"But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ." Philippians 3:7
Philippians 3Finally, my brethren, rejoice in the Lord. To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe.Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision. For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee; Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect: but I follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you. Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample. (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.
_______
"I know we should not use the weakest expression of a position to criticise it. I know it is easy to knock straw men. The following example is both. However, it is a view that I hear echoed regularly online; it may be a weak expression of a belief but it is certainly a prevalent one. Here’s the quotation:
‘The believer is lukewarm, his/her Saviour was consumed by zeal. The believer is prayerless, but Christ continued all night in prayer to God. The believer is sluggish in obedience, but Christ delighted to do the will of the Father. All this and more – he is our peace, he is our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption – when the law comes asking for obedience, believers can point to the Substitute in their law place.’
This is a belief founded on the view that the life of Christ is vicariously ours. We are told that Christ’s active obedience to the law is our righteousness before God. His death is not enough to declare us righteous, we also need an ‘active’ righteousness, a life lived [commonly known as IAO]. I have tackled some of the better expressions of this position elsewhere in detail, here I am simply observing the absurdity of a popular expression of ‘imputed active obedience’.
I hope the absurdity of the quotation is obvious to all. A Christian woman fails to dress modestly but Jesus dressed modestly on her behalf! Is the corollary true? I am not a good father and as Christ was never married he cannot have kept the law for me in this area. The whole line of reasoning is monstrously inappropriate. Christ’s life does not cover every situation believers over the ages have found themselves in an provide a corresponding ‘law-keeping’ for our ‘law-breaking’. Yes indeed, Christ has glorified God in a life lived entirely in obedience. Yes this life was necessary for our justification for the justifying death of Christ required a perfect sacrifice; the value of the death is in the life. But it is not his life that atones but his death. In the law the sacrifices that atoned were blood sacrifices. Scripture could not be clearer:
Lev 17:11 (ESV)
For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.
Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Substitution lay in a death died not a life lived. Consequently, we are said to be justified by Christ’s blood but never by his life (other than his life in resurrection which is something different). The Law demands death for the law-breaker. No amount of law-keeping by another can make a guilty man righteous. Christ is my substitute by taking that death upon himself. He took the curse of a broken law and so redeemed me from the law. If I live now, I live on the other side of death in a resurrected Christ. I stand in his righteous position before the Father. It is a position that is beyond law and not answerable to law.
The great tragedy of this emphasis on IAO is that it takes atonement away from the cross and places it at the incarnation. Notice how the writer finds his peace in Christ’s life rather than his death: ‘when the law comes asking for obedience, believers can point to the Substitute in their law place.’ The glory of the cross is occluded. Yet in heaven the song of the redeemed is to the lamb, the one who has purchased men to God by his blood’. It is at the cross that substitution takes place (Isa 53). There redemption is accomplished (Roms 3). It is Christ lifted up who draws all men to him. The cross is the place of propitiation and where God’s righteousness in salvation is displayed (Roms 3). It is in being justified by his blood we have peace with God (Roms 5:1). We are reconciled to God through the death of his son (Roms 5:10; Col 1:10). It is on the cross he suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he may bring us to God. In the words of an old hymn concerning the cross:
Bearing shame and scoffing rude
In my place condemned he stood
Sealed my pardon with his blood
Hallelujah, what a Saviour.
The lesson for us all is – let the Bible speak and not theological constructs. When we adopt constructs and then extrapolate on them, we end up with positions that are risible. Moreover, it seems to be a rule that the construct eventually supplants the truth."
By John Thomson
"The intention of the last couple of posts (here and here) on this topic has been to demonstrate that the Bible does not support the reformed construct of IAO. We have seen that the OT knows nothing of a law-keeping life lived on behalf of another. In the OT, when the law is broken only a blood sacrifice can atone (Hebs 9:22). The gospels tell the same story. Jesus indeed keeps the Law, but his obedience to Law is not the emphasize of the gospels. The gospels’ gospel’ is Christ introducing the Kingdom of God (eternal life in John’s gospel) through his saving mission demonstrated in liberating works and words, his ransoming death, and his subsequent resurrection. There is simply no hint in the gospels that integral to the ‘good news’ is a life of law-keeping obedience conferred on others.
What of the rest of the NT?
The emphasis thus far is entirely consistent. In unison the music of the NT celebrates the death (not the life) of Christ as the basis of atonement. Justification, redemption, reconciliation and acceptance with God are always on the basis of death. Below are most of the NT texts that unpack the basis of acceptance with God. I ask simply that you scan these verses and with honesty and integrity judge whether what they unpack is acceptance with God based on a law-keeping life imputed to others. I recommend you read through the whole of the NT with the express purpose of inquiring whether such a theory is evidently one the NT champions. I submit any such honest inquiry, free of presuppositions, will leave the dogma of IAO dead in the water. I believe you will find, as the following texts reveal, that acceptance is never based on the merit of Christ’s life imputed (that is his life lived on earth) and always on the value of his vicarious death and our union with him in his death and his subsequent resurrection."
By John Thomson
"Two systems are in presence. One is, that we are all under the law—Christians and all men; that the fulfillment of the law alone is righteousness; that Ãn vain is propitiation made that we may be forgiven. That is not the means of being justified. In order to this, Christ has kept the law in our stead, and then died for our sins; but that His death is the means of pardon, but not of justification.
The other is, that we believers are not under law, but under grace; that Christ, while perfect under law in His own Person, did not keep it to make good our defects under it, or give us legal righteousness or justification by it; that He died for our sins, and thus put them away; but that we are viewed as being also dead with Him, and no longer in the flesh at all, to which law applied, but stand as risen in the presence of God, in the position in which He stands, with all the value of His work upon us, and accepted in His Person, according to His acceptance now that He is risen; that this is measured by His having perfectly glorified God in His work, and hence is glorified in and with God in heaven; and that this is our title to be in heaven and glory in due time with Him-conformed to His image-the firstborn among many brethren.
Here is the importance of the matter. The first opinion makes our righteousness to be a righteousness under law, in flesh, connecting us with Christ's position before the cross, and making our righteousness purely legal, and putting us under the law; this being the measure and principle of it, we are justified by its being kept. "Do this and live."
The second holds us to be dead to that state of flesh under law altogether; that when Christ was in the body He stood alone, and that our standing in Him is as dead and risen, the old man entirely condemned, but crucified and dead for faith; we, alive to God in Christ, risen, delivered from the law, united to Christ risen, and rejoicing in hope of the glory of God, because Christ has perfectly glorified God in dying, and that our place is that of having entered into God's presence through the cross, that new and living way (that is, through death, by which it is all left behind, and all that related to flesh in its relationship with God, though in fact, having to contend with it as an enemy to be overcome). They put us behind the cross under law. God has put us by the cross, and as now crucified with Christ, alive in His presence, as risen with Him.
Which is the scriptural truth? That is the question. I affirm the common modern Evangelical statement [the first opinion], maintained by the "Record [newspaper]," to be unscriptural; and that it destroys the true Christian liberty insisted on by Paul, and the claims for holiness presented by scripture, according to the new position into which grace has brought us; that it lowers Christianity and disfigures it, and denies the depth of sin and the power of resurrection; that the gospel as taught specially by Paul in conflict with Judaism, is denied by Ãt. We both admit propitiation by blood. But they put before us a man living in flesh, and righteousness provided for him by Christ under law. Paul, I affirm, puts a believer in resurrection, and wholly dead to the former state, and accepted in Christ when he is no longer under law at all."
John Nelson Darby
Bible Treasury, 1862
Photo by Jérôme Prax on Unsplash altered in photo editor