Fides 18 N2 - Revista do Centro Presbiteriano Andrew Jumper

Ralph F. Boersema, Original Righteousness
received. Accordingly, the probation was a call to not depart from God. It was
not a project to be accomplished.
Had Adam successfully completed the probation, there would have been
no change in his righteous state. There would have been growth in other respects,
however. James teaches,
Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you
know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness
have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing
(Jas 1:2-4).
Developing steadfastness and growth to full maturity are not only for
redeemed sinners. When Adam’s faith and faithfulness were tested, had he
not sinned he would have learned obedience just as Christ did, as we read in
Hebrews 5:8, “Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he
suffered.” Through suffering Satan’s temptations, had he remained true, Adam
would have learned obedience as Jesus did. Nevertheless, growth in obedience,
on the part of the righteous, does not change their righteous standing with the
Lord. God continues to count them as righteous as they grow in steadfast love
and faithfulness. Their active obedience does not make them more righteous
or more worthy of acceptance.
6. adam’s job assignment
To be endowed with the image of God is to be called to service. In relation
to the subject of righteousness, it is not uncommon for Reformed theologians
to work from a paradigm that treats the performance of righteousness,
that is, moral obedience as a service we are called to render to our Creator, as
work to be accomplished. 10 While there is no doubt we serve the Lord when
10 In defense of the necessity of the imputation of active obedience for justification, Robert L.
Dabney presumes a work performance paradigm when he writes in Lectures in Systematic Theology
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, reprinted 1972), pp. 624-625, “Suppose, for instance, I
promise to my servants a reward for keeping my commands, and threaten punishment for breaking them.
At the end of the appointed time, one of them has kept them, and receives the reward. A second one
has broken them, and is chastised. Suppose this second should then arise and claim his reward also, on
the ground that suffering the full penalty of the breach was an entire equivalent for perfect obedience?
Common sense would pronounce it absurd.” Dabney’s illustration speaks of obedience to commands,
but, in fact, it requires more than simple obedience, namely, obediently completing an assignment. By
his analogy, he seeks to elucidate justification, which is not about completing an assignment, but about
being counted as righteous. Righteous Adam and righteous Jesus did not become righteous by finishing a
job. They already were righteous and, therefore, able to do righteous work. In contrast to Dabney, Zacharius
Ursinus, in his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, p. 306, answered the objection that “... it
is not sufficient that sin be pardoned, but it is also necessary that perfect obedience be rendered. ...” with
the argument, “Even the omission of doing good is sin...” Thus when all sin is pardoned, the omission of
doing good is also satisfied.
106