When discussing imputed righteousness of the believer
we must first make a distinction between the two types
of righteousness. Believe it or not, I come across many
Securists that don't know or understand about any differences.
Other Securists agree to there being two distinctions
in types of righteousness but believe that the
second is optional in salvation. (More on the two types
later). The Securists that don't understand the differences
have been taught that our sins were transferred to
Christ and His righteousness was transferred to us and
God now sees us as holy, without blemish, because we
are covered with Christ's righteousness. The problem
we have with this is twofold. First, the Securist proclaims
it, but yet when pressed for evidence, none is
forthcoming from most. Second, this belief spurs other
questions that the Securist has no explanation for.
The only proof the Securist gives as to imputation are
verses such as Romans 4:22, "And therefore it was
imputed to him for righteousness.", claiming that it
shows that Christ's righteousness was imputed to us
and wanting us to believe that this includes His own
personal righteousness. In regards to sin being imputed
to Christ, we get "For he hath made him to be sin for
us..." 2 Cor. 5: 21.
The first problem is whether our sins and His righteousness
are transferred. The Securist knows this as
imputation. The problem arises in that imputation does
not mean "to transfer". Imputation means to "count,
reckon, put to the account of". It doesn't carry the idea
of imparting a moral quality such as the righteousness
of Christ to us or our sinfulness to Him. The idea of a
transfer described as an imputation is purely fictional
from a Biblical perspective. His righteousness and our guiltiness are personal and can NOT be transferred, regardless
of what the Securist preaches.
The Securist would have us believe, as stated above,
That we are covered by Christ's righteousness and
when God looks at us he can not see our sins, all He
can see is the blood of Christ covering us. The problem
with this is that an all knowing God that can not
be fooled and can not lie, can certainly not call an unholy
thing something that it is not. To think that God
is fooling Himself is utterly ridiculous to consider.
The Securist insist that because of this, we might break
fellowship with God due to sin but our salvation is not
in jeopardy. But the question now arises that if God
doesn't see our sin, only position, seeing only the righteousness of Christ, how then does He know of our
sinfulness to break break fellowship with us? If God
doesn't see our sin, then our sin can't break fellowship.
Fellowship can only be broken by sin if God is aware of
that sin, so God must see it if fellowship is broken, once
again showing that an all knowing God that can not be
fooled DOES see the sins. When the Securist finds that
they are running into trouble with this explanation, they
turn to reason #2. They state that it isn't that God sees
the sins, but that our feelings of guilt cause the separation.
To which we can ask, since God knows the heart
and everything about us, doesn't it stand to reason that
He would know the cause of the guiltiness that caused
the separation? Once again, all knowing God can not be
Another important point to consider is that it is faith that
is imputed, not righteousness. Faith is imputed, counted,
or reckoned for righteousness. The Securist doesn't imply
this. To them it is their SINS imputed to Christ and
Christ's RIGHTEOUSNESS imputed to them because of
faith. This seems to be the complete opposite to the
definition used for imputation.
"Then he [Abraham] believed in the Eternal, and He
reckoned it (faith) to him as righteousness." Genesis
"And therefore it (faith) was imputed to him for righteousness."
It should become apparent that trying to assume that
faith BECOMES righteousness in the sense of an imputation
is without reason. We should also note that this
imputation of faith for righteousness is to someone
whose personal act compelled it, not because of the personal
act of another.
The other verse sited by Securists, that of the imputation
of our sins to Christ, is also not intended to mean what
the Securist implies.
"For he hath made him to be sin for us..." 2 Cor. 5:
This is footnoted in many Bible as meaning that Jesus
was made a sin offering for us, not that our sins
were transferred to Him. To accept it as meaning
that He was made sin for us would be equal to accepting
that God is the author of sin. Whatever the
meaning of the word, it can not mean that Jesus actually
became sin or sinful as He was not. Jesus did
not possess sin which had been arbitrarily transferred
to him and which he absorbed in our behalf.
He bore our sorrows and was bruised for our iniquities
in that he "tasted death for every man" (see
Heb. 2: 9, Isa. 53: 4, 5).
Many Securists take the
view that Jesus cry from the cross of "My God, my
God, why hast thou forsaken me?", implies that the
Father abandoned Jesus because of the sin. Yet if
you study the verse, understanding it to be prophetic
(Psalms 22), you will see that it was a matter of the
Father not helping Jesus rather than His leaving
One other problem we arrive at with the Securist's
view is that of original sin. The entire idea of imputed
righteousness and transference of sins is part
of a theory that ties original sin into the picture. To
explain briefly, the guilt of Adam's sins were imputed
to all mankind, those sins were imputed to
Christ and Christ's righteousness was imputed back
to man. Logically, this entire scenario, if true, when
brought down to the final elements will tell us that
if Adam's guilt was unconditionally passed on to all
mankind, then all mankind's sins must be imputed
to Christ unconditionally and His righteousness unconditionally
imputed to all mankind. No faith or
belief need be involved. Just as in the case of applying
a theory of payment and punishment to the crucifixion, this has the same outcome - Universalism.
All must be seen as righteous or all must be
Given the fact that it is our FAITH that is imputed
as righteousness, there are two conclusions that one
can arrive at in regards to imputation...that our faith
constitutes a true personal righteousness or that
righteousness constitutes a legal state of the believer
on the condition of faith.
That our faith constitutes a true personal righteousness
must be disregarded. Faith can only fulfill
it's own obligation and can not fulfill another
obligation. Faith can not constitute the full sum
of Christian obedience. And implying that faith
gives us righteousness takes away from the
atonement which is the only grounds of justification.
The later view is the one that is more believable.
Simply put, the believer is seen as righteous
upon the condition of faith. Faith being defined
as repentance and belief. So then, faith is accepted
as the condition of justification and remission
of sins, and as a consequence the believer
is thereby set right with God.
What we have been discussing thus far is known
as "imputed" righteousness. But there is another
type of righteousness that is very important. The
righteousness many Securists claim to be optional.
It is "imparted" righteousness. A righteousness
that we develop gradually over our
spiritual life as we learn to overcome sin with the
help of the Holy Spirit. God does not intend to merely call us righteous, but has plans for us to
actually BECOME righteousness! This is sanctification.
A nasty word to some Securist's as they
want only to be declared righteous without having
to try to actually become righteous. This
equates to asking God to justify me but not
sanctify me. To the Securist, imputed righteousness
is all we need to be saved. Yet the book
they use most to prove their case, the book of
Romans, tells us something different. Let's look
at the progression.
"...but yield yourselves to God as men who have
been brought from death to life, and your members
to God as instruments of righteousness."
Romans 6:13 RSV
"Do you not know that if you yield yourselves
to any one as obedient slaves, you are slaves of
the one whom you obey, either of sin, which
leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to
righteousness?" Romans 6:16 RSV
Here is the Christian's responsibility to obey.
This obedience results in righteousness.
"For just as you once yielded your members to
impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now
yield your members to righteousness for sanctification."
Romans 6:19 RSV
Our obedience to righteousness results in sanctification!
"But now that you have been set free from sin and
have become slaves of God, the return you get is
sanctification and its end, eternal life." Romans
Our obedience to righteousness results in sanctification
and the results? Eternal Life!!! Note this closely!
Imputed righteousness leads us to imparted righteousness
and imparted righteousness leads us into
sanctification and sanctification leads to eternal life.
They are all linked. Believing that being justified
through faith is a one time deal that can be forgotten
is a fatal mistake the Securist makes. Salvation consist
of justification AND sanctification. God doesn't
want us to have faith IN Jesus only, but also the faith
OF Jesus! But we must always remain aware that it
is STILL the righteousness of Christ imparted. It is
following the new nature. Many take imparted righteousness
as meaning a righteousness that is all our
own, but this couldn't be further from the truth. We
walk in righteousness because HE is righteous and
we are in Him. But we must walk in obedience,
holding onto faith.
Next: Adopted as a Child of God