Mercersburg and Imputation

Feeds:: Posts; Comments

Mercersburg and Imputation

February 24, 2008 by Steven Wedgeworth

Justification by faith in the merits of Christ, is, according to modern theology, simply an outward imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers. According to Catholic theology, it is the making us righteous by the regenerating and sanctifying influence of the Spirit, which Protestant theology has justly rejected. According to Oxford theology, or Puseyism (which seeks to mediate between the Catholic and Protestant idea), justification is the making us righteous by the communication of the divine life of Christ, which, being divine and holy, makes us righteous. According to Mercersburg theology, the Protestant doctrine of imputation is substantially correct, that we are accounted righteous for the sake of the merits and righteousness of Christ (his active and passive obedience whilst on earth); but apprehends the doctrine more profoundly, by adding, that the divine act of imputation in the case is conditioned by our actual participation in these merits, by virtue of our union with Christ. It is not simply a declaratory act, but a creative act at the same time, which brings us into possession of Christ’s merits, which are imputed to us for righteousness. The merits of Christ are therefore not, as modern theology would have it, simply set over to our account, but are made over to us in fact, in the mystical union of Christ and the believer. The merits of Christ are inseparable from his divine-human person or life, and go together in the simultaneous act of justification and regeneration, which do not follow each other in the order of time.

Samuel Miller, A Treatise on Mercersburg Theology; or, Mercersburg and Modern Theology Compared pg. 33-35

Posted in Mercersburg | 9 Comments

9 Responses

on February 25, 2008 at 12:31 pm Ron Henzel

“MercersBUG?” You might want to correct the title on this post. Meanwhile, it seems that Mercersburg conflated imputed righteousness and infused righteousness.
on February 25, 2008 at 1:04 pm Steven W

Thanks for the catch. I typed out a bunch of titles yesterday…
on February 25, 2008 at 1:11 pm Gabe Martini

Ron,

Actually, R.C. Sproul does in Getting the Gospel Right, but who’s counting? A wire transfer of righteousness? Ouch.
on February 25, 2008 at 8:03 pm Ron Henzel

Gabe,

Instead of following the standard FV/NPP modus operandi of selectively citing (or in this case, vaguely alluding to) Reformed authors to make it sound as though they actually support such views, why don’t you give us an actual extended quote complete with bibliographic reference so we can check it out? And then, since we’re dealing with a living author, we can contact him and ask for clarification about what he actually meant. It seems to me that every time I’ve followed up on this kind of hit-and-run method of citation by FVers and checked the source, it turned out to be saying either nowhere near or precisely the opposite of what the person citing it was trying to get it to say. Such studying is wearisome to the flesh.
on February 25, 2008 at 10:12 pm Gabe Martini

You mean you don’t own every R.C. Sproul book?

I love you more and more every day, Ron.
on February 25, 2008 at 10:14 pm Ron Henzel

Gabe,

That’s nice. Now let’s see if you actually read it.
on February 25, 2008 at 11:23 pm Steven W

I’ve heard the wire-transfer illustration in person. Not by Sproul, though.

It is meant to teach imputation, but the monetary analogy is infelicitous.
on February 25, 2008 at 11:30 pm Gabe Martini

The Reformers insisted that the sole ground of our justification is the righteousness of Christ wrought for us in his life of perfect obedience. This is done by imputation. This means that God transfers to our account the righteousness of Christ wrought in his own person and that this righteousness is “counted” or “reckoned” to us by imputation.
R.C. Sproul, Getting the Gospel Right: The Tie That Binds Evangelicals Together, p. 64.

The brilliant PCA Federal Vision Study Committee Report does the same thing, no surprise (2224-2225).

The Westminster Standards, which the PCA’s Study Committee on this issue was vowing to defend, says nothing like this anywhere in any way, shape or fashion. Not that it matters, though. The Bible clearly never talks about a “transfer” of righteousness to our “account.” There’s so many basic problems with that, it is mind boggling to consider.
on February 27, 2008 at 3:25 pm Jonathan Bonomo

Ron,

Nevin did not conflate imputed righteousness and infused righteousness. The foundation of his understanding of “redemption applied” was the mystical union of the believer with Christ by the Holy Spirit, wherein one receives *both* an imputation of Christ’s righteousness *and* the communication of Christ’s divine-human life into the soul.

The insinuation that Nevin conflated imputation and infusion is even more erroneous if you are meaning by “infused righteousness” the Roman Catholic conception which includes along with it the idea of meritorious good works. In Nevin, the idea of salvific merit is entirely absent. So, when he speaks of the life of Christ being communicated to the believer, he is not speaking of an infusion of righteousness *leading to meritorious good works*. Rather, he is speaking of the vivification we receive by virtue of our union the Jesus.