The 'imputed-righteousness-of-Christ-gospel' promotes ungodliness because it is an unbiblical error.
This short article will:
#1: Define the 'imputed-righteousness-of-Christ-gospel' (shortform: IROC)
#2: Show that the 'IROC-gospel' promotes ungodliness
#3: Explain why the 'IROC-gospel' is an unbiblical error
#1: Define the 'imputed-righteousness-of-Christ-gospel'
Only Jesus has lived the life of perfect obedience, and so only Jesus can save us. He willingly walked to the cross, where he died for our failure. He took the punishment for our disobedience. Our hope rests not in our obedience but in his. We are saved not as we obey the rules but as we trust in him. He obeyed all of God's law for us and his perfect record of obedience is counted (technical term: imputed) by God as ours. Not only does he forgive all our sin, but he gives (technical term: imputes to) us his perfect righteousness. Our obedience adds nothing. It never could and it doesn't need to.
Jonty Allcock, Impossible Commands, (The Good Book Company, 2019), 27.
Underlines mine for emphasis. Bracketed words in black font added for clarification.
#2: Show that the 'IROC-gospel' promotes ungodliness
Famous Protestant teachers too have been worried about 'IROC' leading to ungodliness.
Richard Baxter and John Wesley both worried that the notion of imputation would lead to antinomianism.
Thomas Schreiner, Faith Alone: The Doctrine of Justification, (Zondervan, 2015), 179.
They were right to worry that 'IROC' promotes ungodliness. Protestant teachers who promote the traditional 'IROC-gospel' often downplay and sometimes outright deny the need to repent from sin and obey God's law in order to be saved from God's wrath. Some examples are provided below.
Their "IROC-gospel" used to excuse unrepentant sin:
The "IROC-gospel" downplays the need to strive to live holy lives in order to enjoy eternal life with Master Jesus:
The "IROC-gospel" downplays the force of Jesus' commands:
The "IROC-gospel" rejects the fear of God's wrath:
The Christian's need to obey God's commands in order to be saved from God's wrath is often downplayed and sometimes even denied outright.
Why?
After all traditional Protestants claim..
Our hope rests not in our obedience but in his. We are saved not as we obey the rules but as we trust in him. He obeyed all of God's law for us and his perfect record of obedience is counted (technical term: imputed) by God as ours. Not only does he forgive all our sin, but he gives (technical term: imputes to) us his perfect righteousness. Our obedience adds nothing. It never could and it doesn't need to.
Jonty Allcock, Impossible Commands, (The Good Book Company, 2019), 27.
Underlines mine for emphasis. Bracketed words in black font added for clarification.
In reducing ‘justification’ to a present possession of ‘Christ’s imputed righteousness’, Protestant divines inadvertently bruised the nerve which runs between justification and obedience.
Mark A. Seifrid, Christ, Our Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of Justification, ed. D. A. Carson, vol. 9, New Studies in Biblical Theology (England: Apollos, 2000), 175.
I have shared evidence that the 'IROC-gospel' promotes ungodliness.
Next, I will..
#3: Explain why the 'IROC-gospel' is an unbiblical error
'IROC' is an unbiblical error because it was never written in Scripture.
It is worth observing that Paul never speaks of Christ’s righteousness as imputed to believers, as became standard in Protestantism.
Mark A. Seifrid, Christ, Our Righteousness: Paul’s Theology of Justification, ed. D. A. Carson, vol. 9, New Studies in Biblical Theology (England: Apollos, 2000), 174.
Nowhere in the Bible is our new righteousness termed "the righteousness of Christ", it is "the righteousness of God".
Nowhere in the Bible is it grounded in Jesus' life of good works, but always in his sacrificial death - though this depended for its effect on his righteous life.
Paul equates the reckoning of righteousness with the forgiveness (or non-reckoning) of sins (Rom 4:1-8). An exchange there is, but even the most dramatic statement of it fails to use the expression "righteousness of Christ", and focuses solely on Jesus' death: God made him, who knew no sin, to be sin on our behalf in order that we might become the righteousness of God in him (2 Cor 5:21).
David Seccombe, The Gospel of the Kingdom: Jesus' Revolutionary Message, (Whitefield Publications, 2016), 301-302.
The 'righteousness of God' refers specifically to the righteousness of God the Father, not the righteousness of Jesus Christ the Son. If someone claims that God the Father and Jesus the Son are 1 God, that's yet another error. For more explanation, consider the paper: 'The Father, the Son, the Spirit: 3 Gods not 1 God'.
The only Scripture that links 'faith' and 'Christ's righteousness' is 2Pet1v1.
2Pt1v1: To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ
(Jesus Christ is described as 'our God and Saviour').
Compare what 'IROC' teaches versus what 2Pet1v1 teaches about the relationship between 'faith' and Christ's righteousness'.
What is obtained? | How is it obtained? | |
'IROC': | Believers obtain the righteousness of Christ.. | .. by faith |
2Pet1v1: | Believers obtain their faith.. | .. by the righteousness of Christ |
Opposite logical relationship.
Protestant teachers claim that believers obtain the "righteousness of Christ" because of our faith. BUT Peter teaches that believers obtain faith because of the righteousness of Christ.
Peter means: The righteous Christ gives us the faith to believe the Good News.
The only Scripture that links 'faith' and 'Christ's righteousness' is 2Pet1v1 and it shows the opposite logical relationship to 'IROC'.
'IROC' is a man-made Protestant tradition that goes beyond what Scripture actually teaches. Consider these excerpts from when John Piper interviewed J.I. Packer.
Packer (underlines mine for emphasis):
Well now, within that relationship, the language of the imputing of righteousness, which is Paul’s phrase in Romans 4, that language is very properly extended. Now I think one has to say, this is going a little beyond what any particular New Testament phrase does, but it’s entirely on wavelength with the New Testament phraseology. It’s a slight extension of what Paul says about God imputing righteousness to say that the righteousness imputed is the righteousness of Christ.
But now we are accounted righteous in Christ because of what Christ is, has been, continues to be: the righteous one. And the Father sees us in that way, and this is our fundamental identity as new creatures in Christ. So I would say — indeed I often have said, and doubtless will say again — that though the imputing of Christ’s righteousness isn’t a scriptural phrase, it’s a scriptural thought, and a very fundamental scriptural thought. I wouldn’t, therefore, want to discourage Reformed people from using it simply on the grounds that it isn’t exactly a New Testament thought, which I don’t think it is, as I said. The substance of it, the substance of the meaning, is one hundred percent New Testament.
So according to Packer, it's not written in the Scripture but apparently, it's a Scriptural thought. In fact, it's apparently a very fundamental Scriptural thought. Such a very fundamental Scriptural thought that strangely is not written in Scripture even once! And it's not exactly a New Testament thought but apparently its meaning is 100% New Testament.
This is how the first few generations of Protestant teachers developed their man-made Protestant tradition: they read their own ideas into the Scripture.
Protestants rightly criticize Roman Catholics for following their man-made traditions which go beyond Scripture. An example of Roman Catholic man-made tradition is their dogma that Mary's dead body did not decay but was like Jesus' dead body, raised up and assumed into heaven. Pope Pius XII even declared: "those who deny that Mary’s body has been assumed into heaven are not to be listened to patiently but are everywhere to be denounced as over-contentious or rash men, and as imbued with a spirit that is heretical rather than Catholic.”
Yet, the Pope admits that:
“Often there are theologians and preachers who, following in the footsteps of the holy Fathers,[20] have been rather free in their use of events and expressions taken from Sacred Scripture to explain their belief in the Assumption.”
In other words, the Scriptures cited to explain this “dogma” are based on verses taken out of context. That’s what “rather free” means.
The Pope again admits that "St" Bonaventure used the Scripture “in a kind of accommodated sense to the Blessed Virgin”. A “kind of accommodated sense” is a nice way of saying the verse was taken out of context.
Pope's quotes from: https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12munif.htm
See critique of the Roman Catholic traditions related to Mary: https://tinyurl.com/Church-Idolatry
Protestants rightly criticize Roman Catholics for following their man-made traditions which go beyond Scripture and take verses out of context and misinterpret Scripture. Yet, Protestants hypocritically also go beyond Scripture and take verses out of context and misinterpret Scripture to teach their man-made tradition: "the imputed righteousness of Christ".
Are you imitating the noble Bereans who examined the Scripture to see if what people tell you is really the truth taught in Scripture? Acts17v11: Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
If even Apostle Paul's teachings were tested against the Scripture, of course we should test Luther's teaching, Calvin's teaching, John Piper's teaching and anyone's teaching, including mine, testing everything against Scripture to see if these things are so. Unless you think your Protestant leaders are infallible?
Elsewhere Luther would argue that the fathers "have erred, as men will; therefore I am ready to trust them only when they give me evidence for their opinions from Scripture, which has never erred."
Matthew Barrett, God's Word Alone: The Authority of Scripture, (Zondervan, 2016), 40.
Be consistent. Protestant teachers like Luther and his disciples have erred as men will, therefore you should trust them only when they give you evidence for their opinions from Scripture. Only believe 'IROC' when they show a Scripture which teaches 'IROC'.
Be careful about the distorting effects of earlier tradition pressuring you to conform to a certain interpretation of Scripture which simply cannot work.
The ability to understand the authorial intention of Scripture can be distorted by our tradition as well. In the words of the late hermeneutics scholar Grant Osborne, "We rarely read the Bible to discover truth; more often, we wish to harmonize it with our belief system and see its meaning in light of our preconceived theological system." Or, more lyrically put, "Wonderful things in the Bible I see, most of them put there by you and me." Interpreters can and frequently do read their Bibles with the intention of proving the teaching of their theological tradition true rather than giving an honest assessment of the text's meaning and purpose.
Rhyne R. Putman, When Doctrine Divides The People Of God, (Crossway, 2020), 154.
But when many Protestant teachers today test the Protestant tradition of 'IROC' against Scripture and even after they admit it is not written in Scripture, instead of rejecting 'IROC', they still defend it desperately.
Carson:
Even if we agree that there is no Pauline passage that explicitly says, in so many words, that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to his people, is there biblical evidence to substantiate the view that the substance of this thought is conveyed?
Mark Husbands and Daniel J. Treier, Justification: What’s at Stake in the Current Debates (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), page 50.
(Underline mine for emphasis)
Carson then tries to defend 'IROC', starting from Rom4.
John Piper also tries to defend 'IROC' starting from Rom4 and then goes to other Scriptures in his book "Counted Righteous in Christ: Should We Abandon the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness".
Yet even Douglas Moo (who wrongly believes in IROC) correctly said about Piper's arguments about 'IROC' from Rom4:
he is overly optimistic about the exegetical basis for the view in this text
Douglas J. Moo, The Letter to the Romans, ed. Ned B. Stonehouse et al., Second Edition., The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2018), pg 287 note 937.
The same should be said about Carson's arguments about 'IROC' from Rom4.
Carson's and Piper's arguments from Rom4 depend on Protestant tradition's definition of faith as a morally neutral 'instrument' to obtain IROC. Protestant tradition teaches that faith is not an obedient work. But the Protestant tradition's definition of faith contradicts the Scripture.
Jn6v27-29: 27 Do not work for the food that perishes, but for the food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you. For on him God the Father has set his seal.” 28 Then they said to him, “What must we do, to be doing the works of God?” 29 Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”
Jesus did not say “Why are you working for eternal life? Stop working! Just believe!”
Jesus actually introduced the topic of working for eternal life!
Jesus: Work for eternal life. (v27)
Question: What works should we do? (v28)
Jesus: Do the work of believing in me. (v29)
Then Jesus concluded the topic of working for eternal life by stating the work required: the act of believing!
Jesus had no problem AT ALL calling faith a work.
Also, note that Jesus did not say: faith ALONE.
In Jn5v28-29, Jesus had said that those who do good will be resurrected to life, enjoy eternal life.
Jn5: 28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.
The act of believing is a work which God requires us to do for eternal life.
Faith is a work that must be done for eternal life.
For more verses which teach that 'faith' is an obedient work, see:
This paper is written to rebut Carson's attempt to defend 'IROC'.
Witherington & Hyatt are closer to the truth in their comments on Rom4:
Paul would likely be appalled by the notion that he is talking about some sort of legal fiction, including the idea that Christ is righteous in the believer’s place in such a way that believers are not required to be righteous. Even worse would be the notion that when God looks at believers, he simply sees Christ’s righteousness and reckons it to their accounts, instead of believers having to live holy lives.
Ben Witherington III and Darlene Hyatt, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2004), 122.
Another common misconception is that 'IROC' is proven by the Scripture's symbolism of being spiritually clothed in clean versus filthy clothes.
Understand that this is a picture of the gospel. When Jesus died on the cross to take away our sin, he stripped away the filthy clothes of our unrighteousness. But that is not all that Jesus did for us: he also covered us with his righteousness so that we could be holy before God. This is what the Bible means when it says that Jesus is our righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30). Clothed in him, and covered with his righteousness, we are now good enough for God - not because of our own good works but because Jesus has given us what to wear: the gracious and life-changing gift of his own righteousness.
Phil Ryken, Grace Transforming, (IVP, 2012), 45.
Underlines mine for emphasis.
Quickly check the verse Ryken cited: 1Cor1v30. Firstly, 1Cor1v30 doesn't use the word translated "imputed" / "counted" / "reckoned". Secondly, the 'righteousness' in 1Cor1v30 doesn't refer to Jesus' righteousness. It refers to righteousness from God (the Father). Paul was referring to wisdom from God, righteousness from God, sanctification from God, redemption from God. Paul was not talking about the wisdom of Christ, the righteousness of Christ, the sanctification of Christ nor the redemption of Christ. Paul was not talking about believers obtaining the imputed wisdom of Christ, the imputed righteousness of Christ, the imputed sanctification of Christ nor the imputed redemption of Christ. 1Cor1v30 does not support 'IROC'.
Like Ryken, traditional Protestants like to talk about being clothed in new clothes representing being righteous before God's sight. How do they think Protestants are righteous in God's sight?
The believer's sins are forgiven.
The believer has the record of Christ's righteous deeds imputed to his account so that he does not need to do righteous deeds in order to be righteous in God's sight.
The reality is that Scripture teaches:
The believer's sins are forgiven.
The believer does righteous deeds empowered by the Holy Spirit in order to be righteous in God's sight.
That's how true holy-ones are righteous in God's sight.
The believer's sins are forgiven Zec3: 3 Now Joshua was standing before the angel, clothed with filthy garments.4 And the angel said to those who were standing before him, “Remove the filthy garments from him.” And to him he said, “Behold, I have taken your iniquity away from you, and I will clothe you with pure vestments.”5 And I said, “Let them put a clean turban on his head.” So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with garments. And the angel of the Lord was standing by.
The believer does righteous deeds empowered by the Holy Spirit in order to be righteous in God's sight. Rev19v7-8: Let us rejoice and exult and give him the glory, for the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride has made herself ready; 8 it was granted her to clothe herself with fine linen, bright and pure”— for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the holy-ones.
Scripture's symbolism of being clothed in white robes represent:
God's forgiveness (Zec3v3-5)
The holy-ones' righteous deeds (Rev19v7-8) empowered by the Holy Spirit, Jesus' Spirit, living in the believer (Gal2v20, 3v2).
Reject the man-made Protestant tradition about being "clothed in Christ's imputed righteousness" and repent from sin, receive God's forgiveness AND keep doing righteous deeds empowered by Jesus' Spirit living in you. That's how to be clothed in white on Judgment Day!
Does that sound like putting too much emphasis on the believer's righteous works in order to enjoy eternal life? Well, that sounds just like Jesus teaching the church in Sardis.
Rev3: “‘I know your works. You have the reputation of being alive, but you are dead. 2 Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God. 3 Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you. 4 Yet you have still a few names in Sardis, people who have not soiled their garments, and they will walk with me in white, for they are worthy. 5 The one who conquers will be clothed thus in white garments, and I will never blot his name out of the book of life. I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels. 6 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’
This church only had the reputation of being spiritually alive but it was actually spiritually dead (3v1) and spiritually dying because their works were incomplete (3v2). They were not obeying ALL of Jesus' commands but instead they chose to obey some and refused to obey some. Incomplete works. Thus, Jesus warned of his sudden, surprise coming against them (3v3). That's Jesus coming to punish unrepentant 'Christians'. But there were a few who were worthy to walk with Jesus in white garments (3v4-5). What made them worthy? These few worthy Christians were the opposite of the majority of 'Christians' who were unworthy to walk with Jesus in white garments. The majority of 'Christians' had incomplete works and were thus unworthy to walk with Jesus in white garments. There were only a few Christians whose works were complete, repenting from ALL their sins, not picking and choosing which commands to obey and which commands to disobey. Only Christians who had complete works were worthy to walk with Jesus in white garments and avoid having their names blotted out of the book of life. Only Christians who have complete works will enjoy eternal life forever. The unrepentant majority are unworthy to be clothed in white garments no matter what they claim about being clothed in the unbiblical 'imputed-righteousness-of-Christ'. All these unrepentant 'Christians' will have their names blotted out of the book of the living.
Know the story of Emperor's New Clothes?
Two swindlers arrive at the capital city of an emperor who spends lavishly on clothing at the expense of state matters. Posing as weavers, they offer to supply him with magnificent clothes that are invisible to those who are stupid or incompetent. The emperor hires them, and they set up looms and go to work. A succession of officials, and then the emperor himself, visit them to check their progress. Each sees that the looms are empty but pretends otherwise to avoid being thought a fool. Finally, the weavers report that the emperor's suit is finished. They mime dressing him and he sets off in a procession before the whole city. The townsfolk uncomfortably go along with the pretense, not wanting to appear inept or stupid, until a child blurts out that the emperor is wearing nothing at all. The people then realize that everyone has been fooled. Although startled, the emperor continues the procession, walking more proudly than ever.
A Protestant who refuses to repent from sin and refuses to do righteous deeds empowered by the Holy Spirit but who claims to be clothed in the "(imputed) righteousness of Christ" is a foolish emperor who was "dressed in new clothes" but whose nakedness is evident for anyone with spiritual eyes to see!
Remember how Allcock claims that Christians do not need to obey God's rules in order to be saved from God's wrath?
Our hope rests not in our obedience but in his. We are saved not as we obey the rules but as we trust in him. He obeyed all of God's law for us and his perfect record of obedience is counted (technical term: imputed) by God as ours. Not only does he forgive all our sin, but he gives (technical term: imputes to) us his perfect righteousness. Our obedience adds nothing. It never could and it doesn't need to.
Jonty Allcock, Impossible Commands, (The Good Book Company, 2019), 27.
Underlines mine for emphasis. Bracketed words in black font added for clarification.
Yet, God’s future judgment according to works is taught all over the NT (Matt 7v21-23, 16v27, 25v31-46; John 5v28-29; Rom 2v6-11; 2 Cor 5v10, 11v15; Gal 6v7-9; Eph 6v8; Col 3v24-25; 2 Tim 4v14; 1 Pet 1v17; Rev 2v23, 20v12-13, 22v12) and the OT (Job 34v11; Psa 28v4, 62v8; Ecc 12v14; Isa 3v10-11; Jer 17v10, 25v14, 32v19, 51v24; Eze 18, 33v10-20; Hos 12v2, etc).
Those who believe in 'IROC' and think they don't need to obey God's rules to be saved from God's wrath need to read:
James 2v20 Do you want to be shown, you empty man, that faith apart from works is useless?
James 2v24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
See video: Jms2: The Empty Man believes in Faith ALONE
Traditional Protestants, can you reconcile Rom3v28 and Jms2v24? Luther and Moo and all who share their 'gospel' cannot reconcile Rom3v28 and Jms2v24. See the video:
People are going to cite Eph2v8-9 and verses like that. See the video:
In closing, I wrote this short article to:
#1: Define the 'imputed-righteousness-of-Christ-gospel'
#2: Show that the 'IROC-gospel' promotes ungodliness
#3: Explain why the 'IROC-gospel' is an unbiblical error
The Protestant 'IROC-gospel' is fake news, not the Good News taught in the Scripture. Those of you who believe it and those of you who preach it, be warned..
Gal1v6-9: 6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the favor of Anointed-One and are turning to a different Good News— 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the Good News of Anointed-One. 8 But even if we or a Messenger from heaven should preach to you a Good News contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be anathema! 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a Good News contrary to the one you received, let him be anathema!
So may God do unto the man who distorts the Good News!
Listen to Jesus, all the hypocritical Roman Catholic Pharisees and Protestant Pharisees who follow man-made traditions rather than Scripture..
Matt15: 6.. So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. 7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: 8 “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; 9 in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”
Jer5v30-31: An appalling and horrible thing has happened in the land: the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule at their direction; my people love to have it so, but what will you do when the end comes?
Comments