No one is righteous vs. the righteousness of Christ

It is not "imputed". Consider the love God has shown us that we are called the sons of God. We are born saints and because we submit to His sovereign will, we become instruments. The felling of a tree is not imputed to the ax, it actually cut down the tree, but the wielder of the ax did the doing. This is a wonderful salvation. None of us can boast, but we all do the works He puts in front of us to do. It is the same faith Jesus had when He walked on earth. He told our Father He did not want to go to the cross, but always wanted to do His Father's will. He went to the cross. That was grace.

While I think the specific term “imputed righteousness” is the result of an exegetical mistake, it’s important to realize just what it is that the Reformers thought was imputed.

They understood righteousness as what made us acceptable to God. So for them, imputed righteousness really means that our acceptability to God is given (imputed) to us even though we don’t and can't deserve it. I think that’s an important truth, though it’s not the whole picture of being a Christian.

hedrick said:

While I think the specific term “imputed righteousness” is the result of an exegetical mistake, it’s important to realize just what it is that the Reformers thought was imputed.

They understood righteousness as what made us acceptable to God. So for them, imputed righteousness really means that our acceptability to God is given (imputed) to us even though we don’t and can't deserve it. I think that’s an important truth, though it’s not the whole picture of being a Christian.

Click to expand...

Thank you, Hedrick. That does make a difference, if that is all "righteousness" is meant to imply. It doesn't seem to be how it's used by some today though. I've heard it directly explained that God has some sort of amnesia or blindness preventing Him from recognizing that we have ever sinned, and I always had trouble with that kind of view.

ImaginaryDay said:

So as not to derail a thread I'll post this here.

How do we compare:

"No one has the righteousness of God except Jesus. Not one is righteous."

To this?:

"But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;" (Rom. 3: 21-24, NASB).

Are we to always see ourselves in a constant state of unrighteousness, or does God declare us righteous through Christ?

Click to expand...

Well, the way I understand it is, Jeremiah spoke of this covenant from time to time, and one of the times he spoke of it he spoke about the Branch, who would be the Lord our righteousness. I recall reading recently in Paul's writings about a "mature view" of things, and part of this mature view was to have a righteousness that came from trusting Jesus Christ and not by basis of the law. And I also recall that the righteous live by trusting God. So as I understand it .. I am righteous because Jesus is righteous and I trust in Him, he is my righteousness.

samcarternx said:

If I may... We are not righteous in ourselves, but by grace as we believe with the faith given us that Christ is in us , willing and doing us so that His righteousness is expressed in our bodies. He gets the glory, none of us can boast and we get to wear the robes. whooot

Click to expand...

Yes, another benefit of being born again, we are given a new inner nature, which in essence is just like God.

Kylissa said:

Thank you, Hedrick. That does make a difference, if that is all "righteousness" is meant to imply. It doesn't seem to be how it's used by some today though. I've heard it directly explained that God has some sort of amnesia or blindness preventing Him from recognizing that we have ever sinned, and I always had trouble with that kind of view.

Click to expand...

Remember, I said that I thought the exegesis was a mistake. The function imputed righteousness plays is, as I said, making it clear that we don’t have to (and can’t) earn our place as God’s children. However the reasoning behind it was questionable, in my view. Calvin, and I think Luther, believed that God would only accept moral perfection. Any sin earned us hell. Since we obviously can’t be perfect, he credits us with Christ’s.

I’ve noted before that if you look at how righteousness is used in the Bible, it does not indicate moral perfection, but rather someone who is living as God would have us live, which includes repentance when we fail.

So I think the Reformers were wrong in this reasoning. However Paul really does say that righteousness is imputed to us. The mechanism is a just a bit different. It is imputed to us because of our faith, which for Paul is what connects us with Christ.

But if you look at the broader context of the doctrine for the Reformers, what they were concerned about was practices that served to make people feel that they were constantly on the brink of being rejected by God, and had to do things to make sure they stayed in his good graces. The most notorious example of that was Tetzel, who used the fear of hell to raise money for paying off the construction of St. Peter’s.

The emphasis on imputed righteousness was that we don’t have to earn God’s continuing love and acceptance. Righteousness was imputed to us because we’re Christ’s. As far as I can tell, they were right about the pastoral problem and about the importance of assuring people that God’s acceptance is a gift, which we don’t have to live in fear of losing. I think they were even right in finding it in Paul’s concept that righteousness is imputed to us. I just think there were issues in the way they thought this happened. I believe their problem was a leftover from late medieval ideas of justification.

(None of this, of course, denies Jesus' teaching that we are accountable for how we live.)

The amnesia you referred to is because Christ's perfection is imputed to us. Thus when God looks at us he sees Christ's perfection, not our sin. This is part of the explanation that I don't agree with. God accepts us because we are Christ's, but I don't think he needs to ignore the fact that we are in continuing need of help in dealing with sin. That help involves both discipline and forgiveness. Of course classical Protestants are well aware of that. God's amnesia is restricted to justification by faith, and doesn't extend to discussions of the Christian life.

hedrick said:

Remember, I said that I thought the exegesis was a mistake. The function imputed righteousness plays is, as I said, making it clear that we don’t have to (and can’t) earn our place as God’s children. However the reasoning behind it was questionable, in my view. Calvin, and I think Luther, believed that God would only accept moral perfection. Any sin earned us hell. Since we obviously can’t be perfect, he credits us with Christ’s.

I’ve noted before that if you look at how righteousness is used in the Bible, it does not indicate moral perfection, but rather someone who is living as God would have us live, which includes repentance when we fail.

So I think the Reformers were wrong in this reasoning. However Paul really does say that righteousness is imputed to us. The mechanism is a just a bit different. It is imputed to us because of our faith, which for Paul is what connects us with Christ.

But if you look at the broader context of the doctrine for the Reformers, what they were concerned about was practices that served to make people feel that they were constantly on the brink of being rejected by God, and had to do things to make sure they stayed in his good graces. The most notorious example of that was Tetzel, who used the fear of hell to raise money for paying off the construction of St. Peter’s.

The emphasis on imputed righteousness was that we don’t have to earn God’s continuing love and acceptance. Righteousness was imputed to us because we’re Christ’s. As far as I can tell, they were right about the pastoral problem and about the importance of assuring people that God’s acceptance is a gift, which we don’t have to live in fear of losing. I think they were even right in finding it in Paul’s concept that righteousness is imputed to us. I just think there were issues in the way they thought this happened. I believe their problem was a leftover from late medieval ideas of justification.

(None of this, of course, denies Jesus' teaching that we are accountable for how we live.)

Click to expand...

Yes, I understand. I can see (I think) how some of the Reformers seemed to have looked at that, and I certainly agree that we can it possibly earn God's grace. I'm not sure how the word "merit" has functioned in theology at different times. I wonder if that contributes to the problem?

Yet I do believe we are expected to cooperate with God and become changed.

Thank you, this does help.

Michael Collum said:

Yes, another benefit of being born again, we are given a new inner nature, which in essence is just like God.

Click to expand...

But with all due respect, have you been given that? Do you have a nature that is exactly like God? Is your every word, thought, and action exactly like Christ?

I'm not trying to attack or insult you. Frankly, I don't know anyone who does have an inner nature which is exactly like God. But we can still certainly be on the path to salvation.

hedrick said:

The amnesia you referred to is because Christ's perfection is imputed to us. Thus when God looks at us he sees Christ's perfection, not our sin. This is part of the explanation that I don't agree with. God accepts us because we are Christ's, but I don't think he needs to ignore the fact that we are in continuing need of help in dealing with sin. That help involves both discipline and forgiveness. Of course classical Protestants are well aware of that. God's amnesia is restricted to justification by faith, and doesn't extend to discussions of the Christian life.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Frankly, how can a child improve if a parent merely overlooks their every fault and merely pats them on the head and praises them? This is not the action of a loving or responsible parent.

I think I begin to understand where the confusion comes from though. I see too much generalization and uncritical thinking. Not a good thing when your theology is developed largely through reason. (I'm not criticizing any particular denominations here, just a general comment.)

Righteous, but ritually impure

Kylissa said:

But with all due respect, have you been given that? Do you have a nature that is exactly like God? Is your every word, thought, and action exactly like Christ?

I'm not trying to attack or insult you. Frankly, I don't know anyone who does have an inner nature which is exactly like God. But we can still certainly be on the path to salvation.

Click to expand...

That seems to be overstating what happens. Changed motivations, yes. A new focus on God and our neighbor, yes. But I don’t think classical Protestantism quite says that our nature is changed to be like God’s. Theosis, anyone?

Indeed Luther and Calvin resisted infused righteousness in part because they saw the change as coming because we are in Christ, and not inherent in us. It’s Christ’s new life that we have. It certainly affects us through being in Christ. While justification is sometimes portrayed as a legal fiction (an approach I’m not thrilled about), the new life is not. But still, the source always remains external to us.

Calvin in particular saw the heart of Christianity as being our “mystical union” with Christ. Following Paul, for whom being "in Christ" was key.

hedrick said:

That seems to be overstating what happens. Changed motivations, yes. A new focus on God and our neighbor, yes. But I don’t think classical Protestantism quite says that our nature is changed to be like God’s. Theosis, anyone?

Indeed Luther and Calvin resisted infused righteousness in part because they saw the change as coming because we are in Christ, and not inherent in us. It’s Christ’s new life that we have. It certainly affects us through being in Christ. While justification is sometimes portrayed as a legal fiction (an approach I’m not thrilled about), the new life is not. But still, the source always remains external to us.

Calvin in particular saw the heart of Christianity as being our “mystical union” with Christ. Following Paul, for whom being "in Christ" was key.

Click to expand...

Oh, I agree. I was just questioning if that's what Michael Collum was thinking in what he said?

I really did not mean it in any bad way, or sarcastically, etc. please everyone forgive me - we are waiting in hospice for my Godmother and I'm probably not saying things as well as I might.

And I would say we do in fact get a new nature, which is like Christ - except I would say it's not instantaneous, and not through imputation. But a process, and happens in reality. yes, theosis ...

It depends on what you mean by nature, really.

Kylissa said:

But with all due respect, have you been given that? Do you have a nature that is exactly like God? Is your every word, thought, and action exactly like Christ?

I'm not trying to attack or insult you. Frankly, I don't know anyone who does have an inner nature which is exactly like God. But we can still certainly be on the path to salvation.

Click to expand...

Well this is something Paul and James addressed, James spoke of a law of liberty which was not a "law" but a new nature, just like the law of sin in our members that sinned within him was not a law in the mosaic sense but a nature.

For us to be able to "participate in the divine nature" as the scripture says, we would need to be given that very nature, theosis is a great mystery. I think the answer to your question lies in "maturity," the question you are asking is similar to assumptions surrounding the utterance of prophecy in the new testament era. It's not so much being God, Jesus did that, it's about living in the nature Jesus gave us through the Holy Spirit when we're born again. I am reminded of how Paul said that we are renewed inwardly everyday by the Holy Spirit, but our flesh decays all around us.

When we were born again, our inside person changed to be just like Jesus, but we were not given new bodies, the physical body did not stop thinking or making logical connections. The two are in conflict, but when the physical body is removed, there will be a glory revealed that surpasses all the pressure that was against it.

We can participate in the divine nature through Christ. That's the whole point of God taking on a human nature.

Michael Collum said:

For us to be able to "participate in the divine nature" as the scripture says, we would need to be given that very nature

Click to expand...

Why?

Cappadocious said:

Why?

Click to expand...

Good question, what we begin with is so opposite of God's ways it's just not compatible, the image that came to mind when I saw your question was the Israelites and how they were not allowed to go up on the mountain, because people were afraid of dying God said .. what you say is good .. so I will send you a prophet among your brothers and you must listen to him, this prophet is referred to in Acts as Jesus.