Wednesday, October 31, 2007

490th Anniversary of the Reformation

Today is the 490th anniversary of the Reformation. Sadly, the church in America is in need of Reformation just as much as the medieval church.
This video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSmv3kcwcus&eurl=http://www.extremetheology.com/shows the abuses of the Catholic church through the selling of indulgences. This spurned Martin Luther to pen the 95 Theses. Indulgences are every bit as evil as the counterfeit "prosperity" gospel of Joel Osteen and the TBN crowd, the counterfeit Emergent church, as well as the counterfeit "informercial" gospel being passed off by the purpose-driven seeker-sensitive types.

The Emerging Submerging of The Reformation


It's no secret that many in the Emerging Church Movement would prefer that this day be erased from their calendar. No not Halloween, though I'm sure we won't find many Emergents out today wearing Martin Luther costumes. I am instead referring to Reformation Day. One critic of Emergent correctly noted the widespread historical revisionism in the Emerging Church, saying: "All the great heroes of the faith end up becoming fools. And the antiheroes - the fools who compromise and who don't take a stand - become the heroes. It's turning history on its head; they undo the Reformation so they can go back to a quasi-Christian, medieval spirituality".
That was John MacArthur who made those remarks in an interview about his Truth War book. One reader of his book who won't be giving it a four star Amazon review anytime soon is Emergent leader Andrew Jones. His distaste for the book is stated in no uncertain terms, in fact, he says so in words that many of you will find distasteful. That's the Emerging Church that we've come to expect.
But this post is not about foul language however, nor of Andrew Jones' distain for MacArthur's book, but of Jones' interesting take on church history as expressed in the Reformation post on his Tall Skinny Kiwi blog this week. The bullet points from Andrew's post are in red below, and I will briefly challenge his ideas in the text that follows. Hopefully afterwards, you'll have a better understanding of why Emergents so often have disdain for the greatest revival of the last 1,000+ years - the Protestant Reformation.
1. The Reformers were committed to an ecumenical consensus of unity. They wanted to reform the whole church, not just one break-away segment that became the Protestant Movement. Sectarianism was not the intention.
It's true that while Martin Luther was still a Catholic monk, he endeavored to see changes made in the Roman Catholic church. But this quickly evaporated in the early days of the Reformation as it was clear that the Catholics were in no mood for sweeping reforms. It's interesting to hear Anthony Jones say that the "the Reformers were committed to an ecumenical consensus of unity" when in fact Luther broke unity even with other protestant Reformers, over sacramental doctrines. Take for example Luther's meeting with Ulrich Zwingli in which Luther refused to even shake hands with the Swiss Reformer afterwards, breaking unity with him over Communion. Luther's sentiments towards Rome were even more sectarian. Unfortunately, Andrew Jones' "unity" remarks only portray a limited portion of the story. The Reformers were indeed inclined to choose doctrine ahead of unity.
2. If there is a Babylon the Great today, it is not the Roman Catholic Church. It is probably something closer and dearer to us.
How can he be so certain of who is NOT being referred to in Revelation? I wonder if whatever entity Andrew has in mind as a better fit, has the kind of track record that the Roman Catholic church has of martyring saints, disfiguring essential biblical doctrines, and installing a leader who is said to be the Vicar of Christ on Earth (amongst other blasphemous titles). Like so many Emergents today, Andrew Jones seems more interested at times in having unity with Catholics rather than evangelizing them. Emergents may think they are being loving and charitable that way, but in reality it's extremely unloving to not tell them the truth. Andrew Jones goes so far as to offer apologies to Catholics for having once given them evangelism tracts, calling them a part of the body of Christ. I can only assume that much of his new thinking has influenced his statement of certainty regarding who Babylon the Great ISN'T.
3. If USA and England had as many Czech immigrants as they did German, history would probably show that the Reformation started much earlier and its geographic center was a few hundred miles eastwards of where we currently believe it to be. YES - I am talking about Jan Hus.
Everyone loves conspiracy theories I guess. The appeal of it to Emergents of course, is that Jan Hus of the previous century presents a more docile character to grapple with than the highly polemic Luther who once said:
"I was born to fight devils and factions. It is my business to remove obstructions, to cut down thorns, to fill up quagmires, and to open and make straight paths. But if I must have some failing, let me rather speak the truth with too great severity than once to act the hypocrite and conceal the truth."
"Geographic centers" have little to do with the perception people have of the Reformation. There's no escaping the fact that God providentially used the Magisterial Reformers, along with the rulers of the land who were favorably disposed to cooperate with them, and let's not forget His timing of the newly invented printing press. What a shame it is that numerous Emerging Church blogs on this day will invest so much bandwidth attempting to discredit such an obvious work of God.
4. The Reformation was initiated NOT because of doctrinal purity, as commonly taught, but because of corruption in the use of power and wealth. Doctrinal reform was a bonus, but not the primary motivation.
Martin Luther certainly reacted to much of the moral corruption in the Catholic church of his day, and in fact - his 95 Theses was a very moral document. Had it not been for this corruption in the church, Luther may never have published his thoughts on Justification and other important doctrines. What's not reflected in Andrew Jones' remarks however, is the acknowledgement that the Reformers thoroughly understood the relationship between thought and deeds. In other words, they understood that the corruption sprouted from error. The Reformers knew that the moral abuses were driven by wrong thinking. The Emerging Church should take a page from the Reformers, as we so often find this movement's followers emphasizing "good works" detached from doctrinal truth.
5. There is reform in the church today because there is corruption in the church today. God still cares about his church. So should we. The way we play with ecclesiastic power and the way we spend the Bride's finances should concern us all, not just our commitment to a common creed.
We can certainly agree with that. The Church today needs reform, where we radically disagree with Emergents is on how to go about it.
6. The emerging church might well be a protest (Don Carson) but it might also be a corrective measure to the excesses and imbalances of the reformation and the Enlightenment.
Or it may be a dangerous over-reaction to some of the problems that are especially pronounced in the evangelical church of the last century. The way we need to judge contemporary movements is to evaluate their truthfulness, and by this standard the Emerging Church Movement (and certainly Emergent Village) does not measure-up as a reliable source of guidance and leadership for the changes that are needed in our time.
Let the Reformation continue. Others: Reformed Trombonist and check out Campi who is always seasonal this time of year, even if he comes from a different angle than me.
Seasonal perhaps, but also - more historically accurate and less (not more) personally biased. I fully agree with Andrew Jones in recommending men like Steve Camp who will remind you of why PROTEST is part of the word "protestant", and has been for nearly 500 years.
Reformation Day is one holiday that belongs on the calendar, though I can imagine those erasers being out in full force today in Emergent households. While I do not fully agree with any of the Reformers on everything, their contribution to Christianity can not be denied. They were rough around the edges at times, some of Luther's choices of words (which are often exaggerated with no context on the blogs of his enemies) would still draw objections from me in the same way Emergents do; I also disagree with some of the doctrinal lines that were drawn (or not drawn) in the Reformation. But for their time and circumstances we must recognize that which the Lord chose to accomplish through these men. The Reformation gave the Puritans and others a steady platform to improve upon in the years that followed, and the same has been given to us. Let's remember to pray for the revival that is so badly needed in the western world today. Lord bring us more men with the conviction of truth and the courage of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli.

From St Augustine


If you believe what you like in the gospel,and reject what you don't like,it's not the gospel you believe,but yourself. St. Augustine

Seizing Opportunities for Evangelism By Jesse Johnson


* Jesse is serves as Associate Pastor of Local Outreach Ministries at Grace Church. In L.A.
On Sunday afternoons I used to pass a well-dressed man standing on a milk crate at the corner of Roscoe and Van Nuys boulevards. He wore a placard around his neck that said “Jesus is Lord,” and bellowed phrases like “Jesus loves you” and “Read the Bible” into a bullhorn. Cars at the red light would roll up their windows, while the people huddled at the bus stop looked on, visibly annoyed.
This man’s evangelism caused me cognitive conflict. On one hand, he was trying to do something to proclaim the gospel. On the other hand, he was no doubt causing people to scoff at the gospel because of the frivolous way he was presenting it.
There are many misunderstandings about the nature of true evangelism. Many people don’t evangelize because when they think of evangelism, they think of the overzealous man on the street corner with the bullhorn. They think, “I’m not called to do that.” From there it’s a short leap to, “So I’m not called to evangelize.”
But the most effective kind of evangelism is often not done from street corners. Proclaiming the gospel does not involve a sign around your neck, or a bullhorn in your hand. Effective, winsome evangelism can take place with people you already know—your neighbors, your family, and your coworkers. Think of the names of nonbelievers you cross paths with; those people are your mission field.
For Jesus, evangelism was a way of life. When He crossed paths with people, He seized the opportunities to preach repentance and the forgiveness of sins. In fact, much of Jesus’ evangelism took place in conversations with individuals. Consider the woman at the well (John 4), the rich young ruler (Luke 18), and Zacchaeus (Luke 19).
Evangelism in the book of Acts follows Jesus’ example. Peter, Stephen, and Paul did not stand on street corners and shout. Instead they seized whatever opportunities God gave them, and implored people to be reconciled to God. There are at least 15 examples in the book of Acts of Christians going about their daily activity, and then getting involved in evangelistic conversations with individuals with whom they came in contact.
That is our challenge in evangelism. We want to seize the opportunities that God gives us to proclaim the gospel to those whom He puts around us. When we see evangelism as a lifestyle, rather than as an event, then our evangelism will more closely model Jesus’s.
Tomorrow we will have some ideas that pastors can use to facilitate this kind of evangelism in the life of the church.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

A Gem from Calvin . . .

"Whoever is not satisfied with Christ alone, strives after something beyond absolute perfection"
John Calvin.

Phil Johnson on Willow Creek Church.........


Phil Johnson hits the nail on the head with this quote:"On the other hand, let's be completely candid: Even if I did go out of my way to catalogue everything I like about the Willow Creek model, it would indeed be a very short list. In fact, as I ponder the question even now, I'm hard-pressed to think of anything truly distinctive about Willow Creek's approach to ministry that I could honestly say advances the agenda of Christ's kingdom. Willow Creek's underlying philosophy is fundamentally pragmatic, not biblical. By their own admission, it is now statistically clear that their strategy does not produce authentic disciples—and therefore fails even the pragmatic test. So it's a bad ministry model even by its own definition of what's "good." More importantly, the movement also falls short by every biblical standard I can think of. Its influence among evangelicals for more than three decades has been seriously, consistently, and (I believe) demonstrably bad in numerous ways. It's about to get even worse."If you would like to know if YOUR church is a member of Willow Creek You Can Check By Clicking HERE.

Martin Luther's Life as a Monk (1505-1512)


According to legend (see Lightning), it was during a terrible storm that Luther decided to become a monk. He did not change his mind when his friends and father tried to convince the successful student to continue his law studies. He entered the Augustinian monastery in Erfurt in 1505 and took his monk's vow in 1506.
The life of a monk during Luther's time was hard, and consisted of fasting, prayer and work. A monk's day began at 3 am with the first hourly prayers. This time molded Luther, above all he found a close relationship to the Bible which characterized his later life and work.
In 1507, Luther was ordained as a priest in Erfurt and started studying Theology at the University of Erfurt. During his studies, he came into contact with the ideas of the Humanists and embraced their slogan 'Ad Fontes!' - Back to the Source! For Luther this meant the study of the Bible in its original Hebrew and Greek (Bible humanism).
Martin Luther as Professor in Wittenberg (1512-17)
After recieving his doctorate in Theology in 1512, Luther took a position as Theology Professor at the Wittenberg University 'Leucorea'. He gave lectures over the Psalms (1514-15), Letter to the Romans (1515-16), Letter to the Galatians (1516-17), and Letter to the Hebrews (1517-18).
This time is characterised by Luther's grappling with religious understanding. His decisive religious enlightenment is said to have come during his intensive study of the Letter to the Romans during which time he realized that people receive justice through the grace of God, not through good works: "For in it the righteousness of God is revealed through faith for faith; as it is written, "The one who is righteous will live by faith." (Romans 1:17)
Luther himself stated that he came to this decisive realization in the study room of the Wittenberg monastery. When this actually happened is disputed; it is also known as the Tower experience (Turmerlebenis).
A circle of theologians began to form around Luther, among them Niklaus von Amsdorf and Karlstadt (Andreas Bodenstein).
In 1514 Luther became priest for Wittenberg's City Church.

The 95 Theses and their Results (1517-1519)


From 1514 Luther was not only theology professor at Wittenberg University but also the priest at the City Church in Wittenberg. So he was also responsible for the salvation of his parish.
Luther observed that many people in Wittenberg were not coming to him for confession any more. They were going to towns in Brandenburg or Anhalt like Jüterbog or Zerbst to buy Indulgences (primarily the Peter's Indulgence).
The practice of buying indulgences, which quasi replaced confession and allowed people to buy their salvation, was completely repulsive to Luther. He strongly believed that one lived a life of humility in order to receive God's grace.
After 1507, trade in Indulgences took a steep climb because both the Papal Court and Bishop Albrecht von Brandenburg Germany's representative for the sale of indulgence were in great financial trouble.
In addition, the Dominican monk, Johann Tetzel, sold indulgences in the region around Wittenberg in a very ostentatious manner. Many stories started poping up about him such as, that Tetzel could redeem the sins of the deceased.Further sayings of Tetzel, such as, "When the money clangs in the box, the souls spring up to heaven", also brought protests from Luther.

October 31, 1517, "Nailing the 95 Theses to the Door of the Castle Church"
Prior to October 31, 1517, Luther had preached against the indulgence trade. After reading an instruction manual for indulgence traders, he wrote a letter to his church superiors hoping to get rid of this abuse. In this letter he included 95 Theses which were to be used as the basis for a discussion on the topic.
That Luther hammered his theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg belongs to the realm of legends (the legend of Nailing the 95 Theses to the Door of the Castle Church).


Reactions to the 95 ThesesLuther sent his 95 Theses to a few bishops and some friends; therefore he did not expect or receive a prompt response. By the end of 1517, however, copies of the 95 Theses had been printed in Leipzig, Nuremberg and Basel. Some humanists and princes passionately approved of the theses, but parts of the Roman Church completely rejected them. The most vehement voice against the theses was the Indulgence Priest Tetzel, who supposedly categorized Luther as a follower of the heretic Jan Hus and threatened to have him burned at the stake.
At first the bishops reacted mildly, they informed the Pope of the 'rebel within the ranks' and instructed Luther's direct superior to take a moderate roll in calming him. A few bishops actually welcomed Luther's ideas for reform.
Events up to 1519Because of increasing pressure, Luther found it necessary to explain and clarify his theses in writing. In 1518, Luther himself said that he only wanted to take care of an abuse (indulgence) and was not striving to unhinge the papacy with his theses.
The avalanche, however, was now unstoppable. The Papal Court reacted drastically to the alleged heretic and in 1518 an inquisition was begun in Rome. This quieted down in 1519 during the search for a successor to the deceased Emperor Maximilian. Once Karl the V was elected as emperor, the fight against Luther and his followers continued.

Luther at the Imperial Diet of Worms (1521)


Luther, who through the church's excommunication was practically declared a heretic, was invited to Worms by the Emperor who had been pressured by a few princes. Both the church and Emperor wanted Luther to recant his teachings while he was there. The princes who supported Luther hoped that through the forthcoming events the political power of Rome over Germany would be weakend.
Luther's powerful sovereign, Elector Friedrich the Wise of Saxon demanded that Luther not be outlawed and imprisoned without a hearing.
The Trip to WormsLuther began his trip to Worms on April 2, 1521. The journey to the Imperial Diet did not embody the repentance the church had hoped for. The journey to Worms was more like a victory march; Luther was welcomed enthusiastically in all of the towns he went through. He preached in Erfurt, Gotha and Eisenach. He arrived in Worms on April 16 and was also cheered and welcomed by the people.

Luther's Appearance at the Imperial DietLuther's appearance at the Imperial Diet was described as objective, clever and well thought out. He had to appear before the Emperor twice; each time he was clearly told to take back his teachings. Luther didn't see any proof against his theses or views which would move him to recant: "Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen."

I am Finished!After he left the negotiations room, he said "I am finished." And he was for the time finished; Luther was dismissed, and not arrested because he had a letter of safe conduct (Schutzbrief) which guaranteed him 21 days of safe travel through the land. He headed home on April 25.
When Luther and the princes who supported him left Worms, the emperor imposed an Imperial Act (Wormser Edikt): Luther is declared an outlaw (he may be killed by anyone without threat of punishment). On the trip home, Elector Friedrich the Wise allowed Luther to be kidnapped on May 4 (Luther knew about it beforehand). This took place on the one hand to guarantee Luther's safety and on the other hand to let him disappear from the scene for a short while; there were even rumors of Luther's death. This action also helped the Elector not to endanger himself because he could have been held liable for protecting an outlaw and heretic.
Luther was taken to the secluded Wartburg and the Reformation had time to stabilize and strengthen itself.

Reformation Day OCTOBER 31ST


Most Protestant Christians observe Reformation Day in honor of Martin Luther and other Christians who removed false doctrine and destructive practices from the Christian church.
Because the Roman Catholic Church was desperate to raise money to complete St. Peter's in Rome during the Middle Ages, many clergy used fear as a tool to obtain money from poor and unsophisticated people. They told the people that they had to pay money to the church so that their sins and the sins of their families might be forgiven. The people bought pieces of paper called pardons and indulgences from the church so that they could believe that they would go to heaven when they died.
Luther was deeply disturbed by these and other abuses in the church. At the same time he was aware of his own sins and imperfections, and he tried very hard to make himself into a person that he thought God would like. The harder he tried, the worse he felt. He thought he was growing farther and farther away from God, and that it was becoming impossible for God to like him at all.
In despair, he began a deep study of the Bible, especially the letters in the New Testament that were written by Paul, and he began to understand what Paul had told the early Christians over a thousand years before.
In his preaching and writing, Luther began to emphasize two main points: justification by faith and the priesthood of all believers.
Justification by faith means that Christians can never earn God's love or forgiveness. All that Christians must do is to accept God as God, and God will love and forgive and cherish them.
The priesthood of all believers means that every Christian has his or her own personal relationship with God, reading the Bible and worshiping in his or her own language, and praying directly to God without anyone's going in between.
So Protestant Christians give thanks to God on this day for the opportunity to lead lives of faith, instead of lives of fear.
The symbol of Luther and Lutherans is the Luther Rose.

Reformation Day Ideas

Ideas for your very own Reformation Day celebration...

Make a "Diet of Worms Cake" and bring it to your office or school - recipe found here http://www.oldlutheran.com/kitchen/reformation/dowc.shtml
Have a "Baptismal Apple Dunk"
Run a "Law and Gospel Shuffle Relay"
Create a "Fishers of Men" Fishing Pond
Do a "Defeat the Devil Ball Toss"
Play "Pin the 95 Theses on the Wittenberg Door"
Run a "Throw Indulgences in the Trash" relay
Find a storyteller to tell of the events of Luther’s life!
Have a costume party – everyone dress up as their favorite reformation personality.
Have a special showing of the Movie "Luther" at church or in your home!
• Present this skit on Luther that was written by Joan Peery.

Should Christians Participate in Halloween?



Each year Halloween becomes more and more popular, and sadly the popularity among Christians grows as well. Here is a portion of an article from the Jeremiah Project on Christians and Halloween.
Can we borrow pagan customs and superstitions of ancient peoples and “Christianize” them?As believers, we are called to “Test everything. Hold on to the good. Avoid every kind of evil. [1 Thesalonians 5:21-22] Who can deny that virtually all of the symbols of Halloween are evil? Witches, monsters, ogres, vampires, ghosts, ghouls, goblins, devils and demons all portray evil. Christians are to “… have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.” [Ephesians 5:11]
Is Halloween just another innocent holiday that doesn’t harm anyone? Is it really just childish fun? Vandalism and wanton disregard for the property of others is common on Halloween night. Even normally well-behaved children are driven by unseen forces to destructive behavior. Police officials everywhere report a great increase in such activities on Halloween. Worse yet are the horrifying accounts of poisoned candy and fruits booby-trapped with razor blades and needles. Such threats are so real that many hospitals offer free X-rays of Halloween treats in order to prevent children from being harmed. Who but Satan could inspire such monstrous actions?
Should the church be compromised by accommodating itself to the culture?
“Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” [Romans 12:2]
“For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial?” [2 Corinthians 6:14, 15]
When America and the world celebrates the Festival of Samhain and the powers of darkness by masquerading as evil creatures or decorating our homes, schools, businesses and churches with occult symbols, Satanic power is glorified.
The sort of practices celebrated on Halloween are what defiled the ancient nations [see Leviticus 18:24-30]. The Israelites were warned against such practices when they entered the Promised Land, “When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.” [Deuteronomy 18:9]
Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD, and because of these detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you. You must be blameless before the LORD your God. The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD your God has not permitted you to do so. [Deuteronomy 18:10-14]
As an alternative to the celebration of evil and death, Christians should rather do what Christians are supposed to do every day and that is shine the light of Jesus Christ. We should emphasize the Christian influences and strive to make Hallow’s Eve a celebration of the acts of God through his people the saints. We should make it a day when acts of charity instead of vandalism and hatred abound. A day that emphasizes the light of Christ instead of the darkness of evil. A day when people meditate on the acts of Godly people instead of ghosts and goblins.
While you may have participated “all in fun,” be assured, Halloween is serious business for Satanists and witches. Those who oppose Christ are known to organize on Halloween to observe satanic rituals, to cast spells, to oppose churches and families, to perform sacrilegious acts, and to even offer blood sacrifices to Satan. While some may say, “But we only do this in fun…we don’t practice witchcraft,” those things that represent Satan and his domain cannot be handled or emulated “for fun”. Such participation places you in enemy and forbidden territory and that is dangerous ground. Read more…….

The Reformation of the Pulpit By Dr Steve Lawson


Review of ‘Heaven on Earth’ Review by Nathan Williams

Heaven on Earth by Stephen J. Nichols
As Christians we must try to balance seemingly contradictory views in many areas of our lives. We often tend to lose our balance and fall into an extreme on one side of an issue or the other. For example; it is difficult for us to comprehend the sovereignty of God in salvation and yet understand that we must invite and even plead with sinners to repent of their sins and come to Christ. Also, we strive with all our might to become more like Jesus Christ in daily life and yet realize that God is ultimately working in us “both to will and to work for His good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13).
One of the main areas in which Christians struggle to maintain the proper balance is the tension between living as citizens of heaven and citizens of earth. Stephen Nichols wrote Heaven on Earth to deal with this tension. However, he does not go it alone. The entire book is based on the sermons of Jonathan Edwards. Through the explanation of several of Edwards’ sermons, Nichols expounds the vision Edwards had of living on earth as a citizen of heaven.
Heaven on Earth is a short book, but is filled with helpful explanations of Edwards’ thoughts on heaven. Nichols begins the book with the problem being discussed, namely that we live as dual citizens, and we must learn how to properly balance our time and efforts to reflect our commitment to heaven but our desire to impact this earth with the gospel. He explains the two extremes that Christians often fall into. First, there are those Christians that Nichols calls “monastery Christians.” They live a life fearful of the world around them and with no desire to interact with it at all. “They refuse to live in this world and instead construct an entirely Christian one, from which they rarely break out.” (p. 19) In contrast to these people are those Christians who live for this world so much that it appears they aren’t even aware of the one to come. “They are consumed by this world’s agenda and are driven by its passions.” (p. 19)
After explaining the two extremes, Nichols spends the remaining six chapters teaching the proper balance of living on earth while bound for heaven. Each of these chapters is based on a sermon of Edwards. Nichols doesn’t reproduce the entire sermon, but walks the reader through the major concepts presented in each one. For example, chapter two is based on the Edwards’s sermon, “Heaven Is a World of Love.” Many people perceive Edwards as the preacher who preached the sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” This is only half the picture.
In chapter two of this book we come to understand that Edwards was a man who thought often about heaven and longed to be there. Nichols walks the reader through the beautiful explanation Edwards gave of our future home. His vision of heaven is a vision of a world consumed by love. The helpful part of Edwards is that he does not stop by explaining what heaven will be like. He wants his listeners to understand how the proper vision of heaven will transform their lives on earth. “He points them to heaven with one hand, while with the other he directs their attention back to earth” (p. 32).
This is where we come to understand the vision that Edwards had of living heaven on earth. “Living in between means we take both worlds into account. We are on the way to heaven, but we are not there yet. We applaud its breakthroughs in this world, but we know there are far better things to come” (p. 37). In other words, it is our duty as Christians to bring heaven to earth as much as possible.
The remaining chapters continue to investigate the tension of living in between. These chapters deal with such topics as “On the Way to Heaven”, “Being Good Citizens”, “But to Act Justly”, “It’s Only the Beginning”, and “Meeting There at Last.” Nichols closes the book with an abridged version of Edwards’s sermon “Heaven Is a World of Love.”
I believe this book will be helpful for a number of reasons. First, most of us tend to drift to one extreme or the other when it comes to living in between heaven and earth. For those who tend to live as “monastery Christians”, this book will help to propel you out into the world to make an impact with the gospel. Nichols makes the point in the book that even though the Titanic is going down it is still our responsibility to polish the brass because it’s God’s ship. In other words, the earth will one day be burned up by fire, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be investing ourselves in others while we are on the earth. For those who tend to attach themselves to this earth, this book provides an appealing look at heaven. Living on earth is important, but we must remember it is not ultimately our home.
Also, Heaven on Earth will prove helpful because it will alter your perspective. Sometimes books are helpful because they provide specific instructions to deal with specific issues. Other books are helpful because they can spark a paradigm shift in the way you think. This book falls into the second category. Heaven on Earth will challenge your most basic thoughts about heaven, earth, and the possibility of living in between in a way that honors God. It takes purposeful effort to live out the vision Edwards sets. This book is a useful tool in catching that vision.

Monday, October 29, 2007

The Gospel By Dr R.C. Sproul


The Gospel "There is no greater message to be heard than that which we call the Gospel. But as important as that is, it is often given to massive distortions or over simplifications. People think they’re preaching the Gospel to you when they tell you, 'you can have a purpose to your life', or that 'you can have meaning to your life', or that 'you can have a personal relationship with Jesus.' All of those things are true, and they’re all important, but they don’t get to the heart of the Gospel. The Gospel is called the 'good news' because it addresses the most serious problem that you and I have as human beings, and that problem is simply this: God is holy and He is just, and I’m not. And at the end of my life, I’m going to stand before a just and holy God, and I’ll be judged. And I’ll be judged either on the basis of my own righteousness – or lack of it – or the righteousness of another. The good news of the Gospel is that Jesus lived a life of perfect righteousness, of perfect obedience to God, not for His own well being but for His people. He has done for me what I couldn’t possibly do for myself. But not only has He lived that life of perfect obedience, He offered Himself as a perfect sacrifice to satisfy the justice and the righteousness of God. The great misconception in our day is this: that God isn’t concerned to protect His own integrity. He’s a kind of wishy-washy deity, who just waves a wand of forgiveness over everybody. No. For God to forgive you is a very costly matter. It cost the sacrifice of His own Son. So valuable was that sacrifice that God pronounced it valuable by raising Him from the dead – so that Christ died for us, He was raised for our justification. So the Gospel is something objective. It is the message of who Jesus is and what He did. And it also has a subjective dimension. How are the benefits of Jesus subjectively appropriated to us? How do I get it?


The Bible makes it clear that we are justified not by our works, not by our efforts, not by our deeds, but by faith – and by faith alone. The only way you can receive the benefit of Christ’s life and death is by putting your trust in Him – and in Him alone. You do that, you’re declared just by God, you’re adopted into His family, you’re forgiven of all of your sins, and you have begun your pilgrimage for eternity."

The Spirit in Counseling By Dr John MacArthur


It has been sad to see so many Christians seek counsel from Christian psychotherapists who fumble around with theories developed by Sigmund Freud, Carl Rogers and B. F. Skinner. Psychology and talk therapy are so bankrupt that many are abandoning them to embrace biological psychiatry. Psychotropic medicine is the new savior. Problems that were once blamed on dysfunctional families and Id/Superego conflict are now charged to chemical imbalances and disorders.
Yesterday’s psychology and today’s psychiatry share the same fatal errors — they reject the total depravity of man due to sin; they treat the symptoms instead of the heart; and they aim for change that is not true sanctification.
In spite of obvious failure, the notion prevails within the church that psychotherapy and psychiatry are more effective agents of change — particularly in dealing with the most difficult cases — than the Holy Spirit who sanctifies. But can psychotherapy or psychiatry possibly accomplish something the Holy Spirit cannot? Can an earthly therapist achieve more than a heavenly Comforter? Is behavior modification more helpful than sanctification? Of course not.
Let’s take a few moments to get reacquainted with the Holy Spirit — a Person who is a stranger to psychotherapy. To do so, we need to go back to the time our Lord first introduced Him; it was on the night He was betrayed.
Jesus’ crucifixion was drawing near, and His disciples were fearful and confused. When He spoke to them about going away, their hearts were troubled (John 14:1-2) and they feared being left alone. But Jesus assured them that He would not leave them to fend for themselves. He comforted them with the promise of the coming Holy Spirit.
The Divine Helper: I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper – John 14:16
“Helper” is the Greek word parakletos that we transliterate as a word you may be familiar with — paraclete. It describes a spiritual attendant whose role is to offer assistance, support, relief, advocacy, and guidance. Isn’t it interesting that the divine Counselor’s ministry to believers is to provide the very things so many people vainly seek in therapy?
Jesus called Him “another Helper.” There are two Greek words that can be translated “another.” One is heteros, which means “a different one, a different kind” as in, “If that style is not what you want, try another.” The other word is allos. It is translated “another” in English, but it means “another of the same kind,” as in, “That cookie was delicious; may I have another?”
Jesus used allos to describe the Holy Spirit — He is “another [allos] Helper [of the same kind].” The same kind as what? Jesus was promising to send His disciples a Helper exactly like Himself — a compassionate, loving, and totally sufficient Paraclete, just like Himself. In fact, Jesus is called our Paraclete in 1 John 2:1: “If anyone sins, we have an Advocate [Paraclete] with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.”
You wouldn’t question Jesus’ capabilities in the counseling office, would you? His ability to get to the heart of counseling issues is unparalleled — as God, He knows all men (John 2:25). And look at the fruit of His counsel — it radically transformed the apostles to the point that they turned the world upside down. The Father has sent another Helper, co-equal with Jesus Christ, to be your Counselor. Don’t doubt His ability.
The Permanent Dweller: That He may be with you forever… He dwells with you and will be in you – John 14:16,17
The Lord also promised that the Helper from the Father would take up permanent, uninterrupted residence within His disciples. That was a New Covenant promise foretold in Ezekiel 37:14: “And I will put My Spirit within you, and you will come to life.” The Holy Spirit wouldn’t merely be present with them; the greater truth was that He would be resident within them permanently.
According to Romans 8:9, the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the mark of all who are truly born again: “You are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.” Thus as a believer you enjoy the permanent, continuing presence of the Holy Spirit living within. His help — all the resources of God Himself — is always available.
The Truth Teacher: The Spirit of truth –John 14:17
It is noteworthy that Jesus referred to the Holy Spirit as “the Spirit of truth.” As God, He is the essence of truth; as a Paraclete, He is the One who guides us into truth. That’s why apart from Him, it is impossible for sinful human beings to know or understand any spiritual truth. Paul wrote,
To us God revealed [His wisdom] through the Spirit… that we might know the things freely given to us by God… [things which] a natural man does not accept… for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. (1 Cor. 2:10, 12, 14)
The unregenerate have no facility for spiritual perception. They cannot comprehend spiritual truth because they are spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1), unable to respond to anything except their own sinful passions. Believers, on the other hand, are actually taught spiritual truth by God Himself (John 6:45). In fact, much of the Holy Spirit’s ministry to you as a believer involves teaching you (John 14:26; 1 Cor. 2:13; 1 John 2:20, 27); guiding you into the truth of Christ (John 16:13-14); and illuminating the truth for you (1 Cor. 2:12).
Let me add a footnote here. This promise of a supernatural Teacher had special application for the eleven disciples that it doesn’t have to you. The Holy Spirit not only helped them understand many things that perplexed them before the resurrection (cf. John 2:22; 12:16), but He also gave them perfect recall of every word Jesus had spoken. His ministry to the apostles assured the infallibility of the New Testament record and guaranteed the purity of the apostolic testimony (cf. John 14:25-26).
If you are a believer, you also benefit from the Holy Spirit’s ministry. He guides you to the truth of Scripture, teaches you, affirms the truth in your heart, and convicts you of sin. He even enables you to walk in obedience to the revealed Word of God (cf. Rom. 8:11; Phil. 2:12-13).
As a divinely indwelling Helper, the Spirit of Truth performs a function no human counselor can ever approach. He is constantly there, pointing the way to the truth, applying the truth directly to your heart, prompting you to conform to the truth — in short, He sanctifies you in the truth (John 17:17). Don’t sin against the Holy Spirit by looking to sinful humans to accomplish spiritual transformation. Instead, “if we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit” (Gal. 5:25).

Sunday, October 28, 2007

The Postmodern Eclipse of Evil -- Be Advised . . . and Be Afraid By Dr Al Mohler


One of the most harrowing features of modern thought is the reluctance to speak honestly about evil. The cause of this discomfort with the category of evil is understandable, of course. When belief in God recedes, confidence in moral judgment inevitably recedes with that belief.
This is brought to life in the pages of The New York Times Magazine in the form of a film review. The film is a documentary about the French lawyer Jacques Verges -- a man who has defended some of the worst criminals in France, including Klaus Barbie and Carlos "the Jackal." He also had long friendships with murderous dictators such as Cambodia's Pol Pot and China's Chairman Mao.
Reviewer Daphne Merkin seems to understand the difficulty posed by the film and its subject:
What does evil -- a term that came into general use only in the 15th century, originally referring to the overstepping of proper limits -- look like these days, when so many of us are wary of reductive terms, unsure of our own convictions and easily persuaded of the moral relativism of our values? (The Oxford English Dictionary notes that the word is "little used in modern colloquial English.") Does it have a particular smell, like teen spirit? Does it come wearing a hood, as in the movies? Or, again, does it look like you and me, sitting over dinner and enjoying a glass of vintage Bordeaux?
The syndrome cited here -- a reluctance to use "reductive terms" -- reflects the moral discomfort and uncertainty of the age. How do we come to terms with humanity without using the word "evil" and meaning it?
Merkin continues:
For much of history, when an ironclad trust in a divine maker still prevailed (however many plagues or earthquakes he might have arranged), the question of "evil" was contained by one of two rationales: that people deserved it because of wicked behavior or that it was part of a larger, unknowable celestial plan. That attitude, gullible as it now seems, had the benefit of keeping this particular epistemological dilemma outside the human purview. It held steady until the emergence of a philosophical tradition that, beginning with Immanuel Kant's questioning of God's pivotal position and reaching an apogee of unbelief with the arrival of Nietzsche, put the concept of evil right in our laps. As Susan Neiman says in "Evil in Modern Thought," from the Enlightenment on there have been two views: "The one, from Rousseau to Arendt, insists that morality demands that we make evil intelligible. The other, from Voltaire to Jean Améry, insists that morality demands that we don't."
That is a succinct, if reductionistic, explanation for what happened. The great philosophical turn was away from a fixed understanding of evil as an objective concept and toward evil (and all moral judgment) as a matter of subjectivity and context. Gone was the idea of evil as an act that opposed God's law and offended God's righteousness.
Gone with those beliefs was any confidence in moral judgment. As Merkin suggests, postmoderns are more like Neville Chamberlain, trying to negotiate with evil, than like Winston Churchill, determined to oppose it by force when necessary.
The maker of the film, Barbet Schroeder, refuses to take a position in the film, resisting moral judgment. Indeed, he calls Verges a "perverse and decadent aesthete." There is something particularly chilling about reducing evil to aesthetics.
The frightening specter we now face is of a postmodern world that is losing the last vestiges of confidence in moral judgment. Be advised . . . and be afraid.

Puritan Quote of the Week From the Pastor's Desk


"He who prays as he ought will endeavour to live as he prays."
JOHN OWEN

Justification and Union with Christ By Dr Philip Ryken



If there is one thing I love in life, it is the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. This is the biblical truth that liberates me from the crushing burden of ever having to stand before God on my own merit, but covers me instead with the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.[1]
Justification by Faith
Stated simply, “Justification is an act of God’s free grace, in which he pardons all our sins, accepts us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone.”[2] In justification the believer rests on Christ alone for salvation, and by faith receives his righteousness. Or, to say much the same thing at greater length,
Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies, not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.[3]
These definitions are adapted from the Westminster Standards. They represent a broad consensus of Anglican, Baptist, and Presbyterian theology. And they use a very important verb to describe the justification of the ungodly: impute.
The vocabulary of justification comes from the law court, where “to justify” is a declarative verb. In its theological sense, justification is the legal declaration of my righteousness before God. But on what basis can sinners like me be justified? Not on the basis of our own merit, but only on the merit of Jesus Christ. And the way this merit becomes our own is by imputation, which is God’s declarative reckoning that the righteousness of Christ belongs to the one who has faith in Christ.
The traditional Roman Catholic doctrine of justification maintained that we do not stand righteous before God by imputation but by impartation—an infusion of divine grace. According to official Catholic teaching, “Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.”[4] Yet the Reformers maintained that justifying righteousness is not something inside of us, but rather outside of us: the righteousness of Christ himself—an “alien righteousness,” as Luther so often called it.
The distinctive dimension of the Protestant doctrine of justification is imputation, and inherent to the concept of imputation is the transfer of something from one person to another. To impute is to attribute or to ascribe; it is to count or to credit. In its theological sense, imputation is the legitimate transfer of the righteousness of Christ to my own account. This transfer is a lawful entailment of the doctrine of justification by faith, which is simply a shorthand way of saying that we are justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
As Thomas Oden has shown in his wonderful little book The Justification Reader, a theological emphasis on justification by free grace goes all the way back to the early church fathers.[5] But this great doctrine has been one of the main hallmarks of evangelical faith since the days of the Reformation. John Calvin said that “a man will be justified by faith when, excluded from the righteousness of works, he by faith lays hold of the righteousness of Christ, and clothed in it appears in the sight of God not as a sinner, but as righteous.” Calvin thus defined justification as “the acceptance with which God receives us into his favor as righteous men,” consisting in both “the remission of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.”[6] We are acceptable to God on account of Christ, “inasmuch as he expiated our sins by his death, and his obedience is imputed to us for righteousness.”[7] And Calvin called this doctrine “the main hinge on which salvation turns.”[8] Similarly, the English Reformer and Oxford martyr Thomas Cranmer described justification as “the strong rock and foundation of Christian religion,” and went on to claim that “whosoever denieth it is not to be counted for a true Christian man . . . but for an adversary of Christ.”[9]
Lest anyone think that this doctrine has only been held by Anglicans and Presbyterians, the words of John Wesley are also worth quoting at length:
If we take the phrase of imputing Christ’s righteousness, for the bestowing (as it were) the righteousness of Christ, including his obedience, as well passive as active, in the return of it, that is, in the privileges, blessings, and benefits purchased it; so a believer may be said to be justified by the righteousness of Christ imputed. The meaning is, God justifies the believer for the sake of Christ’s righteousness, and not for any righteousness of his own.[10]
Perhaps most famously of all, Martin Luther said that in justification Christ “has made His righteousness my righteousness, and my sin His sin. If He has made my sin to be His sin, then I do not have it and I am free. If He has made His righteousness my righteousness, then I am righteous now with the same righteousness as He.”[11] According to Luther, we have this righteousness of Christ because it is imputed to us by faith: “God reckons imperfect faith as perfect righteousness for the sake of Christ.”[12] Christian righteousness, therefore, “is a divine imputation or reckoning as righteousness or to righteousness, for the sake of our faith in Christ or for the sake of Christ.”[13] And this is the doctrine that “begets, nourishes, builds, preserves, and defends the church of God; and without it the church of God cannot exist for one hour.” “It is the chief article of Christian doctrine,” Luther said, so that “when the article of justification has fallen, everything has fallen.”[14]
The Protestant Reformers firmly believed that this doctrine of justification was taught in Holy Scripture. They saw it in Romans chapter 3, which promised “the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe,” so that we “are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:22, 24). They found it as well in Romans chapter 4, which said that “the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness” (Rom. 4:5). Or consider Philippians 3:8-9, where the apostle Paul sought to “gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith.”
Until very recently, at least, there was a broad consensus about this doctrine in the evangelical church—not only about what justification meant, but also about how it important it was in Christian theology. Indeed, as recently as 1999, in “The Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Evangelical Celebration,” a consensus statement of evangelical theologians appeared in the pages of Christianity Today, asserting that “the doctrine of the imputation (reckoning or counting) both of our sins to Christ and of his righteousness to us, whereby our sins are fully forgiven and we are fully accepted, is essential to the biblical gospel.”[15]
There is perhaps no clearer or fuller statement of the place of justification in evangelical theology than the one J. I. Packer made almost fifty years ago in his masterful introduction to James Buchanan’s classic work The Doctrine of Justification:
The doctrine of justification by faith is like Atlas. It bears a whole world on its shoulders, the entire evangelical knowledge of God the Savior. The doctrines of election, of effectual calling, regeneration, and repentance, of adoption, of prayer, of the Church, the ministry, and the sacraments, are all to be interpreted and understood in the light of justification by faith, for this is how the Bible views them. Thus, we are taught that God elected men from eternity in order that in due time they might be justified through faith in Christ (Rom. 8:29f.). He renews their hearts under the Word, and draws them to Christ by effectual calling, in order that he might justify them upon their believing. Their adoption as God's sons follows upon their justification; it is, indeed, no more than the positive outworking of God's justifying sentence. Their practice of prayer, of daily repentance, and of good works springs from their knowledge of justifying grace (cf. Luke 18:9-14; Eph. 2:8-10). The Church is to be thought of as the congregation of the faithful, the fellowship of justified sinners, and the preaching of the Word and ministration of the sacraments are to be understood as means of grace because through them God evokes and sustains the faith that justifies. A right view of these things is possible only where there is a proper grasp of justification; so that, when justification falls, true knowledge of God's grace in human life falls with it. When Atlas loses his footing, everything that rested on his shoulders collapses too.[16]
Among the many things that rest on this Atlas of a doctrine is our own eternal salvation. I was reminded of this recently when my mother asked me why her church had recently tightened its theological requirements for career missionaries by asking them to articulate their views on justification. My mother was unclear as to why this was necessary. When I explained to her that it was because of recent attacks on the claim that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to sinners by faith, she said, rather wistfully, and very wisely: “You know, I was really counting on that.”
I too am depending on the biblical doctrine of justification, counting on God’s promise that what Jesus did will count for me.
Union with Christ
As important as justification is, it is not the only fundamental doctrine of our salvation. And if there is any doctrine I love as much as justification, it must be the magnificent doctrine of union with Christ.
For me this doctrine was one of the marvelous discoveries of my seminary education. I had at least some familiarity with the several doctrines of soteriology—the so-called ordo salutis, or order of salvation. I had certainly heard of election and regeneration, of justification and sanctification, and perhaps of adoption and glorification. I had also read—or at least skimmed over—those two little words that appear so frequently together in the New Testament: in Christ. Yet no one had ever articulated for me the doctrine of union with Christ, the spiritual and theological reality that holds together the various benefits of salvation.
Many theologians view this doctrine as one of the keys to understanding the message of salvation. John Murray called union with Christ “the central truth of the whole doctrine of salvation.”[17] A. W. Pink said, “The subject of spiritual union is the most important, the most profound, and yet the most blessed of any that is set forth in sacred Scripture.”[18]
This was also the view of the Protestant Reformers, our forefathers in the evangelical faith. John Calvin considered union with Christ to be a matter of spiritual life and death. First Calvin asked this question: “How do we receive those benefits which the Father bestowed on his only-begotten Son—not for Christ’s own private use, but that he might enrich poor and needy men? Then he answered:
First, we must understand that as long as Christ remains outside of us, and we are separated from him, all that he has suffered and done for the salvation of the human race remains useless and of no value for us. Therefore, to share with us what he has received from the Father, he had to become ours and to dwell within us. For this reason, . . . we . . . are said to be ‘engrafted into him’ and to ‘put on Christ’; for . . . all that he possesses is nothing to us until we grow into one body with him.[19]
When we are united to Christ—united to him by faith, the Reformers said, and also by the Holy Spirit, so that we are in him and he is in us—then all that is his becomes ours. This is true of every single doctrine of salvation. Union with Christ is not simply one step in salvation; it is the whole stairway on which every step is taken. Or perhaps it would be better to say that union with Christ is the prism through which all the other colors of salvation are refracted. Our election is in union with Christ, for it is in Christ that we were chosen before the creation of the world (Eph. 1:4). Our regeneration is also in union with Christ, for the Scripture says we are created in Christ; and this re-creation is for good works, which means that our sanctification is in union with Christ as well (Eph. 2:10). In short, everything up to and including the doctrine of glorification is in union with Christ, for those who share in his sufferings will also share in his glory (Rom. 8:17).
Whatever we have or need, therefore, we will find it in Christ. It really is true that “God has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing” (Eph. 1:3). John Calvin expressed this in a marvelous way when he wrote:
If we seek strength, it lies in his dominion; if purity, in his conception; if gentleness, it appears in his birth. For by his birth he was made like us in all respects that he might learn to feel our pain. If we seek redemption, it lies in his passion; if acquittal, in his condemnation; if remission of the curse, in his cross; if satisfaction, in his sacrifice; if purification, in his blood; if reconciliation, in his descent into hell; if mortification of the flesh, in his tomb; if newness of life, in his resurrection; if immortality, in the same; if inheritance of the Heavenly kingdom, in his entrance into heaven; if protection, if security, if abundant supply of all blessings, in his Kingdom; if untroubled expectation of judgment, in the power given to him to judge. In short, since rich store of every kind of good abounds in him, let us drink our fill from this fountain, and from no other.[20]
We could also add justification to Calvin’s list, for this too is in union with Christ. If we seek to be justified before God, we will find it in Christ’s righteousness. Many of the same passages that speak to us about justification by imputation also declare that we receive this grace in Christ: “In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them. . . . For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:19, 21). Or again, “You are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness” (1 Cor. 1:30 niv). By virtue of our faith-union with Jesus Christ we are declared righteous. This is why the apostle Paul wanted to “gain Christ and be found in him.” It was because he was not content having what he called “a righteousness of my own that comes from the law.” What he wanted instead was “that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith” (Phil. 3:9). To put it most simply of all, as Paul puts it for the Galatians, we are “justified in Christ” (Gal. 2:17).
To summarize, the great doctrinal realities of justification and union with Christ are closely inter-connected. Justification is one of the leading benefits of being united to Christ. The faith that justifies does so only and precisely because it also joins us to Christ. The very people who are united to Christ are the ones who are also declared righteous. This is part of what prevents justification by faith alone from being merely a legal fiction, as it is so frequently and so inaccurately alleged. Union with Christ is logically prior to justification by imputation. The declaration of our righteousness has a proper juridical basis in our true and covenantal connection to Jesus Christ. Indeed, union with Christ is the matrix in which imputation occurs. It is on the basis of our spiritual and covenantal union with Christ that our sins are imputed to him and his righteousness is imputed to us.
Current Distortions of Biblical Justification
How disheartening it is to see both of these saving doctrines misunderstood or even denied in the evangelical church today. I refer in part to evangelical leaders who embrace a doctrine of justification that is hard to distinguish from the Roman Catholic position that we are accounted righteous by infusion rather than imputation. I refer also to advocates of the New Perspective on Paul who believe that the Reformation doctrine of justification was mistaken in fundamental ways. To use J. I. Packer’s analogy, Atlas has shrugged.
These distortions take a number of different forms, which I mention only briefly. Some evangelicals are simply saying that justification is by grace, and leaving it at that. By avoiding saying that justification is based on grace alone or received by faith alone, they are able to make common cause with Catholicism, which has always said that justification is by grace. Other evangelicals want to say the same thing about Judaism at the time of Christ. It was not a religion of legalistic works-righteousness, they say, but a religion of grace. Therefore, the Reformers were mistaken to see Paul as standing against a religion of works rather than faith. Others are saying that justification is not so much about our standing before God as it is about our relationship to the church as a covenant community. Or they say that justification does have something to do with our standing before God, but our real and ultimate justification will only take place on the last day, when our good works will serve as part of the basis for (and not simply the evidence of) our righteousness before God. Thus our present justification is only provisional, which has the unhappy result of turning salvation into probation.
It is sad that these misunderstandings of biblical justification are having an influence on the church, especially at the seminary level, where any theological confusion will be multiplied many times over. It is sad but also strange—strange because these theologians are setting justification in opposition to union with Christ, whereas the Reformation position has always been that these doctrines are inseparable.
As a case in point, consider John Calvin, who said that our union with Christ “makes us sharers with him in the gifts with which he has been endowed. We do not, therefore, contemplate him outside ourselves from afar in order that his righteousness may be imputed to us but because we put on Christ and are engrafted into his body—in short, because he deigns to make us one with him. For this reason, we glory that we have fellowship of righteousness with him.”[21] In other words, for Calvin it is the doctrine of union with Christ that provides the very context for justification by imputation. Calvin made this explicit when he said that God does not absolve us “by the confirmation of our own innocence but by the imputation of righteousness, so that we who are not righteous in ourselves may be reckoned as such in Christ.”[22] John Owen said the same thing more succinctly, but equally emphatically: “The foundation of imputation is union.”[23]
Yet today we are told that union and imputation stand directly in tension or even contradiction. Hence the title of a recent response to John Piper’s excellent little book Counted Righteous in Christ. The title asks: “Imputation or Union with Christ?” and then proceeds to argue that we must choose one doctrine or the other in articulating the theology of salvation.[24]
The argument usually goes something like this. First it is denied that the Bible teaches the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, or even that this is a coherent concept. Imputation is something we read into the New Testament, we are told, not something we legitimately read out of it. Righteousness is something God demonstrates about his own character by keeping the promises of salvation in Christ, but not something that he gives to us.
Inevitably, such denials of imputation fundamentally alter the doctrine of justification. Sometimes it is further denied that justification has very much to do with the law, or with sin and the judgment of God. Justification becomes a relational rather than a legal concept. It is no longer primarily addressed to the problem of human sin in relation to a holy God. But we are reassured that at this point union with Christ will come to the rescue. Even if the Reformation doctrine of justification is flawed in fundamental ways, the reality of our being in Christ will supply all of the righteousness that we need.
My main interest here is not to engage in personal polemics, but to be clear and to help others be clear in preaching the biblical doctrine of justification. But in order to show that these are real theological issues, it may be helpful to give a few specific examples.
Denials of imputation are becoming fairly commonplace. The doctrine is conspicuous by its deliberate omission from the theological statements signed by Evangelicals and Catholics Together, which tried to define the doctrine of justification in a way that was acceptable both to Catholics and to Protestants. Necessarily, then, imputation had to be left out, for Roman Catholics explicitly deny the doctrine of imputation. The same omission is conspicuous in the Joint Declaration of Lutherans and Catholics, in which Lutheran theologians somehow managed to make a statement on justification without including Luther’s doctrine of imputation![25]
Another well-known example is N. T. Wright, who denies that it is possible for anyone to receive imputed righteousness because the very concept is incoherent. Wright says that the doctrine of imputed righteousness is not found in the apostle Paul, and that although the Bible speaks of the believer’s righteousness, this righteousness is not the righteousness of God, or of Christ: “Paul does not say that he sees us clothed with the earned merits of Christ.”[26] Nor is righteousness “a quality or substance that can be passed or transferred from the judge to the defendant.”[27] According to Wright, “It makes no sense whatever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteousness is not an object, a substance or a gas, which can be passed across the courtroom.”[28] Whatever righteousness we have must be our own; it cannot be God’s own righteousness, for this always remains God’s own property.[29]
Then there is the position of Rich Lusk, who denies that there is any imputation in justification and says further that the doctrine of union with Christ makes the notion of imputation redundant.[30] There is also the view of Robert Gundry, who accepts the imputation of sin, but not the imputation of righteousness.[31] Gundry believes that our sins are charged to Christ’s account. However, he denies that there is any imputation in justification, that Christ’s righteousness can be transferred to us in any way. This doctrine is unbiblical, Gundry says: in the New Testament “nothing is said about a replacement of believers’ sins with the righteousness of Christ.”[32] The only imputation involved in salvation is the imputation of our faith (see Rom. 4:5). Rather than serving as the instrument that enables us to receive righteousness, then faith itself is the righteousness that God requires. What is credited to our account is not Christ’s righteousness, but our faith (a view that runs the risk of turning faith itself into a work).
Here it must be said that when you deny imputation—when you ignore it or obscure it, when you argue that it is unnecessary or superfluous or incompatible with union with Christ—you end up with a very different doctrine of justification. Either the meaning of justification or the basis for justification has to change.
Sometimes justification itself is redefined. So for N. T. Wright, justification is not the doctrine that declares your standing with God—a vertical issue—but the doctrine that declares your standing in the covenant community—a horizontal issue.[33] Wright says that in Galatians, for example, the central issue is not how a sinner can have a right relationship with God, but “how you define the people of God.”[34] To use traditional theological vocabulary, justification isn’t “so much about soteriology as about ecclesiology; not so much about salvation as about the church.”[35] What Paul means by justification “is not ‘how you become a Christian,’ so much as ‘how you can tell who is a member of the covenant family’.”[36] To be justified is to be “declared in advance . . . to be within God’s true family.”[37]
With these definitions, the meaning of justification has been redefined. We are no longer talking about justice but about belonging. And something very different is being declared: not that I am righteous before God, but that I belong to God’s people—the covenant community. It should be note that justification is redefined this way despite the fact that the dikaiosune word cluster refers to “righteousness” rather than “membership.” In its biblical sense, to justify does not mean “to declare that one is a member.” While these linguistic considerations are not decisive in themselves, they urge caution about redefining justification in terms of human relationships.
The other thing that happens when imputation is denied is that the basis for justification gets reestablished. According to the biblical doctrine of the Reformers, our justification is established in the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ, imputed by faith. Or to say this another way, our justification is established on the basis of the finished righteousness of Jesus Christ—his comprehensive obedience to the law of God, his complete atonement for sin through his sufferings and death on the cross, and his total triumph over sin and death by his glorious resurrection. But if there is no imputation of that divine righteousness, there must be some other basis for our justification. Christ’s own perfect righteousness has ceased to be the exclusive ground for our justification before God.[38] So N. T. Wright has said that we are justified on the basis of “the entire life a person has led in the power of the Spirit.”[39] After all, it is only the doers of the law who will be justified (see Rom. 2:13). But this has the unfortunate result of putting our justification in terms of what we offer to God (even if it is something that God does in us), instead of something that God gives to us in Christ. The only way we could agree that we are justified by the entire life a person has lived is if the life in question is the life of the perfect Son of God. Only then would we have a life that is good enough for God.
Nevertheless, many of the theologians and Bible scholars who urge a redefinition of justification think they still have a way of safeguarding the grace of God in salvation. Even though the Protestant Reformers got justification wrong, they say, we can still have a full and gracious salvation. The way we get it is by union with Christ—the doctrine that really does the work that some people think justification does.
On this view, how are we made righteous? Not by imputation, but by being united to Christ, so that it is a relationship that makes us righteous, not a declaration of God that is grounded in the finished work of Christ. This is essentially the thesis that Don Garlington advances in his response to John Piper: “The free gift of righteousness comes our way by virtue of union with Christ, not imputation.”[40] So Garlington intends to offer an exegesis that “will steer us away from imputation to union with Christ.”[41] Michael Bird says it more succiently: justification is by incorporation rather than imputation.[42] And Robert Gundry concludes that for justification Paul uses “the language of union . . . rather than the language of imputation.”[43] These and other writers thus propose justification without imputation—a non-imputational model of union with Christ.
A Theological Response
Given the close connection that evangelical theology has always made between justification and union with Christ, this proposal needs to be considered very cautiously, even suspiciously. Far from replacing the doctrine of justification, union with Christ historically has provided the proper context for imputation and thus for justification. There is no union without imputation and no imputation with union. To separate the two, therefore, is to defy the traditional logic of both doctrines.
Another reason to be cautious, or even suspicious, is that to my knowledge none of these theologians has given any clear doctrinal explanation of what it means for a Christian to be in Christ. They refer to union with Christ without clearly defining it. What kind of union are they talking about? Garlington says that “faith justifies because we are united to Christ and are ‘found in him’.”[44] But what does it mean to say that we are found in Christ? Presumably not by deification—by actually becoming Christ or being absorbed into the essence of God himself—for such participation in the substance of the divine being would be in contradiction to biblical and evangelical orthodoxy. But if not by deification, how then are we joined to Christ? What, exactly, is the theology of union with Christ? What is the Christology of union with Christ? What is the ontology of union with Christ?
One reason this matters is because the New Testament talks about union with Christ in several different ways. Sometimes the connection between Christ and the Christian is made simply by using the Greek preposition en, which often (although not always) means “in.” But the idea of union with Christ is also present in some of the memorable images of the New Testament. For example, what Jesus says about the vine and the branches in John 15 is a picture of union with Christ; we are in Christ the way a fruitful branch is in a living vine. Or, to take another example, being in Christ is like being part of a body—a body of which Christ himself is the Head (see 1 Cor. 12:12-27). The New Testament also depicts union with Christ as a love union between a bride and groom (Eph. 5:22-32), or as a building that is bound together by its cornerstone (Eph. 2:19-22). It should also be noted that many New Testament passages present union with Christ in terms of Christ being in the believer (e.g. John 15:4; 1 John 4:13).
These examples alert us to the fact that the idea of union with Christ is a flexible concept that the Bible uses in a variety of different ways. Furthermore, many of these uses are metaphoric. The New Testament does give us some propositions to define the doctrine of union with Christ, but for every proposition there is an image—a more symbolic description of our union with Christ. Given the scope of its biblical usage, therefore, the concept of union with Christ is always in need of theological definition. Historically, Reformation theologians have defined our union with Christ as vital (a living union), spiritual (a union joined by the Holy Spirit), indissoluble (an eternal union), and mystical (a union that is as mysterious as it is real).
A careful definition of union with Christ helps to preserve the identity of the Christian as distinct from the identity of Christ. Garlington says that personal union with the person of Christ “means we take up residence, as it were, within the sphere of the other’s existence.”[45] It is not entirely clear what this means, especially when Garlington uses the phrase “as it were.” But we need to be clear that our union with Christ does not mean our deification or divinization. It does not mean that we are joined to the divine being, or have a divine nature ourselves. Rather, our union is a spiritual union, established by the person and work of the Holy Spirit. And it is a covenantal union, established by the promises of God and the role of Christ as our representative.
This is where imputation fits in. In imputation, something that does not inherently belong to us (namely, the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ) becomes our own possession. It is reckoned to be ours. It is credited to our account. This transfer takes place on the basis of the legally legitimate relationship we have with Christ by virtue of our union with him. We do not become Christ, but we are identified with Christ and incorporated into his life by the bond of the Holy Spirit. To say this in another way, we are united to Christ by a faith union. Now, on the basis of his meritorious work on the cross and out of the empty tomb, in the context of our union with him, his righteousness is imputed to us. Union with Christ thus provides the proper framework for receiving justifying righteousness, and it does so by way of imputation. To say this in yet another way, justification is “derivative and aspectival” of union with Christ; it is “an aspect of the union with Christ, and is also derivative of that union.”[46]
Now that we are spiritually and covenantally in Christ, this has implications for our legal standing as sinners before a holy God. A transaction takes place—the double imputation that theologians have often called “the wonderful exchange.” Because we are in Christ, God imputes to Christ the guilt of our sin. And because we are in Christ, God also imputes or attributes the very righteousness of Christ to us, and justifies us on that basis, declaring that we are righteous in Christ. Our sins become his and his righteousness becomes ours, and this is all because of union with Christ.
This description of justification preserves the proper distinction between Christ and the Christian—without mixture or confusion—while at the same time bringing us into full possession of the saving benefit of his perfect righteousness.[47] Rather than setting justification in opposition to union with Christ, therefore, we should view the two doctrines in their proper theological relationship. It is not either/or, but both/and. To separate justification from union with Christ is to end up with doctrinal distortion. For as D. A. Carson wisely comments, “If we speak of justification or of imputation (whether of our sins to Christ or of dikaiosune being credited to us) apart from a grasp of this incorporation into Christ, we will constantly be in danger of contemplating some sort of transfer apart from being included in Christ, apart from union with Christ.”[48] And by the same token, if we are said to be justified by union without imputation, we no longer have a proper theological basis for distinguishing Christ from the Christian. It is imputation that safeguards a sound Christology and ontology of union with Christ; the believer is united to Christ but does not become Christ.
We ought therefore to think of justification and imputation in terms of our union with Christ. As Carson goes on to say, the terminology of union with Christ “suggests that although justification cannot be reduced to imputation, justification in Paul’s thought cannot long be faithfully maintained without it.”[49] This is not a theological abstraction, but a gospel reality that emphasizes our real connection to Christ. Justification is not a blessing we have apart from the Christ himself, but a benefit that flows from our life-giving union with him. The Scottish theologian Thomas Boston explained this well:
The believer is accepted as righteous in God’s sight. For he is “found in Christ, not having his own righteousness, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith” (Phil. 3:9). . . . Thus the person united to Christ is justified. . . . From this union with Christ results a communion with him in his unsearchable riches, and consequently in his righteousness. . . . Thus the righteousness of Christ becomes his; and because it is by his unquestionable title, it is imputed to him; it is reckoned his in the judgment of God, which is always according to truth. And so the believing sinner, having a righteousness which fully answers the demands of the law, he is pardoned and accepted as righteous.[50]
Biblical Support
What are some of the Bible passages that are most frequently discussed in connection with imputation? The biblical terminology for imputation—chiefly the verb logizomai, “to count” or “to reckon”—is only used in some of these passages (which are briefly considered here, giving only the broad outlines of a full exegesis). However, the concept of imputation is logically present in all of them. In each case God declares sinners to be what they are not in themselves, namely, righteous in his sight. In other words, God justifies them. He does this on the basis of the saving work of Jesus Christ, which is imputed to them by faith.
To begin with, consider the closing verses of Romans chapter 3. Don Garlington says that imputation is not present here at all.[51] For N. T. Wright, the issue in these verses is covenant membership, not our standing before God. To be justified, he says, “means that those who believe in Jesus Christ are declared to be members of the true covenant family.”[52] However, for Paul the issue from the beginning of Romans has been our unrighteousness before God, and not simply who is inside and who is outside his covenant community. Our fundamental problem is that “by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight” (Rom. 3:20).
But now God offers us saving righteousness in Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:21-22), on the basis of his propitiation and redemption—the offering of a blood sacrifice that turns away the wrath of God and secures our release through the payment of a price. This righteousness is not something we have or deserve in and of ourselves. Rather, it is something we receive, something that comes to us as a gracious gift. Indeed, the whole thrust of the argument is that when God justifies us, he is declaring something we do not deserve. Nevertheless, God does justify us, and he does so justly (Rom. 3:26), because he has credited us with his own righteousness, which we receive through faith in Jesus Christ (Rom. 3:22). Furthermore, there is a strong emphasis in these verses on the instrumentality of faith. It is not by any works that we are declared righteous, but only by faith (Rom. 3:26, 28). Righteousness imputed by faith is a logical entailment of the passage as a whole.[53]
This argument is confirmed in chapter 4 by way of example. Abraham, too, was justified by faith instead of works. As the Scripture says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness” (Rom. 4:3). Here we do have the very language of imputation. Business terminology is used to make the calculation of salvation. Because Abraham believed, something was credited to him, or charged to his account, or reckoned to him—in a word, imputed to him: namely, righteousness.
Here in chapter 4 we also notice an important parallel. In verse 5 God is described as someone “who justifies the ungodly.” This is a curious combination because it is virtually a contradiction. To justify is to declare righteous. Yet here God is said to justify those who are not righteous at all (including Abraham). In the following verse God is further described as someone who “counts righteousness apart from works” (Rom. 4:6). Once again, the language of crediting, or reckoning, or imputing is used.
This justification of the ungodly is by the imputation of righteousness. God is justifying the ungodly (v. 5) and at the same time counting them righteous (v. 6). Yet this righteousness cannot be their own righteousness, for they are ungodly, and the reckoning of righteousness is explicitly said to be apart from works. What righteousness is it, then? It is the righteousness that God reckons to the believer by faith. Not that faith itself is the righteousness, of course. No, it is righteousness that is counted to the believer, as Paul makes clear in verse 11, where faith is presented rather as the instrument by which we receive righteousness (see also Rom. 3:28, 30). To say that “faith is counted as righteousness” (Rom. 4:5, 22), then, is really a shorthand way of saying that righteousness is reckoned to belong to the believer by faith. This righteousness is not reckoned on the basis of anything in the believer, for Paul has already thoroughly established that he is ungodly. Instead, it is an unmerited righteousness that is declared as a gift—the righteousness of God, as offered in the atoning death and justifying resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 4:24-25). Believing in Christ is thus portrayed as the instrument of the imputation of righteousness. And this preserves the graciousness of God in salvation. “That is why it depends on faith,” the apostle says, “in order that the promise may rest on grace” (Rom. 4:16).
Imputation is also entailed in the argument of Romans 5. Here Paul draws a contrast between Adam and Christ—the first Adam and the last Adam. The disobedience of the first Adam brings condemnation, which is a declaration of guilt and punishment (Rom. 5:16). It does this by the imputation of Adam’s sin to all his descendants: “one trespass led to condemnation for all men” (Rom. 5:18). The antithesis of condemnation is justification, and this too entails an imputation—in this case an imputation of righteousness. Paul thus speaks of “the free gift” that “brought justification,” and also “the free gift of righteousness” that comes through the life of Jesus Christ” (Rom. 5:17).
“Therefore,” the apostle concludes, “as one trespass lead to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:18-19). Whereas our union with Adam condemns us, our union with Christ justifies us. And it does so because God gives us his righteousness as a gift—imputing it to us, to use the language of chapter 4. Indeed, that is virtually the language he uses here in chapter 5 as well, for to be “made righteous” may also be rendered to be “appointed righteous,” and this appointment is by imputation. According to the progression of Paul’s argument, it is righteousness that leads to justification. And we have this righteousness, for our justification is based on the active righteousness of Jesus Christ. Similarly, in chapter 10 Paul speaks of “the righteousness that comes from God.” By faith we are beneficiaries of the very righteousness of God—“righteousness to everyone who believes” (Rom. 10:3-4).
Passages outside of Romans also illuminate the doctrine of imputation, including two critical passages in Corinthians. According to 1 Corinthians 1: 30, God “is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.” Here we certainly find the doctrine of union with Christ, for our life is said to be in Christ. Here there is also a clear affirmation that Christ is our righteousness, which we could readily understand to mean that he is our righteousness by imputation. Yet N. T. Wright insists that if we maintain the imputation of righteousness in this verse then “we must also be prepared to talk of the imputed wisdom of Christ; the imputed sanctification of Christ; and the imputed redemption of Christ.”[54]
This does not follow, however. Paul is simply listing the several benefits of our union with Christ, each of which bears its own connection to his saving work. We receive sanctification by the Spirit setting us apart for the holy service of God. We receive redemption by the purchase of blood. How then do we receive righteousness? To be more specific, How do we receive Christ’s righteousness? (for that is the righteousness in view). It is clear from the context that we receive this righteousness from God himself. And it is clear from other places in Paul that this righteousness is not something God works into us by infusion, but something he imputes to us on the basis of faith. All of that is not fully spelled out here in 1 Corinthians 1. What is spelled out, however, is that we have possession of the very righteousness of Christ.
The same point is established in 2 Corinthians 5:21. There we read that God “made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him [that is, in Christ] we might become the righteousness of God.” Some theologians quibble that “the righteousness of God” should not be equated here with the righteousness of Christ. But this is to ignore the union with Christ that is affirmed in the verse itself: it is in Christ that we become the righteousness of God.
Others, such as Robert Gundry, claim that Paul only uses the language of union in 2 Corinthians 5, and not the language of imputation.[55] But notice that imputation language does appear in verse 19, where it is our sins that are counted or reckoned or imputed to Christ. And notice further that verse 21 plainly refers to a transaction—a transaction that takes place on the basis of our union with Christ. First God made Christ to be sin, not in the sense that Christ was infused with our sinful nature, surely, or that he somehow participates in our sin, but rather by imputation. Our sins were credited to Christ’s account, and in this sense he was made to be sin. The transaction becomes complete when we become righteous. By parallel logic, this cannot mean that we are infused with his righteousness, but rather that it is imputed to us.
Then, finally, we should consider Philippians 3:8-9, where the apostle does some accounting of his own: “I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith.”
Once again, the coherence of the passage depends conceptually on imputation. Paul is describing a righteousness that is not his own, but rather a righteousness that comes through faith and depends on faith. Where does this righteousness come from? It comes from God himself. How does Paul obtain it? By the instrumentality of faith. On what basis? Ultimately it is on the basis of his union with Christ in his saving work, of course, which is why Paul says he wants to be “found in Christ.” But in the context of that union, the saving righteousness of Christ must somehow be credited to his account—in a word, it must be imputed. It is only by imputation that a believer “has” a righteousness that is at the same time “not his own.”
Implications of Imputation
This formulation of our justification brings clarity to our understanding of theology. It also brings deep assurance of our salvation. It is not enough for us to know that our sins are forgiven through Christ’s death on the cross. We also need to know that we are fully accepted by God—even after everything we have done and failed to do in our relationships and our service to God. The people in our churches also need this assurance, that they are fully accepted by God.
During devotions at a recent pastoral staff retreat, one of my colleagues asked us to consider where we are finding the greatest encouragement for pastoral ministry. I find greatest encouragement from knowing that I do not have to be accepted on my own merit, but that by grace I am as a fully accepted as God’s own Beloved Son. Only a perfect righteousness can bring this kind of assurance, especially in the aftermath of sin and in the face of death. No one ever finds deathbed consolation on the basis of one’s own righteousness, but only by faith in the righteousness of Christ, imputed in all its perfection.
The biblical doctrine of justification, in which righteousness is imputed to us by faith, on the basis of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and in the context of our union with him, secures our full acceptance before God. What joy this righteousness brings to the heart of the justified sinner. Listen to how Richard Hooker celebrated the gift of imputed righteousness:
Christ hath merited righteousness for as many as are found in him. In him God findeth us, for by faith we are incorporated into him. Then, although in ourselves we be altogether sinful and unrighteous, yet even the man who in himself is full of iniquity, full of sin; him being found in Christ by faith, and having confessed his sin in hatred through repentance; him God beholdeth with a gracious eye, putteth away his sin by not imputing it, taketh quite away the punishment due thereto, by pardoning it; and accepteth him in Jesus Christ, as perfectly righteous, as if he had fulfilled all that is commanded him in the law: shall I say, more perfectly righteous than if himself had fulfilled the whole law? I must take heed what I say; but the Apostle saith, “God made him which knew no sin, to be sin for us; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” Such we are in the sight of God the Father, as is the very Son of God himself. . . . We care for no knowledge in the world but this, that man hath sinned, and God hath suffered; that God hath made himself the sin of men, and that men are made the righteousness of God.[56]
But there is another, deeper reason for finding joy in justification by imputation. There is a joy even deeper than our own salvation. The deepest joy this doctrine brings is full honor to Jesus Christ. We honor him for his humble, servant-hearted incarnation. We honor him for his suffering, atoning death. We honor him for his triumphant, glorious resurrection. But we also honor Jesus for this: his perfect, obedient life. “For it is not enough to say that we are not guilty,” said the great Puritan theologian John Owen:
We must also be perfectly righteous. The law must be fulfilled by perfect obedience if we would enter into eternal life. And this is found only in Jesus (Rom. 5:10). His death reconciled us to God. Now we are saved by his life. The perfect actual obedience that Christ rendered on earth is that righteousness by which we are saved. His righteousness is imputed to me so that I am counted as having perfectly obeyed the law myself.[57]
Having this perfect righteousness, we praise Jesus for it, as Paul does in Romans, where it is just because God justifies the ungodly as a free gift of grace (Rom. 4:5) that he alone deserves the glory forever (Rom. 11:36). Praise is also what Paul gives to God in 1 Corinthians 1, where it is just because Christ is our righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30) that our boast is in the Lord (1 Cor. 1:31). And this is what Paul does in Philippians as well, where the surpassing worth of knowing Christ and his righteousness by faith is what enables the apostle to “glory in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3:3). This is our glory as well: justification by imputation, in which, by faith, God reckons us perfectly righteous in Christ.