Imputed Righteousness. The True & The False.

Jeff Carr said:

There is a great deal of misunderstanding around the doctrine of 'imputed righteousness'. This is not new; there has been ongoing debates about it for the last 300 years. Why the debates you may ask? Simply because much that is taught about imputed righteousness cannot be gleaned from Scripture.
The common understanding taught by on-line & TV preachers and various authors is as follows.

When a person comes to Christ, they are 'justified' before God. This it is said, means one's sins are pardoned and the 'righteousness of Christ' is credited or imputed to them. What is usually meant by 'the righteousness of Christ'? What is communicated is that the virtue of Christ's obedience, while on earth, is 'placed in our account'. The goodness & holiness of Christ is transferred to us. We are now it is said, 'clothed in His righteousness'. God no longer looks at us and sees us as we are but now sees Jesus.

You might be thinking, well what's so wrong about that? This is what I believe. My question to you is, is it Scriptural. Does the Bible really teach this?

Well, there have been many reputable scholars, past & present who have questioned the scripturalness of this view. John Wesley called it, 'a legal fiction'. Charles Finney opposed this teaching. In our own time, N.T. Wright and Robert Gundry have object to it. And there are many more voices against it.

The first thing that I will bring to your attention is the fact that, nowhere does the Bible state that 'Christ's righteousness' is credited/imputed to the newly justified Christian. You read right. Nowhere is it stated. WE read of God's righteousness and the righteousness of God but NOT Christ's righteousness.

The second point is the meaning of the word, 'righteousness'. As Paul uses it in Romans 3&4. The word means 'God's saving activity' or' justification' or 'acceptance or right standing with God'. The idea of Christ's goodness & holiness being imputed is alien to Paul & Scripture.

Paul states clearly what He means by 'imputed righteousness' in Rom 4:6,7.
'just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, whose sins are covered; Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin'.

To be justified is to be pardoned and accepted by God because of what Christ accomplished on the cross. The righteousness that is imputed is a " right standing or acceptance with God' because our sins have been removed, that obstacle that separated us from God, is now gone, we are 'declared righteous.'. Praise God.

Click to expand...

But do we become righteous, or are we declared righteous for the legal purpose of salvation? I think that is the crux of it.

I agree with most of what you are saying, but would take it much further.

It begins with the idea: “Adam and Eve’s sins are imputed to us”, so “Christ’s righteousness can be imputed to us”.

All mature adults sin:

They have corrupted themselves. Deut. 32:5

All flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. Gen. 6:12

They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Psalm 14:3

The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. Gen. 8:21

For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Rom. 3:23

Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions. Eccl. 7:29

Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. Rom. 7:17

For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing. Rom. 7:18

Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. Rom. 7:20

But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. Rom. 7:23

Yes, because Adam sinned, we will all physically die (unless Christ comes back first), but is physical death bad in and of itself?

What was needed for your personally to feel comfortable standing next to your earthly father after you ricked the car?

Think about this:

There is a, one of a kind, Ming vase on your parent’s mantel that has been handed down by your great, great, grandmother. You, as a young person, get angry with your parents and smash the vase. You are later sorry about it and repent and your loving parent can easily forgive you. Since this was not your first rebellious action your father, in an act of Love, collects every little piece of the vase and you willingly work together with your father hours each night for a month painstakingly gluing the vase back together. The vase is returned to the mantel to be kept as a show piece, but according to Antique Road Show, it is worthless. Working with your father helped you develop a much stronger relationship, comfort in being around him and appreciation for his Love.

Was your father fair/just and would others see this as being fair discipline? Did this “punishment” help resolve the issue?

Was restitution made or was reconciliation made and would you feel comfortable/ justified standing by your father in the future?

Suppose after smashing the vase, repenting and forgiveness, your older brother says he will work with your father putting the vase together, so you can keep up with your social life. Would this scenario allow you to stand comfortable and justified by your father?

Suppose Jesus the magician waved his hands over the smashed vase and restored it perfectly to the previous condition, so there is really very little for you to be forgiven of or for you to do. Would this scenario allow you to stand comfortable and justified by your father?

What are the benefits of being lovingly disciplined?

Suppose it is not you that breaks the Ming vase but your neighbor breaks into your house because he does not like your family being so nice and smashes the Ming vase, but he is caught on a security camera. Your father goes to your neighbor with the box of pieces and offers to do the same thing with him as he offered to do with you, but the neighbor refuses. Your father explains: everything is caught on camera and he will be fined and go to jail, but the neighbor, although sorry about being caught, still refuses. The neighbor loses all he has and spends 10 years in jail. So was the neighbor fairly disciplined or fairly punished?

How does the neighbor’s punishment equal your discipline and how is it not equal?

Was the neighbor forgiven and if not, why not?

Would there be a benefit to God’s other children, if those who refuse the just disciplining to be punished after their death for at least a while?

Big subject.

Jeff Carr said:

Yes, we are indeed 'declared righteous' when we come to Christ. To be declared righteous is to have 'acceptance' with God, 'right standing' not some fictitious notion of having Christ's obedience and holiness imputed to us.

Click to expand...

Yes? Does being ‘declared righteous’ mean one is ‘made’ righteous so that the declaration matches the reality? Or, as I understand some Protestants, that one is only said to be righteous with an alien righteousness that covers up for a still existing personal unrighteousness? Which do you think?

Jeff Carr said:

Thanks for your question. This has been debated between Catholics and Protestants for a long period of time. Catholics say that justification 'makes' one righteous, while Protestants say we are "declared' righteous.

Click to expand...

Two things here. First, it isn't a simple Catholic vs Protestant thing. There are plenty of Protestants who reject the 'Protestant' view. Second, Catholics expect that God only declares things about righteousness that are actually true. Basically that comes from an understanding of Proverbs, which specifically condemns declaring someone to be innocent when they are guilty and vis-versa.

Jeff Carr said:

As a side line. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, took a position between Catholic and Protestant. He taught that one has to hold both imputed righteousness and imparted righteousness together. He taught that the God who declares one righteous is also the God who imparts righteousness in the believer's life, causing him to become more Christlike over a period of time. As a Wesleyan-Arminian, this is my view also.

Click to expand...

I don't take sides between Calvinists and Arminians and Wesleyans. It's just not my fight. Not my categories. But this position is essentially the Catholic position. When we are declared righteous, and by the declaration we are made righteous. God said 'Let there be light", and there was. God does all the work making us a new creation by his declaration. It isn't a dung heap covered by a nice layer of clean snow. or some clean clothes on a beggar.

Jeff Carr said:

Someone once said, " God accepts us as we are, but loves us too much to leave us as we are."
That I think sums up simply the balance of imputed & imparted righteousness.

Click to expand...

Not a bad way to put it.

chevyontheriver said:

But do we become righteous, or are we declared righteous for the legal purpose of salvation? I think that is the crux of it.

Click to expand...

I think there are two questions:

1st question: Who is the new man? Is it me, or someone else? Or maybe it's just a figure of speech?

2nd question: Is the righteousness and holiness of the new man "true" righteousness and holiness, or is it imputed righteousness, or is it something else that is counted as righteousness?

Jeff Carr said:

There is a great deal of misunderstanding around the doctrine of 'imputed righteousness'. This is not new; there has been ongoing debates about it for the last 300 years. Why the debates you may ask? Simply because much that is taught about imputed righteousness cannot be gleaned from Scripture.
The common understanding taught by on-line & TV preachers and various authors is as follows.

When a person comes to Christ, they are 'justified' before God. This it is said, means one's sins are pardoned and the 'righteousness of Christ' is credited or imputed to them. What is usually meant by 'the righteousness of Christ'? What is communicated is that the virtue of Christ's obedience, while on earth, is 'placed in our account'. The goodness & holiness of Christ is transferred to us. We are now it is said, 'clothed in His righteousness'. God no longer looks at us and sees us as we are but now sees Jesus.

You might be thinking, well what's so wrong about that? This is what I believe. My question to you is, is it Scriptural. Does the Bible really teach this?

Well, there have been many reputable scholars, past & present who have questioned the scripturalness of this view. John Wesley called it, 'a legal fiction'. Charles Finney opposed this teaching. In our own time, N.T. Wright and Robert Gundry have object to it. And there are many more voices against it.

The first thing that I will bring to your attention is the fact that, nowhere does the Bible state that 'Christ's righteousness' is credited/imputed to the newly justified Christian. You read right. Nowhere is it stated. WE read of God's righteousness and the righteousness of God but NOT Christ's righteousness.

The second point is the meaning of the word, 'righteousness'. As Paul uses it in Romans 3&4. The word means 'God's saving activity' or' justification' or 'acceptance or right standing with God'. The idea of Christ's goodness & holiness being imputed is alien to Paul & Scripture.

Paul states clearly what He means by 'imputed righteousness' in Rom 4:6,7.
'just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, whose sins are covered; Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin'.

To be justified is to be pardoned and accepted by God because of what Christ accomplished on the cross. The righteousness that is imputed is a " right standing or acceptance with God' because our sins have been removed, that obstacle that separated us from God, is now gone, we are 'declared righteous.'. Praise God.

Click to expand...

The only way for someone to attain a character trait is through faith apart from being required to have first done enough works in order to earn it as the result, but it would be contradictory for someone to attain a character trait apart becoming a doer of works that embody that trait. The Law of God was never given a as a way of becoming righteous even as the result of perfect obedience (Romans 4:1-7), but rather it was given to describe the life of someone who is righteous as it describes the life of Christ. Someone who is righteous is a doer of righteous works in obedience to the Law of God (1 John 3:4-7), so that is what we become when we become righteous through faith. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact likeness of His character (Hebrews 1:3), which he embodied through his works by setting a sinless example for us to follow of how to walk in obedience to the Law of God, so there is no difference between the righteousness of the Father and the righteousness of the Son.

Works righteousness is the position that we are required to have first done enough works in order to earn our righteousness as the result, however, that is not my position because I denied that we can earn our righteousness even as the result of having perfect obedience to the Law of God. Labels only have meaning insofar as what they communicate is accurate, so it would be meaningless to say that someone is courageous if they were not a doer of courageous works and it would be meaningless to say that God is righteous if He were not a doer of righteous works.

Jeff Carr said:

Answering your second question. The true righteousness and holiness is that which is 'imparted' in us, our ongoing sanctification through the Holy Sprit.

Click to expand...

It seems that you also answered the first question with words like "in us" and "our".

"Ongoing sanctification" seems to be at odds with the impartation of "true righteousness and holiness" in that it implies we are being cleaned up a little bit at a time.

Jeff Carr said:

Bishop Moule once said, "Sanctification is a crisis with a view to a process". When we are converted, we are initially sanctified, thus we are called saints or holy ones. But subsequent to our conversion comes the crisis of sanctification, called 'entire sanctification' 1 Thes 5:23. Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ'.
This experience cleanses the soul from all sin 1Jn 1:7, that is, the inner depravity, that inward principle of sin that resides in the heart. A long with this, God fills the heart with His perfect love. This experience of entire sanctification gives the believer victory over sinning. Following the 'crisis' of entire sanctification comes the process of spiritual growth where one grows in grace towards spiritual maturity. With an ever-increasing manifestation of the fruit of the Spirit and likeness to the Lord Jesus.
In short, the crisis and subsequent process of sanctification is the 'impartation of righteousness'.

Click to expand...

This POV is also found in many Southern Baptist churches in the USA. It even found its way into a footnote in the HCSB version of the Bible:


But as I said before, this view is at odds with the idea that the new man is created according to God in righteousness and true holiness (Eph 4:24). Scripture never speaks of the new man/new creation as needing to be cleaned up over time or perhaps becoming corrupt over time. And it never speaks of the old man in positive terms as if it can become less corrupt over time.

What we do see consistently is a contrast between the new man and the old man in terms of character and nature. And in terms of sanctification applying to the life of one in whom Christ lives, we are called to put off the old man and put on the new man, to turn from sin to God, and to walk in lock step with the Spirit instead of the flesh. When we set ourselves apart to God (self-sanctification) and choose to walk in lock step with the Spirit, then by default we deny the flesh what it wants and we enjoy the fruits of the Spirit instead of the fruits of the flesh. Self-sanctification is not progressive. It is us making the same choice every day (and many times each day) to turn from sin to God and walk in the newness of life.