Send email with questions or comments on this writing to Matt1618 matt16182@yahoo.com
By Matt1618
One thing that is very important in this whole chapter, which is a weakness of this whole Protestant argument, is that not once is Jesus ever quoted in the gospel. Jesus spoke on salvation and how can one seriously argue that in justification, there is approximately 17-33 year or so gap between Jesus teaching and Paul's writing Scripture, that Jesus' own words can be ignored? It is a weakness for sure in Protestant theology on justification, that this 'classic' from a top Protestant apologist on justification doesn't even refer to Jesus' words at all. Jesus himself told his disciples to preach His gospel. Since Buchanan by inference admission this is not a Jesus teaching, what happened to those Christians who died between Jesus ascension, and those who did not have access to Paul's writing for 17-33 years after that ascension? Did people not know how to be justified and went to their death not knowing that an alien righteousness needed to be externally applied to their account? That is the inference by Buchanan's admission that Jesus didn't teach alien righteousness. In actuality, what Paul taught was not anything that was supposed to be different from what the disciples were told to teach, Matthew 28:20: 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. Jesus told them not only to believe, John 3:16, 5:24 but to enter life one must keep the commandments, Matthew 19:17, and the separation of the Sheep and the goats is based on how one treats one another, Matthew 25:31-46. One's eternal destiny is based on what one does and doesn't do, John 5:28-29, Mt. 12:36. One's own righteousness must exceed that of the Scribes and Pharisees, Mt. 5:20, and the Sermon on the Mount was the guide to salvation, Matthew 5-7. Absolutely no hint of Jesus' own alien righteousness imputed to one's account. This is proved by Buchanan's silence, with no care for Jesus' own words, no acknowledgement by what he terms the 'only grounds' of justification. However, with that said, Jesus did commission not only the other apostles to preach salvation, he did commission Paul as well. What Paul teaches can not be inconsistent with Jesus' teaching so Paul's examination of justification must be looked at. So, since Buchanan is the classic look at the reformed view of justification, I need to examine this to see if it is true. Since this analysis is long, I break up the analysis into two parts, Propositions XVI-XVII, this one, and a part 2, Propositions XVIII-XX which I will link to down at the bottom.
Now there are great differences between Protestant sects for sure on justification/salvation. Now, there are difference between Southern Baptists such as Leighton Flowers and other Protestants for example who has a web page termed Soteriology 101 and 'Reformed Baptists' such as James White, who along with famous Presbyterians such as RC Sproul, deny the use of free will in justification. On that web page Flowers talks about the danger of Calvinism and how it is unbiblical because it does not believe in free will for someone to choose God. Calvinism teaches that there is an irresistible will and God has a double predestination where he predestines some to hell. Flowers rightly criticizes Calvinism for saying that Jesus only died for a select few. Flowers and White, have had huge, sometimes ugly disagreements on issues directly dealing with justification and free will. Flowers has a popular you tube channel that focuses on the unbiblical nature of Calvinism's denial of Free will. Here is one example: Why James White is unbelievable. James White focuses on many things but he also responds in kind to Flowers. One example is here: Leighton Flowers on Romans 3. White calls him pretty much a Pelagian. However, Flowers does believe in faith alone, and that one can not lose salvation, and that is because of the imputed righteousness of Christ.
Norman Geisler, like Leighton Flowers, believes in Free Will, unlike those of the 'Reformed' camp. He also has serious disagreements with Calvinists such as White. However, on justification itself, he writes approvingly of the 'Reformed' view of an alien righteousness getting imputed to one's account as the basis for justification. For example, he writes:
The Reformers, however, recovered the biblical view of divine imputation of the alien righteousness of Christ to the believer and of forensic justification, that a person is legally declared righteous by God on the basis of faith alone. Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, MI, 1995, p. 248.
So though there are bitter disagreements between the different types of Baptists between those who believe in Free Will and those who do not, and other Protestants on both sides of the free will debate, there are many on both sides, who still agree that the basis for justification is an alien righteousness imputed to one's account and is the reason why faith alone is sufficient for justification from beginning to end. Because of this, one's holiness is only the basis for how many rewards one gets in heaven, not related to actually getting to heaven. Works and holiness just shows that one really is saved, as it demonstrates that one is justified, it is never actually the means to one's justification. Now, with that said, not all Protestants see justification in this fashion. Those such as those of the Assembly of God, Church of Christ, and other denominations do not believe that an alien righteousness imputed to your account is an irreversible means of justification. However, one is initially justified, many of these other Protestants do believe that one can lose salvation. So, in this paper, I will not be addressing all Protestant outlooks on justification. Many do not believe in eternal security. However, this view that I will look at and critique, is still a predominant view, especially in Protestant apologist circles.
Now, let us move on to the words of Buchanan's account of how one's righteousness is actually imputed to one's account and becomes the only basis on how one stands before God in judgment. I plan to interact with his statements once the arguments are actually made.
The Book, itself is 'The Doctrine of Justification', James Buchanan Students Reformed Theological Library, the Banner of Truth Trust, First Published, 1867, I have Reprint of 1997.
PROPOSITION XVI.
This lecture that I will comment on is from Lecture XII, pages 314-338. I will give his strongest arguments and Scriptures, and will respond as such. I will comment and analyze, page by page in the same order that this chapter/lecture is given.
After Buchanan gives introductory comments on what he terms erring outlooks on justification on page 314, he starts his arguments on page 315, from where I will quote from. Now one thing I tried to put the passages he is using with the Scriptures that he is quoting from, the book does give footnotes on some of the Scriptures that he is quoting from, and other quotations the book does not give a clear idea what the Scripture actually is. When I quote Buchanan, I do attempt to put the Scriptures where he is quoting from, although a few times it is not clear from the book itself. I quote from where his argument begins:
That righteousness is called in Scripture, 'the righteousness of God, 'the righteousness of Christ, ' - the 'righteousness of One, - 'the obedience of One,' -the 'free gift unto justification of life,'- 'the righteousness which is of, ' or 'by,' or 'through, faith,' - 'the righteousness of God without the law,' - and 'the righteousness which God imputes without works.' It will be found that, while these various expressions are descriptive of its different aspects and relations, they are all employed with reference to the SAME RIGHTEOUSNESS, - that there is one righteousness, in which they all find their common centre, as so many distinct rays converging towards the same focus, while each retains its distinctive meaning,- - -and that there is no other righteousness to which they can all be applied, or in which they can find their adequate explanation. Buchanan, p. 315.
The righteousness, which is the ground of a sinner's Justification, is denoted or described by various terms in Scripture, so that its nature may be determined by simply comparing these terms with one another; and then ascertaining whether there be any righteousness to which they are all equally applicable, and in which they all coincide, in the fulness of their combined meaning.
So here Buchanan just throws a bunch of phrases and terms from Scripture as giving an introduction to point out what he hopes to prove. In my opinion just throwing a bunch of phrases together without giving any context to the background from where these phrases are coming from is not impressive, but lazy. He does say that there are many rays, so he hopes to show they will point to the alien righteousness of Christ being applied to the believer as the only basis of justification. We will see.
It is called, preeminently and emphatically, 'The righteousness of God.' By this name it is distinguished from the righteousness of man, and even contrasted with it, as a ground of Justification. It is brought in as a divine righteousness, only when all human righteousness has been shut out. The Apostle first proves that 'by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin;' Rom. 3:20 and then introduces another righteousness altogether, 'But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifest, . . .even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ.' 1 Rom. 3:22. He contrasts the two great revelations- - -the revelation of wrath, which is by the Law, and the revelation of righteousness, which is by the Gospel: 'For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men:' Rom. 1:18 but 'the Gospel of Christ is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth', Rom. 1:16. . .or 'therein is the righteousness of God revealed.' Rom. 1:17 2 Buchanan, p. 315-316.
Now, remember he starts from the premise that there is an alien righteousness applied to one's account and that we ourselves, even with God's grace, are unable to meet God's standard, even as children of God. God can't make us righteous is the whole premise. That is how he comes to read this in Romans 3:20, and extrapolates to vs. 22, that now he is somehow pointing to a foreign righteousness. In order to come up with this premise he must ignore Romans 2 and specifically Romans 8, as well as the in-between chapters. Why do I say that? Well, let us look what Paul had just written in the previous chapter. I will point this out, then come back on how to give the proper interpretation of Romans 3:20, 22. Paul had just written this in the very previous chapter, in Chapter 2, Paul wrote approvingly of the fact that there will be doers of the law. However, unlike Romans 3:20 where he says one can not keep the deeds of the law, he in fact wrote in the previous chapter that one will get to heaven based on keeping the law. However, the difference in Romans 2, he does not use the term 'deeds of the law' as he used in Romans 3:20, he specifically refers back to the kindness, forbearance and patience of God, in v.4, which means God's beneficence, and grace which is the backdrop for the following verses.
Romans 2:6-7, 10, 13, 25-29
6 For he will render to every man according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;
So here, unlike Buchanan who said that one's righteousness has nothing to do with justification, Paul on the contrary writes that under God's grace, found in v. 4, that righteousness under God's grace can keep the law, it is not law in and of itself. Doers of the law will be justified but how? Paul is drawing Romans 2:6 from Psalm 62:12:
10 but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.
13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.
25 Circumcision indeed is of value if you obey the law; but if you break the law, your circumcision becomes uncircumcision. 26 So, if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision? 27 Then those who are physically uncircumcised but keep the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision but break the law. 28 For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. 29 He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal. His praise is not from men but from God. Also unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy: for thou renderest to every man according to his work.
Notice, just as Paul writes that judgment is based on judgment of works, but it is a judgment based on mercy. That exactly fits the background to Romans 2:6 the works are based on a judgment which God looks through the prism of mercy here in Psalm 62:12, and the kindness, forbearance and patience in Rom. 2:4. So here the judgment is not based on strict law.
Next, v. 7 Glory and honor for those who 'do good'. It is specifically the person's own righteousness which will be judged, and one will make eternal life based on the grace empowered good deeds. In v. 10 Paul writes that those who receive glory honor and peace on those who do good, both Greek and Gentile. Then he says the doers of the law will be justified, v. 13 (under the realm of kindness and mercy, v. 4). Not that they can not. Paul specifically points out this is doable for the Gentile believers, who do not go by the 'written code', the Jewish law. Paul specifically says the physically uncircumcised will keep the law. So there is a law which will be kept. Verses 25-29 show Gentiles can keep the law, of course under the realm of grace, circumcised of the heart. Paul gives no hint at all in Chapter 2, that this is merely a fantasy or hypothetical, but actual, and people will be justified in this manner, not by faith alone.
So did Paul just forget what he wrote in Romans 2, when he mentioned in Romans 3:20 that no one can keep the 'deeds of the law'? Deeds of the law, or in the RSV, 'works of the law' is a specific term that he is excluding from salvation, not the grace empowered keeping of the law that he reiterated time after time in Romans 2. Right after writing that the Gentiles can be justified in Romans 2:25-29 that we just saw, he attacks the Jewish arrogance in Romans 3. They did have the advantage of being given the Old Covenant, circumcision and the oracles of God, but Paul's whole point in chapter three, that though they have certain advantages, all are under sin. Just being born Jew, did not detach you from sin. All are under the bondage of sin, and need grace to get out of its bondage. Being born a Jew did not make you righteous, in and of itself, Rom. 3:9-14. Now Paul does write no one is righteous no not one, in Romans 3:9-14, however, it must be looked at in context. If Paul meant no one can be righteous he'd be contradicting what he just wrote in chapter 2. Paul writes the following, Rom. 3:9-14:
9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all; for I have already charged that all men, both Jews and Greeks, are under the power of sin, 10 as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands, no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside, together they have gone wrong; no one does good, not even one." 13 "Their throat is an open grave, they use their tongues to deceive." "The venom of asps is under their lips." 14 "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
Just being a Jew does not make you righteous. That is how Romans 3:9 leads into Romans 3:10-13. The sinner, be it Greek or Jew, needs God's grace. That is all he is saying. He does not mean that one can not be righteous, otherwise he just contradicted what he wrote in Romans 2. Paul is showing that Jews are just as prone to sin as Greeks. That does not mean that one in Christ can not be righteous. When he quotes Romans 3:10 about no one is righteous no not one, he is quoting from Psalm 14:3. Let us take a look at the Psalm that Paul is taking this from. As an inspired writer, Paul would not contradict Psalm 14 where he draws this from. The larger context from this statement is Psalm 14:1-7:
1: The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good. 2: The LORD looks down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there are any that act wisely, that seek after God. 3: They have all gone astray, they are all alike corrupt; there is none that does good, no, not one. 4: Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call upon the LORD? 5: There they shall be in great terror, for God is with the generation of the righteous. 6: You would confound the plans of the poor, but the LORD is his refuge. 7: O that deliverance for Israel would come out of Zion! When the LORD restores the fortunes of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, Israel shall be glad.
We thus see in this Psalm that David is not speaking about all people worldwide not being able to be righteous. David is talking specifically about 'fools' who in their heart who say that there is no God. He is also talking of 'evildoers.' They do not seek after God. All people who do abominable deeds, who don't seek after God, of course are not righteous. That is where Paul is drawing this from. Even if one is a Jew, they can do abominable deeds, and even reject God. Of course, even Jews can be that way, and none of those people are righteous. He is specifically speaking about evildoers. He is not saying all people are evildoers. Because we see him go to verse 4, where he says that those unrighteous evildoers, eat up my people. Who are my people? These are people that do not say, 'there is no God.' These people do not get corrupted. He then says in verse 5, that God is with the 'generation of the righteous.' Thus, the people who Paul is referencing, are in contrast to those who are righteous. Thus, there are righteous people, but being born a Jew doesn't make one righteous. Paul eventually shows us that all of us need God's grace to make us righteous, to make us like the people of Psalm 14:4-5, not Psalm 14:1-3. Paul does the very same thing in Romans 3:13. He quotes Psalm 5:9, where it says 'their throat is an open grave, they use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips'. However, we see in the very same Psalm, 5:11-12:
11: But let all who take refuge in thee rejoice, let them ever sing for joy; and do thou defend them, that those who love thy name may exult in thee. 12: For thou dost bless the righteous, O LORD; thou dost cover him with favor as with a shield.
Now Protestants who cling to the idea that Paul really means no one can be righteous has Paul not only contradicting himself in chapter 2, but has Paul totally distorting the Scriptures he is pulling this from. Those who are in God's grace can be righteous as elaborated on in Romans 2. Here he is highlighting just being a Jew doesn't make you righteous in God's eyes. However, now we move on to Romans 3:20 where he says no one can be justified by the 'deeds of the law', or 'works of the law.' Sometimes it refers to circumcision like in Romans 3:28. However, here it includes the moral law because the law is about sin. With this background we can now look at what Buchanan points to, Romans 3:20-24:
20 For no human being will be justified in his sight by works of the law, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. 21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction; 23 since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,
Paul here is not writing that one can not keep the law, but just that the law gives no power. Law just make men aware of the sin, but gives no power to keep it. Since law gives no power or grace, there is no capability of keeping it. Paul had pointed that we can keep the law when we rely on God's grace, without it we can't keep it. All have sinned and fall short of the glory, but the redemption comes in Christ Jesus to rescue us from its bondage. It is not a righteousness that is extrinsic to us, but it comes inside of us, by His grace.
Now to show that though law in and of itself saves no one, but not done away with in justification as Paul specifically wrote in Romans 2, Paul elaborates even more explicitly in Romans 8:2-4:
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set me free from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.
Notice specifically Paul writes that the law of the Spirit is in the New Covenant, the law, in and of itself, is weak, has no power to deal with sin. However, with the Holy Spirit believers can and must meet the just requirement of the law. It is fulfilled in believers, so no the law though is not the means of grace, is not done away with, and there is still a law that we must live by, it is the law of the Holy Spirit. The rest of Romans 8 shows that we must not be led by the flesh or we will die. By the Holy Spirit we must fight the flesh, Rom. 8:12-13 in order to achiever eternal life. Paul also writes that we must love, and if we love we fulfill the law, Romans 13:8-10. So, the idea that our own righteousness, infused into us by His Holy Spirit can not be righteous in God's eyes, has been shown to be false.
Buchanan continues in his attempt to show that our righteousness even empowered by God's grace is useless in reference to justification before God, by referring to Paul in attempting to show that, specifically in Philippians 3:8:
And, in his own case, he renounces his own personal righteousness altogether, as the ground of his acceptance and hope: 'That I may win Christ, and be found in Him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith.' 3(Phil 3:8) The two righteousnesses are not only distinct, but different; and not only different, but directly opposed, and mutually exclusive, considered as grounds of Justification; insomuch that he who is justified by the one, cannot possibly be justified by the other. If the righteousness of man be sufficient, the righteousness of God is superfluous; if the righteousness of God be necessary, the righteousness of man can have no place. Nor can any conciliation or compromise be effected between them, so as to admit of their being combined in one complex ground of acceptance; for they represent two methods of Justification which are irreconcilably opposed. Buchanan, 316.
Buchanan's assessment of this passage, is that he is pointing to a foreign, and Christ's righteousness is necessary because one's own righteousness is useless, in reference to justification. Let us look at the Philippians 3:8-14 passage in context:
8 Indeed I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as refuse, in order that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith; 10 that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 that if possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead. 12 Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect; but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. 13 Brethren, I do not consider that I have made it my own; but one thing I do, forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
Paul does write that having a righteousness based on the law is worth nothing before Christ. Righteousness that has its source the law indeed does not avail. That matches what he wrote in Romans 3. The system of law indeed saves nobody. The system of grace supplants the system of law. Paul had earlier mentioned how he tried to live by the law as an observant Pharisee, where he attempted to in effect earn salvation (Phil. 3:4-7). He now sees that attempt to gain salvation as rubbish (v. 8). In the immediate context in Phil. 3, we see references for the need to persevere. The righteousness that comes through faith in Christ is vastly better and sufficient to bring salvation. The law wasn't able to to do that.
The verses following 8 and 9 show indeed that salvation is a future event. He writes that through faith he may know him. Future tense. Yes, Paul knows him now, but it is still a quest to know him in the future (v. 10). In Paul's mind, this is not guaranteed for him. He must strive to attain the power of his resurrection (v. 10). Paul then writes that he wants to share in his suffering (v. 11). What is the purpose of sharing in his suffering? More rewards in heaven? No. Paul had written in Rom. 8:17 that we would be heirs to be with Christ, provided we suffer with him. Here in Philippians he lays down the same condition. We must imitate Christ. so if possible (v. 11) he may attain the resurrection of the dead. If justification is merely a one-time past event where one's salvation is secure, Paul's letter makes absolutely no sense. He spells out not only the salvific efficacy of suffering here (as in Rom. 8:17), but also writes that if possible, he may obtain the resurrection from the dead. It is clearly no guarantee at all. Phil. 3 does not fit Buchanan's theory of an imputation of an alien righteousness of Christ where one's salvation is set in stone, totally falls by the wayside, when Paul's uses the words if possible. Paul follows this up in v. 12 by writing that he has not already attained this or am already perfect. He is not perfect in any sense yet. However, if Paul had attained perfection through Christ's imputed righteousness, he would indeed have achieved perfection. Paul could have written, "practically we sin all the time, but positionally we are perfect". However, Paul does not write this. Instead, he sees his own salvation as something to strive for. He writes that he needs to achieve the end of attaining this resurrection from the dead by making it his own (v. 12). He must press on in order to achieve this and reach for attaining this goal (vv. 13-14). Here he is applying his concept spelled out earlier of working out his salvation with fear and trembling, Philippians 2:12-16. In Phil 2 besides saying one must work it out through the grace of God and His good pleasure, Paul wrote in order to achieve salvation one must hold fast to the word of life, Phil. 2:16. So contrary to Buchanan, this passage destroys the concept of imputation.
Buchanan continues:
- -the one by grace, the other by works: 'For to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt; but to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness ' 4 (Romans 4:4-5) 'And if by grace, then is it no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace: but if it be of works, then is it no more grace, otherwise work is no more work. ' 5, Rom. 11:6. Buchanan, pp. 316-317.
Paul here specifically mentions the kind of works that do not save, that would also apply to both the Romans 4 passage and 11:6 quote above. I have written extensively on this passage but here I want to be a tad briefer, taken from my article on Romans 4. Romans 4 - Justification, Abraham and David -Imputation or Process??
Notice the category of works in Romans 4:4 which Paul specifically says will not justify. That where one earns a wage. 'Now to one who works, his wages are not reckoned as a gift but as his due.' Specifically note that the category which Paul goes on to say that does not justify is where thus, one puts God in a employee- employer relationship. As though one just works, and God owes him something. Paul categorically condemns this. Salvation is not our due: It must be noted, though, that Paul specifically does use the term wages in a positive sense, in Galatians 6:8-9, where it says the wages of faithful good works is eternal life (Gal. 6:8-9). However, the context in Galatians, as in Romans, speak of good works done in God's grace, in the context of a Father-Son relationship (Rom. 8:14-17, Gal. 4:4-7). Those are not wages in a strict sense. Those are instances where God rewards faithfulness. However, it was not that we obligate God. He rewards based on him looking through his eyes of grace, not, because he owes us. In Romans 4 on the other hand Paul specifically contrasts the concept of wage, as an obligation, or due, to gift, in the sense that we do not have the right to tell God "You owe us salvation." The Catholic Church likewise condemns and does not tolerate the idea that one earns salvation as though God owes us. Whatever we have, is truly a gift from God. God is not a debtor. Paul and the Catholic Church condemns in Romans 4:2-4 the idea of a employee-employer relationship where one earns salvation as though God must fork over salvation because of our works. Instead, we are in a Father-Son relationship (Gal. 4:4-7, Rom. 8:14-17, Heb. 12:5-12). It is not our due. It is exclusively God's grace and beneficence that justifies us before God. The Catholic Church and Paul recognize this. The only way that we can be justified before God is when He looks at us through the eyes of grace, and not law. If He looks at us through the eyes of law, we will be condemned. If we are in a Father-Son relationship, he looks at us through grace. When our works are looked through God's eyes of grace, God does reward because of his beneficence.
This is the way to reconcile the different passages throughout Romans. Works of law do not save. Because God is a loving Father, he sees us through the eyes of grace, and empowers us to keep the law of the Spirit noted in Romans 8:2, which was also the way that Paul is referring to fulfilling the law through Romans 2. However, this justification is an ongoing process, not a once and for all act.
Buchanan refers to Romans 5 extensively in his next attempt to show the need for an extrinsic righteousness:
In like manner, this righteousness is called 'the righteousness of One,' and 'the obedience of One;' 10 (Rom. 5:18-19)- - -expressions which serve at once to connect it with the work of Christ, and to exclude from it the personal obedience of the many who are justified. It is called 'the free gift unto justification of life,' and 'the gift of righteousness,' 11 (Rom. 5:17-18) to show that it is bestowed gratuitously by divine grace, and not acquired by our own obedience. It is called 'the righteousness which is of faith,' or 'the righteousness which is by faith,' both to distinguish it from faith itself, and also to contrast it with another righteousness which is not received by faith, but 'sought for as it were by the works of the law.' 12(Rom. 3:30) It is called 'the righteousness of God without the law,' 13 (Rom. 9:32) to intimate that, while it was 'witnessed by the law and the prophets,' 14 (Rom. 3:31) and while, as 'a righteousness,' it must have some relation to the unchangeable rule of rectitude, it was above and beyond what the law could provide, since it depends, not on personal, but on vicarious obedience. And it is called the righteousness 'which God imputes without works,' to show that it is 'reckoned of grace,' and not 'of debt,' - - that 'God justifies the ungodly' 15 (Romans 4:6, 11; Romans 4:4-5) by placing this righteousness to their account, - -and that He makes it theirs, because it was wrought out for them by Him, 'who was delivered for their offences, and rose again for their Justification.' (Rom. 4:25) All these expressions relate to one and the same righteousness- - -the only righteousness which God has revealed for the Justification of sinners,- - -they are all applicable to the vicarious righteousness of Christ,- - -and they serve, by their very diversity, to exhibit it in all its various aspects and relations, and to exclude every other righteousness from the ground of our pardon and acceptance, since there is no other to which all these terms can possibly be applied. Buchanan, pp. 319-320.
In the second part of this section he repeats things about God justifying the ungodly. In actuality, when he justifies the ungodly, he cleanses. In Romans 4:5-7, he talks about justifying the ungodly., his example is David. David had sinned with Bathsheba, as referred to back in 2 Samuel 11. Romans 4 specifically refers to Psalm 32. He had through his sin with Bathsheba, made himself ungodly. However, he repented of the sin, 2 Samuel 12, and through repentance brought back into grace, and became godly again.
Now to the first part of this section somehow Buchanan thinks obedience and grace infused righteousness has nothing to do with justification before God and he refers to Romans 5:17-19 to prove that. Let us see if it implies an imputed, foreign righteousness.
Romans 5:17-19 17 If, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. 18 Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous.
Now Calvinists believe that man is totally depraved. Catholics believe we are not depraved, but still bent towards sin. We need the grace of God to rescue us from sin's bondage. We are not declared but ontologically unjust before God. Death reigns through the disobedience of Adam. What does God do here? The Calvinist says there is no ontological change in justification, but Paul says by Jesus' obedience one is actually made righteous. The believer reigns in life and is not covered over. In order to be ontologically righteous, obedience and personal righteousness is essential to this despite Buchanan's objection.
Let us see where next Paul goes:
Romans 6:3-7
3 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. 5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 We know that our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed, and we might no longer be enslaved to sin. 7 For he who has died is freed from sin.
Specifically after mentioning how through Christ, the sin of Adam is undone, Paul specifically cites baptism as the means of putting on Christ and walking the newness of life. Although my focus on this paper is not baptism, for the purposes here in relation to what justification does, it is notable that when one is united with Christ, one destroys the sinful body, so that we are not enslaved to sin. Thus, justification is not merely a covering of sin, but an ontological change in the character of the person. Thus, an infusion of grace is foundational to what justification is. Justification is transformative. It is not merely a nice effect, but this transformation is causative. Some Protestants will say, well, Romans 6 is only about sanctification. Well, true, it is about sanctification, but justification and sanctification can not be separated, as Paul specifically shows here in this passage in Romans 6. We can not be enslaved to sin, and be a justified person. If one becomes entangled in sin again, by definition, the person becomes unjustified. Paul points out that he who has died to sin (justified), is freed from sin. Although the RSV translates the word as freed from sin, as Sungenis notes in his book, the word dikiao, can be translated as justified from sin. This is the exact same word that is translated in Romans 4 as justified. Robert Sungenis notes that
Paul chose to use the word 'justified' in Romans 6:7, the same word he used singularly in reference to God 'justifying the ungodly' in Romans 4:5. In other words, in Romans 6:7 Paul understands and is using the term 'justification' as a synonym for sanctification. Robert Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone p. 344.
This shows again that Romans 4 can not possibly be seen merely as a forensic justification. Buchanan, the apologist for the Sola Fide earlier in this same book wrote that: A proof of the forensic or judicial sense of the term 'Justification' is supplied by those equivalent expressions, which are sometimes substituted for it, and which serve to explain it. If these expressions cannot imply infusion of righteousness, but denote merely either the forgiveness of sin, or the acceptance of the sinner, they show that Justification denotes a change in his judicial relation to God, and not a change in his moral or spiritual character. It is expressly described as the 'imputation of righteousness' Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness, Buchanan, p. 231.
Buchanan's and the Sola Fide thesis, falls by the wayside. In fact, Justification does denote a change in his moral and spiritual character, and an infusion of righteousness, as this section (Rom. 6:3-7) shows. As sanctification is an ongoing process depending upon cooperation with God's grace, so is justification. So, the very passage that Buchanan pointed to not only does not provide proof for his view of justification being an exterior imputation, but an interior transformation of righteousness.
This righteousness,- - - being the merit of a work, and not a mere quality of character,- - - may become ours by being imputed to us, but cannot be communicated by being infused; and must ever continue to belong primarily and, in one important respect, exclusively to Him by whom alone that work was accomplished. Buchanan, p. 320
This proposition, as we've seen in Romans 5 and 6 has an absolute false premise. Justification by Romans 6:7 shows it is a freedom from sin.
In this proposition Buchanan makes three assertions that we'll look at one by one:
These are bold statements, and may seem to imply a denial of the doctrine, as well as a criticism on the term, by which it has been usually expressed; but we refer at present only to the latter. Every reader of his English Bible, without the aid of critical scholarship, may discover, - - - and it has never been denied, so far as we know, by any competent divine, - - that the verbs in question are applicable to cases, in which that which is imputed to any one was personally his own beforehand, - - that one man, for instance, who is righteous, is reckoned and treated as righteous; and that another man who is wicked, is reckoned and treated as wicked. But the question is, Whether the same verbs may not be equally applicable to other cases, in which that which is imputed to him was not personally his. . . 'He, who knew no sin, was made sin for us,' 2 Cor. 5:20 and 'bore our sins in His own body on the tree,' 1 Pet. 2:24 - - -not that our sins were chargeable against Him personally or previously, but they became His by imputation on God's part, and voluntary susception on His own. If it be said, that the mere word 'impute' is not employed in this case, it may be asked, whether there be any other which could more accurately express the fact, if it be a fact; and whether the word itself is not used in a parallel case, when God is said 'to impute righteousness without works,' as often as 'He justifieth the ungodly?' 17 Rom. 4:5. Indeed, Justification consists partly in the 'non- - -imputation' of sin, which did belong personally to the sinner, and partly in the 'imputation' of righteousness, of which he was utterly destitute before; and the meaning of the one may be ascertained from the meaning of the other, while both are necessary to express the full meaning of Justification. We conclude, therefore, that the righteousness of Christ, - - being the merit of a work done and finished, - - may be imputed for the Justification of His people, but cannot possibly be infused. Buchanan, pp. 321-323. It is affirmed, first, that the righteousness which is the ground of Justification, being the merit of a work, undertaken and accomplished by Christ on behalf of His people, may become theirs by being imputed to them, or reckoned to their account. This statement could scarcely be denied, if the merit of His work, done and finished 'once for all' (ejfa>pax), were duly distinguished from an inherent and abiding quality of His personal character; and if that work were really regarded as having been undertaken and accomplished, on the behalf of others, by one acting as their substitute and surety. For the merit of one can never, in any case, become available for the benefit of others, except when it is imputed to them; it cannot, from the very nature of the case, become theirs by infusion. The merit of one may be reckoned, or put down to the account of another; but how can the merit of any work be infused, as a personal property, as holiness may unquestionably be? But when we affirm that the righteousness of Christ, or the merit of His Mediatorial work, may become ours by being imputed to us, we are met with a counter- - -statement to the effect,- - -not that there was no merit in His work, or that His work was not accomplished on behalf of others, which are the only important elements in the case- - -but that biblical criticism forbids the use of the term 'impute,' except when it is applied to personal properties and acts. 'There is not in all the Scriptures,' says one, 'an instance in which one man's sin or righteousness is said to be imputed to another. . . There is not in all the Bible one assertion that Adam's sin, or Christ's righteousness, is imputed to us; nor one declaration that any man's sin is ever imputed by God or man to another man. . . Having followed (the Hebrew and Greek verbs) through the concordances, I hesitate not to challenge a single example which is fairly of this nature in all the Bible.' (Appendix 2)
Actually, again these passages show that in justification there is a moral character change in justification. The person he is contending is with is indeed right about there is nothing in Scripture that points to someone laying to an account, something that is not actually true. Buchanan gives only a forensic change idea, not actually found in the passages that he gives. Now, let us look at the passages that he quotes in response to his opponent's assertion that imputation which shows a transference of a legal righteousness of righteousness without a change in character. is without foundation. The other thing is, since Buchanan sees it only as a forensic and permanent exchange that can never be lost, it would absolutely need to show that this legal exchange is permanent, does not show a change in character, and is not subject to losing that status. It is important to look at the context to see this. Let us look at the context of the 2 Cor. 5:17-6:2 passage, he only highlights part of 2 Cor. 5:21. I will italicize the part of the passage that he highlights.
2 Cor. 5:17-6:2
17 Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. 18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 2 Corinthians 6 - 1 Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain. 2 For he says, "At the acceptable time I have listened to you, and helped you on the day of salvation." Behold, now is the acceptable time; behold, now is the day of salvation.
Paul gives us here the grounds and means of being reconciled with God. First, we are not merely cloaked, covered with Christ's righteousness being imputed to our account. Buchanan says, justification is not dependent upon Christ's righteousness being infused to the account.
Paul calls new believers, ontologically, new creations, v.17. This is not to say that believers are not tempted to do evil, and even sometimes do evil. However, as Paul writes elsewhere, we really can crucify the deeds of the flesh (Rom. 8:13, Gal. 5:16, 24). Those who are in Christ are not merely covered up with Christ's righteousness, but Christ's righteousness makes one really new creations. (Also, see Rom. 5:19). God's righteousness is thus infused to the person. Paul also speaks in v. 18 (of 2nd Cor. 5) being a minister of reconciliation. Thus, he alludes to the sacrament of reconciliation (or penance) (v. 18) that Jesus established in the gospel (John 20:22-23). Through this ministry that Paul speaks of, people are forgiven their sins (v. 19).
Paul in v. 20, writes of the ongoing necessity of being reconciled to God. Thus, there is by no means a merely one time reconciliation with God, and you are set for life, as Buchanan preaches. After mentioning how people are reconciled to God by being new creations, Paul specifically writes to believers who are Christians "be reconciled to God." This plea that Paul makes has no sense if justification is merely a one-time event. Paul should write, "you are already reconciled to God, and your future sins are already forgiven, just do good to increase your sanctification, and more rewards in heaven." Instead he tells Corinthian believers that though they have been reconciled in the past, they also need to be reconciled with God on an ongoing basis. Being reconciled with God, at least according to the Apostle Paul, is an ongoing process.
Buchanan neither quotes the verses before or after this verse, which shows Paul writing of the necessity of constantly being reconciled with God, or the following verses which speak of the possibility of receiving the grace of God in vain. If one is forensically imputed with Christ's righteousness, it would be impossible to receive God's grace in vain. On the contrary, nowhere in the text is the word impute even used. First, it does not say that our sins are imputed to Christ. Second, there is no hint in this passage that Christ's righteousness is imputed to our account.
What does v. 21 actually teach on the matter? It does not say that Christ became imputed with sin. He became a sin offering. As Robert Sungenis notes, there are parallels which notes that this is a sin offering. For example, Paul calls Christ elsewhere a sin offering (Eph. 5:2, Heb. 7:27), a propitiation (Rom. 3:25), and a sacrifice (1 Cor. 5:7, Heb. 9:28). Sungenis, p-106, footnote 102. Paul writes in Rom. 8:3-4 that God sent
"His own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." Paul wrote earlier in the context of Christ being a sin offering that we meet the righteous requirement of the law by us walking according to the Spirit. Something we do. Not something Christ does by imputing his righteousness. He puts his righteousness into our life. That is exactly what Paul is speaking of also in 2 Cor. 5:21. Buchanan's interpretation contradicts Paul's earlier understanding of Rom. 8:2-4 on the same subject.
Another very relevant point is if even if we granted that the first clause of v. 21 "Christ became sin for us" is to be interpreted (as Buchanan does) as Christ actually becoming imputed with our sin, it does not necessarily follow that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to our account for our justification. In fact, the surrounding context belies that interpretation. The second clause of the verse (that has to do with righteousness) is so that "we might become the righteousness of God." The word might become is very important, as it says that it is a possibility, not a guarantee. If one was automatically guaranteed an imputed righteousness as the grounds of our justification , there would be no might. However, the inspired writer Paul writes that one might become the righteousness of God. Thus, it is conditional upon our continuing reconciliation with God, (vv. 18-20). In fact, this whole section of 2 Cor. 5 & 6 shows that there are impediments that believers might allow to happen that will in fact interrupt our relationship with God.
How might we become the righteousness of God (infused, not imputed)? Paul answers in the very following verses by writing that (6:1) "Working together with him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain". Thus, to maintain this righteousness we must work together with God. And we must do this or else we can actually accept his grace in vain. Again, Paul demands for salvation, grace not only does not exclude, but actually demands that we work together with him, in order for this not to be in vain. Salvation is a 'now' (6:2), not a past time event. The whole section (2 Cor. 5:17-6:2) shows not that salvation is not merely a punctiliar event, but a process, where Christ makes us righteous, and we must cooperate with God for our salvation.
St. Augustine gives a good summary of the section including 2 Cor. 5:21 when he writes: -"That we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. This is not the righteousness whereby God is himself righteous, but that whereby we are made righteous by him" (Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter, ch. 31, Schaff, NPNF, First Series, Vol. 5, p. 97).
The other passage Buchanan pointed to that supposedly shows imputation is only part of 1 Pet. 2:24, where Jesus is said to bear our sins. He leaves out the rest of the verse:
He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed.
Buchanan distinctly only quoted the italicized part of 1 Pet. 2:24. Bore our sins. However, this is not Jesus being charged with sin, it is that Jesus is a sin offering, the other passages that use that exact term shows it means a sin offering not that Jesus is being charged with sin. Notice where he cuts it off in his attempt to say no infusion. He leaves out the very purpose of His sacrifice, not so that we get our sins covered over with an external righteousness, but that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. The purpose is to make us free from sin. That specific passage points us to infusion of grace, absolutely nothing to do with a foreign righteousness being imputed to us. So, His purpose was to make us free from sin, exactly as noted in Romans 6:1-7, justification 'from sin', Rom. 6:7, as already shown. The quotation is a reference to Isaiah 53 which clearly shows that Christ is a sin offering. Our righteousness is the very purpose of his death. Not anything about being covered over with a foreign righteousness. Now, in reference to the term 'bore' sins it points to be a sin offering:
Sungenis notes:
In 1 Pet. 2:24, the Greek word for bore is a sacrificial term referring to (e.g. Christ as a "sin offering" to God. It appears ten times in the New Testament in contexts of "lifting up" or "offering sacrifice" (e.g. Hebrews 7:27; 9:28; 13:15; 1 Pet. 2:5; Mt. 17:1, Mark 9:2; Luke 24:51) Buchanan, p. 106, footnote 102.
I pull up Strong's Concordance, the Greek word 'anaphero' (399) is the term used 'to take up (lit or fig.): - - bear, bring, (carry, lead) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Greek Dictionary of the New Testament, p. 12. Absolutely nothing about our sins being transferred to Christ, and by some inference his righteousness transferred over to us legally. Instead the whole point of this is that Christ died, to make us free from sin's bondage, as expressed by Jesus himself in John 8:32-36, and as Paul wrote the purpose of his death was to cleanse us from all iniquity, Titus 2:11-14.
Also, Buchanan's conclusion that since Paul wrote he justified the ungodly means that it is an imputation of righteousness is a stretch. When Paul writes that one can justify the ungodly in Rom. 4:5, he is not talking about people who are ontologically remaining ungodly, though they attempt to be righteous, they still really remain ungodly, and need to be covered over with an alien righteousness. Paul does not write that at all. Peter's reference is just as Paul who writes that in justification, one who is 'made righteous' (Rom. 5:19. 6:1-7). So, it is indeed infused, not imputed.
Buchanan then goes to his second assertion:
It is affirmed, secondly, that the righteousness of Christ, to be available for the benefit of His people, must become theirs by imputation, and not by infusion. Most of the leading errors on the subject of Justification may be traced to obscure or defective views in regard to the nature or import of imputation, and have arisen from supposing- - -either that it consists in the infusion of moral qualities, in which case Justification is confounded with Sanctification- - -or that, in so far as imputation may be distinguished from such infusion, it is founded, at least, on the moral qualities which thus become inherent, in which case Justification has for its immediate ground a personal, and not a vicarious, righteousness. Buchanan, p. 323.
Buchanan calls it an error to link sanctification to justification as his grounds to deny infusion. It is not an error, sanctification is the grounds of justification as noted by Paul himself. We just saw this in Buchanan's ironic referral to Romans 5:19, where justification was referred to being 'made righteous.' A couple of other passages show this reality which Buchanan terms as errors.
Paul writes how one is justified:
Titus 3:5-7
5 he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit , 6 which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.
So here Paul is talking about how we are initially justified, so we can eventually attain eternal life. We do not work our way into justification, but look how it is only by God's mercy that we are washed by regeneration of course it points to baptismal regeneration, but it says that renewal by the Holy Spirit so that we can be justified. So, it is regeneration that makes it so one can be justified. So, the only way that one can be justified is by having the washing of regeneration and by the Holy Spirit. It is the cause of that justification. Those who are justified have a 'hope' of eternal life. Not a guarantee. There is thus no justification without infusion. So, contrary to Buchanan, that is not an error. If justification was an irreversible external imputation, that would be the cause of it and it would not be a hope, but a guarantee.
This matches where Paul writes that if Christians commit mortal sins they will not inherit the kingdom of heaven, he calls them back to how they were initially justified.
1 Cor. 6:9-11
9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
Just as Paul wrote that one is washed, as mentioned in Titus 3:5, infused by the washing and renewal in the Holy Spirit, one is washed and sanctified and only then justified. Regardless of whether you think that it is baptism or not, (and it does speak to baptism), washing means cleansing, and one is sanctified, and only then is one justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. This is after warning of sins that can cause one to no longer be justified (verses 9-10). It is a reminder that one was washed and justified. He gave a list of sins where if one commits those sins, one will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. So, if one becomes unclean, one will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. Paul is reminding them of the original cleansing, calling them back to holiness exactly because sanctification is tied to one's justified status. So, despite Buchanan's assertion, it is an error to separate sanctification from justification.
Despite those errors Buchanan presses on:
The only effectual way of striking at the root of these prevailing and pernicious errors, is by forming distinct and definite conceptions of what is really meant by the general doctrine of Imputation, whether in regard to sin or to righteousness; and the likeliest means of doing so seems to be,- - -to take the three cases of Imputation which have been affirmed by divines to have the express sanction of Scripture,- - -namely, that of the guilt of Adam's first sin to his posterity,- - -that of the guilt of our sins to Christ as our substitute,- - -and that of His righteousness to us as the immediate ground of our Justification;- - -to compare them with one another,- - -to eliminate whatever is peculiar to each of them,- - -and to frame our general idea of imputation by including in it only what is common to them all; for as each of the three is a specific example of the same generic class, we may hope, by means of this process of comparison and abstraction, to arrive at a correct result, and to retain whatever is essential to the nature of imputation, while we exclude only what is peculiar to each of its special exemplifications. It may thus be made manifest that imputation, whether it be of sin or of righteousness, neither consists in the infusion of moral qualities, nor is, in all cases, necessarily connected with it. Take the three cases of Imputation which have been specified, and compare them with one another. We find, that in two out of the three, a change of moral character is the invariable concomitant or consequent of imputation; for the imputation of Adam's guilt to his posterity, was connected with their loss of original righteousness and the corruption of their whole nature; and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to His people is connected, in like manner, with their renewal and sanctification; Buchanan, pp. 323-324.
So here Buchanan attempts to say that he is giving three parts of imputation. Only those that are relevant to all three he says he will consider. If one is wrong, he says it won't be in consideration. He admits what I highlighted, that the imputation of Adam's sin to mankind, there was a change of moral character to the human race. Now, Calvinists says that we are wretches, a Catholic would agree that the moral character was changed. We both agree that we are born with original sin, at least a tendency to sin. Buchanan in one way does in making the Adam to Christ comparison, at least admits the imputation of Christ's righteousness to undo the sin of Adam leads to a believer's renewal and sanctification. So in two instances he grants imputation is about a change in moral character. However, Buchanan then goes on to make a distinction where he lays the foundation for the 'Reformers' view of justification that differs from the Catholic view. He goes on to write the following:
but we also find that, in the third case,- - - which is as real and as complete an instance of imputation as either of the other two,- - -the imputation of our sins to Christ was not connected with any change in His holy character, or with the infusion of any, even the slightest, taint of moral evil; whence we infer that imputation, so far from consisting in, is not even invariably connected with, the infusion of moral qualities. We find again, that in two out of the three cases, representative, and personal, agency are so clearly distinguished as to make it manifest, that the party to whom anything is imputed is not supposed to have had any active participation in the doing of it: for our sins were really, and in the full sense of the term, imputed to Christ as our substitute, yet He had no share in the commission of them; and His righteousness is, in like manner, imputed to us for our Justification, yet we had no share with Him in 'finishing the work which the Father had given Him to do.'- - -Whence we infer that, in the third case,- - -that of the imputation of Adam's guilt to his posterity,- - -it is so far from being necessary to suppose our personal participation in his act, that such a supposition would go far to destroy the doctrine of Imputation altogether, by setting aside the fundamental distinction between the agency of the representative, and that of those who were represented by him. We find, again, that in all the three cases, imputation, whether of sin or of righteousness, is founded on a federal relation subsisting between one and many,- - -for Adam was constituted the head and representative of his race, and Christ the substitute and surety of His people; and that this relation may be fitly described as amounting to a union between them, in virtue of which they are regarded and treated as being, in some respects, one; but that this union is not such as to destroy the distinction between their respective personalities, or to confound their several acts: for it is still true, that the representative was personally different from those whom he represented, and that his obedience, or disobedience, was his own act, and not theirs, although it is imputed to them; for 'a union of representation is not a union of identity.' Buchanan pp. 324-325.
So the whole basis for this rejection of a change of moral status is because Jesus' moral character did not change even though he was he terms 'imputed' with sin, Buchanan sees it as a forensic exchange. Because Jesus' righteousness was perfect, even though charged with sin, His moral character did not change. Then Buchanan says because that was so, it must mean that the righteousness of the believer is 'imputed' in justification. However, as we've seen and examined, Jesus was an offering for sin, not actually charged with being an actual sinner. One more verse that shows this is Ephesians 5:2:
And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
Jesus is a sacrifice, yes it was because of our sins. Our sins sent Jesus to the cross, but he was never at all charged with being a sinner. So sins were not imputed to Christ at all. The verses that Buchanan attempted to use, did not show that. But as already mentioned, even if Jesus was charged as being an imputed sinner, that does not necessarily follow that His perfect righteousness gets imputed, applied to our account in a forensic manner. Scripture does not show that at all so the argument fails.
It is affirmed, thirdly, that the righteousness of Christ, considered as the merit of His Mediatorial work, must ever continue, even when it is imputed to us, to belong primarily, and, in one important respect, exclusively, to Him by whom alone that work was accomplished. It is His righteousness in a sense in which it never can be ours: it is His, as having been wrought out by Him; and it is ours, only as it is imputed to us. It is His, as it was the merit of His personal obedience; and it is ours, only as it is derived to us from Him. He claims a special propriety in it even when He makes it over to His people. 'I have trodden the wine- - -press alone, and of the people there was none with me. . . I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save;' Isaiah, 63:3, 1 'Hearken, ye stout-hearted, that are far from righteousness, I bring near MY righteousness.' Isaiah 45:12-13 It is still His, and, moreover, it is only to be found 'in Him.' 'Surely shall one say, In the Lord have I righteousness,' and 'In the Lord shall all the seed of Israel be justified, and shall glory.' (Isaiah 45:24-25) 'We are made the righteousness of God,' 2 Cor. 5:21 but only 'in Him;' and if we would have 'the righteousness which is of God by faith,' Phil 3:9 we 'must win Christ, and be found in Him;' for this righteousness is part of that 'fulness which dwells in Him,' 19, Colossians 1:19, and which is 'treasured up for us in Him.' The whole merit is His, - - -the gracious imputation of it only is ours.
None of the passages point to alien righteousness. In Isaiah 63:1, 3, God was talking about how none of the unfaithful were faithful. It didn't mean that none were righteous. In verse 8 for example God speaks to faithful people Surely they are my people, sons who will not deal falsely; and he became their Savior. There will be righteous people and God will be their Savior. In Isaiah 45:12-13, God is talking to a particular stubborn hard-hearted people who refused to listen to God. Those people who are stubborn are of course far from God's righteousness. However, in this very chapter He talks about those that are faithful to Him. There is a remnant who rely upon God, and God will save them, for sure, not all were unfaithful, God will be the source of their strength, vv. 3-4. In Isaiah 45:24-25, it talks about from God's mouth is the source or righteousness, and He will give God's offspring glory. God calls them to righteousness for sure, but it is grace aided righteousness, not a foreign righteousness legally applied to their account.
We have already examined in depth 2 Cor. 5:21 and Phil. 3:9.
Then Buchanan points to Colossians 1:19 as somehow pointing to alien righteousness. Let us look at the context of this very passage:
Colossians 1:19-24
19 For in him all the fulness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. 21 And you, who once were estranged and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, 22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, 23 provided that you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister. 24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church.
So this passage, which supposedly points to alien righteousness, shows how exactly God reconciles himself to those who are justified. We know through Adam's sin, all are estranged from God. Christ reconciles us to Him by His death. In justification, He presents us holy, that is infusion, not alien. How do I know, exactly because it says 'provided' you continue in the faith and steadfast. If we shift from the hope of the gospel, we don't attain ultimate justification. This surely speaks of infusion of righteousness is the only way that Jesus will present to God, absolutely nothing alien. We must complete what Paul himself says is lacking in Christ's afflictions. Christ did all that he did, however, we must apply to our lives the righteousness that God gives us. It is dependent upon our response, as this very passage points us to. It seems like these Buchanan proof texts, when looked at in context, all show that believers must respond to His righteousness in order for final justification to be achieved.
Part 2 of my analysis of this chapter on Imputation by James Buchanan is available here: A Response to James Buchanan Claims on Imputation, Part 2. Part 2, will include a response to Propositions XVIII-XX.
2020 Justification: Imputation or Making Righteous: A Response to James Buchanan Claims on Imputation... Matt1618... This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author.