Why I Glory In The Imputation Of Christ's Righteousness

I suppose that I could just shorten this article by explaining with the oft quoted words of Dr. J. Gresham Machen, who on his deathbed uttered, "I'm so thankful for the active obedience of Christ. No hope without it." Indeed it is every Christians duty to be thankful, no, "so thankful" for the active obedience of Christ because there is certainly no hope without it.

But we are seeing again a denial of this most precious truth. People seem to deny this truth but be thankful for their "covenant faithfulness" or as it has come to be understood "covenantal nomism." The idea that we are justified by faith in Christ and in our justification includes our faithfulness to the covenant laws. Of course proponents of this view may word it differently. But they insist that Christ did not keep the laws and commands of God to credit to the account of all who belong to Him but to prove and show His sacrifice was and is acceptable to God the Father. As a Lamb without spot or blemish.

But if my hope, in some way by whatever way you wish to word it, is to rest in my "covenant faithfulness" then I should be as Luther before his salvation- miserable, depressed, grieved and without hope. I would have to concur with Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones when preaching on Romans 1:17:

The gospel is the power of God. It does not depend upon me and my faithfulness. If it did we would all be lost. It is God’s power to keep, to justify and to sanctify and to glorify - to take us right into heaven itself. . . nothing can stop it. It is certain. The gospel works and will work, until all that God has purposed by its means shall have been completed.*

No person will ever stand before God and point back to their own faithfulness. Nor, do I believe that anyone claims that. But the assertion that Christ's righteousness is not imputed to anyone, leads to that. Not only does God demand punishment for sinning against Him but he also demands we be clothed and not seen bare (Gen. 3:21). You should note two things about that passage in Gen. 3:21- "And the LORD God made for Adam and for his wife garments of skins and clothed them"- there is a sacrifice for their sin; an animal had to be killed, blood was shed to provide atonement (that's where the animal skins came from) and they were clothed with those skins. Now of course that was all to foreshadow the Christ, the Lamb Of God.  Everyone except the liberals will admit to the sacrifice on Gen. 3. But what of the clothing? What are believers clothed with? "Covenant faithfulness?" That would not be very comforting. If God calls our own righteousness "filthy rags" (Is. 64) do we really think any "covenant faithfulness will fare any better? I'm not staking my salvation it! If you deny the imputation of Christ's righteousness then you must replace it with something else- infusion (Rome), or some sort of law keeping on the Christians part.

Others would simply have us forgiven but naked before an infinitely holy God. Oh, Adam and Eve couldn't endure that madness why would we be any different? The only comfort we have is the imputed righteousness of Christ.

What do we mean "active obedience of Jesus? By that is meant:

When Dr. Machen talked about the active obedience of Christ, he was speaking of the entire and thoroughgoing obedience of Christ to the commands, laws, decrees, and ordinances of his heavenly Father. In short, Jesus obeyed the entire law of God in every respect, doing all that God required. As Scripture reminds us, Jesus Christ fulfilled all righteousness, and did everything that his father had given him to do.*

What is meant by "imputation?" We mean this:

 If the Bible's use of the Word"impute" or "reckon" in the key passages we've been studying means something like "change someone inwardly so that he is pleasing to God," then most everything  we have seen so far is irrelevant, since all the work of salvation falls back upon man and his ability to maintain some state into which justification places him. But if "reckon" means "credit to one's account and treat them accordingly," everything is different. The righteousness of Christ, then imputed to a believer, becomes the basis upon which God can and does treat the believer as just, even though the believer well knows that he continues to experience sin and failure in this life... "Impute" is a small word, but the sin-wearied soul who realizes what it really means finds it to be a true source of hope and constant encouragement.*

The imputation of the righteousness of Christ is the action of the merciful Father who sees the accomplishment of His Son in behalf of His people as sufficient and complete.* 

The glorious and comforting truth of the imputation of Christ's righteousness is that it is a perfect one. One that cannot be revoked, matched or maintained by anyone. It gives assurance to those in Christ that not only are they forgiven but also declared and seen by God as "righteous!" It is how God justifies the ungodly (Ro. 4:5). It is a righteousness with divine fingerprints. As John Murray writes:

It is not, of course, the divine attribute of justice or righteousness, but, nevertheless, it is a righteousness with divine attributes or qualities and therefore a righteousness which is of divine property.

The righteousness of justification is the righteousness and obedience of Christ (Rom. 5:17, 18, 19). Here we have the final consideration which confirms all of the foregoing considerations and sets them in clear focus. This is the final reason why we are pointed away from ourselves to Christ and his accomplished work. And this is the reason why the righteousness of justification is the righteousness of God. It is the righteousness of Christ wrought by him in human nature, the righteousness of his obedience unto death, even the death of the cross. But, as such, it is the righteousness of the God-man, a righteousness which measures up to the requirements of our sinful and sin-cursed situation, a righteousness which meets all the demands of a complete and irrevocable justification, and a righteousness fulfilling all these demands because it is a righteousness of divine property and character, a righteousness undefiled and inviolable.* 

I glory in the imputed righteousness of Christ because it gives believers rest, comfort, consolation and there is, as Machen said, "no hope without it." 

Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order 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 comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith—that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead 

(Php 3:8–11). 

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,

Fernando

*D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Romans (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1970), pp. 286-287

*What Machen Meant, Banner of Truth article

*James White, The God Who Justifies (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2001), pp. 111

*Ibid, p. 115

*John Murray, Redemption Accomplished And Applied (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), pp. 127-28

Those "Arm Chair Theologians!"

Many Christians, today, are being spiritually malnourished. Pastors all across the world are lamenting, what they believe is, the impracticality of doctrine. Therefore, they refuse to fulfill the sacred obligation of the under -shepherd to "be diligent," "study," "make every effort," "do your best," to show ourselves approved cutting straight the Word of God (2 Tim. 2:15) and proclaiming it to those in the pews ( 2Tim. 4:1-, Tit.1:9).

But the notion that theology and doctrine are impractical is very misleading. I would go so far as to say that any elder in the Church of Christ that utters such things should resign since it is impossible to shepherd the sheep of Christ, of whom He purchased by His won blood, apart from doctrine. Observe how Paul instructs Titus to appoint elders and gives the qualifications for such a noble esteemed position, "He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it" (Tt 1:9). And how he writes to Timothy, "As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus so that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine, nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies, which promote speculations rather than the stewardship from God that is by faith. 5 The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith"  (1 Ti 1:3–5).


Doctrine matters. It matters because it should be founded on the truth of Scripture. But what of the allegation that it is impractical or only produces "arm chair theologians?" Well, the majority of people that proclaim such accusations are typically the people that attempt to practice what they do not understand. Here's what I mean. Many people will proclaim an unoffensive gospel that simply says, "God is love and He loves you. Trust Him." This kind of "evangelism" is an attempt to to put into practice the Great Commission. However, since those proclaiming such things or something similar know we are to share Christ with others they attempt to do so yet their understanding of the Gospel is grossly lacking as is there purely humanistic definition of the Divine love.

People that often deride the necessity of doctrine and assert theology leads to apathetic inaction have obviously not studied Church history. Let me quote from one of those "dead orthodoxy" guys that well understood how practical theology is and how it helps us. John Owen in his massive writing on the doctrine of justification and at the beginning of his defense and exposition of it writes:

THAT we may treat of the doctrine of justification usefully unto its proper ends, which are the glory of God in Christ, with the peace and furtherance of the obedience of believers, some things are previously to be considered, which we must have respect unto in the whole process of our discourse. And, among others that might be insisted on to the same purpose, these that ensue are not to be omitted:—

1. The first inquiry in this matter, in a way of duty, is after the proper relief of the conscience of a sinner pressed and perplexed with a sense of the guilt of sin. For justification is the way and means whereby such a person doth obtain acceptance before God, with a right and title unto a heavenly inheritance (emphasis mine).

So much for doctrine being impractical. Understanding that our acceptance with God is dependent on the substitutionary (penal) death of Christ and His perfect righteousness, or as stated by the Apostle Paul this way- " For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Co 5:20–21) is of the highest comfort. When Christians sin, especially in serious matters, our consciences can be tormented; one of our first inclinations is to think that we must now turn to the law in order to gain God's favor once again. That we must be more obedient to make up for such serious offenses against God. But the docrtrine of justification by faith alone, in Christ alone, teaches us that we are ever to reflect on the cross of Christ. He has satisfied the Father perfectly by taking our just punishment at the cross and fulfilling the righteous demands of God by keeping the law perfectly for sinners.

The doctrine of justification gives rest for the soul. The weary are no longer burdened by trying to hopelessly keep more law for their right standing before God. It has been accomplished for him by Christ our justification. The sinner finds rest. This is what is meant by our Lord when He cries out, "Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light "(Mt 11:28–30).


This pillar of Christian doctrine (justification by faith) does not lead to licentiousness. Rather instead of trying to be more godly to gain acceptance with God, we do so because we are accepted by Him in Christ and long to please and honor Him with our redeemed lives. We now love and strive to keep and honor His laws and commands to glorify His holy name among an ungodly people. Or as Iain Campbell writes:

The Ten Commandments are the same: they are moral absolutes, given us by our Creator God, in order that we may know fulfilment, purpose and direction in our lives. None of us can keep the commandments perfectly, which is why we need a Saviour. And those of us who trust the Saviour have more reason than most to keep the commandments. The God who gave them at Sinai was none other than Jesus.*

Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light" (Mt 11:28–30)  


Oh what rest! Rest my friends, rest in Christ.

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando

*Owen, J. Vol. 5: The works of John Owen. (W. H. Goold, Ed.) (7). Edinburg: T&T Clark.
*Campbell, I. D. (2005). On the first day of the week : God, the Christian and the Sabbath (181). Leominster, UK: Day One Publications.

Trying To Divorce A Married Couple

That is certainly what many wish to do when they attempt to pit the cross of Christ against His resurrection. Or those that emphasize the resurrection without speaking of the death of Christ. It goes something like this, "The gospel is the good news that God hasn’t given up on the world, that the tomb is empty and that a giant resurrection rescue is underway and that you and I can be a part of it." My fellow blogger awretchsaved does a good job of pointing out the social gospel in that presentation from Rob Bell.

That sounds pretty spiritual from Bell doesn't it? The Holy Writ does say, "For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies "(Ro 8:18–23).


If you notice in that passage the text says that the creation itself waits for the "revealing of the sons of God." It also says that creation was subjected to its present state by God Himself to be set free from its bondage and to obtain the freedom of the children of God. The point being that creation, without the salvation of God's people, itself will not experience its restoration. It is dependent upon the salvation of redeemed sinners- the bride of Christ.

For the moment we will not talk about the cataclysmic judgement ( a point that many want to deny or dodge) that God will bring upon it to bring about this "new heavens and new earth in which righteousness dwells" (2 Pe. 3:10-18), but will focus on the deliverance of God's people before the restoration of creation. This is the part which Bell and many of his kind completely miss. The idea that Christ came to save sinners by virtue of penal substitutionary death is abhorred by Bell. God, according to Bell and the Emergent crowd, is not angry with sinners and needs not to have His divine justice satisfied. According to Bell sinners are like confused, lost, hurt people in need of a little tender loving care and some guidance. We are more of victims instead of rebels. We are victims and not sinners shaking our fists at God in defiance.

Sure he and the Emergent crowd will talk of "sin." The appropriate question to ask is what do they mean by "sin"? According to one of their like minded people, "sin" is "to lack trust in God to do things His way." Once a person fails to "trust" God then life becomes miserable, "hell on earth." Here we go again with sinners being more victims than offenders of a holy God. This is what is missing (among many other things) in the Emergent  Gospel. God, to them, is more of a helper than God the Savior. God is simply saddened rather than offended and angry.

This is why they love to speak of a "resurrection rescue" or something similar. For them that is the view of salvation. There is no eternal judgement awaiting the unrepentant sinner. The cross of Christ is, not to save, but to make things better according to them. Which is why they rely so much on the felt needs and social justice. The cross of Christ is the greatest example of self-sacrifice for the greater good of creation. If one desires to not join in God's "resurrection rescue" then they will be experiencing "hell on earth" being separated from Him and being depressed, sad or bummed out. To them that is the worst thing. The consequences of sin itself is God's judgment because it keeps one away from this "resurrection rescue."


Bell's answer to such problem is to simply follow Jesus's example of self-sacrifice and love for others and you will be a part of this "resurrection rescue." Think like Jesus, feel like Jesus, believe like Jesus, act like Jesus, love like Jesus and you're in this "resurrection rescue."


My question to them is does the resurrection have any relation to justification? Or is it simply a matter of the way we live? You cannot divorce the the cross of Christ from the resurrection of Christ. Each component is intertwined. Permit me to quote Robert A. Peterson:

Justification. When Paul gives the basis for God’s declaring sinners righteous in Romans, he points primarily to the cross of Christ. In Romans 3:25–26 the basis of justification is “Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood.” In Romans 5:18–19 the basis of justification is Christ’s “obedience” unto death, his “one act of righteousness.” Paul focuses on the cross, but does not omit Jesus’s resurrection.

 In one passage in Romans the apostle brings together the cross and empty tomb. Righteousness “will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our LORD, who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification” (Rom. 4:23–25). Here dealing with “our trespasses” and “our justification” are not two separate blessings, but one way of talking about the same blessing—free justification. Justification can be expressed as the positive imputation of righteousness to the believing sinner (Rom. 4:3–5; 5:18–19; 2 Cor. 5:21). It can also be expressed as the nonimputation of sin to the same (Rom. 4:6–7). So when Paul says Jesus “was delivered up for our trespasses,” he means that his atoning death was necessary for our justification. When he says that Jesus was “raised for our justification,” he means that Jesus’s triumphant resurrection was necessary for our justification. Both Jesus’s death and his resurrection are necessary for sinners to be justified before a holy God.

 Jesus’s death is the basis of our justification in that he, our substitute, died in our place, paying the penalty that we could never pay. He also saves us as our resurrected LORD and representative—as the one who lives on our behalf. This is true in at least two senses. First, Christ’s resurrection testifies to the efficacy of his death, as C. E. B. Cranfield explains: “For what was necessitated by our sin was, in the first place, Christ’s atoning death, and yet, had His death not been followed by His resurrection, it would not have been God’s mighty deed for our justification.” Second, Jesus’s resurrection saves us as he who died for us is freed from death by God. His saving death and saving resurrection are the reasons that God will free us from death too. James Dunn clarifies: “The link between justification and Jesus’ resurrection . . . underscores its point—that the justifying grace of God is all of a piece with his creative, life-giving power.” As we will see, his resurrection is the basis and guarantee of our resurrection to eternal life on the last day.

 Forgiveness of sins. Because Jesus’s death and resurrection combine to constitute the basis of our justification, Paul announces to his hearers in Pisidian Antioch: “God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus, as he promised. . . . but he whom God raised up did not see corruption. Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you” (Acts 13:23, 37–38). With these words Paul is not detracting from the saving value of Jesus’s atonement. Rather, he is teaching an additional truth—the saving value of Jesus’s resurrection. Specifically, Jesus’s (death and) resurrection is the basis for the apostolic message of the “forgiveness of sins” (v. 38).

 Similarly, when Paul contemplates what would be true if Christ had not risen from the grave, he emphasizes, “And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins” (1 Cor. 15:17). Why would that be the case? Anthony Thiselton answers: “Without the resurrection of Christ, Christ’s death alone has no atoning, redemptive, or liberating effect in relation to human sin.” It is because Jesus our divine-human representative not only died in our place but also lives as Victor over sin and the grave that he saves to the end all who come to God through him.*

Of course they will object that doctrine is impractical but, at a later time, I hope to show that justification and the resurrection should lead to what is called "social justice" of course with some clarifications.The danger with false teaching is sometimes there is a measure of truth in the errors.Theology is indeed practical.

Soli Deo Gloria!

For His Glory,
Fernando


*Robert A. Peterson. Salvation Accomplished by the Son: The Work of Christ (Kindle Locations 3044-3073). Crossway.