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)
I wonder if there is a problem in the way we have presented imputation? Not in the substance of the doctrine, or even in the terminology, but in our pedagogical methods. Maybe our presentation has been too shaped by the polemical context. In the late 16th/ early seventeenth century, people like Piscator (and the school of Saumur?) started saying that positive imputation of Christ’s obedience was necessary- all that was needed was his death. That evolved into the position, (Piscator may have held this- I’m not sure; Richard Baxter did I think), that Christ’s death secured only the remission of our sins; it, so to speak, put us into a “neutral” position with God, neither under his wrath or in his favour. For a positive relationship, we had to add our “evangelical righteousness”- our own obedience to the Law, albeit a Law much reduced in severity. This position is coming back in evangelicalism: it was refuted by John Owen in his superb work on justification (volume 5 of the complete works).
The Reformed response was that the cross was not enough; it only secured remission. To gain a “positive” righteous status (which they identified with adoption), the imputation of Christ’s obedience was necessary. This is, I think, broadly correct. But it has the unfortunate effect of making the cross look like a preliminary, and the imputation of Christ’s obedience the climax of justification.
If we follow scripture, and aren’t too fazed by the opposition, then we can put things the other way around. From biblical theology we learn that the Messiah is the Second Adam who succeeds where Adam failed, and so begins a new, righteous human race; that as The Servant of the Lord, he recapitulates the trials of Israel, obeying where they disobeyed; as the Seed of David he is the King who represents his people before God- his fate is their fate. Given this background, it is hard to see how Christ’s obedience could not be imputed to those who are in union with him. That can almost be taken for granted. But that imputation is useless if our sins are still hanging over our head. So then the most wonderful thing of all happens- our sins are imputed to Christ, and he bears the penalty. And we are free to be adopted as God’s righteous sons.
In other words, we shouldn’t say, or seem to say:
“Christ has paid the penalty for us- and more than that, his obedience has been imputed to us!”
We should say:
“Christ’s obedience has been imputed to us- and more than that he has paid the penalty for us!”
I don’t think that changes the substance of Reformed doctrine- and it seems closer to the thrust of scripture.
The other issue here is whether we shouldn’t focus more closely on the cross as the high point of Christ’s obedience. Romans 5:18-19 refers to a singular dikaioma , “act of righteousness” in the ESV. Traditionally, the Reformed have taken this to be the obedience of Christ’s whole life taken as a whole. But John Piper discusses the view that this could refer specifically to the cross. He doesn’t agree himself, but indicates that if it were true, it wouldn’t overthrow his position, merely require a slight adjustment of it. (And see Philippians 2:8). He also makes the point that we can’t draw an artificial line between Christ’s death and the rest of his life.
I’m not sure what the correct exegesis of Romans 5:18 is on this point, but it is certainly helpful to see the obedience of Christ’s whole life which is imputed to us as an obedience that is directed towards the cross. On Sunday evening I’m preaching on Luke 4:1-13. Christ is clearly portrayed as the Second Adam (see 3:38). In each temptation, like Adam & Eve, he has to choose whether to listen to the word of Satan, or the Word of God. He trusts God’s Word, and so obeys. I will preach that as the New Adam, he did this on our behalf. But more is going on. Each time, the devil tempts him to take the easy way out- to avoid hardship that is God’s will, to take an easy shortcut to his kingdom, to avoid the opposition that awaits him in Jerusalem by claiming God’s promise of protection- to avoid suffering and choose the road that leads away from the cross. Christ’s obedience cannot be separated from his choice of the cross. I cautiously suggest (and I’m open to being corrected) that God imputes Christ’s choice of the cross to us.
Ironic. I’m British, and an evangelical, reformed minister in the Church of England. The Anglo-Catholics often accuse us evangelicals of concentrating too much on the cross, and neglecting the value of Christ’s life. Interesting to be accused of doing exactly the opposite!
So who is it then?
I appreciate the insights you shared, including those that relate to the matter of the active and passive obedience of Christ. Personally, I think it can be tough to discern whether a particular passage is referring to Christ's obedience throughout His life (i.e., His sinless life in general) or to His obedience in going to the cross in particular (i.e., in compliance with His Father's will) when sorting out exactly what is imputed to us. Perhaps, at least in some passages, we desire to over-read them, and press them for more than they offer; perhaps we are more eager than the original authors to see fine distinctions.
Of course one thing's for sure: If Jesus had not lived a perfect life and had not been the spotless Lamb of God, then He could not have borne our sins on the cross ... and then there would be no justification for us - including no imputation of His righteousness to us.
I guess I'm just happy to stand upon such truths as: Jesus lived a sinless life, Jesus died a substitutionary death, my sin was charged to Him, His righteousness is credited to me, I am in union with Him, etc. These truths, and many others, we uphold. Perhaps in glory we'll understand some of the issues we wrestle with now.