”. So if at any time he ceases to live by “faith alone” he puts his justification at risk. This means he is never really “righteous” until he gets to the end of his life. And even then, his righteousness depends on the degree to which he lived by “faith alone”. In other words, no believer can ever really “know” if he is really righteous until all the facts come in. There would have to be sufficient “proof” that reveals that his justification is authentic.
But I want to camp on a notion that I doubt very few have ever stopped to consider. If the basis of righteousness is perfect law-keeping, then how is Jesus righteous? Would not He too be required to live a perfect life? Of course the protestant response to this is a resounding, yes. They openly declare that it was by His perfect law-keeping that Jesus was righteous. That is one of the assumptions listed above. But now consider this. How could a claim be made for Jesus’ righteousness until He had demonstrated perfect law-keeping His entire life? It is impossible to claim that Jesus was righteous before he ever demonstrated one good work. Ironically, the same standard that the reformed use for believers MUST also apply to the One who makes justification possible according to their theology. And this just will not work because it makes Jesus’ own righteousness suspect (which the reformed conveniently do not allow for). You cannot reason something after-the-fact!
The Reformed gospel makes Jesus’ righteousness a function of works and not intrinsic to His nature. Jesus was not really righteous UNTIL He had demonstrated perfect law-keeping. Furthermore, such a conclusion of His righteousness could not have been realized UNTIL the end of His life.
Jesus is righteous by virtue of the fact that He is God’s Son. He has His own righteous nature because He was born of God, God’s offspring. He was not righteous because of His perfect law-keeping. It was intrinsic to who He is.
I can go to the NFL’s web store and order a jersey of my favorite football player, maybe Peyton Manning. When I receive that jersey in the mail I can now say I have Peyton Manning’s jersey, or I have the jersey of Peyton Manning. Does that mean that I have Peyton Manning’s ACTUAL jersey that he ACTUALLY wore when he played in games? Of course not. But it is still a jersey. It is similar (identical, like in kind) to Peyton Manning’s in every way with one exception; this one belongs to me.
Our righteousness is this way. Does this mean that we have the ACTUAL righteousness that Christ had? Only in the sense that it is IDENTICAL to it, the exception being is that the righteousness we have actually belongs to us! Why is that? Because it was given to us the moment we were born again. It is not a covering. It is intrinsic to the nature of our being as a child of God.
Whether reformed/protestants want to admit it or not, the fact remains that their construct of righteousness is works-based justification. It might not be “us” doing the works, but works are works no matter who does them. Not only is it works-based, it is progressive, meaning it must be performed throughout one’s life. This is why there is NO DIFFERENCE whatsoever between Catholicism and Protestantism. They both believe in a works-based progressive justification. Protestants have simply taken the “work” away from us and given it to Christ. And in the process, they have made Christ’s own righteousness predicated on works.
Andy
Addendum:
If you still have any doubts about the logical conclusions to which one must come when law is the standard for righteousness, consider what R.C. Sproul is on record stating. Just about the entire authentic protestant/reformed camp threw Tullian Tchividjian under the bus because his preaching wasn’t “nuanced” enough for thier taste. Frankly I am incredulous that they haven’t done the same with Sproul considering this quote. Talk about lacking nuance!
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
5 comments