I recently listened to a train wreck of a sermon by a local Purpose Driven pastor. In his 44 minutes on the subject of faith, he achieved the remarkable feat of avoiding any mention of the proper object of Christian faith: Christ, and His life, death and resurrection for sinners.
The pastor defined faith by a number of its purported attributes. The fourth was this:
Faith is giving when I don’t have it.
Let’s leave aside the aspect of ‘giving when I don’t have it’, problematic though that is. There is a more fundamental error lurking in this statement.
Notice that the pastor does not say that faith results in my ‘giving when I don’t have it’. Neither does he state that ‘the kind of faith that justifies produces a desire to give’. Rather, he asserts that faith is giving. This is to confuse faith with the fruit of faith, namely the works that faith produces.
Though it might at first seem as if I am splitting hairs, maintaining the distinction between faith and works – especially with respect to justification – is foundational to a proper understanding of biblical Christianity (cf. the epistles to the Romans, Galatians, etc.). This distinction was a lynchpin of the Reformation. Against the Reformers’ emphasis on justification by grace alone (unmerited favour) through faith alone (apart from works), Rome erroneously insisted that justification is ‘not by faith alone, which some incorrectly teach, but faith that works through love’ (see the Pontifical Confutation of the Augsburg Confession).
One might charitably think that this Purpose Driven pastor had merely been careless in his choice of words. However, his subsequent explanation was entirely consistent with his statement in the precise form in which he made it. He meant exactly what he said. His application was that we should not cling to riches but give to God even what we do not have, and that God would then credit that work of giving as righteousness. He even made this egregious statement:
But Abel offered the first fruits. He gave the best of what he had to God. And it was credited to him as righteousness. You see, tithing is not about impressing your friends. It’s not about satisfying some form of guilt. Tithing is about giving the best of what you have to a God who sees that as righteous.
Misinterpreting and misapplying Hebrews 11:4 in that way is, I suggest, absolutely to include our works in the definition of justifying faith.
When we begin like this to define justifying faith as working (rather than trusting), or, with the equally bad variant, as including (rather than producing) good works, we have placed ourselves firmly in opposition to the biblical doctrine of the Reformers and aligned ourselves with the enemies of the Gospel.
Compare the Reformer Philip Melanchthon’s definition of faith, given in his refutation of Rome’s response to the Augsburg Confession’s article on justification (emphasis mine):
The adversaries imagine that faith is only a knowledge of the history of Christ. Therefore, they teach that it can coexist with mortal sin. They say nothing about faith, by which Paul so frequently says that people are justified. For those who are counted as righteous before God do not live in mortal sin. But the faith that justifies is not merely a knowledge of history. It is to believe in God’s promise. In the promise, for Christ’s sake, forgiveness of sins and justification are freely offered. And so that no one may suppose that this is mere knowledge, we will add further: it is to want and to receive the offered promise of forgiveness of sins and of justification.
Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions (ed. Paul Timothy McCain; St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2005), 89.
That is a concise and biblically accurate definition of the faith that justifies.
Melanchthon immediately goes on to contrast this justifying trust in God’s promise (specifically, the promise of forgiveness of sins and justification) with the righteousness of the Law (i.e. a righteousness derived from works):
The difference between this faith and the righteousness of the Law can be easily discerned. Faith is the divine service (latreia) that receives the benefits offered by God. The righteousness of the Law is the divine service (latreia) that offers to God our merits. God wants to be worshiped through faith so that we receive from Him those things He promises and offers.
Faith, then, offers nothing to God. Rather, it receives from Him what He has graciously promised. To worship God in spirit and in truth is to receive from Him, by faith, the benefits of Christ’s finished work.
Our works, our obedience can never be the cause for our justification (right-standing) before God – not least because we can never keep God’s Law perfectly and so all that we do is tainted with sin. Considered on their own merits outside of Christ, even our best works deserve God’s condemnation.
Rather, we are declared to have a right-standing before God by faith in God’s promise to us in Christ. Christ’s perfect righteousness is put to our account by our trusting in Christ’s finished work for us – His life, death and resurrection for us. It is a righteousness from God that He accounts to us by grace through faith, absolutely apart from anything we do. And even the faith that grasps hold of God’s promise is itself a gracious gift to us from God.
These truths are succinctly stated by Paul, writing to the Ephesians (emphasis mine):
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. Eph. 2:9
Consider too these verses from John’s Gospel:
Then they said to Him, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God?”
Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent.”
John 6:28–29
Notice how Jesus confounds and reverses the expectations of his questioners. What counts is not the works (plural) that they do for God, but the work (singular) that God must do in them. And what is that work wrought by God? Nothing other than our belief (having faith) in His Son. As R.C.H. Lenski comments on v. 29:
Faith is here called a “work” in a peculiar sense, differentiating it entirely from “works” as righteous acts of ours. We, indeed, must do the believing, but our believing is the work of God. We trust, but God kindles that trust in us.
Compare v. 37, “All that the Father giveth me shall come unto me”; v. 44, “No man can come to me, except the Father which sent me draw him.” Faith is “of the operation of God,” Col. 2:12.
Hence faith is not “the fundamental virtue” from which the other works flow. Faith is the opposite of all other works. For faith receives from God; the other works make return to God.
All law works (works of unregenerate men) are the very opposition of faith, for by such works men would climb to heaven on their own merit, without a Savior and without faith. All Christian good works do, indeed, spring from faith, like fruit from a good tree, but always and only from a faith which already has Christ, salvation, life eternal, and needs no good works to merit these treasures which never can be merited.
R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. John’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961), 455.
In his wonderful letter to the Romans, Paul carefully distinguishes between faith and works (again, my emphasis):
But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.
Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law
Rom. 3:21–31
But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin.”Rom. 4:5–8
Faith, biblically speaking, is thus a confident trust (itself given by God) in the promise of God to us – specifically, in the promise of forgiveness of sins and justification for the sake of Christ Jesus.
To have faith in Christ – to trust exclusively in the merits of His work – is the complete opposite of our placing any reliance whatsoever upon our own works. To include the things we do in any definition of justifying faith is therefore utterly to destroy its very essence and saving power.
Although faith most certainly does result in our producing good works, we must be ever watchful against including works of any kind in the definition of faith itself, lest we fall into the heresy that Paul refuted in his Epistle to the Galatians.
So, what of the errant Purpose Driven pastor who has confused faith and works, and thus preached a false gospel that cannot save? The good news for him – and for all of us – is that there is most certainly forgiveness of sins for all those who are trusting in Christ alone – yes, even for those who have erred concerning the central doctrines of the Faith once delivered. May God in His gracious mercy grant that we each repent and believe this Good News: Jesus Christ crucified for sinners and raised for our justification.
Postscript
The unhappy irony of my listening to the sermon in question was that this pastor’s preaching had been specifically commended to me as being solid and gospel-focused. I’d subsequently listened to the sermon with the hope that I could build bridges by finding something positive and encouraging to say about it. I also listened to the only other sermon by the same pastor that was available from the fellowship’s website, but that was equally problematic.
Out of concern, and as a matter of courtesy, I some time ago brought the problems with this sermon to the attention of an elder of the fellowship concerned, Living Hope Community Church, Isle of Man. Living Hope is self-professedly Purpose Driven.
In the following post, Christ, Our Exceedingly Great Reward, I consider the true meaning of Hebrews 11:4. In the post after that, Cain and Abel, Law and Gospel, I take a closer look at the Genesis 4 account of Cain and Abel misused by this Purpose Driven pastor.
Need to distignuish “initial justification” versus “perpetual justification.” How do you deal with James’ statements that Faith without works is dead? I do not think James would find your far too strict and unnecessary definition of Faith to be the same as his. It’s writing like this that allows Christians to see that their sins do not county against their salvation, that no matter what they do, your definition of Faith is going to keep them saved. This is foolish and unbibilical. Paul asks the question you have not answered…”Should we continue in sin that grace may abound?” How do you deal with that? Your hyper-careful definition of Faith has thrown out so much of what the Bible does say about how to continue to be saved.
Duane, thank you for visiting and leaving your comment.
How do I deal with James’ statements that faith without works is dead?
I deal with those in precisely the same way as did the Reformers, by asserting that faith alone saves, but that saving faith is never alone. That is, we are justified before God by grace alone through faith alone, but justifying faith inevitably results in the fruit of good works. Understood in context, James is arguing that faith is evidenced by good works (i.e. that faith produces good works, exactly as I asserted above in my post). Any other formulation sets Paul against James, and cannot therefore be correct. (Assuming, of course, that one holds a proper view of the inspiration of Scripture.)
Although they are distinct, justification and sanctification, faith and works, are inseparably connected. On the relation of justification to ‘renewal’ (that is, sanctification in the narrow sense), the Formula of Concord states (my emphasis):
The question at hand is this: ‘Are good works necessary to salvation?’
This is not a new question, and it may be instructive to see how the Reformers answered it. Here is how Epitome of the Formula of Concord understands the biblical doctrine of the historic orthodox Christian faith on this matter:
To summarize the Epitome, it is proper to say that ‘Good works are necessary’ for a Christian, but it is an error to assert that ‘Good works are necessary for salvation’.
(Incidentally, the futility of the recent Lordship Salvation debate – e.g. between John MacArthur and the late Zane C. Hodges – is hereby demonstrated. These issues were raised, discussed and definitively settled from Scripture at the time of the Reformation.)
Here is Calvin commenting on James 2:20–21:
James is thus properly understood as arguing that justifying faith is evidenced by the works that it produces. A so-called faith that does not produce good works is, in fact, no faith at all. This is entirely in harmony with Paul’s assertions that we are justified by faith alone apart from works, and consistent with what I have written in my post.
To address directly Paul’s question, then, ‘What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?’ With Paul and the Reformers, I answer, ‘Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?’ (Rom. 6:1)
To think that a Christian would wish to continue in sin is to miss entirely the nature and point of salvation. The justified are regenerate, a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17). We are the workmanship of God, ‘created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them’ (Eph 2:10). We now ‘delight in the law of God according to the inward man’, even as we ‘see another law in [our] members, warring against the law of [our] mind, and bringing [us] into captivity to the law of sin which is in [our] members’ (Rom. 7:22–23). To wish to continue in sin is thus to demonstrate that one does not have justifying faith and that therefore one is not justified.
On a not unrelated topic, you may also find my post on sanctification (and the attending comments) to be helpful: Some Preliminary Musings on Sanctification.
Good rebuttal by BetterThanSacrifice to the “initial justification” versus “perpetual justification” argument. It is evident that the whole PD paradigm is oriented to works salvation, not biblical salvation by faith. After all, if the gospel is downplayed in their messages (as is the sin which made Christ’s work on the cross necessary), it follows that all they have left for their hope is to earn God’s favor with works.
That said, This statement by makes me wonder:
“So, what of the errant Purpose Driven pastor who has confused faith and works, and thus preached a false gospel that cannot save? The good news for him – and for all of us – is that there is most certainly forgiveness of sins for all those who are trusting in Christ alone – yes, even for those who have erred concerning the central doctrines of the Faith once delivered.”
I understand the notion of being saved in spite of less-than-perfect doctrine (since no mere human HAS perfect doctrine). But, you may be giving that PD pastor too much credit. If he preaches salvation by faith plus works, by definition he is NOT “trusting in Christ alone”, and is therefore believing (ntm preaching) a false gospel which cannot save. That “faith plus works” gospel won’t save PD people any more than it will save Roman Catholics.
One cannot compromise doctrine simply because one’s own doctrine can’t be perfect.
Chuck,
Thank you for making that point. I agree with you, and appreciate this opportunity for clarification.
I am certainly concerned for the eternal welfare of anyone who who seems confused (or, worse, is teaching falsely) on the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone – especially so if that person is an elder who, biblically speaking, is required as a qualification of his office to be:
1. ‘skilful in teaching’ (1 Tim. 3:2);
2. able to ‘Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching’ (2 Tim. 4:2)
3. ‘diligent to present [himself] approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.’ (2 Tim. 2:15)
Without wishing to speak to the standing of the pastor before God, I was therefore careful to include in my statement of good news the qualifier ‘for those who are trusting in Christ alone’, together with a prayer that God would grant repentance and faith in the true Gospel. The pastor’s sin, grave though it is, is not unforgivable.
(Incidentally, this article is a reworking and expansion of some notes that I prepared primarily for the elder at the fellowship in question to whose attention I brought this sermon. My reason for writing those notes was a concern for him, for the pastor who gave the sermon, for the other pastors/elders there, and also for their congregations. My prayer is that God will grant that eldership cause to reconsider their doctrine and practice.)
Grace and peace.
Please forgive me, BetterThanSacrifice.
I looked again, and I realize that I may have misread you. It seemed as though you were saying “That PD pastor is saved even though he believes in ‘faith plus works’ salvation”. But I see you could have meant “That PD pastor could BE saved by repenting of his false gospel and believing the REAL gospel”. Is that what you meant?
If so, I apologize for the lecture.
Our comments crossed 🙂
But yes, that is broadly what I meant. I didn’t wish to address the standing of the pastor before God, but I also did not want to neglect to proclaim the Gospel.
And, if you had need of my forgiveness, you would have it, but there truly is not – if there was confusion, the fault is mine for not having expressed myself more clearly.
It seems that the problem in contemporary Christianity is not that people misunderstand Faith and Works….it is to get them to show forth any works at all. Complacency….indifference….and extremely shallow faith is the norm. Many people that claim to be Christians believe that are so by virtue of the fact that they “believe in God.” James 2:19 handles that one. James also deals directly with what you are putting out. The effect of what you are writing has even further removes the necessity of works in the scheme of Christianity. Taken to the extreme….the Christian acknowledges that he/she has NOTHING to do with their Faith/salvation…..woo hoo, okay….and basically what? What about producing fruit? What about pure religion of visiting the sick and widows? So that has NOTHING to do with our salvation….yes it does, it certainly does. Can one lose their faith through willful sin, yes they can. How are you helping Christians to do more in their Faith…..you seem to be further removing any reason to do anything at all. Can you distinguish between Faith “en perpetuo” versus the initial saving Faith? If they are the same….then your argument is without merit, utterly. Don’t you think that there are things that a Christian does that counts as fruit in the kingdom, influence, encouragement, teaching, preaching. helping the poor. Or are you so concerned with your pure definition of Faith that you are jettisoning works altogether. You are harming, not helping, the poor state of Christianity in this country by writing things like this. I’m glad it is sufficiently cluttered so as to not be clear to even me, a seminary trained preacher. Where is your Greek?
Duane,
My primary concern here is that people not trust in a false gospel that will send them to hell.
The purpose of my post above is therefore to make the critical distinction between faith and its fruit, in opposition to the deadly false teaching that our works contribute to our justification. I am not addressing a merely hypothetical problem, but the real one of a false gospel (which is actually no gospel at all) being preached in a local congregation here in the Isle of Man.
Nowhere do I deny that faith produces good works. Indeed, I have clearly and repeatedly asserted, both in the article and in these comments, that justifying faith does produce good works. I have also quoted from the Reformers to the same effect, and clearly stated that I agree with James that a so-called faith that is not evidenced by works is in fact, no faith at all, but dead. Simply, then, I have not said what you keep claiming that I have.
With respect to your concern about a lack of fruit, I agree that this is a significant problem in the contemporary visible church. But my analysis differs from yours. I would argue that the problem stems precisely from a failure to preach the whole counsel of God – both Law and Gospel, rightly divided. Law, that comfortable sinners may be frightened, and Gospel, that frightened sinners may be comforted.
The result is that many in the visible church are not sheep at all, but deluded goats, and that the sheep are starved of the Gospel, which is the only power of salvation that gives us strength to do good works and to abstain from evil. The pitiful state of the visible church today is the result of exactly the kind of preaching that you seemingly advocate, which itself arises from a confusion on the distinction between Law and Gospel, faith and works.
That type of preaching castrates the Law, such that it neither convicts of sin nor shows us the true biblical standards of holy living required by the thrice-holy God. It turns the fearsome thunderings of a Law-that-no-man-can-keep into a gentle 5-step plan for self-improvement. It twists the Gospel, robbing it of its glory and power, making it little more than a saccharine message of God’s wonderful plan for our lives (if only we will get busy with works), rather than the awesome Good News that, despite our being wretched sinners at war with God and deserving objects of His wrath (Eph. 2:3), with nothing to offer God except our sin (Rom. 3:9–20), He nevertheless loved the world so much that the Father sent His only begotten Son to live, die and rise again for sinners, purchasing and accomplishing by His blood not only the justification, but also the sanctification and glorification (Heb. 10:10–14; Rom. 8:30) of all whom He chose before the foundation of the world to save (Eph. 1:4).
You seem to have no confidence at all in the power of the proclaimed Gospel (Rom. 1:16), nor that the Holy Spirit works regeneration, faith and repentance through the hearing of the word of Christ (Rom. 10:17), that the faith thus given certainly produces good works, nor that the Word of God is, as the writer to the Hebrews says, ‘living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart’ (Heb. 4:12).
Again, I suggest that you read my article, Some Preliminary Musings on Sanctification. The Power of the Gospel might also bring some clarity. I’d also recommend that you read C.F.W. Walther’s Law and Gospel (CPH’s Reader’s Edition is very well done). Even though Walther goes on a misguided anti-Reformed rant around the middle of that work, the clarity that he brings to the proper interpretation of the Bible is invaluable.
Mr. Neades….I do not accept an answer from Luther, or Calvin, or from their writings. I do not ascribe to their answers as authoritative, as you apparently do. I would like to see Biblical answers, from the Greek sir. Critical assumption at work here….justification and sanctification are mutually exclusive? You assume, qua Luther, that this is so. I do not accept this assumption as it is not from the Bible. I do not see Paul or James assuming that….at all. That is Luther’s position on the text, from Luther’s assumption, in Luther’s historical setting. Luther is Luther, and nothing more.
I count Luther and Calvin – and, indeed, any human writer – as authoritative only in so far as they accurately represent and explain what the Scriptures teach. When I quote from them or from the historic creeds and confessions of Faith, I do so because I believe they succinctly and clearly express particular biblical truths, and to demonstrate that what I am claiming is not of my own invention, but firmly within the bounds of the biblical understanding held by the historic orthodox Christian Church. My allegiance is to Scripture alone as the sole final authority on matters of salvation, faith and life. As the Westminster Confession of Faith states (ch. I):
Nevertheless, though Scripture is the sole final authority, I value those men who, throughout the history of the Church, have faithfully and diligently sought to understand and explain what the Scriptures teach. Though I may disagree at points with the likes of Luther and Calvin, it befits a student of the Word to listen with humility to the great theologians of the past, and to search the Scriptures to find out whether what they taught is so.
As to your desire to see biblical answers, I can only assume that the many Scriptures I have cited in this and my other articles must have somehow escaped your attention. And, with respect, it is you who have set yourself up in opposition to the Reformers’ recovery of the historic orthodox Christian Faith ‘once for all delivered to the saints’, and thus upon you that the burden must fall to prove your position from the Scriptures. Which, I note you have not attempted to do, preferring instead merely to reiterate your unsubstantiated opinions.
As to ‘justification and sanctification being mutually exclusive’, I cannot imagine what can have caused you to believe that I ‘assume, qua Luther, that this is so’. I have certainly written no such thing, and you cannot have read much of Luther if you believe that he thought this to be the case. Rather, I assert that justification and sanctification (in its narrow sense) are distinct concepts, but that nonetheless they belong together in one who is regenerate (and so are in no sense ‘mutually exclusive’), such that he who is justified will surely also be sanctified. As I explained in my post on sanctification:
As Paul says,
Finally, I believe I have given you ample opportunity here to air your views and correct me from Scripture if I have erred. Therefore, to avoid fruitless argument, this is the last comment of yours that I shall post. You are, of course, entirely free to demonstrate my ignorance through your exegetical prowess on your own blog 🙂
Daniel…
Thank you for your reply to Mr. Estill. I admire your patience. His post is so full of error that I had to ask the Lord’s forgiveness for my reaction to it. (I got your “Greek” right here, pal…)
Or maybe it was “righteous indignation”. I have trouble telling the difference, sometimes. Nevertheless, I would like to thank Mr. Estill for providing us with a vivid example of how the
leaven of works (self) righteousness infiltrates human thinking regarding salvation. “Just a little, law, just to keep us in line…” But a little leaven leavens the whole lump.
Regarding the “Christian service” issue (or the perceived lack of it), we don’t see much of what is actually done by Christians. Christians performing genuine Spirit-led service don’t “sound a trumpet” when they serve, so there’s much going on that escapes public notice. By the same token, it’s a dubious practice to judge “Christian activity” by how many are enrolled in church “programs”.
That said, I would like to submit that there is yet ANOTHER reason that true Christian service is not greater than it actually is: The legalism demonstrated in Mr. Estill’s posts. It is rampant within “evangelicalism”. It is burdensome, and stifles spirit-led service.
I fell into such reasoning for many years. It choked out my service for the Lord completely. I was under constant anxiety about whether I was “busy enough” to be saved, or at least to remain saved. It wasn’t until I realized that, not only could I NOT earn my salvation (I already knew that), but I could NOT REIMBURSE God for it. In short, I began to rest TOTALLY in Christ’s finished sacrifice for my salvation. It was ONLY then that I began to experience that peace that passes all understanding, along with which came a POSITIVE desire to serve the Lord in some way. Not because of necessity, but out of love for God, and a desire to spread the gospel in which I was (finally) resting. Before that it was, “Yeah I’m saved by faith, but I gotta get some works under my belt to make sure. Gotta make it worth God’s while.” As long as I was in that state to any degree, I was incapable of Spirit-led service.
Mr. Estill said, “[by] Faith…..you seem to be further removing any reason to do anything at all.”
Not at all, Mr. Estill. The believer’s “reason to do anything at all” is not LAW (I must), but LOVE, a positive desire formed in us by The Holy Spirit. It is formed in those who have believed in Christ’s blood, shed for their own personal sake, applied to them by simple faith in that sacrifice, as the ENTIRE payment for their COMPLETE salvation. Faith removes any FLESHLY, legalistic reason for service. Our service as Christians is to be motivated by “faith working through love” (Gal. 5:6), not guilt working through fear, or duty working through legalism. It’s not that works are NECESSARY for the believer. It’s that works are INEVITABLE.
Besides choking out true service, the big problem with works done to “make sure I’m not a lazy Christian” is that they insult the Spirit of grace. It’s as if we would suppose that–while works don’t SAVE us, yet we MUST HAVE SOME to be or remain saved (or to prove that we ever were saved, if you prefer). It’s a statement that we really don’t think Christ’s sacrifice on the cross is enough to save us COMPLETELY–forever. It’s like grabbing a handful of the worst filth that could emanate from our fallen flesh, holding it under God’s nose, and saying, “Here. I know I’m saved by grace, but here’s something of mine to seal the deal, just to show how dedicated I am.” I can’t imagine a greater insult to God than the notion that His Son’s sacrifice wasn’t QUITE enough to save totally.
Bottom line: We must enter the Lord’s REST before we CAN serve Him in the Spirit. I hope Mr. Estill enters that rest, otherwise, he’s just spinning his wheels, at best.
Thank you for your indulgence, Daniel. Sorry for the CAPS. I haven’t figure out how to do italics for emphasis on this site.
Chuck,
Thank you so much for those further comments. I think you hit the nail on the head with this:
There’s a related error, which is to think that Jesus did away with our sins (leaving us neutral before God at conversion), but that we then need to do good works to earn God’s positive favour and make Him pleased with us. A milder form (which is pretty much what you also describe) is to think that we are given God’s favour at conversion, but then have to maintain that by means of works.
Both errors are to focus on the forgiveness of sins but to neglect that Scripture also teaches that Christ’s perfect righteousness is put to our account through faith. We are both forgiven and justified, and to forget about the justification is to miss the true power and glory of the Gospel. God is already fully pleased with us through faith, for the sake of His Son – we are clothed with the righteousness of Christ, and God sees us with the same favour as if we ourselves had Christ’s own perfect obedience. Indeed, our own good works – stained with sin as they are – are only acceptable to God because we ourselves have already been accepted by Him in Christ. More on that in the next post!
Another problem is thinking that God somehow needs our good works. He doesn’t. But our neighbour must surely does, and it is a privilege and joy to be used by God as the instrument of His love in the service of our neighbour.
I completely agree with your bottom line, too – nicely put.
By the way, you can do italic emphasis by surrounding text with the ‘em’ element, <em>like this</em>.
Grace and peace.
Daniel…
Many thanx for the html tip. I should know some of that after surfing the web tubes for 12+years, shouldn’t I?
I’m always glad to find somebody on the ‘net who “gets it” about walking under grace, not law. So many Christians don’t. But, you’ve puzzled me with the statement below:
“God sees us with the same favour as if we ourselves had Christ’s own perfect obedience.”
That sounds like the idea that Christ’s obedience under the Law, before His death, is imputed to us (known as “the Doctrine of Vicarious Law Keeping”). Is that what you meant, or have I misread you again?
I know that God places us (believers) in Christ, since we were placed there when we believe–passing from death to life in the risen Christ. Our Lord certainly did obey the Law perfectly; He had to be the perfect Sacrifice. But I can’t find any Scripture which says Christ’s perfect obedience during His life under the Law, before the cross, is in any sense substitutionary.
If you’re wondering what I’m getting at, try this link:
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/reformed/vicarlaw.htm
Anyway, thanks again for your kind responses. This blog must keep you very busy.
Chuck,
Interesting question, thank you 🙂
You have not misread me, I meant exactly what you understood me as meaning. And, given that my doctrine on this is firmly in the Reformation traditions (with the Reformed and Lutherans being in agreement on this point), it’s not at all surprising that someone who doesn’t like Reformed Theology on this would teach to the contrary of what I have asserted.
Now, as to the interpretation of Rom. 5:19, I understand the point that the author of the article at your link is making. The question is whether both Christ’s active obedience (His sinless life and fulfilling of all the Law’s demands) and passive obedience (His suffering and death on the cross to pay the penalty of the Law) are imputed to us, or his passive obedience only. To answer your enquiry therefore, we need to show:
i) that this writer’s interpretation of Rom. 5:19 as definitively excluding Christ’s active obedience is at least not the only way of reading that verse. (Incidentally, I don’t think he’s actually demonstrated his point so much as merely asserted it.)
ii) that there is a positive Scriptural basis for believing that Christ’s active obedience is accounted to us.
First, a rhetorical question, before I quote you some sources: If we are in Christ through faith, if God counts us as righteous because we are in Christ, if indeed we are thereby robed in His righteousness (Is. 61:10; Gal. 3:27; Eph. 4:24; Phil. 3:9; etc.), on what grounds does one separate the active and passive righteousness of Christ and say that, while His passive righteousness is imputed to us, His active righteousness is not? How is it even possible divide the imputation of Christ’s righteousness in this way? And how can we divide Christ? Are we not in Him, in Christ with all His merits? Hold that thought.
Lenski, as a first rate Greek scholar, is helpful on Rom. 5:19. He translates Rom. 5:18–19 like this:
And with that translation and understanding of the text, the arguments of your writer suddenly start to appear somewhat shaky. I’d also want to question his interpretation of Phil. 2:8. Here’s Lenski again, translating Phil. 2:5–8 (original emphasis):
The point here that Paul is making is not simply that Christ obeyed the Father by His ‘one act of redemption which took place on Calvary’s cross’ (as your writer puts it), but that Christ’s obedience was not only in his taking the form of a slave, but extended even unto the extreme of death on a Cross. It is most certainly a perfect obedience that extends ‘as far as death’, but it is more than that encompassed by the death itself. The notion of obedience is, after all, first introduced here with the mention of ‘slave’ – a slave is one who is obedient to his master’s bidding. Phil. 2:5–8 thus encompasses both Christ’s active and passive obedience – everything from His incarnation up to and including His scandalous death on a cross, where he became one accursed of God for us (Deut. 21:23; Gal. 3:13; 2 Cor. 5:21). (Not merely an obedience ‘as far as death’, then, but even as far as the utterly offensive death on a cross as one accursed by God!)
Back to Rom. 5:19. Lenski’s commentary on that verse begins (my bold emphasis):
I think Lenski at least demonstrates there that there is no intrinsic reason why Rom. 5:19 should be taken as limiting the grounds of our justification to Christ’s passive obedience only. Yes, it is absolutely true that there are clear Bible passages that ascribe our justification to his shedding of His blood and death. But they do not contradict or exclude those that teach His active obedience for us. The whole active work that was begun with the incarnation – Christ’s fulfilling of the Law – was finished on the Cross.
Now, as to Scriptures that positively teach that Christ’s active obedience is also for us, the Lutheran Reformers began with Gal. 4:4–5. Here’s a (lengthy) extract from Franz Pieper on this:
Having seen the Lutheran perspective, a Reformed voice is also useful. Here is Berkhof saying much the same thing, for example:
The Reformed confessions and catechisms state the matter simply. From The Belgic Confession, article 22:
The Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 60:
And the Westminster Confession of Faith, ch. XI section 3:
Well, there is much more that could be said, but I hope that the above at least provides some grounds for further contemplation. I suppose that I could interact with the arguments of, say, MacDonald presented in that link you gave (e.g. that if Christ’s perfect keeping of the law’ were imputed to us, then it would not have been necessary for Christ to die), but they seem so self-evidently flawed that they need not detain us here. (In this particular case, for example, MacDonald neglects to observe that there are two aspects to justification. The negative, in that our sin must be taken away – this is ‘the remission of sins on the ground of the atoning work of Jesus Christ’, as Berkhof puts it. And the positive, in that we need imputed to us a positive righteousness not our own. Both are required for our justification, understood in its wider sense. The problem again arises from trying to separate Christ’s active and passive obedience.)
This, of course, isn’t the place for a thorough treatment of this topic, and neither am I qualified to give one. But it seems to me that the Reformation traditions capture the Biblical doctrine on this matter, and I am content therefore to interpret the Scriptures in line with those traditions.
Only sporadically – I utterly neglect it for long stretches of time 🙂
Chuck,
A further thought. It occurs to me that some of Lenski’s comments on Gal. 4:4 might also be helpful:
Daniel…
Thank you for your response to my post of Sept. 9 with your post of Sept 11. (I wanted to respond to that directly, but I found no “reply” button for the Sept 11 post.)
You certainly went to a lot of trouble in your response. That’s what I call “blogger dedication”! I would like to post a proper response to your points, but that will take me a little time. There are Biblical refutations of all the points and quotes you cited, but it will take me awhile to decide where to begin, much less put it all together.
My response will be forthcoming, Lord willing. Thanks again.
Grace and peace to you.
Hi Chuck,
Thank you for those further thoughts. It’s an interesting and important topic.
Two administrative points:
1. The lack of a Reply button on the particular comment is because there’s a limit to the depth that comments can nest – otherwise, one ends up with very thin columns of text.
2. Comments stay open on posts here for two weeks, after which they close. That’s not an attempt to rush you, but just to let you know 🙂
Grace and peace.
Daniel…
I congratulate you on your endurance and patience. I’ll get right to it. In your last reply, you said:
“Now, as to the interpretation of Rom. 5:19, I understand the point that the author of the article at your link is making… therefore, we need to show: i) that this writer’s interpretation of Rom. 5:19 as definitively excluding Christ’s active obedience is at least not the only way of reading that verse.”
Here’s how Rom. 5:18 reads from the NASB:
“So then, as through one transgression, there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.”
That reads pretty clearly to me. It sets one condemning act against one justifying act. Given that the definitive Gospel statements by Paul (and others) throughout the New Testament begin with the death of Christ (there is no mention of His law-keeping in any substitutionary sense that I’m aware of), it’s obvious that the “one act of righteousness” referred to is Christ’s death. I see nothing in the verse or its context to warrant bringing in Christ’s acts of obedience under the Law. What’s dealt with here is the Two Men; their similar single acts and their opposite effects. The point of the passage is to compare and contrast one thing against one other thing. Whether the two Men (Adam vs. Christ) or their two representative acts (Adam’s forbidden-fruit eating vs. Christ’s death) or the two outcomes (condemnation to all vs. justification for all), the comparison involves one thing to one other (comparable but opposite in effect) thing; one representative act as against one other representative act. Just as our individual sins are not in view in Rom. 5:12-19, neither is Christ’s perfect obedience before the cross.
Re: The quote from Lenski:
“The fact that Adam’s was a single act and Christ’s an action that continued through his whole life (obedientia activa et passiva) until he cried: “It is finished!” on the cross should not cause confusion”.
Well, what might “cause confusion” here is the effort by Lenski to massage a Reformed view into the text. Apparently, Lenski misses the significance of the word “one” (Greek: “henos” in the text used for the AV) before the word translated “act of righteousness” (Greek: “dikaiOmatos”) in verse 18. Seems that makes his translation somewhat… strained (or flat out wrong).
Yes, the word “dikaiOmatos” can be translated more than one way. My concordance for the NASB lists seven different ways, including “justification”, “ordinance”, and “requirement”. But the context of any word also affects its proper translation, and in Rom. 5:18 the NASB translators translate it as a singular “act of righteousness”.
So, did the NASB guys get it wrong? Are they the only ones who render the text that way? Let’s look at a couple other Bible translations…
The ESV:
“Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.”
The NKJV:
“Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.”
The NKJV gets it a little muddled compared to the other two translations (and the Online Interlinear New Testament) by connecting the word “one” to the word “Man’s” instead of to the “righteous act”. Nevertheless, even here the word “act” is singular! Even the NKJV guys translate the ACT as singular. Sounds like “one act”—not a life of acts—to me.
So you think “Lenski at least demonstrates there that there is no intrinsic reason why Rom. 5:19 should be taken as limiting the grounds of our justification to Christ’s passive obedience only.”? Forgive my “bluntitude”, but it looks to me as though Lenski is the one who hasn’t “actually demonstrated his point so much as merely asserted it”, if I may borrow a phrase. Actually, examples of not “demonstrate[ing] [a] point so much as merely assert[ing] it” abound in the sources you cited. For example…
Lenski again:
“It is asserted that Scripture ascribes the redemption of man to the shedding of the blood of Christ, to the obedientia passiva. Answer: It does indeed, but not exclusively. While certain passages, for instance, 1 Pet. 1:19; Col. 1:14, place the obedientia passiva in the foreground, other passages, for instance, Rom. 5:18–19; Ps. 40:6–8, ascribe redemption to the obedientia activa.”
This is astounding. I have just pointed out how that Rom. 5:18 refers to Christ’s “one act of righteousness”, not to the life of obedient acts of Christ. It’s there, “in the Greek” (as Mr. Estill prefers). If I get it, anybody should get it. Talk about asserting a point without demonstrating it! How about asserting a point in direct contradiction of the passage referenced? Just amazing!
As for Ps. 40:6-8, there is likewise nothing about Christ’s life of Law-keeping there; such must be read into the passage to “find” it. Vs. 8 reads, “I delight to do Thy will, O my God.” (NASB). Indeed Jesus did the Father’s will, which was dying for the sin of the world. Jesus, in His life under the Law, certainly kept the Law perfectly; as God the Son it would not be Christ’s will (or in His nature) to sin. But the Father’s will was that Christ should die in our place. So our Lord prayed “yet, not My will, but Thine be done”. (Luke 22:42) Our Lord told His disciples repeatedly that His purpose in coming to earth as a Man was to die. They didn’t catch that until after the Resurrection.
You took so much trouble, Daniel, so let’s look briefly at your other sources.
Berkhof:
“There is also a positive element in justification which is based more particularly on the active obedience of Christ. Naturally they who, like Piscator and the Arminians, deny the imputation of the active obedience of Christ to the sinner, thereby also deny the positive element in justification.”
I’ll say this for Berkhof, he sure is efficient. In merely two sentences he makes two false statements. His first statement assumes what he’s trying to prove (per your above phrase), and he fails to prove it later. His second statement regarding “they” makes a false accusation against “them”. For instance, the writers cited (in that link I gave you) do anything but “deny the positive element in justification.” They fully support “the positive element in justification.” They do differ with the Reformed view, pointing out that—according to Scripture—the positive aspect of justification is Christ’s resurrection, not His Law-keeping! It is Berkhof who denies the real “positive element in justification”. As for the Arminians, I’m not in the habit of defending their theology. But, hey, nobody gets everything wrong, do they? (That’s my rhetorical question.)
The Belgic Confession, article 22:
“But Jesus Christ is our righteousness in making available to us all his merits and all the holy works he has done for us and in our place.”
Here we have more assertions without Biblical foundation. We’re supposed accept that just because they wrote it down? I suppose they were “clergy” who wrote that confession. Sounds like it.
I won’t waste (more) space by re-posting the complete quote from The Heidelberg Catechism, Q. 60. Anyone wishing to reference that can check your post. I will note that the Scripture passage within it cited for support (2nd Cor. 5:21) actually refutes their premise! There is no mention in 2nd Cor. 5:21 of Christ “keeping the Law” for us. It says He was made sin for us! He suffered the penalty due us; receiving God’s wrath against sin. That is His one righteous act of obedience. He was submitting to the Father’s will, by dying in our place. There is no “law keeping” in that verse.
Re: the additional Lenski quote:
“‘Under law’ implies that the incarnate Son was to fulfill law and thereby purchase our Christian freedom”
Not so. That is eisegesis, not exegesis. Christ was born “under the Law” (NASB) that he might redeem “those who were under the Law”, that is, Israel. Gentiles were never put under the law, nor was Abraham. The Law was given to Israel only. It was necessary for Christ to be “born under the Law” so that He could be the redeemer of Israel as well as the rest of us. (As Gentiles, we were “without law”, but of course “sinners by nature”.)
Lenski again:
“It is the active obedience that nullifies all Judaistic ideas. By this, Paul says, the Son bought us free.”
Again, Gentiles never were under the Law of Moses. There are no “Judaistic ideas” which apply to Gentiles. What Paul teaches is, the Son “bought us free” by paying the price due us: DEATH.
Oh yes, I almost forgot, re: your “rhetorical question”:
“…on what grounds does one separate the active and passive righteousness of Christ and say that, while His passive righteousness is imputed to us, His active righteousness is not? How is it even possible [to] divide the imputation of Christ’s righteousness in this way? And how can we divide Christ?”
Excellentquestion! It gets right to the point. It’s not that we “divide Christ”. It’s that Scripture distinguishes between Christ under the Law, and Christ risen. The premise of your question illustrates perfectly the inadequacy of the Reformed view of what Christ’s sacrifice entailed. It’s not about law-keeping, it’s about God’s wrath being satisfied, whether we suffer it, or Christ suffers it in our place.
A different approach to this discussion: Since Christ is “the fulfillment of the Law”, let’s look at the prophetic aspects of the O.T., and the Law; what it required.
According to Exodus, when the last plague was about to come upon Egypt, what sacrifice was required to redeem the first born? A lamb, right? Granted, the lamb had to be “spotless” (physically), in order to qualify as the substitute, which was itself prophetic in that it foreshadowed the “Lamb of God”, who would be the sinless God-Man, dying in our place. The prophesied Lamb of God (Christ) would necessarily be sinless (being God the Son Himself), besides which, as a substitute for sin He must have no sin of His own.
Now, what was required of the Passover lamb (the animal)? Must the lamb keep the Law in place of the guilty? Was the lamb to be put out on the front porch of each house for inspection, so the angel of death could see how unblemished it was?
As I’m sure you know, the lamb was slain. Its blood was then smeared all over the frame of the doorway. It was the blood that was the signal to the angel of death to skip over that house without killing the first-born within it. It was the blood which served as the sign… of what? That a life had been laid down. The blood was the sign of the death of the substitute, not a sign of the substitute’s lack of blemishes.
Later on, when the Law was given at Sinai, what did it require when it was broken? Death, of either the offender or the substitute. No amount of law-keeping can make up for breaking the Law! There must be blood shed, or there is no forgiveness of sin!
All that is obvious from Paul’s writings. What did Paul say about law-keeping as it relates to justification? Rom. 3:20…
“By works of law no flesh will be justified in His sight…”
Why not? The rest of the verse tells us:
“for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20)
And with that, we get closer to the heart of the matter, which is:
The Law was never given to make anyone righteous. It’s purpose is to reveal sin, not to impart or sustain life, no matter who keeps it. Not by our keeping of the Law nor by Christ’s keeping of the Law is anyone justified, but by His shed blood. As for believers, we are united with Christ in death (Rom. 6:2-7), not in His life under the Law. He laid down that life under the Law. The Law has no jurisdiction over Him—nor us—since we (believers) died with Him. The Law has no application to dead people.
Now, as stated above, the “positive” aspect of redemption is Christ’s resurrection. So, we have been raised up with Him. It is His risen life Paul refers to when he wrote:
“… having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.” Saved that is, not by His life under the Law, but by His risen life! That is the life that Christ now has, that Paul wrote of in Rom. 5:10. Is it not the risen Christ we are to worship, as opposed to a Christ under the Law? (Incidentally, isn’t it the RCC who depict Christ still on the cross, suffering the penalty of the broken Law?)
That, btw, is why we are “not under law, but under grace”; we are dead to the law, and risen with Christ. The Law has no claim on us. Christ fulfilled the Law, not by “keeping the Law for us”, but by Christ’s suffering the penalty which the Law demanded, it being executed upon Himself. Being in Christ, we have no need of having any works of the Law “imputed” to us. We are clothed with Christ, He Himself is our righteousness.
Our former “account” is part of the “old things” which have passed away in death. The only “account” believers have now is the one regarding our rewards in heaven; whether we keep them or they are “burned up” at the Bema seat.
I don’t know how much you read of that site which I linked, but I get the impression you didn’t get very far. You mention only one author of it; there are five other authors quoted there, as well as a rebuttal from Proclamation Magazine, and a reply to that (attempted) rebuttal. You would gain clarity on this issue by reading the entire page if you haven’t already.
I could go on much longer tearing apart the quotes you provided. (For instance there is the matter of “the righteousness of God”, which refers to God’s attribute of righteousness, not righteousness by law-keeping.) But, for brevity’s sake (!) I’ll say just one more thing: It looks to me as though the Reformers you cited all follow the same paradigm; reading into Scripture what it does not say. I won’t clutter your blog any further by restating things again, that’s about as clear as I can make it; as many ways as I can put it. There is much more to say about Christ’s sacrifice and the risen life we now share with Him. Anyone who wishes to delve into these issues more deeply from a Protestant-but-non-Reformation viewpoint can visit the site I linked previously.
But, don’t forget your BIBLE!
Daniel, thank you for your indulgence, giving me space to “hold forth” on your blog (albeit in disagreement). That takes generosity and nerve. I hope you will forgive any over-the-top emphases or snarky-ness which may have seeped into this response.
May the Risen Lord bless you in “the good fight” against legalism, dominionism, “purpose driven”-ism, “emerging spirituality”, and all the other forms of unbelief in Christendom.
Chuck F.
Chuck,
I appreciate your desire to be faithful to the Scriptures, and I’m happy for you to have had the opportunity to set out your case.
Rather than respond to every point, I shall take a few steps back and try to summarize my understanding of the Reformational position. I shall buttress that with some generous quoting of John Owen – though his writing is somewhat dense and he would have benefitted immensely from the services of a good editor, he is extremely helpful on this topic. Finally, I shall address some of what you have said, particularly with respect to Lenski.
Having done that, I shall close this discussion between us, as I think both sides will have been adequately aired, and both you and I will have directed readers who wish to investigate further to more comprehensive resources.
Outline of the Reformational understanding
Here then is my big-picture outline of the Reformational understanding of the imputation of Christ’s active obedience that I am arguing. (I am of course aware that you will not agree with many of these points.)
1.
God’s covenant of works with Adam required his positive, active obedience to God’s command.
2.
Likewise, the Mosaic Law required positive obedience to all of its demands before someone could receive its blessings: ‘Behold, I set before you today a blessing and a curse: the blessing, if you obey the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you today; and the curse, if you do not obey the commandments of the LORD your God…’ (Dt. 11:26–28, etc.). Also: ‘For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.’ (James 2:10–11).
3.
The moral aspects of this Law – and indeed, of all God’s Law in the wider sense of encompassing the entirety of obligations that He has placed upon all mankind – are rooted in the unchangeable nature of God and therefore have universal validity, for both Jew and Gentile. (Thus, Christians, though freed from the Law’s demands with respect to justification and dead to its condemnations, nevertheless are to love God and love neighbour. We are to honour our parents, refrain from adultery, theft, etc.) This universality of God’s moral Law is why Paul is able to conclude his Rom. 1:18–3:20 argument by asserting that everyone (whether Jew or Gentile) is condemned by the Law:
(I suspect it is at this point – in our understanding of the Law – where we begin to part ways. What can I say? I have a Reformation understanding of Law and Gospel, and believe that to be biblical. See also below John Owen on Christ’s fulfilment of the Law and the necessary distinction between the moral and ceremonial Law.)
4.
As Paul says in Rom. 2:13, ‘not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified’.
5.
The penalty for any transgression of God’s Law (i.e. sin) is death: ‘for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die’ (Gen. 2:17, etc.)
6.
We thus have a twofold problem with respect to our obtaining a right standing before God and receiving His blessings: i) Our sin, for which a penalty must be paid; ii) Our lack of a positive righteousness obtained by fulfilling the Law’s demands. Simply, we are ‘not doers of the law’, but its transgressors. And only ‘doers of the law will be justified’. How then shall we be justified? How can our sin be pardoned, and how can we be accounted as if we had fulfilled the Law’s demands?
7.
The salvation that we have in Christ addresses both of these problems, as that Berkhoff quotation I gave showed:
8.
Why did Christ submit Himself to the Law to fulfil it? He already had a positive righteousness of His own – after all, He was God as well as Man. And there was also no need intrinsic to His person for the One who gave the Law to be subject to it. This is the question that Gal. 4:4–5 answers:
The Reformation (and biblical) answer is that Christ submitted Himself to the Law and fulfilled it, not to make up any lack in His own righteousness (as if there could ever be such), but precisely so that He could fulfil it for us. As Paul says there in Gal. 4:4–5, Christ was ‘born under the law, to redeem those that were under the law’ with the effect that we might ourselves obtain the positive blessings of His having kept it in our stead, namely, ‘the adoption as sons’.
How was Christ made ‘under the law’, how did He become obligated to fulfil its demands? By being ‘born of a woman, born under the law’. Christ’s being ‘under the Law, to redeem those who were under the law’ therefore relates to the entire period from His birth through to His death, whereupon He declared, ‘It is finished!’ (John 19:30) This is the obedience ‘to the Glory of God the Father’ – from His incarnation through even to the death of the Cross as one accursed of God – that we previously saw proclaimed in Phil. 2:5–8. Christ’s obedience is not only the obedience of His death on the cross, but a lifelong obedience unto that death.
Thus, just as Christ died for us, He kept the Law for us. He came not ‘to destroy the Law’ (and not solely to suffer its penalty) but ‘to fulfill’ (Matt 5:17). Even His baptism was necessary ‘to fulfill all righteousness’ (Matt. 3:15). Again, not to make up any lack of His own, for He was the sinless Lamb of God. No, He was ‘made under the Law’ so that He might ‘redeem those who were under the law’. What He did while under that Law – whether positively by keeping its righteous requirements, or negatively by bearing its penalty – He did for us, ‘to redeem them that were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons’.
This is not in any way to diminish the import of Christ’s death. Calvin balances the matter carefully:
9.
Christ’s death, then, takes away our sin. And, rather than being left morally neutral by that cleansing (as if we then had to earn God’s blessings through our own obedience), we also have imputed to us the positive righteousness of the fulfilling of the Law that Christ Himself earned for us. The penalty for our sins is taken from us and born by Christ, and the blessings of His obedience are given to us. We are robed through faith with Christ’s righteousness (Is. 61:10; Gal. 3:27; Eph. 4:24; Phil. 3:9; etc.), and in Him God looks upon us with favour. Those who are in Christ are restored, not to the state of Adam before the Fall (with the concomitant requirement of continuing perfect obedience), but to a far better state. They are in Christ, who has for them both born the Law’s curse and fulfilled all its demands.
Thus, Paul speaks not only of the condemning of ‘sin in the flesh’, but also of ‘the righteous requirement of the law’ being ‘fulfilled in us’:
(See John Owen on this below.)
10.
Now, of course, I cited in my earlier comment the various confessions and catechisms not to prove my point, but to demonstrate that the Reformers were of one understanding of this issue. Simply, I am not being doctrinally innovative, and I refer the reader back to that comment for the proof.
11.
As I mentioned previously, this is not the place for a thorough treatment of this topic, and neither am I qualified to give one. For those interested in reading further on the active obedience of Christ, monergism.com has a number of helpful resources:
In conclusion, let me thank you once again for your thoughts. I’ve enjoyed reading about this topic and looking more closely at the relevant Scriptures.
John Owen
Owen explains that we need put to our account both Christ’s payment for sin and His positive obedience to the Law’s demands (see point 6, above):
Owen goes on to cite the parallels of Gen. 44:33 and Philemon 18 in his explanation of Gal. 4:4–5. Judah offers himself to Joseph as a substitute slave, in the place of Benjamin – not to suffer penalty, but to fulfil on his behalf the positive obligation of obedience that a slave owes to his master. Paul likewise offers to make double satisfaction to Philemon on behalf of Onesimus, offering to pay both for any wrong and for any obligation positively owed: ‘But if he has wronged you or owes anything, put that on my account.’ In the same manner, then, Christ willingly both pays for our wrong and fulfils in our stead the obligation of positive obedience that all creatures owe to their Creator.
Owen:
Owen explains that being pardoned from sin by a king is distinct from being adopted by him as his son and heir. The latter does not flow of necessity from the former:
Owen finds no lack of further biblical allusions to the dual aspect of our justification – pardon and adoption, the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of Christ’s positive obedience with its attending blessings:
As to the import of Christ’s being ‘under the law’ (Gal. 4:4), Owen demonstrates that this means both that Christ bears its penalty on our behalf and that He fulfils for us its positive obligations.
Note especially the crucial final paragraph of the following quotation – the first and primary sense of being ‘under the law’ is for one to be obligated to keep it. Thus, Owen argues, one cannot escape the force of Christ’s being ‘under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive adoption as sons’. This text speaks primarily to Christ’s active obedience in our place and for us, so that we might receive the blessing of His positive obedience, namely, ‘adoption as sons’. In other words, Gal. 4:4–5 overtly teaches the imputation of Christ’s active obedience.
Owen continues, explaining the implications of Christ’s fulfilment of the Law, and the necessary distinction to be made between the moral and ceremonial Law:
Well, Owen is a mine of treasures, but it is not appropriate to reproduce his entire work here.
Addendum
The above is really all I wanted to say by way of concluding our discussion, but you’ve formed some impressions concerning Lenski’s integrity that I think it only fair to address. No doubt I shall also touch on one or two other points along the way.
(What follows is unavoidably going to be rather more technical than I generally desire for this blog. And, since I am certainly no Greek scholar, I shall welcome any corrections of my handling of the Greek here, even though I am otherwise hereby concluding the discussion.)
With regard to δικαίωμα (dikaiōma) in Rom. 5:18. You cite the NASB, where it is translated ‘act of righteousness’:
Yes, I can see how that reads ‘pretty clearly’ to you. And I understand why you say ‘it’s obvious that the “one act of righteousness”’ referred to is Christ’s death. But, even if ‘one act of righteousness’ is the best rendering of ἑνὸς δικαιώματος, all that would potentially do is put this verse into the category of verses speaking specifically of Christ’s death. (And to definitively place it there, you’d also have to demonstrate that the one ‘righteous act’ could not be understood as a synecdoche encompassing all of Christ’s obedience cf. v. 15, 19; Phil. 2:5–8.)
Even if we were to take v. 18 narrowly, you’d still have done nothing whatsoever to demonstrate that the ‘obedience’ of v. 19 excluded Christ’s active obedience and could not be understood as an expansion of a narrower intent in v. 18. After all, even the NASB has ‘the obedience of the One’ in v. 19, which is prima facie not obviously limited to a single act:
As it is, what you’ve done is to respond to a discussion of Rom. 5:19 by saying that v. 18 asserts something different from what was being claimed of v. 19. Well, of course, that may well be true. But, so what?
(And remember, the reason I was dealing with v. 19 is because that is what your linked writer quoted, together with his demonstrably false assertion that Christ’s Phil. 2:8 obedience was exclusively that of His death. As well as correcting that erroneous understanding of Phil. 2:8, I showed from Lenski that an alternative, more expansive reading of Christ’s obedience in Rom. 5:19 was at least possible.)
Now, even if you were to deal convincingly with the entire pericope (rather than merely asserting as you do of Rom. 5:12–19 that ‘Christ’s perfect obedience before the cross’ is ‘not in view’), you still wouldn’t have advanced your argument, because everyone already admits that there are many verses that speak specifically of Christ’s justifying death, and this passage would then merely be another example of that.
What am I saying? Simply that I don’t think it is possible for you to prove your case (i.e. that the active obedience of Christ is definitively excluded from our justification) from Rom. 5:18, even if it is best understood in the way that you take it (which is anyway a point I do not concede). That is because you cannot in principle prove an exclusion of active obedience from a verse or passage that does not speak at all to Christ’s active obedience (as you assert is the case here), but only to His passive. And, in any case, it is inappropriate to take v. 18 alone and read it apart from its context, as if it stated all that the wider context has to say.
Now, as I said, my purpose for writing this addendum is specifically to correct your impression of Lenski. Primarily, I want to point out that the discussion I pasted from him was in relation to v. 19 (upon which your writer was basing his argument), not the v. 18 that you’ve addressed above. It is hardly surprising if my quoting Lenski on v. 19 failed to address the points you are now making on v. 18.
(Having said that, I think Lenski makes a perfectly reasonable logical point as to the extent of Christ’s obedience in v. 19. Thus, if you think v. 19 cannot encompass Christ’s active obedience, you need to demonstrate that, which you cannot do merely by looking at v. 18, since Lenski’s point was that the obedience of v. 19 is not limited by the scope of δικαιώματος in v. 18)
Back to v. 18, in the interests of giving Lenski a chance to defend himself. You raised two main issues with respect to ἑνὸς δικαιώματος (henos dikaiōmatos) there:
Before I explore these further, here is Rom. 5:15–19 for the benefit of the (no doubt hypothetical) reader who may still be endeavouring to follow this discussion:
Here is Lenski’s rendering (with verse numbers added by me):
You are focusing on the meaning of δικαιώματος (dikaiōmatos) in v. 18, which the NASB renders ‘act of righteousness’. That word is the genitive singular neuter form of δικαίωμα (dikaiōma). Now, Lenski suggests that its force should be the same as the other instance of that noun in v. 16, where it is translated ‘justification’:
The NKJV, NASB, KJV and ESV all translate δικαίωμα (dikaiōma) there in v. 16 as ‘justification’. It’s exactly the same noun as our δικαιώματος in v. 18, except in v. 16 it is in the accusative form, rather than the genitive. Thus, whereas δικαίωμα speaks of the ‘verdict of justification’ as the result of the gift in v. 16, it is not entirely unreasonable to understand it as being the ‘verdict of justification’ of the One (i.e. the declaration that Christ Himself is just) in v. 18.
Lenski, then, is aiming for translation consistency within the context of this pericope, and if you have a problem with his translation of δικαιώματος in v. 18 based upon your citations, you will need to explain why that same reasoning does not also invalidate everyone’s translating δικαίωμα as ‘justification’ in v. 16. (My point, obviously, is that contextual concerns are determinative here. But this itself demonstrates the skill needed of a translator and the difficulties presented by passages such as this, and the care we should take before leaping to definitive conclusions based on our preferred English translations.)
Here’s a snippet of what Lenski says about v. 16:
That point is worth emphasising. The correct interpretation and translation of that word – and therefore of this passage – is indeed contended. Lenski continues:
And here is his discussion of δικαίωμα in v. 18:
In other words, Lenski is saying (if I understand him correctly) that the δικαιώματος of v. 18 is the verdict that Christ Himself is righteous – it is Christ’s acquittal, contrasted with the condemnation (κατάκριμα) of all men. It is this verdict of acquittal that leads to our own justification, that is, to our own being declared righteous. If Lenski is correct, we have an echo here of Rom 4:25:
In His raising Christ from the dead, the Father declared Christ righteous, pronouncing His verdict on all Christ’s work. That verdict then becomes ours, as those who have through faith been united with Christ in His death and, as shall be, also in His resurrection (Rom. 6:1–11).
Lenski anticipates the objection that his understanding negates the parallelism of v. 18:
Now, I’m not sure that I’m yet quite entirely persuaded by Lenski on this last point. I’ll have to ponder this and read further. However, I include this quotation so that you can see that Lenski is addressing possible objections to his position, and is not merely asserting that which he has not endeavoured to prove. (And if his understanding of ἑνὸς δικαιώματος in v. 18 as ‘Christ’s acquittal’ is valid, it becomes clear that δικαιώματος in v. 18 cannot limit the meaning of ‘obedience’ in v. 19. The former speaks of the verdict; the latter to its grounds.)
Interestingly, the translators of the KJV took a different view again, seeing δικαιώματος in v. 18 neither as ‘acquittal’ nor ‘righteous act’, but as the ‘righteousness’ belonging to Christ:
One might consider that to be a rather elegant balance, preserving both the continuity of v. 16’s δικαίωμα and v. 18’s δικαιώματος, and also retaining all the parallelism inherent within v. 18. Others such as John Owen arrive at the same understanding as the KJV translators:
The interested and diligent reader may wish to pursue Owen’s other writings on this passage.
Having now (I hope) exonerated Lenski from the charge of asserting what he has not endeavoured to show, let me now address this claim:
You make a related assertion, namely that the NKJV ‘gets it a little muddled’ in its ‘connecting the word “one” to the word “Man’s” instead of to the “righteous act”.
Both of these accusations are without foundation.
δικαιώματος is the genitive of δικαίωμα, and so it is perfectly proper to translate ἑνὸς δικαιώματος here as ‘δικαίωμα belonging to the One’. The NKJV is simply taking ἑνὸς as masculine (as it is all three times in v. 17 and both times in v. 19) rather than neuter (the masculine and neuter forms are the same) when it translates the two instances as ‘one man’ and ‘one Man’ in v. 18. (Note that the ESV translates ἑνὸς as ‘one man’ in all five occurrences in vv. 17 and 19, even though only two expressly refer to ‘Jesus Christ’ or ‘man’ in the Greek text, so it would be puzzling to accept all those renderings of ἑνὸς and yet complain about the NKJV’s identical rendering in v. 18.)
Of course, the NKJV could easily also have said ‘One’s righteous act’, also a perfectly faithful rendering of the Greek with no change in meaning. The ESV expresses the very same possibilities in its footnotes (shown in square brackets):
Thus, the NKJV is taking something of a middle path between the KJV and the ESV’s primary text, resulting in a rendering similar to that of the ESV footnotes and identical in effect to the RSV:
As with the NKJV, RSV and KJV translators (and the ESV in its footnotes), Lenski is for the same reason also appropriately handling ἑνὸς δικαιώματος in taking that to be the ‘δικαίωμα of [belonging to] the One’ (i.e. the ‘One’s δικαίωμα’), interpreting that One to be the one Man Jesus Christ, as indeed v. 17 expressly states (τοῦ ἑνὸς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ).
Now, you asked (perhaps rhetorically) whether the NASB translators ‘get it wrong’. I wouldn’t say that. But what is undeniably on display here is a spectrum of translations that reflect the challenges of faithfully rendering this particular Greek text. It seems that one’s understanding of the passage is going to determine one’s translation into English. That’s regrettable, but this is why we have commentaries and why people learn Greek.
With regard to Ps. 40:6–8. I don’t really understand your astonishment concerning Lenski’s citing of that. It seems to me that you’re reading a very narrow definition of the Father’s will into that text (just as you complain that Lenski is reading a wide one into it). Certainly, the Father’s will for His Son was that He die, and Heb. 10:7 cites this passage specifically with that intent: ‘By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once.’ But the Father’s will extends in both directions beyond the single event of the crucifixion: ‘This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day.’ (John 6:39). And we have already seen Jesus’ declaration that He came to fulfil the Law, and that His baptism was necessary to ‘fulfil all righteousness’. Similarly, we have seen conclusively that Phil. 2:5–8 speaks of Christ’s obedience (i.e. to the will of the Father) from the moment of incarnation through to His death, and from Gal. 4:5–6 how Christ was ‘born under the law’ to ‘redeem those who dwere under the Law’. To interpret the Father’s will for His Son as pertaining only to His death on the cross therefore seems unwarrantably narrow, though that death is most definitely the culmination and completion of Christ’s earthly work.
Finally, as to your claim that 2 Cor. 5:21 refutes (rather than supports) the assertion of Q. 60 of the Heidelberg Catechism, one has to read the entire verse. Paul states plainly there that Christ ‘knew no sin’, which certainly seems to be a claim of His active obedience in keeping the entire Law to which He subjected Himself. In addition, the ‘that we might become the righteousness of God in Him’ sounds rather like imputation.
Well, I am sure that we have both thoroughly tired any readers who happen to have ploughed through all our comments! I am also tired, and have no more time to spend on this, so I shall stop there and conclude our interactions on this topic. I extend to you my thanks for a gracious and thought provoking discussion.
Grace and peace.
Excellent! We who are justified by faith(which is a Gift from God and not of ourselves)-Eph.2:8-10 —in the finished person and work of Christ at the Cross, ,,,(work) FROM God’s grace not FOR it -not to “earn” it. Doing good works is a (result) of God’s grace NOT the cause or source. This grace comes ONLY by faith in the finished person and WORK of Christ at the Cross.. The work Jesus did for us ALONE is what satisfied God’s wrath against sinful man. The wrath of God remains on ALL who continue to work to appease a holy, righteous, just God–(unacceptable) and people should STOP and be honest with why they are giving money or why they are going to church, playing religion going through the motions. WHY? If it’s because someone thinks God will look down on them and forgive them apart from surrendering, abdicating their lives to repent, “deny themselves, take up their cross and follow Jesus, well they are simply fooling themselves and wasting their time. God did not send his Son to be beaten, whipped,, scourged, beard ripped out to go to the CROSS and have God the Father who was pleased to punish His Son in our place by placing all our sins on him, to have the WRATH of GOD poured out on Christ in our places as our substitute only to think that HE will accept man’s tainted sinful “good deeds”
Jesus ALONE is the sweet smelling aroma pleasing to God. There’s only ONE Righteousness God accepts and that’s the righteousness of Jesus Christ. All our righteous acts are like filthy smelly, oozing wounds of bloody stenchy rags to God. We MUST surrender ourselves to Christ and believe in HIM-John 6:28. “Nothing in my hand I bring only to Thy cross I cling”.Thank you for sorting out the smattering of arsenic that is so cloaked in these feel good messages.
Linda, thank you for visiting and leaving your comments!
Dear Daniel,
Grace and peace in Christ Jesus!
Thank you for the amount of time and care you take in rightly dividing the Word.
Perphaps I’m wrong, but because I would say a hearty amen to almost everything you have written, yet I think I’m still on the other side of the debate? Perhaps there is a “terminology” problem on my part.
To clarify my position I define the term, “Justification” as a “one” time act of God fully justifing us when we by God’s grace, come to faith in Christ alone for the remission of our sins and understand that Christ took our penalty and we are covered in the blood of Christ and receive the imputed righteousness of Christ. This “justification” would be a one time deal because once saved always saved and once saved God only sees Christ in us and we are sealed in Christ and given the Holy Spirit. I believe that Sanctification is an on going process whereby we grow in Christ.
Therefore, we look to the cross on a daily (if not hourly basis) to remind us of our “Justification” or what God did for us through our precious Savior and then… sanctification is the result of that overwhelming gratitude that we express in our endevour to serve our Master in deep love and gratitude for the debt that He paid that we can never repay.
I view Justification and Sanctification as two different animals and Justification as a one time event, once saved always saved.
Thank you for bearing with me and my lack of scholarship in these matters, but I really do want to get it:)
Kept only by His grace, charisse
Dear Charisse,
Welcome back 🙂
I certainly agree that justification and sanctification (in its narrow sense) are distinct. I’d also agree that justification is a one-time event, by grace through the faith that the Holy Spirit gives to those He regenerates and brings to repentance. As I put it in my post on sanctification (which I know you’ve read!):
My own definition of sanctification (from that same post) was:
From your own formulation, might you be placing a slightly different emphasis on who is working in sanctification? (The ‘Whose work is sanctification?’ question is, you will remember, one I covered in my post on sanctification. As the nuances are important, I shall refer you back to that article rather than endeavour to restate them here.)
I agree with you, too, that sanctification arises as the fruit of faith in response to the Gospel. As Pieper says, ‘the sanctification which flows from faith consists in an inward moral transformation’. And faith, of course, comes from the hearing of the Gospel.
The only other point I’d want to clarify in what you’ve said would be with respect to the ‘once saved always saved’ language. That might seem superficially to be the same thing as the Reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints (with which, incidentally, our Lutheran friends disagree), but it leaves open the possibility (though I am sure that you would not yourself believe this!) that someone might make a saving profession of faith and then live utterly in contradiction to that profession. Indeed, so-called Free Grace theology teaches exactly this (and its adherents tend to be those who use the ‘once saved always saved’ language), divorcing justification from sanctification, and purporting that one can be justified but not undergo sanctification at all. Some (e.g. Zane C. Hodges, Charles Stanley) even go as far as to teach that a person can renounce the faith and yet still be saved on the basis of a one-time profession long since denied. (The Reformed would say that such a person demonstrates that he was never really saved at all. Lutherans would accept that the person might once have been saved, but has now fallen away.) Needless to say, the Free Grace advocates have to jump through exegetical hoops to deny that James says what he does about faith without works being dead.
The Reformed doctrine of the perseverance of the saints admits that sanctification is imperfect in this life, and that ‘the remaining corruption [in us], for a time, may much prevail’, with us even falling into ‘grievous sins’ (WCF XVII.3). Nevertheless, it maintains that ‘through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome;’ (WCF XIII.3). Thus, ‘They, whom God hath accepted in His Beloved, effectually called, and sanctified by His Spirit, can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved.’ (WCF XVII.1) Furthermore:
Does this help clarify what I’m saying? You might also find my response to Duane’s first comment above helpful with respect to the relation between faith and works.
I’m hoping that nothing in my post contradicts what I’ve said here (nor vice versa!), but if anything seems as if it does, please let me know!
Grace and peace.