# Justification and Imputation



## LOvED88 (Jul 10, 2006)

I have been doing some studying on Justification and Imputation. It is clear that Justification is forensic, that is judicial and declarative and it appears that many state that imputation is also forensic. But isn't the declarative act of Justification, the declaring a person righteous, dependent upon a "real" as opposed to just declarative act of "counting the righteousness of Christ to us"? How can God actually declare us righteous unless there is a real covering (not infusion) of the righteousness of Christ upon us? If, upon the cross God saw upon Christ our imputed sin ("God laid on Him the inquitiy of us all"), which sound like a "real" laying of our sin upon Him as opposed to just a declarative laying, then would it not follow that there is a real laying of the righteousness of Christ upon us? I am not espousinng the Catholic view of our having a righteousness of our own, rather we are covered, by atonement, with the blood and righteousness of Christ and through the process of sanctification, we are being transformed and conformed to the total image and righteousness of Christ. Just trying to work through this. I would appreciate any insights.

Ed

[Edited on 7-11-2006 by LOvED88]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 11, 2006)

What is "real" is our union with Christ. Come to grips with that, and the question of "reality" (as you put it--I wouldn't drive a wedge of realism between the judicial act of God and its objectivity) will recede.

We also confess a "double imputation", that is, that our sins are counted against Christ--and he is punished for them on the cross. AND, his righteousness is immediately counted to our accounts. We need both his sacrifice to releive our debts, and his righteousness to meet the demands of the law that we have (and still fail) to meet up to.


----------



## MW (Jul 11, 2006)

This is one of those points on which reformed theologians express themselves differently. For those who stress union with Christ, the believer is righteous in Christ, and imputation is the penal declaration that they are righteous, i.e., in Christ. Others, who do not take in union with Christ, tend to speak of imputation as the act by which they are made, i.e. constituted, righteous. I favour the first. This way there is no declaring of an unrighteous person to be righteous, which Proverbs calls an abomination.

Thomas Manton is a good example of seeing imputation within the context of union (Works, 14:9):

1. That to justify is to account or accept as righteous.
2. None are accounted or accepted as righteous but those that indeed are so.
3. Every righteousness will not serve the turn, but such as will satisfy God´s justice.
4. God´s justice will never be satisfied till the law be satisfied.
5. The law will never be satisfied but by active and passive obedience.
6. This satisfaction is only to be had in Christ.
7. There is no having this righteousness in Christ but by imputation.
8. There is no imputation but by union.
9. There is no union but by faith.

Points 7-9 follow:

7. There is no having of this righteousness from Christ but by imputation. I know here some boggle and say, Imputation is nowhere found in scripture. I answer, We do not stand upon words and syllables; but this is most proper, and it may be well gathered, for Christ is said "œto be made righteousness," 1 Cor. 1:30; righteousness is said "œto be imputed without works," Rom. 4:6; and "œfaith is imputed for righteousness," Rom. 4:22. To clear the proposition, it must needs be by imputation,
(1.) Because this righteousness must be in justificato, in the justified person. This righteousness, one way or other, must belong to the person justified, otherwise the Lord cannot look upon us as righteous. The man was cast out "œthat had not on him the wedding garment," Matt. 22:11-13. Now by infusion it cannot be, all inherent righteousness being imperfect; therefore it must be by imputation.
(2.) Consider what imputation is. To impute is to reckon a thing to our score and account; and those things are said to be imputed to us which are accounted ours to all intents and purposes, as if they were our own. Now in this sense our sins were imputed to Christ, and Christ´s righteousness is imputed to us. The apostle makes the parallel, 2 Cor. 5:21, "œFor he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." Look, as Christ was so dealt with as if he had been a sinner, so we are as if we were righteous. Our iniquities were not infused into Christ, but imputed and laid upon him; Isa. 53:6, "œThe Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all;" so is his righteousness upon all them that believe. And the apostle useth another comparison; as Adam´s guilt is laid upon us, so is Christ´s righteousness: "œAs by one man´s disobedience many were made sinners; so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous," Rom. 5:19. In short, the apostle saith, 1 Cor. 1:30, that Christ is "œmade unto us of God righteousness;" and the whole righteousness is imputed to satisfy the obligation of the law, and to repair Adam´s loss: for we were guilty of death, and we came short of glory; Gal. 4:4-6, "œWhen the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law," etc.
8. There is no imputation but by union. All interest is founded in union; Gal. 3:27, "œAs many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ;" all his merits and satisfaction are theirs, as if performed in their own persons; 1 Cor. 1:30, "œOf him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption." We are interested in all, as we are in him; by being one with Christ we put him on.
9. There is no union but by faith; then God receives us into grace; Rom. 10:10, "œWith the heart man believeth unto righteousness." It is the ordination of God that this grace should unite us to Christ, and so give us a right to all that is in Christ; indeed it is the fittest grace to receive the fruits of union. I confess there is a moral union by love that gives comfort; but faith begins the mystical union, and so gives safety.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 11, 2006)

Ed,

This was the issue on which the entire Reformation turned. If the ground of our justification is in us then Rome is right. See the Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent and then see Calvin's response to Trent.

Look at the justification documents here:

http://www.wscal.edu/clark/systematictheology.php

If the ground of our justification is in Christ, then Luther (and ALL the Protestant confessions) was right. This is the basic choice.

The medieval doctrine (from different perspectives) was that we're justified on the ground of Spirit-wrought sanctity and (condign merit) and cooperation with the Spirit/grace. 

That's why the Protestants located the ground in Christ's perfect obedience. In that sense the ground is realistic, in Christ, but not realistic in us. There is no ground in us. 

The difference between Protestantism and Rome is the difference between "in" and "for." The latter is the Protestant preposition as touching justification.

Your question also raises the question of the efficacy of God's Word. My friend Bob Kolb speaks of Luther's "ontology of the word," meaning that rather than making justification ontological (a matter of being or being divinized) it locates justification in God's declarative word: Justified. 

Rome (and some Protestants now) accuse us of teaching justification grounded in a "legal fiction." Some propose to resolve this by creating a realistic ground in us via union with Christ. Careful. Rome is waiting for us if we pursue a ground of justification in ourselves. 

Our confessions uniformly connect union with Christ with faith. The Spirit is said to create faith and union by faith through the Spirit working through the Word.

Why is God's declaration a legal fiction? Was "let there be" a legal fiction? If God says "righteous" are we not righteous? Who are we to say, a priori, "God can only say x if I am intrinsically x"? Why isn't this rationalism? Why isn't this what Luther called the "theology of glory"?

This was the great medieval assumption: God can only say of us "just" if we are actually, intrinsically, just. This is, of course, an assumption that we do not accept. It is not a biblical assumption and it is not a necessary assumption. 

The Protestant response to the Roman a priori is: simul iustus et peccator (at the same time righteous and sinner). The answer is, as Luther has it, "it is so (i.e., I am righteous) because God says it is so." If we ask for something beyond God's Word then where do we stop? 

Rome cannot stand the tension between what we are intrinsically and what God has said about us on the basis of Christ's (realistic) righteousness imputed (forenisc) to us and received through faith alone.

Protestant attempts to resolve that tension will necessarily lead to the destruction of the Reformation. 

So the real question is whether the Reformation doctrine of justification was a mistake. Our confessions (the Augsburg Art 4; Heidelberg 21, 60; Belgic 22-24; WCF 11; WLC 70-73) are completely united on these questions.



> Christ our imputed sin ("God laid on Him the inquitiy of us all"), which sound like a "real" laying of our sin upon Him as opposed to just a declarative laying...



I don't see why this language should be regarded as "realistic" as opposted to forensic? The verb form used in Isa 53:6 does not seem to denote recognition of something intrinsic, after all the point of the passage is that there was a transfer of something (sin) to the servant of that does not properly belong to the Servant. The root sense of the verb is "to meet," and in the Hiphil denotes "to cause to light upon" (from BDB). 

Certainly the NT uses strongly forensic language to describe this exchange of our sin for Christ's righteousness.

Certainly our sins are real and Christ's righteousness is real, but unless one wants to say that Christ actually sinned and/or that we actaully obeyed perfectly then the realistic explanation fails.

God did not condemn the Servant because of anything intrinsic in him nor does he declare us righteous on the basis of anything intrinsic in us.



> we are covered, by atonement, with the blood and righteousness of Christ and through the process of sanctification...



I don't think you want to say this do you, include the "process of sanctification" in the atonement? Don't you want to make the process of sacntification the result of the atonement?

rsc


----------



## LOvED88 (Jul 11, 2006)

Mr. Clark,

Thank you for your reply (and thank to the others who had replied as well). I often dislike posting questions on forums for I feel like there is always some type of witchhunt, looking for heresy or bad theology in the midst of an honest question. I do believe that my question was ultimately misunderstood and I also think I was misquoted. The fundamental question I have (and please excuse my ignorance) is this:

Is imputation only forensic or is there a "real" or tangible transference of my sin to Christ and Christ righteousness to me?

I understand that I am not righteous in myself, but that the righteousness of Christ has been "counted" or "reckoned" to me. I also understand that when Christ was "made sin" (2 Corinthians 5:21) that He did not become a sinner. Martin Luther used the analogy for Justification/Imputation of a dung hill covered with snow. The snow covers the dung hill making it look white and beautiful, while the inside is yet dung. The snow pictures the righteousness of Christ, the dung pictures my sinful self. The analogy give not just a declarative picture of being covered, but an actual covering. Then, having the righteousness of Christ as my covering, I proceed in the Christian life having the dung removed day by day through progressive sanctification.

I do not regard Justification as "legal fiction" but as a real statement of God declaring me righteous. But how is this body of dung righteous? But by the imputed righteousness of Christ. But is this imputation merely forensic as well, or is there something tangible (in spiritual sense)? When God looks at me, He sees me in Christ, as covered by His blood, "dressed" (a seemingly tangible idea) in His righteousness alone (not my own).

When you quoted me, you did not complete the quote. Perhaps I did not word it well, but my full quote was:




> "I am not espousing the Catholic view of our having a righteousness of our own, rather we are covered, by atonement, with the blood and righteousness of Christ and through the process of sanctification, we are being transformed and conformed to the total image and righteousness of Christ."



I was not including the process of sanctification in the atonement. There are two different thoughts here; first that we are able to be declared righteous by the atonement, covered (not infused) by the blood and righteousness of Christ; and then, once we have been "made righteous", the sinful self (the dung to borrow again from Luther) is replaced with "Christlikeness" through the process of sanctification. So, yes, I agree that progressive sanctification is a result or comes after the atonement.

I don't even have a problem with forensic imputation. I am simply trying to understand how something more "tangible" (or concrete as opposed to simply conceptual) in a spiritual sense is not in view. If, when God looked at His Son on the Cross He saw only our sin, in what sense was our sin imputed to Christ? Only because God said it was imputed, but it wasn't really there? In the same vein, in what sense is the righteousness of Christ imputed to us? Only because God says son, but there isn't a real covering on us of the righteousness of Christ? 

You said,


> Why is God's declaration a legal fiction? Was "let there be" a legal fiction? If God says "righteous" are we not righteous? Who are we to say, a priori, "God can only say x if I am intrinsically x"? Why isn't this rationalism? Why isn't this what Luther called the "theology of glory"?



When God said, "let there be" there was a real, tangible result; there was light, there was an expanse, there was sea and land, sun and moon, etc. The declarative (in the case now Justification) was followed by a real result (imputation).

I appreciate your time and thouhts. I may simply be making too much of this, but I am really simply trying to grasp the greatness of these things to the glory of God. So please, be patient with me.

[Edited on 7-12-2006 by LOvED88]

[Edited on 7-12-2006 by LOvED88]

[Edited on 7-12-2006 by LOvED88]

[Edited on 7-12-2006 by LOvED88]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jul 11, 2006)

Sin is based on a relationship to the character of God.

When I sin, I do not create an object in the middle of the room which I can pick up, turn over, or toss in the garbage. Instead, it is a violation of the holiness of God's character. 

As my sin was imputed to Christ (blessed am I!!) the accountability, the reckoning, of it was imputed to Him. He became the sin offering. He did not suddenly have a "cloak" of weight, or some object, sitting upon his shoulders. Rather, the forensic and legal act of reckoning took place. The double cure was ensued, and my sin was imputed to him (accounted as if God kept record) and His righteousness was imputed to me (accounted as if I had been done that which was perfectly in conformity to the will of God). (Which is equally amazing!!)

The "reckoning of the transference" is real. But is not an object, or material. It remains a legal declaration that is recorded. It is what we would call an "intangible good."

Luther said that we were much like a pile of dung covered in *gold* (though I understand what you mean with "snow). Imputation/justification surround "covering", or being covered.

Christian equally have a tough time believing that the old man is dead. But he is. He is a goner, dead, killed, and buried in the work of Christ. But, that does not mean that the remnants of remaining sin (that which does not reign but attempts to oppress me) tries to recover the old man. The old man never recesitates, but the sin nature attempts it anyway. (Romans 7)

When you talk about something "tangible" you'll have to throw away that term in regard to this discussion. Creation is not akin to legal declaration. 

I will never experience justification. I only experience its fruits.


----------



## MW (Jul 11, 2006)

I think union to Christ is still the key. That is *real* according to the Confession. Christ made righteousness is as tangible to the soul by faith as bread and water is to the body by sense. If you have Christ, you have all things, you are complete in Him. If you are "found in Him" then His righteousness really, tangibly and experientially covers you.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 12, 2006)

Ed,





> Is imputation only forensic or is there a "real" or tangible transference of my sin to Christ and Christ righteousness to me?



This is the central question I was trying to answer. The word "real" is ambiguous here. 

Did you read and consider my brief account of the history of justification that I provided? 

In the history of theology, Rome used the word (or idea) of "real" exactly as you are doing. I'm not speaking to your intent I'm describing history as I understand it and the theological consequence of your reasoning.

If "real" means "something in me." Then no, there's nothing in you that serves as the ground of justification, whether wrought by the Spirit or cooperation with the Spirit or without the Spirit.

Anyone who argues for an intrinsic (something 'real' in me) basis for God's declaration of justification has abandoned the Reformation. This was one of the most central issues with Rome. Now, it may be that the Reformation was a giant mistake (I don't think so!) but let us understand what the question was.

So, when you say "real" you seem to imply "tangible." 



> The analogy give not just a declarative picture of being covered, but an actual covering.



All analogies break down. Yes, Jesus righteousness is "real." It is the most "real" thing, but it isn't "real" in the sense you seem to be using it. 

For Luther, the Word of God makes a thing so, even if not fully manifest in this life in a tangible way. See HC 114-116. Your account of "real" obliterates "at the same time righteous and a sinner." What I'm trying to preserve is that tension.

If you wish, I'm happy to send you a long-ish, somewhat detailed and technical paper on Luther's doctrine of justification. 

Then, having the righteousness of Christ as my covering, I proceed in the Christian life having the dung removed day by day through progressive sanctification.



> But is this imputation merely forensic as well, or is there something tangible (in spiritual sense)?



The adverb "merely" is perjorative isn't it? Why isn't God's mere declaration enough? Why must we seek for more than God has spoken? Why must we look for some other ground than the Word? The Gospel is: Whosoever believes. The gospel is imputation of Christ's perfect obedience. The gospel has consequences (sanctification), logical, necessary consequences, but those consequences are just that. 

We must not fold the consequences into the ground! That's the Reformation issue.

I understand that pastors want to see sanctity in their congregants. I understand that God's people are sinful and that pastors are frustrated. I deal with this all the time. The answer, however, is not to revise the doctrine of justification. The paradox of the Christian life is that we will not ge the "results" we want (sanctification) by making sanctity (in whatever way) part of the ground or instrument of justification. 

The paradox is that we will only achieve the "goal" of sanctify by preaching the foolishness of justification sola gratia, sola fide, the gospel of "mere" imputed righteousness. It is that which God has promised to use to produce the sanctity we long to see in our people. This is why Luther called justification by sanctification a theology of glory by which he meant rationalism. 



> When God looks at me, He sees me in Christ, as covered by His blood, "dressed" (a seemingly tangible idea) in His righteousness alone (not my own).



On this hermeneutic why doesn't God have eyes or ears or feet or legs or arms? This are all "tangible" metaphors for real truths. God really does "hear" and "see" and act etc. I'm pretty sure you don't want to puruse his method of reading Scripture.



> I don't even have a problem with forensic imputation. I am simply trying to understand how something more "tangible" (or concrete as opposed to simply conceptual) in a spiritual sense is not in view.



You seem to be using "spiritual" to mean "etheral" or "immaterial." This may be part of the problem. Try capitalizing the S. Sanctity is Spiritual, i.e., it is Spirit wrought through the means of grace. 

The gospel is also Spiritual. It is the instrument that the Spirit uses to regenerate, create faith in and union with Christ. The righteousness we have is "real," as God defines "real." The Word of God is "real." 

Are the promises of God "real?" Jesus is to return. Is that "real"? Is our hope "real"? Is the resurrection promise "real"? Yes. Do we have all those things in our hands? No. See Hebrews 1 and 11.

I'm cautioning against an over-realized eschatology. There are things that we will not have in this age. Hence Rom 7. This is the age of longing and groaning and waiting. This is not the age of seeing and holding in our hands. This isn't the age of glorification. This is the age of journeying toward the goal.



> If, when God looked at His Son on the Cross He saw only our sin, in what sense was our sin imputed to Christ?



In the same sense in which his righteousness is imputed to believers. See Murray's work on the imputation of Adam's sin.



> Only because God said it was imputed, but it wasn't really there? In the same vein, in what sense is the righteousness of Christ imputed to us? Only because God says son, but there isn't a real covering on us of the righteousness of Christ?



"Only because God said?" Are you sure you want to speak that way? Ed, if I may caution you, this is the language of rationalism. Please note that I did not say "rationality" but -ism. You seem to me to have set up a standard apart from Scripture which Scripture has to meet. This is fatal to Christianity. If there is some other standard apart from the Word of God, then that standard is ultimate and the Word is subordinate. Of course that reverses the proper order of things by 180 degrees!

I'm sure you don't mean to do this, but such is the effect of your reasoning. 

"God said" is the ultimate standard of what is "real." Look at the way Jesus speaks about "true" and "truth" in John. See Vos' essay on the same in his collected writings. In Scripture "real" and "true" (meaning most real) are those things which are associated with heaven. They break into this world in the judgment and salvation, but the tangible (e.g., the manna and water in the desert) were not the most "real" things. Christ was the "true" bread. He was the living water. We cannot see him now. He is not "tangible" now. This lack caused the Jewish Christians to go back to Moses, hence the book of Hebrews. Where is Jesus? He's at the right hand. Where's that? These are the issues that caused Hebrews to say that Jesus is at the top of the true, real, ultimate, Mt Zion, as it were. No, you can't "touch" him now, but you will one day. That's the tension we must accept.



> When God said, "let there be" there was a real, tangible result; there was light, there was an expanse, there was sea and land, sun and moon, etc. The declarative (in the case now Justification) was followed by a real result (imputation).



The truth/reality of justification is AS REAL as any of those things. That fact that we do not have the sort of empirical evidence for them that we have for creation is why Hebrews speaks of faith. We trust the Word/Promise of God just as were were to trust him that we would enter Canaan, that we would have manna, that we would cross out of Egypt. 

How are you not asking for leeks and onions? To paraphrase Keith Green, "so you wanna go back to Egypt?"



> I may simply be making too much of this, but I am really simply trying to grasp the greatness of these things to the glory of God. So please, be patient with me.



If I may, it's not a matter of too much but too little. You make too little of the Word and too much of empirical evidence; it's a matter of some problematic assumptions that need to be questioned and, in my view, rejected in favor of the Reformed confession of Scripture.

Blessings,

rsc


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jul 12, 2006)

That was an excellent post to read, Dr. Clark - especially your comments on the somewhat paradoxical necessity of having the exclusively forensic Gospel in order to produce the tangible results of sanctity.


----------



## LOvED88 (Jul 16, 2006)

Mr. Clark

I do appreciate all your time and information. I do feel that I have been misunderstood as to my conviction and stance on Scripture in this matter. I have never had the opportunity to look so intently at the relationship between justification and imputation before. Being in a small and demanding ministry, I have very few outlets and resources to examine such things so your information has been helpful. 


When I used words like "real" and "tangible" - I had no idea that I was using the same terminology as that of Rome. I have no conceptions of anything intrinsic "in man" as if man has a righteousness of his own. It is only the merits and righteousness of Christ that justifies. Passages like 1 Peter 2:24 and Colossians 2:14 use language "bore our sins in His body"; "having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross" that got me wondering just "how" God did such things. 

I was a bit disconcerted by your implications that I "make too little of God's word and too much of empirical evidence." Frankly, you have no idea as to my stance on the authority of the Word God. I firmly believe in Scripture alone and just because I am trying to understand the nature of imputation and its connection to justification and ignorantly used some of the same terms as that of Romanism is no grounds to assume that I intended the same meanings. It might do me well to define my core beliefs before I engage in such an endeavor in the future, but it might do you well to ask for such definitions before assuming that I am espousing an errant view.

Another example is as follows:




> "Only because God said?" Are you sure you want to speak that way? Ed, if I may caution you, this is the language of rationalism. Please note that I did not say "rationality" but -ism. You seem to me to have set up a standard apart from Scripture which Scripture has to meet. This is fatal to Christianity.



First, you did not fully quote me - which is unfair and you took the whole statement out of context. I was not questioning God's authority to simply speak something and it be both true and sufficient. However, there are things that God both speaks and then provides a "tangible" or humanly "measurable" result. God spoke and there was light. God regenerates and then there is a heart that longs for the salvation of God. It was in this vein that I was asking the question. I suppose I need to learn to be more precise with my question asking, "Did God only speak the reality of imputation without there also being any measurable human result?" Again, not that more was needed on God's part, but simply, "can I see any measurable result from imputation itself?"

However, you have sharpened me, and I thank you for that. I commend your zeal to defend the Word of God and I hope that you know I share your zeal. I am simply not as educated in these fine points as you.

May God be glorified as we grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Ed


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 16, 2006)

Dear Pastor,

I wasn't speaking about your intent or personal convictions. I was analyzing the logical and theological effect of what you are saying. I was speaking about unintended consequences.

I understand that you're not aware of all the issues. I deduced that from your language. That's why I wrote the posts. I'm trying to help you see the effect of your language. 

I'm sorry if I was too abrupt or short. I get a lot of email and I don't always take the time to say all the nice things I should.

Sorry about that.

Please read Buchanan's _Doctrine of Justification_. It's essential.

Here are some other resources:

http://www.wscal.edu/clark/

Check out the Syst Theology and Cov Theology and Fed Vis pages for relevant documents, sources, etc.

Blessings,

rsc







> _Originally posted by LOvED88_
> Mr. Clark
> 
> I do appreciate all your time and information. I do feel that I have been misunderstood as to my conviction and stance on Scripture in this matter. I have never had the opportunity to look so intently at the relationship between justification and imputation before. Being in a small and demanding ministry, I have very few outlets and resources to examine such things so your information has been helpful.
> ...


----------



## LOvED88 (Jul 16, 2006)

Mr. Clark,

Thank you for your response and the links to further information. May the Lord continue to bless you as you serve Him.


----------

