Imputation of Christ's Righteousness

I wrote in my last post about the imputation of Adam’s guilt to all mankind. While agreeing that the Bible calls all people sinners and that we all inherit Adam’s tendency to sin, his sin nature if you will, I concluded that I saw no evidence in the Bible, nor any need theologically, for the doctrine that I and all people are born guilty of Adam’s sin. We are all sinners and in need of God’s grace, but I am not guilty of what Adam did. I am still open to interaction on that, but that is where I am now.

Now I want to address the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers. R. C. Sproul describe the difference between the Catholic doctrine and the Evangelical doctrine of justification as follows:

Nor is it sufficient merely to say that Rome teaches that justification means "to make just," while Protestants teach that justification means "to declare just." For Rome God both makes just and declares just. For Protestants God both makes just and declares just -- but not in the same way. For Rome the declaration of justice follows the making inwardly just of the regenerate sinner. For the Reformation the declaration of justice follows the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the regenerated sinner.

So then, in his view (which I think is pretty standard) is that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is not the same as justification, but rather is the basis for justification. Now I am not going to argue for the Catholic view here. Rather I want to argue against the whole system of categories that require me to choose between either basing my justification on some infused justice or on the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.

My thesis is that I am justified by faith. According to Romans 4:3-5, God sees my faith in Christ, and then declares me righteous. This righteousness is not a substance which is given to me, or a credit that is put into some account somewhere. To the extent that Paul uses this language, he seems to be speaking metaphorically.

Part of the problem with this issue revolves around the idea of what righteousness is. I want to define righteousness, whether God’s or ours, as faithfulness to the covenant. This is always how it is understood in the Old Testament. Righteousness is not some abstract idea of goodness or correctness, but refers to the covenant which defines relationship with God. To be justified means that God declares that you are a member in good standing within the covenant community.

In Romans and Galatians, Paul was arguing that under the New Covenant introduced by Christ and confirmed by his death, entrance into the covenant is not based on circumcision, feast days, or eating the right foods. Rather God accepts us by faith. He shows grace to those who simply believe the gospel.

I have read John Piper, Wayne Grudem, Louis Berkhof and others on this issue. The standard passages they show to prove the imputation of Christ’s righteousness are Romans 4:6, 5:19; I Corinthians 1:30, II Corinthians 5:21; and Philippians 3:9. However, in none of these passages do we find the phrase “imputation of (or the verb ‘imputes’) the righteousness of Christ to us (believers).” Now simply because the phrase is not used does not automatically rule out the idea. But we should then look closely to see if we can build the idea from the texts. It is my contention that we can not. The verses simply do not require it.

So what difference does it make theologically to let go of the imputation of Christ's righteousness? Well, the issue is justification and salvation. However, justification is still by faith, by grace, and by Christ. Christ died for my sins and his sacrifice is the basis for God’s offering salvation to me. He shows me grace, I believe in him. He then justifies me and gives more grace and salvation. It seems to me that the idea of the Father’s imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers is not necessary theologically.

My view at this point is that the doctrine of Christ's imputation arose in the context of the reformation debates about justification. The reformers like Luther and Calvin debated with the Catholics and often gave different answers to questions like justification, but did not change the overall conceptual structure in which those answers were put. Thus, in thinking about justification, if our justification is not based on infused righteousness, then on whose righteousness is it based? Well, Christ’s of course! However, I say that the question of whose righteousness it was was related to a conceptual box that did not need to be filled. It is enough to say that God declares us righteous because we believe the gospel. That seems to me to be all that Paul said.