Imputation and Penal Substitution

In recent academic research in New Testament exegesis, on matters which affect the doctrine taught in the church, it has become the fashion in some quarters to deny the imputation (or divine reckoning) of the righteousness of Christ to Christian believers.  This "new perspective" is found in more well-known teachers, both Lutheran and Reformed, then we want to know.

We need to tune our thinking up when we hear this.  It is common to hear this denial of imputation expressed in terms of a denial of the whole concept and mechanism of it.  But, denying the whole concept and mechanism of imputation also implies denying the imputation of our sins to Christ. 
 
It needs to be understood that denying the imputation of our sins to Christ is a not uncommon doctrine in the whole church history of theology, but when this is done we have to understand that this means that Christ, though he for sure dies as our substitute in some sense, or dies as a righteous man to pay back the honor of an offended God, or dies to show God's displeasure with sin, yet he does not die as a sinner, taking our punishment.  In other words, there are lots of doctrines of "substitutionary atonement" that are not "penal substitution."  In these other doctrines of "substitution" Christ does not truly endure the divine curse and the penalty of our sins.

The next thing to know is that teachers of these non-penal substitutions, particularly today, commonly do not teach that we need this penal substitution at all.  God can forgive whomever he wishes, any time he wishes, without any sacrifice by Christ at all.  This lowers the "power" in the concepts of holiness, of redemption, and of grace.

This is one big problem with the "new perspective."  There is too low a view of the stringency of the requirement for perfect obedience.  That is, there is too low a view of the Law.  There is too low a view of the requirement for holiness.  There is too low a view of the divine curse against sin. Therefore, there is too low a view of the need for "penal substitution."  As a consequence, there is too low a view of the immensity of the free grace expressed toward us in Christ.

Because the concept of sin is too small, the concept of grace is too small.

When we're "laid back" about the law, and about sin, then we're also too laid back about holiness and repentance.  And, when we're too laid back about holiness and repentance, then we're too laid back about the need for total grace.  Grace becomes banal and loses its flavor.  We speak glibly using the word "grace," but it isn't grace.  "Laid back" isn't grace.  "Easy-going" isn't grace.

On the other hand, when the screaming tension between the horror of true sin and the incomprehensible miracle of grace astounds our hearts continuously, then we at least have a chance, by the Spirit, to detest our sin daily, and flee to grace daily, and exult in God, and in the things to come from heaven, and see the power of the Spirit working holiness in our lives.

We have to understand the reason for all that blood in the Old Testament sacrifices.  We have to understand why the Son of God who taught us not to fear death feared his own death, and sweat blood over it -- and he was no coward.  We have to understand the cry of dereliction from the cross -- and the simultaneous piety of it.  This man on the cross was a truly righteous man -- who was spiritually deserted by his God.

Since this man took our punishment, we are delivered from it forever.  Our sins are canceled by what Christ endured on the cross.  Because of what he did, we are now considered righteous.

This is imputation.