Dumbrell again, taking note on justification and imputation in Romans 4:1-8. (Emphasis mine). To see previous posts on Dumbrel, see part I, part II, part III and part IV.
“Imputation”, i.e. the ascribing to the believer of what is really God’s righteousness as the understanding of our covenant acceptance, has been a customary approach to Paul’s notion of righteousness.
However, this is a misunderstanding of what Paul means. “Imputation” is based upon the concept of “righteousness” as a property, something given by God as belonging to Himself. However, the correct biblical understanding of “righteousness” is relational. We do not merely have an “imputed” righteousness, but we are by God’s verdict, right with God. If the meaning of justification is forensic, then the understanding of justification is basically “acquittal”. To be justified is thus to be the recipient of God’s favorable verdict in regard to our final state. Justification, whose basis is forgiveness, is not itself forgiveness (with which it is popularly identified), but the declaration that forgiveness, which confirms our new relationship with God, has been granted. The judge has pronounced in our favor! True, by our acquittal we have been forgiven, but justification is the recognition that forgiveness has occurred, not forgiveness in itself. Forgiveness is the gift, justification its recognition. Justification says that, as a result of forgiveness, we are now in right relationship with God.
Justification by grace through faith announces that we have moved from under the wrath of God to new life in Christ. This basic movement has occurred through the work of the Spirit in regeneration and it is this movement which justification recognizes. That is to say, God brings into a new relationship those who previously have had no relationship with Him. In other words, He admits the, in biblical terms, into covenant with Him. Justification is the declaration of our change of status from sinner to membership of the New People of God.
Dumbrell, William J. Romans: A New Covenant Commentary (Wipf & Stock, 2005) p.53
Footnote: I’m curious as to how Dumbrell is going to handle Romans 5, and the issue of Union with Christ. Imputation surely is a what flows from a correct understanding of this: We are united to Christ, and therefore are participate in what He has accomplished through His active obedience that reverses the consecuences of sin, the result of our/Adam’s active disobedience (Rom 5:15-21).
Samuel,
This is an interesting post. I must confess at the outset that I have not yet read the other four installments, so please forgive me if my questions have already been addressed.
Now I have not read anything by Drumbell so I am not sure where he stands in relation to orthodox Reformed theology. This is a good thing because it causes me to be far more discerning.
Why does he draw the conclusion that if imputation is forensic then it must be equated with acquittal? Why is the basis of justification, forgiveness? Isn’t the basis for justification the accomplished work of Christ, in whom we have not only the forgiveness of sin but are given his righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:12) which is the only way we can have union with God? Is that just a narrow view of justification? Is our being right with God based only upon forgiveness?
Anyway, those may make no sense but I figured I would throw them out there.
Grace.
Thanks for you interest, Kyle. I’m currently going through the book, and for the first time, so I don’t know where Dumbrell “is” theologically… I’m sort of discovering it as I go… but he “comes” warmly recommended by many I know who are reformed.
“Why does he draw the conclusion that if imputation is forensic then it must be equated with acquittal?”
I get the impression -if I’ve understood him correctly-, that its simply the way the term is used in the OT, where it usually includes the idea of “vindication” in the law court (shown or acknowleged to be in the right in a two-party contention). Also I think that for him the proof of burden falls on those who want to equate “justification” with forgiveness, as it isn’t really ever used that way (although its certainly closely tied with forgiveness).
“Why is the basis of justification, forgiveness? Isn’t the basis for justification the accomplished work of Christ, in whom we have not only the forgiveness of sin but are given his righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:12) which is the only way we can have union with God?”
As I wrote in my footnote, I would also say that Dumbrell hasn’t dealt seriously with “Union with Christ” and its implications. However, I’m hoping he’ll deal with it in chapter 5, where I think its practically impossible to avoid the subject.
Having said that, if for Dumbrell “justification” is acquittal, than it follows that its basis will be forgiveness, as God can only declare that we are “in the right” if our guilt has been deal with. I get the impression that Dumbrell would say: “the accomplished work of Christ is the basis for our forgiveness (Romans 3:23-26), which results in God “acquitting” us, or declaring that we are “In the right”, in right standing with God.
But again, I think Dumbrell spell it out when he says:
“The judge has pronounced in our favor! True, by our acquittal we have been forgiven, but justification is the recognition that forgiveness has occurred, not forgiveness in itself. Forgiveness is the gift, justification its recognition. Justification says that, as a result of forgiveness, we are now in right relationship with God.
Justification by grace through faith announces that we have moved from under the wrath of God to new life in Christ. This basic movement has occurred through the work of the Spirit in regeneration and it is this movement which justification recognizes.”
“in whom we have not only the forgiveness of sin but are given his righteousness (2 Corinthians 5:12) which is the only way we can have union with God?””
Also (P.S.), for Dumbrell, the problem with this affirmation in his own words, is (emphasis mine): “… the correct biblical understanding of Righteousness is relational [p.53] In biblical terms, God’s Righteousness is His action exhibiting His continual fidelity to His intentions expressed in the act of creation itself to make things totally and finally correspond to His will and thus, to be ‘right’ […] these intentions are continued through a sequence of OT covenants and find final expression in Jesus’ inauguration of the New Covenant […] the gospel reveals God’s righteousness , i.e., His fidelity to His pledged intentions to the world.”
He adds “OT believers were righteous, i.e., in the right with God’s character and purposes by being members of the believing community, the OT covenant community, standing within this divine community through which God’s intentions for the world were being communicated [p. 22]”.
Sam
Remember, union with Christ does not necessarily entail imputation of Christ’s active obedience. It could be that in union with Christ the believer shares in the benefits of Christ’s passion and his resurrection, such that God’s ‘not guilty’ verdict on Jesus is reckoned to be the believers. A such we’d have imputation of passive but not active obedience, we’d still have imputation, and it would actually agree with some of Dumbrell’s observations.
A lot of criticisms of imputation are a rejection of a particular model of it involving categories of merit and ‘righteousness’ almost as a substance which is transferred into our account in separation from our union with Christ. I wonder if this is what Dumbrell is on about?
PS. I do believe that the believer has Christ’s active obedience imputed to him through union with Christ. I don’t see it as a defining boundary of reformed orthodoxy, however, since even in Owen’s day there was disagreement over it (but agreement over passive obedience being imputed).
Yes, Pete, you’re right. In fact, I was uncareful with my words (which I can still get away with as I haven’t been to seminary). Notice I said:
” We are united to Christ, and therefore are participate in what He HAS ACCOMPLISHED through His active obedience that reverses the consecuences of sin, the result of our/Adam’s active disobedience”
That is, whether its acive or not, we receive with Christ, the benefits that resulted from His active obedience (even if we are not directly imputed His active obedience). That is… we are vindicated with Him.
As for the “transfer” if Righteousness as if it was a substance, I totally agree with your comments. I’m with with Dumbrell, (*gasp*) Wright and others’ understanding of the term. It seems more faithful to its use in other places in Scripture, and makes for a better reading of Romans 1:16, 17.