Often when
defending Reformed theology, apologists for Calvinism will speak of
righteousness (in the context of soteriology and justification) that refutes
historic Reformed theology. Note the following:
THE ASPECT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS IN
THE MONERGISTIC TRADITION
Monergistic Protestants’ View of
Righteousness in Scripture
The term righteousness
has multiple references in the monergist tradition. Sometimes monergists
emphasize the judicial aspect of righteousness, others the relational aspect of
righteousness, and some the aspect of appropriate moral behavior. However, what
is readily affirmed by the monergistic community is that righteousness must be understood in accordance with the character of
God. That is to say that such emphasis on the relational and judicial aspects
of righteousness must be understood as it relates to the divine nature.
It is particularly important to understand
monergists’ interpretation of the righteousness of God in the Old Testament.
Thomas Schreiner gives a helpful insight at this point that is reflective of
the monergistic community. For him (and likeminded monergists), righteousness
in the Old Testament has to do with fulfilling the requirements of a covenant
relationship; however it is not limited to it. He cites Genesis 38 as an
example where Tamar (though she
acted as a prostitute and thus being morally unrighteousness) is reckoned to be more righteous than
Judah because she carried out obligations of the covenant and also (and very importantly states Schreiner) conformed to a
norm (Schreiner, 40 Questions About
Christians and Biblical Law, 109). He further supports his claim that
righteousness (in the Old Testament) refers not just to fulfilling expectations
but also conforming to a norm by referencing Leviticus 19:36: “You shall have just balances, just weights, a just
ephah, and a just hin: I am the Lord your God.” When applied to God’s
people, their actions must also (says Schreiner) conform to a norm, and the
norm (which Schreiner says is codified in the Old Testament law) that they
should conform to is God himself (Ibid., 109-10). Bruce Waltke, in a similar
fashion, states: “[T]he righteousness that pleases God is rooted in faith in
the truthfulness of his promises and in the goodness of his character” (Waltke,
An Old Testament Theology, 289). This
is to say that the righteous activity of God’s people is a reflection of the
righteous character of God which is based in himself.
With this framework in mind, monergists go on
to explain the other ways in which righteousness may be understood. As one
author observes, righteousness is a relationship word. While the basis for
righteousness is in the character of God, it allows one to have proper
relationship or standing before God or others (hence there is a judicial aspect
whereby one may be reckoned as righteous—namely
fulfilling expectations and conforming to the norm or unrighteous—a failure to
meet expectations). Bring all these concepts together, George Ladd states: “Basically
‘righteousness’ is a concept of relationship
. . . The righteous person is the one who in God’s judgment meet the divine
standard and thus stands in a right relationship with God. The norm of righteousness
depends entirely on the nature of God” (Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 481; emphasis original). (Daniel
Kirkpatrick, Monergism or Synergism: Is
Salvation Cooperative or the Work of God Alone? [Eugene, Oreg.: Pickwick
Publications, 2018], 172-73, emphasis in bold added)
Notice how
the author speaks of righteousness as a legal declaration, but one that is a
declaration of an (intrinsic) reality—for example, Tamar was considered
righteous due to “conforming to a norm” and the weights and measures in Lev
19:36 are just as they are intrinsically
just. Further, while attempting to defend one being “reckoned as” righteous or
unrighteous, note how it is not based on a forensic imputation of righteousness from an alien source—again,
it is due to whether one succeeds or fails “to meet expectations." Furthermore, tying all this back to the character of God is a refutation, not support of Reformed theology as God is intrinsically righteous, not merely reputed to be such! This is just
another example of a Reformed apologist shooting themselves in the foot.
For an
excellent book refuting the common Protestant misunderstanding of the δικ-word group and other issues,
see:
Chris VanLandingham,
Judgment and Justification in Early
Judaism and the Apostle Paul (Hendrickson, 2006)
On the topic of imputation, see:
Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness
