# Christ's Righteousness



## Coram_Deo (Jan 8, 2005)

Ok, I apologize for my seemingly simple questions; but this question intrigues me to some degree. Reformers hold to the Biblical doctrine that we are justified through faith alone, imputed righteousness, and all that jazz. 
So in my mind, I wonder how Christ was accounted as "righteous". Was He considered righteous by grace alone, or did He, unlike any of us totally depraved finite humans, become justified by works alone? Was He the only successful Pelagian to have ever graced the earth? or was it grace that led Christ into all righteousness?

thanks,
michael


----------



## turmeric (Jan 8, 2005)

He was the only one who could keep the law & therefore live by it. Please don't call Him a Pelagian - lightning isn't good for anyone's computer!


----------



## pastorway (Jan 9, 2005)

yes, His righteousness imputed to us was His obedience as a man to the whole Law of God without exception. He was not fallen and therefore was not required to be justified, but He was a man, and therefore required to obey the Law - just as we all are. What we could not do He has done on our behalf. He grants His obedience to us by faith. And let's not forget that He even gives us grace, repentance, and that very faith so that we might be justified.

Phillip


----------



## Coram_Deo (Jan 9, 2005)

so He was justified according to the law, so that He could impute it unto us? Did grace play ANY role in justifying Him?


----------



## Average Joey (Jan 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Coram_Deo_
> so He was justified according to the law, so that He could impute it unto us? Did grace play ANY role in justifying Him?



He didn`t need grace because of the definition of grace.He pleased God and earned His favor.I hope that makes sense.


----------



## NRutman (Jan 9, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Coram_Deo_
> so He was justified according to the law, so that He could impute it unto us? Did grace play ANY role in justifying Him?



Coram_Deo,

If you had to place Christ's righteousness either under the column of "works" or "grace" it would fall entirely under works. Christ accepted no grace because he had need for no grace - he was not a sinner, and therefore could not receive grace (one cannot be redeemed if he has not fallen). Jesus Christ was always in good standing with the Father, and therefore the Father could relate to Him without needing to be gracious.

But don't forget that Jesus Christ was God, and that is the stem of His righteousness. The righteousness of Jesus Christ is one and the same as the righteousness of God. It is this righteousness that makes Him able to save, for when we have faith we are given (accredited) the righteousness of Christ. If Christ had need of grace, then He would not be able to give His righteousness, for His righteousness would then be lacking in some regard (because He needed grace) and therefore our righteousness before God would be lacking. But because He was God and had a perfect righteousness of His own (which was tested and tried through His life and ministry, and shown to be valid), He is able to save those who have faith in His cross and that amazing transaction that happened when He took on our sin and gave us His righteousness.

I hope that answers your questions. If you're interested in further reading in a relatively small volume, I would highly recommend the book "Counted Righteous in Christ" by John Piper. It is an excellent defense of the traditional view of imputed righteousness. Piper talks both about the nature of Christ's righteousness and how it is counted to us through faith, and he does an outstanding job of letting the Bible speak for itself on the topic.

Thanks,
Nate


----------



## Canadian Baptist (Jan 11, 2005)

I don't think we should necessarily limit grace to be only something that is needed because sin exists in an individual. As if to say that where there is no sin there is no need for grace. Or that because Jesus had no sin, he didn't "need" grace. 
John 1:14 states that the Lord Jesus Christ was "FULL of grace". He did not need grace for forgiveness because of sin, yet He was full of grace. Grace is part of the character of God and therefore should not be seen only as something He dispenses to sinful creatures like us, but something that He actually is. Just as it is said God is love, it could be said God is grace. If God would have destroyed Adam and Eve on the spot for their sin, or destroyed Satan when he fell, he would still have been full of grace. It is an unchanging part of His character. The wonder of all this is that in His sovereign good will, He decided to allow the fall and sin so that " in the coming ages He might show the immeasurable riches of HIS GRACE in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus." Eph 2:7
Soli Deo Gloria,
Darrin


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 11, 2005)

I'd be interested to know if the word "grace" in that passage is the same Greek word used in most other occurrences of the word. If it is, He was indeed "full of grace" in the sense that it was grace that He was indeed giving to us. To say that Christ was somehow "shown grace" by the Father in any sense has horrific implications for His own perfection and obedience to the law, and likewise His divine nature. For if His righteousness was given to Him even partially by grace, then any of us could have atoned for the elect.

The doctrine of merit is important, and the all-too-common tendency to turn "grace" into some substance, mystical thing or really anything but the simple mercy shown to us for our sin on behalf of Christ's merit, echoes Rome's doctrine of "infused" grace. And while they have not gone to the same explicit level as Rome, many of the people associated with the Auburn theology have likewise begun to exchange the generic doctrine of grace (as mercy shown to us for sin on account of Christ's merit) for other innovative concepts and attachments to it, resulting in a complication of the simple doctrine of justification.

 OK, I'm done now.


----------



## ARStager (Jan 11, 2005)

> But don't forget that Jesus Christ was God, and that is the stem of His righteousness. The righteousness of Jesus Christ is one and the same as the righteousness of God. It is this righteousness that makes Him able to save, for when we have faith we are given (accredited) the righteousness of Christ...
> 
> ...But because He was God and had a perfect righteousness of His own (which was tested and tried through His life and ministry, and shown to be valid), He is able to save those who have faith in His cross and that amazing transaction that happened when He took on our sin and gave us His righteousness.



Wouldn't you say that Christ did more than sort of "strut his God-stemmed righteousness"? Of course he was tested and was proven righteous, but the way you phrased it, I think, might incline one to deemphasize the fact that Christ's righteousness was ACTIVE. It was his being under the law, and BOTH warding off every tempation to sin by Comission, AND answering the righteous demands of the law by perfectly loving God and perfectly loving his neighbor at every opportunity presented to him, thus never sinning by Omission. He obeyed perfectly for 33 years, while being not just fully God but fully man, like us in every way, sin excepted.

[Edited on 1-12-2005 by ARStager]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 11, 2005)

Nate, three things:

1)  on your post
2) Welcome to Puritan Board!
3) If you attend a local church, the board requires mention of it in your signature.



> _Originally posted by ARStager_
> 
> 
> > But don't forget that Jesus Christ was God, and that is the stem of His righteousness. The righteousness of Jesus Christ is one and the same as the righteousness of God. It is this righteousness that makes Him able to save, for when we have faith we are given (accredited) the righteousness of Christ...
> ...



Christ's active obedience and His God-stemmed righteousness are two sides of the same coin in that the former was the inevitable result of the latter, and both are equally key to the merit of His atonement.


----------



## ARStager (Jan 11, 2005)

Two sides of the same coin, yes. But we must constantly repeat that he LIVED for us, and not just died for us...and that LIVING under the shadow of the law...and being obedient, even unto death on the cross, was 33 years of blood, sweat and tears, and very, very burdensome work.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Canadian Baptist_
> I don't think we should necessarily limit grace to be only something that is needed because sin exists in an individual. As if to say that where there is no sin there is no need for grace. Or that because Jesus had no sin, he didn't "need" grace.
> John 1:14 states that the Lord Jesus Christ was "FULL of grace". He did not need grace for forgiveness because of sin, yet He was full of grace. Grace is part of the character of God and therefore should not be seen only as something He dispenses to sinful creatures like us, but something that He actually is. Just as it is said God is love, it could be said God is grace. If God would have destroyed Adam and Eve on the spot for their sin, or destroyed Satan when he fell, he would still have been full of grace. It is an unchanging part of His character. The wonder of all this is that in His sovereign good will, He decided to allow the fall and sin so that " in the coming ages He might show the immeasurable riches of HIS GRACE in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus." Eph 2:7
> Soli Deo Gloria,
> Darrin



Grace requires an object of grace. It requires bestowing a benefit or mercy on one who is demerited favor. Just as God cannot be "love" in the abstract, that is, He must have an object for His love (one of the proofs that God is Triune), He cannot be "grace" in the abstract. Without sin, there can be no grace. If we admit grace into Christ's relationship with the Father (as opposed to His relationship) we have lost the ground of our salvation.


----------



## ARStager (Jan 11, 2005)

Nicely put, fellow buckeye.


----------



## Ianterrell (Jan 12, 2005)

Right Fred. Christ did not interact with any unmerited favor from God whatsoever. There was no undeserved mercy flowing in his direction. He had a full jar of jellybeans to work with (edit: actually to be more precise he had all the jellybeans and he was connected to the factory ((joined to the trinity inseperably)))

[Edited on 12-1-2005 by Ianterrell]


----------



## Coram_Deo (Jan 12, 2005)

"I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these things to you so that, if I delay, you may know ho one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of truth. Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of godliness: He was manifested in the flesh, VINDICATED (justified) by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory." 1 Timothy 3:14-16

Gentlemen what does it mean that Christ was justified by the Spirit? Is Calvin's interpretation worthy? He seems to say, and correct me if I am over-simplifying or way off, that Christ was justified in the Spirit in the sense that the Spirit acknowledged Him as the Son of God. If this is taken as true, then perhaps it has no bearing on this convo. But does there seem to be a sense of passiveness in Christ being justified or made righteous? Perhaps I am attempting to split the God-head to much, (enough of my ramblings).

Thank you all for your posts, it was gracious of you to take the time, and I appreciated the discussion on grace. It reminded me of Edwards' conception of the Trinity, "...but that the Holy Ghost is Himself love and grace of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ..." (Unpublished Essay on the Trinity). Any comments on Edwards' view would be appreciated.


----------



## Ianterrell (Jan 12, 2005)

Mike,

The justification here is talking about public declarative vindication. This denotes that Christ's honor is proclaimed through his resurrection, and his work validated through its apparent victory. Death could not hold the Son of God.

This is not the salvific justification of having one's sins taken away before God, instead Christ's innocence and holiness is magnified.

[Edited on 12-1-2005 by Ianterrell]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Ianterrell_
> Right Fred. Christ did not interact with any unmerited favor from God whatsoever. There was no undeserved mercy flowing in his direction. He had a full jar of jellybeans to work with (edit: actually to be more precise he had all the jellybeans and he was connected to the factory ((joined to the trinity inseperably)))



 Great analogy, actually!

Michael, I'd say Calvin's interpretation of that verse is correct, since vindication can mean support just as much as it can mean justification - like clearing Christ from any and all accusation of non-divinity, rather than clearing Him from sin.


----------



## Canadian Baptist (Jan 12, 2005)

Maybe my understanding of grace is off a bit. I am not in any way thinking that Christ "needed" grace or favor or a helping hand or anything like that from the Father. He completely merited and earned and worked for our salvation. I am only thinking of it as something God has or is without any reference to sin at all. Does grace not exist until it is bestowed on someone because of their sin?


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Canadian Baptist_
> Maybe my understanding of grace is off a bit. I am not in any way thinking that Christ "needed" grace or favor or a helping hand or anything like that from the Father. He completely merited and earned and worked for our salvation. I am only thinking of it as something God has or is without any reference to sin at all. Does grace not exist until it is bestowed on someone because of their sin?



Grace and merit are completely opposed. If you have grace, you cannot have merit. If you have merit, you cannot have grace. The one is a free gift that is undeserved, the other is a debt. If Christ had grace, He had no merit.

Grace does not exist until bestowed on one demerited (because of sin).


----------



## ARStager (Jan 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Canadian Baptist_
> ...



Fred, 

I think you're talking right past our Canadian-Baptist friend, here. I think he's thinking of the sense in which the incarnate Christ was "full of grace and truth". Just like there's more than one sense in which the English word "justification" can be used (see comments above), there's a sense in which "grace" can be used as currency apart from the economy of works. 

I'm not trying to be an Auburn Avenue or Wilsonian conflationist here, or a covenantal monophysite, as it were, but just to try and suggest some avenues by which you might clarify what perhaps our friend is curious about.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ARStager_
> Just like there's more than one sense in which the English word "justification" can be used (see comments above), there's a sense in which "grace" can be used as currency apart from the economy of works.



I'm pretty sure I understand what you're saying - that while grace cannot be seen as something Christ needed for sin, it can still be seen in _some_ way other than something we need for sin, such as in a sort of abstract way, or an end in itself, not attached to the concept of sin or its removal.

While that view is certainly not as dangerous as saying that Christ needed grace for sin, I still think it is biblically incorrect. Since you seem to think there can exist a type of grace other than the mercy shown to us for our sin, what do you really see that other type as? What is its nature or purpose?


----------



## ARStager (Jan 12, 2005)

No one (at least not me) said that Christ needed grace. I'm just saying that the bible says that he HAD it...indeed....HAS it. 

I'm not interested in attempting to define the way "grace" is used as descriptive of what Christ is "full of" --- that's for folks like Fred and other seminarians, pastors, profs, to hopefully sort out for us. I was simply pointing out that our friend is perhaps wondering (and now, so am I) how to define this other use of the english word "grace" in those passages, seeing as how it obviously doesn't intend to teach that Christ was given grace by the Father because of some want on his part.


----------



## fredtgreco (Jan 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ARStager_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



The John passage refers to Christ as the source of grace that flows to us, not the object of grace. You don't have to redefine "grace," just take that text in concert with the rest of Scripture

so Calvin:


> the fullness of grace in Christ is the *fountain from which all of us must draw*, as we shall have occasion shortly afterwards to explain more fully



and JFB:


> full of grace and truth--So it should read: "He dwelt among us full of grace and truth"; or, in Old Testament phrase, "Mercy and truth," denoting the whole fruit of God's purposes of love towards sinners of mankind, which until now existed only in promise, and the fulfilment at length of that promise in Christ; in one great word, "the SURE MERCIES of David" (Isa 55:3; Ac 13:34; compare 2Sa 23:5). In His Person all that Grace and Truth which had been floating so long in shadowy forms, and darting into the souls of the poor and needy its broken beams, took everlasting possession of human flesh and filled it full. By this Incarnation of Grace and Truth, the teaching of thousands of years was at once transcended and beggared, and the family of God sprang into Manhood.



And Matthew Poole:


> Full of grace and truth, as he was God manifested in the flesh. Grace signifieth love and good will, out of which it was that he delivered us from the curse and rigour of the law (to which grace is opposed). He was also full of truth, both as truth is opposed to falsehood, and to the shadows and figures of the law; and Christ was full of truth as he was the antitype to all the ceremonies, and all the promises had and have their completion and reality in him: see Joh 14:17 Ro 15:8 2Co 1:20. Truth also may signify the sincerity and integrity of Christ´s life, as he was without guile.


----------



## ARStager (Jan 12, 2005)

See, 

I told you Fred would bail us all out! 

Those are some beautiful and inspiring commentaries. Makes me want to fast forward to December and sing "O Come, O Come..." all over again!


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ARStager_
> No one (at least not me) said that Christ needed grace. I'm just saying that the bible says that he HAD it...indeed....HAS it.



In my above post, I said I knew you weren't using it that way.



> _Originally posted by ARStager_
> I'm not interested in attempting to define the way "grace" is used as descriptive of what Christ is "full of" --- that's for folks like Fred and other seminarians, pastors, profs, to hopefully sort out for us. I was simply pointing out that our friend is perhaps wondering (and now, so am I) how to define this other use of the english word "grace" in those passages, seeing as how it obviously doesn't intend to teach that Christ was given grace by the Father because of some want on his part.



And as Fred showed above, I was saying that there is no other sense of the word other than our needed mercy for sin, since another such sense was what you seemed to be wondering about, even though I knew you weren't saying it was something Christ needed. We seem to be on the same page now.


----------



## ARStager (Jan 12, 2005)

I didn't mean that there was a separate definition -- although I see how I may have suggested that accidentally. 

yes, i think we ARE on the same page. Wheeeew...I narrowly avoided being anathematized there.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 12, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ARStager_
> anathematized



Big words! (Yes, I _am_ in a weird mood right now.)


----------



## ARStager (Jan 12, 2005)

I was just curious if commentators said that Christ's "full of grace"-ness was there refering to, say, his majesty or something. I was just curious, because we use the word "graceful" to mean something other than meaning someone is "the fountainhead from which all demerited people will come and be counted meritorious upon drinking therefrom".


----------



## ARStager (Jan 12, 2005)

I thought your mood was Van Tillian?!


----------



## ARStager (Jan 12, 2005)

are you implying that there's more than one definition for "weird"?:bigsmile:


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jan 12, 2005)

Well, that depends on what you mean by "definition." :bigsmile:


----------



## ARStager (Jan 12, 2005)

Forget it! Let's just all go read Jacques Derrida and light a candle for him, eh?!!!


----------



## Canadian Baptist (Jan 13, 2005)

I am satisfied with this singular sense of the nature and purpose of grace. The sense of Christ being the fountainhead of grace in the passage in John and not a statement about Christs person in an abstract sort of way is clearly understandable. I was only thinking out loud about the sense in which it seemed to be used in that passage. Thanks guys.


----------



## ARStager (Jan 13, 2005)

Good--I think that was beneficial for all parties involved. There's a certain degree of freedom to "think out loud" that our friends here seem to tolerate (but boy do they hate that word, "tolerate") before excommunicating us. The good thing is that there's so many folks with 545746043 volumes of reformer's commentaries and folks with the catechisms memorized, that we're in school more often than we're in court.


----------

