Why the doctrine of imputed righteousness is unbiblical (part 6)
All too often debates begin and end in subjectivity simply because they revolve around the consequences of a doctrine instead of first dealing with what the Bible actually says. This is why I presented an exegetical argument before taking a look at the pastoral issues. On the other hand, though, I don’t want to become so abstract in my approach, either, to the point of analyzing theology in such a vacuum that it becomes useless in my everyday life. The whole point of this is to provoke right thoughts of God unto right patterns of living.
The danger of a completely objective approach is that, if unaccompanied by prayer and a subsequent confidence in the truth discovered, it can ultimately foster unbelief. It’s a fearfully small step from an objectivity which searches for truth to a skepticism which doesn’t believe in absolute truth. Much of the Christian scholarship in the world today is nothing but a baptized relativism which, while it thinks it’s offering an invaluable service to the Body, is actually nurturing the secret atheism which longs to take ground in every believers heart. I don’t want to become like that metaphorical man in James 1, who, after looking at himself in a mirror, turns away and forgets his own appearance. That said, in this last post I want to look at this issue pastorally and present what I believe to be the consequences of imputed righteousness.
My qualifier on the front end is this: I don’t believe that everyone who buys into this doctrine has a lesser view of God because of it. In many cases the doctrine just isn’t considered to the point of its necessary outcome, or it’s not emphasized so as to really detract from the true revelation of God’s character that has predominance. This does not mean, however, that the doctrine isn’t dangerous.
When we study the way God acts in his perfect leadership we inevitably build conclusions pertaining to the character and motivations behind those actions. A wrong view of God’s leadership leads to a wrong pattern of living. That’s why, as I said in part 1, this discussion is more than just pointless semantics. The way I define my salvation has profound implications on the way I relate to God and others. What happened? Who was I before? Who am I now? What did God do? Why did He do it? What does that say about His character? Depending on whether I buy into the doctrine of imputation or not, a different set of answers would be given to each of those questions, which in turn has an impact on the way I view myself and the way I come to God in my weakness.
Moving into the subject at hand, I believe that the doctrine of imputation always lends toward either confusion (that group I mentioned a couple paragraphs ago) or passivity and licentiousness. Now I want to take a bit and examine each of those outcomes:
Confusion: The doctrine of imputed righteousness is a subtly undermining distortion of the truth that gives the people of God confidence to approach Him in their weakness. The truth would say that God sees our sin (1 John 1:5-10, 3:20; etc), loves us (John 15:9; 17:23; etc) even in our weakness (Matt 12:7, 20; Rom. 4; 2 Pet. 3:9; 1 John 3:20; etc); He sees the end from the beginning (Rom. 4:17) and He is able to enjoy us in the present because He sees our sincere intension (Luke 15:20-24; 1 John 1:9; etc). Though indirectly, imputed righteousness says in essence that God doesn’t see our sin, all He sees is Jesus’ righteousness, and that He doesn’t love us in our weakness, all He loves is Jesus. It doesn’t warm my heart at all to know that God is so totally in opposition to me that He has to actually superimpose Jesus’ life over mine just so he can even tolerate me. This may seem overly humanistic, but I believe that in this case it’s God who is the “humanist”. The only way that imputed righteousness would be necessary, IMO, would be if sin had corrupted man so deeply that the two become synonymous. And that is not something I see in the Word.
Within an Augustinian, Lutheran, or Calvinistic worldview I would agree that it would be absolutely necessary for God to attach His Son’s history to the believing before they might be justified, simply because none of those men believed in a God who loves us in our weakness. What we would call the “bridal paradigm” was almost completely foreign to them. Coming out of the dark ages, being influenced by the stoic and irate view of God which accompanied that time frame, they had to build a theological construct by which they could explain why a God who (when you really get down to it) hates unredeemed humanity (which is the logical outcome of the doctrine of limited atonement) would be able to justify some of them. It is not enough, in this scheme, that the believing simply be given a clean slate; they would have to become something other than what they are in their essence. God would not be able to simply cleanse them from the corruption of their sin, because humanity is considered to be corrupted and flawed to their utter core (total depravity).
You see how the different ends of the system support each other. Each doctrine is intertwined with the logic of the whole, bringing validity to every other doctrine. This isn’t always a bad thing; but it is a dangerous one, and here’s why: It’s easy to begin with a theory which initially seems Biblical (In this case, pining the sovereignty of God up against the free will which He gave humanity) and then interpret all the surrounding evidence to fit that theory, even when the evidence may actually point in another direction. We want to observe the whole before we start interpreting the different parts. Induction, not deduction. If we start going down a path of reasoning and begin to find obstacles that don’t easily line up with our hypothesis, we should try another path instead of continuing down that one and (a) ignoring those obstacles, (b) manipulating them to fit our reasoning, or (c) formulating supporting theories in an effort to cancel them out.
Those who buy into imputation have no way of dealing with the dichotomy of their claims that we are completely morally righteous and then, at the same time, obviously not. Now granted, a doctrine bringing tension is not a sufficient reason to abandon it, Christianity is characterized by mysterious tensions; but this quite a bit more serious than a simple dichotomy. This is a contradiction in terms that produces significant confusion in the Body of Christ.
Passivity and licentiousness: To simply accept that upon Justification we retroactively inherit Christ’s righteousness can easily lead to badly abusing the message of grace and the empowerment to live righteous for ourselves, and to assuming that we can live unrighteous lives with a fictitious history of somebody else’s righteousness attached haphazardly to us.
A Christian is required to keep the new covenant. Not only out of thankfulness, as the Reformed would have it; but also out of duty, necessity, ones new nature and enslavement to Christ. It is not Jesus’ job. Or at least it is not Jesus’ job 2000 years ago. Jesus in you, now, will empower you to keep the law, but you still have to keep it. The glory of Romans 8:1 is not that we no longer have to strive for holiness because we are “in Christ”; it’s that we actually have the power to be holy because we are “in Christ”. “For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son… that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (Rom. 8:3-4).
The hermeneutic which accompanies the reformed view deals with Biblical exhortations in such a manner that it robs the commanding nature and urgency of the author by saying Christ fulfilled it all for us. For instance, while I would read passages like Psalms 1, Isaiah 33:14-17 and Matthew 5-7 primarily as exhortations to walk out my faith in complete maturity, someone with a more Reformed lens would see those passages as nothing more than descriptions of Jesus and the perfect life he led in His first advent. You see the difference. Within that outlook, one doesn’t have to strive after righteousness out of necessity, but is supposedly just going to live righteously because they already are righteous. It’s second nature, they are completely new already and nothing else needs to take place. Salvation is no longer seen as the process that the NT clearly says it is, but it is reduced to a one-time event which took place in a ministry line five years ago.
Conclusion: Sola scriptura was the cry of the reformers, “by scripture alone”. Martin Luther divorced himself from a thousand years of tradition that said the Bible must be interpreted by church teaching, considering it preeminently in the context of “Sacred Tradition”. He said that the Bible was primary and tradition was secondary. Maintaining the spirit of Protestant orthodoxy is found first and foremost in maintaining this cry. So then, with Luther as our example, why should we buy into a doctrine if (a) we can’t find it anywhere in the Bible and (b) actually find that it undermines firm Biblical teaching which gives us confidence to approach God and motivation to strive to be like Him?
Again–great stuff. I especially was struck by the point that if the idea of imputed righteousness is correct, that it indicates God really can’t handle us in our weakness.
Amanda Beattie
Monday, February 5, 2007 at 2:19 am
So, you have no idea who I am, and that’s fine, cause who I am isn’t really important. Anyway, I say that to tell you I stumbled rather randomly upon your blog and am very glad that I did. Your blog is so meaty and full of good insight.
I also was struck by the part where you talked about God having to superimpose Jesus on us to even be able to stand us. I think that something a lot of people struggle with is the idea of God loving them in their weakness; it seems so incomprehensible, because we are such a performance based society. But I think this is something that really unlocks our hearts to freedom; when we can truly live in the reality that not only does God stand us in our weakness, He enjoys us in it. Perhaps not the fact that we are sinning, but He still enjoys US.
It’s like how so many people tell themselves they will start walking with God when they’ve got it all together. There’s no real point in this because we will NEVER have it all together, and if we could just come to understand that God loves us in the PROCESS, then our hearts would be at rest.
Anyway, those are my two cents… whether it’s actually worth two cents is up to you =)
Sydney
Sydney
Monday, February 12, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Definitely worth the two cents! After just starting this weblog, it’s great to know that people will just stumble upon it “randomly” and be encouraged. That encourages me!
Thanks for the comment Syndey!
matthartke
Monday, February 12, 2007 at 6:06 pm
I totally agree that the doctrine of imputed righteousness perpetuates negative notions about the nature of God. The idea that God cannot love us in our weakness would be one prime example. I have spent the last couple of months actually contemplating this idea and therefore have a series of thoughts on it. I probably should start at the very beginning so as to give people a window into the development of my views. For me, all of this starts with the question of, “What makes God safe?” We know that humans are broken and characteristically exhibit horridly disturbingly, horridly depraved patterns of action (child prostitution, war, pillage, rape etc…). And we believe that God is good, fully just—possessing all power and knowledge. Why, we are inevitably forced to ask, would such a God not crush us? Many men, caught in the terror of this quandary (hearing the haunting eye of the Nemesis, feeling the eerie war-chant of divine wrath) have shuffled about in desperate search of safety, consolation. The writings of Luther exhibit (I believe, from the little that I know of them) this terror. The teachings of many liberal scholars today also point to this same fear (for example one liberal pastor of the 20th century retells the story of lying in bed around the age of five and crying inconsolably from a fear of hell). The liberals have characteristically solved this quandary by denying the fact that men are inherently evil. Men, they say are not evil, but rather uneducated—struggling in the darkness of ignorance, yet destined (by inherently good natures) to overcome. Calvinists have solved this tension in a mildly different manner. They have offered the doctrine of imputed righteousness as hope—saying that God cannot hate Christians in their brokenness because He is prohibited from seeing them there. But I must ask if either of these solutions actually comes anywhere close to the Biblical doctrine of faith (believing that God is a rewarder of weak people who earnestly seek Him). What I mean is this. In this life, there are two means of bringing about safety. First, there are the controlled circumstances—those circumstances arranged in such a manner that someone cannot hurt you. And then there are the situations of trust—people who you believe to be so good that they would not hurt you, even if they could. Biblically, faith is always linked to the later, not the former. In my opinion—both the solution of the liberals and the solution of the Calvinists implies that God cannot be trusted—that circumstances must be arranged to keep Him from beating people. Characteristically, it is said that liberals possess a very kind view of God. But, I feel that this assessment is shallow. Is the liberal God truly kind? Or is He simply undisturbed? Is He the kind of person who would love someone free from their sin? We shall never know, for liberals refuse to acknowledge that we need loved out of sin. The tension is circumvented; the tension is never answered. The same could apply to the Calvinistic God. Is He really kind? If the restraining order the Son’s imputed righteousness wasn’t barring Him in the courtroom of heaven, would He beat us? Once again, the tension is circumvented; the tension is never answered. In fact, the unfortunate implication of both theories is that God cannot be trusted. The reason that the liberal needs to deny the depravity of man (for the sake of his own sanity) is that the liberal holds such a base view of God as to believe that God is the kind of person who crushes sinful people. The reason that the Calvinist needs to believe that God cannot see or react to the believer (but rather only to the Son) is that the Calvinist thinks that God is the kind of person who cannot stand to gaze upon weakness and brokenness. But, some might ask, don’t we need the cross? Are you saying Alicia that we don’t need the cross? Are you saying Alicia that we are totally cool with God without a cross? Let my emphatic ‘No!’ resound into the troubled souls of all those who doubt my meaning! To clarify, I am for sure NOT saying that people do not need the cross. People need the cross! What I am however questioning is WHAT we need the cross for. For sure, we need the cross to atone for the penalty of sin, to bring punitive recompense. For sure we need the cross to finally, climatically break the global dominion of death—and begin the cataclysmic tide of resurrection—destined to bring the whole world to life in its time. For sure we need the cross to be saved—body, soul, and spirit. But, the question must be asked: Do we need the cross for God to love us in our weakness? Or is that something that He has always had in His heart, something that He has always done—because intrinsically He is the type of person who rewards weak people when they earnestly seek Him? Because intrinsically He is the type of person who does not despise nor abhor the affliction of the afflicted? Because intrinsically He is love—kind, redemptive love that searches for ways to bring banished people home? Why else would the Bible say, “For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son”—a statement indicating that the love engendered the cross—not that the cross engenders love? In short, I believe that Calvinists have opted (in answering the “haunting cry of the Nemesis” with the doctrine of imputed righteousness) for controlled circumstances to produce safety rather than the kind nature and redemptive eyes of God. For truly, Luther proclaimed: “Faith and only Faith.” But still the question must be broached, ‘Faith and only faith—in what?’ Is not Biblical faith the kind that leans on the person of God (not legal maneuvering) for safety? For truly we are saved by the cross; but how should we view this fact? Is it really healthy (or Biblical) to view the cross as the protective covering saving us from an angry God? Is it not rather imperative that we view the cross as the full manifestation of (the express image of) God? Is it not rather imperative that we place our trust in the kind heart of a loving God—knowing that trustworthy Beings like Him find ways (the cross) to reward weak people that earnestly seek after Him? Now—admittedly, I am young and I have not studied the word long enough to understand the numerous tensions and nuances of it. In five years I might have totally changed my views. I cannot dogmatically state them I am right; I am still totally working out my thoughts. But I would for sure say that I am currently exceedingly uncomfortable with the implications of the doctrine of imputed righteousness. I would love feedback. Feedback is what helps me grow. Feedback is what enables me to see the things I am currently oblivious to. I have many more thoughts, but I will break them up into segments to make them somewhat manageable.
Alicia Good
Thursday, February 15, 2007 at 4:09 am
Alicia – wow. Have you thought about blogging?
Amanda Beattie
Thursday, February 15, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Exploring Atonement
So, over the next [I don’t know how long] I have decided to do a series on Exploring the Atonement.
Being the seasoned theologian and all (sarcastic), I thought it would be a fantastic topic to get to know better – especially since I’ve hea…
Coops was here
Monday, March 5, 2007 at 2:23 am
Good site!!!
urokr
Monday, April 9, 2007 at 6:37 am
Speaking of pastoral considerations…
What will you say to your brothers and sisters on their deathbeds? Will you tell them, “I hope you lived up to your calling!” Or will tell them, “Look to Christ! He is your righteousness! He is your hope!”
If a measure of human faithfulness is required to remain in God’s covenant, how much is enough?
…
With all due respect, you seem to have an incomplete understanding of Reformed Theology. I have just finished this series, and have been reading your most recent on the NPP. You make numerous claims about RT that are simply wrong.
Just one example: I know of no Reformed teachers who take biblical commandments and exhortations as descriptions of Christ’s life and work. Zero. Biblical exhortations are viewed as the means by which God perseveres His people. They are to be taken literally and seriously.
You should take the time to understand this system a bit more before ridiculing it.
…
I noticed you link your blog to John Piper’s website, DesiringGod. What do you make of a man (ministry, church, etc.) that passionately embraces and regularly teaches these “unbiblical” and “dangerous” doctrines and is neither confused nor drawn to passivity or licentiousness?
God Bless
Jim B.
Friday, April 11, 2008 at 3:35 pm
“Speaking of pastoral considerations…
What will you say to your brothers and sisters on their deathbeds? Will you tell them, “I hope you lived up to your calling!” Or will tell them, “Look to Christ! He is your righteousness! He is your hope!”
If a measure of human faithfulness is required to remain in God’s covenant, how much is enough?”
You’re confusing “faithfulness” with “merit”. Would you ask your wife when you made your vows at the altar, “I promise to be faithful, but how much faithfulness is enough?” No, of course not. It’s time to take this discussion out of the dark ages…
matthartke
Friday, April 11, 2008 at 7:51 pm
“I noticed you link your blog to John Piper’s website, DesiringGod. What do you make of a man (ministry, church, etc.) that passionately embraces and regularly teaches these “unbiblical” and “dangerous” doctrines and is neither confused nor drawn to passivity or licentiousness?”
Why throw out the baby with the bath water? He has a lot of good stuff that I passionately agree with. It’s obvious when looking through the pages of Church history that varying degrees of bad theology doesn’t always equal unrighteous living. All that it often means is a foundation that does not logically lead to the good ethic lived out.
Is bad theology dangerous? Yes, to varying degrees depending on the theology. Is it all of the same consequence? No, of course not. Can we be reasonable with each other on issues that aren’t “top tear” issues so to speak, eat the meat and spit out the bones and have good debates hoping to strengthen and be strengthened? Absolutely. God forbid that I would be the orthodoxy police, claiming absolute authority in every doctrinal area as the guardian of pure theology and making it my right to rebuke anyone who doesn’t hold every tenet I do! What a poor existence that would be.
matthartke
Friday, April 11, 2008 at 8:02 pm
“You’re confusing “faithfulness” with “merit”. Would you ask your wife when you made your vows at the altar, “I promise to be faithful, but how much faithfulness is enough?” No, of course not. It’s time to take this discussion out of the dark ages…”
I think you’re dodging a question that drives at the heart of your perspective’s fatal flaw. I may not have asked my wife on our wedding day, “How much faithfulness is enough?”, but I certainly had specific things in mind that would necessarily accompany said faithfulness (e.g. monogamous sexual fidelity).
If “faithfulness” is a requirement to remaining in God’s covenant, and true believers (God’s elect) can fail to meet this requirement, how do you define “faithfulness” and how does one know he/she is… faithful enough?
RE: Piper – It still seems odd that you would link to the site of a man who boldly and passionately places the doctrines you so disdain at the center of his ministry.
I view Open Theism with as much disdain (and probably more) as you seem to view the Doctrines of Grace. I guess I can’t imagine wading through Greg Boyd’s bones in order to strain out the few pieces of meat.
Oh well…
P.S. Don’t apologize for being a doctrine cop – that’s exactly what you’re doing here, and there’s nothing wrong with that.
Jim B.
Saturday, April 12, 2008 at 3:39 am
“I think you’re dodging a question that drives at the heart of your perspective’s fatal flaw. I may not have asked my wife on our wedding day, “How much faithfulness is enough?”, but I certainly had specific things in mind that would necessarily accompany said faithfulness (e.g. monogamous sexual fidelity).
If “faithfulness” is a requirement to remaining in God’s covenant, and true believers (God’s elect) can fail to meet this requirement, how do you define “faithfulness” and how does one know he/she is… faithful enough?”
Actually, answering this very question is part of purpose of the series of posts I’m writing right now; so if you would like to have a Biblical discussion over the the content of that series and the conclusions I arrive at therein, feel free to jump in!
“RE: Piper – It still seems odd that you would link to the site of a man who boldly and passionately places the doctrines you so disdain at the center of his ministry.”
I have the rare privilege of knowing many great men and women of God from so many ends of the theological spectrum – from hardcore Calvinist to Open Theist, from Dispensational to Amillennial, from Classic Reformed to NPP, from more Existentialist and experiential worldviews to more Enlightenment influenced intellectual ones – that I believe I have the perspective with which to delineate the importance of the different issues, have positive, mature debates where each individual is mutually strengthened and unoffended, because both approach the debate objectively – letting it take place over the idea in question on the grounds of Biblical interpretation and not sinking to taking punches at one another. I think its entirely possible to hold firm to ones convictions on issues such as these, give impartial arguments for why you land where you do (which is what I seek to do in this blog), and yet be reasonable with others who do not reach the same conclusions. That is what I mean by not being the “orthodoxy police”. If the essentials and ethic end up the same, the differing logical processes of getting there are of secondary importance.
Matt
matthartke
Saturday, April 12, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Hey Matt,
My name is Jordan. You don’t know me but I’m with THOP in NZ. I was looking through you blog to check out your refutation of Sam Storm’s Amillennialism paper when I stumbled across these posts of Imputed Righteousness. I thought I’d drop a few thoughts. Hope to hear back from ya, later bro – Jordan
Justification – Declarative or Actual?
The New Testament teaching of justification can be subdivided into two aspects: the declarative aspect and the actual aspect. Declarative Justification is the act whereby God declares a sinner to be positionally justified. You affirm declarative justification, as do I. However one thing must be noted concerning this: this declarative act is made on the basis of an actual justified constitutive disposition of the one being justified (this is known as Actual Justification).
The New Testament Doctrine of Justification is presented as an amalgamation of the two. We can’t pick and chose one or the other as they are both interdependent upon each other. This is for the following reasons:
God’s Nature requires He justify positionally only those who are just in actuality.
Through sin our relationship to God was lost. Therefore our justification is not only a matter of our judicial position, but also our spiritual relation. Here me out on this point.
Because our justification is not merely dealing with a judicial standing but also a spiritual relationship to a personal God 1) guilt, 2) condemnation and 3) separation must also be dealt with in a constitutive way. God declares us righteous through Jesus because He has made us righteous through Jesus. In the context of justification all of our righteousness is as filthy rags (Is. 64:6). You absolutely cannot separate these two aspects in the act of justification.
It is impossible to be declared justified without actually being found just. It would be terrifying to ascribe an abominable acts like justifying the wicked to God (Prov. 17:15). Therefore one cannot be declared justified if one is not just (Prov. 17:15; Ex. 23:7; Deut. 25:1).
God is a Bridegroom God, but He is also a holy and just Judge. He does not suspend one of His attributes in order that He may exercise another attribute. Therefore these two attributes, though in tension, must be reconciled somehow in the act of justification. All of His ways are like this. He is the One who is as Jasper and Sardius.
The means by which God justifies us in an actual way are threefold.
1) God removes our guilt through imputation.
Justification: The Word – has essentially the same mean as the Hebrew word for justification tsadaq. The background of the New Testament word is found in the Hebrew. A person who is justified is declared to be in conformity with the requirements of the Law. This is true not only of their forensic position but also of their spiritual relation to God. The righteousness of Jesus Christ is reckoned to his account in a relational way so that the declaration of the Judge may be made truly (Rev. 15:3 “just and true are all Your ways”).
2) God removes our condemnation by the gift of forgiveness (Rom. 5:16; 6:23)
3) He removes our separation through the restoration of fellowship.
It is this threefold application of actual justification which declarative justification is contingent upon. You cannot have one without the other.
The Vindication of the Bridal Paradigm
I’ve been in the House of Prayer for three years and am familiar with the Bridal Paradigm. I’m convinced that Actual justification (specifically imputed righteousness) is the greatest vindication of the Bridal Paradigm I know of. The motivation of the Bride of Christ to press on in faith is through His declarations of who She is. It is only through this lens that we can rightly interpret “dark yet lovely”. We are dark in our experience as weak and immature believers, yet we’re lovely in our position in Christ (Rom. 6:11).
And it is only through this reality that the boy straight out of the gutter and into Christ can have the confidence to press on. Knowing that his ability to press forward in the faith, and be pleasing in the sight of God is not wholly contingent upon his ability to hold his weak self in and muster up righteousness of his own. His faith is bolstered at the realization that his salvation and perseverance is found in what Christ accomplished on the cross on his behalf (Rom. 6:5; 7:4).
Jordan
Sunday, October 26, 2008 at 10:31 pm