Who Said That?
Wednesday, September 13, 2006 at 02:59PM 
Who Said That?
"There is one fact which is itself conclusive against this doctrine of imputation. It is the fact that the salvation in Christ, both as a present attainment and a future blessedness, has its complete ground in his vicarious sacrifice. A brief statement of facts will show this. Herein we have reconciliation with God; the forgiveness of sin; justification; righteousness; regeneration and a new spiritual life; adoption and heirship; [readiness] for heaven and the possession of a future blessedness. Thus it is that all the blessings of a complete salvation are grounded in the vicarious sacrifice of Christ. Hence there is no place for the imputation of his personal righteousness, and no need of it. Indeed, it is excluded."
You know the drill! No cheating (google searches or otherwise). Leave your answer in the comments section below!
Kim Riddlebarger
This was a tough one . . . Too many of you have been guessing correctly (or using google searches). I need to stretch you all once in a while.
The quote comes from John Miley's Systematic Theology (1894) Vol.II,317. Miley produced the Methodist equivalent of Hodge's Systematic Theology. Warfield thought Miley was an excellent theologian because Miley was willing to go where his Arminianism took him. He not only denied imputation, Miley denied that the atonement was a real satisfaction for sin. Furthermore, Miley also taught that salvation was a real synergism.
I cited this particular section from Miley because it could have come from a number of our evangelical and "Reformed" contemporaries, who defend something very much like what Miley and classical Arminians have always taught.
Reader Comments (42)
That's the first I've ever heard that either of these two men deny imputation. I've certainly never read either of them claim it. It's interesting how far some will go to brand & stereotype those whom they disagree with.
As to the quote, my money is also on Finney.
Dunno.
These things are being addressed in books like IVP's "The Glory of the Atonement" edited by Hill (of"Regnum Caelorum" fame!) and James, and "Justification: What's at Stake in the Current Debates" edited by Husbands and Treier. At the heart of one recent round of debates re: whether or not justification entails the imputation of God's/Christ's righteousness are chapters in the second book by D. A. Carson and Robert Gundry. (John Piper also wrote a little book on this subject: "Counted Righteous in Christ: Should We Abandon the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness?")
There's certainly no end to false doctrine. How devious the enemy is! How vigilant we must be!
zrim
He is actually very Lutheran in his theology. Today he quoted Luther probably ten times to illustrate what Paul is saying in 2 Cor.5:21. He's always emphasizing Christ outside of us, theology of the cross, and a Lutheran distinction of law and gospel.
I pray that no one here associates Mark Seifrid with someone who hates the gospel. I know of no one who more loves the freeness of the gospel. I here more gospel in his class than anywhere else, free, no law-mixed gospel.
He is only trying to connect Christ's righteousness which is ours to our union with him by faith. His point is that saying that we have righteousness in an account somewhere(carrying it in our back pocket) is to separate it from Christ himself who is outside of us in heaven. Instead, the Pauline view is that in our union with Christ we are one. What is His is ours,and what is ours(sin) is His. But we only have his righteousness in our being united to him as a bride to her husband. This is the language that Luther used often, marriage union. He didn't speak of it as an account somewhere that has money in it. Instead, Christ is, in himself, our righteousness, and as long as we grasp onto him and are in union with him, what is his is ours.
This is all Seifrid is trying to say. He says that imputation is fine; it just needs to be understood in a more Pauline way. If you disagree with him or misunderstand him, please be gracious toward him.
It is only similar in that both speak of union with Christ. But Seifrid explicitly denies Osiander's view that we are justified because of the indwelling Christ or God's seeing the indwelling righteousness of Christ. No, Seifrid would say we are justified because of our union with the Christ who is outside of us. We have it in him, not in us. The new creation is with Him in His resurrection. We see it by faith now, but we will experience it in the resurrection.
The language of the quote does sound more 17th or 18th century than current. But it sounds like he's responding to something - responding to accepted Reformed orthodoxy...