Tweet
Introduction
The atonement theology of the reformers (Luther and Calvin) teaches that Christ took the penalty of sin by being punished by the Father, by suffering and dying on the cross. Christ hen descended into hell to be punished before being raised by the Father to sit at His right hand. Thos who have faith in Christ are then justified by faith alone, whereby the righteousness of Christ is imputed to their account, even though the sinner remains sinful.
Luther teaches penal substitution –
Luther teaches justification by faith alone –
John Calvin teaches Penal substitution and Christ’s descent into hell to suffer with the devil –
The following problems arise with the theory of penal substitution. If Christ is our substitute and we are impute a legal righteousness, then -
1a – Jesus has deceived the Father and therefore the Father and Jesus are not God because God cannot be deceived, or sin.
Or
1b – Jesus has not deceived the Father and the Father knows Jesus is acting to save sinners by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. The Father is then involved in a deception, or a lie, making the Father and Jesus sinners. Therefore penal substitution is blasphemous.
Then
1c – The Father and Jesus must also be redeemed by Jesus’ death and resurrection. Yet such is never taught in the scriptures. Therefore penal substitution is unbiblical.
2 – The Father sent the son to do a sinful act to deceive the Father into believing we are righteous even though we are not. Therefore penal substitution is blasphemous.
3 – There is no need for faith, because a substitute is a substitute for all our sins. Yet the scriptures say we need faith to be justified. Therefore penal substitution is inconsistent with biblical faith required for salvation.
4 – Nobody can go to hell, because Jesus has already taken the punishment for sin as a substitute. Yet we are taught in Mat 25 that some men will go to hell. Therefore penal substitution is unbiblical.
5 – The scriptures nowhere say Jesus was a substitute for our sins. The term propitiate is used, but never substitute. Therefore penal substitution is unbiblical.
6 – The Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son, after the Son has deceived the Father into thinking we are righteous, even though we are sinners. Therefore the Holy Spirit has been sent on a mission by a deceiver and the deceived, to guide the church into the truth of forensic imputation of righteousness, which is itself a deception. Evidently the Holy Spirit is also a deceiver and has been deceived. It’s as though the only real persons that are never redeemed are those divine persons of the Trinity. Therefore penal substitution is idolatrous.
7 – There is no precedent in the OT for a substitute atoning for a sinner and the sinner having the substitutes righteousness imputed to the sinner, therefore if penal substitution is correct, it is not based upon the OT, so Jesus cannot be the Messiah, because he didn’t fulfil the OT. Therefore penal substitution is unbiblical.
8 – There is no need for repentance because the substitute has been made and the Father sees all men as righteous. After all faith alone, is alone, which excludes repentance. Therefore penal substitution contradicts the doctrine of faith alone.
9a – According to Calvinism, the substitute only has limited value because it’s not applied to all men, even though it’s a perfect substitute. Somehow the Father is deceived into thinking the substitute is only satisfactory for some men and not others, even though the Son was a perfect substitute. So the Father has been deceived in sending the Son as a substitute because the substitute didn’t work for some men even though Jesus was the perfect substitute. What’s a God got to do to be a substitute and perfect saviour when not even an imputed exchange that is external to the sinner cannot cover all men’s sins?
Or
9b – The Father arbitrarily decides not to accept the penal substitution for some men, but only others. This arbitrary decision by the Father makes him both a despot, or a false god. Therefore penal substitution leads to idolatry.
10a – The scriptures have deceived us into thinking we need to do something to be justified and pleasing to God, even though according to Calvinism, man is depraved and cannot do a good act in the eyes of God. Therefore we are told on one had to have faith and this is enough to be justified by a legal process, yet we are also told men cannot do an act pleasing to God, so God justifies man, even though He is not pleased with men’s acts. What’s a man to do to be justified after all? Does he have to do an act pleasing to God and if so, is this is a meritorious act? Yes. If not, then why does man have to do any act at all to receive justification, when the perfect sacrificial substitute has already been made?
10b – If faith alone justifies whereby faith is a gift from God, why doesn’t God grant the gift of faith to all men, rather than only some? If faith alone justifies, God must get some good out of men not having faith, for God only permits an evil to attain a greater good. Therefore God does not give faith to all men, whereby God gets a greater good from those men who do not have faith than those who do have faith. What then is the good God gets, that is greater than the atonement and glorification of the Son?
11 – If God sends anyone to hell then He is being unjust, because Jesus has already taken the punishment for sin. Therefore penal substitution concludes to God being unjust, and therefore a sinner.
12 – There is nothing intrinsic to the substitute of Jesus sacrificial act that makes the value limited to only some men, simply because according to Calvinism no man can do any act that pleases God. As no man can do an act that pleases God, then all men must be saved, yet according to scripture, not all men will be saved.
“Thus, we too will be judged on the last day according to works. “
Matt 25 clearly specifies works as justifying without any reference to an impute righteousness.
13 – Nowhere do the scriptures teach that the non legal act of faith in an act of another man in the OT or of the God man Jesus Christ in the NT causes a legal imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinners account. Therefore penal substitution is unbiblical.
14 - If the non legal act of faith can have Christ’s righteousness imputed to the sinners account then there must be something legal about the act of faith. Therefore according to the substitute theory, a non legal act that does not have legal righteousness, has a legal righteousness through imputation. But this infers a contradiction regarding the value of a non legal act that is then said to have a legal value. Therefore penal substitution is contradictory.
15 - The nature of God is truth itself and when God says something about a thing, it comes into being what God says it to be. When God declares a man to be righteous, his declaration makes the man intrinsically righteous by His grace. However the substitute theory of imputed righteousness says man does not become righteous, but remains a sinner, even though God declares the man righteous. Therefore the theory of penal substitution and imputed righteousness by faith alone is unscriptural according to Gods infinite power to bring about what he truthfully declares to be real.
16 – If Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the sinners account, then the sinner is not righteous, but only his account is righteous, therefore only the account gets to heaven and never the sinner. Therefore penal substitution insufficiently explains the cause of a sinners justification.
17 - The scriptures teach that those in heaven are without sin, but this is not the same as a sinner having a righteousness imputed to his account, therefore the penal substitution theory is not scriptural.
18 – The scriptures teach God is a supernatural being with an intimate life of the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. As God is supernatural the just in heaven can only see God by having there minds supernaturalised by the light of glory as an effect of grace. As the human mind must be supernaturally elevated, and divinized to see God face to face in heaven, then justification cannot be an imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinner, but an infusion of the divine life of the supernatural God into the soul of the just man. Therefore penal substitution and faith alone theology is a false doctrine of man.
19- Saints in heave are justified, yet there is no faith in heaven. Therefore the saints in heave are not justified by faith alone. Therefore penal substitution and faith alone theology is a false doctrine of man.
20 – St Paul tells us that love is the greatest virtue. If we are justified by faith, then we are also justified by love, for love is greater than faith. Therefore penal substitution and faith alone theology is a false doctrine of man.
21 – Hebrews 5:9 says Christ is a source of eternal life for all who obey him. As obedience is to follow a law, which is the law of Christ, then obedience is distinct and no the same as faith. Therefore those who are justified are justified by obedience and not by faith alone. Therefore penal substitution and faith alone theology is a false doctrine of man.
22 – James 2 says man is justified by works and not by faith alone. However the penal substitution theory of imputed righteousness by faith alone says man is not justified by works. Therefore the penal substitution theory is not scriptural.
23 – Christ is the perfect substitute for our sins, so logically all man can continue in their sins without repentance. But the scriptures say man must repent, therefore Christ was not the perfect substitute.
24a – Imputed righteousness means Christ’s righteousness is credited to the sinners account. In this way the Father sees the sinner as righteous even though he is a sinner. If this is so, then there is no need to repent, because the Father always sees the sinner as righteous. Yet the scriptures teach men must repent, believe and keep the commandments and as Jesus says the woman caught committing adultery, go and sin no more. Evidently the logical conclusions of penal substitution and imputed righteousness contradict the scriptures.
24b – Imputed righteousness means Christ’s righteousness is credited to the sinners account. In this way the Father sees the sinner as righteous even though he is a sinner. If this is so, then there is no need to repent, because the Father always sees the sinner as righteous. Yet the scriptures teach men must repent, believe and keep the commandments. Therefore penal substitution empties the scriptures of content and meaning on the themes of repentance and law keeping.
25 - Imputed righteousness means Christ’s righteousness is credited to the sinners account. In this way the Father sees the sinner as righteous even though he is a sinner. Therefore according to this theory the Father either has 1) a limited power so he cannot really make a sinner intrinsically righteous, which is not scriptural, or 2) he has chosen not to make the sinner really righteous, even though he could by his power. If the later, then the Father has chosen an imperfect means by which men are justified, when he could have chosen a perfect means. As an imperfect means is not compatible with the perfection of God, the theory of imputed righteousness is against the perfection of God and is therefore unbiblical.
25 - Imputed righteousness means Christ’s righteousness is credited to the sinners account. In this way the Father sees the sinner as righteous even though he is a sinner. Therefore according to this theory the Father either has 1) a limited power so he cannot really make a sinner intrinsically righteous, which is not scriptural, or 2) he has chosen not to make the sinner really righteous, even though he could by his power. If the later, then the Father has chosen an imperfect means by which men are justified, when he could have chosen a perfect means. As an imperfect means is not compatible with the perfection of God, the theory of imputed righteousness is against the perfection of God and is therefore unbiblical.
26 - Imputed righteousness means Christ’s righteousness is credited to the sinners account. In this way the Father sees the sinner as righteous even though he is a sinner. According to this theory there is no way the sinner can suffer the loss of his salvation, because salvation is only a work of God by his grace of Imputed righteousness, which is external to the sinner. As the imputed righteousness, is external to the sinner (probably in the heavenly court), then the sinner cannot change Gods decree in the sinners account. But scripture says men can and do lose their salvation (see Galatians warning of a false gospel and Hebrew warnings of falling away), therefore men can change their imputed righteousness status by their sins. However according to the imputed righteousness theory, the imputed righteousness was originally given precisely because men are sinners and Christ is there substitute. So sinners are justified by an imputed righteousness, whilst remaining sinners, yet scripture says men are not righteous if they remain or return to their sins. Therefore the theory of Imputed righteousness is both unbiblical and illogical.
27 – Scriptures refers to justification as a process by numerous references to a man having been saved, is being saved and will be saved. These verses indicate a past action that continues and will continue into the future based upon human actions through gods grace. However, the theory of penal substitution and imputed righteousness requires a once for all time event that occurred in the past for the sinner, who was saved and can never lose his salvation in the future. Therefore the theory of imputed righteousness is unscriptural.
28 – The greatest commandment is to love God above all things and your neighbor as yourself. However according to the imputed righteousness theory, love of God and neighbor does not cause one to have Christ’s righteousness imputed to the sinner, because the action of imputing Christ’s righteousness is completed by faith alone. Therefore the greatest commandment has nothing to do with justification, which means God commands men to do acts, when he knows those commandments have nothing to do with making men right with God. Therefore, according to the imputation theory, God commands men to do futile acts. However, according to the scriptures, God cannot command men to do futile acts, because God is perfect, and to command a futile act is to be imperfect. Therefore the theory of Imputed righteousness is both unbiblical and against the nature of God.
29 – According to Acts 2 that says “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the Holy Spirit as a gift”, forgiveness of sins is obtained by repentance and baptism and not by faith alone. As the scripture require repentance and baptism for forgiveness and forgiveness is required to be justified, then a man cannot be justified by faith alone. Therefore the theory of Imputed righteousness is unbiblical.
30 – Jesus was killed as a sacrifice to appease the wrath of the Father (Eph 2:5). But a sacrifice is not a substitute, for a substitute is to stand in the place of another, whereas a sacrifice is to destroy something of value to obtain favor from the person to whom the act is offered. As scripture says Jesus’ offering on the cross was a sacrifice and it never states Jesus was a substitute, the theory of penal substitution and imputed righteousness is unbiblical.
More to come.
JM
The atonement theology of the reformers (Luther and Calvin) teaches that Christ took the penalty of sin by being punished by the Father, by suffering and dying on the cross. Christ hen descended into hell to be punished before being raised by the Father to sit at His right hand. Thos who have faith in Christ are then justified by faith alone, whereby the righteousness of Christ is imputed to their account, even though the sinner remains sinful.
Luther teaches penal substitution –
But now, if God’s wrath is to be taken away from me and I am to obtain grace and forgiveness, some one must merit this; for God cannot be a friend of sin nor gracious to it, nor can he remit the punishment and wrath, unless payment and satisfaction be made.
Now, no one, not even an angel of heaven, could make restitution for the infinite and irreparable injury and appease the eternal wrath of God which we had merited by our sins; except that eternal person, the Son of God himself, and he could do it only by taking our place, assuming our sins, and answering for them as though he himself were guilty of them.
This our dear Lord and only Saviour and Mediator before God, Jesus Christ, did for us by his blood and death, in which he became a sacrifice for us; and with his purity, innocence, and righteousness, which was divine and eternal, he outweighed all sin and wrath he was compelled to bear on our account; yea, he entirely engulfed and swallowed it up, and his merit is so great that God is now satisfied and says, “If he wills thereby to save, then there will be a salvation. (Sermons of Martin Luther, vol. 2, p. 344)
Now, no one, not even an angel of heaven, could make restitution for the infinite and irreparable injury and appease the eternal wrath of God which we had merited by our sins; except that eternal person, the Son of God himself, and he could do it only by taking our place, assuming our sins, and answering for them as though he himself were guilty of them.
This our dear Lord and only Saviour and Mediator before God, Jesus Christ, did for us by his blood and death, in which he became a sacrifice for us; and with his purity, innocence, and righteousness, which was divine and eternal, he outweighed all sin and wrath he was compelled to bear on our account; yea, he entirely engulfed and swallowed it up, and his merit is so great that God is now satisfied and says, “If he wills thereby to save, then there will be a salvation. (Sermons of Martin Luther, vol. 2, p. 344)
The first and chief article is this: Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, died for our sins and was raised again for our justification (Romans 3:24-25). He alone is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29), and God has laid on Him the iniquity of us all (Isaiah 53:6). All have sinned and are justified freely, without their own works and merits, by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, in His blood (Romans 3:23-25). This is necessary to believe. This cannot be otherwise acquired or grasped by any work, law or merit. Therefore, it is clear and certain that this faith alone justifies us ... Nothing of this article can be yielded or surrendered, even though heaven and earth and everything else falls (Mark 13:31).
Luther, Martin. "The Smalcald Articles," in Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2005, 289, Part two, Article 1.
Luther, Martin. "The Smalcald Articles," in Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2005, 289, Part two, Article 1.
How could he be angry with the beloved Son, with whom his soul was well pleased? or how could he have appeased the Father by his intercession for others if He were hostile to himself? But this we say, that he bore the weight of the divine anger, that, smitten and afflicted, he experienced all the signs of an angry and avenging God. Hence Hilary argues, that to this descent we owe our exemption from death. Nor does he dissent from this view in other passages, as when he says, “The cross, death, hell, are our life.” And again, “The Son of God is in hell, but man is brought back to heaven.” And why do I quote the testimony of a private writer, when an Apostle asserts the same thing, stating it as one fruit of his victory that he delivered “them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage?” (Heb. 2:15). He behoved therefore, to conquer the fear which incessantly vexes and agitates the breasts of all mortals; and this he could not do without a contest. Moreover it will shortly appear with greater clearness that his was no common sorrow, was not the result of a trivial cause. Thus by engaging with the power of the devil, the fear of death, and the pains of hell, he gained the victory, and achieved a triumph, so that we now fear not in death those things which our Prince has destroyed. [Vide Luther, tom. 1 in Concione de Morte, fol. 87. 12.]
http://www.lectionarycentral.com/sat...nstitutes.html
http://www.lectionarycentral.com/sat...nstitutes.html
1a – Jesus has deceived the Father and therefore the Father and Jesus are not God because God cannot be deceived, or sin.
Or
1b – Jesus has not deceived the Father and the Father knows Jesus is acting to save sinners by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. The Father is then involved in a deception, or a lie, making the Father and Jesus sinners. Therefore penal substitution is blasphemous.
Then
1c – The Father and Jesus must also be redeemed by Jesus’ death and resurrection. Yet such is never taught in the scriptures. Therefore penal substitution is unbiblical.
2 – The Father sent the son to do a sinful act to deceive the Father into believing we are righteous even though we are not. Therefore penal substitution is blasphemous.
3 – There is no need for faith, because a substitute is a substitute for all our sins. Yet the scriptures say we need faith to be justified. Therefore penal substitution is inconsistent with biblical faith required for salvation.
4 – Nobody can go to hell, because Jesus has already taken the punishment for sin as a substitute. Yet we are taught in Mat 25 that some men will go to hell. Therefore penal substitution is unbiblical.
5 – The scriptures nowhere say Jesus was a substitute for our sins. The term propitiate is used, but never substitute. Therefore penal substitution is unbiblical.
6 – The Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son, after the Son has deceived the Father into thinking we are righteous, even though we are sinners. Therefore the Holy Spirit has been sent on a mission by a deceiver and the deceived, to guide the church into the truth of forensic imputation of righteousness, which is itself a deception. Evidently the Holy Spirit is also a deceiver and has been deceived. It’s as though the only real persons that are never redeemed are those divine persons of the Trinity. Therefore penal substitution is idolatrous.
7 – There is no precedent in the OT for a substitute atoning for a sinner and the sinner having the substitutes righteousness imputed to the sinner, therefore if penal substitution is correct, it is not based upon the OT, so Jesus cannot be the Messiah, because he didn’t fulfil the OT. Therefore penal substitution is unbiblical.
8 – There is no need for repentance because the substitute has been made and the Father sees all men as righteous. After all faith alone, is alone, which excludes repentance. Therefore penal substitution contradicts the doctrine of faith alone.
9a – According to Calvinism, the substitute only has limited value because it’s not applied to all men, even though it’s a perfect substitute. Somehow the Father is deceived into thinking the substitute is only satisfactory for some men and not others, even though the Son was a perfect substitute. So the Father has been deceived in sending the Son as a substitute because the substitute didn’t work for some men even though Jesus was the perfect substitute. What’s a God got to do to be a substitute and perfect saviour when not even an imputed exchange that is external to the sinner cannot cover all men’s sins?
Or
9b – The Father arbitrarily decides not to accept the penal substitution for some men, but only others. This arbitrary decision by the Father makes him both a despot, or a false god. Therefore penal substitution leads to idolatry.
10a – The scriptures have deceived us into thinking we need to do something to be justified and pleasing to God, even though according to Calvinism, man is depraved and cannot do a good act in the eyes of God. Therefore we are told on one had to have faith and this is enough to be justified by a legal process, yet we are also told men cannot do an act pleasing to God, so God justifies man, even though He is not pleased with men’s acts. What’s a man to do to be justified after all? Does he have to do an act pleasing to God and if so, is this is a meritorious act? Yes. If not, then why does man have to do any act at all to receive justification, when the perfect sacrificial substitute has already been made?
10b – If faith alone justifies whereby faith is a gift from God, why doesn’t God grant the gift of faith to all men, rather than only some? If faith alone justifies, God must get some good out of men not having faith, for God only permits an evil to attain a greater good. Therefore God does not give faith to all men, whereby God gets a greater good from those men who do not have faith than those who do have faith. What then is the good God gets, that is greater than the atonement and glorification of the Son?
11 – If God sends anyone to hell then He is being unjust, because Jesus has already taken the punishment for sin. Therefore penal substitution concludes to God being unjust, and therefore a sinner.
12 – There is nothing intrinsic to the substitute of Jesus sacrificial act that makes the value limited to only some men, simply because according to Calvinism no man can do any act that pleases God. As no man can do an act that pleases God, then all men must be saved, yet according to scripture, not all men will be saved.
“Thus, we too will be judged on the last day according to works. “
Matt 25 clearly specifies works as justifying without any reference to an impute righteousness.
13 – Nowhere do the scriptures teach that the non legal act of faith in an act of another man in the OT or of the God man Jesus Christ in the NT causes a legal imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinners account. Therefore penal substitution is unbiblical.
14 - If the non legal act of faith can have Christ’s righteousness imputed to the sinners account then there must be something legal about the act of faith. Therefore according to the substitute theory, a non legal act that does not have legal righteousness, has a legal righteousness through imputation. But this infers a contradiction regarding the value of a non legal act that is then said to have a legal value. Therefore penal substitution is contradictory.
15 - The nature of God is truth itself and when God says something about a thing, it comes into being what God says it to be. When God declares a man to be righteous, his declaration makes the man intrinsically righteous by His grace. However the substitute theory of imputed righteousness says man does not become righteous, but remains a sinner, even though God declares the man righteous. Therefore the theory of penal substitution and imputed righteousness by faith alone is unscriptural according to Gods infinite power to bring about what he truthfully declares to be real.
16 – If Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the sinners account, then the sinner is not righteous, but only his account is righteous, therefore only the account gets to heaven and never the sinner. Therefore penal substitution insufficiently explains the cause of a sinners justification.
17 - The scriptures teach that those in heaven are without sin, but this is not the same as a sinner having a righteousness imputed to his account, therefore the penal substitution theory is not scriptural.
18 – The scriptures teach God is a supernatural being with an intimate life of the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. As God is supernatural the just in heaven can only see God by having there minds supernaturalised by the light of glory as an effect of grace. As the human mind must be supernaturally elevated, and divinized to see God face to face in heaven, then justification cannot be an imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinner, but an infusion of the divine life of the supernatural God into the soul of the just man. Therefore penal substitution and faith alone theology is a false doctrine of man.
19- Saints in heave are justified, yet there is no faith in heaven. Therefore the saints in heave are not justified by faith alone. Therefore penal substitution and faith alone theology is a false doctrine of man.
20 – St Paul tells us that love is the greatest virtue. If we are justified by faith, then we are also justified by love, for love is greater than faith. Therefore penal substitution and faith alone theology is a false doctrine of man.
21 – Hebrews 5:9 says Christ is a source of eternal life for all who obey him. As obedience is to follow a law, which is the law of Christ, then obedience is distinct and no the same as faith. Therefore those who are justified are justified by obedience and not by faith alone. Therefore penal substitution and faith alone theology is a false doctrine of man.
22 – James 2 says man is justified by works and not by faith alone. However the penal substitution theory of imputed righteousness by faith alone says man is not justified by works. Therefore the penal substitution theory is not scriptural.
23 – Christ is the perfect substitute for our sins, so logically all man can continue in their sins without repentance. But the scriptures say man must repent, therefore Christ was not the perfect substitute.
24a – Imputed righteousness means Christ’s righteousness is credited to the sinners account. In this way the Father sees the sinner as righteous even though he is a sinner. If this is so, then there is no need to repent, because the Father always sees the sinner as righteous. Yet the scriptures teach men must repent, believe and keep the commandments and as Jesus says the woman caught committing adultery, go and sin no more. Evidently the logical conclusions of penal substitution and imputed righteousness contradict the scriptures.
24b – Imputed righteousness means Christ’s righteousness is credited to the sinners account. In this way the Father sees the sinner as righteous even though he is a sinner. If this is so, then there is no need to repent, because the Father always sees the sinner as righteous. Yet the scriptures teach men must repent, believe and keep the commandments. Therefore penal substitution empties the scriptures of content and meaning on the themes of repentance and law keeping.
25 - Imputed righteousness means Christ’s righteousness is credited to the sinners account. In this way the Father sees the sinner as righteous even though he is a sinner. Therefore according to this theory the Father either has 1) a limited power so he cannot really make a sinner intrinsically righteous, which is not scriptural, or 2) he has chosen not to make the sinner really righteous, even though he could by his power. If the later, then the Father has chosen an imperfect means by which men are justified, when he could have chosen a perfect means. As an imperfect means is not compatible with the perfection of God, the theory of imputed righteousness is against the perfection of God and is therefore unbiblical.
25 - Imputed righteousness means Christ’s righteousness is credited to the sinners account. In this way the Father sees the sinner as righteous even though he is a sinner. Therefore according to this theory the Father either has 1) a limited power so he cannot really make a sinner intrinsically righteous, which is not scriptural, or 2) he has chosen not to make the sinner really righteous, even though he could by his power. If the later, then the Father has chosen an imperfect means by which men are justified, when he could have chosen a perfect means. As an imperfect means is not compatible with the perfection of God, the theory of imputed righteousness is against the perfection of God and is therefore unbiblical.
26 - Imputed righteousness means Christ’s righteousness is credited to the sinners account. In this way the Father sees the sinner as righteous even though he is a sinner. According to this theory there is no way the sinner can suffer the loss of his salvation, because salvation is only a work of God by his grace of Imputed righteousness, which is external to the sinner. As the imputed righteousness, is external to the sinner (probably in the heavenly court), then the sinner cannot change Gods decree in the sinners account. But scripture says men can and do lose their salvation (see Galatians warning of a false gospel and Hebrew warnings of falling away), therefore men can change their imputed righteousness status by their sins. However according to the imputed righteousness theory, the imputed righteousness was originally given precisely because men are sinners and Christ is there substitute. So sinners are justified by an imputed righteousness, whilst remaining sinners, yet scripture says men are not righteous if they remain or return to their sins. Therefore the theory of Imputed righteousness is both unbiblical and illogical.
27 – Scriptures refers to justification as a process by numerous references to a man having been saved, is being saved and will be saved. These verses indicate a past action that continues and will continue into the future based upon human actions through gods grace. However, the theory of penal substitution and imputed righteousness requires a once for all time event that occurred in the past for the sinner, who was saved and can never lose his salvation in the future. Therefore the theory of imputed righteousness is unscriptural.
28 – The greatest commandment is to love God above all things and your neighbor as yourself. However according to the imputed righteousness theory, love of God and neighbor does not cause one to have Christ’s righteousness imputed to the sinner, because the action of imputing Christ’s righteousness is completed by faith alone. Therefore the greatest commandment has nothing to do with justification, which means God commands men to do acts, when he knows those commandments have nothing to do with making men right with God. Therefore, according to the imputation theory, God commands men to do futile acts. However, according to the scriptures, God cannot command men to do futile acts, because God is perfect, and to command a futile act is to be imperfect. Therefore the theory of Imputed righteousness is both unbiblical and against the nature of God.
29 – According to Acts 2 that says “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the Holy Spirit as a gift”, forgiveness of sins is obtained by repentance and baptism and not by faith alone. As the scripture require repentance and baptism for forgiveness and forgiveness is required to be justified, then a man cannot be justified by faith alone. Therefore the theory of Imputed righteousness is unbiblical.
30 – Jesus was killed as a sacrifice to appease the wrath of the Father (Eph 2:5). But a sacrifice is not a substitute, for a substitute is to stand in the place of another, whereas a sacrifice is to destroy something of value to obtain favor from the person to whom the act is offered. As scripture says Jesus’ offering on the cross was a sacrifice and it never states Jesus was a substitute, the theory of penal substitution and imputed righteousness is unbiblical.
More to come.
JM
Comment