Chapter Overview regarding the Biblical doctrine of justification
In keeping with the format of the previous chapters, I will state what I believe is the error. I will quote the following persons.
- John MacArthur
- R. C. Sproul
Next, I will state what I believe is the truth: that justification is not a verdict of innocence or a declaration of not guilty. Simply put, there are two obvious reasons why this must be true. I will explain the true doctrine of justification.
The false idea regarding justification requires that we talk about its companion doctrine of imputed righteousness. I will differentiate between the proper and the false understanding of imputed righteousness and imputed obedience. To support my contention, I will state four reasons why imputed righteousness, as MacArthur, Sproul, and many others teach, is not true. Their doctrine of imputed righteousness is antinomian, unscriptural, destroys moral agency, and finally, it makes God partial and unjust.
Introduction
Do you believe that the Biblical justification of sinners means a verdict of not guilty? Perhaps most of the organized Protestant church believes it. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard it. Theologically, it is usually a discussion about whether we are pardoned or acquitted. It is said that the idea of pardon doesn’t go far enough and doesn’t express all that God does for us in justification. He doesn’t just pardon us. He declares us not guilty and imputes to us the obedience of Christ. This can’t be true.
THE FALSEHOOD = JUSTIFICATION MEANS A VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY
I will cite just a few examples of those who teach what is not true regarding justification.
John MacArthur
Before I quote his position, I want to acknowledge the author’s striving for a righteous gospel. I understand a little of the fury that his lordship’s view has caused since he has attempted to defend the apparent truth that Christ is both Lord and Savior, or neither. There are a few areas in which I agree with MacArthur, but the doctrine of justification is not one of them. “In its theological sense, justification is a forensic, or purely legal term….. In fact, justification effects no actual change whatsoever in the sinner’s nature or character. Justification is a divine judicial edict.” “Similarly, when a jury foreman reads the verdict, the defendant is no longer “the accused.” Legally and officially he instantly becomes either guilty or innocent-depending on the verdict….In Biblical terms, justification is a divine verdict of “not guilty-fully righteous.”….. Whereas He formerly condemned, He now vindicates…. Justification is more than simple pardon; pardon alone would still leave the sinner without merit before God. So, when God justifies, He imputes divine righteousness to the sinner (Rom. 4:22-25).”[1] This is MacArthur’s statement regarding justification.
Since when does a sinner plead merit? On its face, isn’t it a contradiction to argue a sinner’s merit? I find his comment to be a necessity of his theology, not a truth of the Word of God. Merit speaks of legal justification. I don’t know about you, but I am looking for mercy, not justice, from God. Merit means to earn favor or to be worthy of praise. What merit/praise do sinners have? None whatsoever, right? It’s the exact opposite. God knows our complete lack of merit but is willing to forgive and adopt us into His family if we confess and forsake our sins. On what basis could the holy ruler of the universe set the guilty free? Will He set those free who confess but refuse to abandon their sins? The author’s comment is part of his particular view of the atonement and related doctrines. God is looking for and requiring perfect merit before He can extend justification to sinners. We don’t possess merit, so Christ becomes our merit for us. God the Father sees the merit of Christ. But where is it written that God is looking for perfect merit in us before He grants salvation to sinners? Isn’t this idea part of a theory of the atonement (PSA), which teaches that Christ paid the exact and literal amount due our sins, past, present, and future? Let’s pretend my past, present, and future sins result in a debt of 100 trillion dollars. If payment for my sins were a commercial transaction, then Jesus would owe someone 100 trillion for my sins. But the atonement is not a commercial transaction. Moreover, my sins cause more than monetary damage.
An illustration will help to explain my meaning. Let’s say I stole my neighbor’s last $5,000. He and his family had to go without food and medical help because of my theft. His wife needed medical attention, but they couldn’t afford the help she needed. Her illness got worse and caused irreversible damage. Months later, I had a change of heart and decided to return the money. Is my neighbor fully restored, and am I now innocent and fully righteous? No, of course not, because I caused my neighbor more than financial loss. My sin caused emotional and physical damage, among other evils that money could not remedy. It’s nonsense to think that because I gave back his $5,000, my restitution “atones” for the sin I committed or merits a not guilty verdict. It never could. To really pay in full for my sin, all the hurt associated with my sin must be reversed, which is obviously impossible for me to do. All I can do is make amends for my sin, but that in no way means I can reverse the evil my sin caused. A sinner can never merit justification.
Even repentance is not meritorious in the sense that it earns God’s forgiveness. Repentance is worthy of praise because it is the right thing to do, but it doesn’t merit salvation. Repentance is a condition of forgiveness, a “that not without which” and not the procuring cause of forgiveness. Repentance is a sign of faith and a prerequisite for forgiveness. Faith is our duty to God. To do our duty to God is in no way meritorious.
When I pay my taxes, does the government send me a certificate of merit? If I were to make a gift in excess of my tax liability, then I might reasonably expect an award of merit. Remember the parable of the servant? “He does not thank the slave because he did the things which were commanded, does he? So you too, when you do all the things which are commanded you, say “we are unworthy slaves; we have done only that which we ought to have done” Luke 17:9-10. Doesn’t this parable clarify that obedience is our duty to God and is in no way meritorious?
If your spouse is murdered and the guilty person dies for it, are you satisfied and made whole as if the murder never happened? No, of course not. Justice may have its way, but you are left alone because of that sin. In the same way, Christ satisfies the justice of the Godhead and public justice, but in no way, shape, or form could Christ “pay it all” in a literal sense. It is impossible to reverse all the evil effects of sin so that a sinner is not a sinner anymore and not guilty.
Let’s understand what the author is teaching. According to MacArthur, justification is a legal verdict of not guilty because Christ’s perfect obedience is credited to our account. His theology sounds terrific. Whose flesh wouldn’t want this to be the real deal? In the quote above, the author emphasizes that no genuine change has occurred in the accused upon the verdict being given. That is true. However, the presumption is “if he is found not guilty, he will walk out of court a free man in the eyes of the law, fully justified” because he was innocent. Rather significant distinction, wouldn’t you say? The difference between innocence and guilt is infinite. Inexplicably, MacArthur confuses the two, as do many others of his theological perspective. If the man in MacArthur’s example walks out of court not guilty or innocent, then his nature doesn’t need to change, and his “merit” before God is satisfactory and not an issue. He has obeyed the law and is innocent of the charges. The author wants us to believe we are declared “not guilty-fully righteous,” but we need a change of nature. Why is that necessary if we are “fully righteous”? Isn’t it obvious why we need it? We aren’t really “fully righteous,” are we? I make this comment to illustrate the contradictory nature of his statements. If MacArthur would leave it at sinners being treated as if they had never sinned, we would agree.
A STORY
Paul was arrested for selling drugs and bank robbery. After months of waiting for his trial, he found himself before the judge. He pleaded not guilty. Paul was called on to testify. The prosecutor asked him if he had sold drugs and robbed the bank. Paul responded that yes indeed, he had committed those crimes, but that he was not guilty, as he had a friend who had never sold drugs or robbed a bank or broken any laws. This friend said Paul could plead his obedience as an excuse or substitute for his own disobedience. The judge was not impressed with this creative argument and found Paul guilty as charged, sentencing him to prison. How impressed will the Judge of the universe be when multitudes of professing Christians attempt the same thing?
Their doctrines of justification and imputed righteousness teach that Christ’s obedience covers future sins as well. In my example above, this means Paul could be arrested repeatedly for the same or new crimes, all of which would be dismissed by Christ’s obedience. Why does this sound so much like a perpetual get out of jail free card?
If we ran our courts this way, what crime could not be excused, covered up, or dismissed? This legal gamesmanship would never be championed in the real world, would it? How is it that the religious are so gullible? It seems that when religious experts teach ideas, there is often no limit to the nonsense we will believe. We would never think otherwise, but we will accept it when shrouded in the mystical world of religious language. To suggest that someone else can obey the laws of our state or nation on our behalf is nonsense. Why isn’t it nonsense in the spiritual realm? How can so many accept this outrageous idea only when it is packaged in spiritual language? Why do we often stop thinking when it comes to the spiritual? The law of God and the law of the land require that every moral being obey the law personally. I can’t obey for you and you for me. You see, the righteousness of Moses, Job, Daniel, and Noah was sufficient for themselves alone, and they couldn’t deliver anyone else by it. Neither could Jesus obey the law for us; it’s not possible. What does the law require? Doesn’t it require that we as individuals love God supremely and love our neighbor as we love ourselves? Could Christ do more than that? Christ could only obey for Himself and no one else. On what philosophical basis do these ideas rest?[2]
Can a person do more than the law requires? Or can an obedient person use some of their partial obedience to offset someone else’s disobedience? If so, on what basis can it be done? If not, why not? Does one act of disobedience require a lifetime of obedience or just a day or maybe a minute of obedience from someone else? Can a person who isn’t a drunk or an adulterer plead that his obedience to these laws offset his or another’s disobedience to the law against theft? If Jesus can obey on my behalf, can He believe on my behalf? If He can obey for me, can He repent for me? Could it be that Christ, by perfectly obeying the law for Himself, can just substitute His obedience for my disobedience? Where is it written that this is Biblical? How does this make sense? Show me by reason, logic, and the Word of God, and I’ll change my view. What about it? Will you do the same?
Why does this transaction (declaring the guilty not guilty) sound so much like bribery? If someone were to give a judge money to find a defendant not guilty, when the judge knew he was guilty, what would you say about the verdict? What would you say about the judge? Wouldn’t you believe that the judge had accepted a bribe? Their theology makes me think of a corrupt judge who can be bribed to find the guilty not guilty. Christ paid for our sins, and we are found not guilty when, in fact, we are guilty. Surely Christ didn’t bribe the judge to obtain a false verdict for us, did He? Maybe I am just too simple-minded to be able to understand their doctrines.
If Christ’s obedience covers my past and my future acts of disobedience, yet uncommitted, then I genuinely do have a license to sin with eternal impunity. Seeking judicial forgiveness after being saved is not only unnecessary but also a sign of a lapse in faith. I understand the idea that forgiveness is needed to restore fellowship or rewards, but why is that necessary when Christ paid it all? But even if it is a lapse of faith, that too is automatically covered up. You and I can’t lose in this shell game.
R. C. SPROUL
The author writes that forensic justification means a legal declaration.[3]Now, a legal declaration can take many forms in various types of government. It can be a pronouncement of guilty or not guilty. It can also be a legal declaration of pardon. Therefore, if forensic can mean a legal pardon, then I have no problem with it. Invariably, though, it means a verdict of not guilty, which is not accurate or true. In Sproul’s book, he describes the difference between the Reformation and Roman Catholic views of justification. I am not concerned with a detailed analysis of Roman Catholic doctrine, as I find many of their teachings to be contradictory to the Bible, logic, and reason.
What does this legal declaration consist of? “If we define forensic justification as a legal declaration by which God declares a person just, and we leave it at that, we would have no dispute between Rome and Evangelicalism. For Rome, God both makes just and declares just. For Protestants, God both makes just and declares just, but not in the same way.”[4] How are the two ways different? The difference is the imputed righteousness of Christ. The Reformed tradition holds to imputed righteousness, while Roman Catholics believe in actual righteousness in the person. “The question of inherent versus imputed righteousness goes to the heart of the Reformation debate. When the Reformers spoke of forensic justification, they meant a legal declaration made by God that was based on the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer, not on Christ’s righteousness inherent in the believer.”[5] We will look at the Reformers’ doctrine of imputed righteousness a little bit later. I find myself at odds with both the Reformers and the Roman Catholic ideas. Although I, too, believe “God both makes just and declares just, but not in the same way.”
“For Calvin, God can declare a person just only if that person possesses righteousness. The question is, “How does the person possess it?” Does he possess it inherently or by imputation? This is the question of the Reformation.”[6] My question is, “Can a person ‘possess’ anything by fictional imputation?” That’s like saying I am or have something that I am not or I don’t have. The Government may impute to me the status of war hero, but that doesn’t really mean I “possess” this honor. I can really only “possess” this honor if it is true. It must be mine inherently, for it can never be mine by simple imputation alone, except if we consider fraud a valid context. Is this an outrageous statement on my part? Does it make me a heretic?
I don’t find either the Reformers’ or the Roman Catholic answer satisfactory. At the moment of initial justification, the sinner is not inherently just or not guilty by way of Christ’s imputed righteousness. Neither position is accurate. I believe the Roman Catholic Church and the Reformers were mistaken. All that has happened is that the sinner confesses and forsakes his sin, and God pardons and adopts him into His family. In other words, the sinner exercises repentance and faith in God, and his faith is reckoned as righteousness. When we think of righteousness, we most often think of personal goodness. But that is not what it means here. At times in the Bible, it clearly does mean personal goodness. When faith is equated with righteousness, we are talking about a restored, renewed, and reconciled relationship with God, all the while goodness within us is absent. Do you understand why I contend that neither position is accurate?
Saving faith will result in immediate personal obedience to God. Continued justification must be conditioned on continued obedient faith. Again, this obedience to God is a condition (not the ground) of initial, ongoing, and final justification. However, justification is never a verdict of not guilty or that we are perfectly just. I maintain God can’t declare sinners just in the sense used by Rome and the Reformers. This is something God “can not” do. Is anything impossible for God? What about telling a lie?
It appears the Reformers believe God must have absolute perfection in us to declare us justified. How can sinners have this absolute perfection? They can’t be except by imputation. What is imputation? Imputation is the crediting of something to someone who doesn’t possess it. I think it is ridiculous to think of God as a senile tyrant who must pretend sinners are perfect, when sinners can’t be absolutely perfect, before He can make this majestic, yet fraudulent, pronouncement that we are just or not guilty. It is a picture of a God who must play mind games and word games to seem to attain a standard that sinners can never achieve.
Next, according to this theology, God doesn’t look at our post-conversion sins (except as an interruption of fellowship or a loss of rewards, etc). The Father looks at Christ’s obedience and says His perfect standard of obedience was met. Supposedly, with this, God is satisfied. Is it mean-spirited of me to say, “This is an affront to the Most-High God!” God doesn’t need to play these games, nor will He overlook our “loving” hatred toward Him so easily.
The Bible teaches, “The works of His hands are truth and justice; all His precepts are sure” (Psalm 111:7). I don’t find that either the Reformers or the Roman Catholic Church did a good job of demonstrating His truth and justice in this doctrine. They created a God who violates both truth and justice. For when God legally declares sinners not guilty, is He not violating both truth and justice at the same time? It makes no sense to me. It’s a religious shell game and the sleight-of-hand administration of justice.
“The problem is unsolvable so long as we take the legal imagery literally and think of justification in exclusively moral or ethical terms. What legal imagery intends to say is not that God pretends we are not guilty and falsely declares us to be morally perfect and thus deserving of salvation. Justification has to do not so much with morality as with our personal relationships. It says that in Christ God acted to make right not just the wrong things we have done but the wrong persons we are.”[7] When we think of justification, we should think of it as a reconciled relationship with God. I agree. The legal imagery has its place, but it can lead to incorrect conclusions, such as declaring the guilty not guilty and maintaining, all the while, that justice has been served.
I am happy to say that I agree with brother Sproul, saving faith will “necessarily, inevitably, and immediately begin to manifest the fruits of faith, which are works of obedience.” However, he then goes on to say something with which I disagree. Sproul argues that the ground of a person’s justification is based solely on the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. And by this, he means that Christ’s obedience is credited to us even if we remain disobedient. Based on this idea of imputation, we are declared to be and are actually just in Christ. Christ is truly just, and we are truly just because Christ gives us His righteousness to cover over our sin, according to Sproul.[8] On the contrary, the ground of our justification is not the perfect obedience of Christ. That was the ground of His justification, not ours. The ground of our justification is the mercifully loving disposition of the Godhead toward sinners. This disposition gave us the atonement and impels God to seek the lost. The atonement did not create God’s love for sinners or His desire to redeem us. His love and mercy created the atonement. Thus, the atonement was an outworking of God’s mercy and love. The atonement is a condition of salvation, a necessary expedient that allows God to forgive sinners wisely. Remember that the ground of salvation is the primary moving cause, the “that for the sake of which.” Conditions are the “that not without which.” The fruits of faith Sproul mentions must be the conditions of justification, not the ground of it.
Sproul views the atonement as containing both positive and negative aspects. On one hand, Christ paid for our sins. As to be expected, Sproul believes that God declares Christ “guilty” because our sin is imputed to Him. Sproul says this imputation with a Divine vengeance, which is an act of imputed punishment by God on the person of Jesus Christ. But this alone would leave us no righteousness, and we must have positive righteousness. We are justified not only by the death of Christ but by His sinless life, which is imputed to us. Therefore, we are “not guilty.” You see, Christ’s obedience was necessary for Him and us to be saved.[9]
A couple of comments need to be made. Christ was not imputed to be “guilty” for us any more than the scapegoat of the Day of Atonement was imputed as “guilty.” On the Day of Atonement, one goat was slain as a sin offering, and the scapegoat was sent away into the wilderness, symbolizing the removal of Israel’s sins, as described in Leviticus 16. Christ paid for our sins by suffering for us, in our place. Christ’s vicarious suffering of the atonement is not in question, as far as I know. Christ obeyed the law perfectly and owed no suffering to meet the demands of justice. Christ could therefore suffer for us as our substitute. God doesn’t need to imagine or impute Christ as guilty for He never could and doesn’t need to except to validate this theology. Think about it. The spotless Lamb of God guilty? Any theology that makes Christ “guilty” and us “not guilty” is backwards or upside down. And it can’t be true.
I thought the idea of imputation was that I was credited for perfect righteousness, all the while I had none. The difference is between actual and imputed righteousness. How is it that Sproul can say that Christ’s punishment was imputed? He really did suffer. Do you understand my point? Christ’s suffering was imparted suffering, not merely an imputed suffering. Moreover, it was efficacious only because the suffering was imparted to a righteous man. A merely imputed suffering by a virtuous man would amount to nothing at all. It’s all part of the sophistry of this theology. Those are strong words because we are dealing with an essential truth. My love of God requires me to speak the truth in love. Will you let God judge my heart, or will you usurp His Lordship? A more palpable contradiction and miscarriage of justice can hardly be conceived than declaring a criminal not guilty.
Both examples, MacArthur and Sproul, base their doctrine of justification on the imputed righteousness and imputed obedience of Christ. Justification for both is strictly a forensic act whereby the sinner is declared just, that is, not guilty.
THE TRUTH = JUSTIFICATION IS NOT A VERDICT OF INNOCENCE. IT ISN’T THE DECLARATION OF NOT GUILTY.
If the scripture said nothing on this subject, declaring sinners not guilty should be rejected for this one reason alone.
It isn’t true!
May it be forever understood that actual lawbreakers, like me, may find pardon, redemption, and reconciliation, but can never be declared not guilty. Lawbreakers are guilty, always and forever guilty. Sinners can never be found innocent. They may be “treated” as if they have never sinned and are innocent, but that is not the same as a legal declaration of judicial innocence.
What then is biblical justification? It is a legal divine pardon (and forensic in this sense only), full of grace, so that the guilty are treated as if they were as innocent as Jesus. Justification is a restored relationship with God. The Bible employs a variety of metaphors, such as reconciliation, adoption, the new birth, redemption, and regeneration, to describe this renewed relationship with God, and justification is one of them. The judge of the universe knows I am a lawbreaker, and I am guilty of the charges against me. I have no excuse, such as an inability to plead my case. I cast myself on the mercy of the Judge. Based on my repentance and faith, He grants me a pardon, reconciliation, and adoption. In other words, He sets me free and treats me like an innocent man. He even adopts me into His family. He treats me like an innocent person, even though I am not. If I am not greatly mistaken, this is the plain, simple truth. God doesn’t declare me, a sinner, not guilty. He always tells the truth. A lawbreaker can never be declared innocent in this world or the next. This is the second reason why justification is not equivalent to forensic innocence.
The Judge of the universe doesn’t lie!
If a simple pardon is not precisely what is taught in the Old Testament, then I am ignorant of the Bible. The system of ceremonies and sacrifices taught the idea of covenantal pardon based on conditions such as atonement, repentance, and faith. This is never communicated in a way that suggests judicial innocence. The mercy seat, not a judge’s robe, covered the law in the Ark of the Covenant. Mercy refers to the pardon of the guilty, not the declaration of innocence or not guilty. Strict forensic justification can only be achieved by perfect obedience. Jesus perfectly obeyed and is judicially innocent, but in no way can His obedience be substituted for my “Christian” disobedience. The Bible does not teach this. Not even close to it.
Their doctrine of justification is supported by their doctrine of imputed righteousness and imputed obedience. The entire system is designed logically. We must now look at the doctrine of imputed righteousness and obedience. Does it make sense, and is it Biblical?
WHAT ABOUT IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS?
Very often, we see justification and imputed righteousness linked. Ryrie believes that justification is to declare righteous and not guilty. He doesn’t think that justification is an overlooking or dismissal of God’s requirements because in Christ all of these demands have been perfectly fulfilled and are credited to us who believe in Him. He also believes that Christ’s perfect life of obedience is the basis for our justification.[10] None of this makes sense, nor is it Biblical.
Just because our Ryrie writes that justification is not because of any overlooking, or suspending of God’s requirements doesn’t make it true. For the reality of his view, does in fact mean, God must “overlook, suspend, or alter” my personal sin. The Father “overlooks” my sin because He looks over and sees Christ’s obedience and not my disobedience. God the Father can then supposedly declare me “just-fully righteous.” With this artificial scheme, God is supposedly satisfied. But how can this be true?
“And she will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save his people from their sins” Matt. 1:21. We are not saved “in” our sins but “from” our sins. Brother Ryrie’s doctrine is salvation “in” sin. There is no way to avoid this conclusion, as it’s true. It is true for all those who teach this view of imputed righteousness. It’s the gospel of salvation “in” sin and “from” sin at the same time. Does that make sense to you? Notice also what this passage doesn’t say. It does not say that Jesus came to save his people from hell. The error in their flawed understanding of imputed obedience and related doctrines is that the emphasis is on salvation from hell, rather than on sin, as this verse and many others teach. They believe a person can be saved from hell without being saved from sin at the same time. If we are saved from sin, the practice of sin, we are, of course, saved from hell. But if we are not saved from sin, we will not be saved from hell, as they teach.
In Sproul’s book, he cites the Roman Catholic Church’s rejection of the doctrine of imputed righteousness because they maintained it involved God in a legal fiction. God can’t declare a sinful person righteous without resorting to some legal gamesmanship. Rome believes that one is either just/righteous or sinful and can’t be both at the same time. For Rome, the only true righteousness is inherent.[11] For Sproul, a person can be holy and unholy at the same time. Apparently, we can be alive and dead at the same time. He makes it seem like those who believe a person is either innocent or guilty are oddly mistaken. Sproul believes that a person can be both innocent and guilty simultaneously. Can a person travel north and south at the same time? Can we go backward and forward simultaneously? Can we love and hate God simultaneously? Clearly, we can love God at one time and then hate Him at another, but that is not what is being taught.
I now find myself in agreement with Rome. It’s essential to understand that when Sproul uses the word “just,” he means righteous. We have already explained that, in this case, the words ‘righteous’ or ‘just’ refer to the relationship, not the character of the person. When we think of a just person, we naturally think of the character of that person. But that is not what is in view in this place. When Sproul argues that this is not a legal fiction because Christ’s righteousness is absolute, it makes me so frustratingly passionate that I could throw something. Obviously, Christ’s righteousness is real, and no one questions that truth. But that is not what the charge of legal fiction is all about. He knows this, and that is what makes me upset. The legal fiction charge is based on the apparent fact that God can’t declare a sinner not guilty without compromising His truth and justice. A sinner is by definition a guilty person and can’t be declared not guilty by imputation or inherent righteousness. Sinners are not righteous. Sinners are guilty. Praise God that sinners, like me, can be pardoned and restored, even considering our horrible guilt. That’s gospel justification by grace through faith.
Sproul believes the gospel stands or falls on the idea of the imputed righteousness of Christ as he and the Reformers define this doctrine. He considers the charge of legal fiction to make the gospel itself a fiction. I think he has overstated his case grossly. Again, it comes back to the supposed need for sinners to be accounted as absolutely perfect before God will accept them. The only way sinners can have this absolute perfection is by imputation. This makes no sense to me for the reasons already mentioned. I am not sure Sproul would consider me a Christian because I disagree with his view of imputed righteousness. What we say we believe is essential, but what we are reveals what we truly believe. If Sproul loves God with all his heart, then he is saved notwithstanding his view of imputed righteousness. But if his love for God allows him to live in unrepentant sin, then he is not saved or justified. The same applies to me. Salvation by grace through faith will be evident in genuine heart obedience to God. Many who say they believe in imputed obedience, imputed righteousness, and eternal security would never dream of actually living by what is permitted within these doctrines. They know better and live better. Praise God!
Theologians, including Sproul, have devised intricate and complicated explanations for their doctrines. Is the gospel that challenging to understand? To some, it might seem like full employment for theologians. Listen to the prophet Micah, “Now hear this, heads of the house of Jacob and rulers of the house of Israel, who abhor justice and twist everything that is straight” Micah 3:9. Who can unravel the theological maze? Who can make straight that which is twisted by our professional clergy? Things haven’t changed much over the long ages, have they? But the gospel is simple. What is the gospel? God made a way for sinners to be forgiven and cleansed from their sin. The problem is that we sin. Sin always results in death, as stated in Romans 6. The only way to avoid death is to repent, be forgiven, cleansed, and stop sinning. When we stop sinning, we no longer abide in spiritual death. Sproul admits that some personal holiness will result from our salvation. However, acts of obedience may be few and far between in this life. A believer will undoubtedly live in sin most of the time. That is precisely why an imputed righteousness and imputed obedience are necessary. I believe this misses the intent of the gospel altogether. When we repent and believe, we immediately show the fruits of our new relationship with God. If we don’t, it’s because we are not saved. Maybe we have not really repented. Sin becomes the exception rather than the rule in our lives. Righteousness becomes real in our lives. Please reread the book of Romans and 1 John. When a true believer does sin, they repent. To argue that a true disciple of Christ lives in sin is perverted. But isn’t this precisely what is taught and practiced in most of our churches? I think so. In many respects, it’s a different gospel.
The Bible Answer Man, Hank Hannagraph, told one of his callers that it was the height of arrogance to say we don’t sin in thought, word, and deed every day. You see, Hank thinks God can’t cleanse us from sin as the angel announced at the birth of Jesus, Matthew 1:21. He also believes that the blood of Christ is inadequate to cleanse us from a daily practice of sin. In other words, Christ’s blood is insufficient to make us holy in truth and practice. Clearly, anyone who is arrogant about his or her goodness isn’t right with God. But to suggest, as Hank does, that only those persons who sin in thought, word, and deed are not arrogant is ridiculous and nearly insane. By that logic, the more I sin, the less likely I’ll be arrogant. Therefore, to be really humble and holy, I should sin every waking moment. Shall we sin that good might come of it? Remember the passage in Romans, “What shall we say then? Are we to continue to sin that grace might increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?” Romans 6:1-2. Is it not possible to remain humble while we let God cleanse us from all sin? “But if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.” 1 John 1:7. The gospel will cleanse us from all unrighteousness, yet Hank thinks this isn’t true. He said that it’s the height of arrogance to state we are cleansed from all sin and unrighteousness, yet the inspired writer declares this is precisely what God does for us. God teaches us that the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin, including the sin of arrogance. But Hank disagrees.
These quotes, along with MacArthur’s quote, indicate that Christ’s obedience is imputed to believers. All God’s demands are perfectly fulfilled in Christ. When we “Christians” sin, God doesn’t see our sin but Christ’s obedience. Where does this idea come from?
Let’s retrace our steps so we can understand why this erroneous understanding of imputed righteousness exists. There is, of course, a correct biblical doctrine of imputed/reckoned righteousness. We will look at it shortly. The doctrine of unconditional election states that the exact number of those who will be saved and damned (passed over) was determined by God alone before we came to be. Mankind contributes nothing at all. Salvation is unconditional. To complement this dogma, the theologian needs to make the grace of God irresistible. We have no choice in the matter. We cannot respond to God and the gospel because we are born totally depraved and totally unable to repent or believe.
If salvation is unconditional, we have no role in it whatsoever. If God wants us saved, then we will be saved. If God doesn’t elect us to salvation, and we are unable to believe, then we will be damned by definition, as there are only two options: heaven or hell. They call this grace. I say this is no grace at all. This dogma then leads to the next, which is perseverance. In other words, those who are elected children of God can never lose their status as children of God. Who could conceive of God changing His eternal decree (mind)? It follows logically, doesn’t it? Eternal security/preservation is part and parcel of this system. Against this system is the Bible, which clearly indicates that God expects a holy people. Personal righteousness, not an imputed or imagined kind, is everywhere stipulated as the standard which God expects of mankind, especially those who claim Him.
How, then, do these theologians reconcile the fact that many who claim Christ practice sin and are not considered holy? How can the theologian keep the saint out of hell? Sin separates us from God. How do they prevent this separation? Enter the dogma of imputed righteousness. Their doctrine means that Christ is our substitute, even in the matter of post-conversion obedience. God sees Christ’s obedience, not our disobedience. Isn’t that convenient? Christ’s obedience was sufficient for both Himself and the elect. Our personal sins are not essential after salvation. Sin no longer damns the soul. Sinning Christians lose rewards and so forth, not salvation. We accept Christ’s work on our behalf and hide behind His perfect white robe of righteousness in our filthy rags of sin. Never mind that Jesus said, “First make the inside of the cup clean so that the outside of it may become clean also” Matthew 23:25,26.
In this false scheme, His obedience and righteousness are imputed to us; the outside is clean, while the inside continues to be dirty and corrupt. We get credit for His obedience even though we often fall short and sin. In this way, the “sinning saint”, the “unholy holy one,” can get to heaven. It’s the almost perfect deception. No wonder it’s so well received. I say these words with a motive known to God. (Of course, a pure motive doesn’t make a person’s understanding of all the facts and truths of Scripture entirely accurate.)
Can you imagine Jesus saying to the lame, blind, and deaf that He came only to give them an imputed healing, not an actual healing? Their standing before God is that of a healed person, while they remain in the state of sickness here on earth. Yet this is precisely what we are asked to believe with respect to our souls. The very works of Jesus testify against this idea. Jesus really did heal those who were thought to have incurable diseases. An imputed physical healing is worthless and a ridiculous notion. But when it comes to our souls, these theologians tell us that we should rejoice over an imputed spiritual healing, not an actual spiritual healing. Nothing is impossible to God. Jesus taught us by example that He came to give actual healing to body and soul, not a fictional healing, as these teachers would have us believe. The very ministry of Jesus testifies against this understanding of imputed righteousness and imputed obedience. Praise Him forever.
Some theologians don’t accept all of the tenets of Calvinism. They may reject unconditional election, a limited atonement, and the predetermined damnation of the non-elect. Instead, they seem to hold to the free will of man to respond to the gospel and the unlimited provision of the atonement. Specifically, the concept of perseverance and preservation becomes the prominent feature. Along with this, of course, they must have the dogma of imputed righteousness for the reasons already mentioned. But this makes little logical sense. Preservation implies that God does it all and that His grace is irresistible. God keeps us saved, and our personal choice is not relevant. In the final analysis, God’s grace is only irresistible after we are saved, but is resistible until we are saved. We have freedom of the will until we are saved, then we lose it. We choose to become children of God, but can’t decide to get out of that relationship. Who really, down deep in their soul, believes that? It really doesn’t work to hold on to anything less than all five points of Calvinism. They all must go together. Alone, they can’t stand the test of logic and reason. They can’t stand the biblical test either.
What role then does repentance have? It greatly upsets me that so little is said of repentance these days. (Is it possible to be angry and not sin?) In some theologies, repentance is not even an essential part of salvation. In full-blown Calvinism, repentance comes after regeneration and faith. At least giving up some sin is part of it. Thank God for at least that. In some widely accepted no-lordship theologies, repentance plays no essential part in salvation.[12] Let me say categorically, I must reject a theology that eliminates true repentance as a necessary condition of salvation. It is not possible to be a child of God while we hold onto a sinful lifestyle. I know those are powerful words and will seem harsh to some folks. But maybe these words will save your soul. Perhaps I say these things because I love God and you. Please remember that the grounds of salvation are very different from the conditions of salvation. The ground of our salvation or essential moving cause is the love of God. God’s love found a way for sinners to be forgiven. The atonement came from the love of God. The atonement didn’t create God’s love for sinners. His justice and the good of His creation required that He not wink at or trivialize sin, hence the atonement and the conditions of repentance and faith. The conditions of receiving this gift of salvation make His gift ours. But without meeting these conditions, we can’t have the gift of salvation.
Let me summarize by giving four reasons why this perverted understanding of imputed righteousness and imputed obedience must be rejected.
- Imputed righteousness and imputed obedience are the best cover for sin ever devised. It is antinomian to the core.
- Imputed righteousness and imputed obedience are not taught in the Bible.
- Imputed righteousness and imputed obedience destroy moral agency.
- Imputed righteousness and imputed obedience make God partial and unjust. It makes God guilty and mankind innocent.
Imputed righteousness and imputed obedience are the best cover for sin ever devised.
The book of Titus tells us that the truth encourages godliness (Titus 1:1). Timothy writes, “If anyone advocates a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words, those our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness” (1 Timothy 6:3).
This dogma does the exact opposite. It gives believers an indulgence to sin with eternal impunity. Move over, Roman Catholic Church, for the mother of all indulgences. How can I avoid the conclusion that this doctrine is dishonoring to God in the highest order? How many souls have been deceived into believing they can carelessly practice sin all their lives and enter the kingdom of God? I think this dogma has sent countless numbers of people to hell. It appeals to the worst in us. It tells us we can drop our guard when dealing with sin and temptation. It encourages sinners to presume on the grace of God in a wicked manner. It’s impossible for this not to happen.
“You have wearied the Lord with your words. Yet you say, “How have we wearied Him?” In that you say, “Everyone who does evil is good in the sight of the Lord, and He delights in them,” or “Where is the God of justice?” Malachi 2:17.
Their doctrine of imputed righteousness and imputed obedience declares that those who claim to be children of God are evil, because they commit evil, are good because Christ’s obedience is substituted for their sin. This is precisely why their doctrine is wrong. Few listened to Malachi because they refused to give up their sin.
When we live in sin, we have no peace, and our conscience, when not forced into silence, rebukes us. We desire relief. We seek out peace and must embrace a lie of some kind to attain a measure of peace and silence our conscience. We justify our sinful behavior with excuses such as:
- It’s a disease.
- I’m addicted.
- I didn’t know any better.
- I couldn’t stop myself.
- I was abused as a child.
- I don’t love myself enough.
- My parents didn’t love me.
- I am poor.
- I live in a bad neighborhood.
- I didn’t mean to.
- No one is perfect.
- Everyone is doing it.
Religious excuses include the above, plus a few unique ones like;
- I was born with a sinful nature that will be with me all my life.
- God sees the perfect obedience of Christ and not my sin. (Imputed righteousness)
- The Devil made me do it.
- Don’t judge.
- Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven.
No one can be at peace while at war with their conscience and God. Sinning is war with God and conscience. All the excuses in the world and false doctrines can’t make peace while the battle continues. It’s hard work to believe the lie that you are justified when you are not. The lack of peace and a condemning conscience is good evidence that excuses and false doctrines don’t really work.
I well remember my first few years as a believer. My mentors were dispensationalists.[13] Biblically, I didn’t know any better at the time, but I always felt uncomfortable with the idea that no matter how I lived out my faith, I would go to heaven. My flesh relished in the concept of eternal security, but my mind hesitated. I was told that if I sinned for long periods of time, it was evidence that I was never born again in the first place. If I practiced sin for shorter periods, whatever that meant, I was safe because the Holy Spirit had forever sealed me. The natural tendency in me was to relax my guard against sin. However, I had made up my mind from the start to go all the way with God. Fortunately, this tendency was most often denied, even though I felt as though I could sin and not have to worry about it, not too much anyway. This is the natural and unavoidable tendency of the doctrines of eternal security and imputed righteousness/obedience. They can’t be true because they encourage a careless attitude toward sin. These doctrines perniciously presume on the goodness of God. Isn’t God then in the position of blessing rebellion?
This is not to say that everyone who says they believe in these dogmas has dropped their guard against sin. I am hopeful some live above what these doctrines permit, even though they intellectually or emotionally embrace them.
Many of us have heard the story about a person meeting a group of young men in an alley at night. The story revolves around a question: “Would you rather these young men be coming from a school-sponsored Bible study or from a gang meeting?” I often wonder at how shortsighted atheists are in this respect. Atheists better thank their lucky stars that I, for one, do believe in God. Why? Because if I didn’t believe in God, then nothing they own would be safe. I, and many persons just like me, would have little reason not to hurt them and take everything they have. You see, the law is a crime deterrent, and God is the best deterrent of all. Atheists better pray they never eliminate God from the general population. Guaranteed, they will not like the results.
How does this relate to the doctrine of imputed righteousness and imputed obedience? The same principle holds. You who champion this doctrine better hope that I, and others just like me, never embrace this dogma. Why? For the same reason, atheists should be grateful some of us believe in God and live like we do. If we can live in sin and still get to heaven, then watch out. You and your family are not safe. Do you think this might explain why the church looks and acts so much like the world? Divorce, adultery, other sexual sins, cheating, lying and abortion are rampant in the church. Do you think there might be some correlation between this ugly fact and the doctrine of imputed righteousness and eternal security? I do and I believe it is as obvious as the nose on my face.
Imputed righteousness and imputed obedience are not taught in the Bible
When I say that imputed righteousness is not taught in the Bible, please remember I am only referring to the idea that Christ’s obedience is imputed to us to cover up our disobedience. There is, of course, a biblical doctrine of imputed righteousness. Most often, the fourth chapter of Romans is cited as the proof of this doctrine. I won’t be able to quote the entire chapter so that I will mention a few passages.
“But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness” Romans 4:5.
“Is this blessing then upon the circumcised, or upon the uncircumcised also? For we say, “Faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness” Romans 4:9.
“And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be reckoned to them” Romans 4:11.
“And being fully assured that what He had promised, He was able to perform. Therefore, also it was reckoned to Him as righteousness. Now not for his sake only was it written, that it was reckoned to him, but for our sake also, to whom it will be reckoned, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead” Romans 4:21-24.
Now, please tell me where it is taught that Christ’s obedience is credited to us to offset our disobedience? It’s not stated in this chapter or anywhere else that I can find. In all these passages, it is clearly stated that faith is reckoned as righteousness. It’s said so we will understand it’s our personal self-originating faith that is reckoned as righteousness. In this way alone can the guilty be justified. There is no hint of innocence. The word says, “Him who justifies the ungodly.” It’s not even an imputed faith. The passage states that Abraham believed in God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness because of his faith in God. This was something Abraham was able to do, and he did it. Abraham is the father of all those who believe. I am not talking about an imputed belief credited to him while he remained an unbeliever, as these men would have us believe. It nowhere states that Christ’s obedience is imputed to us.
“For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made (not imputed) sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made (not imputed) righteous, Romans 5:19, emphasis added. What do you think about this passage? Does it support their idea of imputed righteousness and imputed obedience? Doesn’t it clearly indicate the opposite? If the author meant to say we are imputed to be sinners and imputed to be righteous, why does he use words that suggest something different? Why does he use the word “made” and not the word “imputed”?
What exactly is righteousness? Remember what I said earlier. It’s used in a variety of ways in the Bible. It’s often used to refer to the conduct or character of a person. A righteous person is a good person. In the case of Biblical justification and faith that is imputed as righteousness, it means that our estrangement from God is reconciled. It is the restoration of a right relationship with God. It doesn’t mean we are good. We are not good. We are sinners. We have absolutely nothing to offer God that could be construed as goodness. Justification means that God is reconciled to us because of our willingness to break off from our sins (a change of mind and heart, or repentance) against Him and to yield to His rule in our lives (faith).
Another alleged proof of this false idea of imputed righteousness is the book of Philemon. In this short book, the Apostle Paul asks Philemon to release a runaway slave named Onesimus. Onesimus was now a believer and useful to Paul while in prison. Philemon, as a believer, was urged by Paul to let Onesimus go and serve Paul. Paul, on his part, said he would be responsible for anything Onesimus owed Philemon. Now, please tell me where there is any hint that Paul’s or Christ’s obedience could be used to offset Onesimus’s disobedience? Paul intercedes on his behalf as an example of brotherly love. However, nowhere is it implied that Paul could obey the law on behalf of Onesimus. Paul is a type of Christ, who paid our debt of sin for us by offering Himself on the cross. “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him” 2 Corinthians 5:21. Jesus took our sins on Himself that we might have God’s justification or righteousness. In other words, we might receive forgiveness of sin, cleansing, and have a reconciled relationship with God if we turn to Him from sin in faith. This is what imputed righteousness means. Faith is reckoned as righteousness. Faith results in reconciliation. Faith turns lawbreakers into lawkeepers.
“Son of man, if a country sins against Me by committing unfaithfulness, and I stretch out My hand against it, destroy its supply of bread, send famine against it, and cut off from it both man and beast, even though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job were in its midst, by their own righteousness they could only deliver themselves,” declares the Lord God” Ezekiel 14:13-14.
Just like in the days of Noah, when God flooded the entire world, only Noah and his immediate family were saved. They rescued no one else by their righteousness. This is a constant biblical principle. We are individually accountable to God. Remember the soul who sins shall die. With respect to this doctrine, the principle no longer applies because it contradicts their theology. “The Lord keeps all who love Him; But all the wicked, He will destroy” Psalm 145:20. Not true if their doctrine of imputed righteousness is correct, for wicked “Christians” will not be destroyed.
Imputed righteousness and imputed obedience destroy moral agency
For the semi-Calvinist (those who believe in some, but not all, of the tenets), we have the responsibility and power to exercise faith in God to be saved. However, after that, we no longer have any control or obligation to continue believing. After we are saved, we no longer have the power to withdraw saving faith. We will persevere no matter what. Moral agency is destroyed when we believe. We lose our free will. Remember, free will means we can choose between God and self. This theology is illogical and inconsistent.
For the full-fledged or high Calvinist, regeneration precedes faith. God is the sole cause of regeneration. We have no moral agency or free will. We can only disbelieve until God regenerates us. Then we can only believe. Moral agency and free will are non-existent. Refer to chapter two. This system of theology is logical and consistent. Unfortunately, that doesn’t make it correct.
The only accurate, consistent, and logical idea is that we, as moral beings, can choose or reject God at all times. I know this to be true within myself. I need no other proof or evidence. At times, I am tempted to return to Egypt (where life was lived for me first). The self is always present, seeking recognition and a sense of position. However, I would rather deny myself, for I remember how awful it was in Egypt. Mostly, I think about how lovely He is, and that helps me deny myself. This is the way it really is in my life. I must die daily, and it becomes easier the longer I walk with Him. Theological explanations that deny what I know to be true about myself are wrong. Worse, they are deceptive.
Imputed righteousness and imputed obedience make God partial and unjust
The Word of God teaches that God is impartial. Their dogma of imputed righteousness makes Him partial and therefore unfair. Sin in the unbeliever damns. I think we all agree on that.[14] But sin in the believer no longer damns. That is the bottom line, no matter what clever arguments are used, such as imputed righteousness. Sin no longer has the deadly eternal consequence for the believer. Do you not see how this makes God a respecter of persons? God is the creator Father of everyone and the spiritual Father of all who believe in Jesus. How can the Creator Father damn some children for sin and not others?
A Story
There once was a King who was greatly loved by his subjects. He was admired as a kind, good, and just man. One day, a plot to overthrow the King was discovered. The men responsible were caught and arrested. It turns out one of those rebels was a son whom the King loved very much. The King knew that he must handle this decision with great care. Whatever he did would send a message to his kingdom. The King wanted the message to be the right one, one that would uphold the law of the land and the principle of equal justice. Did the fact that one of the traitors was a son mean his son would be forgiven while the others were hanged? Or should the King make his son’s punishment more stringent because his son should be held to a higher level of responsibility because of his position of privilege? If he let his son off, what would that say to his other children? Why wouldn’t they think they, too, would be exempt from prosecution if they broke the law? How could that be avoided? What about his other subjects? What would the message be to them? Usually, traitors would receive the death penalty. Could it be different for his son?
Yet the proponents of imputed righteousness insist that sin is deadly even for believers. Then why isn’t the believer condemned? According to them, God accepts Jesus’ obedience as a substitute for our sin (imputed obedience). At the end of the day and at the end of the argument, sin is therefore not deadly for the Christian. Isn’t this sophistry most repugnant? Once sin condemned the sinner, now it doesn’t condemn the sinning Christian. Clearly, God is then perceived as being partial and unjust.
In conclusion
Justification is the restoration of a right relationship with God. Sinners are pardoned, restored, redeemed, reconciled, and adopted into the family of God. They are not found innocent or not guilty. Justification is not forensic innocence. To insist that justification is a verdict of not guilty is to make God a liar and us innocent. Justification does indeed rest on imputed righteousness. But our personal self-originating faith is the basis, not Christ’s obedience. The moving cause of our salvation is the love of God, not the obedience of Christ. Both our faith and Christ’s atonement are conditions of justification. Only Christ could make atonement and satisfy that condition. Only we can repent, believe, and fulfill that condition.
Imputed righteousness, as Ryrie, Sproul, and many others define it, can’t be true because it encourages carelessness toward sin. It also destroys moral agency, which makes us incapable of ethical action and, therefore, as innocent as goats. Even more devastating is the fact that it isn’t taught in the Bible. Only the twisting of scripture can make their doctrine fit the Biblical evidence. According to their doctrine of imputed righteousness, the wages of sin are death, as a Biblical text, is incomplete, for it should read that sin only results in death for the non-Christian. The Christian can often sin, and death is not the wage earned. These sinning Christians are still children of God. If true, then God clearly plays favorites and is unjust. Relatives of the judge should receive the same sentence as anyone else. “I will not justify the wicked,” Exodus 23:7. This was written to God’s covenant people.
All around us, we see the fruit of these lies that have become “orthodox” truth in the evangelical church. I am amazed when Christians wonder how it is that our churches and society are in a moral free fall. Morally, there is little difference between the church and the world. Regrettably, these doctrines are the foundation of moral decay. Only when Christians reject the idea that it is normal for them to live in or repeatedly sin will we see a change. I pray that God will have mercy on us and send us leaders who will rebuke sin, first within the church and then in the world. If I have accurately interpreted the Word of God, then multitudes of professing Christians are eternally lost. The Good Shepherd seeks those sheep that are lost. Where are the Master’s servants who are following in His footsteps?
[1] Faith Works, The Gospel According to the Apostles, John F. MacArthur, Jr., Word Publishing, 1993. p. 89.
[2] Willing to Believe, Sproul, p.178. Sproul says that Charles G. Finney “erected a straw man of prodigious proportions” when he asserted that the doctrine of imputed righteousness “is found on a most false and nonsensical assumption; to wit, that Christ owed no obedience to the law in His own person, and therefore His obedience was altogether a work of supererogation, and might be made a substitute for our own obedience; that it might set down to our credit, because He did not need to obey for Himself.” Sproul says that he knows of no Reformers who taught that Christ did not need to obey the law in his own person. I am very familiar with Finney’s teaching. He did not say that the Reformers taught this idea, contrary to what Sproul says. Finney states that the idea behind or underneath the doctrine of imputed righteousness rests on this assumption, a work of supererogation. Sproul knows that it is true at least for the Roman Catholic Church, if not the Reformers. In Sproul’s little booklet titled “Justified By Faith Alone” by Crossway Books, 1999, pp. 23-24, he talks about the Roman Catholic Treasury of Merit and how the supererogatory works of Christ and the saints contribute to this fund. The “straw man” has been created by Sproul, not Finney. And if Finney isn’t correct, then on what basis does the doctrine rest?
[3] Faith Alone, The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification, R. C. Sproul, Baker Books, 1995, p.96.
[4] Ibid. p.97.
[5] Ibid. pp.99-100.
[6] Ibid. p.101.
[7] Christian Doctrine, Revised Edition, Shirley C. Guthrie, Westminster/John Knox Press, 1994, p.320.
[8] Ibid. p.103. Not a quote, reference only.
[9] Ibid. p.104. Not a quote, reference only.
[10] Ryrie Study Bible. Ibid. p.1965. Not a quote, reference only.
[11] Sproul, pp.105-106. Not a quote, reference only.
[12] Faith Works, John F. MacArthur, Jr. Ibid. p. 213. Appendix 1. The author gives a comparison of three views: Lordship, no lordship, and radical no lordship. I reject both the no lordship and radical no lordship views. Both are contrary to reason, logic, and the Word of God, in my opinion.
[13] I don’t know if there are dispensationalists who reject the dogma of eternal security and related doctrines.
[14] Charles Stanley says it’s the state of unbelief that damns unbeliever’s not just sin as if unbelief isn’t a sin. Please refer to chapter 6 on Eternal Security.
