Hermen. Probs.: “Righteousness” #2. “Justification” #1

Passive Righteousness: God's Declaration of Righteousness for Sinners

0:00 Okay, we are looking at Paul's use of righteousness language in Romans, particularly in that which leads up to his setting forth his doctrine of justification by faith and in the segment of the letter where he particularly focuses on that. We've looked at it in terms of active righteousness,

0:25 but that's not the only way Paul uses the language in this epistle. And elsewhere, which leads us now to consider, secondly, passive righteousness.

0:35 Paul also speaks of righteousness in terms of that which God gives or credits to those who have no righteousness of their own. Those who are sinners, and yet God calls them or declares them righteous. He puts them into the category of those who have done all that his law demands and requires men to do. Those who are righteous in the ordinary and active sense.

1:00 Yet, in reality, they have not done that. They are not righteous in the active sense. They are ungodly. They are sinners.

1:09 He has already told us that ultimately all have sinned. There is none who is truly righteous.

1:16 And yet, he then goes on to declare the good news of how God declares righteous those who are sinners. And again, we go back to Romans 3.

1:26 He has just given his sweeping indictment of the unrighteousness of the whole human race, both you. And Gentiles. He concludes in verse 20 with these words. For by the deeds of the law, no flesh will be justified, will be righteous, declared righteous in his sight.

1:45 For by the law is the knowledge of sin. And now he begins to introduce the righteousness that God himself gives to sinners. Romans 3, 21 following. But now the righteousness of God, apart from the law, is revealed, being witnessed by the law and the prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ.

2:04 To all who believe. For there is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Now here, Paul speaks of sinners, unrighteous people, who have fallen short of the glory of God, being justified, rightified, declared righteous. And this righteousness is not on the basis of anything they are or anything they have done.

2:33 He says they are justified freely. And this justification is not an act of reward or recompense for righteous deeds done. It is by grace, freely by his grace. Furthermore, they are righteous through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

2:50 Without opening that up right now, clearly this extraordinary righteousness, this righteousness for sinners, is possible because of the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, which the apostle then goes on to explain in more detail in verses 25 to 26. But my point for right now, is that, is that here we see sinners justified, declared righteous. And we see in the context that this is made possible by the work of Christ, and that this justification is the possession of those who believe in him. Let's move over to 4, 5, Romans 4, 5.

3:24 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace, but debt. But to him who does not work, but believes on him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness. Now here again, we have people who are considered ungodly, and who have no work. They have no works to build a claim of righteousness upon.

3:41 And yet righteousness is accounted or imputed to them. They are justified, accounted as having righteousness. Paul speaks here of God justifying, rightifying the ungodly. Let's look at chapter 5, verses 7 and 9.

4:05 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die, yet perhaps for a good man, someone would even dare to die. Now we looked at this earlier. Here is ordinary righteousness, active righteousness. But Paul goes further, verses 8 and 9.

4:22 But God demonstrates his own love toward us, and that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Much more than having now been justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. And here we see extraordinary righteousness, or passive righteousness. We have sinners, unrighteous people, whom Christ died for, who as a result of his death for them, have been rightified, justified by his blood.

4:53 Even though in and of themselves they are not righteous. Look on further, Romans 5, look at verses 17 to 19. Now again, just very briefly, without opening this up in detail right now, we are going to come back to this passage in quite a bit of detail later. Notice we see in verse 12, Paul says, Therefore just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned.

5:20 Here we have the universal guilt of the entire human race, resulting from Adam's sin. For our purpose right now, here is what I want us to see. All men are counted as sinners, according to this text. All sinned.

5:33 Now notice how Paul picks up this line of thought in verse 17. For if by the one man's offense, death reign through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, will reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ. And here we have, in contrast to the death that came to all men because of sin, what Paul refers to as the gift of righteousness. Here again are sinners, and yet they have righteousness given to them, as a gift.

The Dilemma of Justifying the Ungodly and the Necessity of Conviction of Sin

6:05 He goes on to connect this gift of righteousness to the obedience and righteous act of Jesus Christ in verses 18 to 19. So here is the mystery, as it were, of Paul's usage of righteousness terminology that we must understand, brethren, if we would understand the gospel that Paul preaches. In its ordinary usage, or in its active sense, righteousness is moral conformity to the claims of God upon men as his creatures, which are given clearest expression in his law. The righteous are those who have done what they ought to do in terms of those claims.

6:41 And righteousness is the possession of those who have done so. But there is none righteous, no, not one, for all have sinned. So how can there be any hope for sinners? How can sinners stand righteous before God?

6:52 Contrary to the new perspective, that is the question that Paul addresses in the doctrine of justification. It is here that Paul brings in the gospel, as he says before us, this extraordinary righteousness, or passive righteousness, a righteousness that is freely given to sinners and received through faith in Jesus Christ. But how can it be, that God justifies sinners who believe on Jesus? Proverbs 17, 15 says, He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the just, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord.

7:27 But Paul tells us that God himself justifies the wicked. How can God do that if he who justifies the wicked is an abomination to the Lord? Well, again, it is Jesus Christ and his work that enters into the equation. Paul answers that question in terms of the work that Christ has done on behalf of sinners.

7:49 And let me say as a practical aside that until a man in some measure has been brought face to face with this dilemma, he can't really understand the gospel. Until he sees that God is holy and just, and until God's law has produced in his conscience the conviction that he is a sinner deserving nothing but God's wrath, until his conscience is brought face to face with this dilemma, how can God do anything else but send me to hell? Until a man feels at least something of this dilemma, he cannot possibly experimentally understand the gospel or rejoice in the gospel with the cordial embrace of faith. Why?

8:32 Because that is precisely the very dilemma that the gospel addresses and answers. And let me just say that this is one of the great needs in the preaching of our day. This is one of the great needs in the so-called biblical scholarship of our day. Men need to be confronted with the majesty and holiness and justice and wrath of God.

8:54 They need to be confronted with the law of God in order that they may be brought to see and to feel their sinfulness and hell-deservedness and their lost condition. It is then and only then that the gospel of justification by faith becomes relevant to them and can be properly appreciated as we are forced to ask the question, how can a sinner like me be right with a holy and just God? And this is why Paul spent the first two and over half of the third chapters of this epistle to the Romans setting forth these very issues before he ever begins to take up justification by faith, beginning in chapter 3, verse 21. He begins with God, His justice and wrath that is revealed against all unrighteousness and ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, His moral, ethical claims upon men, the claims of His law and man's rights, and man's condition before God as a sinner who is justly condemned. And then after that, he takes up the glorious gospel of how sinners who have no righteousness can be justified, rightified by faith. Listen to the comments of James Buchanan. The best preparation for the study of this doctrine is neither great intellectual ability nor much scholastic learning, but a conscience impressed with the sense of our actual condition as sinners in the sight of God.

10:19 The law must be applied to the conscience so as to quicken and arouse it before we can fill our need of salvation or make any serious effort to attain it. It is the convicted and not the careless sinner who alone will lay to heart with some sense of its real meaning and momentous importance the solemn question, How shall a man be just with God? Another quote this time from John Murray. We are all wrong with God because we have all sinned and come short of the glory of God.

10:50 Far too frequently, we fail to entertain the gravity of this fact. Hence, the reality of our sin and the reality of the wrath of God upon us for our sin do not come into our reckoning. This is the reason why the grand article of justification does not ring the bells in the innermost depths of our spirit. And this is the reason why the gospel of justification is to such an extent a meaningless sound in the world and in the church of the twentieth century.

11:21 We are not imbued with a profound sense of the reality of God, of His majesty and holiness. And sin, if reckoned with at all, is little more than a misfortune or maladjustment. If we are to appreciate that which is central in the gospel, if the jubilee trumpet is to find its echo again in our hearts, our thinking must be revolutionized by the realism of the wrath of God, of the reality and gravity of our guilt, of the divine condemnation. It is then and only then that our thinking and feeling will be rehabilitated to an understanding of God's grace in the justification of the ungodly.

12:03 Well, let's look more closely and specifically now thirdly at the meaning of justification. Yes, sure. The paper said that if he was ever sitting in an airplane, next to somebody, and witnessing to them when he had a half an hour to talk to them, he'd spend about the first 20-25 minutes convicting them of their sin, and then bring in the promises and the offer of the gospel at the end, which is basically what you're saying. We really do need to bring men to the awareness of who they are before a holy God.

12:32 Yes, and sometimes, you know, we live in a generation that we can be preaching the gospel of God's grace to this generation and preach it and preach it and preach it. But if the generation that we're preaching to, the people we're preaching to, have no sense of the majesty and holiness and wrath of God and their own sinfulness, it doesn't register. It doesn't register. And so, that's got to be an element that is worked into our overall preaching ministries as well in our preaching of the gospel.

13:00 Yes? Just a real quick comment. I was listening to a sermon by John Piper on the way here, and he was mentioning this very issue. He was saying, who in America lays in bed at night and wrestles with the unrighteousness of God's forgiveness?

13:13 Who in America lays in bed and wonders how God can bring up the sun on any city in America and how He can be God and yet forgive my sin? And he says, and until that weighs on you, you'll never glory in the cross because you can never understand the cross. That's why it takes a man, that's why it's so interesting to read a man like Martin Luther and to realize Martin Luther did not come to an understanding of the doctrine of justification by faith merely as an academic, intellectual exercise. It was out of what was the German word?

13:52 It was experimentally taught to him. And it needs to be experimentally taught to all of us in our own struggle with our own corruption and sin and our relationship with God. Okay. The meaning of justification in Paul's epistles.

The Meaning of Justification: Opposite of Condemnation and a Completed Act

14:11 We saw from its Old Testament usage that some things about it. We saw examples where it does not mean to make a person righteous in the sense of some subjective transformation of their character. We saw it used as a forensic term. Well, Paul uses the word in this way when he refers to the justification of sinners.

14:32 First of all, this justification is set forth as the opposite of condemnation. Remember to condemn is not to make bad nor is it a process by which a man is made bad. To condemn is the declared sentence of a judge about a person. The judge does not make bad when he condemns.

14:56 He declares the person to be bad and sentences him to his punishment. Well, in Paul, for the sinner to be justified is the opposite of being condemned. We see this, for example, in Romans 5, 18. As through one man's offense judgment came to all men resulting in condemnation, even so through one man's righteousness the free gift came to all men resulting in justification.

15:21 Justification is the opposite of condemnation. Look at Romans 8, 33. Here Paul is speaking specifically about the justification of sinners and he says, Who shall bring a charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies.

15:37 Who is he who condemns? We see here again that to be justified is the opposite of having something laid to your charge, being condemned. It means to have nothing laid to your charge. It's the opposite of being condemned.

15:53 Now again, what does it mean to condemn? Well, it certainly does not mean to make someone wicked or to infuse wickedness into a person. It means to judicially declare or to pronounce someone guilty before the law. Likewise, justification is the opposite of condemnation.

16:11 It does not mean to subjectively transform someone's character. It means for the judge to make a legal pronouncement, declaration, declare someone righteous in the eyes of the law. Secondly, there is the fact that when Paul speaks of the justification of believing sinners, he speaks of that justification as a completed act as opposed to being a process. He speaks of the justification of those who are already believers as a completed event which took place in the past.

16:48 Notice Romans 5, 1. Here we have an aorist passive participle, having been justified by faith. The passive voice points to this as being an act of God. We are acted upon, as it were.

17:06 It's a passive voice. It points to this as being an act of God. The aorist tense, proceeding as it does here, the verb it modifies, we have peace, points to a once and for all act in the past, having been justified by faith. You see, the justification of the believing sinner is not an ongoing process, the outcome of which is suspended until the day of judgment.

17:31 Now, it is true that we will be shown to be among God's justified people on that day, and the evidence of that fact will be brought forth to demonstrate it. We also show ourselves to be God's people in this life by how we live, what is sometimes called demonstrative justification. But our actual justification, our actual justification and acceptance as righteous before God occurs the moment we first believe. It is a past, completed, one-time act.

18:04 Having been justified by faith, aorist passive participle, we have, present tense, peace with God. Not the peace of God here, but peace with God or peace toward God. This is not a subjective feeling. It's an objective, presently, ongoing state of reconciliation with God that results from a past, once-and-for-all justification.

18:33 And this is not a state that can be entered then forfeited by disobedience. It is a point-in-time accomplishment of a once-and-for-all act of God which continues into the present as the basis of continual peace with God. In verse 9 of chapter 5, we have an aorist passive participle again. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved by His wrath.

19:05 As a believer, my salvation from wrath on the day of God's righteous judgment of sinners is absolutely certain and secure. Why? Having now been justified by His blood. It is secure because I have been justified.

19:19 Both, according to Romans 5.1, Romans 5.9, both present peace with God, and full salvation in the future, are all certain and secured by this once-and-for-all act of God completed in the past at the moment the sinner first believes. Therefore, Paul could say in Romans 8.1, there is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus. And this tells those of us who are trusting Christ for salvation that we must realize that we are no longer under condemnation for our sins, and never will be. And we who are pastors, or who will be pastors, need to preach this to our people. This is the truth which drives away the legal spirit that would bring believers into bondage and despair by telling them or giving the impression to them that every time they are aware of remaining sin, they cease to be justified.

20:19 That every time we fall prey to sin, we have fallen back under legal condemnation and back under the wrath of God. No. By faith, we hold of this reality that there is now therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. Our sins as believers do not nullify our justified standing before God.

20:37 They do not cause God to cast us out of His family. They can never condemn us to hell. It is God who justifies. Who is He who condemns?

20:48 We are now members of His household, His children. We are now in the living room context. Our sins are still real sins, and they should still cause us grief. And as we are made aware of them, we must confess them and repent of them.

21:02 God is displeased with the believers' sins, and we need our Father's ongoing forgiveness in that sense. But the sins of the justified do not cause God to throw them out of the house. They do not put us back into the position of the condemned criminal before the judgment bar, and we will never be back in that position again. Having been justified by faith, we have peace.

21:25 Have peace with God. And we must lay hold of this glorious reality. And we have to keep coming back to it, keep bringing our people back to this reality. It is the assurance of our acceptance with God that fills the heart with love and gratitude and joy and drives the engine of sacrificial self-denying devotion to our Savior.

21:48 Well, I trust we see from this survey that justification in Romans cannot be reduced merely to the recognition or declaration that one is a member of the covenant. Righteousness language in this epistle means more than that. Righteousness is the opposite of sin. Justification is the exact opposite of being condemned.

22:13 To be declared righteous is to be declared not guilty, to be put into the category, and declared to be in the category of one who has perfectly kept what God requires in terms of His ethical claims upon men. Furthermore, this is not some kind of pronouncement in the present of what people will one day become. On the day of judgment, a declaration that believing sinners will one day become subjectively righteous. In other words, there have been those who have taught that when it says we are justified by faith, it is a declaration that the believing sinner will one day become righteous, subjectively righteous.

22:55 Now, we will, but that's glorification, not justification. Furthermore, it's not a future justification on the basis of our covenant faithfulness projected into the present and suspended upon the condition of continued covenant faithfulness. In other words, our future justification and glory, we might say, is not our actual justification with present justification only being the anticipatory recognition of what will be ours by our own faithfulness. No, it's just the opposite.

23:31 The sinner's actual justification occurs the moment he believes the gospel. And our future justification will simply be the unveiling and manifesting of who we are and the reality of what we became when we first believed on Jesus and continued becoming in the sanctification flowing out of that believing justified relationship to Him. Justification is the once and for all judicial declaration that the believer is now and will forever be regarded as righteous in the eyes of God and His law. Well, having surveyed Paul's use of righteousness language with reference to men, now let's consider righteousness language in Romans as it's used with reference to God.

God's Righteousness: Moral Integrity and the Gift of Righteousness

24:16 Now, remember that the New Perspective argues that the righteousness of God is to be understood as His covenant faithfulness. They argue that this is its meaning in the Old Testament and that therefore this is the way we must understand it in the writings of Paul. Well, we've already seen, I trust, that this understanding of God's righteousness in the Old Testament is reductionistic and faulty. With that behind us, let's look at the righteousness of God as spoken of by Paul in the epistles to the Romans.

24:50 Now, again, it would take us well beyond the scope of time I'm allowed in this module to give a detailed exposition of every passage. However, I believe it can be shown that Paul refers to the righteousness of God in two different complementary ways, very similar to what we saw with the righteousness of men. First of all, there is God's righteousness in its ordinary sense where it is used to refer to His rightness, His moral integrity and uprightness by which He punishes the wicked and rewards the just. Notice the reference in chapter 3, verse 5.

25:28 Paul says, But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust? Is God unrighteous who inflicts wrath? Here we see God's righteousness demonstrated in His inflicting of wrath upon the unrighteousness of men.

25:45 In a similar way, we have reference to God's righteous judgment upon the impenitent that will be revealed in the day of wrath, chapter 2, verse 5. So in these texts, the righteousness of God in its ordinary sense refers to God's rightness, His commitment to moral integrity, His moral integrity, His commitment to uphold His righteous standards, His commitment to what is right, which is demonstrated in His righteous judgment as the judge of all the earth. Now, this also seems to be the way the phrase is used in chapter 3, verses 25 to 26. Paul writes there, Whom, speaking of Christ, God set forth as a propitiation by His blood through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Now, here we see God justifying Himself, as it were, against the charge of injustice. God exercised forbearance in the period preceding the coming of Christ and His atoning death on the cross. In that He passed over the sins that were committed by Old Testament saints, Old Testament believers.

27:06 He did not punish them and damn them for their sins. Does that mean then that God is unrighteous? No, Paul answers, God demonstrated His righteousness in this present time when He set forth His Son as a propitiation by His blood. Now, you guys understand what he's talking about there.

27:25 He's talking about Old Testament believers who were forgiven and justified, even though Christ had not objected, even though Christ had not objectively atoned for their sins at that point in redemptive history. That atonement was in a sense applied to them retroactively. And in the atonement, God, one of the things God is doing is declaring His righteousness with respect to His forbearance and passing over the sins of Old Testament saints. God is not unrighteous. No, Paul answers, God demonstrated His righteousness in this present time when He set forth His Son as a propitiation by His blood. He speaks of the fact that God proved by the death of Christ that He was not ignoring the sin of the past. Instead, He had merely postponed its decisive judgment until it could be channeled onto the crucified Christ rather than onto the wrongdoers themselves. Now, in this way, Paul says God was proving His righteousness.

28:23 And again, here we see, I believe, in this text, the righteousness of God spoken of in terms of His commitment to what is just. And right. But this is not the only way it's used. Secondly, we also see God's righteousness explicitly connected to that righteousness that God gives to those who believe that we saw earlier.

28:50 We see the righteousness of God spoken of in this way in chapter 1, verse 17, chapter 3, verses 21 to 22, and chapter 10, verse 3. Now, the big issue of debate is whether the righteousness of God in these texts is a genitive of source, speaking of righteousness that God gives to sinners, or a subjective genitive, speaking of God's active covenant faithfulness. Traditionally, the Reformed interpretation has been that what we have in these texts is a genitive of source or origin. The reference is to a righteousness that God gives to believing sinners by which they are justified.

29:30 Well, let's look at these texts and their relation to each other. First, look at Romans 1, 16. Romans 1, 16 and 17. Would one of you guys want to read that for us?

29:44 For I am not ashamed of the gospel. Is this where we are? Yep. For it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

29:55 For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, the righteous shall live by faith. So the key phrase here is the righteousness of God. The righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel. From faith to faith, as it is written, the just shall live by faith.

30:11 Here Paul tells us that the gospel he preaches is the power of God unto salvation for both Jews and Gentiles. And then he tells us that in this gospel, the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, the just shall live by faith, or it could be translated, the just by faith shall live. The fact that the righteousness of God here refers to the righteousness that God gives to sinners who believe may be strongly supported by the following arguments. One, the connection here between this righteousness of God and justification by faith.

30:52 This righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, the just by faith shall live, or the just or the righteous, the justified shall live by faith. Now, elsewhere in Romans, whenever Paul links righteousness to faith or to the justification of sinners, he is not referring to righteousness in its active and ordinary sense. He is referring to that passive righteousness by which sinners are justified. He is contrasting it with the righteousness of the law or the works of the law or with works in general.

31:27 Thus, consistent with this linkage of faith and passive righteousness, we saw what I was referring to as passive righteousness earlier, this righteousness that is given to sinners, that sinners have. Sinners, but they're counted righteous. This consistent, consistent with this linkage of faith and passive righteousness in the rest of the epistle, we may assume that the righteousness of God here is referring to that righteousness possessed by those who have faith. Secondly, that righteousness connected with the justification of believing sinners is elsewhere specifically referred to as a gift of righteousness.

32:07 As we saw in Romans 5, 17, believers are described as those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness. Thirdly, that this righteousness of God speaks of the gift of righteousness that God gives to sinners is also supported by the language Paul uses elsewhere with reference to justification. It's similar language, but not exactly the same, which helps, I think, to clarify his meaning here. For example, in Philippians 3, 9, he speaks of being found in Christ, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith. The language of the Greek text there is very clear. The righteousness which is through faith is explicitly referred to as the righteousness which is from God. We have the preposition ek.

33:06 The righteousness through faith is contrasted with the righteousness which is from the law, and it is specifically identified as a righteousness which is from God. Fourthly, this is the same contrast and connection that we see in the other text in Romans, where the righteousness of God is connected with faith. Consider now Romans 3, 21. But now the righteousness of God apart from the law, being witnessed by the law and the prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

33:43 This is the exact same contrast and connection found in the text just quoted a moment ago, Philippians 3, 9. Righteousness apart from the law and righteousness through faith. And that righteousness which is apart from the law and through faith is called the righteousness of God. The language is virtually parallel to Philippians 3, 9, where Paul describes it explicitly as a righteousness which is from God.

34:08 We see the same thing in Romans 10, 3. We have the same contrast and connection. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own righteousness have not submitted to the righteousness of God. Paul speaks here of the Jews who were seeking to establish their own righteousness and doing so, he says, they had not submitted to the righteousness of God.

34:32 Now notice that this righteousness of God is explicitly connected to faith and it is specifically contrasted with pursuing the law of righteousness. Look up at verse 30, the following of chapter 9. Verse 30. What shall we say then?

34:51 That Gentiles who did not pursue righteousness have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness of faith. This righteousness is called the righteousness of faith. Verse 31. But Israel, pursuing the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness.

35:08 Why? Because they did not seek it by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumbling stone. As it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offense, and whoever believes on him will not be put to shame.

35:22 The righteousness of faith here is contrasted with Israel's pursuing the righteousness of the law or with seeking righteousness by works or the textual variant. There's a textual variant somehow by works of the law and not by faith in Christ. So here at the end of chapter 9, we have reference again to a righteousness which is not by pursuing the law, but a righteousness of faith. A righteousness that is not of works, but by faith.

35:50 Now as one comes to chapter 10, verse 3, that righteousness which is not by the law and not by works, but is ours by faith in Jesus Christ is referred to as God's righteousness. For they being ignorant of God's righteousness and seeking to establish their own righteousness have not submitted to the righteousness of God. So the righteousness of God and the righteousness of faith, verse 30, chapter 9, and by faith, verse 32 of chapter 9, are one and the same thing. I might also add here Paul's parallel language in 2 Corinthians 5, 21.

36:27 For he, God, made him, Christ, who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in him. Paul says that we become the righteousness of God in Christ. Now I'll be coming back to that passage later in more detail, but suffice it to say that it's a very strained and I think strange interpretation of that text which tries to make the righteousness of God in him there refer to God's righteous activity or his covenant faithfulness. If that were the case, Paul would be saying that we somehow become God's righteous activity or we become God's covenant faithfulness in union with Christ in him.

37:08 Well, I trust you see that all of these considerations, at least to my judgment, support the traditional Reformed interpretation that the righteousness of God in Romans 1, 17, Romans 3, 20, 21, Romans 10, 3, as well as Philippians 3, 9, and 2 Corinthians 5, 21 is referring to righteousness that comes from God, the gift of a divine righteousness from God to sinners who believe on and are in Jesus Christ. Here again, I would argue that on its understanding of righteousness terminology, the new perspective is wrong. The Reformed theology on the whole got it right. Now, this is going to become clear now.

The Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness: The Heart of Reformed Justification

37:52 And all of this, I think, is going to become much clearer to us as we come to... There's a sense in which all of my lectures I've wanted to get to the point we're coming to now, okay?

38:02 We now come to consider the third exegetical and theological problem with the new perspective, the doctrine of imputed righteousness. What time am I supposed to...

38:11 I didn't even check when I started. Until 7, okay. The doctrine of imputed righteousness. The rest of our time today and our time tomorrow is going to be focused on this issue, okay?

38:26 In answer to the question, how art thou righteous before God? The Heidelberg Catechism gives a very beautiful answer which sets forth the very heart of the Reformed doctrine of justification. It answers, only by a true faith in Jesus Christ, so that though my conscience accuse me...

38:47 By the way, brother, I love this... this answer.

38:52 This is something we probably should all memorize. Only by a true faith in Christ, so that though my conscience accuse me that I have grossly transgressed all the commands of God and kept none of them, and am still inclined to all evil, notwithstanding God without any merit of mine, but only of mere grace, grants and imputes to me the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ, even so as if I never had nor committed any sin, yea, as if I had fully accomplished all that obedience which Christ hath accomplished for me. Here we have the Reformed doctrine of the positive imputation of the righteousness of Christ to believers as the ground of their justification. Here is the real bone of contention between the classic Protestant doctrine of justification and the Roman Catholic doctrine. Really, you might say there's two bones of contention. There's sola fide, and there's this issue of the ground or basis, this doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ.

40:00 There are other differences, but it can be boiled down to this. What is the ground of our justification? Really, those two questions are really related to one another, sola fide and imputation. They're really one and the same issue, really.

40:16 Where we come down on that question will affect our understanding of the meaning and nature of justification. The role of faith in justification and many other things, including the gospel itself. The Roman Catholic doctrine is that we are justified in some connection with Christ's merits or works or righteousness, yes. But the connection is this.

40:39 Christ's merits procure for us the work of the Holy Spirit by which a righteousness is infused into us. A righteousness is infused into us which must then be improved upon by the cooperative efforts of the believer. And it is this infused righteousness wrought in us and then worked out by us which is the basis or ground of our justification. But the doctrine of the reformers and of the reformed standards is that the exclusive basis of justification is the work of Christ alone.

41:09 It is His righteousness, which is wholly external to us, that is imputed to us when we, by faith, receive and rest on Him. Furthermore, faith functions in justification not as any part of the ground of our justification but as the instrument, the empty hand, by which Christ and His righteousness are received. Again, it could be argued that this was the major bone of contention between Rome and the Protestant Reformation. Therefore, it should particularly alarm us that one of the characteristics of the new perspective is a rejection of the doctrine of imputation.

41:49 Footnotes to footnotes. Sad to say, though, that in many of the critiques of the new perspective one reads the issue of imputation is hardly even addressed. I suspect that one reason for that is the widespread scholarly retreat from that doctrine that has become prevalent even among men who could not be classified strictly as new perspective or who are even on record and in writing critical of the new perspective. It is not very popular today in some of the upper echelons of so-called New Testament scholarship, and maybe that is kind of an ugly way to say it, but to hold the Reformed doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness.

N.T. Wright's Rejection of Imputation and Redefinition of Justification

42:31 It is increasingly unpopular. I remind you now of the theology of N.T. Wright.

42:40 According to Wright, justification has nothing to do with the imputation of righteousness to the believer. Justification is about covenant membership. He charges the Reformed doctrine of imputation with being a legal fiction. There is nothing new in that.

42:55 People have said that for a long time. Consider how Wright defines justification. It is the declaration that someone is, in the present, a member of the people of God. God recognizes believers as covenant members.

43:09 That is what the Scripture means when it says that we are justified by faith. Furthermore, according to Wright, what is the role of faith in justification? Faith is not the instrument by which Christ and his righteousness are received for justification. No, justification by faith, in fact, has nothing to do with how we believe.

43:28 We become Christians. Faith or faithfulness is simply the badge of covenant membership. For Wright, faith is not the instrument or empty hand by which justification is received. It is the spirit-wrought evidence that we are covenant members.

43:43 But more than that, what is the ground of justification or the basis of justification, then, according to Wright? Well, according to Wright, the basis of justification is both the death and resurrection of Christ and the work of the Spirit. Justification presupposes an objective dealing with sin, he says. And the cross is, in that sense, part of the basis of justification.

44:06 But also, justification presupposes the work of the Spirit and can therefore be said to take place on the basis of faith. Now, listen to these statements. And I gave you these earlier, but I want to give them to you again. Remember, Wright rejects the doctrine of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.

44:22 But here are some characteristic statements of his understanding of what the basis of justification is. Justification takes place on the basis of faith because true Christian faith, belief that Jesus is Lord and that God raised Him from the dead, is the evidence of the work of the Spirit and hence the evidence that the believer is already within the covenant. He anticipates the question, but why should Christian faith be the reason for God's declaration that the believer is in the right? Well, not because it lays hold of Christ and His righteousness.

44:57 The answer is that Paul says, Paul understands faith to be the true fulfilling of the law. He thinks that he avoids the charge of thereby making faith in his understanding a work and thus teaching justification by works when he says, this faith is of course not a work done to earn God's favor, nor is it to be equated with righteousness understood as a moral quality. It is simply the evidence of the work of grace in the heart. So according to Wright, faith is both the...

45:28 In other words, he thinks he avoids legalism or saying that making justification on the basis of works because, that would be a better way to say it, because, well, this faith after all is the gift of God. It's not something that we do ourselves or that comes from us. God gives us the gift of faith and so he believes then that he has...

45:48 that is a sufficient guard against the idea that he's teaching justification by works. Okay? Justification by works maybe, but it's a work that God has produced in us by his grace and that God enables us to do. Okay?

46:04 Yes? I have a question just on the statement he made here. Is there some reason why he seems to not want to speak of justification through the shed blood of Christ or the death of Christ or anything like that in his statement? Well, he does argue that justification is in part has to do with some objective dealing with sin, that Christ accomplished on the cross.

46:37 Really, Dr. Waldron could...

46:40 Really, what he's saying is the same thing that Daniel Fuller says, the same thing that these other... that these...

46:46 It's exactly the same thing. Yes? It strikes me as this man wants to say that believing obedience is not the worst, that it's...

47:01 and as Wright says here, the evidence of God's grace in the heart. But at the same time, they're making it a condition of justification. And a basis, really. Right.

47:13 So they don't want people to think of them as teaching words. Fuller doesn't, Wright doesn't, and Respected doesn't, because they want to say this is believing obedience. But what can't be denied is that for each of them, believing obedience is the basis of justification. Mm-hmm.

47:34 So this believing obedience, well, whether they want to call it works or not, is done for the purpose of being justified. Mm. And so, I mean, it's a distinction without a difference. Or it's trying to describe believing obedience, what do we mean by that?

47:50 We mean obedience that stems from the fact that we have the glorious knowledge that we are justified by faith. But that's not what they mean by believing obedience. They mean, by believing obedience, something that is the condition of justification and must be done to be justified. And for Wright, when you read, when he talks about, you know, because you do want to ask the question, believing what?

48:13 Mm. What is it you're believing? Yeah. You know.

48:17 That's the other thing. And when you, when you look at the way he defines faith, he basically defines faith as confession of Jesus as Lord or commitment to Christ as Lord, commitment to the lordship of Jesus Christ over every realm of life and society and over yourself. Confessing him, acknowledging him as the Messiah and Lord. So doesn't that make Christ's death on the cross irrelevant or unnecessary?

48:42 Well, Christ's death on the cross, now, again, it's the dilemma of trying to understand what he really, what he would really, what he really believes about that. But similar theologies in church history like Neonomianism, the idea is the death on the cross, the death of Christ on the cross covers for the deficiencies of our faithful, our, our covenant faithfulness, our faithful obedience. It covers, it, it makes it so that God can accept our believing obedience as righteousness. God is, and in a sense it's like God lowering his, the cross purchases a lower requirement for acceptance with God in the sense that we can be accepted by God on the basis of our covenant faithfulness with atonement covering for our deficiencies, which in a sense is very similar to the covenant gnomism that, that E.P. Sanders describes. It's the intention, the effort and intention to obey and recourse to means of atonement for our failures to obey.

49:44 So, but with no impute, none of Christ's righteousness imputed upon us, what happens to our sins in their, in their view? You know what I'm asking? Doesn't that go both ways? If you say that Christ's righteousness isn't imputed upon us, what happens to our sins in their, in their view?

50:02 If Christ's righteousness isn't imputed to us, then what do we do with our sins? Well, this is going to go back to the, to the question of the covenant of works in the sense that is there, is there such a requirement for a perfect righteousness? Is there even such a requirement at all? And, there are, and this, this is not anything new in church history.

50:26 There have been in the history of the church different systems of theology and understandings of justification that have denied any positive imputation of righteousness. And, in some ways, it's similar to old, the old Wesleyan theology of justification. It's not exactly the same though, but there's, there's similarities. It's, it's almost as though there's nothing, you know, there's, there's a sense in which it can be said there's nothing new under the sun when it comes, but there are different twists on old ideas.

51:00 And, the new perspective is new in one sense, but it's old and that's, that's been around before in the history of the church. Let's, let's press on here and, continue to, we'll stop again for questions. Just, just about 10 minutes, 15 minutes. Just below that last statement he adds, this is the answer to the question why faith?

The Problem with Wright's View: Lack of Assurance and Legalism

51:33 Faith is the evidence of grace and when God sees it he therefore declares, rightly declares that the believer is in the right. Now, this is the theology that you embrace. Where are you going to be looking for confidence in your acceptance with God? You're going to be looking at yourself, right?

51:57 Am I being faithful? Okay. And then, how faithful do you need to be? It puts you back in the same dilemma Luther was in.

52:05 If you say, well, my, the atonement covers my failures so that God accepts covenant faithfulness, faith and repentance and the good, works, evangelical obedience as my righteousness or the basis upon which he declares me a covenant member. Well, you know, how covenant, how faithful do I have to be? How faithful do I have to be? I mean, how?

52:34 Or, I don't see how, personally, I don't see how a man could ever have assurance of salvation believing this. And it was interesting when the little handout that Sam Waldron gave with Daniel Fuller where he referred to, he, he tried to address that question with reference to Wesley. And if I understood him correctly, he was basically saying that assurance, you cannot have assurance of your final salvation, ultimately. You can only have assurance that you're presently saved.

53:00 And, of course, that's totally against what our confession says. Our confession, that's what, when you read the chapter on assurance, it not only speaks of the reality that a believer may have a present assurance of his standing in grace, but also with that an infallible assurance of, of full and complete and final salvation. Yes. I'm listening to Wright is that he's not using justification.

53:33 I, I have justification embedded in my order of salutis. And this guy's not operating in the same, in the same grid that I am. He's got a hyper eschatological view of justification that's, that's at the end of a persevering faithfulness. And I have to keep on reminding myself because when I hear him talk, I think I'm back at the point of conversion and, wait a minute, wait a minute, that's not where he's at.

53:59 Yeah. Well, he is to, in one sense, that, that justification is the, the declaration that the believer is presently in the right that is based upon his faith. And he confesses Christ as Lord. I am presently in the right and I maintain that by continuing to be faithful and continuing to believe.

54:23 He's not saying you maintain your justification that way. You maintain your covenant membership that way, you see. Okay? Sure.

54:36 You know, you quote, I'm sure you accurately quote it right as saying, first, why should your faith be the reason for God's separation? Because faith is the fulfillment of the law. Then, he goes on to say that this faith is the fulfillment of the law, the true fulfillment of the law. How can it not be equated with righteousness understood as a moral quality?

55:07 I mean, isn't that, how do you distinguish those two things? I don't see how. If it's the fulfillment of the law, then by definition it's a moral quality. And is righteousness understood as a moral quality if it's in terms of covenant?

55:37 Does right see something, it's almost like the covenant is behind all of God's dealings with people. And if you receive the gift of faith, if you receive the gift of faith and you are declared righteous, it means that you are part of the covenant. That you've been, in a sense, a member of the covenant before you come to faith. Like, I don't know if he holds to personal election or not, but, you know, faith is the badge of covenant status.

56:22 It's almost like you're a covenant member before you come to faith. And then that's your badge that you are now a member of the covenant. It's not an instrument by which you receive Christ in righteousness. And that's why he will emphasize it's not how you get in.

56:47 It's simply what reveals that you're in. Okay? And that's why he would say justification should not be put in the realm of soteriology so much as in the realm of ecclesiology because it is the only realm of faith in Christ or God's covenant people. That's how you define them.

57:22 All right. Now, it's important for us to remember as well that for right justifying faith and faithfulness are essentially the same. God recognizes us as covenant members on the basis of faith, continues to recognize us as a covenant member, and continues to recognize us as a covenant member. So, again, I want to demonstrate that, once again, Reformed Theology is right and right is not right.

Justification by Faith Alone vs. Faith as the Basis of Justification

58:05 Now, again, my frustration is the limited amount of time we have. A full-blown argument is that we have to be more suggestive and thorough at some point. But I hope I'm going to be thorough enough and I'm going to give enough detail to this to be able to convince your judgments if they're not already convinced or to enforce your judgments with regard to what you already believe. Now, you might immediately think, well, that's the question. But really, there's two questions here. What is the basis upon which God justifies sinners? And two, what is the method by which God justifies believing sinners?

59:11 How does that basis then become the basis, as it were? By what method? Well, the first is to believe in sinners righteous. And to be righteous, we've already seen, I trust, means more than merely being a covenant member.

59:36 It means to be declared as one who has perfectly lived up to the moral claims of God upon men as given clearest expression by God. The N.T. Wright and The New Perspective tell us that it is.

60:00 The error that we are justified on the basis of faith being accepted in the place of a perfect righteousness or as our righteousness, brethren, is a very subtle error. Now, let me just note, in the current Wesleyan views of justification that I quote from a contemporary Wesleyan theology book from the Wesleyan College in our area, the area that we are just OK, how is it subtle? Well, the man who holds to this can still say that he believes in justification by faith alone. Now, what he means by that is not the same thing that I mean by that or that I'm convinced that the Bible means by that. He means that we are justified on the basis of faith alone. I mean that we are justified on the basis of the work of Jesus Christ.

61:25 Sounds good. But you see what he cannot say, what none of these people can say that we've considered this week really, is I believe in justification by faith alone on the basis of the righteousness of Christ alone put to our account. Do you see the difference between justification of faith and justification of faith alone? Well, the other doctrine teaches a justification which God accepts faith as the badge of covenant membership in the place of or without any reference to God's righteousness. So, what does the scripture say? Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness. But to him who does not work but believes on him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness.

62:48 Abraham's faith is what God wants for him. So, what does the scripture say? Well, it says that God is righteous in justification. Well, I want to show you that the new perspective is wrong again on this point as well.

63:21 Let me begin by reminding you, that righteousness is to reintroduce justification by works in spite of every protest to the contrary. That's all that teaching is. Faith is put in the position of being the greatest of all works. Such a great work that God declares us justified by any work produced in us either, even that which has been produced in us by God's grace.

64:05 You see, anytime you make anything we are or anything we do the basis of our justification, even if that thing is our act of believing, you reintroduce justification by works. The Bible teaches us that even the best of men, even by the Christian, falls short of that unfailing comprehensive obedience that the law requires. Therefore, we cannot be justified by works of any kind, even grace produced works. Now, add to that is secondly, the emphasis of Paul in the larger context of Romans 4, 3, and 5. First of all, Paul in the surrounding context sets forth faith and the righteousness by which we are justified as entirely distinct from one another. The two terms are not used interchangeably of the same thing. Instead, they each refer to the law of the prophets,

65:33 even the righteousness of God which is by faith in Jesus Christ, even the righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. He doesn't say the righteousness of God which is faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. The righteousness is to all who believe. Now again, I have a footnote where I take up what I took up in an earlier footnote already, attempts to interpret the genitive construction as a subjective genitive, not referring to faith in Christ. Clearly, righteousness, at least it seems very clear to me, that righteousness and faith in Christ are two different things in relation to justification. They're not the same thing. It would make no sense to say that faith in Christ is the righteousness of God received by faith.

66:56 You see, what did Paul say? He said that he counted all of his own righteousness but dung that I may win Christ and be found in him, not having my own righteousness which is of the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God. He is saying that we are justified freely by God's grace. Chapter 3 verse 24.

67:37 Being justified freely by his grace. We are justified freely or it can be translated without a cause. They hated me without a cause. Same Greek terminology.

67:53 We are justified without a cause. Grace is the unmerited favor and kindness of God that is shown to one who has in no way earned it or deserved it or qualified himself for it and who in fact even at his very best deserves just the opposite. Well, that's just the general definition of being justified. We'll come back to that next time.

Discussion and Historical Parallels to Alternative Justification Views

68:34 Good stopping place there. Any questions? We have two minutes or three minutes. Yes.

68:47 Put note 221 mention of a paper from Dr. Waldron on the Bible. Yeah, what I did is I incorporated that into this paper and then you may have noticed back earlier in the lectures I pointed you to a text where we had the same attempt to interpret it as the faithfulness of Christ or the faith in Christ. And I pointed you out the same subject and it's not exactly described and put in exactly the same way. So you have the opportunity to read what Dr. Waldron says on that here and then back in the other footnote earlier some things that I say about the same thing. A subjective genitive I believe has been so clearly demonstrated and so often demonstrated as being off the mark that it really surprises me that people still resort to it.

70:14 But it can be as you can see here in the use of Romans 3.20 that can play into the hands that type of text as two distinct things. But it's righteousness i.e.

70:33 the faithfulness of Jesus Christ or something of that nature. Yeah. I just want to point out when you describe it people will say well we're justified by faith because it's brought in us by God and creates the way that they are obviously in formulations are often understood and sometimes I think Augustine sometimes does understand justification. It's a grace in the sense that God gives all the words but remember that we pointed out that Luther subconsciously went beyond that Augustine for something more than justified by the righteousness of Christ received by faith alone. Of course that faith and the whole thing is from God but justification is not by God's sovereignty making us practically righteous. Right. Let me read this footnote here before we go just because it may provoke some discussion to read it now.

71:54 Footnote 220. And by the way, I would imagine that Dr. Waldron would be willing to make that paper available. Do you have it that you could make it available?

72:06 That was very helpful. It was very helpful to me when I was this has been a couple of years ago when I asked him about it and he sent that to me and it was real helpful when I was working through all this stuff and I'm sure he could help me with that. But I'm not sure he would be able to help me with that. I'm not sure he would be able to help me with that.

72:44 I'm not sure he would be able to help me with that. But I think that's a good way to say that. It's a good way to say it's helpful to help you with this. I can help you with that as well.

73:19 So I think that's really helpful and as that passive reception of faith in some way, reception of Christ by faith is still declared as viewed as righteousness. In the other development in Arminian theology of that faith, that included in faith evangelical or gospel obedience,

73:49 that would tend to carry over into the type of thing that Daniel Fuller is talking about, more so with the active nature of justifying faith.

74:05 This is very similar to what later the Wesleyan view of justification. Certain Wesleyan theologians taught that we are not justified on the basis of an imputed righteousness. The righteousness of Christ imputed or reckoned to us, we're justified on the basis of our own act of faith. Again, that faith is accepted by God as righteousness.

74:22 When we receive and rest upon Christ alone for salvation, God accepts that act of faith as a substitute, as it were, for the requirement of obedience. A whole and perfect righteousness. This was basically the doctrine of the man we might call the father of dispensationalism, John Darby. Darby taught that the righteousness on the basis of which God justifies us is our act of faith.

74:42 Let me add that I was reading from a more contemporary theology textbook. That was the textbook for a friend of mine when he attended Central Wesleyan, what is now Southern Wesleyan in Central South Carolina. On the subject of justification, the writer argues that the righteousness on the basis of which we are justified is simply the new relationship. Now, that sounds very new.

74:58 The new relationship with God that faith establishes. Quoting him, he says, God pronounces believers righteous and justifies them when they fulfill by faithful obedience the requirements of the covenant relationship.

75:12 The entire section on justification contains a basically new perspective interpretation of the doctrine of justification.

75:19 And that was a... I have there that this was printed in 1883.

75:25 That's supposed to be 1983. So that's a contemporary Wesleyan textbook. Printed in 1983.

75:34 And then even as Dr. Waldron pointed out,

75:38 there's elements of this type of concept that were even to be found in the Augustine's view of justification.

75:48 All right.

Closing Prayer

75:50 Yes, I will. Yes. Our dear Heavenly Father, we want to thank you once again for the wonderful privilege that we have to be able to devote so much of our time in a week like this. To studying your holy word.

76:06 We confess that we love your word. We love your truth. We love the doctrine of justification by faith. And Lord, we trust that this is not merely an academic exercise with us, but that we are all motivated by our love for you and our desire to see you receive the honor and glory that is your due.

76:25 We thank you for this good food that these folks have provided for us this week. And we pray that you would bless it. We bless it to strengthen our bodies and to help us to be alert as we continue to give ourselves to the study of the scriptures. We pray also that you would bless our fellowship together, that it would be mutually edifying and encouraging.

76:47 We ask this in Christ's name. Amen.