The forensic view typical of
the majority of Protestants has other flaws. It is built on concepts which have
no place in Paul’s discussions of “justification.” For example, the notion of
the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer is entirely foreign to
the apostle. Terms such as “penalty” and “substitution” are also completely
absent from his discussion. If the apostle didn’t find it necessary to use
them, we ought to be suspicious about explanations of “justification,” such as
the above, which depend heavily upon them.
Another obvious problem with
the Protestant explanation of “justification” is seen in Rom 4:5, where,
according to this understanding, God declares the ungodly to be in the right,
or righteous. Such an approach justly deserves the criticism of being a “legal
fiction.” (Richard K. Moore, Paul’s
Concept of Justification: God’s Gift of a Right Relationship [Eugene, Oreg.:
Wipf and Stock, 2015], 5)
Fundamental to what developed
as Protestant orthodoxy was the notion that in “justification” the righteousness
of Christ is imputed to the believer. Such a notion is no part of Paul’s
expositions of the doctrine. HE does not even mention the righteousness of Christ,
let alone state that it is imputed to the believer. It is sad to see
Protestants defending such a notion, which entirely lacks New Testament evidence.
Protestants who would be the first to condemn Mariolatry or purgatory as
doctrines lacking adequate biblical evidence. It is hard to avoid the
conclusion that advocates of this view are putting one fact in the historical development
of the doctrine above the date contained in the biblical texts. (Richard K. Moore, Paul’s Concept of Justification:
God’s Gift of a Right Relationship [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2015], 50)
It will be patently obvious,
however, that the qualities or character we describe as “righteous” are not
transferable. We cannot write a character reference for a person on the basis
of someone else’s character. Similarly, the status of no. 1 tennis seed is attained
solely by performance; it, too, is non-transferable. It has meaning only in terms
of the particular individual associated with it.
The Scripture writers
themselves support such an understanding. In the three-generational scenario
depicted in Ezekiel 18, for example, it is made quite clear that each individual
will be treated on the basis of their own moral standing. Paul has precisely
the same outlook in Rom 2:1-16.
When the apostle does speak
of imputing righteousness directly (only at Rom 4:6, 11) it is in the context
of imputing faith as righteousness (modeled on Gen 15:6, cited at Rom 4:3). At
no stage in his exposition of rectification does Paul suggest that the righteousness
of one individual is transferable to another person or is able to be imputed to
another. Neither does he make any such statement about the righteousness of Christ.
In fact, as a concordance search will verify for anyone who takes the trouble
to conduct it, the apostle never even mentions Christ’s righteousness in his
expositions of rectification. If the apostle did not find it necessary to
mention “the righteousness of Christ,” why is it considered necessary by so
many to include it is a restatement of his doctrine?
These facts compel us to acknowledge
that an understanding of Paul’s doctrine as the imputation of the righteousness
of another person (Christ) is actually meaningless, unable to correspond with
reality, and certainly not in accordance with what the apostle himself taught. (Richard K. Moore, Paul’s Concept of Justification:
God’s Gift of a Right Relationship [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2015], 106)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com
