Cannons from Canon

INTRODUCTION

The Reformation is considered one of the most influential events in history. Much could be said of the blessings that relying on Scripture alone had on the World. The Reformation solidified many orthodox doctrines and gave the Church a necessary voice in a Catholic world. One of those solidified doctrines was double imputation.

Double Imputation is a way of understanding the judicial process of salvation. This doctrine teaches that the person’s sin is imputed to Christ and Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the believer. For this paper, only the judicial-forensic position will be in view. NPP (New perspective on Paul) is not discussed or considered in this paper.¹

Recent scholarship has raised questions as to the scriptural basis of double imputation – does this doctrine have a basis in scripture or solely from logical and philosophical conclusions?

This paper argues that double imputation is not scriptural; rather, the believer’s righteousness is that of God, which comes from union with Christ.

The historical development of double imputation and vicarious active obedience could be examined at great length along with many other facets of this doctrine. For the sake of brevity, this paper will be a brief overview and introduction to this theological discussion, mainly focusing on the scripture and logic concerning the matter.

Double imputation is a product of Covenant Theology (CT), mainly the theological Covenant of Works (CW). The CW is one of the three theological covenants in covenant theology. The CW is the belief that:

God having created man after his own image in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, entered into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of perfect obedience, forbidding him to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil upon the pain of death. According to this statement, (1.) God entered into a covenant with Adam. (2.) The promise annexed to that covenant was life. (3.) The condition was perfect obedience. (4.) Its penalty was death.²

This is derived abductively from the contrast of the consequence Adam received from disobedience. If Adam received eternal condemnation for his disobedience, CT then logically inserts that Adam would have received eternal righteousness if he had obeyed. “This statement does not rest upon any express declaration of the Scriptures’’³ by Hodges own admission. This is why others would reject the idea that Adam could have received eternal righteousness through obedience, but would have had to continue in obedience as long as he wished to remain innocent. 

Proponents of CT have claimed that the CW is absolutely necessary for the gospel. This view comes from the belief that the second Adam could only secure righteousness for His people if Adam had that same opportunity and failed. CT sees Christ as fulfilling the CW through his active obedience⁴, and the righteousness that believers have imputed to them today is only made possible through Christ’s fulfillment of the CW. This explains some theologians’ zeal to hold to double imputation; their theological system ties the CW with the gospel, therefore if there is no CW then there is no gospel. R.C Sproul explains this well:

Without Christ’s active obedience to the covenant of works, there is no reason for imputation, there is no ground for justification. If we take away the covenant of works, we take away the active obedience of Jesus. If we take away the active obedience of Jesus, we take away the imputation of His righteousness to us. If we take away the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us, we take away justification by faith alone. If we take away justification by faith alone, we take away the Gospel, and we are left in our sins. There is nothing less than our salvation at stake in this issue. (Emphasis mine)⁵

Is CT right in this conclusion? Does a rejection of the theological covenant mean a rejection of the gospel? Is active obedience the means of imputed righteousness? This paper rejects active obedience as being the source of the believer’s righteousness.

This thesis will be defended by observing four aspects of the believer’s righteousness: active and passive obedience, Adam and his anti-type, the way of salvation, and the righteousness of God. An examination of the biblical teaching on these subjects in their historical and grammatical context reveals that vicarious active obedience is not taught in scripture and the believer’s righteousness is manifest apart from the law.

ACTIVE AND PASSIVE OBEDIENCE

Active and passive obedience are two theological terms referring to Christ’s perfect life (active) and His death on the cross (passive). CT places a strong emphasis and distinction on these two terms and views them as the DNA of double imputation. Double imputation teaches that the passive obedience of Christ (His death on the cross) only dealt with our sins. Jesus’ passive obedience propitiated God’s wrath and made forgiveness possible.

Furthermore, this teaching inserts the active obedience of Christ (His perfect life under the law) as securing our righteousness. Passive obedience brings about forgiveness and cancellation of sin-debt and active obedience is imputed to the believer in order for righteousness. Vicarious active obedience demands the righteousness that Christians receive is directly correlated with law-keeping.

Many Dispensationalists make soteriological distinctions between the two obediences of Christ, although this causes confusion, as they would also reject the CW. In contrast, this paper proposes no soteriological distinction between the two obediences of Christ – as Scripture makes no distinction.

There is a common theme in the doctrines of CT: the absence of explicit articulation in Scripture. Too often, the case is made that although a certain doctrine is never explicitly stated in scripture, logic and reason would conclude its presence outside the pages of Scripture. Active obedience fits right in with that line of reasoning. Although this claim might be shocking or frustrating to some, an examination of the Scripture would challenge the teaching that the active obedience of Christ is the basis of Righteousness.

The writers of Scripture, especially Paul, make it a point to speak of the redeeming work of Christ as a singular action. To begin with, “The “righteousness of Christ” is mentioned twice in the New Testament”(John 2:29 and 2 Pet 1:1).⁶ Neither is in reference to imputed righteousness.

This alone should sound the alarm for those who hold so tightly to this doctrine and claim the gospel is lost without it. No statement of Scripture states that the law-keeping active obedience of Christ is imputed to the believer on the basis of faith or by any other means. The Bible does teach justification by faith and alien righteousness, just not from law-keeping.

ADAM AND HIS ANTI-TYPE

Along with active and passive obedience, Adam and Christ are used to defend double imputation. Adam plunged the world into sin and condemnation while Christ plunged Himself into sin and condemnation to remove us from it. Most theologians would not debate Christ’s serving as a second Adam. To what extent Christ’s act as Adam’s anti-type is where the discrepancy lies.  As the second Adam, does it follow that Adam could have obtained the same righteousness that Christ did?

There are two main passages that compare/contrast the first man with the Son of Man: Rom 5:12-20 and 1 Cor 15:21-22. CT suggests that these passages explicitly teach the CW and with that covenant, vicarious active obedience. These passages make no mention of this supposed active obedience and exegesis of these passages shows that this doctrine is not being taught and is not necessary for imputed righteousness.

Romans 5 is one of the most important chapters in the Bible. Paul in his magnum opus unpacks the glorious gospel while defending God’s righteousness. Paul, as a master pedagogue, teaches his audience by raising objections and answering them. The question being answered in Rom 5:12-20 is “How can one man justify the multitude”? His answer is Adam. Paul reminds the readers of the first man and what happened in the garden.

The passage has a clear emphasis on grammatical number. Romans 5:12-20 has 10 references to Adam and his act of disobedience (12,14-19). All ten of these references are to a singular person, Adam, and his singular act of sin. This is contrasted with the effect of this singular act of disobedience. The consequence of this one sin affected the “world”, “many”, and “all” (12,15,18).

The obvious point Paul is making is that the action of one man affected the multitude. He then uses this point to prove how the one act of Jesus can affect the multitude. Paul then references Jesus and His act as a singular event five times (14,15,17,18). This one act can then affect the “many”, “all men” and “the many” (15,18,19).

The emphasis is on the singular number affecting the plural number and a singular action affecting an entire lifestyle. The “many made righteous” are made this way by the singular act of the death of Christ, according to Romans chapter 5.

Paul’s point of Christ as the second Adam is not that Christ did what Adam could have done. Rather, his point is that Christ’s one act affects the multitude just like Adam’s one act. Nowhere in this passage does Paul suggest the idea that Adam could have attained eternal righteousness either for himself or for the multitude, nor does the text suggest that Christ made the “many righteous” by a life of law-keeping. “The righteous act was not the Savior’s life or His keeping of the law, but rather His substitutionary death on Calvary.”⁷

1 Corinthians 15 teaches the same thing. The contrast being made is death and life and how they both come from one man. Here, the audience is given two options as a representative head. Mankind can either be represented by Adam, which means death and condemnation, or they can be represented by Christ, which means life and justification. Again, this passage does not suggest that Adam had the opportunity to secure righteousness through works, nor that law-keeping secured our righteousness. This has to be reverse-engineered and inserted into the text.

ONE WAY OF SALVATION

Was there a time when man could achieve salvation apart from faith? Ironically enough, DT is often accused of this belief even though it has never been affirmed by its proponents. On the contrary, the CW is the teaching that Adam could have been saved by works. Not only Adam, but this covenant “continues on into the future until the final resurrection.”⁸

CT does affirm original sin and adheres to federal headship, so, in practice, faith is the only way of salvation, but in doctrine – one can be saved by works. R.C Sproul states “ultimately there is only one way anybody is ever saved in the presence of God, and that is through works.”⁹

Does perfect law-keeping merit righteousness and salvation? The common view in evangelical Christianity would affirm that proposition. Leviticus 18:5 would be used to defend this teaching. Paul also mentions a “righteousness of my own that comes from the law” (Phil 3:9). The main thrust of this argument lies in the active obedience of Christ. Jesus perfectly kept the law and through faith in Him, that perfect law-keeping is imputed to our account.

Despite the majority’s adherence to that view, some have suggested that the law could never save even if kept perfectly. Paul writes to the Galatians, “for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose” (Gal 2:21). Paul then would reject the idea that the law could save and that Christ didn’t need to die if it could. 

RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST OR GOD?

If the law could never save, as Scripture affirms, then active obedience crumbles. The question then is raised: if perfect law-keeping does not equate to righteousness, then how is the believer made righteous? Paul answers that question in Romans chapter 3.

“The New Testament authors, especially Paul, consistently discuss the ‘righteousness of God’ (Rom 1:17, 3:5, 3:21, 3:22, 3:25, 3:26, 10:3 twice; 1 Cor 1:30, 2 Cor 5:21; Eph 4:24; Phil 3:9; Jas 1:20)”¹⁰ In Romans 3, Paul emphatically writes, “the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law”. Now, if vicarious active obedience was taught anywhere in scripture, Romans 3 would be the place. Yet Paul repeatedly affirms that righteousness is apart from the law and through faith in the work of Christ; not only in Romans 3, but the whole book. Paul, rejecting soteriological active obedience, explains where our righteousness comes from: Calvary. The death of Christ was what made God able to be the just and the justifier, or, the righteous and the righteousfier. Up until the cross, God had His righteousness in question because He “had passed over former sins” (Rom 3:25). God showed His righteousness by the death of His Son. The Father put the most beautiful and glorious object on display for the world to see and crushed Him as a sacrifice for sin. “This was to show God’s righteousness” (3:25). 

In the wisdom of the Almighty, God dealt with humanity’s sin and His righteousness in the same act. Through the death of Christ, the one who possesses faith is simultaneously united with Christ (in Him), and made the Righteousness of God that was manifested with the Cross.

CONCLUSION

After consideration of the believer’s righteousness and its facets, the righteousness of God is manifest apart from the law and this is the righteousness that believers possess. Active obedience, as taught by double imputation, finds no ground in Scripture. Adam serves to show the headship of Christ, not to create a phantom covenant that Christ fulfilled, and there really is only one way of salvation. Scripture alone must be held as the highest authority, and tradition nor logic should not be able to persuade doctrine that is contrary to Scripture.

God is a God of love and relationship, He wants the heart and love and trust of His children, not for them to only follow a list of rules. The law is good and just and holy, but the law is not the justifier. Jesus desires mercy, not sacrifice – all should learn what this means.

  For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, 

      the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

 Hosea 6:6.

1. It also should be noted that Vicarious Active Obedience or Active Obedience are other ways of understanding the imputation of righteousness to the believer thus these terms will be used somewhat interchangeably with double imputation. ↩︎
2. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology (vol. 2; Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 117. ↩︎
3. Ibid., 117. ↩︎
4. i.e Obedience to the Covenant of Works- law keeping ↩︎
5. Sproul, R.C. “The Covenant of Works by R.C. Sproul.” Ligonier Ministries, June 8, 2022. https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/covenant-works ↩︎
6. Larry D. Pettegrew, “An Assessment of Covenant Theology,” in Forsaking Israel: How it Happened and Why it Matters, ed. Larry Pettegrew , 199. ↩︎
7. William MacDonald and Arthur L. Farstad, Believer’s Bible Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1995). ↩︎
8. Larry D. Pettegrew, “An Assessment of Covenant Theology,” in Forsaking Israel: How it Happened and Why it Matters, ed. Larry Pettegrew, 177. ↩︎
9. R.C Sproul, Romans: An Expositional Commentary. Orlando, Florida: Reformation Trust, 2019. ↩︎
10. Larry D. Pettegrew, “An Assessment of Covenant Theology,” in Forsaking Israel: How it Happened and Why it Matters, ed. Larry Pettegrew , 199. ↩︎