God warned that the penalty for sin is death. Genesis 2:17 By this, we understand that there must be shedding of blood, which represents death. Hebrews 9:22 The devil through the serpent tricked Eve into believing that she would not die. Indeed, the serpent’s trickery was vindicated when Adam and Eve did not die as a result of their sin, despite the warnings from God.
We do understand that there was a spiritual death, meaning fellowship with God was broken. This death is the consequence for sin. Ultimately, God would be vindicated if Adam and Eve died in their sin because they would have sealed their spiritual death, eternally separating them from God as a result of the broken fellowship. You and I are in the same position, unless there is an intervening factor on our behalf.
As early as Genesis 3 and 4, we begin to read about the shedding of blood of a substitute or vicarious sacrifice. The principle of substitutionary sacrifice represents the mercy of God in permitting us to hope in a substitute to atone for our sin and thereby regain fellowship with God.
It is only of God’s mercy and grace that He would accept a vicarious atonement, all the while God’s justice continued to demand the penalty for sin be exacted. This legal principle was expounded upon later in Exodus and Leviticus. The whole of the Old Testament looks forward to Christ who presented Himself as a once-for-all vicarious sacrifice. He became our atonement for sin and did so vicariously for us as our substitute. This is God’s plan of redemption which was introduced in Genesis 3:15.
Our hope for reconciliation to God is founded upon the atonement of Christ. It is through atonement that we have forgiveness of sin, justification, and acceptance before God.
But how? How can one vicariously atone for another?
I remember a fictional story on the radio when I was just a boy. A frail, sickly boy broke a rule in school. There was a particular consequence imposed for the infraction, however, it was a particularly severe punishment for the frail student. An able bodied student stood up, walked to the front of the class, and requested to take the punishment upon himself. The principal considered the matter and determined that the rule only imposed a consequence but did not specify that only the offending student must receive the punishment. Thereupon, the punishment was carried out on the able-bodied student.
The able-bodied student redeemed the offending student by taking the punishment on himself. He became a substitute.
We must notice two important principles here. First, the able-bodied student was, for our purposes, righteous. In other words, he was obligated to follow the same rules as the frail student but himself had not violated the class rules and deserved no punishment. He who had done no wrong took the consequence upon himself for the one who did commit wrong.
However, his righteousness was only for himself. His righteousness did not redeem the frail student.
Second, the able-bodied student, because he deserved no punishment, could vicariously accept the punishment for the frail student. It was on the grounds of his own righteousness that he could take another’s punishment upon himself, thereby acquiring redemption for the frail student. An infraction of the law by the able-bodied student would mean that consequences awaited him in addition to the frail student. Any punishment exacted upon the able-bodied student would have been for his own breaking of the rules.
Some teach that we are made righteous by Christ’s righteousness. By this, they mean imputed righteousness. However, imputed righteousness does not represent Biblical teaching, or if it did, Christ had no obligation to follow God’s moral law. Only if there was no obligation to follow God’s moral law could Christ’s righteousness be applied to another’s account. If Christ owed an obligation to moral law, then His righteousness can only be applied to His own account, much like the able-bodied student owed a responsibility to follow class rules for himself.
Imputed righteousness has its origins in Anselm, Martin Luther, and John Calvin. It is noteworthy that imputed righteousness is not found in Scripture nor in commentary preceding the 16th century. https://www.catholic.com/audio/cot/sola-fides-absence-in-the-early-church A recent example of imputed righteousness comes through R.C. Sproul, who wrote,
“We look to the Scriptures and see that when Paul explains the doctrine of justification, he goes back to the Old Testament to Genesis 15. There the Scriptures say of Abraham, ‘He believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness’ (Gen. 15:6). When Paul develops the doctrine of justification by faith alone, he is saying that when God counts somebody righteous on the basis of faith, it is not because He looks at them and sees that they are inherently righteous. Rather, they have been clothed by the imputation, or transfer, of the righteousness of Christ to that person by faith. This is why we say that the single meritorious cause of our salvation is the transfer, or counting, of Jesus’ righteousness for me. Not only did He die to pay the penalty for my sins, but He lived a perfect life of obedience and fulfilled the law for those who put their trust in Him. This is what we’re talking about in imputation.” https://learn.ligonier.org/qas/what-is-imputed-righteousness
If we accept this, we admit the following:
• Salvation by works, which the Bible expressly denies. Christ perfectly obeyed, and that is what secured His righteousness. By extension, if His righteousness is transferred to us in spite of any faith we may have, His righteousness transferred to us was procured solely by works or solely by following the law. Faith is excluded. The whole system of imputed righteousness rests on works, not faith. This is plainly contrary to the Bible’s teaching on imputation.
• Adherence to God’s moral law is not required on my own part. Jesus followed the moral law, so now I do not need to obey. Nothing in the Bible supports this notion.
• We admit that perfect obedience is transferred to us, which oddly enough is rejected by those who teach imputed righteousness. Imputed righteousness would have us believe that, because Jesus perfectly obeyed, His perfect obedience is righteousness to me now. Yet Sproul will go on to claim that we will never stop sinning in this life.
In response, I only ask, “How has God changed?”
This explanation of imputed righteousness contains within itself the fatal error.
To be continued…
Like this post? Subscribe to stay up to date on new posts.