A Warning in the Imputation Debates

Simon Gathercole writes:

"A statement by Robert Gundry on the (non) imputation of Christ's righeousness in particular has sparked a response by John Piper, and Gundry and Don Carson have also entered the same debate from different stances. It is not not my purpose here to enter this debate. But it should be said that there is clearly a great deal of diversity of opinion on the matter. This is, of course, not sufficient in itself to let discretion take the better part of valor. But in case, the diversity seems to arise out of the complexity of the New Testatment evidence, not because one side is particularly hidebound to tradition and the other wallowing in the desire for novelty or for doctrine that is more amendable to culture. I would not myself deny this traditional understanding of imputation. Still, because of the complexity of the issue, I would propose that the requirement that is is specifically Christ's righteousness that is imputed to believers should not feature on evangelical statement of faith. To make such a finely balanced point an article of faith seems a dangerous strategy. Nonetheless, it is very clear that justification is still christological through and through. Both the cross and the present action of Christ are the vital grounds of justification." [1]


[1] pg 223 of "Justification in Perspective: Historical Development and Contemporary Challenges", edited by Bruce McCormack