Bird on Imputation (Once Again!)

Over at Reformation 21, Philip Ryken has an article on Justification and Union with Christ. During the course of discussion I get a mention under the heading "Current Distortions of Biblical Justification" as an example of one (along with N.T. Wright, Bob Gundry, and Don Garlington) who rejects imputation in favour of union with Christ. Sigh! I have been here before and I am loathe to enter into it further. But since my good name is at stake I offer a slight qualification.

1. My point is that in terms of exegetical content, no single verse establishes the confessional formula that Jesus' active obedience is imputed to me while my sins are imputed to Jesus. Some verses come very close, some verses say part of this, but no single text gives us all of it. Most texts speak of believers being justified through union with Christ (e.g. Gal. 2.17; 2 Cor. 5.21, Rom. 8.1, etc) and I have termed this "incorporated righteousness". In many cases what is spoken of is believers participating in the vindication of Christ as achieved in his resurrection (e.g. Rom. 4.25; 1 Tim. 3.16). I'm glad to say that I am in good company with Mark Seifrid and Richard Gaffin being very close to this and Brian Vickers is probably not far off either.

2. What I am objecting to is what Ryken says here: "The biblical terminology for imputation—chiefly the verb logizomai, “to count” or “to reckon”—is only used in some of these passages (which are briefly considered here, giving only the broad outlines of a full exegesis). However, the concept of imputation is logically present in all of them. In each case God declares sinners to be what they are not in themselves, namely, righteous in his sight. In other words, God justifies them. He does this on the basis of the saving work of Jesus Christ, which is imputed to them by faith". I wouldn't reject all of this, but the content in bold sounds like special pleading. This sounds to me a bit like saying: "Well some texts don't actually mention imputation, but of course we know from the confessions that that is what they mean". But in Philippians 3.9 the preposition ek is not a synonym for logizomai. In 2 Corinthians 5.21 ginomai/poieo is not a synonym for logizomai either! These texts do not deny imputation, they are consistent with imputation, but they are not saying that Jesus' active righteousness is imputed to believers. As an exegete, I cannot and will not call an Egg an Ostrich in order to keep my Reformed Club Card.

3. Lo and Behold, I actually do believe in imputation (shock, cry, gasp)! The question is how do you get there? Well, you can either argue that the usual proof texts really do teach imputation and everyone who denies it is a Wrightophile who has gone off the edge (this is my own caricature and nothing to do with Ryken's article). Or you get your methodology (w)right and shift from exegesis, to biblical theology, to systematic theology. Exegetically I think that "incorporated righteousness" is a good description of what is happening at the exegetical level in these verses (see Timo Laato's essay in JVN vol. II for something similar). If we ask, "how does union with Christ or incorporation into Christ justify?" then I think something along the lines of imputation is required or even necessitated. If we take the forensic nature of justification, the representative nature of Adam and Christ, the language of "reckoning", the idea of righteousness as an explicit "gift" then the only way to hold it all together is with a theology of imputation. So imputation is a coherent and legitimate way of explicating the biblical materials in the domain of systematic theology; but we do violent damage to the text if we try to read each text as proving this systematic formulation. Let the text say what it says, nothing more and nothing less.

4. I think Mark Seifrid hit the nail on the head in his 1992 dissertation when he said that alot of these debates are between those who want to read the Bible historically, and those who want to read the Bible theologically. Truth be told, I want to do both, but I'm finding that Systematic Theologians do not want to allow the Bible to be read with any sense of historical contingency or allow meaning to be determined by reading the Bible alongside other ancient writings (ANE or second-temple Judaism). That just won't do!

So in sum, I am not trying to play off imputation against union with Christ. My concern is to differentiate between exegetical and doctrinal formulations and not to confuse the two (because they often are confused!). I am convinced that, understood in that sense, Ryken might even be sympathetic to my viewpoint. For those interested in what I do say on justification/imputation see my Saving Righteousness of God and (for a simpler and less technical exposition) A Bird's Eye View of Paul (out early next year).

SBTS Wright Review Panel

I've finally had a chance to listen to the review of N.T. Wright's new book on justification by Tom Schreiner, Mark Seifrid, and Brian Vickers at SBTS/Boyce College. Congrats to Denny Burk (grand poohbah of Boyce College) for organizing a very good panel discussion. My name was mentioned at the beginning and ocassioned what sounded like some kind of nervous laughter by the panelists! While the discussion could have been alot more sympathetic to Wright (a couple of readings from his book would have helped, I thought Seifrid went a bit too far at some points esp. when he called Wright's view "horrid" and accused Wright of "moralism", and generally Wright has not for a long time reduced justification to ecclesiology) it was a relatively balanced affair and criticisms were articulated appropriately (note esp. Schreiner's appreciation for Wright). I wish I was there for it (audience or panelist), but as one who has endorsed books by Piper and Wright, here's my thoughts on the discussion, panel member by panel member:

1. Tom Schreiner. Tom was dissatisfied with Wright's new book. He felt that it lacked an actual response to the precise issues that Piper raises against vis-a-vis wright. What is more, Wright fails to emphasize the degree of discontinuity begtween the Old and New Covenant. Generally, I think this is correct. Wright has a tendency to paint with a thick brush on a big canvass, rather than get drawn into the nitty gritty specifics. While the big picture is often a master piece, and draws you in, you can be left wanting on some of the precise details.

2. Mark Seifrid. Mark is one of my favourite Pauline scholars and his book Christ, our righteousness has been one of the biggest influences on my own views of Paul. I must also recommend his forthcoming essay in a book I'm editing on the Pistis Christou debate. Mark Seifrid and Preston Sprinkle present what I think is the THE solution to the "faith of Jesus Christ" debate. Back to the panel discussion, I confess that I was pretty much gobsmacked by Mark's opening remark about Wright coming close to Roman Catholicism. I've had this same discussion with Dan Wallace in the past about whether Wright is "Catholic" and I'm not convinced that Wright is Tridentine (and I know Tim Chester will back me on that one). In fact, Wright is closer to Bucer and Zwingli than he is to Westminster and I think THAT is the real reason why he gets mistaken for being Catholic. But Mark was the most engaging and provocative speaker at the session and I enjoyed what he had to say. He regards Piper and Wright as being hyper-forensic and not giving due regard to the effective nature of justification. That is to say, justification is not about a "mere" declaration but concerned with the actual enactment of justice (see Ps. 82 and Luke 18.1-8). When it comes to works, Mark chides Wright for laying so much stress on the role of the Holy Spirit in producing good works in us as the basis of eschatological justification. For Mark (see his 2000 SBTS lecture on this availabe from SBTS in audio) good works are the works that Christ works in us. For Mark, faith is God's work in us , what Christ carried forward, and what God presents before himself on the final day is not our inspired works, but his own work of new creation. According to Mark, good works are necesssry in the same way that it is necessary for the sun to shine.

3. Brian Vickers (whom I count as a genuine friend) was the dark horse of the discussion and he had some short and thoughtful comments to add. Best of all was that he shows that, contra Wright, imputation does not rely on this notion of a "treasury of merit" that Jesus supposedly acquired (if you've read Bird's Eye-View of Paul/Introducing Paul, you'll know that I "amen" that one loudly). Also, Vickers drove home that union with Christ is the framework for understanding justification and imputation. While Wright says that "union with Christ gives you everything that imputation does" that is fine, but some where along the line you have to state how and by what mechanism does union create, cause, or make us "righteous"? As Leon Morris wrote: "imputation is a corollary of the identification of the believer with Christ".

Two final observations:

First, for me the best part was how all three guys articulted imputation. Vickers sees imputation as related to union with Christ and he believes that it emerges from a "synthesis" of the biblical materials. Similarly, Seifrid believes that imputation is doctrinally correct, but it does not appear directly in Scripture. Again he uses the word of "synthesis" to describe how we arrive at imputation theologically. That confirms my suspicions, contra both Piper and Wright, that imputation is theologically correct but not exegetically explicit in the texts itself.

Second, I thought it was amazing that each panelist gave us a very different take on the meaning of the "righteousness of God". Closest to my own view was Vickers who sees it is as attributive quality, refering to God's own character, displaying God's saving activity, and related to salvation through judgment. In line with Vickers I should mention that in the same ball park are his colleagues Jim Hamilton who is doing a biblical theological study of salvation through judgment and Denny Burk who also gave a very good presentation on dikaiosyne theou at ETS last year where he argued for a nominal rather than verbal sense for dikaiosyne. Seifrid sees the righteousness of God as related to God's intent to establish justice throughout all of creation; which is fine and quite valid (e.g. Ps. 98) as long as you don't cut the cords with the covenantal dimension to God's righteousness either. Finally, Schreiner sees the "righteousness of God" as an objective genitive, i.e. to the righteousness from God that we receive by faith. Schreiner alludes to my criticism of him in a forthcoming Themelios review of his (rather superb!) NT Theology. In my Pauline theology class my students read Tom Schreiner's Pauline Theology book, but when they get to the section on justification and righteousness I tell them that the best refutation to Schreiner on this topic is to be found in the OT - not in the Old Testament, but rather in Old Tom - in Tom Schreiner's Romans commentary which I think gives a very good exposition of the "righteousness of God" in Rom. 1.17. This is what Tom wrote back then:

"The term 'righteousness of God' in Rom 1:17 ... is clearly fundamental for all of Romans, and it is unlikely that it can be confined solely to forensic or transformative categories. Those whom God has vindicated he also changes. In my opinion, it is doubtful that the term Paul features in presenting his gospel would contain only a forensic dimension. This transformation does not involve eperfection, and it is also crucial to see that God's transforming righteousness is still an alien righteousness - given by God as a gift to sinners. Nor is there any suggest that sinners somehow prepare themselves by good deeds to receive this righteousness. The saving righteousness of God is a gift received by faith alone, and God declares sinners to be in the right before him on the basis of Christ's atoning death. Yet God's declaration of righteousness - which is a gift of the age to come invading the present evil age - is an effective declaration, so that those who are pronounced righteous are also transformed by God's grace. Such a transformation is due solely to God's grace and does not involve a perfect righteousness, nor is there any suggestion that the good works that follow this transformation merit eternal life. Nonetheless, as Rom. 6 shows, believers are changed by the grace of God, and this transformation is an essential ingredient in God's saving work. The use of the verb dikaioun in Rom. 6:7 demonstrates that God's declaration of righteousness really frees people from sin. Similarly, in Rom. 5:19 Paul teaches that those who are incorporated into Christ Jesus are actually made righteous, just as those in Adam are truly made sinners. The forensic is the basis for the transformative, but the one cannot be sundered from the other. Those who are the recipients of the ministry of the Spirit have also been transformed by the ministry of righteousness (2 Cor. 3:8-9). Just as those who are condemned are actually guilty, so too those who are vindicated on the basis of the cross of Christ and his atonement for sinners (Rom. 3:21-26) have also been made righteous by God's gracious work (cf. Rom. 14:17). God's forensic declaration is effective because the Lord who was crucified on behalf of sinners was also raised from the dead (Rom. 4:25), and thus sinners live in a new way (Rom. 6:4)."

So I think Tom Schreiner had it right the first time around! But that's another story. But the panel discussion was worth listening to and goes for about 60 minutes.

Update: See Cel Joseph's review as well.

Don Garlington responds to Phil Ryken

Below is a post from Don Garlington who responds to an article by Phil Ryken. My own response is located here.

A Brief Response to Philip Ryken
Don Garlington

Although a number of issues arising from Philip Ryken’s article Justification and Union with Christ. could be addressed in detail, I will confine my remarks to the following.

According to Ryken, the thrust of my response to John Piper’s Counted Righteous in Christ (“Imputation or Union with Christ? A Response to John Piper,” Reformation and Revival Journal, 12, No. 4 [2003], 45-112) is that we “must choose one doctrine or the other in articulating the theology of salvation” (italics added). This, however, fails to take account of the introduction and conclusions of that response. In the former, what I said was this:

It must be clarified from the outset that this response to Piper’s book represents a kind of “mediating” position. Not that the purpose is to bridge a gap simply for the sake of being a “peacemaker,” but rather that the baby is not to be thrown out with the bath water. That is to say, the intention of the doctrine of imputation is not to be disputed: our righteousness comes from Christ and is for that reason an “alien righteousness.” However, it is a question of modality…. It is the contention of this paper that the free gift of righteousness comes our way by virtue of union with Christ, not imputation as classically defined (pp. 45-46).

In the latter, I wrote:

In closing, it must be placed beyond all doubt that imputation as a concept is hardly objectionable: what evangelical could, at least with any degree of consistency, protest the notion that Christ has become our righteousness in the gospel? But as pertains to a strict doctrine of imputation, exegesis of texts must be the deciding factor. It has been the contention of this paper that exegesis will steer us away from imputation to union with Christ (p. 101).

True enough, I see lots of evidence for union with Christ and none for imputation. Nevertheless, the choice is as not as stark as Ryken would have us believe. My position is somewhere between that of Piper and Robert Gundry. Consequently, as I actually stated, the baby is not to be thrown out with the bath water, and imputation as a concept is hardly objectionable. No reader of my essay was forced to choose one or the other as far as the practical consequences are concerned. That is to say, Christ and Christ alone is the source of our righteousness, by whatever modality it comes.

To take matters a step further, my principal problem with Piper is not imputation as such, but two other factors. For one, there is Piper’s attack on a salvation-historical hermeneutic. Those who embrace such a “new paradigm,” as Piper dubs it, are consigned to the company of Paul’s opponents in 2 Corinthians­, who, as Paul himself exclaims, are the agents of Satan disguising themselves as angels of light! As much as anything else, it is this breathtaking condemnation of other Christians that evoked my reply. For another, there is Piper’s emphatic denial that justification entails liberation from sin. It is certainly ironic that Reformed exegetes of the likes of John Murray do affirm that justification is “from sin” (Acts 13:39; Rom 6:7) in the sense that Paul intends the phrase, i.e., liberation from sin’s dominance (Rom 6:18). Among other things, that is the function of justification. Such, I think, is a larger issue than imputation as a theological category.

Since Ryken has chosen to subsume my views, along with those of Michael Bird and N. T. Wright, under the heading of “Current Distortions of Biblical Justification,” I would submit that the contemporary justification debate has been tarnished precisely by a distortion of the theology of those of us who differ with Ryken, Piper and others. A glaring example is Ryken’s partial and out-of-context quotation from my conclusions: “Garlington intends to offer an exegesis that will ‘steer us away from imputation to union with Christ’.” This is but the final sentence of a paragraph that maintains that imputation as a concept is hardly objectionable, because Christ has become our righteousness in the gospel! I would hope for better things in days to come.