Covered By His Blood

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 fooled.

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 15:6

"And therefore it (faith) was imputed to him for righteousness." Romans 4:22

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: 21.

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 Him alone.

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 condemned.

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 6:22

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

[Christianity Infocenter Home]