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)
While it's important to not paint any and all deviation from biblical truth with the same brush (a fault, perhaps, in Piper's book), and in this case to recognize that current debates about imputation and exactly what it entails occur at many subtle levels, it does seem to me that Seifrid deviates not only from the standard Reformed teaching re: justification/imputation in the closing pages of his IVP book on justification, but also (somewhat) from the core of biblical truth. Is his current view any different?
There are times when I think we fail to give the Reformers their due, when it comes to understanding, with precision, the details of a variety of theological issues. At other times, many of their battles were on different fronts, and so they may not have addressed the particular details that concern our generation. Also, I grant that all of our theology needs to be subject to correction, if and when it's out of sorts with that of the biblical authors; so I appreciate refinement.
Personally, though, I'm bothered by the current rage that justification simply amounts (negatively) to acquittal: the non-imputation of sin, and not also (positively) to the crediting of divine righteousness. I realize the issues are complex. And I hope that, having written some things that lead many to wonder exactly what he means, Seifrid will make the effort to clarify.
(Of course, I'm bothered even more by the position of a Gundry ... and still more yet by any unbiblical denial of the forensic nature of justification!)
A good day to all!
...i come back to one of own refrains in all this...the long line of fracture, fissure and schism proves only one thing, even if the immediate topics at hand are seemingly unsettled: the Gospel is an excruciatingly hard thing "to do" or even come by and points up just how alien it is to us. this is not to diminsh its profound simplicity; rather, to simply say we know law very, very well, but gospel...one is amazed God has entrusted it to the totally depraved if it were not for His equally amazing grace.
zrim
For instance, Arians, when they heard the Nicene Orthodox describing Jesus as God, automatically assumed that they were denying that the is also man and in some way in submission to the Father. That wasn't true, becasue Nicene Orthodoxy teaches *BOTH* at the same time.
Rick B: I appreciate your dispensing with the heated rhetoric; believe me: it will help in any future conversations with people with whom you disagree. I speak from experience.
About the quote, though, as i recall, it is by some fellow who was emphasizing union with Christ as the central and defining means of everything that we receive from God. That is to say, as i recall the person writing (and it is really bugging me that i can't remember who it is!), their point was thus: everything we get from God, we get in union with Christ. That includes our righteousness, regeneration, forgiveness, sanctification &c. So, there is no need for a "transfer" of righteousness from Christ to us in some kind of divine book-keeping operation, because we already have the righteousness of Christ by being "in" with him. Imputation in that sense, would be redundant, unnecessary, and, even worse, it implies that we could somehow get Christ's righteousness without being united to him, but rather through some kind of transfer of it.
I honestly believe that much of this whole discussion centers on how one conceives of how we receive salvation from God, whether by being "accounted" by God as Christ is inherently seen, or whether as being "united" to Christ and being seen "in" him. As i said above, i don't find that either is inherently inconsistent with the other, but they are two models, that, at some levels are conceived of in different ways that some people who use the opposing paradigm on either side could see as objectionable in some way. I find it a matter of emphasis and paradigm within the overal Reformed Tradition rather than, as it has been painted by some, a completely different system of theology.
You wrote (concerning the quote): "their point was thus: everything we get from God, we get in union with Christ."
Indeed - but we are united to Christ in his death (vicarious sacrifice) and his life (covenant keeping righteousness). Furthermore, we must be united to Christ in His resurrection and ascension too.
The quote of the post proper seems to be saying that we don't have a need for Christ's covenant obedience - but that all that we need is secured by his death and his death alone (it states: "the blessings of a complete salvation are grounded in the vicarious sacrifice of Christ). This, I think, is different than "everything we get from God, we get in union to Christ." It seems that he is arguing that we only need to be united to one single event in the work of our Savior. But, I would have to see the context of the quote to determine if in fact he is arguing that imputation is just simply redundant in the context of union with Christ or if he regards Christ's obedience as unnecesary. The quote seems to suggest the latter.
Though there is obviously truth and error (thesis and antithesis), I'm a win/win kind of guy - i.e., where there's a both/and instead of an either/or that does justice to Scripture ... I love it! (E.g., the kingdom is not kingdom come OR kingdom coming, but kingdom come AND kingdom coming ... ... ... already and not yet.)
In regard to your specific question, I'm not precisely sure what you mean, but I'll say this: I see no clash between holding to the forensic nature of justification and yet putting a strong emphasis on union with Christ, and the way in which our being in Him relates to our having His righteousness, etc.
I hope I haven't given a wrong impression by bringing up Mark Seifrid. I'm certainly not saying that he's opposed to the juridical nature of justification (any more than Gundry is opposed to it). And I think there's a greater difference between Gundry's view and the standard Reformed view than there is between Seifrid's view and the Reformed view. I agree that all error is not equally erroneous! (If that makes sense!)
But I do think, based on my read of Seifrid's comments near the end of his "Christ, Our Righteousness," makes some statements that at least raise some eyebrows! I also realize that he hiself contributed to the IVP book on justification edited by Husbands, etc. ... and that he's provided some clarification. I also think (as I said in an earlier post) that it's good to bring our beliefs as fully into accord with God's Word as we can, even if it means tweaking some old and cherished views!
But to me, Seifrid's final comments in his book are still confusing and/or off-base (even though, again, not in terms of the legal character of justification).
Sorry for the rush, but I'm in a super, fast-paced mode, just typin' on the fly...
You are right that Seifrid doesn't deny the forensic nature of justification. He explicitly, in his explanation of 2 Cor. 5:21 today, said that disagrees with Gundry's denial of imputation.
If he doesn't completely agree with the Reformed tradition, it is because he sees himself more in line with Martin Luther who emphasized being clothed in Christ's righteousness through our being wed to him. We are one flesh with the risen Christ. All that is his is ours. In Seifrid's mind, this description better fits Paul than money in a bank account apart from Christ. In fact, I don't know of one place where you see imputation described in this way; Christ's righteousness as ours is always seen in light of our being united with his life, death, and present resurrection.
On Seifrid, I'm very encouraged to hear that he does affirm imputation, but thinking that he denies it is a very easy mistake to make after reading "Christ our Righteousness". He could do with making his views a bit clearer in print.
I'm puzzled by the remark:
"If he doesn't completely agree with the Reformed tradition, it is because he sees himself more in line with Martin Luther who emphasized being clothed in Christ's righteousness through our being wed to him". I thought that was what the Reformed believed?
I am not so sure that I agree with Seifrid, but he believes there is a bit of distinction in how the first generation reformer, Martin Luther, explained justification and how later Protestants did. He thinks that later Protestant orthodoxy tended to explain imputation to the believer apart from the resurrected Christ. This is what he argues at the end of "Christ our Righteousness." As I said, I don't know that I completely agree with him putting the first and second generation reformers in antithesis with later Protestant scholasticism. I think this thesis has been thoroughly debunked.
All I am stressing is that Seifrid doesn't deny forensic imputation. He is sometimes very hard to follow and unclear, but he is still orthodox.
But I simply want to address one matter: Just because someone holds (correctly) that justification is a forensic matter (as opposed to other ideas, such as infused righteousness, etc.), doesn't necessarily mean that such an individual holds that justification involves the positive imputation of divine righteousness. In other words, forensic justification does not (as I see it) necessarily logically result in a commitment to forensic imputation.
The reason I say this is because there are several people who regard justification as acquittal/exoneration, in the sense of the non-imputation of sin, who nevertheless do not regard justification as being credited with God's/Christ's righteousness.
I also realize that some folks debate the means by which the imputation of righteousness occurs (e.g., purely in a book-keeping sense, or via union with Christ).
For the record, based on the well-known passages such as II Cor. 5:21, Rom. 5:12-19; plus key verses in Rom. chaps. 3 and 4; Gal. chaps. 2 and 3; Phil. 3:9; etc., I'm personally of the persuasion that just as Adam's sin was charged to us, so our sin was charged to Christ, and His righteousness was credited to us.
Again, a good day to all! And praise God that He is just AND the justifier of the ungodly!