Justification is a Change of Moral Character When A Sinner Is Made Righteous in Character by Faith | Jesse Morrell

StackofBooks

Click Here for FREE Christian Theology Books

Justification is a Change of Moral Character

When A Sinner is made Righteous in Character by Faith

By Jesse Morrell

A Koine Greek Word Study on Justification 

I have seen Antinomians take a verse like this one to say that justification is God declaring us to be righteous even while we are actually unrighteous:

“But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” Romans 4:5

But the Bible says, “He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.” Prov. 17:15

There certainly is no salvation without repentance and as believers are called “sanctified” and “saints” it is evident that salvation includes a change of moral character.

My thinking is that “justification by faith” as opposed to “by works of the law” was not about God “declaring us to be righteous while we are actually unrighteous” but rather than faith is the means by which we actually become righteous in character.

When Paul spoke of “the law” He was chiefly referring to the Torah. There were Jews who said that the Gentiles needed to obey the Torah to be saved. And many of the Jews, like the Pharisees, obeyed the letter of the Torah outwardly through tradition and culture and thought that they were righteous because of it, though they did not truly have faith in the promises of God or in faith. So Paul argued that it is not by works of the law that a man of justified or made righteous, as Abraham was justified or made righteous by faith before the Torah even existed.

So if a Gentile believes in Jesus Christ, and is not circumcised and made obedient to the Jewish Torah, his faith in Christ itself is considered [imputed] righteousness by God. And as a result of that faith, he will obey God just as Abraham obeyed God by faith. I think that is the real reason why faith is imputed or considered righteousness by God, because it is the root of all true obedience.

But does the word justification itself include a change of moral character? I think so.

The word for justified or justifieth is “δικαιόω” and it can mean to be “declared righteous” as in a court of law when you are falsely accused and are consequently “justified,” but it can also mean “to render righteous.” In other words, I understand justification by faith as meaning that by faith we are made actually righteous in character.

There are times in which “δικαιόω” seems to be used in the scriptures to refer to a legal declaration of righteousness and also to expression the pardon or forgiveness of sin, but I think that a change of moral character is strongly taught in the word itself.

The root word is “δίκαιος” and refers to being upright, virtuous, keeping God’s commandments, etc.

For example in Matthew 1:19 when it says, “Then Joseph her husband, being a just [δίκαιος] man…” Or, “And they were both righteous [δίκαιος] before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.” Luke 1:6. Or, “I came not to call the righteous [δίκαιος] but sinners to repentance.” Luke 5:32. And “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous [δίκαιος].” Rom. 5:19. In these passages δίκαιος is used to refer to a righteous moral character.

And another related word is “δικαιοσύνη” which also comes from the same root word “δίκαιος.” It also refers to virtue, purity of life, etc.

Examples would be:

“But in every nation he that feareth him, and worth righteousness [δικαιοσύνη], is accepted with him.” Acts 10:35

“Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness [δικαιοσύνη].” Rom. 6:18

“Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness [δικαιοσύνη] is righteous [δίκαιος], even as he is righteous [δίκαιος].” 1 John 3:7

“In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness [δικαιοσύνη] is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.” 1 John 3:10

In these passages we see that δικαιοσύνη refers to the righteous things that a righteous man does.

One verse that uses all of these words is this one: “To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness [δικαιοσύνη]: that he might be just [δίκαιος], and the justifier [δικαιόω] of him which believeth in Jesus.” Romans 3:26.

And the word for “justification” is “δικαίωσις.”

This word is only used in two passages:

“Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification [δικαίωσις].” Romans 4:25

“Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness [δικαίωμα] of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification [δικαίωσις] of life.” Romans 5:18

The above passage also introduced a new word to this discussion – “δικαίωμα” which means a righteous act or deed in this passage. In other passages it is translated as “justification,” “ordinance,” “righteousness,” etc.

Summary:

δικαίωσις, – justification
δικαίωμα, – justification, righteous act, etc.
δικαιόω – justifieth, justified
δικαιοσύνη – righteousness
δίκαιος – just, righteous

And so justification, as I understand it, is not a pronouncement of being righteous while you are actually unrighteous, but actually making a person righteous in heart and life by faith in Christ. Paul argued that it is not obedience to the Torah that God imputes or considers as righteousness, but faith which results in good works and works by love which God imputes or reckons as righteousness. It is by faith that a person is made righteous because faith is what God considers righteousness and because faith results in a righteous life.

“And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” 1 Cor. 6:11

BDAG says, “In the context of 1 Cor. 6:11, ἐδικαιώθητε means you have become pure.”

Lutherans have always tried to separate “sanctification” from “justification,” and have taught that when a person trusts in Christ they are declared righteous even though they keep sinning, but then throughout their Christian life they are being sanctified whereby they sin less and less. But I see sanctification as a definite part of justification. Gospel justification includes the forgiveness of sin but also includes the making of a person righteous in character by faith in Christ.

Charles Finney said, “Men are justified by faith in Christ, because they are sanctified by faith in Him. They do not have righteousness imputed to them, and thus stand justified by an arbitrary fiction, while they are personally unholy, but they are made righteous by faith, and that is the reason why they are justified.”  The Oberlin Evangelist, July 19, 1843, Holiness Of Christians In The Present Life:–No. 11, Justification.

In other words, justification by faith is not justification in sin. Rather, justification by faith is being made righteous by faith.

Simul Justus Et Peccator

Justification in Sin a False Reformed/Calvinist Doctrine

There is a false teaching of “justification” today which says that you can remain in your wickedness and sin and yet be just in the eyes of God. It’s a doctrine of the Calvinist Reformers. They taught “simul justus et peccator” which is Latin for “simultaneously just and sinner.” This false doctrine teaches that you are justified or righteous while you are actually unrighteous – that a sinner is just and right while in fact being unjust and unrighteous. In other words, a believer is justified or just and righteous in the eyes of God even while in the commission of wicked acts and deeds. We also call this the doctrine of “sinning saints” or “carnal Christianity.” And “simul justus et peculator” or being righteous while you are sinning is said to be “the essence” of the Reformed view of justification and “the very heart of the Gospel.”

The Apostle Paul is slandered by having the doctrine of “simul justus et peculator” credited to his name. But when Paul taught the doctrine of justification by faith, or faith being imputed as righteousness apart from works of the Torah, was Paul really teaching that a believer who lives unrighteously in practice is legally righteous in their position? Certainly not. Paul taught that a man is not justified or righteous in the eyes of God by committing works of the law like circumcision, etc. A circumcised Jew, who does not have faith in the promises of God, is unrighteous in God’s eyes because it is not works of the law that God imputes as righteousness but faith in His promises that He imputes as righteousness.

Abraham was justified before the Torah even existed and so Paul argued that the Gentiles do not need to keep the Jewish Torah to be saved. Abraham believed God and his faith in God was imputed or considered by God to be righteousness. And it was by faith that Abraham obeyed God. And so, justification by faith apart from works of the law means that we do not need to be circumcised and follow all of the external regulations of the Torah to be justified or righteous but rather, if we put our faith in Christ, God will impute or consider our faith as righteousness and our faith will result in us living a righteous life.

The doctrine of justification by faith to Paul did not mean that you can live unrighteous by faith. Rather, it teaches that believers are made righteous by faith. The debate between justification by faith and justification by works was a debate on the question, “What does God constitute or define as righteousness?” And Paul argued that it was not works of the law like circumcision that made a person righteous before God but rather faith and trust in the promises of God, such faith that resulted in good works, purification of heart and life, working by love, keeping His moral law, overcoming the world, etc.

It is a perversion of scripture and a slander upon the Apostle Paul to say that he taught the doctrine of justification in sin instead of justification from sin. If you look at what Paul said in 1 Cor. 6:9-11, you will see what Paul meant by his use of the word “justified.” He clearly did not teach justification in sin:

“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-11

A few points to consider about these verses.

First, notice that “the unrighteous” are not described as merely being unrighteous in their “position,” but as being unrighteous because of their practice of sins like fornication, adultery, stealing, drunkenness, etc. The reason they were unrighteous in position was because they were unrighteous in practice. A man is unrighteous because of his actions and deeds. A man who is characterized by these sins is “unrighteous” and so the counter-part of this, known as “the righteous,” are those who are not engaging in said behavior. Those who are “righteous” are not drunkards, fornicators, homosexuals, etc, at least not anymore.

Second, note that Paul wrote this to believers and said of them, “and such were some of you.” He did not tell them, “You still are drunkards and fornicators in your practice, but because you believe in Reformed doctrine you are now righteous in your position before God.” Paul was not saying, “Though you still are homosexuals and commit homosexuality every single day of your life, in the eyes of God you are not homosexuals at all but are perfectly righteous to Him because you give mental ascent to Calvinist theology.” He states that the Corinthians used to practice these sins but now they do not. They were drunkards, fornicators, homosexuals, etc, but they are not anymore. Thus, those who are saved have actually had a change of moral character – a transformation of heart and life. They do not live as they used to live. They are new creatures with new hearts and walk in newness of life.

Third, note that the reason Paul said that they “were” these types of sinners but no longer are is because they have been “washed,” “sanctified,” and “justified” in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of God. Calvinists like to make a distinction between justification and sanctification and say that when a sinner believes they are justified in the eyes of God but they still have lots of sins in their life and so they are slowly and gradually sanctified throughout their life – though they will always sin every day of their life until they die no matter what. Yet, here Paul spoke of the believers sanctification as just as complete as his justification.

Paul was not teaching that a sinners believes in Jesus and gets saved, then maybe a few months later he repents of his fornication, and then maybe a few years later he repents of his stealing, etc. No! The Corinthians had completely repented of all these old sins that they used to walk in and they walk in them no more! They have been washed (pure), sanctified (dedicated to God), and justified (righteous in heart and life).

Now, it is possible to backslide into your sins instead of living by faith. Every day we need to make choices as we face temptation and we must overcome by faith to remain sanctified and justified by faith. But when a person is truly saved, they have repented of all their sins and determine in their hearts to sin no more. Moral purity of heart is received at conversion but Christian maturity of mind continues to grow throughout the rest of our lives.

It is not that the saved believers in the Corinthian church were justified in their sins and now are being slowly and gradually sanctified from their sinning. The Greek word here for “sanctified” is “ἁγιάζω” which means dedicated and consecrated to God. The Greek word for “holy”, which is the same word used for “saint,” is “ἅγιος” And so to be “sanctified” (ἁγιάζω) means you have become a holy saint (ἅγιος). At true conversion the Corinthians were made holy saints of God but consequence to that, there was behavior in the church amongst members that Paul felt necessary to confront and correct, to remind them of what God has done in their lives and to warn them “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived.” Believers need to be exhorted and encouraged to continue in the faith and in a holy life, lest they backslide into sin and depart from the faith, and these types of exhortations Paul often did with the churches he started (Acts 13:43, Acts 14:22; Gal. 5:4, 5:20-21; Col. 1:23; 1 Tim. 1:19, 1 Tim. 4:1).

True believers, at conversion, repented of their sins unto a holy life dedicated and consecrated to the Lord. If a man has not repented of all his sins at conversion and is not consequently living a holy life, he is in fact a false convert and had nothing more than a false conversion. Conversion is not a weak decision to trust in a set of doctrines but a radical decision to trust Christ with your life and soul. And I fear that many hold to the doctrine of “simul justus et peculator” for the simply reason that they are false converts. They have not repented of their sins and “believed unto righteousness.” They name of the name of Christ but have never departed from iniquity. Their faith in Christ has not made them holy or righteous in practice. They still walk in darkness and are workers of iniquity yet think that Christ’s blood covers their compromised lives. They hold to a mere doctrine of atonement and trust that they are unconditionally saved by their acknowledgment of such a doctrine, but they have not such trust or faith in Christ that they choose to obey God rather than sin on a daily basis.

This is the True or False Convert Test:

“And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” 1 John 2:3-4

Fourth, the word justified is “δικαιόω” and is associated with other words like “δικαίωσις” (justification), δικαίωμα (justification, righteous act), “δικαιοσύνη” (righteousness), “δίκαιος” (just, righteous).

The Bible says, “And they were both righteous [δίκαιος] before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless” (Luke 1:6.) And, “Then Joseph her husband, being a just [δίκαιος] man…” (Matthew 1:19). When it says that these people were righteous or just, it means that they were justified. A man who is sinning is not living a justified life because he is not living a righteous life. There is nothing justified about being unjust and nothing righteous about living unrighteously. A man who is living a just and righteous life is, by definition, a justified man. And this justified life, of course, comes by grace through faith.

Justification is not merely being declared righteous legally while you remain in your wickedness and sins. That is the hope and the dream of false converts who do not repent of their sins. They want to think that they are “justified” and “righteous” while they are actually unjust and unrighteous. But biblical justification is when you are actually made just and righteous. The Bible says “Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness [δικαιοσύνη] is righteous [δίκαιος], even as he is righteous [δίκαιος]” (1 John 3:7). “Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness [δικαιοσύνη]” (Rom. 6:18).

BDAG says, “In the context of 1 Cor. 6:11, ἐδικαιώθητε means you have become pure.” And so when Paul spoke of being justified or justification he was referring to this radical experience through which a person is made pure and righteous in heart and life by faith in Jesus Christ. When a man puts his faith in Christ, God imputes his faith as righteous and his faith results in righteous living. And so a man is justified by faith. That is, a man is made actually righteous in his heart and life and before God by his faith in Jesus Christ. By faith, believers are made righteous in both their position before God and their practice of life and never one without the other.

Fifth, notice that Paul uses the words washed, justified, sanctified interchangeably to describe the same experience of how the Corinthians “were” unrighteous in their living but now they are not. Paul is using washed, sanctified, and justified as types of synonyms to describe the same experience – a change of moral character.

Paul was not saying, “You are drunkards in your practice but God justifies you in your sins and declares you to be sober men and imputes sobriety to you even though you actually are not sober at all.” Paul was not saying, “Though you fornicate every day in your practice, you are sexually pure before God in your position.” No! A thousand times no! Paul was saying that since they were justified, they are no longer drunkards and fornicators! Justification is not a mere doctrine but an experience. They were actually made just – transformed and changed to become righteous in their practice.

My encouragement to you today is this:

If you think that you have a fictitious righteousness before God while you remain in your sins then you must repent and truly put your faith in Christ and then you will be made actually righteous in your heart and life.

Maybe you did repent of your sins and were made righteous when you first got saved but have since backslide into sins and comforted yourself in your impenitence with false doctrines like “simul justus et peccator.” If that is the case, you have departed from the faith and need a fresh justification. Completely repent and truly believe and be entirely justified today! If you are a believer who backslide into sin, don’t excuse and justify your sins with false doctrine. Rather, repent and the Lord will forgive you anew!

Beware, as this was Paul’s warning to the church “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived”.   He did not say this to unconverted sinners but to exhort and warn those who had been saved.

If you think that God declares you to be righteous in your position while you are actually unrighteous in your practice, think again. God cannot lie. God cannot declare the impenitent to be repentant, the unholy to be holy, the unrighteous to be righteous, and the unjustified to be justified. Don’t question and slander God’s rectitude and veracity to excuse your sinning! God will only declare you to be righteous if you are actually made righteous by faith in Christ. God will only impute your faith as righteousness if you actually have righteous faith.

And if you are dreaming that God does not see your sins but looks upon you in your wickedness and sees perfect righteousness because you claim to trust in Christ, think again. God sees all things and He calls you to repentance. There is a real, dramatic, radical, life-changing justification available to you through real faith in Jesus Christ – not a mere mental agreement with a statement of faith but a trust in Christ which results in a holy and obedient life. Saving faith is proven or shown by holy living. By faith in Christ you can be made actually righteous. By faith in Christ you can be actually justified. By faith in Christ you can become a new man! By faith in Christ, you don’t have to living in the bondage of daily sinning until you die! What good news! What a glorious gospel!

Click Here for FREE Christian Theology Books

Quotes on Justification & Imputed Righteousness

StackofBooks

Click Here for FREE Christian Theology Books

Quotes on Justification & Imputed Righteousness 

Compiled by Jesse Morrell

‘By these words [Romans 4:6-7] we are taught that justification with Paul is nothing else but pardon of sin” John Calvin, (Albert Barnes Commentary on the Romans, p. 106)

“In response to heart faith a marvelous thing happens. In heaven, we are justified… our standing before God has changed. Justified means it is as though I had never sinned.” Paris Reidhead (Finding the Reality of God, pg 111)

“What is gospel justification? It consists not in the law pronouncing the sinner just, but in his being ultimately governmentally treated as if he were just; that is, it consists in a governmental decree of pardon or amnesty – in arresting and setting aside the execution of the incurred penalty of law – in pardoning and restoring to favor those who have sinned, and those whom the law pronounced guilty, and upon whom it had passed the sentence of eternal death, and rewarding them as if they had been righteous… (Romans 4:6-7). This quotation from David shows both what David and what Paul understood by justification, to wit, the pardon and acceptance of the penitent sinner.” Charles Finney (Finney’s Systematic Theology, Published by Bethany House, p. 360).

“In response to heart faith a marvelous thing happens. In heaven, we are justified: The record against us has been changed; that is to say, our standing before God has changed. Justified means it is as though I had never sinned.” Paris Reidhead (Finding the Reality of God, Published by Bible Teaching Ministries, p. 111)

“It is very evident that in this text [Acts 13:38-39] forgiveness and justification are used interchangeably, as synonymous terms… In this rich passage [Rom. 3:25-26], which presents the fundamental elements of redemption, to remit sins and to justify, on the basis of the atonement, through the instrumentality of faith, are treated as precisely the same thing, and signify a release from the guilt and punishment of past sin, through the forbearance of God.” Asbury Lowrey, (Positive Theology, Published by R. P. Thompson, 1854, p. 211-212)

“What is justification then? To be justified is to have our sin forgiven, such that the penalty of that sin will not be carried out on us as the guilty parties. We remain guilty for the sin, but because of the atonement of Christ, and our meeting the conditions (repentance, faith), God is free to release us from the punishment we deserve to receive, He can treat us governmentally as if we were righteous, even though we are guilty of breaking his law. It is this governmental treatment as righteous, even though we are guilty, that constitutes justification.” Michael Saia (Understanding the Cross, Published by Xulon, p. 133).

 

IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS

“This is, if I understand it, the true doctrine of ‘imputation;’ not that there is any transfer of moral character from us to the Redeemer, or from him to us, and not that God literally ‘reckons’ or imputes our sins to him as his, or his righteousness to us as ours, but that his work may be estimated as performed in the place and on the account of sinful men, and that in virtue of that we may be regarded and treated as if it had been performed by ourselves.” Albert Barnes (The Atonement, Published by Bethany House, p. 315)

“God imputeth righteousness. Whom God treats as righteous… forgiven, and whose sins are not charged on him, but who is freed from the punishment due to his sins. Being thus pardoned, he is treated as a righteous man. And it is evidently in this sense that the apostle uses the expression ‘imputed righteousness’ i.e. he does not imputed, or charge on the man his sins; he reckons and treats him as a pardoned and righteous man.” Albert Barnes (Commentary on the Romans, p. 105)

“This passage [Rom. 4:5-8] deserves special attention, as it explains all those text that seem to favor, and have been construed to support the theory of the imputation of Christ’s active and passive righteousness to the sinner. Here it is manifest that justification, imputation of righteousness, forgiving iniquities, covering sins, and the non- imputation of sin, are phrases substantially of the same import, and decide positively that the Scripture view of the great doctrine under consideration, is an actual deliverance from the guilt and penalty of sin: from which it follows, that the phrases so often occurring in the writings of Paul – the righteousness of God and of Christ – must mean God’s righteous method of justifying the ungodly, through the atonement and by the instrumentality of faith – a method that upholds the rectitude of the Divine character, at the same time that it offers a full and free pardon to the sinner.” Asbury Lowrey, (Positive Theology, Published by R. P. Thompson, 1854, pg. 211-212)

“In theology, the remission of sin, and absolution from guilt and punishment; or an act of free grace by which God pardons the sinner, and accepts him as righteous, on account of the atonement of Christ.” Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

“Holiness isn’t something you can borrow – you either have it or you don’t. The theological doctrine of ‘imputed righteousness’ has been grossly distorted in our day. We are told that God looks at us through the blood of Christ and see’s us as righteous, regardless of our actual state… Let’s stop kidding ourselves. God sees us exactly the way we are. If we are living in obedience, He sees it. If we are living selfish, unholy lives, we can be sure he sees that too.” George Otis Jr. (The God They Never Knew, Published by Mott Media, p. 40)

“As one ‘made under the law’ (Ga. 4:4-5), Christ was obliged to obey and keep the law. Since He had to obey for Himself, He could not obey for others in the sense that His obedience could be literally imputed to them… while Christ could not obey for us, He could die entirely in our behalf since there was not the least guilt charged against Him for which He must die.” Gordon Olson (The Kindness of God Our Savior, Published by Revival Theology Promotions, p. 91)

 

“Forgiveness of sin, such that the penalty is not carried out, is sufficient to qualify as a definition of ‘imputed righteousness…. How could the Holy Spirit convict us of sin if he did not know we were sinning? How could we grieve the Spirit of God if he never saw us as anything other than righteous? God has a very good sense of reality, he knows when we sin, and he sees us exactly as we are.” Michael Saia (Understanding the Cross, Published by Xulon, p. 132).

 

Click Here for FREE Christian Theology Books

What the Word Imputed Means in Greek & Hebrew by Jesse Morrell

StackofBooks

Click Here for FREE Christian Theology Books

What the Word Imputed Means in Greek and Hebrew

By Jesse Morrell

(A section from the booklet “The Vicarious Atonement of Christ”)

A term in the Bible which is used to describe forgiveness and justification is “imputed righteousness”. King David and the Apostle Paul described in detail what imputed righteousness is, their description is the clearest presentation of imputed righteousness in the scripture. According to these inspired writings, imputed righteousness consists in being considered righteous, having your transgressions forgiven, having your sins covered, and as not having your iniquities imputed or accounted against you (Ps. 31:1-2; Rom. 4:7-8). In other words, to be imputed righteous is when God pardons our crimes, not giving us the treatment that we deserve, but rather treats us as if we were righteous, that is, giving us the treatment of law abiding citizens.

The New Testament word “logizomai” is translated as “think” (2 Cor. 3:5, 10:2, 10:7, 10:11, 12:6; Phi. 4:8), as “imputed” (Rom. 4:11, 4:22-24; Jam. 2:23), as “counted” (Rom. 2:26, 4:3, 4:5, 9:8), as “reckoned” (Lk. 22:37; Rom. 4:4, 4:9-10), as “accounted” (Rom. 8:36; Gal. 3:6), as “reckon” (Rom. 6:11, 8:18), as “suppose” (2 Cor. 11:5; 1 Pet. 5:12), as “account” (1 Cor. 4:1), as “accounting” (Heb. 11:19), as “conclude” (Rom. 3:28), as “count” (Phi. 3:13), as “esteemeth” (Rom. 14:14), as “impute” (Rom. 4:8), as “imputeth” (Rom. 4:6), as “imputing” (2 Cor. 5:19), as “laid” (2 Tim. 4:16), as “numbered” (Mk. 15:28), as “reasoned” (Mk. 11:31), as “thinkest” (Rom. 2:3), as “thinketh” (1 Cor. 13:5), and as “thought” (1 Cor. 13:11). When an individual is imputed righteous, it simply means that their sins are forgiven and they are thought of as righteous, esteemed as righteous, counted as righteous, reckoned as righteous, or considered as righteous. When a person is imputed as righteous they are treated as if they were righteous, treated as if they were never unrighteous.

The Old Testament equivalent word is “chashab” and it is translated as “counted” (Gen. 15:5-6, 31:15; Lev. 25:31; Num. 18:30; Jos. 13:3; Neh. 13:13; Job 18:3, 41:29; Ps. 44:22, 88:4, 106:31; Prov. 17:28, 27:14; Isa. 5:28, 40:15, 20:17; Hos. 8:12), as “thought” (Gen. 38:15, 50:20; 1Sam. 1:13, 18:25; 2 Sam. 14:13; Neh. 6:2; Ps. 73:16, 119:59; Jer. 18:8; Mal. 3:16), as “think” (Neh. 6:6; Job 41:32; Isa. 10:7; Jer. 23:27, 29:11; Eze. 38:10), as “accounted” (Deut. 2:10-11, 2:20; 1 Ki. 10:21; 2 Chron. 9:20; Isa. 2:22), as “imagine” (Job 6:26; Psa. 140:2; Hos. 7:15; Zec. 7:9-10), as “esteemed” (Isa. 29:16-17; Isa. 53:3; Lam. 4:2), as “reckoned” (Num. 18:27, 23:9; 2 Sam. 4:2; 2 Ki. 12:15), as “count” (Lev. 25:27, 25:52; Job 19:15), as “reckon” (Lev. 25:50, 27:18, 27:23), as “counteth” (Job 19:11, 33:10), as “imagined” (Ps. 10:2, Ps. 21:11), as “imputed” (Lev. 7:18, 17:4), as “account” (Ps. 144:3), as “considered” (Ps. 77:5), as “esteem” (Isa. 53:4), as “esteemeth” (Job 41:27), as “imagineth” (Nah. 1:11), as “impute” (2 Sam. 19:19), as “imputeth” (Ps. 32:2), as “reckoning” (2 Ki. 22:7), as “regard” (Isa. 13:17), as “regardeth” (Isa. 33:8), as “thinkest” (Job 35:2), and as “thinketh” (Psa. 40:17). To be imputed righteous is to be counted as righteous, to be thought of as righteous, to be

esteemed as righteous, to be reckoned as righteous, to be considered as righteous, to be regarded as righteous, etc.

The word “imputed” does not mean transferred. It is a theological error to say that the righteousness “of Christ” is transferred to us. If imputed means transferred, when God imputed an uncircumcised individual as circumcised (Rom. 2:26), it means that someone else’s circumcision is transferred to them! The obvious meaning is that they are simply considered circumcised, reckoned as circumcised, or thought of as circumcised, but not that someone else loses their circumcision so that it could be transferred to another. Some of represented the doctrine of the imputed righteousness “of Christ” as the gospel itself. But if this is the Gospel, neither Jesus nor the Apostles ever preached it! The Scriptures abundantly talk about imputed righteousness, but it never talks about the imputed righteousness “of Christ”.

When a person is imputed righteous, that means that God considers them righteous and treats them as righteous, not that the righteousness of Christ is transferred to them. To say that we need the perfect obedience that Christ rendered to the Law to be transferred to our account in order to be justified is saying that we are in fact justified by the works of the Law. Christ needed to perfectly obey the Law in order to be a spotless sacrifice and qualify as a sin offering (Exo. 12:5; 2 Cor. 5:21; Php. 2:8), but justification is by Christ’s blood (Rom. 5:9) and by faith (Rom. 3:28; 5:1; Gal 3:24), but not at all by the works of the law, either ours or Christ’s (Acts 13:39; Rom. 3:20, 3:28; Gal. 2:16, 3:11, Gal. 5:4). Christ was under obligation to obey the Law of love for himself (Matt. 5:17; Gal. 4:4), just as God is under obligation to His conscience (Gen. 18:25), so Christ’s obedience to the Law cannot be a work of supererogation and therefore cannot be transferred to another. So if Christ was under obligation to the Law, His obedience to the Law cannot be transferred to another. And if Christ was not under obligation to the Law, there would be no obedience to be transferred. It was not His obedience to the Law, but His suffering on the cross which is credited to us. He suffered and died for us and His suffering was a work of supererogation.

Some has supposed that when God looks upon the Christian, God doesn’t see the Christian but see’s the righteousness of Christ instead. But God clearly saw the good and bad works of the Christians in Revelations (Rev 2:2, 29, 2:13, 2:19, 3:1, 3:8, 3:15), not the righteousness of Christ. Imputed righteousness is not some scheme that fools God so that He no longer knows reality as it is, or see’s individuals as they are. That would mean God is no longer omniscient. Whenever anyone is in sin, our omniscient God sees it clearly (Prov. 15:3).

Imputed righteousness is a gift of God (Rom. 5:17), it comes from God (Isa. 54:17; 2 Cor. 5:21) by His grace and mercy, not earned or deserved by anything that we have done. So it is “the righteousness of God” since it comes from God and is a gift from God. Christ is our righteousness (Jer. 23:6; 1 Cor. 1:30) because it is only through Him, what He did for us on the cross, that God is able to treat us as if we were righteous, treating us as if we were never unrighteous. Imputed righteousness is not the transfer of Christ’s righteousness, neither is it a scheme that blinds God the Father, but it is the same

thing as forgiveness and justification, it is when God set’s aside the punishment that we deserve for our unrighteousness and treats us as if we had always been righteous, when God reckons or considers us as righteous. Forgiveness, justification, and imputed righteousness are expressions of the same event, when God forgives our sins and remits our penalty, letting our iniquities go as if they had not been committed (forgiveness), thus treating us as if we were just (justification), treating us as if we were righteous (imputed righteousness).

But let it be clear that forgiveness, justification, or imputed righteousness is conditional upon repentance (Isa. 55:17; Eze. 18:32; Mk. 1:4; Lk. 13:3, 13:5, 24:47), faith (Jn. 3:18; Acts 16:31; Rom. 10:9; Eph. 2:8-9), and ultimately perseverance unto the end (Matt. 10:22, 24:13; Mk. 13:13; Acts 13:43, Acts 14:22; Heb. 3:6, 3:14; ). Repentance is when a person changes their mind about sinning and makes up their mind to sin no more (Isa. 1:16, 55:7; Jn. 5:14, 8:11; 1 Cor. 15:34; Eph. 4:28), and faith is the hearts embrace and obedience to the truth (Lk. 24:25; Acts 8:37, 15:9, 26:18; Rom. 10:10; 1 Pet. 1:22). The notion of being righteous in our position but unrighteous in our practice is absolutely contrary to scripture (1 Jn. 3:7, 3:10); such a concept is false doctrine and damnable heresy (2 Pet. 2:1; Jude 1:4-5). Jesus is the author of salvation to all them that obey Him (Heb. 5:9), Christians are those who keep God’s commandments (1 Jn. 2:3), so that only those who keep God’s commandments will enter through the gates into the Heaven (Matt. 7:21, 19:17; Lk. 10:28; Rev. 22:14), while all sinners will be left outside the Holy City (Rev. 22:15). Remember, Christians are those who were formerly disobedient (Tit. 3:3; 1 Pet. 3:20) but are no longer disobedient (Rom. 6:17; Php. 2:12). Christians make the daily choice to obey God (Lk. 9:23; 1 Cor. 15:31). Christians are not sinners (Ps. 66:18; Jn. 9:31; 1 Pet. 4:18), all Christians are saints (Acts 9:13, 9:32, 9:41, 26:10; Rom. 1:7, 8:27, 12:13, 15:25-16, 15:26, 15:31, 16:2, 16:15; 1 Cor. 1:2, 6:1-2, 14:33, 16:1, 16:15; 2 Cor. 1:1, 8:4, 9:1, 9:12, 13:13; Eph. 1:1, 1:15, 1:18, 2:19, 3:8, 3:18, 4:12, 5:3, 6:18; Php. 1:1, 4:22; Col. 1:2, 1:4, 1:12, 1:26; 1 Thes. 3:13; 2 Thes. 1:10; 1 Tim. 5:10; Phm. 1:5, 1:7; Heb. 6:10, 13:24; Jude 1:3, 1:14; Rev. 5:8, 8:3-4, 11:18, 13:7, 13:10, 14:12, 15:3, 16:6, 17:6, 18:24, 19:8, 20:9). And as saints Christians are sanctified (Acts 20:32, 26:18; 1 Cor. 1:2, 6:11; Heb. 2:11, 10:10, 10:14; Jude 1:1), that is, Christians are free from sin (Jn. 8:34-36; Rom. 6:6, 6:18, 6:22, 8:2; Gal. 5:24).

When men turn from all their sins and put their faith in the blood of Jesus Christ which was shed for them, God forgives them of their sin, remitting the penalty of the Law, and God considers them righteous just as if they had never sinned.

 

Click Here for FREE Christian Theology Books

An Inquiry Concerning Imputation by Caleb Burge, A.M.

StackofBooks

Click Here for FREE Christian Theology Books

CHAPTER VII:
AN INQUIRY CONCERNING IMPUTATION.

By CALEB BURGE, A.M.

IT has been the opinion of many, that in order for guilty man to be justified through Christ, it is necessary that his righteousness should be imputed to them, so as to be a ground on which they may be considered righteous in law. For it is added, there must be a perfect righteousness somewhere, to lay a foundation for justification; and hence, since mankind have no perfect righteousness of their own, the righteousness of Christ must be imputed to them. What is really intended by these things it is not easy to ascertain. If the sentiment be, that Christ’s righteousness is transferred to the believer so as to become his righteousness, it is believed to be utterly, without foundation, Righteousness, as well as sin, must be entirely a personal thing, in such a sense that it cannot be transferred. The righteousness of Christ, like that of every other holy being, consists entirely in his actions, feelings, and attributes. Essentially it consists in his love to God and other beings, and is as unalienably his, as is any attribute of his nature. Is it even possible that the actions which Christ performed while here on earth, in which his righteousness in part consists, should be so transferred from him to believers as to become actions which they have performed? Could the righteous words which he spake be transferred from him to saints, so as to become the righteous words which they have spoken? The bare mention of the idea must be sufficient to evince that in the very, nature of the thing it must be impossible. Christ’s exercises of holy love could no more taken from him and transferred to believers, so as to become their exercises of holy love, than his miraculous acts of walking upon the water, or raising the dead, could be transferred: in the same way; and both, for aught we can perceive, must be at least as remote from all possibility as the papal notion of transubstantiation.

If by Christ’s righteousness being imputed to believers for their justification, be not meant that his righteousness is so transferred to them as to become their righteousness; but that God views and represents them as righteous, by virtue of the righteousness of Christ; then the inquiry which arises is, whether God do not view and represent things precisely as they are? Can he view things any otherwise than as they are in reality? If he can, what evidence have we that he does not view the bread and wine used in the sacramental supper as being the real body and blood of Christ? And if he ever represent any thing different from what it really is, what ground can there be for confidence in his representations? But if God do both view and represent things as they really are, he surely cannot view and represent sinners as being perfectly righteous; because this certainly is not their character. God does, indeed, view and represent Jesus Christ as being perfectly righteous; and the reason is, because he is perfectly righteous. But saints are not perfectly righteous. On the contrary, they have been totally sinful; and though now pardoned and justified, in point of strict, justice, they still deserve eternal punishment, and God will for

ever view and represent them in this light. The Scriptures nowhere teach either that God does now, or that he will in the day of judgment, view and represent believers as possessing in any sense a perfect righteousness. It is true, they lead us to believe that saints will finally be freed from all sin -, but they equally lead us to believe that even then it will appear that they, as well as the finally impenitent, have sinned and come short of the glory of God, and in point of merit really deserve damnation. How else will every mouth be stopped, and all the world become guilty before God? But if God will cause all this to appear, how can he with any propriety be mid to view and represent saints as being perfectly innocent or righteous, on account of the righteousness of another? Besides, if God were to view and represent guilty beings as righteous, only because some other being is righteous, he would certainly view and represent things very differently from what they really are, to suppose which would be blasphemous.

But if by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to saints for their justification, is not intended either that his righteousness is transferred to them and becomes their righteousness, or that God views and represents them to be righteous on christ’s account, the inquiry must still remain, What does this language mean? Some have said that saints receive Christ’s righteousness by faith, for their justification. But this assertion is really no more intelligible than the other. For it is difficult to see how saints can receive that righteousness of Christ which consisted in his own personal actions, affections, and properties.

We read in the Scriptures of different kinds of faith; as of a faith to remove mountains; a faith to be healed; faith which Paul preached; and faith in the blood of Christ. Now why cannot one of these kinds of faith receive the righteousness of Christ, as well as another? How can faith in the blood of Christ, any more than a faith to remove mountains, receive Christ’s righteousness? Each of these kinds of faith, except that which Paul preached, is a mere exercise of the creature; and how can one exercise of a creature receive Christ’s righteousness, any more than another? Faith in the blood of Christ, and repentance for sin, are both exercises of the same heart? The difference between these exercises consists merely in their object. Faith is an exercise of a good heart, in view of the sufferings of Christ as an atonement for sin. Repentance is an exercise of the same heart, in view of sin as being against an holy God. How, then, can faith receive the righteousness of Christ, any more than repentance? Can a believer’s act of faith receive Christ’s act of faith? Does the believer’s exercise of faith receive Christ’s exercise of love? Or is it the believer’s love which receives that? How can the believer’s faith receive Christ’s love, any more than the believer’s love mu receive christ’s faith? Or how can the believer’s faith receive Crossest love, any more than it can receive his walking on the sea?

It is confidently believed that neither Scripture nor reason affords any more warrant for the opinion that it is even possible for the believer’s faith to receive Christ’s faith, or love, than for the opinion that a believer’s walking in the highway receives Christ’s walking upon the water, If the meaning be, that saints, by faith, make the righteousness of Christ their own, the question still is, How can these things be? How is it possible that the

righteousness of one being can become the righteousness of another being? When Christ mid to his disciples, “Except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven,” he certainly did not mean to teach that we must, somehow, obtain the righteousness of some other being.

Whatever the meaning of the language under consideration may be, if, indeed, it have any proper meaning, it must be liable, furthermore, to this capital objection, that, contrary to the whole tenor of the gospel, it supposes that the salvation of sinners is altogether upon the principles of law and justice. For if Christ has suffered the full penalty of the law, as a legal substitute for any part of mankind, then justice, in every sense, is satisfied; it has received its full demand; and, therefore, can require no further sufferings. Indeed, its demands must now be heard on the other hand; it must demand their exemption from all punishment, because the whole, which was ever due to them, has been inflicted on Christ, their legal substitute. It is very easy to see that, on this ground, no forgiveness or grace could be exercised in setting men free from punishment. This would only be treating them justly.

So if Christ, as a substitute for believers, has obeyed the law, so that God. justifies them, and makes them happy, out of respect to the righteousness of Christ, considered as theirs, then saints, are really justified by works in a, law sense; not, indeed, by their own works, but by the works of their legal substitute. If saints are justified by the obedience of their substitute, it is the same thing as if they were justified by their own obedience, so far as it respects their being justified by works. It is evidently all on the principles of law and justice; and there is no grace in the matter. If a man engage to perform a certain work, for a reward which is proposed, it makes no difference whether he do the work himself, or procure another to do it for him. Let the work be done, according to agreement, and he is entitled to his reward. So if Christ has done for believers the work which the law required them to do, God is now bound, on the principles of strict justice, to bestow the promised reward, eternal life. There is no grace, but stern, unbending justice here.

Should it be said that saints are still unworthy, in themselves, and so do not deserve happiness, it may be answered, that they are not unworthy, in the sense in which they are viewed, as possessing Christ’s perfect righteousness. So far from it, that in this sense they merit eternal happiness, by their substituted perfect righteousness. However guilty they may be, in themselves, still, in the sense in which they are considered as having a perfect righteousness they must be made happy, according to strict justice. Besides, on this scheme, they have suffered, in their substitute, All they deserve to suffer; and, therefore, all their sin is, in a law sense, as though it had never been. And, since all their ill desert has been done away, and they now have a perfect righteousness in their substitute, they can make a legal demand of happiness. In the day of judgment they may say, “Jesus Christ has been accepted as our substitute; he has suffered for us the full demand of the law; and we have a perfect righteousness in him; we, therefore, demand deliverance from the curse, and eternal happiness on the ground of law.”

Should it be said that it was grace in Jesus Christ to take the place of the transgressor, it may be answered, that this removes no difficulty; for, still, after Christ has suffered and obeyed, as a legal substitute, there can be no grace in delivering believers from punishment, and making them happy. This act of God must be as strictly an act of justice, as though there had been no grace in Christ’s taking the place of transgressors. Upon this scheme, that Christ has suffered and obeyed as a legal substitute for the elect, there can be seen no forgiveness, grace, nor mercy, in their deliverance from punishment, or in their admission to happiness. All still proceeds on the principle of law and justice, contrary to the decided testimony of the gospel, which certainly is, that the salvation of sinners, from beginning to end, is all of grace. Not of works, not of law; but, entirely, by another dispensation. The law has nothing to do in the affair, otherwise than by teaching men their guilty and miserable situation, and thus leading them to embrace the new and gracious method of salvation made known in the gospel.

And, besides being contrary to Scripture, this scheme is absurd in itself. For, in a law sense, one being cannot suffer or obey for another. The voice of the law is, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die not another for him. Nor does the law require or admit of the obedience of one being in behalf of another; but it requires perfect obedience of every person for himself. “The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him; and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. [The opinion that there must be a perfect righteousness somewhere to lay a foundation for justification, probably originated in a mistaken idea that the term justification, as used in the gospel, must have much the same meaning that it has in law books. But why are we not as much bound to understand the word pardon or forgiveness, as meaning what they do in law books, as we are to understand justification in this manner? If, however, we understand both: pardon and justification according to their import in law books we shall make the Scriptures involve the most manifest absurdity and contradiction. For the Scriptures evidently speak of the same persons as being both pardoned and justified. But in the sense in which the terms are used in law, if sinners are pardoned they cannot be justified; and, on the other hand, if they are justified they cannot be pardoned. It would be nonsense to speak of a man as being both pardoned and justified, in respect to the same charge, according to law. To avoid this difficulty no one surely will feel disposed to say, that sinners are justified on one ground and pardoned on another; that their salvation is partly through the law by justification, and partly through the gospel by forgiveness. The truth is, if, instead of going to law books to learn what justification means, we would be contented with the account given of it in the gospel, we should find, no more necessity for a perfect righteousness somewhere to be a ground of justification, than we should to be a ground of forgiveness.

Every one must perceive that it would be folly to pretend that a perfect righteousness is necessary as a ground of forgiveness. Yet, according to the gospel, this would be no more unreasonable than, the other. For, according to the Scriptures, the ground of our justification is. nothing different from, the ground of our forgiveness. Indeed,forgiveness and justification are used in the gospel as synonymous terms. Hence, we read of “being

justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus”- who was set forth – to declare God’s “righteousness for the remission of sins.” Rom. 3:24, 25. “Be it known unto yon, therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto von the forgiveness of sins: and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.” Acts 13:38, 39.]

If the meaning of the language under consideration be, that Christ’s righteousness or active obedience procures heaven for believers; that, as his sufferings were necessary to open a consistent way for the p of their guilt, so his obedience was necessary in order to open a way in which they might be consistently, admitted into heaven; it may be answered, that, on this ground, there would be as much propriety in saying that the sufferings of Christ are imputed to believers, as in saying that his righteousness is imputed to them. If the necessity of his righteousness, in order to procure their admission into heaven, renders it proper to say that his righteousness must be imputed to them, must not the same or a similar necessity of his sufferings, in order to procure their pardon, evidently render it equally proper to say, that his sufferings must be imputed to them? But, it is not true that Christ’s righteousness has the same, or a similar influence, in opening a consistent way for our admission into heaven, which his sufferings have in opening a consistent way for our pardon.

If the view which has been given of the necessity of atonement, in order to the pardon of sinners be correct, it appears evident that they may be admitted to heaven, as well as pardoned on account of the sufferings of Christ. The atonement did not consist in removing the ill deserts of sinners; nor was it necessary (had it been possible,) that their ill deserts should be removed, that they might be consistently pardoned. But if they might be consistingly pardoned, notwithstanding their ill desert, unquestionably, after they are pardoned, they may be consistently admitted to heaven notwithstanding their want of personal merit. Had atonement been necessary to do away the ill deserts of sinners, and this had actually been effected by the sufferings of Christ, it is allowed that it would have been consistent to suppose that the active obedience of Christ was necessary to furnish them with positive merit. But in this way there could have been no grace in the sinner’s pardon, or in his being admitted into heaven. In this case, Christ would literally have paid his debt, and purchased his inheritance of glory.

Another consequence must be, that since Christ has tasted death for every man, every man’s debt is paid, and every man’s heaven is purchased. So that every man may demand both a discharge from evil, and an inheritance of glory. It is true, probably, that few would be willing to acknowledge these consequences which fairly result from such a scheme; yet they seem to be unavoidable.

Besides, it may be pertinent to inquire, what reason can be assigned why such an interchange of persons between Christ and sinners, as some have supposed, was

necessary. What were the obstacles which stood in the way to prevent infinite goodness from bestowing pardon and heaven on those who had none to endure the punishment due to them, or to furnish them with a perfect righteousness?. Abundant reasons have been given why atonement was necessary, in order that the guilty might be pardoned. But none of these reasons apply, in the case before us. [It is unquestionably true, that Christ was set forth to be a propitiation to declare God’s righteousness; and the great ends of righteousness required that there should be an atonement for sin, in order to prepare the way for its remission. But it is to be remembered, it was the righteousness of God, as it related to the execution of threatened and deserved punishment, that needed to be declared, in order to the exercise of pardoning mercy ; and not as it related to the bestowment of rewards: – Righteousness, as it respected rendering vengeance to enemies, not favor and protection to friends. God’s favor for the righteous, and his approbation of their characters, would not have been rendered suspicious by a total neglect to execute punitive justice;-unless, indeed, his benevolent regards to their best interest, and his distinguishing ap- probation of their characters, should become suspicious by his neglect to avenge them on their adversaries. But the very supposition of a possibility that God’s benevolent regards to the righteous should be rendered doubtful by his neglecting to punish the wicked, strongly implies that it was the righteousness of God, as it relates to the execution of punishment, that needed to be declared, in order to the pardon of the sinner.” – West on Atonement, p. 30, 31.] None of these reasons rendered it in the least degree necessary, that their ill desert should be removed, or that their blessedness should be purchased. But what other reasons can be assigned which will apply? It is confidently believed that no one can tell. Nor will it be less difficult to show the consistency of such an atonement with grace in the pardon of sinners. And, besides, either partial atonement or universal salvation must be the result of the scheme.

If, to avoid these consequences, it should be said, that, although atonement was not necessary to remove personal ill desert in order that sinners might be consistently pardoned, it does not hence follow that there is no necessity of an imputation of Christ’s personal righteousness, in order that the believer may be consistently admitted to heaven; it may be replied, that this is not the argument. If want of personal merit, or perfect righteousness is any barrier against a sinner’s gracious admission to heaven, let the objector make it appear; and, when he has done this, let him have the goodness to show, that personal ill desert does not present a barrier against his pardon, which is equally insuperable. If a sinner, notwithstanding his personal demerit, may be graciously pardoned, it is believed it cannot be shown why a believer, notwithstanding his want of a perfect righteousness, may not be graciously admitted to heaven. “God commendeth his love towards us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more, then, being now justified by his blood we shall be saved from wrath through him.”

Much dependence is placed on certain passages of Scripture, which speak of Christ as being “our righteousness,” for the support of the scheme in question. Christ is called “the Lord our righteousness.” But how does it appear that, therefore, his righteousness is imputed to us? Why would it not be just as natural to infer, from his being called “our life,” that his life is imputed to us? And, also, when we read that he is made of God unto

us wisdom, sanctification, and redemption, that his wisdom must be imputed to us, &c.

One passage which is much relied on to prove that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the believer, is, Phil. 3:9. “And be found in him; not having on mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ; the righteousness which is of God, by faith.” This passage is thus paraphrased by Dr. Doddridge: “I am happy enough if I may be found in him, vitally united to him by a true faith and love, and so taken under his protection and favor; not having on mine own righteousness, which [is] of the law; such righteousness as only consists in observing the precepts and expiations of the Jewish religion which I was once so solicitous to establish; nor any confidence in any legal righteousness whatever, as my plea before God; but that I may be interested in that which [is] by the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God through faith; that which he has appointed we should obtain and secure, by believing in his Son, &c. Rom. 3:22, is also quoted, with much confidence: “Even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon all them that believe; for there is no difference;” which Dr. Doddridge paraphrases thus: Even the righteousness of God, which he hath appointed us to seek, by the exercise of a, living faith in the power and grace of his Son Jesus Christ; to whom be commands us to commit our souls, with all humble and obedient regard.

This way of obtaining righteousness and life is now, I say, made manifest to all, and like a pure, complete, and glorious robe, is put upon all them that believe; for there is, in this respect, no difference at all between one believer and another.” All similar passages may be explained in a similar manner. While it is nowhere explicitly asserted that the righteousness of Christ must be, or ever is imputed to believers, or that his active obedience procures heaven for them, the Scriptures do plainly teach, that heaven is procured for them by his sufferings and death; or, in other words, that his sufferings and death procure heaven for them, in the same sense in which they procure their pardon. “As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life.” John 3:14,15. This passage plainly teaches in, that the very object for which the Son of Man was lifted up [on the cross] was, that believers might have everlasting life. “For Christ, also, hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God.” 1 Pet. 3:18. The phrase “bring us to God” in this passage it is presumed, all will agree, implies that divine intercourse to which saints, in heaven, are admitted.

But, surely, this passage cannot be fairly explained without admitting that the purpose for which Christ suffered was, that he might open a consistent way, by his sufferings, for believers to be admitted to this intercourse. Indeed, if the reasons which have been already stated, showing why an atonement was necessary to open, a way for the pardon of sinners are correct, it must appear evident that no obstacles stood in the way of the admission of sinners to heaven, which did not stand in the way of their being pardoned; and, on the other hand, that whatever opposed their pardon, equally opposed their admission to heaven. It must follow that the same, and only the same atonement which

was necessary to render their being pardoned consistent, was necessary to render their admission to heaven consistent.

Hence we may safely conclude, that if it became God to “set forth Christ to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus;” it equally “became him, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.” Heb. 2:10. Indeed the Scriptures explicitly authorize the belief that “for this cause he was the Mediator of the new testament, that, by means of death, they which are called, might receive the promise of an eternal inheritance.” Heb. 9:15. Hence we are taught to anticipate the very song which will be sung by all the redeemed of the Lord when they arrive at heaven, and surround the throne of the Lamb with the four living creatures, and the four-and-twenty elders, “Thou art worthy, for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood.” Rev. 5:9.

 

Click Here for FREE Christian Theology Books

George Otis Jr on Imputed Righteousness

StackofBooks

Click Here for FREE Christian Theology Books

George Otis Jr. said, “The theological doctrine of ‘imputed righteousness’ has been grossly distorted in our day. We are told that God looks at us through the blood of Christ and sees us as righteous, regardless of our actual state… Let’s stop kidding ourselves. God sees us exactly the way we are. If we are living in obedience, He sees it. If we are living selfish, unholy lives, we can be sure he sees that too.”

Click Here for FREE Christian Theology Books

 

Charles Finney on the Imputed Righteousness of Christ

StackofBooks

Click Here for FREE Christian Theology Books

Charles Finney said, “The doctrine of a literal imputation of Christ’s obedience or righteousness is supported by those who hold it, by such passages as the following: Rom. iv. 5-8.—”But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputed righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.” But here justification is represented only as consisting in forgiveness of sin, or in pardon and acceptance. Again, 2 Cor. v. 19, 21. “To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” Here again the apostle is teaching only his much-loved doctrine of justification by faith, in the sense that upon condition or in consideration of the death and mediatorial interference and work of Christ, penitent believers in Christ are forgiven and rewarded as if they were righteous.”

Click Here for FREE Christian Theology Books

The False Doctrine of the Imputed Righteousness of Christ by William Booth

StackofBooks

Click Here for FREE Christian Theology Books

The False Doctrine of the Imputed Righteousness of Christ

by William Booth 

Another mistaken view of the benefits flowing out of the sacrifice of Christ, although it does not directly refer to the Savior’s death, is closely connected with it; this is known as the doctrine of “imputed righteousness.” Jesus Christ, this notion says, by voluntarily placing Himself under the Law to which man was subject, rendering a perfect obedience to that Law, and sealing that obedience with His own Blood, thereby not only did purchase the forgiveness of sin for those whom He redeemed, but merited for us through His obedience a perfect righteousness; clothed in this His people will appear at the Judgment Bar, and it will constitute not only a preparation for Heaven but a right of entrance there.

This doctrine declares that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to those who believe on His name, not only to make up for their own unrighteousness, but to create a righteousness which should be regarded as their own.  Though they have not obeyed the Law, Christ has obeyed it for them, and therefore they are entitled to just the same blessings as though they had obeyed it themselves. This, I need hardly say, is a mistaken notion, seeing that one being cannot, in this sense, obey the Law for another.  Every creature in Heaven and on earth is placed under that Law of Benevolence which claims all the love and service he is able to render, according to the capacity of his nature – whether it be that of an Angel, of a man, or of a little child.

Click Here for FREE Christian Theology Books

Albert Barnes on the Imputed Righteousness of Christ

StackofBooks

Click Here for FREE Christian Theology Books

Albert Barnes said, “It is not that his righteousness becomes ours. This is not true; and there is no intelligible sense in which that can be understood. But it is God’s plan for pardoning sin, and for treating us as if we had not committed it; that is, adopting us as his children, and admitting us to heaven, on the ground of what the Lord Jesus has done in our stead… But if the doctrine of the Scripture was, that the entire righteousness of Christ was set over to them, was really and truly theirs, and was transferred to them in any sense, with what propriety could the apostle say, that God justified the ungodly?… the whole scope and design of the Psalm is to show the blessedness of the man who is forgiven, and those sins are not charged on him, but who is freed from the punishment due to his sins. Being thus pardoned, he is treated as a righteous man.”

Click Here for FREE Christian Theology Books

How the Righteousness of Christ is used as License to Sin by Jesse Morrell

StackofBooks

Click Here for FREE Christian Theology Books

How the Righteousness of Christ is used as License to Sin

By Jesse Morrell

Often when I am calling religious sinners to repentance out in the open air I hear them say, “I don’t need to repent and stop sinning. I am covered by the imputed righteousness of Christ. I trust in His righteousness.”

I can think of nothing more demonic than to turn the righteousness of Christ as a reason to live in sin! Did Christ live righteous so that you could live sinful? It was the righteous Christ who preached “go and sin no more.” He is coming back to judge the world in righteousness. The righteousness of Christ should make you afraid to sin.

If you truly believed and trusted in His righteousness, that He is the enemy of all sin and is coming back to slay His enemies, you would repent and stop sinning. He is righteous and He expects you to follow in His ways. The fact that Christ is righteous is no occasion to keep on sinning. That’s the doctrine of devils.

Jesus Christ makes us righteous in both our position and our practice. He is our righteousness. The idea that “Christ is my righteousness… so I can keep sinning” is like saying, “Christ is my wisdom… so I can stay ignorant.” No, Christ is our wisdom and He makes us actually wise. And Christ is our righteousness and He makes us actually right.

Click Here for FREE Christian Theology Books

Why John Wesley Rejected the Doctrine of the Imputed Righteousness of Christ

StackofBooks

Click Here for FREE Christian Theology Books

DID JOHN WESLEY TEACH OR DENY THE IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST?

A Study by Jesse Morrell

ImputedRighteousness

There has been confusion over whether or not John Wesley actually taught the doctrine of the Imputed Righteousness of Christ. Some allege that he did teach this and others that he did not. I have had discussions with people on My Facebook about this issue and have researched it thoroughly.

Here are some quotes that shed light on this issue:

“We do not find it expressly affirmed in Scripture, that God imputes the righteousness of Christ to any…” John Wesley “The Works of the Rev. John Wesley” page 350, published by J & J Harper in 1826

“The Righteousness of Christ is an expression which I do not find in the Bible…. The righteousness of God is an expression which I do find there. I believe this means, first, The Mercy of God… I believe this expression means, secondly, God’s method of justifying sinners…” “The Miscellaneous Works of the Rev. John Wesley,” Volume Two, page 450, Thoughts on the Imputed Righteousness of Christ, published by J & J Harper in 1828

Regarding the phrase, “The imputed righteousness of Christ” Wesley said,

“I cannot find it in the Bible. If any one can, he has better eyes than I: and I wish he would show me where it is.” “The Miscellaneous Works of the Rev. John Wesley,” Volume Two, page 452, published by J & J Harper in 1828

“It is nowhere stated in Scripture that Christ’s personal righteousness is imputed to us. Not a text can be found which contains any enunciation of the doctrine.” John Wesley “A Right Conception of Sin” by Richard Taylor, published in 1939. And also, (The Student’s Handbook of Christian Theology, Benjamin Field, Page 199) published in 1868.

John Wesley said that the Calvinist doctrine of the Imputed Righteousness of Christ was

“a blow to the root, the root of all holiness, all true religion…Hereby Christ is stabbed in the house of his friends, of those who make the largest professions of loving Him; the whole design of His death, namely, to destroy the work of the devil, being overthrown at a stroke. For wherever this doctrine is cordially received, it makes no place for holiness.” “The Works of the Rev John Wesley”, published in 1841, page 352.

This was John Wesley’s exhortation to preachers after 34 years of ministry:

“I will endeavour to use only such phrases as are strictly Scriptural. And I will advice all my brethren, all who are in connection with me throughout the three kingdoms, to lay aside that ambiguous, unscriptural phrase, (the imputed righteousness of Christ,) which is so liable to be misinterpreted, and speak in all instances, in this particular, as the oracles of God.” “The Works of the Reverend John Wesley, A. M. published by J. Emory and B. Waugh, for the Methodist Episcopal Church, J Collard Printer, 1831, page 182.

Wesley was accused of contradicting himself in his own time. This is because Wesley stated that “the imputed righteousness of Christ” is never mentioned in the entire Bible, and yet he elsewhere would state that we are justified by the imputed righteousness of Christ. He clarified himself when this supposed contradiction was brought to his attention.

He said that he never uses the phrase, “the imputed righteousness of Christ” because it is not scriptural and because it has done much damage, and that when he has used it, all he meant by it was that we are justified because of what Christ has done and suffered. In other words, we are justified because of Christ’s obedience in suffering and dying on the cross for our sins. But Wesley said that he denied “the imputed righteousness of Christ” in the Antinomian sense, which is the notion that Christ’s obedience to the law is transferred to our account so that we do not need to obey the law of God ourselves. Wesley certainly never taught that Christ’s obedience to the law was transferred to us, so that we are justified by God in light of our account being perfect. That is justification by works, but Wesley taught justification by grace. Wesley taught that our faith was imputed as righteousness.

And Wesley said that in his earlier years he used the phrase, “the imputed righteousness of Christ” but that after thirty four years of ministry, he has made a resolution to not use that phrase anymore because it is ambiguous and unscriptural.

Here is the exact quote from Wesley’s own works on this controversy:

“Of Imputed Righteousness.

24. “Blessed be God, we are not among those who are so dark in their conceptions and expressions. ‘We no more deny,’ says Mr. W., ‘the phrase of imputed righteousness, than the thing.’” (p. 23) It is true: for I continually affirm, to them that believe, faith is imputed for righteousness. And I do not contradict this, in still dying that phrase, “the imputed righteousness of Christ,” to be in the Bible; or in beseeching both Mr. Hervey and you, “not to dispute for that particular phrase.”

But “since Mr. W. blesses God for enlightening him to receive the doctrine, and to adopt the phrase of ‘imputed righteousness:’ how came he to think that clear conceptions of the doctrine were so unnecessary, and that phrase itself so useless, after having so deeply lamented the dark conceptions of those who rejected the term and the thing?”

It was neither this term, “the imputed righteousness of Christ,” nor the thing which Antinomians mean thereby, the rejection of which I supposed to argue any darkness of conception. But those I think dark, in their, who reject either the Scripture phrase, “faith imputed for righteousness,” or the thing it means.

25. However, to prove his point, Mr. Hill goes on:-

“This doctrine” (of the “imputed righteousness of Christ”) “I have constantly believed and taught for nearly eight-and-twenty years.”

“The use of the term” (the “imputed righteousness of Christ”) “is not Scriptural; it is not necessary; it has done immense hurt.”

“It has done immense hurt,” says Mr. W.; ‘but here is no contradiction.’ Whethere there be or not, there is a plain concession from Mr. W. himself, that he has been preaching a doctrine for eighty-and-twenty years together, or which has done immense hurt.”

Let this (one instance out of a hundred) be a specimen of Mr. Hill’s fairness! The whole strength o the argument depends on the artful jumbling o two sentences together, and inserting two or three little words into the latter of them.

My words are: “We no more deny the phrase” (of “imputed righteousness”) “than the thing.” (Remarks p. 150)

“This doctrine I have believed and taught for near eight-and-twenty years.” (Ib.)

These distinct sentences Mr. Hill is pleased to thrust together into one, and to men thus:-

“This doctrine (of the imputed righteousness of Christ) I have constantly believed and taught for near eight-and-twenty years.”

And here, says Mr. H., is a “plain concession from Mr W. himself, that he has been preaching a doctrine for twenty-eight years together, which has done immense hurt.”

No, the doctrine which I believe has done immense hurt, is that of the imputed righteousness of Christ in the Antinomian sense. The doctrine which I have constantly held and preached is, that faith is imputed for righteousness.

And when I have either in that sermon or elsewhere said, that “the righteousness of Christ is imputed to every believer,” I mean, every believer is justified for the sake of what Christ has done and suffered. Yet still I think, “there is no use in contending for that particular phrase.” And I say still, “I dare not instant upon it, because I cannot find it in the Bible.”

To contradict this, Mr. H. cites these words: “This is fully consistent with our being justified, through the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.’ Mr. W.’s notes on Romans iv,9.” Mr. H. adds: “These words, taken together, produce the following conclusion, that it is perfectly consistent to say, that we are justified by that which cannot be found in the Bible.” (Farrago, p. 24.)

The note runs thus: “’Faith was imputed to Abraham for righteousness.’ This is fully consistent with our being justified through the imputation of the righteousness of Christ: that is, our being pardoned, and accepted of God, for the sake of what Christ has done and suffered. For though this, and this alone, be the meritorious cause of our acceptance with God, yet faith may be said to be ‘imputed to us for righteousness,’ as it is the sole condition of our acceptance.”

Now, is there any shadow of contradiction in this? Or of our being justified by that which cannot be found in the Bible?

26. “Mr. W. frequently puts the expression, ‘imputed righteousness,’ in the mouth of a whole congregation. Yet he says, “I dare not require any to use it.’” Hence Mr. Hill deduces these two conclusions:-

(1.)  “That Mr. W. gives out such doctrines as he dares not require any others to believe.” (p. 25.)

By what logic is this deduced? We are not speaking of doctrines at all, but simply of a particular expression. And that expression is not “imputed righteousness,” but “the imputed righteousness of Christ.”

(2.)  “That a whole congregation may have words in their mouth, and yet be all silent.”

Well inferred again! But did I say, “W whole congregation had those words in their mouths?” I did not either say or suppose it; any more than that they were all silent.

“Will Mr. W. be ingenuous enough to tell me, whether he did not write this when he was last in a certain country, which abounds with crassa ingenia?” [numskulls?] I will. I did not write this in the fogs of Ireland, but in the clear air of Yorkshire.

27. The two next propositions Mr. Hill quotes, are, “They to whom the righteousness of Christ is imputed,” (I mean, who truly believe,) “are made righteous by the Spirit of Christ; are renewed in the image of God, in righteousness and true holiness.”

“The nice, metaphysical doctrine of imputed righteousness” (if it is not carefully guarded) “leads not to repentance, but to licentiousness. I have known a thousand instances of this.”

And where is this contradiction between these propositions? “It is just this,” says Mr. Hill, “that the doctrine of imputed righteousness makes those who believe it both holy and unholy.” (p. 26.)

Unfold the propositions a little more, and then let any man judge.

The First means just this: They whom God justifies, for the sake of what Christ has done and suffered, (whether they ever heard of that phrase, “imputing the righteousness of Christ,” or not,) are sanctified by His Spirit; are renewed in the image o God, in righteousness and true holiness.

The Second means: I have known very many who so rested in the doctrine of the righteousness of Christ imputed to them, that they were quite satisfied without any holiness at all.

Now, where is the contradiction?

But my inserting in my own sentence those explanatory words, “I mean, who truly believe,” Mr. H. calls an interpolation; and supposes I “mean to make a distinction between faith in Christ, and faith in the righteousness of Christ.” I mean just what I have said again and again, particularly in the note above cited. And this is the very thing which John Goodwin means, as he declares over and over.

Mr. W. “winds up this point of imputed righteousness with a resolution which astonishes me, that ‘he will never more use the phrase, the imputed righteousness of Christ, unless it occurred to him in a hymn, or steal upon him unawares.’” This is my resolution. I repeat once more what I said in the “Remarks:” “The thing, that we are justified merely for the sake of what Christ has done and suffered, I have constantly and earnestly maintained above four-and-thirty years. And I have frequently used the phrase, hoping thereby to please others ‘for their good to edification.’ But it has had a contrary effect, since so many improve it into an objection. There I will use it no more.” (I mean, the phrase imputed righteousness: that phrase, the imputed righteousness of Christ, I never did use.) “I will endeavour to use only such phrases as are strictly Scriptural. And I will advice all my brethren, all who are in connection with me throughout the three kingdoms, to lay asie that ambiguous, unscriptural phrase, (the imputed righteousness of Christ,) which is so liable to be misinterpreted, and speak in all instances, in this particular, as the oracles of God.”

“The Works of the Reverend John Wesley, A. M. published by J. Emory and B. Waugh, for the Methodist Episcopal Church, J Collard Printer, 1831, Page 179-182

Here are some quotes that show that John Wesley taught the same as Charles Finney and other moral government theology teachers on this particular issue:

John Wesley said:

“2. The Righteousness of Christ is an expression which I do not find in the Bible. The Righteousness of God is an expression which I do find there. I believe this means, first, The Mercy of God, as 2 Pet. i.1: “Them that have obtained like precious faith with us, through the righteousness of God.” How does it appear, that the righteousness o God here means either more or less than his mercy? Psalm lxxi. 15 &c. “My mouth shall show forth thy righteousness and thy salvation:” thy mercy in delivering me. “I will make mention of thy righteousness only.” “Thy righteousness, O God, is very high.” Here the righteousness of God is expressly mentioned. But I will not take upon me to say, that it means the righteousness or mercy of the Son, any more than of the Holy Ghost.

3. I believe this expression means, Secondly, God’s method of justifying sinners. So Rom. i. 17: “I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for therein is the righteousness of God, (his way of justifying sinners,) revealed.” Chap. Iii. 21, &c. “ Now the righteousness of God is manifested: even the righteousness of God which is by faith:” (unless righteousness here also means mercy.) “Jesus Christ, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood; to declare his righteousness, for the remission of sins that are past: that he might be just, and yet the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.” Chap. x. 3. “They being ignorant of God’s righteousness,” his method of justifying sinners, “and going about to establish their own righteousness,” a method of their own, opposite to his, “have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.”

4. Perhaps it has a peculiar meaning in 2 Cor. V. 21: “He made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God, in or through him:” that we might be justified and sanctified, might receive the whole blessing of God through him.

5. And is not this the most natural meaning of Phil. Iii. 8,9? That I may win Christ, and be found in him,” grafted into the true Vine, “not having my own righteousness,” the method of justification which I so long chose for myself, “which is of the law, but the righteousness which is of God,” the method of justification which God hath chosen, “by faith.”

6. “But is not Christ termed, our Righteousness?” He is, Jer. Xxii.6: “This is the name whereby he shall be called, The Lord our Righteousness.” And is not the plain, indisputable meaning of this scripture, He shall be what he is called, the sole purchaser, the sole meritorious cause, both of our justification and sanctification?

7. Nearly related to this is the following text: 1 Cor. i. 30, “Jesus Christ is made of God unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.” And what does this prove, but that he is made unto us righteousness or justification, just as he is made unto us sanctification? In what sense? He is the sole author of our one, as well as o the other, the Author of our whole salvation.

8. There seems to be something more implied in Romans x. 4; does it not imply thus much: “Christ is the end of the law,” not only of the Mosaic dispensation, but of the law of works, which was given to Adam in his original perfection, “for righteousness to every one that believeth:” to the end that every one who believeth in him, though he has not kept, and cannot keep that law, may be both accounted and made righteous?

9. Accordingly, frequent mentioned is made in Scripture, of “faith counted for righteousness.” So Gen. xv. 6: “He (Abraham) believed in the Lord, and he counted it to him for righteousness:’ a text repeated, with but little variation, over and over in the New Testament. Rom. iv. 5: “To him that worketh not, but believeth on him who justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” Thus it was that “Noah became heir of the righteousness,” the justification, “which is by faith.” Heb. xi. 7. Thus also “the Gentiles,” when the Jews fell short, “attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith.” Rom. ix. 30. But that expression, The Righteousness of Christ, does not occur in any of these text.

10. It seems, righteousness, in the following texts, means neither more or less than justification. Gal. ii. 21; “If righteousness comes by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” Chap. iii. 21; “If there had been a law which could have given life, (spiritual life, or a title to lite eternal) then it here includes sanctification also: which it appears to do, Rev. xix. 8: “The fine linen is the righteousness of the saints.”

11. “But when St. Paul says, Rom. v. 18, ‘By the righteousness of one, (called in the following verse, the obedience of one, even his obedience unto death, his dying for us,) the free gift came,’ does he not mean the righteousness of Christ?” Undoubtedly he does: but this is not the question. We are not inquiring, what he means, but what he says. We are all agreed as to the meaning, but not as to the expression, The imputing the righteousness of Christ, which I still say, I dare not insist upon, neither require any one to use; because I cannot find it in the Bible. If any one can, he has better eyes than I: and I wish he would show me where it is.

12. Now, if by the righteousness of Christ we mean any thing which the Scripture does not mean, it is certain we put darkness for light. If we mean the same which the Scripture means by different expressions, why do we prefer this expression to the scriptural? Is not this correcting the wisdom of the Holy Ghost, and opposing our own to be the perfect knowledge of God?

13. I am myself the more sparing in the use of it; because it has been so frequently and so dreadfully abused: and because the Antinomians use it at this day to justify the grossest abominations. And it is great pity those who love, who preach, and follow after holiness, should, under the notion of honouring Christ, give any countenance to those who continually make him the Minister of sin, and so build on his righteousness, as to live in such ungodliness and unrighteousness as is scarcely named even among the heathens.

14. And does not this way of speaking naturally tend to make Christ the Minister of sin? For if the very personal obedience of Christ (as those expressions directly lead me to think,) be mine, the moment I believe, can any thing be added thereto? Does my obeying God add any value to the perfect obedience of Christ? On this scheme then, are not the holy and unholy on the very same footing?

“The Miscellaneous Works of the Rev. John Wesley, Volume 2, published by J. & J. Harper, 1828, Page 450-452

Compare this to what Charles Finney said:

“The doctrine of a literal imputation of Christ’s obedience or righteousness is supported by those who hold it, by such passages as the following: Rom. iv. 5-8.—”But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputed righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.” But here justification is represented only as consisting in forgiveness of sin, or in pardon and acceptance. Again, 2 Cor. v. 19, 21. “To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” Here again the apostle is teaching only his much-loved doctrine of justification by faith, in the sense that upon condition or in consideration of the death and mediatorial interference and work of Christ, penitent believers in Christ are forgiven and rewarded as if they were righteous.” (Lectures on Systematic Theology, Published by BRCCD, p. 473)

And to what Albert Barnes said:

“It is not that his righteousness becomes ours. This is not true; and there is no intelligible sense in which that can be understood. But it is God’s plan for pardoning sin, and for treating us as if we had not committed it; that is, adopting us as his children, and admitting us to heaven, on the ground of what the Lord Jesus has done in our stead… But if the doctrine of the Scripture was, that the entire righteousness of Christ was set over to them, was really and truly theirs, and was transferred to them in any sense, with what propriety could the apostle say, that God justified the ungodly?… the whole scope and design of the Psalm is to show the blessedness of the man who is forgiven, and those sins are not charged on him, but who is freed from the punishment due to his sins. Being thus pardoned, he is treated as a righteous man.” (The Way of Salvation: A Sermon, Delivered at Morristown, New Jersey, Together with Mr. Barnes Defense of the Sermon , Read Before the Synod of Philadelphia, and his Defense before the second Presbytery of Philadelphia, 1836 Edition, p. 254-255)

And to what Asbury Lowrey said:

“This passage [Rom. 4:5-8] deserves special attention, as it explains all those text that seem to favor, and have been construed to support the theory of the imputation of Christ’s active and passive righteousness to the sinner. Here it is manifest that justification, imputation of righteousness, forgiving iniquities, covering sins, and the non-imputation of sin, are phrases substantially of the same import, and decide positively that the Scripture view of the great doctrine under consideration, is an actual deliverance from the guilt and penalty of sin: from which it follows, that the phrases so often occurring in the writings of Paul – the righteousness of God and of Christ – must mean God’s righteous method of justifying the ungodly, through the atonement and by the instrumentality of faith – a method that upholds the rectitude of the Divine character, at the same time that it offers a full and free pardon to the sinner.”  (Positive Theology, Published by R. P. Thompson, 1854, p. 211-212)

Clearly, Wesley is in agreement with various moral government theologians, that the phrase “imputed righteousness” means pardon and acceptance from God when we put our faith in Christ, that our faith is imputed as righteousness and we are henceforth treated as righteous because of that faith (by which faith we will live righteousness and produce good works), and not that Christ’s personal obedience to the Torah being transferred to our account. And that the phrase “righteousness of God” refers to God’s method of justifying sinners, not the obedience that the Son rendered to the law during his earthly life.

John Wesley said:

“No, the doctrine which I believe has done immense hurt, is that of the imputed righteousness of Christ in the Antinomian sense. The doctrine which I have constantly held and preached is, that faith is imputed for righteousness.” The Miscellaneous Works of the Rev. John Wesley, Volume 2, published by J. & J. Harper, 1828,

The word “imputed” in the Greek does not mean “transferred” but “reckoned” or considered” as it is translated elsewhere in many places in the Bible. And the Bible teaches that faith, not Christ’s obedience to the Torah, is imputed to believers as righteousness. That is, it is our faith that God reckons or considers as righteousness.

“And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it [believing the Lord] to him for righteousness.” Gen. 15:6

“And therefore it [faith] was imputed to him for righteousness.” Rom. 4:22

“Even as Abraham believed God, and it [believing God] was accounted to him for righteousness.” Gal. 3:6

“And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it [believing God] was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.” James 2:23

Abraham was justified by His faith in God and His promises, not by obedience to the Torah, as the Torah had not yet been given through Moses. So Paul argued that Gentile believers, who are uncircumcised and do not observe the Torah, are also justified by their faith. It is their faith in Christ which God imputes, reckons, or considers as righteousness.

The Antinomian doctrine that Christ’s works of the law are transferred to the account of the believer, so that they are justified by perfect works of the law, and  they do not need to repent of their sins and live holy lives, and that they are righteous in God’s eyes even while they are sinning, has done great damage and hurt to Church.

“The theological doctrine of ‘imputed righteousness’ has been grossly distorted in our day. We are told that God looks at us through the blood of Christ and see’s us as righteous, regardless of our actual state… Let’s stop kidding ourselves. God sees us exactly the way we are. If we are living in obedience, He sees it. If we are living selfish, unholy lives, we can be sure he sees that too.” George Otis Jr. (The God They Never Knew, Published by Mott Media, p. 40)

Backsliders in Israel were saying “The Lord seeth us not” (Eze. 8:12), and backsliders in the Church are saying the same thing today. I have heard many people say, “When God looks at me, He doesn’t see my sin. He sees the righteousness of Christ instead.” This type of talk, which ought to be shocking to our ears, is common place within the Church. This type of theological nonsense, which is a blatant denial of God’s omniscience, is refuted all throughout the Bible (Ps. 33:13-15; Prov. 15:3; Eze. 8:12; 9:9; Jer. 32:19; Job 34:21; Mal. 2:17; Heb. 4:13; Rev 2:2, 2:9; 2:13; 2:19; 3:1; 3:8; 3:15). “The Lord looketh from heaven; he beholdeth all the sons of men. From the place of his habitation he looketh upon all the inhabitants of the earth. He fashioneth their hearts alike; he considereth all their works” (Ps. 33:13-15). “For the eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding the evil and the good” (Prov. 15:3). “For the eyes of the Lord are upon the ways of man, and he seeth all his goings” (Job 34:21). “Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and open unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do” (Heb. 4:13).

God repeatedly said in Revelation, “I know thy works” and “be zealous therefore and repent” (Rev. 2:2; 2:9; 2:13; 2:9; 3:1; 2:8; 2:15). When he looked at the churches He didn’t say, “I see the righteousness of Christ.” Therefore, nobody should try to comfort themselves in impenitence by appealing to imputed righteousness. The solution is to simply repent. People use the imputed righteousness of Christ as a replacement for repentance unto holiness.

Calvinists often ask the question, “Are you saved by the imputed righteousness of Christ or by your own righteousness?”

This is how John Wesley answered that question:

“Do we read it [this question] in the Bible? Either in the Old Testament or the New? I doubt; it is an unscriptural, awkward phrase, which has no determinate meaning. If you mean by that odd, uncouth question: ‘In whose righteousness are you to stand at the last day,’- for whose sake, or by whose merit do you expect to enter into the glory of God? I answer, without the least hesitation, for the sake of Jesus Christ, the righteous. It is through his merits alone that all believers are saved; that is, justified, saved from the guilt, sanctified, saved from the nature of sin, and glorified, taken into heaven… It may be worth our while, to spend a few more words on this important point. Is it possible to devise a more unintelligible expression than this: “In what righteousness are we to stand before God at the last day?” Why do you not speak plainly, and say, “For whose sake do you look to be saved?” Any plain peasant would then readily answer, “For the sake of Jesus Christ.” But all those dark, ambiguous phrases, tend only to puzzle the cause, and open a way for unwary hearers to slide into Antinomianism.”  “The Works of the Rev. John Wesley”, Volume 7, published by J. & J. Harper, 1826, Page 281

Click Here for FREE Christian Theology Books