A true, real, perfect righteousness
Michael Brown
in Covenant Theology, Gospel, John Owen
|
6 Comments
Owen did not begin his case in The Doctrine of Justification by Faith with an explanation of the pactum salutis. He began, rather, with a lengthy introduction stating his reasons and pastoral concerns for taking up this work, namely, “the glory of God in Christ, with the peace and furtherance of the obedience of believers.”
He followed this with a full six chapters on the nature and object of justifying faith, as well as the meaning of justification itself. (V, 7) As Mark Jones rightly points out in his MA thesis, “Owen’s primary goal is to establish the forensic sense of the term because of the obvious implications this has for the [Reformed] doctrine of justification.”
When Owen came to the seventh chapter of his study, however, he began to deal with the nature of imputation more precisely. Responding to what he called “the two grand parties by whom the doctrine of justification by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ is opposed; - namely the Papists and the Socinians,” as well as the “many interlopers, who, coming in on their hand, do make bold to borrow from both as they see occasion” (V, 165).
While Owen refrains from naming names, he more than likely is making a reference to theologians such as Johannes Piscator (1546-1625) and Thomas Gataker, who, according to Trueman, “regarded Christ’s positive obedience to the law as being part of his obligation as rational creature,” a position akin to the Socinians whom Owen named outright. (See Truman, John Owen: Reformed Catholic, Renaissance Man, 108-09.)
Richard Baxter (1615-1691) was also undoubtedly included in Owen’s indictment, as he (Baxter) essentially assumed Socinian arguments against the Reformed doctrines of atonement and justification in his Aphorismes of Justification (London, 1649), and engaged in lively exchange with Owen over the matter for a number of years. Denying imputed active obedience, Baxter charged Owen’s position of imputed active obedience as leading to antinomianism.
Owen argued for an alien righteousness. Righteousness either comes from within us or from outside of us. “In the one way, the foundation of imputation is in ourselves; in the other, it is in another: which are irreconcilable.” (V, 172)
Not even one’s faith can be this ground, for if God merely regards our faith as righteousness then it is ours by justice and not by grace, a salvation by works and not by faith. Thus, Owen concludes:
“This imputation is an act of God ‘ex mera gratia,’ – of his mere love and grace; whereby, on the consideration of the mediation of Christ, he makes an effectual grant and donation of a true, real, perfect righteousness, even that of Christ himself, unto all that do believe; and accounting it as theirs, on his own gracious act, both absolves them from sin and granteth them right and title unto eternal life. Hence, - in this imputation, the thing itself is first imputed unto us, and not any of the effects of it; but they are made ours by virtue of that imputation.” (V, 173-74)
Reader Comments (6)
Hi Mike!
I just opened my Reformed Doctrine Blog at www.reformeddoctrine.wordpress.com . Today's article is "Attributes of God" . Check it out.
Best wishes,
Bill
"Baxter charged Owen’s position of imputed active obedience as leading to antinomianism."
This charge of eventual-antinomianism is always intriguing--probably because those of us who champion two-kingdom theory and natural law (as well as the IAOC as you are outlining it here) hear it fairly regularly.
In a post today over at the HB, Clark made a point about antinomianism in the context of a dicussion over Baptists and Reformed. It sure seems to make more sense that what leads to antinomianism is the following, instead of, ahem, the gospel:
"This is similar to the move made by antinomians when they wholly identify the decalogue with Moses and ignore its creational roots. If they can succeed in identifying the decalogue with Moses and, if Moses has been utterly fulfilled, then they can do away with the decalogue. If, however, the decalogue is rooted in creation and only the typological elements are fulfilled (e.g. the land promise) then the substance of the decalogue, because it is moral and creational, persists into the New Covenant."
Is this the best Reformed confessional statement as to imputed righteousness?
"Heidelberg Catechism Q & A: 60
Q. How are you right with God?
A. Only by true faith in Jesus Christ.^1
Even though my conscience accuses me
of having grievously sinned against all God's commandments
and of never having kept any of them,^2
and even though I am still inclined toward all evil,^3
nevertheless,
without my deserving it at all,^4
out of sheer grace,^5
God grants and credits to me
the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ,^6
as if I had never sinned nor been a sinner,
as if I had been as perfectly obedient
as Christ was obedient for me.^7
All I need to do
is to accept this gift of God with a believing heart.^8
^1 Rom. 3:21-28; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8-9; Phil 3:8-11
^2 Rom. 3:9-10
^3 Rom. 7:23
^4 Tit. 3:4-5
^5 Rom. 3:24; Eph. 2:8
^6 Rom. 4:3-5 (Gen. 15:6); 2 Cor. 5:17-19; 1 John 2:1-2
^7 Rom. 4:24-25; 2 Cor. 5:21
^8 John 3:18; Acts 16:30-31"
Bill,
HC 60 is certainly one of the best. This is an essential catechism question that we emphasize for memorization in our catechism classes at Christ URC. Most kids have it nailed by third or fourth grade. "as if I had been as perfectly obedient
as Christ was obedient for me" is a line that I pray our covenant youth will come to understand fully, carry with them into adulthood, and experience the grateful, godly living that results from its glorious message.
Zrim,
Couldn't agree more. You should bring that up to Jason! While he is certainly no antinomian, he has (or at least, used to have) a modified view of the law that tends to go in this direction.
Mike,
That is something I have begun to suspect in the good pastor. I wouldn't use the A-word against him at all either, but I have found myself a bit befuddled at times. May I say he makes up for it with his two-kingdomizing? I think I just did :).