Justification: Imputation or Making Righteous: A Response to James Buchanan Claims on Imputation, Part 2...by Matt1618<br>

Justification: Imputation or Making Righteous:
A Response to James Buchanan Claims on Imputation, Part 2

Response to Propositions XVIII-XX, Conclusion

By Matt1618

Here I am continuing my look at Buchanan's Lecture 12. This will include a look at Propositions XVIII through XX.

PROPOSITION XVIII.


The imputation of Christ's righteousness to His people, as the immediate ground of their pardon and acceptance with God, may be proved, deductively, from the character in which He acted, as their representative; and from the vicarious nature of the work which He undertook to accomplish. Buchanan, p. 328.
Buchanan apparently believes one proves from deduction of the imputed righteousness of the grounds of one's justification. He will have to deduce from his own imagination because at least so far, he is ignoring the context of the passages and deducing wrong conclusions based on his misinterpreting Scriptures. Let us go on to see the basis of his deductions:
But if it can be clearly proved from Scripture, that the Mediatorial work of Christ was undertaken and executed for the purpose, not of relaxing the Law, but of fulfilling it, on behalf of His people; and if it can be further shown that their Justification is directly connected with the efficacy of His work for that end, then any objection that is raised against the doctrine of His imputed righteousness, cannot be founded on the mere idea of imputation, - - - for that is really involved in every other doctrine which ascribes any efficacy to His work in connection with our Justification, - - - but must rest entirely on the proof of this precise point, - - - that, while the work of Christ was directly imputed to the effect of relaxing the divine Law, and relieving us from the requirement of perfect obedience, it is not directly imputed for our Justification, but becomes available with reference to this end only mediately, - - - through our own personal righteousness, or through our sincere, but imperfect, obedience. On any view that can be taken of the relation which subsists between Christ's work and our Justification, a direct imputation of His merit, at one point or another, must be admitted by all who ascribe any efficacy to it whatever; for it is necessarily involved in the representative character which He sustained, and the vicarious nature of His undertaking: it must come in, without the intervention of any other righteousness, at the point where the Law is supposed to be relaxed in consequence of what He did and suffered; or, if the Law was never relaxed, then at the point where the Law was fulfilled, and where Christ Himself became the 'end of the Law for righteousness to every one who believeth' Romans 10:4. That there may be such a direct imputation of Christ's righteousness as is not founded, either in whole or in part, on any change in the moral character of believers, although it is inseparably connected with it, is evident from the fact, that our sins were really, and in the full sense of the term, imputed to Christ, while the imputation was not even accompanied with the infusion of personal sin, and could not, therefore, be founded upon it. Buchanan, pp. 331-332
The presumption again that sins were transferred, or imputed to Christ, as we have seen, that is not so. So imputation of righteousness does involve the relaxing of the law in one sense according to Buchanan, but that is only because God only sees Christ's perfect righteousness which is given to believers, so that means that their righteousness can actually be relaxed because God will ignore sins because He only looks at Christ's righteousness. Buchanan does say that a believer will attempt to pursue holiness but that is irrelevant to one's justification. However, that has not been shown in any of the passages Buchanan has brought forth. He does deduce from Romans 10:4 that somehow points to imputed righteousness. Let us look at the passage.

Romans 10:3-4

3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. 4 For Christ is the end of the law, that every one who has faith may be justified.
Paul has said that law in and of itself gives no power. People who try to establish their own righteousness will fail. Pelagianism does not work before God. Christ fulfills the law but that does not mean it is terminated, He has written that those in God's grace will be doers of the law (Rom. 2:4-13), Gentiles can fulfill the law, Rom. 2:25-29. Through the law of the Spirit the righteous requirement of the Law can be met, Rom. 8:2-4. He who loves his neighbor 'fulfils the law', Romans 13:8-10. However, it is not the law in and of itself that gives any power, it is only God's grace and kindness Rom. 2:4, and the Holy Spirit, Rom. 8:2-4. Law in and of itself saves no one, Rom. 6:14, Gal. 5:18. But the righteousness that comes from Christ is an enabling one, for justification before God.

St. Augustine in his Commentary On the Spirit and the Letter, when dealing with Pelagius, wrote the following which helps to go over this passage and the surrounding context

For the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith, Romans 9:30 - - - by obtaining it of God, not by assuming it of themselves. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. And why? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by works Romans 9:31-32 - - - in other words, working it out as it were by themselves, not believing that it is God who works within them. For it is God which works in us both to will and to do of His own good pleasure. Philippians 2:13 And hereby they stumbled at the stumbling-stone. Romans 9:32 For what he said, not by faith, but as it were by works, Romans 9:32 he most clearly explained in the following words: They, being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes. Romans 10:3-4 Then are we still in doubt what are those works of the law by which a man is not justified, if he believes them to be his own works, as it were, without the help and gift of God, which is by the faith of Jesus Christ?

as the apostle says, Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, has not attained to the law of righteousness. Romans 9:31 He did not say, Which followed after their own traditions, framing them and relying on them. This then is the sole distinction, that the very precept, You shall not covet, Exodus 20:17 and God's other good and holy commandments, they attributed to themselves; whereas, that man may keep them, God must work in him through faith in Jesus Christ, who is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believes. Romans 10:4 That is to say, every one who is incorporated into Him and made a member of His body, is able, by His giving the increase within, to work righteousness. It is of such a man's works that Christ Himself has said, Without me you can do nothing. John 15:5. St. Augustine On the Spirit and the Letter, Chapter 50, Nicene & Poste Nicene Fathers, Series 1, Book 5, p. 105.

St. Augustine, unlike Buchanan, looks at the prior context. People attempting to rely on themselves achieve nothing and fail. Israel failed when they did not turn to God but established their own righteousness. Israel succeeded only when God worked in them, Phil. 2. St. Augustine, again, notes that works of the law, which Paul writes that do not save, Rom. 3:20, 28, Gal. 2:16, 3:10, are those works which one tries to do on one's own power. Those did not for Israel either. Everything a believer is able to do is because, as Jesus says, apart from me you can do nothing, John 15:6. But with him, one can do righteousness, as Paul and Augustine explain.

Now, one thing lacking in the Buchanan/'Reformed' concept of righteousness is the concept of being an adopted child of God. We are children of God and that is why He makes a distinction in sins. He disciplines us for his holiness, and that holiness is distinctly tied into one's righteousness before God. Any child can run away, disinherit themselves with disobedient actions. Indeed, there is a relaxation of the law, but that is because we are in a Father/Son relationship, not because of an alien righteousness being imputed. Paul had written about being adopted children of God, but our obedience is necessary to maintain that relationship with the Father:

Romans 8:15-17

15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship. When we cry, "Abba! Father!" 16 it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him.
We love the Father. As He is our Father, we love Him and act according to that love. However, we are heirs of God however, only provided we suffer with him. So suffering is salvific, if we do not suffer with him, we won't inherit the kingdom. It is provisional, so our actions are directly tied into attaining the Kingdom of Heaven. Prior to this Paul wrote that our justification before God is depending on us to put to death the deeds of the flesh (Rom. 8:12-13), but this is precisely because we love God and follow him.

The following Hebrews passage goes in more depth on this issue:

Hebrews 12:5-17

5 And have you forgotten the exhortation which addresses you as sons? --" My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor lose courage when you are punished by him. 6 For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives." 7 It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? 8 If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. 9 Besides this, we have had earthly fathers to discipline us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they disciplined us for a short time at their pleasure, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. 11 For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. 12 Therefore lift your drooping hands and strengthen your weak knees, 13 and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but rather be healed. 14 Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord. 15 See to it that no one fail to obtain the grace of God; that no "root of bitterness" spring up and cause trouble, and by it the many become defiled; 16 that no one be immoral or irreligious like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal. 17 For you know that afterward, when he desired to inherit the blessing, he was rejected, for he found no chance to repent, though he sought it with tears.
Hebrews says we are children and we get disciplined. The Father disciplines us so that we can live. Strive for peace and holiness, and only then will one see the Lord. However, he tells the children of God that one can fail to obtain the grace of God. One can become defiled. Many children can become defiled. He warns that one can become like Esau. So, this idea that you have an imputed righteousness is absolutely absent from here. God disciplines us so that we can become holy. Little sins lead to discipline, venial sin, but warns of avoiding becoming defiled, which points to mortal sin. God calls us to be disciplined so we can become holy. But that holiness is the means of salvation. We have the possibility of losing salvation in Hebrews, and holiness is the means of salvation.

One other thing that Buchanan mentioned that was false was he said in justification is not tied in with an interior change or transformation. Again, I disproved that assessment with Scripture in Proposition XVII, first part. I showed from Scripture that justification was caused by the transformation of the individual. Paul specifically showed that in Titus 3:5-7, 1 Cor. 6:11, Rom. 5:19 and Romans 6:7. Buchanan repeating things does not make him right.

Buchanan concludes here:

In the case of believers, the imputation of righteousness is invariably contemporaneous with the infusion of holiness; but that this infused and inherent personal holiness is not the ground of that imputation, is proved conclusively by the fact that we are called, like Abraham, to 'believe in Him who justifieth the ungodly,', Rom. 4:5, and 'who imputeth righteousness without works' Rom. 4:6, Buchanan p. 332.
Since Buchanan again relies on Rom. 4:5-6 yet again, I want to take a larger look at the context of David's life. Remember, the one time imputation theory propounded by Buchanan, asserts that once one is justified, one is always justified. One does not lose salvation, and does not fall out of grace. It is impossible to lose one's justification. Here Paul is pointing to David to be justified at this specific time. Is David's repentance at this point his initial time of justification? I want to take from my examination of David in reference to Romans 4, right here because a look at Romans 4 in its context absolutely destroys the Buchanan assertion, it is long but a larger look at David's life is important in order to understand what Paul is getting at here in Romans 4:4-8: Romans 4:4-8: Proof for Justification by Faith Alone? Here is the Scripture itself:

Romans 4:5-8

5 And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness. 6 So also David pronounces a blessing upon the man to whom God reckons righteousness apart from works: 7 "Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; 8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not reckon his sin."
Buchanan quoted Romans 4:5-6, but Paul here focuses on David, who is the example for us laid out by Paul. In Romans 4:7-8, Paul quotes Psalm 32:1-2. I tweak it here some to address Buchanan, the gist of the article is addressing another Protestant apologist I was engaging with at the time, but this would apply to Buchanan as well:
David is rejoicing here, (as in Psalm 51) that God is here forgiving him for his sins of adultery with Bathsheba and slaying of Uriah the Hittite. The time of the events that he is getting forgiveness for is 2 Samuel 11-12.

An important question that concerns us, is this the time of David's one and only justification, as Buchanan must hold? On the contrary, David since his youth called on the Lord to defeat Goliath. He was not unregenerate then. In 1 Samuel 13:14, years before 2 Sam. 11-12 and Psalm 32, David is called a "man after God's own heart" a distinction given to no other man in the bible. The Psalms prior to Psalm 32 were also written well before the events of 2 Sam. 11-12, which were the occasion for Psalm 32. This shows indeed that David was a true child of God before the events of Psalm 32. Otherwise, we would have Psalms written before Psalm 32 by an unregenerate pagan with no real relationship with God.

Although David earlier in his life was a true child of God, he did something to make himself ungodly. He committed major sins with Bathsheba and Uriah to make him become ungodly (2 Sam. 11-12). That is how he was ungodly coming into Psalm 32. How was he forgiven? By sincere repentance given in the grace of God as so heartfelt put that repentance in Psalms 32 and 51. He did not earn his way back through law. In this state of mortal sin, he responds to Gods' grace, is rejustified, and put back in God's grace. However, it is not David earning his way back into God's grace, not as an employee from an employer. It is a Father-Son relationship. Paul shows that works do not earn his grace back, but his justification is won back by repentance, the point of Rom. 4:5-8. Paul's sees David's acknowledgement and confession of his sin, a total reliance and recognition of God' benificience, grace and mercy, reflecting the Catholic position. He is here credited as righteousness. The fact of David's earlier Godly life, with the fact that he put himself outside of God's grace, and the fact that his repentance led him to justification shows several things fatal to the Calvinist understanding of justification put forth by Buchanan:

1) The language used here is not meant to imply a forensic view of a one-time justification. David already was a believer well before this point in time.

2) David, although he was quite clearly a believer who loved God with all his heart, fell out of God's grace by mortal sin. That is why he needs to be forgiven to be put back in God's grace. David's grace-driven repentance puts him back into God's favor.

3) The crediting of righteousness is not based on an acceptance of an alien righteousness. His repentance was needed to get back into God's righteousness. When one is in this state, then one has a Father-Son relationship at the heart of justification. Then, under the auspices of grace, out of love, the Son responds with works of love that is necessary for ultimate justification (Rom. 2:6-13, 6, 8:1-17, Gal. 6:2-9) and one becomes a doer of the law in a state of God's grace.

One other thing that David's example, the very citation in Psalm 32 shows that his justification showed a moral change which was the basis for that justification. Psalm 32:2, from where Paul quotes, it says his 'spirit has no deceit', Psalm 32:2. It talks about many being godly, Psalm 32:5. 32:11 says this Be glad in the LORD, and rejoice, O righteous, and shout for joy, all you upright in heart! . So in other words, at justification one joins the righteous, is godly, and the person has no deceipt.

One other quote from that article helps to further debunk Buchanan:

We see that in the very verse that Paul quotes from, it says that in the one Lord does not impute iniquity, David's spirit has no deceit!! Thus, David has an inner quality, spiritual essence, of righteousness. Hardly David ontologically staying ungodly. God now looks at David through his eyes of grace. He has went from godly (the life he lived earlier as a man after God's own heart) to ungodly (his mortal sins separated him from God and made David ungodly), back to the state of godly (and remaining in his grace via his obedience), when he repents through God's grace. David has an inner changed nature.
As we've already seen, when God justifies the ungodly, the ungodly become godly. Remember the passage that he is quoting is when David, had become ungodly through his sin with Bathsheba. When one is outside grace, which David was, works do not put you back into grace. However, repentance is what was necessary for David to be put back into grace. One other thing that needs to be noted. He was out of grace by his mortal sin of adultery and killing, then David repented. Those were the sins that David was forgiven for. Protestants imagine Rom. 4:8 means that future sin are forgiven. No, this is only talking about sins that one has repented for and been forgiven. It does not mean that future sins will be covered over. We know that because David was a man in God's grace before, as already noted in 1 Samuel, and before 2 Samuel 11. However, those mortal sins had made him ungodly and out of God's grace. So, David is not talking about sins in the future are forgiven ahead of time, he was only talking about sins that he repented from and forgiven for. It did not mean that if he had committed other sins like he did with Bathsheba and Uriah the Hittite, in the future, that those sins would not cut him off from grace again. Paul knows he has to run the race for salvation, 1 Cor. 9:21-27, and gives a list of sins that disinherit one from salvation, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, Gal. 5:19-21, Eph. 5:3-5.

This look at David absolutely destroys any idea of imputation, and exposes the misuse of Romans 4:5-6, as a continual misuse and misunderstanding of Romans 4.

When one is justified, one is made righteous. Holiness is the means of justification, as shown in Hebrews 12:14. Justification is the transformation, as we've seen is when one is 'made' righteous, Rom. 5:19. Washing and renewal we have seen is so that one can be justified as shown in Titus 3:5-7, 1 Cor. 6:11. Again the other passage says that our works on our own, is useless, as St. Augustine noted. However, once in His grace, we can then work out our salvation only with his grace, power, and with his good pleasure, Philippians 2:12-13.

PROPOSITION XIX.


The righteousness of Christ, considered as the merit of His Mediatorial work, is, not partially, but entirely imputed; and is effectual for the complete Justification of all who believe in His name. Some have contended for a partial, in opposition to a plenary, imputation of His merits. They have acknowledged His sufferings and death as the immediate ground of a sinner's pardon, but have objected to His active obedience being imputed to the believer as his title to acceptance with God, and the inheritance of eternal life. But 'Christ is not divided,' nor is His righteousness capable of being separated into parts, so as that one part should be imputed, while the other is not imputed; Buchanan, pp. 332-333.
Scripture shows that we are imputed with his righteousness, but it is a real righteousness that is not a covering over, but a full making us active. It is a making righteousness as we've seen, Rom. 5:19. When made righteous, we are sons and daughters of God, He empowers us and at justification we are 'justified' or freed from sin. But the initial making us righteous, God gives us the grace necessary to maintain that righteousness. However, it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me, Gal. 2:20.

Now of course Christ's obedience is central to our justification. However, His obedience makes it so we can become obedient. The 'Reformer' idea that his obedience means that we don't have to obey in reference to our justification is a mistaken and unbiblical premise given by Buchanan.

Hebrews 5:8-9

8 Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; 9 and being made perfect he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him .
So His obedience becomes the source of eternal salvation by having an imputed righteousness applied to one's account? No, His suffering became the source of salvation that enable believers to obey to salvation.

Buchanan quotes from 1 Cor. 1:13 where Christ is divided, in reference to the Church being united in Christ, and against divisions. It has absolutely nothing to do with righteousness, let alone alien righteousness being imputed.

It will be found impossible to separate His atoning death from His holy obedience, so as to admit of the one being imputed without the other; for His death was the crowning act of His obedience- - - 'He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross', Phil. 2:8. And if the obedience which was involved in His enduring the cross' may be imputed to us, why may not every other act of His obedience, by which 'He magnified the law, and made it honourable?' It will also be found impossible to defend the imputation of His passive obedience, and to reject that of His whole righteousness, without exposing those who make the attempt to an unanswerable retort from the opponents of both. Indeed, most of the objections which have been urged against the doctrine of imputed righteousness, by those who admit a vicarious satisfaction for sin, have been derived from Popish or Socinian sources, and bear a striking resemblance to those which Bellarmine and Crellius employed in a former age. Buchanan, pp. 333-334.
Buchanan definitely lauds Christ's obedience leading to our salvation, and it should be lauded. However, Buchanan somehow carries over his idea of His obedience means that our obedience is not necessary for salvation. He quotes Philippians 2:8 supposedly to show how his obedience wraps up justification. We just saw in Hebrews 5:9 that His obedience made it so that those in Christ are justified, will attain eternal life by our obedience, matching Romans 6:16. What does Paul write after noting the importance of Christ being obedient on the cross?

Philippians 2:8-16:

8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. 12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; 13 for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure. 14 Do all things without grumbling or questioning, 15 that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, 16 holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I may be proud that I did not run in vain or labor in vain.
This whole section in Philippians of course points out the preeminence of Christ's obedience for sure. Now in the beginning of Phil. 2, Paul is talking about how Christ is an example to us. We are to have love, Phil. 2:2, count others as better than ourselves, v.3. Look to the interests of eithers, v.4. Then he goes to Christ as an example for us. Then Paul points to his incarnation, emptying of Himself, that we must confess Him as Lord. However, besides exalting Jesus as Lord over all, the end result is how we must work out our salvation with fear and trembling because it Is God at work within us. Many Catholic apologists just leave it there, and it does say very much: Salvation/justification is not by faith alone. However, Paul does not stop at verse 13. He goes on to say one must remain blameless and innocent, and must pursue holiness. Imputation is nowhere to be found. If we grumble we can get out of sort. Implicit is a reference to the grumbling of the Israelites as they abandoned Moses, and thus God in Exodus 15:24, 16:2, 17:4, for example. Grumbling can ultimately lead to separation from God Himself. Paul's writing to those he had preached to, he worried about because he said he must hold fast to the word of life in order for Paul not to have run in vain. If one is in his grace, according to Calvinism, it would be absolutely impossible to have run in vain, because salvation is guaranteed. If the grounding of salvation is imputation only there is no need to work out salvation with fear and trembling, nor is there a need to pursue holiness as a means of salvation. If imputation was true, it would have been impossible to have Paul labored in vain. Paul refutes that idea right here.

Buchanan next goes on to say that the Protestant concept of imputed righteousness is not a legal fiction:

PROPOSITION XX.

The imputation of sin and righteousness is not, in any bad sense of the expression, a 'legal fiction,' as it has been offensively called; nor is it a theory, invented by man, but a fact, revealed by God. Instead of disproving the doctrine by a dispassionate appeal to Scripture, some recent writers have attempted to discredit it; and have characterized it sometimes as 'a fiction,' and sometimes as 'a theory.' This is a short and easy method of controversy, fitted to excite prejudice, while it dispenses with proof. But intelligent men, who know how often whatever is true and good among men has been caricatured and traduced by affixing to it some offensive epithet, will require something more than an assertion to convince them, that the faith of the Christian Church has rested from the beginning on nothing more solid than a fanciful figment, or an ingenious speculation. Buchanan, p. 334.
The reason why Catholics call it legal fiction, is because it is unbiblical, and wrong. Scripture does teach that God is a truly righteous God. He can not abide with uncleanness, and act as though that blatant sinfulness does not exist. Besides that, in another sense, since it is not taught in Scripture, that makes it fiction in and of itself.

Despite Buchanan's protestations, at least I have used Scripture to disprove imputation of an alien righteousness as a permanent and irreversible ground of justification. Buchanan himself referred to Paul, in Romans 5:12-19. Adam's sin caused sin to enter the world. We have a sin nature. This is found also in Ephesians 2:1, we were dead in trespasses and sin. So, our nature was damaged by the fall, we were not merely 'declared' sinful we were ontologically sinful. As Paul notes, Christ came to undo this. Jesus Himself said in John 8:31-36, because we have sin on our soul, He came to free us from that bondage, not merely declare it. How do we get out of this bondage to sin? Let us go back to the full passage that focuses on justification in Romans 5.

Romans 5:15-19:

15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the effect of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. 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.
Paul describes right here what Christ does in justification. We reign in life, not declared reigning in life, but actually reigning in life. There is a legal declaration in v. 18 when Paul writes about the acquittal and life for man. However, that acquittal spoke of in v. 18, is not merely a legal declaration. It is a real declaration, in justification one is made righteous. So, just as sin caused the fall, did Christ come to really undo the fall? Legal, sure, but more than legal, he came to truly make us righteous, in justification. And Buchanan, this is Scripture. Right after this, Paul goes to how justification does it, it is through baptism, that one is justified, freed from sin, Romans 6:3-7. So, justification is a real cleansing, not a declarative cleansing only. What God declares, He does. In the Protestant concept, one is only declared righteous, not actually righteous and God acts as though the unrighteous man is righteous, even though he is not actually ontologically righteous. That is why Catholics rightly term this view of justification as a 'legal fiction', using Scripture and reason.

if we have reason to believe, as we have endeavoured to prove, that He has promulgated a scheme of Redeeming Mercy, and this, too, in a covenant form, through the second Adam as the representative of His people,- - -imposing on Him the fulfilment of its conditions, and securing to them the benefits of His work on their behalf,- - -then this constitution also may, or rather must, be productive of results, in which they as well as He will be found to participate; and yet these results, so far from being mere 'legal fictions,' are substantial blessings of the highest and most permanent kind;- - -the pardon of sin,- - -the restoration of God's favour,- - -the renewal of His image,- - -the assurance of His love,- - -the privilege of adoption,- - -and the gift of eternal life,- - -all these are brought upon us under the operation of that scheme, and every one of them is as real, as it is desirable. When we are brought face to face with such realities as these, it is vain to talk of 'legal fictions,' whether under the Law or under the Gospel; for while condemnation, on the one hand, and justification, on the other, are strictly forensic or judicial acts, and must necessarily have some relation to the Law and Justice of God,- - -and while the representative character both of the first and second Adam, and the consequent imputation of their guilt and righteousness to those whom they respectively represented, can only be ascribed to the sovereign will and appointment of God,- - -yet the results are in their own nature real and true, and not, in any sense, fictitious or imaginary. Buchanan pp. 336-337.
The promise of a permanent justification does not match Scripture. There is nice flowery language, nice promises, but Scripture does not back up that flowery language and those promises are false. Yes, there is a pardon of sin, but you can disinherit yourself through mortal sin. He warns people you can disinherit yourself from eternal life by committing sin that disinherits you, Gal. 5:18-19, 1 Cor.6:9-10, Eph. 5:3-6. That is why Paul writes one must put to death the deeds of the flesh or you will lose eternal life, Rom. 8:12-13, Gal. 5:24. Paul does mean that warning so out goes the window Buchanan's premise. It is a figment of an imagination that puts into a category of God pretending that he can abide with such serious sins, and God pretends that disobedience doesn't matter to Him, in reference to justification. When Paul speaks of the privilege of adoption in Rom. 8:14, he warned that if one didn't put to death the deeds of the flesh and suffer with him, one won't inherit the kingdom of God, Rom. 8:12-17. When Paul writes of being an heir of God, in Gal. 4:5-7, he talks about how one is not a slave to sin any more. However, he warns the Galatian readers who go back to the slavery to sin again, Gal 4:11, and if so, Paul would have labored in vain for them. If the guarantee was a legal declaration only, and they were guaranteed salvation, then Paul could not have labored in vain. So this inheritance is not guaranteed and there is no Scriptures that match his conclusions.

Buchanan in his concluding sentence again refers to the first and second Adam, Christ is the New Adam. As already mentioned, justification's definition in Rom. 5:15-19, is being made righteous. If one sins, and makes oneself unholy, one is no longer in a righteous status. So through God's grace only enables one to work out one's salvation with fear and trembling, but it is a process. One must endure to the end to inherit the kingdom of heaven, Phil 2:12-16. That endurance, through God's grace is not merely a result, but a cause of final justification.

Buchanan concludes the following with a summary judgment on what is the conclusion of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to one's account:

What is the doctrine of the Incarnation, but the statement of a fact respecting the union of the divine and human natures in the person of our Lord? And, in like manner, what is the doctrine of Imputation, whether of sin or of righteousness, but the statement of a fact respecting the relation in which we stand to the first and second Adam, and the consequences which result to us from the disobedience of the one, and the obedience of the other? No doubt, when these facts are revealed, and become the subjects of human thought, they may occasion much speculation, and speculation may give birth to many theories, which are all the more likely to be wild and visionary when speculation is unrestrained by faith; but let the Facts themselves be believed on the testimony of the Revealer, let them be duly realised in their full scriptural meaning, and in their application to our own souls,- - -and we may safely discard every theory about them which is the mere invention of men, and adhere only to the truth as it has been taught by God. Buchanan, p. 338.
Buchanan's conclusion is that imputation is central to the meaning of justification and prior to this he refers to the Incarnation, as basic as it is. Now, some Protestants, like historian Alister Mcgrath understands that imputation of Christ's righteousness to one's account, as an alien righteousness was not understood in the Protestant way til Luther/Calvin developed that concept. Christians understood the incarnation from the beginning, absolutely no one understood justification in which one gets an alien righteousness applied to one's account and one's obedience, not be linked to one's justification. As we've seen though, Christ is the source of salvation not just because He died for all, but for those who obey God, Heb. 5:9, Rom. 6:16. Of course Adam's disobedience led to our downfall, and Christ's obedience leads to our justification. However, Scripture clearly shows that we must cooperate with him. Paul shows that the 'doers of the law' will be justified Rom. 2:4-13, 25-29, Rom. 8:2-4, Gal. 6:2-9. Christ came to set us free from the slavery of sin, that is what justification does. Imputation only is not the means of justification. It is a false teaching that true Christians must reject. In fact, I agree to some extent even rejecting wild theories that are inventions of men. However, the theory that one is saved by grace alone (that part is right) through faith alone (that part is wrong), via imputation of an alien righteousness of Christ which can never be lost (that part is wrong) is indeed not Scriptural, but a tradition of man.

CONCLUSION


I have looked at the full chapter, proposition by proposition by a 'Classic Reformed' apologist, James Buchanan, whose book I was referred to by a modern apologist James White. I have looked at 5 propositions proposed by Buchanan. This whole reason is the 'immediate and only' ground of justification. The is the whole foundation of the 'Reformation'.

In Proposition XVI, Buchanan referred to the need for this alien righteousness. Buchanan referred to the 'righteousness of God' as somehow implying the alien righteousness was necessary. He referred to Romans 3:20-22, and Philippians 3:8 as showing that a human righteousness will not attain justification. Law has nothing to do with justification because man cannot keep the law. I showed that those passages show that yes, a human righteousness apart from the power of God, avails nothing before God. However, these passages do not do away with all law in reference to justification, and Phil 3 in fact showed that it points to the endurance necessary to actually achieve that justification. No passages he quoted referred to alien righteousness. I showed through Romans 2:4-13, 25:29, 8:2-4, 13:8-10 that through the law of the Spirit, we can keep the law, only empowered through God's grace. He also implied Romans 5 pointed to the need for an alien righteousness, whereas I showed that Paul wrote that in justification, one is actually made righteous, Rom 5:19, and we are 'justified' or free from sin, Rom. 6:7.

In Proposition XVII, Buchanan made three assertions. First, using 2 Cor. 5:21 and 1 Peter 2:24, he said pointed to a perfect righteousness being applied to one's account and Jesus was counted as a sinner. I showed that the context of those passages showed that it didn't and pointed to infused righteousness, which must be maintained by cooperation with God's grace. Jesus' purpose was not covering us over but to make us free from sin. Second, Buchanan attempted to say that justification by imputation is applied externally, and not infused, I showed passages such as Romans 5:19, Titus 3:5-7, and 1 Cor 6:11, shows that it is by infusion, and the passages that he brought forth do not point to external imputation only. Third, he attempted again to show that justification was not tied into a moral change. I showed that Scripture shows that there is a moral change.

In Proposition XVIII, Buchanan attempted to use Romans 10:4 to say that Christ perfectly fulfilled the law so we do not have to, and our own righteousness can not fulfil the law. St. Augustine looked at the context to show that with God, we keep the law only by God's grace and power. I showed, with God's empowering grace, and being a son of a gracious Father ,we can fulfill the law of the Spirit, Rom. 8:2-4. We can also be disinherited with disobedient actions. Buchanan pointed to Paul's citation of Roman 4:5-7 as somehow pointing to imputation, and I showed that the passage shows that justification is transformative and that it is a process and one can be righteous through God's grace, as exemplified by David's life. As noted, that passage actually destroys the idea of a one-time imputation of an alien righteousness.

In Proposition XIX, Buchanan asserts Christ's obedience was all that was necessary to be justified, I showed that Christ's obedience made it so through grace we can obey unto justification, Heb. 5:9. Buchanan also pointed to Phil. 2:8 which shows Christ's obedience was foundational to our salvation. Of course true, but the context showed that believers must work out one's salvation with fear and trembling and maintain holiness unto the day of salvation, Phil. 2:8-16.

In Proposition XX, Buchanan asserted that the Protestant idea is not a 'legal fiction' because the imputation is real. Christ's perfect righteousness is truly, and irreversibly applied to a believer's account. As it is real, and the adoption of sons are permanent, it is irreversibly true. However, I showed that the premise is false. God cannot coexist with sin and declare sin not sin, and pretend that someone has a perfect righteousness when that person does not. But through God's grace he can transform a sinner to a truly righteous person. But believers have the responsibility of pursuing holiness without which no one can see the Lord, Heb. 12:14.

I showed in this examination that the idea of imputation of an alien righteousness is not a truly biblical concept and all the Scriptures that Buchanan used do not even hint at his conclusions. The major passages that he used, we looked at in depth and showed the exact opposite from his conclusions. Why did Jesus come? An external imputation only? No, as Jesus himself said he came to set us free from the bondage to sin, John 8:31-36. He gives us the grace to keep the commandments and we are empowered to do so by the Holy Spirit. In justification we are made righteous, Rom. 5:19.

In this long chapter not one time did Buchanan mention Jesus' words. That in and of itself shows that this teaching is false. However, even staying with Paul's own language we see the purpose of Jesus' death:

Titus 2:11-14

11 For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men, 12 training us to renounce irreligion and worldly passions, and to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world, 13 awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, 14 who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.
Christ came not to cover us over with an alien righteousness, but in our salvation, he came so we can put to death worldly passions, and by his grace He purifies us to cleanse us from all iniquity. In salvation he came to make us righteous, Rom. 5:19. If we fall short, we can get back into grace through confession as David did, as Paul referred to in Romans 4 and Psalm 32. Justification is a process as shown in this examination.


To all visitors Grace of Christ to you!


Page created by: Matt1618.
Send email with questions or comments on this writing to Matt1618 matt16182@yahoo.com



RETURN

Return to Matt's Catholic Apologetics Page


RETURN

Go to Matt's Salvation Page

2020 Justification: Imputation or Making Righteous: A Response to James Buchanan Claims on Imputation, Part 2... 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.


Completed, Friday, August 21, 2020