Does the Doctrine of Imputation Imply the Cross is Insufficient?

During my upbringing in the church, what was emphasized about the cross (when it was talked about) was its expiatory nature. What the cross accomplishes is expiation of sin. What was not talked about was propitiation-the fact that the atonement was also the satisfaction of the holy wrath of the Father who is just and thus punishes sin. Furthermore, when speaking of the cross and its work of justification, I would never hear of the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.

When I finished John Pipers’ “The Future of Justification,” I skimmed through the appendices to see if there were any specific topics that caught my interest. Appendix Five (p. 211-214) snagged my attention because it asked a question that has been on my mind whenever we discuss the doctrine of imputation: does the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness imply that the cross is insufficient for our right standing with God?

In other words, can we have right standing with God without the doctrine of imputation as long as the propitiatory and expiatory nature of the atonement is applied to us? Or do we need the cross plus Christ’s obedient life?

Piper takes us through several key logical deductions. First, he lists verse that give rise to this question of justification without imputation. We see that in the Bible justification is oftentimes linked with the cross, without any mention of Christ’s righteous obedience: Romans 3:24-25, 4:25, 5:9; Galatians 2:21. Furthermore, the cross is the central focus of where sin can be forgiven: Colossians 2:14; 1 Corinthians 15:3; Isaiah 53:5; 1 Peter 2:24; Revelation 1:5; 1 John 1:7. Now all these verses point to the cross, Christ’s atoning death, as the means of justification.

So is the death of Christ sufficient for the cleansing of all our sins? Piper answers, “Yes, but only as the climax of a sinless life.” He directs us to Hebrews 4:15, 7:27-28, 2:10, 5:9, all of which deal explicitly with the perfect obedience of Christ in relationship to the atonement. The New Testament writers did not view the perfect life of Christ and his death as separate, but as one long line of consistent obedience. When Paul speaks of Christ’s obedience being the cause of our justification, he does not mean only Christ’s obedience unto death, but also his entire obedient life leading up to that death (Rom. 5:19, Phil. 2:7-8).

The cross is the culmination of a life of obedience and hence cannot be separated from the doctrine of imputation for it is part and parcel. Justification requires the cross and the cross is only possible as the climax of Christ’s life of perfect obedience. I will end by quoting Piper directly:

So back to our initial question: “Does the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness imply that the cross is insufficient for our right standing with God?” The answer is no. Just as the perfectly obedient life of Christ is essential to the death of Christ as a covering for our sin, so the perfectly obedient life of Christ is essential to the death of Christ as the supreme act of obedience by which we are appointed righteous in him. The death of Christ is sufficient for the covering our sins as the climax of a sinless life. And the death of Christ is sufficient for our justification as the climax of a sinless life (p. 214).

What is the ‘Righteousness of God’?

Desiring God, John Piper’s ministry, offers a majority of his books online for free, whereby you can read them in PDF form and even download them on your computer for future reading. This has been a great blessing, especially for those of us who want to save some money. Currently, I’m reading through “The Future of Justification,” written by John Piper as a response to N. T. Wright and the New Perspective on Paul.

If you would like to read “The Future of Justification,” click here. What I talk about below can be found on pages 64-67. So what Piper is discussing in this chapter is the law-court dynamics of justification and God’s righteousness. I’m going to be taking this out of context of Piper’s dialectic with N. T. Wright and simply focus on his definition of “the righteousness of God.”

There is the common definition that God is righteous because He does what is good and right. But eventually, as we get older, we begin to see flaw in that logic because God does not subscribe to a higher order of laws dictating what is good and right. God does what is good and right because He dictates what is good and right. How then should we define God’s righteousness? Piper writes:

“…the essence of the righteousness of God is his unwavering faithfulness to uphold the glory of his name. And human righteousness is the same: the unwavering faithfulness to uphold the glory of God (p. 64).”

The following are some verses Piper cites for us to meditate on:
Isaiah 48:9-11, 43:25; Psalm 79:9, 143:11; Ezekiel 36:20-23; 1 Samuel 12:22

All these verses present God as keeping His covenant because of His righteousness, namely his allegiance to His own glory. But does Pauline theology match up with this?

Piper says yes and refers to:
Romans 1:18-21, 1:23, 2:23-24, 3:23

In reference to Romans 3:23, “fall[ing] short of” means “lack of” and we lack the glory of God because we have exchanged it for idols. This means we have replaced the desire for God and for His glory with a desire for other things and our own glory.

A QUESTION TO PONDER: So if God is concerned ultimately with His own glory, does God violate 1 Corinthians 13:5 which says love “is not self-seeking (NIV)”, “does not insist on its own way (ESV)” and “does not seek its own (NASB)”?

Counted Righteous in Christ by John Piper (Blog Index)

This scholarly work is a refutation of the view that the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is unbiblical and unnecessary to the doctrine of justification. Because of the new change in the methodology used in this blog (namely the discontinuation of summaries), the blogposts made relating to this book were mainly brief summaries of specific points and also brief commentary.

Only a total of four posts were made concerning John Piper’s “Counted Righteous in Christ,” wherein only one directly addresses the main issue of the book. A summary of the argument can be found in the post “The Controversy of Faith as Our Righteousness,” whereas the other three posts referred to other aspects of the doctrine of imputation which were generally referred to in the footnotes or sub-points.

Page 27: Applying the Doctrine of Imputation Horizontally
Page 42: Justification at Stake in Three ‘Storms’
Summary: The Controversy of Faith as Our Righteousness
Page 121: Practical Applications of the Doctrine of Imputation

As a brief explanation of the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, I’ve embedded a video below, provided by Desiring God, of Sinclair Ferguson giving a summary of this doctrine.

To read online, click here.

Practical Applications of the Doctrine of Imputation

This will be the last installment of posts on “Counted Righteous in Christ,” although I may still post one or two more on the doctrine of imputation. To see where we’re heading after that, I believe I will try to complete “Of the Mortification of Sin in Believers” series before I head back to the U.S. at the end of this week.

The doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is all nice and good, but are there real practical applications if we adhere to it? In the conclusion (p. 121-125) of “Counted Righteous in Christ,” John Piper speaks about the reasons for which we should defend this doctrine. I’ve taken the liberty of putting them under my own labels to help organize his thoughts.

In Sanctification
We are counted perfectly righteous because of Christ’s righteousness, but we are still called to obey God. Without this obedience as fruit of faith, we have no reason to believe that we are saved (Matt. 6:15; Jn. 5:28-29; Rom. 8:13; Gal. 6:8-9; 2 Thess. 2:13; Jm. 2:17; 1 Jn. 2:17; 3:14). Piper then states, “the only hope for making progress in this radical demand for holiness and love is the hope that our righteousness before God is on another solid footing besides our own imperfect obedience as Christians (p. 123).”

Pastoral Antidote for Despair
Piper cites John Bunyan’s example of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness being a unique salve for the despair of sinful disobedience. Disobedience can cause uncertainty of right standing with God, and the reassurance can come in the form of this doctrine whereby our disobedience is not condemning for our righteousness is not from our obedience, but Christ’s.

God is More Glorious
God is not only given glory as the one who forgives us, as the one who gives faith and hence maintains obedience, but also as the one who gives perfect righteousness so that we may be fully accepted by God. Thus God is more glorious because of this doctrine and that should be the aim of our lives-to give Him glory.

The Controversy of Faith as Our Righteousness

In the same flavor as the previous post of being knowledgeable of current controversies, I thought that I would very briefly summarize the argument against the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. I will note that the knowledge I have of this view is strictly from John Piper’s “Counted Righteous in Christ” and thus I apologize if I misrepresent this position as portrayed by Piper. Hopefully we can grow in discernment as we think through these things with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

There is common ground between Robert Gundry (who believes the doctrine of imputation to be unbiblical) and Piper (who believes the opposite) in that both believe that for God to treat us as righteous there has to be “positive ground for it besides the forgiveness of our sins.” What is at stake is what the source is. Piper holds the traditional Protestant view that the righteousness of God (manifest in the righteousness of Christ) is what is imputed to us through faith. Gundry holds that this is not what Paul teaches, but instead that faith is what is reckoned as righteousness. So it is not Christ’s righteousness imputed to us that causes us to be viewed by God as righteous, but instead that God has imputed righteousness to faith. Not that faith is intrinsically righteous, but that God reckons this faith as righteousness.

Piper is quick to note that Gundry is not saying grace-wrought faith is the ground of justification. Gundry still holds to the cross and its propitiatory and expiatory work as the ground of justification, but simply as a reinterpretation of how we are counted righteous on top of propitiation.

Piper sums up Gundry’s position as “this ‘righteousness’-this faith-is not imputed to us, but really is our righteousness in that we respond to God in faith (by grace) and God counts our faith to be what it is-righteousness. This is different from the traditional Protestant view that sees faith as the instrument that unites us to Christ in whom an alien righteousness, not our own, is imputed to us.”

I cite the following verses for us to explore when we consider this position: Romans 4:5, 9, 22, 24; Galatians 3:6; James 2:23.

Justification at Stake in Three ‘Storms’

I’m posting a bit early this time because I’m going to be heading down South for the weekend to the mountains. I’ll be back on Sunday, so I’ll be missing my blogpost on Saturday.

Continuing a look at Piper’s book “Counted in Righteous in Christ,” he notes that the doctrine of justification is being fought over in more than one conflict, of which he is dealing specifically with the conflict over the necessity and truth of the doctrine of imputation.

Piper lists three other conflicts currently going on in Christianity concerning the doctrine of justification on page 42, footnote 3:

1. Ecumenical dialogues on Evangelical and Catholic doctrine
Is the Reformation over? Piper says “no” in the conclusion of this book. The conflict between Catholic and Evangelical interpretation of justification are multiple, of which one is if the Bible teaches imputation or impartation of Christ’s righteousness. Do we believe that the Reformation that Luther started was because of real foundational failings in Catholic doctrine?

2. New Perspective on Paul
I do not feel immersed enough in this topic to speak on it in-depth, but from what I have read, the main points of the “New Perspective” are that when Paul speaks of justification by faith without works of the law, he is speaking of “works of the law” in the sense of Jewish dietary law, circumcision and Sabbath-day keeping. This interpretation comes from examining Second-Temple Judaism and the belief that the Jews at that time, mainly that the sin Paul denounces is not legalism (the Jews in fact believed in grace), but ethnocentrism to the exclusion of the Gentiles. Instead, the new badge of being part of the covenant was no longer these Jewish ‘customs’ but faith in Christ. And following from this, when God declares someone justified, it is not at that point that one becomes part of the covenant, but justification is simply acknowledging someone is already part of the covenant. Furthermore, this declaring justified is not in fact effective, but a foreshadowing of the future effective justification on the Day of Judgment, whereby all men will be judged according to their whole lives (including those of the covenant, whose good works will be judged, but those good works are grace-wrought). I hope I did the position justice, and if not, feel free to correct me.

3. Relationship of faith and obedience, “specifically conflation of faith and works of faith as the instrument of justification.”
I am not sure what Piper means by this exactly, but I am assuming it means a confusion whereby the grace-wrought works of faith are what justifies believers, not faith alone through grace. To me, this sounds Catholic as well as the underlying principle of New Perspective soteriology.

These new paradigms are not extra-Biblical concepts but are rooted in specific hermeneutics. Are we knowledgeable about these controversies? Are we prepared to answer those who would bring these new interpretations against Scriptural orthodoxy?

Applying the Doctrine of Imputation Horizontally

Without knowing it, I appear to have entered a short season of study of the doctrine of justification. Piper discusses it in both “The Future of Justification” as he engages with N.T. Wright about the New Perspective on Paul and “Counted Righteous in Christ” where he engages Robert Gundry about the necessity of the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness within the doctrine of justification.

I am not going to go too in-depth into the actual content of “Counted Righteous in Christ,” nor do I feel able to, since I am still trying to get my head around some of the arguments. But I will be posting a series of thoughts that came up while I read it (or tried to work through it rather) that I found compelling.

Piper opens the book by talking about the reasons why he is defending the doctrine of imputation, and the one that stuck out to me was in the section “For the Sake of My Family: Marriage” on pages 27-28. Piper is specifically speaking about the doctrine of imputation in the context of marriage, but I believe it can be applied in any relationship between Christians because we are all sinners who sin against one another.

We all have disagreements and arguments and fights with our friends, family and peers. Some of these are minor disputes, and others can erupt into full-blown enmity…

“But what if one or both of the partners [or parties] becomes overwhelmed with the truth of justification by faith alone, and with the particular truth that in Christ Jesus God credits me, for Christ’s sake, was fulfilling all his expectations? What would happen if this doctrine so mastered our souls that we began to bend it from the vertical to the horizontal? What if we applied it to our marriages?…I will no longer think merely in terms of whether my expectations are met in practice. I will, for Christ’s sake, regard my wife (or husband) [or any believer] the way God regards me-complete and accepted in Christ-and to be helped and blessed and nurtured and cherished, even if in practice there are shortcomings (p. 27-28).”

Paul most likely had this in mind in Ephesians 4:32: “Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you. (ESV)”

Going Into Debt for His Glory

As some of you might know, I listen to church sermons, conference seminars and seminary lectures while I travel and generally alternate between the three “genres”. This is something I commend to those of you who use public transportation to get to work; I find it a good use of time.

Currently, in terms of conferences, I’m working through the New Attitude 2007 Conference. The focus of the conference was on discernment. Of the seminars at NA2007, I would recommend “Discern Your Culture” by Al Mohler, “Discern Your Doctrine” by Mark Dever and “Discern What Pleases God (2 Parts)” by John Piper. If you want to listen to the main sessions at NA2007, click here to download them.

This is the nugget of gold I got out of John Piper’s seminar titled “Discern What Pleases God: Personal Obedience.” The overarching concept of Piper’s message was not falling into the subtle temptations of using work as a means of justification. We’ve thought through this concept quite a bit, I think, in regards to the role of grace in justification and sanctification, so I’m not going to go too deep into Piper’s cautions of not falling into the mindset of obedience as a way to “pay God back” or obedience as the groundwork for a “works-based theology”.

Piper brought forward an objection to this idea of not “paying God back” for the cross, and in responding to that objection he presented a wonderful Biblical truth.

“¹²What shall I render to the LORD for all his benefits to me? ¹³I will lift up the cup of salvation and call on the name of the LORD” (Psalm 116:12-13).

So in verse 12, we see the question of how we “pay God back.” But what is seen here is that we do not in fact pay Him back. In the next verse, we see the psalmist explaining what we must “render to the LORD for all his benefits,” which is to lift up the cup of salvation. The cup of salvation is an empty cup that must be filled. How do we see this? Because the psalmist couples the lifting of the cup with calling on the name of the LORD.

So what do we “render to the LORD”? Ask for more! God is glorified when we ask Him for more grace. Thank God for His grace to us sinners by asking for more grace. This truth can be summed up in the third stanza of “Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing”:

O to grace how great a debtor

            Daily I’m constrained to be!

Daily, we grow more and more in debt to the grace of God. And by growing more in debt to grace, the more God is glorified.

How I Distinguish Between the Gospel and Fake Gospels, by John Piper

¹Now I would remind you, brothers, of the gospel I preached to you, which you received, in which you stand, ²and by which you are being saved, if you hold fast to the word I preached to you—unless you believed in vain. ³For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, ⁴that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, ⁵and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

1 Corinthians 15:1-5

From this passage, Piper takes six aspects of the Gospel which are essential to its integrity. He goes through each aspect, affirming what is believed about that element and then discusses the distortions that are being imposed on the Gospel in modern circles.

Spiritual Depression in the Psalms: Psalm 42, by John Piper

Here, John Piper preaches on the emotional exhaustion and spiritual depression of the Psalmist in chapter forty-two.  Out of this, he gleans the reactions to such state of being and the focus of the Psalmist in distress.  (Note: You really must listen to the sermon.  Piper’s sermons are very difficult to put into words.)