Did Paul Teach the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness?
This is an unavoidable question from my last couple posts on Paul and Romans. Does the apostle Paul teach the Reformed doctrine of imputation? One might come to the conclusion that I don’t think he does, based on my post on “Perishing Apart from the Law.” And one would be correct. Sort of. It’s not so clear-cut as that, since the question is actually asking two things. So let me lay out clearly what I think, at least at this point.
First, it’s necessary to define the Reformed doctrine of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. Here’s how I would define it:
A sinner is justified by God, not because of any merit of his own that might be brought to judgment as righteousness, but only for the sake of the righteousness of Jesus Christ laid to the sinner’s account. God, as the just judge, when he looks upon a redeemed and believing sinner, sees instead the righteousness of Christ and on that grounds alone justifies.
I think that is a satisfactory definition. If anyone has anything to add to it, feel free to comment.
So, to our question—or actually, questions, which might have very different answers:
- Does Paul teach this doctrine?
- Does Paul have this doctrine in mind when he uses the word “impute”?
I must answer “yes” to the first question and “no” to the second. I believe Paul does teach that Christ’s work of righteousness stands in place of our own before God, since we have nothing of our own to offer. However, I think Paul is talking about something else, something more general when he talks about imputation, especially in Romans 5. So there is “imputation” in the Reformed sense, and there is “imputation” in the Pauline sense, which I don’t believe are quite the same thing, but nevertheless do not exclude each other.
First the Pauline. In Romans 5:13 Paul says that sin is not imputed where there is no law. This cannot be in reference either to the accounting of Adam’s sin to fallen mankind, nor to the accounting of Christ’s righteousness to justified man. It would render the Reformed doctrine nonsensical if there were an entire stretch of generations to which imputation in the Reformed sense does not apply (to say nothing of its implications for the Gentiles, who, Paul appears to be arguing, are under the same paradigm as those generations between Adam and Moses). Therefore, it must be the imputation of man’s sin to his own account. I believe this is also the sense in which Psalm 32:1-2 (quoted in Romans 4:7-8) speaks.
For Paul, imputation is not necessarily a transfer of sin or righteousness from one account to the other. Rather, imputation is the accounting itself of the thing, regardless of where it originally came from. If your sin is imputed to you, then God holds you especially accountable for what you’ve done. You are counted as a transgressor. This is what Paul means when he says that sin is not imputed where there is no law. Yes, sin persisted during this period, and was strong enough to maintain the associated reign of death. But sin was not imputed because there was no transgression of stated commandments.1
In Romans 5:20, the law comes in through Moses so that transgression and resulting guilt might be increased. That is, with the coming of the law, sin is then imputed, thereby making the sinner accountable under the law. This is the same situation as the Gentile who was once perishing apart from the law and then learns of the law as a God-fearer (which is, by the way, what I believe Romans 7 is describing).
Similarly, when Paul says in Romans 4:3 that “Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him as righteousness,” we must not insist that “it” refers to the alien righteousness of Christ transferred to Abraham’s account, for the idea is nowhere found in the context. Rather the picture we get is as if Abraham had faith (given by God through the work of the Spirit) and in lieu of any deeds by which he might otherwise be declared righteous—indeed, Paul points out, before the law of circumcision had even been given that he might keep it—God says, “I’ll take that; consider yourself justified.”
By the means of faith then, Abraham apprehended God’s promises to him and to his seed, just as we receive the promises of God through a true and living faith in Jesus. As with Abraham, this faith itself is credited to us by God as righteousness, apart from any works of the law. This is what I believe Paul is talking about when he talks about imputation.
So what about imputation in the Reformed doctrinal sense? Does Paul teach that we are justified on the grounds of Christ’s righteousness alone? He certainly does. God’s declaration of righteousness on us is a free gift that was attained by Christ’s work alone.
And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.
Romans 5:16-18
Here we see Christ’s “act of righteousness” is what leads to our justification. In a Reformed theological sense, we might say that it is imputed to us. As a side, I must insist that Romans 5:18 is speaking of a single act that attains justification, otherwise it destroys the parallel to Adam’s one trespass. It is one act of righteousness that makes the whole thing possible. Imputation of Christ’s life-work not explicitly found here.
What was this single righteous act? Paul has already told us in Romans 5:8-9.
. . . but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
We are justified by Christ’s blood. This does not necessarily obliterate the idea of the imputation of Christ’s active obedience, but I would say Paul makes no such distinction. Justification is more organic than taking a log entry from one roll and arbitrarily transferring it to another in order to settle the books. The key is that we are placed “in Christ.” For Romans 4-7 is Paul’s entire argument to bring us to one conclusion:
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Romans 8:1
This is the grounds for our justification. For if we are in Christ, then all that he is has become ours. That is our imputation. When we by faith receive Christ, God regards all that is Christ’s as ours, for we are in him. How are we placed in him? Romans 6 gives us this answer: by baptism, and all that it represents.
Whether Romans 6 is speaking of water baptism, or only of “spirit baptism,” or both, is a topic for another discussion, but whichever it is speaking of, this baptism is the means by which we are placed in Christ, by which we receive his righteousness to our account, and are therefore judged righteous before God.
Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Romans 6:3-11
Does this render the Reformed doctrine of imputation “redundant” with union with Christ? Not at all. Rather, with this understanding, imputation and forensic justification are the inevitable result of our vital union with Christ and his covenant headship. That is, union and imputation are related but distinct concepts.
It was Jonathan Edwards who said:
“The atonement worked by Jesus’ life and death is achieved by such a community of him and us that if the Father loves the Son, he must love us also.” 2
We might take this thought and apply it just as legitimately to forensic justification. If we are found “in Christ,” as Paul says, then because of that union, if the Father regards the Son as righteous, then He must justify us also.
. . . for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Galatians 3:26-27
If we are united to Christ his righteousness must appear on our account because his account and ours are the same account.
So does Paul teach the Reformed doctrine of imputation? Yes. He just doesn’t call it that.
Tags: baptism, covenant, imputation, justification, Pauline studies, Reformation, Reformed, Romans, union with Christ
Romans, Theology | Christopher Kou | 
February 11, 2010 11:01 PM
Subscribe
so wait…your confusing me…so you do agree with the historic reformed concensus that Christ's active and passive obedience were imputed to those who believe, just that it is more inferred rather than explicitly stated using reformed terms in the text? also: are you saying that these benefits are automatically given to those baptized?lastly: your view of justification is related to your view of God's people is it not? For instance i see a invisible/visible, internal/external distinction in the covenant people of God (circumcized of the flesh vs of the heart)…i assume you do not, do you think this has bearing on your view of the sacraments as well as your view of justification and imputation?just asking…p.s. have you ever read Clement of Rome's view of justification?
Yes, Paul did teach Imputation. And that it was real. And there is a real Union for those who are in Christ.
Alan . . . did you read the post? I'm just a bit confused as to if you're just answering the question in the title without having read it, or if you're trying to agree or disagree with me.
Shaggy, yes, that's pretty much what I'm saying. Although, as I noted, I wouldn't make a distinction between active and passive obedience where imputation is concerned. Because of the means through union with Christ, it all comes together as a whole.Are the baptized automatically conferred the benefits of justification? Well, I think I was careful enough to qualify, "baptism and all that it represents." So that those who receive the sign but not the thing signified are not vitally united to Christ, though they may be attached to his body (the Church) for a time.But yes, I believe that the baptism of Romans 6 is the means by which we are placed in Christ. Yes, it is possible to receive water and not the Spirit. In which case baptism is efficacious to condemn the one who receives in unbelief. It confers the blessings of being united to the body of Christ, but these blessing, if not received in faith, condemn rather than save.The circumcision of the heart matter is a bit tricky, especially when trying to apply the exact same language to baptism because the matter of circumcision is to Paul a very real issue between believing Jews and Gentile converts. We can't simply read Colossians 2 and do a find-and-replace substituting "baptism" for "circumcision."The reason we can't do this is because Paul uses baptism in the argument and EQUATES it with the "circumcision made without hands."In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.Colossians 2:11-12You are referring to Clement's letter to the Corinthians chapters 30-32? Yep. Good stuff.
I kept reading Colossians. The next part is really good and relevant to the discussion on justification:And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.Colossians 2:13-14
It seems clear to me that Paul, a very educated man, would have been well versed in the Old Testament. Paul would have understood what God was teaching about Christ when the sins of the people were "put on" the Scapegoat. The fact that Paul was clearly shown by Christ Himself on the road to Damascus was that: Christ has really and fully had the sins of His Elect transferred to Him and that a sinful person could now be considered righteous because of what Christ had accomplished.Study is a good thing Christopher but I would be interested to know of one time the Westminster confession "missed" something so important.
Too bad this doesn't work with Christology. What exactly is imputed – what is the nature of that righteousness?
This scheme falls in about 5 minutes worth of reasoning out.
Your whole reading of this is Nestorian to the core.
Alan, certainly Paul understood the scapegoat as taking away the sins of the people to be an Old Testament type of Christ. That doesn't really affect what I've said here at all. He still doesn't call that "imputation." You keep missing what I'm actually saying. That Paul teaches this doctrine (called imputation in Reformed theology), but that he simply doesn't call it by that name.Jay, please explain how this reading destroys the personhood of Christ. I would have thought that one who holds to theosis would agree with me.
I undestand where you're coming from, but the question that arises from this reading is what I said – what precisely is the nature of the "righteousness of Christ." Is it what he earned, as man, within history?
Jay, I would say that is a part of it, but not necessarily the whole. If we are speaking in a paradigm of merit, I suppose you could say we are given what he "earned" as a man, the second covenant head of the human race. In Adam we die, and in Christ we live.
If we are given what He earned as a man, within time and history, then isn't that a created thing?
I am not sure what you're getting at. I don't know that I would call the work of Christ on earth a "created thing." Possibly. It depends on what you mean by that. Is a work a thing, that it might be created?
Are His actions of law-keeping within time, or are they eternal? Clearly they are within time, and not eternal, and therefore they are created. In reformed theology it is not the righteousness He has as a divine Person that is "imputed," or given, but the law-keeping of a man, Jesus of Nazareth. This created grace scheme is then a variation on the Arian/Nestorian system of created grace.
Jay, if one reads imputation as a result of being united with Christ, how can one then separate the eternality of Christ from that which was worked as man? As I said, the logical result is that all that is Christ is regarded as ours. That includes his righteousness, sonship, inheritorship . . . but without blurring the distinction between creator and creature, of course.
Or when we become united to and identified with Christ, are we united to his human nature only? Clearly not. That would be Nestorian, as you say. We are united to Christ, and all that he is. Hence we say that he raises our human nature to community with the Godhead, rather than saying that we are simply partakers of his human work.
What is the nature of our participation in Him? What is the righteousness we are given? Is it a created legal state, as it is in classical reformed theology?
I am not sure how I might describe our participation in Christ more than how Paul describes it. It is a participation of covenant representation as in Romans 5, but it is also a spiritual participation, as we are vitally joined to the community of the Son by work of the Spirit.I don't know that I would regard the legal state of justification as a "created state." Because it is not a separate state that is given to us, but rather our sharing in the same state that the Son has, as being regarded righteous by the Father.
I Peter 3: 18-22 helps your case, IMHO.
I have read the post. Paul teaches Imputation. The Bible teaches Imputation. Am I to understand that this is some new theory you have discovered? Because does not historic Reformed faith clearly teach that Paul teaches Imputation and understands that he is teaching Imputation?
No, Alan. This is not some new theory, since as I've said I believe Paul does teach what has been called imputation by the Reformed theologians. And the historic Reformed community has not been totally on the same page on the details of imputation to begin with. The Westminster divines couldn't even agree on whether or not Christ's active obedience is imputed or not. So it is fertile ground for further Biblical study.What IS clear is that Paul uses the word "imputation" very differently from the way the Reformers used it in their systematic theology. This also is not a "new theory," but something that has been recognized by many in the past. I don't see this as a problem as long as we understand the distinction. Some use it to simply deny imputation altogether. I don't think that is necessary or biblically warranted. But understanding the difference does enable us to hear what Paul is really talking about when he uses the word without our systematics acting as the sole measure by which we judge biblical vocabulary.
Jay,You are quite incorrect as to the history of the Reformed teaching on this point. Calvin is consistent in identifying deification with imputed righteousness: http://wedgewords.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/life-comes-from-the-divine-essence/J. Todd Billings has written a good bit on this.
The notion of deification is dependent on the essence/energy distinction and proper Christology, which Calvin does not have.
Chris,There really isn't just one "Reformed doctrine" of imputation. Folks were divided on the active & passive obedience question. I think that the earliest Reformed divines identified "imputed righteousness" with forgiveness.
Ive already written several article on this the last two years that have convinced quite a few Calvinists, as well as addressing the claim you have raised.
Jay,That's silly. There's a much larger world of thought surrounding deification. Put the talking points away for a bit, or for good.Check here: http://www.amazon.com/Theosis-Deification-Christian-Theological-Monographs/dp/1597524387/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266123556&sr=8-1and here: http://www.amazon.com/Partakers-Divine-Nature-Development-Deification/dp/080103440X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266123588&sr=8-1
I am aware of this. It's not silly. If you understood the 6th council, you'd agree.
Can I tell you the single book that will end your Calvinism?
Guaranteed.
Will it explain the Giza Death Star?
You might actually like me if you didn't insist on being a jerk to me.
And I reject some of Farrell's views, and no, I wasnt referring to Farrell either.
http://www.amazon.com/St-Cyril-Alexandria-Christological-Controversy/dp/0881412597/ref=sr_1_11?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1266123766&sr=8-11
Steven, yes, I'm aware that there is no such thing as a Reformed consensus on a "doctrine of imputation" as such. I wanted to deal with the doctrine as it has come to be understood. That's why I defined it at the beginning. So there would be no misunderstanding of which doctrine I was discussing.
Jay, added St. Cyril book to my Amazon wishlist.
Yes, McGuckin is good, as is Norman Russel. Neither is especially pertinent to "Calvinism," however, and it was Russell who really strengthened my Protestant view of councils- Ephesus really was bad stuff.
Wow. You are a heretic.
Let's do a public debate then, and we'll see how awesome you are.
It's directly pertinent to Calvinism because of your stupid Christology.
Jay,You are a cartoon character.
I guess that's why my debates led dozens of people out of the FV and Calvinism last year. It's easy to sit back and mock, when you know you'll end up looking like a moron. You didn't even grasp Damascene's "one energy" statement and had to delete my comments on your lame ass blog because you know I called you out.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v668/auciker/internet_serious_business3.jpg
You don't even believe Ephesus and I'm a cartoon character. The reality is, none of your coward FV crowd has any guts and they know they'd lose and it would look bad. Funny thing is, in the Catholic and Orthodox circles, you're the cartoon character no one takes seriously.
And that's why I have challenged you, and you don't have the balls to own up to it.
You're all talk.
Maybe if you prostrate yourself on Doug Wilson's basketball gym church and pray hard enough, you'll grow a pair.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?saved&&suggest¬e_id=303461269145
Jay,I honestly debated whether or not to say anything at all here at this point. I still don't know. But I thought I should get serious for a minute. Obviously I was poking fun at you earlier, as it seems to me that you are a little too over-anxious to start an e-fight. But, that wasn't the right way to approach things, and I'm genuinely bothered now. This really isn't the way to have theological discussion, no matter how deep-seated the disagreement. Just look back over your words here: "We'll see how awesome you are," "your stupid…," "lame ass," "don't have the balls," "grow a pair."It sounds like we're on the school-yard, and you're trying to bait me into a fist-fight. The only thing missing is a derogatory reference to my mother. This really isn't the appropriate way to discuss the divine mysteries. How could I even respond at this point? Chris' post is about something that actually has to do with the salvation of men's souls from death and hell. I'm bad about being a cynic, myself, but I think it would be worthwhile to go back to the basics at this point. Step away from the debater's chair for a minute. Say an actual prayer for an upright Spirit. Fear God.sincerely