N.T. Wright - Challenging his theology

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I beg to differ. He is using James 2:14 to state that it's the works that Justifies before God, not before men!


Not so fast, it's not a moral theoretical question. But the very essence of the Gospel we are talking about here. Let's get this straight, sinners are under the curse; meaning sinners are CONVICTED to condemnation & death! Not understanding the plight of the ungodly before a Holy God. Will pervert and distort the Gospel of Christ that Paul preached.

I believe we have discussed this in past, haven't we? So again I will provide the passages, and hope you will address them for us?

Romans 4: 2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.

So please notice, that "IF" Abraham WAS JUSTIFIED BY WORKS. Paul is very clear here, and we should use Scripture to interpret Scripture. Then Abraham has something to BOAST about; meaning he can claim he is owed because he did what was required by the Law. But Paul drives the point home here, NOT BEFORE GOD!

So then how was Abraham justified and counted, imputed, reckoned, credited with Righteousness? This is the crucial question we need to ask, and seek for. Not with paradigm biases or to attempt to win an argument, but simply to seek the truth!

Paul gives a explicit contrast on Faith Vs. Works to clarify any confusion.

3For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.” 4Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.

Here Paul is emphasizing works that are NOT COUNTED as A GIFT but as his earned wages/due/earned/merited. Question for you, what GIFT is Paul referring to, here? I know what it is. I am curious to your position on it.

5And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,

Now to the ONE who DOES NOT WORK, but believes in God who JUSTIFIES the 'UNGODLY'. Wow, Praise and Glory be to God alone who is rich in Grace & Mercy! Here is the Gift Paul was previous speaking about. Paul does not say that God Justifies the godly, righteous, holy, not the 'UNGODLY'!!! And because they believe in God who justifies the ungodly; their are counted, reckoned, credited, declare, given, imputed, given as a GIFT; righteousness.

So now we have a very (Captain Obvious) question here. How can God account the 'UNGODLY' righteous? This is a big problem? Why? Because they are evil, wicked, wretched, condemned sinners who are under the curse of the Law! And besides this God calls this an abomination; he who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the righteous.

Proverbs 17:15He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the Lord.

So we ask, how can God Justify the 'UNGODLY'? Answer: Through a Promise made with Adam & Eve, and Abraham, that God will send a Promise Seed to save His People.

Romans 8:3For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

So I ask you, why did Christ have to come in the flesh, born under the Law? Why did Christ have to condemn sin in HIS FLESH; this is not HIS SIN, but ours! Why is it okay to say our sin is IMPUTED to Christ, but not Christ's righteousness to us? Now, this is a problem, right? Proverbs states that it is a abomination to condemn the righteous!

But in Reformed Theology we teach and believe that Christ is the representative for His people. Like the first Adam was for mankind in the Garden Temple. This is why God sent the Last Adam who will save His people.

Romans 5:17For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

18Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.

Okay back to answering Proverbs 17:15. The reason God can Justify the 'Ungodly' is because their Union with Christ through Faith Alone apart from works; which they receive Christ's righteousness and ALL his heavenly blessings in Him! It's this Union with Christ that they are DECLARED righteous through Faith Alone!

Romans 8:1There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Romans 8:3... By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us,

So Christ condemns sin in the flesh by becoming a CURSE for us. By our sins being IMPUTED to Christ who knew no sin, to propitiate the wrath/curse of God by His blood sacrifice in our stead!

So by Christ being imputed with our sin, he condemned sin in the flesh! And we receive His righteousness.

21For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

1 Cor. 1:30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.”

So here in 1 Cor. Paul states it is because of God that we are in Christ (By Grace Alone), who has BECOME FOR US WISDOM--that is, OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, OUR HOLINESS, OUR REDEMPTION! How marvelous is this good news of the Gospel of he Christ for the 'UNGODLY'!

Phil. 3:9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christthe righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith.

Notice here, the Righteousness that comes from God!

And I leave you with this:

Romans 3:21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.

So why did I believe in God who justifies the 'UNGODLY'? Because he made a promise to Adam & Eve, and Abraham to save us in Christ Jesus!


I beg to differ. Just because it doesn't specially say the "Imputed Righteousness of Christ". It's concept and biblical teaching it taught. Just like the word 'TRINITY' isn't specially found anywhere in Scripture. The concept and biblical teaching is.

Again if one doesn't understand the plight of sinner under the curse of the Law and his/her position before a Holy Righteous Judge. Then one will not understand how AMAZING God's Grace really is! I have provided a lot of Scripture. And I can go on and on. But space will not allow it.
Well said, I would like to add something but like you I feel it would be a space waster, you pretty much nailed it there. Just don't see enough of that on here.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
To start, I am not a fan of N.T. Wright. My biggest with Wright is his position on Justification of sinners. He learned most of his theology from E.P. Sanders. In short, their theology boils down to earning Salvation by human efforts. And He also denies the Imputation of Christ's righteousness!

For more details of N.T. Wright's theology and book reviews. I have provide a link from monergism.com:

https://www.whitehorseinn.org/images/Horton-WrightReview.pdf

Please read, its a must read!
Wow, you like the whitehorseinn articles, dude we are going to have to talk. Drop me a PM sometime, really like your posts.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Does it matter if he departs Reformation and Protestant teachings?

Does he depart biblical teaching?
That’s the point. Justification by faith and the atonement are Biblical.
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
To start, I am not a fan of N.T. Wright. My biggest with Wright is his position on Justification of sinners. He learned most of his theology from E.P. Sanders. In short, their theology boils down to earning Salvation by human efforts. And He also denies the Imputation of Christ's righteousness!

For more details of N.T. Wright's theology and book reviews. I have provide a link from monergism.com:

https://www.whitehorseinn.org/images/Horton-WrightReview.pdf

Please read, its a must read!
This just floored me:

“if ‘imputed’ righteousness is so utterly central, so nerve janglingly vital, so standing and falling church important as John Piper makes out, isn’t it strange that Paul never actually came straight out and said it?” (Justification by N.T. Wright Reviewed by Dr. Michael Horton)
But Paul did, and with ample Old Testament support, pretty much at the heart of the emphasis. Thank you for the link, this is unbelievable. I'm only on page 8 and I'm already astonished.
 
Upvote 0

ladodgers6

Know what you believe and why you believe it
Supporter
Oct 6, 2015
2,123
743
Los Angeles
✟192,004.00
Country
United States
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
This just floored me:

“if ‘imputed’ righteousness is so utterly central, so nerve janglingly vital, so standing and falling church important as John Piper makes out, isn’t it strange that Paul never actually came straight out and said it?” (Justification by N.T. Wright Reviewed by Dr. Michael Horton)
But Paul did, and with ample Old Testament support, pretty much at the heart of the emphasis. Thank you for the link, this is unbelievable. I'm only on page 8 and I'm already astonished.

Great article isn't it? Here is another gem for you. On the Monergism.com site there is a resource center with free reformation books. A lot of great gems there. Here is one of my favorites, called "The Marrow of Modern Divinity" by Edward Fisher, it will astonish you. I hope you will read it. I provide the link to the book or you can go to the Monergism site and get it and download it for free.

The Marrow of Modern Divinity (eBook) | Monergism

In all on years of being a Calvinist, theological debates have always boils down to this. Either its Monergistic or Synergistic Salvation.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
lots of quote
To deal with the passages you quote, we first need to understand what the righteousness of God is. As Luther discovered, it is not God’s own moral perfection, but rather his commitment to justify us. I’m not sure whether Luther saw the OT context of this, but the prophets saw God’s righteousness as his covenantal commitment to save Israel even though Israel was unfaithful.

This is from James Dunn’s commentary on Rom 1:17:

“God is “righteous” when he fulfills the obligations he took upon himself to be Israel’s God, that is, to rescue Israel and punish Israel’s enemies (e.g., Exod 9:27; 1 Sam 12:7; Dan 9:16; Mic 6:5)—“righteousness” as “covenant faithfulness” (3:3–5, 25; 10:3; also 9:6 and 15:8). Particularly in the Psalms and Second Isaiah the logic of covenant grace is followed through with the result that righteousness and salvation become virtually synonymous: the righteousness of God as God’s act to restore his own and to sustain them within the covenant (Ps 31:1; 35:24; 51:14; 65:5; 71:2, 15; 98:2; 143:11; Isa 45:8, 21; 46:13; 51:5, 6, 8; 62:1–2; 63:1, 7; in the DSS see particularly 1QS 11.2–5, 12–15; 1QH 4.37; 11.17–18, 30–31; elsewhere see, e.g., Bar 5:2, 4, 9; 1 Enoch 71.14; Apoc. Mos. 20.1; 4 Ezra 8:36;”

Now, on Rom 4:1ff, you correctly quote, “And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,” Nothing here about Jesus’ righteousness being imputed to him. Rather, his own faith is accepted as righteousness.

This would, of course, be nonsense if what God requires is moral perfection. But faith is what places us in a proper relationship with God, within which he can justify us.

Rom 8 is not about justification, but about the Christian life. Having justified us, he unites us with Christ (Rom 6), with whom we rise to new life. We are released from the Law (Rom 7), and now live in the Spirit (Rom 8). Rom 8:4 is not about imputation, but about being enabled to live a new life.

Rom 5:18 says that we are made righteous through Christ’s act of obedience, but does not say that this obedience is imputed to us.

I agree that in union with Christ we receive new life. This is the foundation of our lives in Christ. But if that were the basis of justification we would actually have the Catholic model, since the new life is a consequence of justification, not its condition.

2 Col 5:21 is one of the most interesting passages in Paul. What can he possibly mean by saying that we become the righteousness of God? After all, a person can’t become an abstract quality. However, given Luther’s understanding of the righteousness of God, we can become both the demonstration of God’s commitment to save his people and its agent. Based on the context, I believe it’s the second (agency) that Paul is emphasizing. The context is about us becoming Christ’s ambassadors, entrusted with the message of reconciliation. Remembering that God’s righteousness is his commitment to justifying his people, as Christ’s ambassadors, we are the embodiment of this commitment as we reconcile others. (Incidentally, I don’t think this is Wright’s explanation of 5:21)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,478
18,456
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,465.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Wright's theology is based on Reformed presuppositions and simply isn't all that relevant to Lutheran theology.

I have read him and I think he mostly operates by creating a caricature of Protestant historical theology, dismissing the place of historical theology altogether. But I would never call him "heretical".
 
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,478
18,456
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,465.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
Wright's views on Justification (specifically, what he believes St. Paul means when speaking of justification) could be considered the issue, but I've watched some video lectures from Wright on the matter, and from what I recall Wright doesn't deny the traditional idea of Justification so much as he thinks it's more than that. The idea of justification as the justifying of sinners before God isn't rejected, but rather Wright sees justification as also inclusive of larger ideas and themes:

The context of the following quote (taken from here), is in regard to John Piper's criticism of Wright:

"Well, I set justification within the larger Pauline context, where it always comes, of God’s purposes to fulfill his covenant promise to Abraham and so to rescue the whole creation, humankind of course centrally included, from sin and death. Piper holds that Abrahamic context at arm’s length.

Second, I understand justification as basically a law-court term, where it means the judge’s creative declaration that a person is ‘in the right’ in terms of the lawcourt, whereas Piper holds that justification involves the accrediting to a person of the moral, not the forensic, ‘righteousness’ of Christ – something Paul never says (as J. I. Packer admits).


Third, I understand Paul’s doctrine of justification as eschatological, that is, the justification of the faithful in the present time is both the fulfilment of the long story of Israel and the anticipation of the eventual verdict to be delivered on the last day, as in Romans 2.1-16 and 8.1-30.


Fourth, in line with many Reformed readers of scripture, including Calvin, I understand Paul’s doctrine of justification to be of those who are ‘in Christ’, whereas Piper and others don’t make that a central element in justification itself. Conversely, for Piper the center of justification is the ‘imputation’ of ‘the righteousness of Christ’, seen in terms of ‘righteousness’ as a kind of moral achievement earned by Jesus and then reckoned to those who believe. I believe that this is an attempt to say something close to what Paul actually says in Romans 6, namely that the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is ‘reckoned’ to those who are ‘in him’. Putting it the way Piper (and one part of the Reformation tradition) puts it is a pointer to something which is truly there in Paul, but one which gives off misleading signals as well.


Finally, for Piper justification through Christ alone is the same in the future (on the last day) as in the present, whereas for Paul, whom I am following very closely at this point, the future justification is given on the basis of the Spirit-generated life that the justified-by-faith-in-the-present person then lives. In fact, the omission of the Spirit from many contemporary Reformed statements of justification is one of their major weaknesses.
"

I don't see anything problematic in Wright's treatment of Justification here a la Paul.

-CryptoLutheran


Of course, for both Calvin and Luther, justification is rooted in mystical union with Christ. Pipe, however, is a Baptist and has no use for such concepts, particularly because they have sacramental or mystical overtones. Salvation is stripped of its mystical dimension and simply because a matter of a person being seen by God as good enough or nice enough to enter heaven. In many ways, this is no different than a bastardized kind of Catholicism, without the sacramentalism of the religion.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Of course, for both Calvin and Luther, justification is rooted in mystical union with Christ. Pipe, however, is a Baptist and has no use for such concepts, particularly because they have sacramental or mystical overtones. Salvation is stripped of its mystical dimension and simply because a matter of a person being seen by God as good enough or nice enough to enter heaven. In many ways, this is no different than a bastardized kind of Catholicism, without the sacramentalism of the religion.
Piper is Calvinist
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
To deal with the passages you quote, we first need to understand what the righteousness of God is. As Luther discovered, it is not God’s own moral perfection, but rather his commitment to justify us. I’m not sure whether Luther saw the OT context of this, but the prophets saw God’s righteousness as his covenantal commitment to save Israel even though Israel was unfaithful.

You mean as in Jeremiah 23:

Jeremiah 23: NASB

5“Behold, the days are coming,” declares the LORD,
“When I will raise up for David a righteous Branch;
And He will reign as king and act wisely
And do justice and righteousness in the land.

6“In His days Judah will be saved,
And Israel will dwell securely;
And this is His name by which He will be called,
‘The LORD our righteousness.’ (NASB)

I believe what has not been discussed is that in justification there must be a righteousness and as such it cannot come from us. Therefore, even to acknowledge our faith somehow becomes this righteousness means such faith does not come from some inner goodensss we have. I’m not saying that is your view.

However, I do see that in Romans 5 the direct relationship of the obedience of Christ and His Righteousness is the foundation for our justification. And in Romans 5:17 it does clearly state we receive the gift of righteousness through Jesus Christ. He is called both the Just and justifier (Romans 3:26).

What’s interesting in this passage (Romans 5:17) is Paul concludes this gift of righteousness received with the one sin of disobedience we received from Adam.

If that is not imputed righteousness then there is no convincing otherwise.

Now I caveat that with the surrounding passage. It is the obedience of Christ which Paul is comparing to the disobedience of Adam.

Romans 5 is a very important summary and transitional chapter which shows us the results of Justification by Faith and how we are free from the penalty of sin then moves to being in Christ where we are no longer in bondage to sin (Romans 6).
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
In this thread: The Gospel
it was stated that N.T. Wright has "departed orthodox beliefs". OTOH.....I believe it's more a matter of mainstream Christian theology that is changing - and causing it to appear that Wright is embracing beliefs that are "new".

I wanted to open up discussion here and not carry the original thread off course.

Here is a link to Wright's page: Imagining the Kingdom: Mission and Theology in Early Christianity

If you believe Wright is heretical in his beliefs, please point out how (specifically).

Wright gets justification wrong. He is more in line with the New Perspective on Paul camp which views justification as God's act of covenant inclusion. He does not view it as a counting righteous based on the righteousness of Christ. IOW, he denies double imputation.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
What’s interesting in this passage (Romans 5:17) is Paul concludes this gift of righteousness received with the one sin of disobedience we received from Adam.
First, what is imputed? Righteousness. Justification isn’t imputed. We are actually justified, set right with God.

How are we justified? By dying with Christ and being raised with him. (Rom 6) Our connection with Christ’s death and resurrection is faith and the Holy Spirit, through which we are “in Christ.” Calvin speaks of this as the “mystical union.”

I actually think there's an ambiguity here. To some extent we are forensically judged innocent because Christ died for us. But in Paul I think there's also an implication that justification changes us through of our union with Christ. Of course the change is because we are now united to Christ through the Holy Spirit, not because we're somehow made perfect in ourselves.

Rom 5:17 is very compact. It speaks of imputation, but in the context of the whole thing. Through grace, righteousness is imputed to us because we are justified through Christ.

Nowhere in here is it said that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us. We are considered righteous because we are justified.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Rom 5:17 is very compact. It speaks of imputation, but in the context of the whole thing. Through grace, righteousness is imputed to us because we are justified through Christ.

Nowhere in here is it said that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us. We are considered righteous because we are justified.

I'm confused. You say that righteousness is imputed to us, but that Christ's righteousness is not imputed to us.

Imputation means a legal reckoning. God credits us with righteousness. The word comes up in Psalm 32:1 - "Blessed is the man against whom the Lord counts no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit." When God counts our iniquity against us, he is imputing our iniquity to us. Psalm 32 describes a man whose sin is not imputed to him! The point is that the concept of imputation is one of crediting.

Whose righteousness is credited to us if not Christ's?

You may be thinking of the Catholic position which says that righteousness is imparted to us. This does not refer to a forensic crediting, but to an existential infusion of righteousness into the soul. It is not a record of righteousness which is credited to our account, but a substance of righteousness infused into our being. Reformed theology agrees that in sanctification grace is infused into our soul. But we deny that justification has anything to do with an existential change in our being. Justification, rather, is purely a change of status in God's eyes based upon the perfect righteousness of Christ.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Nowhere in here is it said that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us
It’s the Righteousness of God right? What other Righteousness is there?

You posted the verse:

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. (2 Corinthians 5:21)

Who can accomplish this but the truly God truly human Jesus Christ.

And in Justifying us it was His obedience in which this Righteousness was imputed.

Romans 5: NASB
17For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.

18So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men.19For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous. 20The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (NASB)

Verse 19 is defining as the Righteousness here is based on the obedience of Christ.

Which makes sense as in the atonement our sins are imputed to Christ:

We see this in the verse you quoted from 2 Corinthians 5:21

And here where Peter is quoting from Isaiah 53:

1 Peter 2: NASB
24and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. 25For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Here is Calvin's exegesis of Rom 5:17

"The first is, that by Adam’s sin we are not condemned through imputation alone, as though we were punished only for the sin of another; but we suffer his punishment, because we also ourselves are guilty; for as our nature is vitiated in him, it is regarded by God as having committed sin. But through the righteousness of Christ we are restored in a different way to salvation; for it is not said to be accepted for us, because it is in us, but because we possess Christ himself with all his blessings, as given to us through the bountiful kindness of the Father. Hence the gift of righteousness is not a quality with which God endows us, as some absurdly explain it, but a gratuitous imputation of righteousness; for the Apostle plainly declares what he understood by the word grace."

This is close to mine. First, he denies that Adam's sin is just imputed to us.
Second, he says that we are accepted as righteous because we possess Christ. He speaks of the righteousness of Christ in bringing us to salvation, but doesn't (at least not here) speak of that righteousness as being imputed to us.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
It’s the Righteousness of God right? What other Righteousness is there?
The righteousness of God is his actions in carrying out his covenant commitments to us. We are counted righteous when we have faith. These are separate, though the second follows from the first. They're the two ends of the same relationship.
Who can accomplish this but the truly God truly human Jesus Christ.

And in Justifying us it was His obedience in which this Righteousness was imputed.
...
Verse 19 is defining as the Righteousness here is based on the obedience of Christ.
Of course Christ was obedient and righteous, and our justification is based on this. But his righteousness isn't imputed to us. We are accounted righteous because we are his.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This is close to mine. First, he denies that Adam's sin is just imputed to us.
Right we have Adam’s condemnation imputed but we also amass our own.
Second, he says that we are accepted as righteous because we possess Christ. He speaks of the righteousness of Christ in bringing us to salvation, but doesn't (at least not here) speak of that righteousness as being imputed to us.
But Calvin actually says imputed Righteousness in what you quoted.

No one is denying we are justified by faith.
 
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
But Calvin actually says imputed Righteousness in what you quoted.
Every time you see imputed righteousness you replace it with Christ's righteousness imputed to us. There's no reason to do that.

The problem with doing the replacement is that you blur the distinction that Luther discovered between God's righteousness and ours.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The righteousness of God is his actions in carrying out his covenant commitments to use. We are counted righteous when we have faith. These are separate, though the second follows from the first.
There is no covenant language in Romans chapters 3 through 5. That comes after the legal declarations. The New Perspective on Paul theologians avoid Romans 3 and Romans 5 for obvious reasons.



Of course Christ was obedient and righteous, and our justification is based on this. But his righteousness isn't imputed to us. We are accounted righteous because we are his.

Whose righteousness is accounted and I’m sure you know accounted is the same as imputed?
 
Upvote 0