It is above all things important, that men, if they have broken the law of God, and become liable to the punishment which the law denounces against transgression, – and that this is, indeed, the state of men by nature is of course now assumed, – should know whether there be any way in which they may obtain the pardon and deliverance they need; and if so, what that way is. And it is the doctrine of justification as taught in Scripture which alone affords a satisfactory answer to the question. The subject thus bears most directly and immediately upon men’s relation to God and their everlasting destiny, and is fraught with unspeakable practical importance to every human being. It is assumed now that the condition of men by nature is such in point of fact, – that some change or changes must be effected regarding them in order to their escaping fearful evil and enjoying permanent happiness; and it is in this way that the doctrine of justification is connected with that of original sin, as the nature and constituent elements of the disease must determine the nature and qualities of the remedy that may be fitted to cure or remove it. (William Cunningham, Historical Theology, vol. 2, pp. 1-2)
Old Life 
Some (not only yrr) Calvinists tell us that “God wants us to exchange our self-righteousness for Christ’s righteousness.” As the old slogan has it–all you contribute is your sins. But it is not so. God has already (or not) made the exchange. For some, that is, for all elect sinners, God has already imputed their sins to Christ. In time, it is God (not these sinners) who will impute Christ’s death (His righteousness) to the sinners.
But why be picky about this? Because the gospel of Jesus Christ is about God’s sovereign JUSTICE. The gospel is about the salvation which God must be giving the elect, not because of any exchange the elect make, but because God has already atttributed all the sins of all the elect to Christ. Since Christ has already died for all those sins, it would be unjust for God not to save those sinners.
Now, some liberals (Socinians) don’t like that idea of retributive justice. If it’s strict justice, they complain, then it can’t be forgiveness. And if it’s forgiveness, then no justice was absolutely necessary. (Some of them CS Lewis, Tim Keller) think a governmental display of “absorbing sins” would be good for apologetic order.)
And many Calvinists who still want to be “evangelicals” (Arminians also) also have a problem with the idea that what Christ did entitles Christ to the salvation of His specific individuals. So they don’t talk about election, or about the elect having already been given to Christ. Instead they talk about “the covenant” or about “those who believe”. What gospel they believe doesn’t seem to be so important. Since they have not begun with the problem (guilt before divine law), they don’t know the solution.
LikeLike