NASHVILLE BAPTIST BIBLE COLLEGE & THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

A MINISTRY OF NASHVILLE BAPTIST CHURCH

OUTLINE OF LECTURES IN SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY

JUSTIFICATION
Paul E. McCullough, Th.M.

Pastor Richard Jacob

B.Th., B.D., M. Div., D.Min., PHD
July 13, 2021

I. THEOLOGICAL DEFINITIONS OF JUSTIFICATION

("Justification...may be defined as the Judicial act of God whereby to justly declares and
treats as righteous the one who believes in Jesus Christ," (New Scofield Reference Bible, p.
1215).

Justification can be defined as "Just as if we never sinner".

"Justification may be defined as that act of God whereby He declares righteous him who
believes on Christ." (1. C. Theissen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, p.362). "That Judicial
act of God by which, on account of Christ, to whom the sinner is united by faith, is declared
the sinner to be no longer exposed to the penalty of the law, but to be restored to his
favor...Justification is the reversal of God's attitude toward the sinner, because of the sinner's
new relation to Christ. God did condemn; he now acquits to favor did repel; now he admits to
favor." (A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology p. 849).

"Justification is that act of God whereby He accepts and accounts as righteous, though in
ourselves unrighteous...In a word, Justification means reinstatement." (W. H. Griffith Thomas,
The Principles of Theology, p. 186).

Justification is a Judicial act of God in which he declares the sinner free from condemnation
and restores him to divine favor (E. Y. Mullins, The Christian Religion in Doctrinal
Expression, p. 389).
 "Justification, or declaring-righteous, therefore, is the reckoning by God to a believing
sinner of the whole value of the infinite work of Christ on the cross; and further, His
connecting this believing sinner with the Risen Christ in glory, giving him the same
acceptance before Himself as has Christ: so that the believer is now 'the righteousness of
God in Him' (Christ). Negatively, then, God in justifying a sinner reckons to him the putting
away of sin by Christ's blood. Positively, He places him in Christ; He is one with Christ
forever before God." (W. R. Nowell, Romans, pp. 160,161).

II.THE TWO-FOLD SIGNIFICANCE OF JUSTIFICATION

The words ("Justification") and "righteousness" in all their forms in the New Testament comes
from the same Greek root. (the Greek verb dikioo) translated "justify," literally means "declare
righteous". It follows, therefore, that justification has not only to do with the remission of
penalty but also involves the elevating of the sinner to a standing of positive righteousness.

III. JUSTIFICATION AFFECTS THE SINNER'S STANDING, NOT HIS STATE

In such references as Rom. 5:18 and Matt. 12:37, 1t is evident that although the results differ,
condemning and justifying are parallel, identical activities.

In a court of law, the act of the judge in finding the criminal "guilty" (condemning him) is not a
subjective efficient process infusing the person with evil and making him guilty; It is an
objective judicial act by which an already guilty person is declared guilty. Similarly, in finding
an innocent person "not guilty Justifying him) the act of the judge is not a subjective efficient
process infusing the person with good and making him not guilty; It is an objective judicial act
by which an already just person (in respect to the law) is declared just. Similarly, God's
condemnation and justification are declarations based on prior facts, but with this difference
(that whereas His condemnation justly finds its cause in the sinner's sinfulness. His
justification cannot find its cause in the sinner's righteousness, for the sinner has no
righteousness...he is a depraved person, Therefore, His justification of necessity must find its
cause in something outside the sinner which enables God to justify him.

While justification does not, in itself, do more than affect the sinner's standing, it is always
accompanied by regeneration, which affects the sinner's state (Personal notes: Justification
changes my position from sinner to saint. Therefore, while the two Divine activities are not the
Pastor Richard Jacob Justification 2
 same, they take place at the same time although logically justification, which removes the
barrier of guilt and admits to favor, must precede regeneration.

JUSTIFICATION REGENERATION
Deliverance from the guilt of sin. Deliverance from the power of sin
Something done for us (objective) Something done in us (subjective)
A legal pronouncement (declarative) A recreative act (efficient), rebirth
Results in a changed standing Results in a changed ruling disposition (thinking)
Concerns God's justice Concerns the sinner's character (Zacchaeus, Paul)
Restores to God's favor Restores to God's moral image (Like Adam was
before his sin in the Garden of Eden)

If a person has not changed after salvation, either God is dead or the person is dead. So, the
person is definitely the one that is dead and the person. No root there is no fruit. Fruit is evidence
of root.

IV. IMPUTATION: THE BASIS FOR JUSTIFICATION

A . The necessity for imputation
To impute means to reckon (or put) to one's account, this imputation may be reckoning
of that which is antecedently one's own (e.g., reckoning Adam's sin to the race which
sinned in and with him) of a reckoning that which is not antecedently one's own (e.g.
reckoning our sin to Christ on the Cross).

Since God cannot lay aside (1) His omniscience, and forget that the sinner is
unrighteous, or (2) His holiness, and declare that the sinner is righteous in himself
and apart from any other considerations, it necessarily follows that before He may
declare the sinner righteous, God must provide some basis for such a declaration.
(That this is not merely an impractical theological quibble (objection) but a matter of
basic importance is proven by [Romans 3:25, 26], which teaches, that in justifying
sinners must protect his own reputation. It is only by on a plan of salvation which
enables Him to be personally "just" (righteous) in becoming "the justifier" (one who

Pastor Richard Jacob Justification 3

 declares righteous) the sinner, that God can satisfy both His love for the sinner and
His holy nature.

B. The means of imputation (Identification with Christ)

We have concluded that whatever may be the cause or basis, external to the sinner,
which enables God to justify the sinner, it cannot be a mere sovereign decree, but
must satisfy the holy nature of God, so that the question resolves itself into this:
Where can a holy God find a basis for reckoning righteousness to those who are un-
righteous, so that He may justly declare them righteous?

To such a question there can be only one answer. God must find a substitute for the
sinner; someone who can remove whatever barriers exist between the sinner and
God's favor: someone whose person or work or both can be so related to the sinner as to
enable God to righteously reckon these to the sinner so that He may declare him
righteous.)

1. Identification with Christ in His death

"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ
Jesus" (Romans 3:24). What is the payment price for the sinner's redemption? The
next verse says that it is the death of Christ. "Being now justified by his "blood"
(Rom. 5:9). We were reconciled to God by the death of his son" (Romans 5:10).

"So then as through one trespass (Adam's one act of sin) the judgment came unto
all men unto condemnation; even so through one act of righteousness (Christ's
death on the Cross) the free gift came unto all men to justification of life" (Rom. 5:18
A.S.V.). The correct rendering of this verse (cp. A.V.) proves that the next verse
(19) in stating that "by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous" is
referring to this one act of obedience by Christ as the basis for justification.

According to John 3: 14-16, eternal life for the lost is made possible through the
death of God's Son, lifted as was the serpent in Moses' day.

In John 6:51, eternal life is connected with Christ's giving His "flesh...for the life of
the world."
Pastor Richard Jacob Justification 4
 In 2 Cor. 5:14,15 we find that the death of Christ enables those who were dead to
live; the contrast is between spiritual death and spiritual life. That the passage
is dealing with a justified standing before God is further indicated by vv. 18-20,
where reconciliation is the result of the death of Christ. The most significant verse
is 21, to which we shall return.

In Gal. 3:6-9, the subject is justification by faith; Abraham was the outstanding
example of such a justification, and God promised (in the covenant made with
Abraham) to provide salvation to all nations on the same basis. Verses 10-12 prove
that justification by works is contrary to this principle of justification by faith, hence
cannot be God's method. Verse 13 speaks of the death of Christ. which, according to
vs. 14, is the means by which justification becomes possible.

In Eph. 1:7, "the redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sin" is clearly
the basis for all the blessings of the chapter. In 2:13, the terms "far off" and "made
nigh" are, of course, not geographical but spiritual descriptions, and refer to
the standing of the lost and the standing of the saved; the "made nigh" position being
accomplished "by the blood of Christ."

According to Col. 1:13, 14, the sinner's deliverance from a lost to a saved position
is based on "redemption through his blood." It is further said (vss. 20-22), that 21:25

In 1 Tim. 2:4, the subject is salvation. Verse 5 points out the one mediator who
brought this about (Christ), and vs. 6 indicates how the mediator did this... by
giving Himself to be a ransom.

Titus 2:11 deals with salvation; 2:13 with the Saviour; and 2:14 with what He did
to save us ("who gave himself for us").

Peter tells us that "Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just (righteous)
for the unjust (the unrighteous) that he might bring us to God" (1 Pet. 3:18). The
testimony of this wide selection of references is that justification, God's declaration
that the sinner is free from condemnation and positively acceptable to Him, is based

Pastor Richard Jacob Justification 5

 on the prior fact that, by faith, the sinner has made Christ his own personal
substitute. (The sinner regards Christ as His substitute; identifies himself with
God's perfect Lamb by faith, whereupon God reckons that the sinner has died for
his own sins, in the person of his substitute.)

B. Identification with Christ in his righteous Person

Since justification involves got only the remission of penalty but also introduction
into God's favor. This identification of the believer with Christ must have further
significance beyond the fact that God regards the believer as having been identified
with Christ in His death; this identification with Christ must also account for the
believer's positive standing in favor with God. While we might come to this
conclusion on the basis of surmise (presume) and logical necessity, the Scriptures
themselves provide a more reliable grounds for accepting this explanation.

According to 2 Cor. 5:21 A.S.V.: "Him (Christ) who knew no sin he (God) made to
be sin on our behalf (identified Christ with sinners and dealt with Christ on that
basis); that we (who were sinners) might become the righteousness of God in Him
(might be identified with Christ, the Righteous one, and thus be dealt with on the
basis of what Christ is)."

On this passage, W. E. Vine says: "Just as the Lord Jesus Christ was identified
with the sin of others when on the Cross, He Himself being sinless, so the believer
becomes identified now with all the acceptance of Christ and thus becomes "the
righteousness of God in Him. (The Gospel of the Bible, p. 95).

Personal Notes: it is amazing that God changes us from sinner to saint but also to
sons.

In Eph. 1:4 we are told that our salvation is based on our being in Christ," a
judicial standing based on Christ, which standing makes us, in God's reckoning, to
be "holy, and without blame." This point is emphasized again in vs. 6; we are
"accepted (in the beloved)." In other words, God accepts the believer not for what
he is but for what Christ is and has done for him. As the New Scofield Reference
Bible points out, this is perfectly illustrated by Paul's letter to Philemon, wherein

Pastor Richard Jacob Justification 6

 Paul requests that Onesimus, Philemon's runaway slave, be received hospitably
by Philemon rather than be punished for his crimes. Paul does two things: He
makes himself liable for whatever debts Onesimus owes Philemon, and (2) he
asks Philemon to accept the personally unacceptable Onesimus on the basis of
the high regard which Philemon has for the personally acceptable Paul (Page
1309).

We conclude, therefore, that in justifying the ungodly, God does not overlook or in
the slightest degree mitigates the seriousness of the sinner's true condition, but:
declares that regardless of this condition, He will treat the sinner as being
identified with Jesus Christ, the Righteous, who has died the sinner's death and
Who personally becomes the ground of the believer's acceptance before God.

C. The distinction between judicial standing "in Christ (justification), the common
necessity of all dispensations, and being "in Christ" as members of the Church,
'His. Body,' a positional blessing of the Church age.

Otherwise, sound dispensational teachers and writers sometimes fail to distinguish

between the believers judicial standing "in Christ" and his position "in Christ"
as a member of His Body, the Church. (As W. R. Newell points out: "Our standing
is in Christ as the Last Adam; our membership, in that blessed corporate company
called the Body of Christ, Christ being the Head. In other words, we had no right to
be put into Christ the Head of the Body, until we had died with Christ made sin,
died to our' position in the other Adam. You will notice when Paul describes his
personal manner of life, he says: I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no
longer I that live, but Christ liveth in me.' This is not Body truth, but federal truth,
which is fundamental. Body truth comes after federal truth. Federal truth has to do
with our relationship to God. We are either in Adam or in Christ before God. Only
in Rom. 12:4,5 is the Body of Christ referred to; for Romans is fundamental, and
deals with our relation to God, as in Adam or in Christ; and therefore, does not deal
with the corporate character of the Church as such." (Romans, p. 249).

In 2 Cor. 5:17 we are told that "if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature." That
this cannot refer to our position in the Body of Christ but to our judicial position is
Pastor Richard Jacob Justification 7
 proven by the whole context, which is dealing with reconciliation, the restoration
of a disrupted relationship involving a change of standing, and especially by the
last verse (21) which, as we have just seen (above) deals with two identifications:
Christ's identification with the sinner and the sinner's identification with Christ.
The whole point of this verse is not that Christ became a member or part the
sinner, but that He assumed the sinner's standing as guilty and unacceptable. To
God; hence it follows that "being made the righteousness of God in him" cannot
refer to our participation in the Body of Christ as members but must refer to the
sinner's judicial standing as being free from guilt and acceptable to God.

Personal notes: notice position and function are different. (Eg. Husband & wife,
Trinity)

A substantial number, if not the majority, of dispensationalists interpret 1 Thess.

4:16 ("the dead in Christ shall rise first") as including all the Old Testament saints
as well as Church saints, in recognition of the two senses in which the phrase "in
Christ" is used in the New Testament. For example, H. A. Ironside writes: "When
the Lord Jesus comes, in fulfillment of these words, not only the saints of this age
but also the saints of all past ages will be included." (Addresses on Thessalonians,
p.50)

It is important to recognize that this phrase "in Christ" has a non-dispensational as

well as a dispensational sense, in order to maintain a sound basis for another truth
historically associated with dispensationalism, but in recent times called in
question by the late distinguished theologian and dispensationalist, L. S. Chafer.
This truth involves the affirmation that Old Testament saints were justified. The
two truths, that Old Testament saints were "in Christ" judicially and therefore were
justified, are so related that the denial of the one involves the denial of the other, as
may easily be seen by considering the following statement.

"As certainly, then, as man, because of physical birth, is a partaker of that which
Adam became through the fall, so certainly the believer, because of the new birth
and his union to Christ THROUGH THE BAPTISM OF THE SPIRIT, partakes of

Pastor Richard Jacob Justification 8

 what Christ is, even the righteousness of God." (L. S. Chafer, Systematic
Theology, V:143; italics ours).

Here justification is made the result, and not the prior condition, of a union
with Christ brought about by the baptism of the Spirit, but since the
Scriptures teach that the baptism of (or in) the Spirit adds believers to the
Church, the Body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:13), it necessarily follows, on the basis of
this statement, that Old Testament saints, not being in the Body of Christ, were not
justified. And this is just the position that the author explicitly adopts, as may be
seen in the following quotations.

"There could have been no perfected saints with regard to their standing until there
was a resurrected Christ who might be the source of their imputed righteousness."
(v. 144)

And again: "According to the 0. T. men were just because they were true and
faithful in keeping the Mosaic Law... Men were therefore just because of their own
works for God, whereas N.T. justification is God's work for man in answer to faith
(Rom. 5:1), (VII:219).

But although he unequivocally denies the possibility of any Old Testament

saint having been justified by faith, it appears from the following quotations that
this eminent theologian was unable to remain consistent with himself in dealing
with this subject. Note that in the following quotations, he not only admits that
Abraham was justified, thus overthrowing his basic assumptions regarding the
impossibility of any justification prior to the historical death and resurrection of
Christ, but by using the plural "saints" in the last quotation, he overthrows his
claim that no other Old Testament person, but Abraham was justified.

Over against all this is the truth that Abraham attained unto the righteousness of
God through faith (Cen. 15:6), a stupendous privilege not restricted to Abraham
(though not extended to other Old Testament saints) but promised to all in this age
who exercise Abrahamic faith to the extent of believing God (Rom.4:20-24), which

Pastor Richard Jacob Justification 9

righteousness of God Abraham's physical seed utterly failed to secure (cf. Rom.
9:30-10:4). (v:318).

"Men were just and righteous as related to the Mosaic Law, but none had the
righteousness of God imputed to them on the ground of simple faith except
Abraham..."(VI:74).

And finally: "The imputed type of righteousness is not God's attribute as if that
were bestowed on man, nor human goodness in any form. It is that which the
believer becomes in virtue of his being in Christ. Jesus Christ represents the
righteousness of God and the believer becomes what Christ is the moment of
believing (2 Cor. 5: Righteousness was imputed likewise to 0. T. saints (cf.
Abraham, Gen. 15:6; Gal. 3:6; James 2:23). (VII:270).

The following statement by H. C. Thiessen not only has the virtue of being self-
consistent but has the added advantage of being fully consistent with the Scriptures
which teach that both Abraham and David were justified through faith through
imputed righteousness, and then obviously not as mere isolated instances but as
representatives of all those who were saved before the Mosaic Law (e.g. Abel,
Noah) and those who were saved during the time the Mosaic Law was in effect,
whether under it (e.g. Isaiah and Daniel) or not (e.g. the Ninevites).

"Fortunately, Old Testament seekers after God did not need to wait until Paul was
born to find an answer to their question. Paul reminds us that Abraham was
justified by faith fourteen years before he was circumcised (Rom. 4:1-5, 9-12; cf.
Gen. 15:5, 6; 16:15; 17:23-26), and that David rejoiced in the fact (Rom. 4:6-8).
an imputed righteousness. In other words, the New Testament doctrine of
justification is not an innovation (revolution): it is a truth already known in Old
Testament times, and righteousness was obtained in the same manner in those days
as in the New Testament dispensation." (Lectures in Systematic Theology,
pp.364,365).

Pastor Richard Jacob Justification

10
V. THE ELEMENTS INVOLVED IN JUSTIFICATION
A. The God-ward elements.
1. The author of justification is God (Rom. 3:26; 4:5; 8:33).
2. The moving cause of justification is grace. (Rom. 3:24)
3. The meritorious ground of justification is Christ crucified (Rom. 5:9) in whom are
acceptable (Eph. 1:6; I Cor. 1:30).
4. The proof of an available justification is the resurrection of Christ. (Rom. 4:25).
5. The condition of justification is faith (Rom. 3:28; 5:1)
6. The evidence of justification are words and works. (Matt. 12:37; Jas. 2:24).

VI. THE RELATION OF JUSTIFICATION TO ASSURANCE

(While justification has to do with the believer's standing before God, assurance has to do with
the believer's peace of mind in view of the fact of this perfect position, correctly known and
understood.)

In view of the fact that in justifying the sinner, God reckons (all our sins to have been borne
by Christ on the Cross, necessarily follows that sin can never expose the believer to the
judicial wrath of God). Sin makes the believer liable to the parental discipline of his Heavenly
Father (1 Cor. 11:30-32; Heb. 12:5-11; Jas. 5:14, 15; 1 Jn. 5:16, 17) but it cannot expose him
to the wrath of God as the Judge. That is the point of Rom. 3:31-34; no charge can ever be
made against the believer so as to secure his condemnation, for God has justified him on the
basis of his having died and risen with Christ.

This is the doctrine of the believer's eternal security, or once saved always saved and also once
saved, forever saved.. This doctrine is denied by many Christians who, instead of considering
the matter first from the viewpoint of the Biblical teaching concerning what justification
accomplishes, consider it first from the viewpoint of a true but here misapplied moral
principle; 1.e. a holy God cannot save a person who is practicing sin. It is argued that if the
Christian falls into the practice of sin, he is not in a saved condition, hence has lost his former
standing as a justified person. Having come to this conclusion, it is easy for those who take
this position to find many passages which seem to uphold it. The following are usually
regarded as the strongest evidence against the eternal security of the believer.

Pastor Richard Jacob Justification

11
1 John 3:16-20. This reference most certainly teaches that the one who is practicing sin does
not have eternal life, but it also teaches that such a one never had it to start with (vs. 6).

2 Peter 2:20-22. These verses are dealing with the same subject. They teach that a person may
escape the grosser sins of the world by knowledge about Christ, but when such come under the
power of these sins they prove that they only knew the way of righteousness theoretically and
not experientially. They had never been regenerated. Theirs was only an external
rehabilitation, and like the dog and the sow who come under the restraints and influences of
external forces which seem to make them avert to their former habits, they find it impossible
to long avoid reversion to the demands of their unchanged nature.

(Hebrews 6:4-6; 10:26-31. These are usually considered by the opponents of eternal security
to be the strongest proofs of their position. These references, however, must be considered in
the context of the Epistle, which was not written mainly to encourage Christians to lead more
consistent lives but to lead Hebrews from a full knowledge about Christ to a living faith in
Christ. They had undergone elementary repentance (1.e. change of mind) to the extent that
they had "become once (once-for-all) enlightened," had "tasted of the heavenly gift (1.e. had
become aware of the excellence of Christ's salvation)" and had been "partakers (sharers) of the
Holy Ghost (in His pre-salvation work of conviction." If such a one should turn his back on all
this and return to Judaism, it would reveal a hardened condition of mind from which there
could never be any return (6:6). Chapter 10 carries the same warning in other terms; the
"willful sin" is deliberate rejection of Christ. after He has been fully known to be the only
Saviour and after there had been a profession by which they had owned Christ and claimed
thereby that they had been "sanctified" positionally (i.e., justified). Some people know what is
right and still do what is wrong.

There is nothing unique in this situation. It began in heaven with Satan's revolt against God,
although he had full knowledge of God's being and holy nature. It runs all through the Bible
from the rebellious Cain who conversed directly with God, to the rejection of Christ by those
who witnessed His miracles and, out of a permanently malicious attitude toward Him, accused
Him of being the willing subject and servant of Satan. It will find its ultimate expression at the
end of the Millennium, when many who have lived under the personal reign of the undoubted
Son of God, will nevertheless repudiate (deny) Him in order to participate the satanically-

Pastor Richard Jacob Justification

12
 inspired revolt. All these are proofs that knowledge of God can become so full and complete
that continued rejection creates a psychological condition where retreat becomes impossible.
The sin against the Holy Spirit, Who is called "the Spirit of truth," is unpardonable because
pardon is never sought. God's truth is fully known and fully despised.

Logically, there can be relatively little assurance to those who deny the eternal security of the
believer apart from a doctrine of sinless perfection, for if sin can destroy the believer's
justification, it becomes a most precarious(dangerous) undertaking to assume a distinction
between grades and quantities of sin. If one sin brought about the condemnation of Adam,
why could not one sin produce the same results today?

One should not be surprised, therefore, to discover that the denominations which hold to
sinless perfection, or some variations of that doctrine are confined to those groups which deny
eternal security. Whether they believe in the eradication of the sin nature of not, those who
deny eternal security often adopt a (to us) radical (essential) redefinition of sin as being only
that which is a positive act of sin against the known will of God; a definition which overlooks
sins of omission and which would also place a premium on ignorance of the will of God.

THE ACTIVE AND PASSIVE THEORY OF IMPUTATION

I. THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE THEORY

The theory that we are now to examine is unknown in Christian literature prior the
medieval Roman Catholic scholar, (Thomas Acquinas) (died 1274). This fact is
admitted even by Shedd, who holds this view. (History of Christian Doctrine, II:343).
It did not acquire any prominence until the Reformation, when it was widely adopted
by Protestant scholars and further developed.
--------------------------------------------
August 12, 2021
II. THE THEORY STATED
As finally developed, the theory held that God Centered into a covenant of works
with Adam, whereby Adam was given the opportunity to earn eternal life for himself
and his posterity. The fall not only deprived him of making good this opportunity,
death and His life. His death (called, in this system, His"passive obedience rescues

Pastor Richard Jacob Justification

13
 the sinner from the penalty, but leaves him without eternal life, but Christ's "active
obedience" is likewise put to the sinner's account, which meets this deficiency left Adam's
failure, and provides sufficient merit upon which basis God can give the sinner the positive
benefits of eternal life. Thus, Christ does two vicarious works on the sinner's behalf; taking
his place in death and taking his place in acquiring sufficient merit to earn eternal life.

Those who accept this view call this acquired merit which Christ earned for us
"the righteousness of Christ imputed to the sinner."

III. THE THEORY REFUTED.

A. The phrase "the righteousness of Christ
"The righteousness of Christ" is not Scriptural terminology. The Scriptures do not declare
that the righteousness imputed to the believer is the righteousness of the incarnate Christ
acquired during his earthly life. Instead," they teach that "the righteousness of God" is
imputed to us, which obviously is not God's personal attribute of righteousness, but (as the
context makes clear in Rom. 3:21,22), a righteous standing provided by Cod.) We become
"the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Cor. 5:21); we are "accepted in the beloved" (Eph.
1:6) and it is in this sense that "Christ is made unto us... righteousness." (I Cor. 1:31).

B. The covenant of works with Adam

There is no record in the Bible of any covenant of works with Adam. 'Indeed, if eternal life,
essentially, is eternal fellowship between God and a moral being perpetually committed to
obedience, and if (fellowship; being a relation of personal beings cannot be earned but only
bestowed gratuitously, Yit is impossible to suppose that even if Adam had remained in
obedience and had acquired a psychological immunity to sin, he could have thereby earned
fellowship with God.

We may and do accept as a valid supposition that continued obedience on the part of Adam
and Eve was the condition of what might have been an eternal fellowship between God and
our first parents, but this does not at all prove that this continued

Pastor Richard Jacob Justification

14
obedience could have become a meritorious ground for such fellowship.

C. The meaning of "the obedience of one" in Romans 5:19

Those who take this position invariably attach a great deal of importance to Rom. 5:19,
supposing that "the obedience of one' refers to Christ's entire life of obedience (e. Hodge,
Systematic Theology, III:154), whereas the Greek original (as given by the a.s.v. of the
preceding verse (18) sets forth two single acts; Adam's act of sin and Christ's act of dying, thus
proving that in vs. 19, "the obedience of one" refers only to this one act of Christ on the
Cross.)

This is also the clear significance of Heb. 10:5-14, which tells us that at His birth, Christ
declared His intention to do the will of God and thus accomplish what the death of mere
animals could not accomplish, the positional significant (justification) of believing sinners,
who are by that death "perfected forever." 'Again we find the entire blessing of salvation, both
negative and positive, attributed to the death of Christ.

W. E. Vine says: "It is not His keeping of the law that constituted a righteousness that can be
reckoned to us, nor can we thereby be viewed as though we had kept the law.... It is necessary,
then, to bear in mind that we are justified, NOT BY THE RIGHTEOUS LIFE OF CHRIST,
BUT BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST, that is to say, by His expiatory sacrifice for our sins.
The accurate rendering of Rom. 5:18 is of very great importance: So then as through one
man's trespass judgment came unto all men unto condemnation; even so THROUGH ONE
ACT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS the free gift came unto all men to justification of life. As
Adam's act of disobedience constituted all his descendant sinners, so Christ's one act of
righteousness IN HIS DEATH ON THE CROSS brought justification to all who believe on
Him. It was not the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF HIS LIFE which effected this, though that was
indeed preliminary to His death, proving Him to be alone adequate for the work of atonement,
but THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF HIS DEATH." (Capitals mine, The Gospel of the Bible, pp.
92,93).

D. A survey of theological opinion

W. R. Newell, who calls this theory "a fiction of theology" (p. 97) and "the heresy of vicarious
Pastor Richard Jacob Justification
15
law-keeping" (p. 99), in commenting on Rom. 5:19 writes: "It cannot be too strongly
emphasized that His life before the Cross, His 'active obedience,' as it is called, is not in
any sense counted to us for righteousness." (Romans, p. 190).

H. C. G. Moule (Church of England): "Pauline justification, isolated for study, is the

acceptance of the sinful person, believing, irrespective (in this isolator) of any consideration
whatever but the sacrifice of Jesus Christ accepted by faith." (Outlines of Christian Doctrine,
p. 184).

E. H. Johnson (Baptist; onetime Professor of Theology at Crozer Theological Seminary) says:

"The very substance of the gospel is that the believer is pronounced just, or righteous,
solely on account of the atonement which Christ has made for his sins." (Outline of Systematic
Theology, p. 261).

In his Abstract of Systematic Theology, p. 352, J. P. Boyce took the position 'here criticized,
but F. H. Kerfoot, who succeeded Dr. Boyce in the Chair of Systematic Theology at the
Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, revised this noble work, and commented on this point
as follows: "The proof for this point does not seem to be satisfactory. All the references may
be explained quite naturally as referring to the satisfaction which Christ made in His
sufferings. Hence, many hold quite plausibly, that the ground of justification is the passive
obedience only," (Footnote to page 352).

Although he retains the un-Scriptural phrase "the righteousness of Christ," H. C. Thiessen (late
of Los Angeles Baptist Theological Seminary) plainly uses it as a synonym for divine
righteousness and not in the erroneous sense of an acquired righteousness. In dealing with the
method of justification, he says: "Because Christ has borne the punishment of our sins in his
own body, God is able to remit the penalty and to restore us to his favor. (Lectures in
Systematic Theology, p. 366).

W. T: Conner (late of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) says: "The third thing is
that justification by faith is based on Christ's work for us. The faith that justifies is not a
dependence on something that the sinner does for himself; it looks rather to Christ and what he

Pastor Richard Jacob Justification

16
has done for us. Justification by faith is grounded in the work of Christ on our behalf. It is
through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus that we are justified (Rom. 3:24). We are
justified in his blood (Rom. 5:9." (The Gospel of Redemption, p. 171).

E. Y. Mullins (late President and Professor of Systematic Theology, Southern Baptist

Theological Seminary) is most explicit when he writes: "We are, on the t... :d
of this propitiatory work of Christ, declared to be just, or reckoned as just"..."The basis and
ground of justification is the work of Jesus Christ. His atonemen: for our sins is the sole basis
of God's justifying act." (The Christian Religion in Its Doctrinal Expression, pp. 390,391).

----------------------
We have cited so many Baptist theologians not only to prove that the position we
hold is widely held by evangelicals but also to disprove the claim made by some
Baptists who accept the active-passive obedience theory that their position is "the
Baptist position."
IV. A RECENT EXPRESSION OF A MORE DEVELOPED FORM OF THE THEORY.
The theory of a vicarious work done by Christ during his entire life on earth has
lately received a new emphasis. Starting with the doctrine of a vicarious life lived
by Christ, it is now affirmed by some that this vicarious life was lived not only
to provide good works by which the sinner might merit the positive blessings of eter-
nal life (1.e. the active part in the active-passive obedience theory of imputation),
but that during this vicarious life, Christ's sufferings and inconveniences froin the
cradle in Bethlehem onward were all vicarious and penal; were all part of the means
by which the sinner is delivered from the lake of fire. The theory has been set
forth as follows.

"We shall never view aright the manger-cradle, the necessity for the flight into Egypt, the
laboring at the carpenter's bench, the having not where to lay His head, the horrible indignities
He endured from His enemies, and the wicked treatment He received from those who passed
sentence of death upon Him, till we recognize that from Bethlehem to Calvary He was the
vicarious victim of His people, that He was bearing their sins, and suffering the due rewards of
their iniquities."

Pastor Richard Jacob Justification

17
"The suffering to which our Lord was exposed, from the hour of His birth until He committed
His spirit into the hands of the Father, were strictly and definitely vicarious, borne as the
substitute of His people, not only for their advantage, but actually in their room and stead.

"For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the Just for the unjust' (1 Peter 3:18). The
reference here must not be restricted to what Christ endured at the hands of God while He
hung upon the Cross, nor to all that He passed through during that day and preceding night.
Beware of limiting the Word of God! No; the entirety of His humiliation is here included."

These quotations are from the pen of the well-known author Arthur Pink (The Satisfaction of
Christ, pp. 72,79,84). They clearly teach that Christ's sufferings before the Cross were of the
same nature and character as His sufferings on the Cross. By his constant repetition of this
idea throughout his book, the author makes it clear that in his opinion, this is a neglected
emphasis which needs fresh assertion,

The great majority of evangelicals have always held that the sufferings of Christ before the
Cross were not penal, were not for the payment of our sins, but qualified Him to be a
sympathetic High Priest, fully acquainted with "the feeling of our (sinless) infirmities" (Heb.
4:15) and therefore able to succour them that are tempted (tested)" (Heb. 2:18). Also, like the
Passover lamb which was held for inspection before its actual death, Christ's life before the
Cross provided ample demonstration of His Deity and therefore His competence to redeem the
lost by His death.

It will surely come as a strange condemnation to the vast number of evangelicals

who accept the above as the obvious meaning of Christ's pre-Cross sufferings that
their interpretation exposes them to the charge of "limiting the Word of God. One
cannot but feel that the shoe is rather on the other foot, and that those who accept
this strange doctrine have opened themselves to the charge of having strayed from the
limitations the Word of God,

This doctrine of pre-Cross penal sufferings on the part of Christ would logically
require the accompanying doctrine that from his birth Christ was under the curse of
Pastor Richard Jacob Justification
18
the broken Law, and this is exactly what we find also stated in Pink's book.

"We have already pointed out that the expression of Rom. 8:3, 'made in the likeness of sin's
flesh,' clearly pre-supposes the transfer of His peoples sins to Christ, and that what happened
immediately after his birth was in full keeping it this fact and cannot be understood apart from
it"..."though His humanity was immaculate, yet He entered this world officially guilty." (pp.
86,87).

The refutation of this position is found in two facts: (1) Romans 8:3 is a simple statement of
the incarnation only, and (2) Gal. 3:13 declares that we were redeemed from the curse of a
broken law by Christ becoming our substitute ("being made a curse for us") when He was
crucified ("on a tree"). Therefore, He did not enter this world "officially guilty" but assumed
that guilt in crucifixion. All of the many verses which deal with Christ as our substitute
bearing our sins connect this work with His death.

In fairness to Pink, it should be noted that these views were held by others long
before his days, as he himself indicates in the following statement (pp. 87,88);
"Christ's passive, or suffering obedience, is not to be confined to what He experienced in the
garden and on the cross. This suffering was the culmination of his particular sorrow, but not
the whole of it. Everything in His human and earthly career that was distressing belongs to his
passive obedience. It is a true remark of Jonathan Edwards, that the blood of Christ's
circumcision was as really a part of His vicarious atonement, as the blood that flowed from
His pierced side. And not only His suffering proper, but His humiliation, also, was expiatory'
(W. Shedd).

Pastor Richard Jacob Justification

19