This is the third blog examining whether, historically considered, IAO is a necessary part of evangelical orthodoxy. Two previous blogs argued that IAO although present (even dominant) in the evangelicalism of C16 and early 17, it was by no means unanimously so. The same can be said of the evangelicalism of the late C17 – C19.
C17
Although, through the Confessions, Covenant theology was becoming standard, in the late C17 a number of Puritans questioned the view that justification involved the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. Richard Baxter, Christopher Cartwright, John Goodwin, and Benjamin Woodbridge held that imputation of faith was the formal cause of justification. John Owen and Richard Baxter in particular apparently differed vehemently over this doctrine.
C18
Regarding IAO, John Wesley seemed to oscillate a little. Early in his career Wesley wrote, “Do not dispute for that particular phrase ‘the imputed righteousness of Christ.’ It is not scriptural.”.
Michael Bird asserts,
‘Interpreters of Wesley have long noted that such remarks arise from a suspicion that imputed righteousness could potentially foster antinomianism and stifle the pursuit of righteousness. However, under a barrage of criticism Wesley attempted to assuage his reformed critics in his sermon “The Lord our Righteousness” where he asserts, “To all believers the righteousness of Christ is imputed; to unbelievers it is not.’ (M. Bird Incorporated Righteousness: This is an excellent article that all studying this theme should read. Find here.)
It would appear that while Wesley adhered to imputation he always had his reservations. According to Jeff Paton, later in life, while in a debate with Rowland Hill, Wesley seemed to reject the notion of the imputed righteousness of Christ. Paton writes,
In a debate with Mr. Rowland Hill, Wesley quotes his remarks and responds to them. (Hill) “Mr. Wesley “winds up this point of imputed righteousness with a resolution which astonishes me, that “he will never use the phrase, the imputed righteousness of Christ, unless it occur to him in a hymn, or steal upon him unawares.” Wesley responded to this complaint, “This is my resolution. I repeat once more what I said in the “Remarks:” “The thing, that we are justified merely for the sake of what Christ has done and suffered, I have constantly and earnestly maintained above four-and-thirty years. And I have frequently used the phrase, hoping thereby to please others “for their good to edification.” But it has had a contrary effect, since so many improve it into an objection. Therefore I will use it no more .” ( I mean, the phrase imputed righteousness; that phrase, the imputed righteousness of Christ, I never did use.)…And I will advise all my brethren, all who are in connection with me throughout the three kingdoms, to lay aside that ambiguous, unscriptural phrase, (the imputed righteousness of Christ,) which is so liable to be misinterpreted.”(Works 10:429, 430.)
It appears that a significant element within subsequent Methodism and Wesleyan thinking was hostile to IAO. Adam Clarke, a follower of Wesley remembered mainly for his Commentary on the whole Bible which took him 40 years to complete and which was a primary Methodist theological resource for two centuries, wrote in a letter in the early C19,
“My DEAR BROTHER Dunn, Jan. 21st, 1823.
I am quite of Mr. Wesley’s mind, that once “we leaned too much toward Calvinism,” and especially in admitting in any sense, the unscriptural doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ. I never use the distinction of righteousness imputed, righteousness imparted, righteousness practiced. In no part of the book of God is Christ’s righteousness ever said to be imputed to us for our justification; .and I greatly doubt whether the doctrine of Christ’s active obedience in our justification does not take away from the infinite merit of his sacrificial death….I have long thought that the doctrine of imputed righteousness, as held by certain people, is equally compounded of Pharisaism and Antinomianism. (Christian Theology, Adam Clarke, Pages 140-142).
Paton cites too, ‘The Student’s Handbook of Christian Theology‘, by Benjamin Field, published 1870,
This doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ is capable of great abuse. To say that Christ’s personal righteousness is imputed to every true believer, is not Scriptural: to say that he has fulfilled all righteousness for us, in our stead, if by this is meant his fulfillment of all moral duties, is neither Scriptural nor true; that~ he has died in our stead, is a great, glorious, and Scriptural truth; that there is no redemption but through his blood is asserted beyond all contradiction in the oracles of God. (The Student’s Handbook of Christian Theology‘ by , Benjamin Field, Pages 199, 201.)
Another citation of Paton’s is from the C20 Arminian work ‘ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY’ THOMAS N. RALSTON,
‘The Calvinistic theory of the basis for justification represents an opposite error from those already described. It affirms that the active obedience of Christ is so imputed to believers that they are as legally righteous as if they had been perfectly obedient to the law of God. In its extreme form it is antinomian. It rests on and is a part of the Calvinistic doctrine of imputation. It admits of no real forgiveness of the individual. When Christ’s obedience has been counted or imputed to the sinner as if he had done that obedience, then he is properly regarded as just because he is just. This is the theory in its advanced form. Those whom God declares to be righteous must first be made righteous in fact. In this theory justification is forensic in the strictest sense.
Imputation of righteousness to us in the sense that Christ obeyed the law of God in our stead and we therefore merit the reward of that obedience is not supported by the Scriptures, but is only an assumption of a certain class of theologians. Let us examine some of the texts chiefly relied upon for substantiation of this theory. “He shall be called, the Lord our righteousness” (Jer. 23: 6). It is said he shall be called our righteousness because he is our righteousness. Doubtless this is true. But in what sense is he our righteousness? He can be such only in the sense that he is the procurer of our righteousness or justification. “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous” (Roms. 5:19) Here again the words of the text furnish no conclusive proof of Calvinistic imputation. The question is, how does the obedience of Christ make many righteous? In our consideration of modal theories of native depravity, it has already been shown that the first part of this text can not mean many were made sinners by the imputation to them of the guilt of Adam’s sin. Through the passive obedience of Christ in suffering the death of the cross we are made righteous. This is taught in many other texts (John 10:17, 18; Phil. 2:8; Heb. 10: 10). Our justification is through the blood of Christ. No reason exists for supposing the text under consideration teaches anything more than that we are justified as a result of Christ’s obedience in dying to atone for our sins. Other texts assumed to support the theory under review are equally void of support of it as are those here cited.’ (ELEMENTS OF DIVINITY, THOMAS N. RALSTON, D.D., 1942 PAGES 377, 382; Find here)
Whether one agrees with Wesleyan theology or otherwise, it seems clear that IAO was viewed with some equivocation by John Wesley and denied by a good number of his heirs. Thus a large section of C18-20 evangelicalism (Methodism) had doubts about IAO.
C19
If Wesleyan Methodism mounted an evangelical challenge to IAO in the C18 then Plymouth Brethren did so in the C19. John Nelson Darby and William Kelly, fathers of both Christian Brethren and of dispensationalism, opposed IAO.
J N Darby, in one of a number of articles written in response to accusations regarding his view on justification writes,
What I deny is the doctrine that, while the death of Christ cleanses us from sin, His keeping the law is our positive righteousness; and that His keeping the law is imputed to us as ourselves under it, and that law-keeping is positive righteousness. I believe that Christ perfectly glorified God by obedience even unto death, and that it is to our profit, in that, while His death has canceled all our sins, we are accepted according to His present acceptance in God’s sight,…being held to be risen with Him, our position before God is not legal righteousness, or measured by Christ’s keeping the law, but His present acceptance, as risen…, and we accounted righteous according to the value of His resurrection [J. N. Darby, Collected Writings, vol.14, (Kingston-on-Thames, GB: Stow Hill Bible and Tract Depot, ND), p. 250].
William Kelly held the same view. While commenting on Roms 3:21-25 in ‘The righteousness of God: what is it?‘ he observes,
Here, then, we have the righteousness of God developed in the simplest and clearest way. It means that God is just, and justifies in virtue of Christ. He is just, because sin has been met in the cross: sin has been judged of God; it has been suffered and atoned for by Christ. More than that: the Lord Jesus has so magnified God, and so glorified His character, that there is a positive debt now on the other side. Instead of the obligation being, as it was, altogether on man’s side, who was accumulating that which never could be paid for by him, God now has interposed, and, having been so magnified in the man Christ Jesus in His death, He is now positively just when He justifies the soul that believes in Jesus. It is consequently the righteousness of God. For God is now approving Himself righteous to the claims of Christ. It is God now that owns and discharges His debt to Christ. Christ has undertaken the cause for God, and also for man. Very God, still He was a man; and it was in human nature, not before its assumption, that the wonderful work of atonement was done. The consequence is, although it was the witness of God’s love that He gave His own Son, and gave His Son to become a man and die for men, that now the scale is turned. The debt of man to destroy him is not so great as that which Christ has paid to deliver him. Scripture makes it a matter of God righteously justifying him that believes, in virtue of what Christ has suffered for sins. Thus nothing can be clearer or fuller, nothing more blessed and precious, than the meaning of this remarkable expression. It is, indeed, a priceless treasure. What Christ did, as living here, is not the point; or surely, where we have the great unfolding of divine righteousness was just the place to bring in what occupied Christ in His life, if it were the ground of this truth.
But I go further. Show me anywhere an unambiguous portion of the word of God, where His fulfilling of the law is treated as a part of the righteousness of God. You can produce none. I can tell you some of those Scriptures which, perhaps, you think about; but I affirm that there is no proof whatever. It is better to be plain about that which is certain. Let others venture to say, if they will, what can be contradicted; it were well, in such a case, not to speak at all. But really there is no Scripture which makes what Christ was doing as under law, — I will not say the exclusive ground, but — any ground at all, of God’s righteousness. Why not produce one?
… In Scripture, then, nothing can be more certain than that God’s righteousness means His justice in justifying by virtue of Christ. We have seen in Christ, as the ground of justification, first, blood to put away the guilt of the old man before God; and next, resurrection, the spring of a new, more abundant, and holy life, where no condemnation can be. “Ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.” And what do men substitute for this? A mere patching up of the old man as living under the law! Are you prepared to follow them? Can you accept this traditional earthly scheme as Christianity? It is really no better than lowering Christ, and His work for our justification, to a making up of the flesh’s deficiencies as responsible under the law.* Is this YOUR Christianity?’ (Find here.)
Neither Darby nor Kelly tended to mince their words, but then, neither did their antagonists. Subsequently, Darby’s views, on dispensationalism and other matters, played an important role in the development of C19/20 evangelicalism. While many mainline confessional Calvinistic churches in Europe and the States were leavened by liberalism it was those more fundamentalist churches influenced by dispensationalism that withstood this pressure.
Plymouth Brethren churches proliferated, particularly those of an ‘Open’ persuasion. They became, especially in the first half of the C20, a significant force and voice in evangelicalism as it then was. Most Brethren churches (assemblies) resisted IAO. Moreover, as Darby’s dispensationalism (itself an assault on the Covenant Theology on which IAO became predicated) spread in the evangelical world beyond, Brethren, not only in the UK, States and Australia but in Europe too (Darby translated Scripture into English, French and German) so too did questioning of IAO.
In the next blog on this topic, we will consider this influence on C20 evangelical theology. However, once again we see that significant dissident voices in the Protestant Evangelicalism of the C17-19 (people who founded whole evangelical denominations) either were uncomfortable with, or opposed IAO. Once again, the case for IAO being integral to evangelical orthodoxy is found wanting.
1 Response to “imputed active obedience (IAO), a must or a misdirection? (7)”