Read an Excerpt

CHAPTER 1

Tracing Trajectories: The History of Imputation

THE DOCTRINE OF IMPUTATION is not, historically speaking, cut and dry. This may come as a surprise to some readers since lately we are used to hearing that someone either affirms or denies imputation. Like most things, it all has to do with how we define our terms. The term "imputation," is a fairly specific, almost technical term for the traditional Reformed view of justification consisting of the forgiveness of sins and the counting of Christ's active obedience (his positive righteousness) to the believer. We cannot, however, limit ourselves historically only to those authors who use the word "imputation." For this reason, if we want to do justice to the historical background, the best way to approach the subject is to focus as much as possible on the interpretation of the texts commonly associated with imputation. When we come at imputation from this angle, we can interact not only with those who hold explicitly to the traditional doctrine, but also with theologians who hold a more-or-less traditional view but do not use the word "imputation." We can also interact with those who seem to avoid the term because they want to discuss the texts apart from "systematic" categories, and with those who do not so much deny imputation as seem not to have it on their horizon at all, and also with those who reject the doctrine outright. The best way to get started in the discussion is to follow loose trajectories through theological traditions. Along the way we will hear not only from well-known theologians, but also at times from some lesser-known scholars whose work sheds light on the various debates in our own day.

REFORMATION TRAJECTORIES

Luther

There is considerable debate over Luther's teaching on imputation, or whether he held to anything like the later Reformed and Lutheran understanding of the doctrine. Though such a discussion runs the risk of asking anachronistic questions, it is essential that we consider Luther in the debate. While it is difficult to see in Luther a developed idea of both the negative and positive elements of imputation, as spelled out so precisely in later Lutheran and Reformed theology, the selections included here contain some of the necessary elements of the later formulation.

Imputation language is prevalent in Luther's treatment of Romans 4:18. This is hardly surprising, since Paul's argument hinges on the quotation from Genesis 15:6, "Abraham believed God and God reckoned it to him as righteousness." For instance, Luther asserts that people "are righteous only when God imputes righteousness to them." Believers are righteous "outwardly" (i.e., in the eyes of God), "solely by the imputation of God and not of ourselves or of our own works." A central element of Luther's view of righteousness is his understanding of believers being equally righteous (before God) and unrighteous (in their own eyes). He can even say that "in their [believers'] own sight and in truth they are unrighteous, but before God they are righteous because He reckons them so because of their confession of sin." The emphasis here is on the continuance of sin in the lives of believers even though God has imputed righteousness to them.

A second emphasis, and important for the issue at hand, is the central role of forgiveness. Luther's discussion of this text clearly focuses on the connection between the imputation of righteousness and forgiveness. It is indeed the righteousness of Christ that is in view here, but Luther speaks specifically of Christ's righteousness that covers sin. This covering righteousness of Christ does not inhere in the believer but lies outside; it is imputed to the believer. There is no emphasis given to Christ's fulfillment of the law which in turn is imputed to the believer. At least in his interpretation of Romans 4:1-8, Luther does not view the imputation of righteousness and the non-imputation of sin as two distinct elements but rather as synonymous concepts. Commenting on Psalm 32:12, Luther says: "Thus the man to whom these two evils (evil deeds and sin) are forgiven, behold, he is the man whom God regards as righteous. Hence it follows, 'Blessed is the man to whom the LORD imputes no iniquity.'" Luther adds: "It is the same thing, whether we say, "to whom God imputes righteousness' or, 'to whom the LORD does not impute sin,' that is, unrighteousness." Thus God imputing a person as righteous is, in this text, the same thing as God forgiving a person's sin.

Commenting on Romans 5:12, Luther emphasizes that sin "enters into men" even though "they do not commit it." Thus while the imputation of Adam's sin to the human race is implied, as Luther continues through the passage the imputation of Christ's righteousness in terms of his active obedience is less obvious. When, however, Luther comes to 5:14, he states that "the likeness of Adam's transgression is in us because we die as if we had sinned in the same way he did. And the likeness of Christ's justification is in us, because we live, as if we had produced the same kind of righteousness that he did."

He goes on to say that the gift, "by the grace of that one Man" (5:15), is "by the personal merit and grace of Christ." Luther's use of the term "merit," and his statement that when we are justified it is "as if" we ourselves had done "the same kind of righteousness," bear similarities with the later Protestant formulations of the imputation of positive righteousness, but we must be careful not to import all the later distinctions back into Luther.

The same tendency to come short of asserting positive imputation explicitly is seen also in Luther's other writings. For instance, in "Two Kinds of Righteousness," Luther states that, "through faith ... Christ's righteousness becomes our righteousness and all that he has becomes ours, rather he himself becomes ours." Here the emphasis on Christ's righteousness becoming ours is thought of more in terms of union than imputation. More accurately, Luther's concept of imputation is tied closely to his understanding of union. Luther goes on to say that "he who trusts in Christ exists in Christ; he is one with Christ, having the same righteousness as he." Again, as in Romans, Luther emphasizes the "alien" nature of this righteousness we have in Christ — it is Christ in us that is our righteousness, not anything that we have, even as gift, that becomes intrinsically our own.

Similarly, in "The Freedom of the Christian," it is union with Christ that Luther emphasizes:

By the wedding ring of faith he [Christ] shares in the sins, death, and pains of hell which are his bride's. As a matter of fact he makes them his own and acts as if they were his own as if he himself had sinned; he suffered, died, and descended into hell that he might overcome them all ... Thus the believing soul by means of the pledge of its faith is free in Christ, its bridegroom, free of all sins, secure against death and hell, and is endowed with the eternal rights, life, and salvation of Christ its bridegroom.

Note that Luther does emphasize the imputation of sins to Christ, but he is more apt to emphasize forgiveness (as evident above) and union with Christ, rather than the imputation of positive righteousness. In a sermon on Galatians 3 Luther says in regard to imputation that "it is of pure grace that God reckons not to us our sins, yet he would not so forgive were not his Law and his standard of righteousness already completely satisfied." Here the fulfillment of the law and imputation are linked although, again, the emphasis is on the resulting forgiveness. Here, however, the imputation of a positive righteousness is explicit. This is particularly true in regard to the law being fulfilled on our behalf. Luther develops this idea further when he states: "It is impossible for us to purchase forgiveness; God ordained in our stead one who took upon himself all our deserved punishment and fulfilled the Law for us, thus averting from us God's judgment and appeasing his wrath." Here the language is quite similar sounding to later Protestant teaching. Jesus, in our place, bears our sin and obeys the law of God on our behalf, with the result that God's justice is met and we are free from his wrath.

It seems, then, that Luther does indeed understand justification as including both forgiveness and the imputation of Christ's obedience to God's "standard of righteousness." What we see in Luther may not be the same explicit, systematic formulation of imputation that marks later Protestantism, but the raw material, so to speak, is there. We do need to recognize the primary role of forgiveness in Luther's theology of justification, but this emphasis is hardly surprising since Luther was facing issues such as the Roman Catholic view of the propitiation of divine wrath through penance. Perhaps this is the background for Luther's statement that "it is impossible for us to purchase forgiveness." Certainly Luther's statements and emphases must be read ultimately in light of his historical context. In short, Luther's underscoring of forgiveness cannot simply be interpreted as proof that he did not have a conception of the imputation of positive righteousness.

In a final selection from Luther there is a clearer connection with the traditional formulation. In "Adversus armatum virum Cokleum" (1523), Luther asserts: "God does everything to justify us. Christ has merited our justification, and the Holy Spirit implements the merit of Christ, so that we are justified." Without entering into the discussion of the various meanings of "merit," this statement sounds closer to the traditional doctrine than what was seen in some of the earlier examples. From this brief overview, including recognition of Luther's emphasis on union with Christ, and the primary place of forgiveness in our justification, Luther's understanding is not incompatible with what followed in Melanchthon, Calvin, et al. As we shall see later, both union and forgiveness are central to understanding a full-orbed doctrine of imputation. At the end of the day, Luther's interpretation neither proves nor disproves the validity of the traditional formulation. Even if it were true that Luther opposes the later formulation of the doctrine (granted, an anachronistic idea) that would not be grounds to reject it as false. Whatever one concludes about Luther, he is, nevertheless, the beginning of a trajectory. We now turn to his immediate successor, Philip Melanchthon.

Melanchthon

In the writings of Luther's companion and successor, Philip Melanchthon, we see a clearer formulation of imputation that includes forgiveness and the imputation of Christ's righteousness. Commenting "Through such faith," Carl J. Lawrenz writes, "justification is, however, not yet appropriated to us. Rather, through such faith Christ the eternal Word, who is God himself, now is able to come and on Romans 5:12, Melanchthon sounds quite similar to Luther when he asserts that the guilt of sin comes to those who follow Adam not because of "actual transgressions" (which they do commit), but because "all are guilty on account of one, Adam." As he comes to verse 15, however, the parallel between Adam and Christ is more finely tuned and developed than in Luther:

Here Paul joins together two things: grace and gift through grace. Grace signifies gratuitous acceptance because of Christ, that is, gratuitous remission of sins, and gratuitous imputation of righteousness because of Christ.

There are two things to note in this passage. First, Melanchthon's distinction between remission and imputation is significant because the traditional formulation rests on a division of imputation to include forgiveness and the imputation of positive righteousness; this is true whether the distinction between active and passive obedience is pressed or not. Furthermore, Melanchthon's insertion of "imputation," commenting on a text in which the word does not appear, may suggest that he understood the parallel and antithesis between Adam and Christ and their connection with humanity in terms of Adam's disobedience and Christ's obedience, best explained in terms of imputation.

Statements in Melanchthon's Loci are clearer than what we see in Romans. In the 1543 edition Melanchthon equates justification with the "remission of sins, reconciliation, or the acceptance of a person unto eternal life." That justification means more than forgiveness, or that there are aspects of justification that accompany forgiveness, is evident in his definition of the gospel: "This is the definition of the Gospel in which we lay hold on three Gospel blessings: that for the sake of Christ our sins are freely remitted; that we are freely pronounced righteous, that is, reconciled or accepted by God; that we are made heirs of eternal life." On the one hand it could be argued that Melanchthon is simply restating what it means to have sins "freely remitted," or the results of that remission, when he uses the words "freely pronounced righteous," and "made heirs of eternal life." On the other hand, however, Melanchthon's definition of the gospel centers on "three Gospel blessings," making it seem unlikely that he is merely saying the same thing, i.e., the gospel is forgiveness, in three different ways. In that case there would be only one gospel blessing.

In the 1555 edition of the Loci there are no longer ambiguities in Melanchthon's statements. In the section entitled "How Man Obtains Forgiveness of Sin and Is Justified before God," he states that as believers we "have forgiveness of sins, and Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, so that we are justified and are pleasing to God for the sake of Christ." He cites Romans 3:24-25 and says:

Now to be justified is to obtain forgiveness of sins, to please God, to be clothed with the righteousness of Christ, and endowed with the Holy Spirit. This occurs when he [Paul] expressly says, without merit on our part, through faith in the Lord Christ, God and Man, because he bore for us the wrath of God. By speaking of blood, he includes the entire obedience and merit of the Lord Christ.

There can be no question that here Melanchthon is describing different aspects of justification, of which forgiveness, though mentioned first, is but one. There is at least one thing that should be noted here in regard to the development of the doctrine. Melanchthon sees "blood" ("justified freely by faith, in his blood," Rom. 3:25) as Paul's shorthand for Christ's entire work. There is no clear distinction, as made by later Lutheran and Reformed theologians, regarding the so-called "passive" and "active" obedience of Christ. Apparently, Melanchthon understood the cross as a metonymy for Christ's saving work, including his obedience in life and in death. This idea is made explicit later when he says that "the Mediator's entire obedience, from his Incarnation until his Resurrection, is the true justification which is pleasing to God, and is the merit for us."

Melanchthon makes a direct link between righteousness and obedience to the law: "Righteousness is uniformity with, or fulfillment of, the entire law." The sinner, unable to fulfill the law of God perfectly, can through Christ nevertheless "obtain forgiveness, and become pleasing to [God]." Since righteousness is equated with fulfillment of the law, and righteousness is required to approach God, the sinner being unable to fulfill the law must receive, by faith, "an imputed righteousness," which is the righteousness of Christ, i.e., his obedience.

While it may not be eminently clear that Melanchthon speaks of an imputation of positive righteousness in the explicit language of the later Reformers, his insistence on forgiveness and imputation — not simply forgiveness as imputation — lends itself to the later formulations.

One need not look far to find a figure who saw himself as carrying on this trajectory and who strongly emphasized imputation.

Melanchthon's best known student, Martin Chemnitz, commenting on Melanchthon's Loci no less, states:

The free imputation in the article of justification is the grace of God, which for the sake of Christ, does not impute against us the sins inhering in us, 2 Cor 5.19, and imputes to us (as though it actually did inhere in man) the perfect righteousness which does not inhere in us and which is worthy of eternal life.

Chemnitz's insistence on imputation of "perfect righteousness" that is "worthy of eternal life" is perfectly in keeping with the theology of the later Lutheran and Reformed scholars and their followers. The similarities are clearer still when Chemnitz asserts that justification depends on both "satisfaction" for the penalty of the law and the fulfillment of the law "by perfect obedience." Both elements of the traditional formulation, forgiveness and positive imputation, are explicit. Thus in little more than one generation, in one tradition, a clear trajectory arises regarding the interpretation of texts, particularly in Paul, that deal with the function of imputation in justification.

---

Excerpted from "Jesus' Blood and Righteousness"
by .
Copyright © 2006 Brian J. Vickers.
Excerpted by permission of Good News Publishers.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

---