Imputed righteousness

[ContraMundum]

...scriptural or not?

 

[holdon]

...scriptural or not?

I believe Wesley called it: "Nonsense".

 

[ContraMundum]

I believe Wesley called it: "Nonsense".

Whoever told you that was completely out of their mind.

http://gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/Wesley/sermons/serm-020.stm

"The first thing, then, which admits of no dispute among reasonable men is this: To all believers the righteousness of Christ is imputed; to unbelievers it is not.

But when is it imputed? When they believe. In that very hour the righteousness of Christ is theirs. It is imputed to every one that believes, as soon as he believes: Faith and the righteousness of Christ are inseparable. For if he believes according to Scripture, he believes in the righteousness of Christ. There is no true faith, that is, justifying faith, which hath not the righteousness of Christ for its object. "

"Neither do I deny imputed righteousness: This is another unkind and unjust accusation. I always did, and do still continually affirm, that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to every believer."

He strongly asserts the doctrine and defends it in that sermon.

 

[ContraMundum]

I believe Wesley called it: "Nonsense".

That was Robert Barclay, who denied imputed righteousness and Wesley quotes him as in error in that same sermon ("The Lord our Righteousness"). Obviously, an enemy of the doctrine misquotes Wesley and has in turn misled you. To re-state: Robert Barclay called imputed righteousness "imputed righteousness- imputed nonsense!", and Wesley quotes him as one who is in error.

 

[holdon]

Whoever told you that was completely out of their mind.

http://gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/Wesley/sermons/serm-020.stm

"The first thing, then, which admits of no dispute among reasonable men is this: To all believers the righteousness of Christ is imputed; to unbelievers it is not.

But when is it imputed? When they believe. In that very hour the righteousness of Christ is theirs. It is imputed to every one that believes, as soon as he believes: Faith and the righteousness of Christ are inseparable. For if he believes according to Scripture, he believes in the righteousness of Christ. There is no true faith, that is, justifying faith, which hath not the righteousness of Christ for its object. "

"Neither do I deny imputed righteousness: This is another unkind and unjust accusation. I always did, and do still continually affirm, that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to every believer."

He strongly asserts the doctrine and defends it in that sermon.

Oh, then I was mistaken (about him) and he is too because he says: "the righteousness of Christ is imputed to every believer"

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

Rom 5:17 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.

1Co 1:30 He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.

2Co 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Phi 3:8-11 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith--that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

ETA:

1. Righteousness is a free gift.
2. Christ is our righteousness.
3. Christ became our sin in the same way that we become His righteousness.
4. Being good could never make me righteous like that righteousness from God which comes by faith; i.e. Christ's righteousness imputed to us.

 

[cygnusx1]

That was Robert Barclay, who denied imputed righteousness and Wesley quotes him as in error in that same sermon ("The Lord our Righteousness"). Obviously, an enemy of the doctrine misquotes Wesley and has in turn misled you. To re-state: Robert Barclay called imputed righteousness "imputed righteousness- imputed nonsense!", and Wesley quotes him as one who is in error.

It does seem that Wesley at first had difficulty with this doctrine ......... obviously he later strenuously agreed with it .

see page 15

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:McYWpv1vMQYJ:www.fpchurch.org.uk/Magazines/fpm/2005/

James Hervey and Imputed Righteousness. At the centre of the third phase
of the Calvinistic controversy were the doctrines of justification and the
imputed righteousness of Christ. James Hervey had asserted these doctrines
very forcibly in his book Theron and Aspasio,​

20 published in 1755. Wesley

is said to have provocatively dismissed the doctrine of the imputed right-​

eousness of Christ as “imputed nonsense”.​

21​

He attacked Hervey’s teaching​

in his tract, A Preservative against Unsettled Notions in Religion,

​

​

22​

which​

was printed in 1758.​

[FONT=arial,sans-serif]

[FONT=arial,sans-serif]Page 15

John Wesley’s Legacy
111
21
A Sell, The Great Debate – Calvinism, Arminianism and Salvation, Worthing, 1982, p 66.
22
This work is a collection of thirteen pamphlets, mostly written by Wesley, on a variety
of topics. The twelfth piece was “A letter written to the Rev Mr Hervey” in 1756. The
letter is also contained in Letters of John Wesley, (edited by John Telford), (cited
afterwards as Wesley’s Letters (Telford)) London, 1931, vol 3, pp 371-388.
23
Wesley’s controversy with Hervey is dealt with in L Tyerman, The Oxford Methodists,
London, 1873, pp 279-333; A Brown-Lawson, John Wesleyand theAnglican Evangelicals
of the Eighteenth Century, Bishop Auckland, 1994, pp 193-269; G M Ella, James Hervey,
Preacher of Righteousness, Eggleston, 1997.
24
Cited in Wesley’s Letters, (Telford), vol 3, pp 386-387.
25
Poetical Works of John and Charles Wesley, vol 3, p 33.
26
Wesley’s Letters, (Telford), vol 3, p 387.

[/FONT][/FONT]
see also ;

The third period, generally confined to the 1760's, was a particular conflict over the meaning of "imputed righteousness." 25 It started innocently enough with Wesley's exchanges with James Hervey, his Oxford pupil and friend. Before it had run its course, it spread to Scotland, where Wesley was now alienated from some of the clergymen who had formerly aided his ministry there. It was a harbinger of things to come. Smoldering beneath the surface were deep doctrinal differences between Calvinistic and Arminian Methodists.

http://wesley.nnu.edu/wesleyan_theology/theojrnl/21-25/22-06.htm
​

 

[cygnusx1]

Rom 5:17 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.

1Co 1:30 He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.

2Co 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Phi 3:8-11 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith--that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

ETA:

1. Righteousness is a free gift.
2. Christ is our righteousness.
3. Christ became our sin in the same way that we become His righteousness.
4. Being good could never make me righteous like that righteousness from God which comes by faith; i.e. Christ's righteousness imputed to us.

Amen brother!!!!!

 

[holdon]

Rom 5:17 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.

1Co 1:30 He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.

2Co 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Phi 3:8-11 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith--that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

ETA:

1. Righteousness is a free gift.
2. Christ is our righteousness.
3. Christ became our sin in the same way that we become His righteousness.
4. Being good could never make me righteous like that righteousness from God which comes by faith; i.e. Christ's righteousness imputed to us.

Sorry, that is all good, but nowhere is it said that Christ's righteousness is imputed to the believer. Hence YOUR "i.e." but is your conclusion and wrong....

 

[Philip]

1. Righteousness is a free gift.
2. Christ is our righteousness.
3. Christ became our sin in the same way that we become His righteousness.
4. Being good could never make me righteous like that righteousness from God which comes by faith; i.e. Christ's righteousness imputed to us.

I fail to see how your conclusion follows from your premises. For example, a Roman Catholic could post exactly the same, except he would coclude 'i.e. Christ's righteousness infused to us.'

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

I fail to see how your conclusion follows from your premises. For example, a Roman Catholic could post exactly the same, except he would coclude 'i.e. Christ's righteousness infused to us.'

No, the passages I cited don't leave that as an option, they clearly indicate an exchange of Christ's righteousness for our sin.

There is nothing about that righteousness being "poured into" us but rather of a legal exchange of place before the justice of God.

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

Sorry, that is all good, but nowhere is it said that Christ's righteousness is imputed to the believer. Hence YOUR "i.e." but is your conclusion and wrong....

Holdon,

I would suggest that it not only says that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, it screams it at us.

But you are welcome to prove me wrong.

Take just the four passages I've given and show me how they do not teach an exchange of our sin for the righteousness of Christ. Because that is what imputation means you know.

 

[Philip]

No, the passages I cited don't leave that as an option, they clearly indicate an exchange of Christ's righteousness for our sin.

Let's review the passages:

Rom 5:17 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.

No mention of an exchange here.

1Co 1:30 He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom and our righteousness and sanctification and redemption.

Where is the exchange?

2Co 5:21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

Still no mention of an exchange. Further, this passage states that we become the righteousness of God. It's not just imputed to us. We become it. We Orthodox have a word for that: theosis.

Phi 3:8-11 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith--that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead.

Still no mention of an exchange. You have an odd definition of 'clearly'. I can't find a mention of an exchange in any of the passages you cited.

There is nothing about that righteousness being "poured into" us but rather of a legal exchange of place before the justice of God.

None of the verses you posted mentioned an exchange. In stead, we have phrases like 'we might become the righteousness of God' -- these do not suggest a mere legal declaration, but an actual transformation.

 

[DeaconDean]

Wasn't Abraham's faith imputed unto him as righteousness?

"He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness." -Rom. 4:20-22

If we believe in Jesus Christ as the "rightous judge" and God imputed righteousness unto Abraham for believing that God was fully able to do what He had promised, then we shall have righteousness imputed unto us:

"But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;" -Rom. 4:24

If Adam's original sin is imputed unto us today, why isn't Jesus' righteousness imputed to us?

Don't make any sense that it wasn't.

 

[hlaltimus]

God's righteousness must either be imputed or imparted for our benefit. If His righteousness is imparted to us in some actual, practical way then we are all in big trouble because it is obvious that no one has ever achieved a perfect partaking of practical holiness. A legal imputation of righteousness is the only other avenue. It is imputation or nothing at all.

 

[holdon]

Holdon,

I would suggest that it not only says that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, it screams it at us.

Nowhere does it say Christ's righteousness is imputed to us.

But you are welcome to prove me wrong.

Take just the four passages I've given and show me how they do not teach an exchange of our sin for the righteousness of Christ. Because that is what imputation means you know.

If it were possible to exchange our sin for someone else's righteousness, the whole sacrifice idea was never needed.

And you don't know what imputation means. It means simply "held to be"; "accounted for"; "regarded as". It is not a certain amount of righteousness that gets stored into our account as some theologians have tried to say. It is not about "quantity" but "quality". When God says that Abraham's faith was imputed to him for righteousness, it means that because Abraham believed God, as that was Abraham's manifestation of something in him, God regarded him therefore as being righteous.

Not as having a certain quantity of righteousness transferred to him. That is an idea completely foreign to Scripture.

The more serious part is that if Christ's righteousness, (he was fully righteous) could be counted for our righteousness, then the cross was not necessary at all. It would be His life saving us and not His death.....

 

[holdon]

Wasn't Abraham's faith imputed unto him as righteousness?

Yes, Abraham's faith was imputed to him as righteousness. And that's it. Nothing else. Not someone else's righteousness imputed to Abraham. But on the basis of his own faith, God considered him righteous. So, with us.
In all the verses dealing with imputed righteousness, 9 deal with faith being imputed as rigtheousness.
There are 2 others were righteousness is imputed: Rom 4:6, 11. In 4:6 the imputation is expressly without works. So, it is not about imputing someone else's rigtheousness (that idea never comes up). But it is again referring to someone considered to be righteousness, which is evidenced by his faith.
Verse 11 speaks about Gentiles that can be reckoned righteous even when uncircumcised, because in that state also Abraham was counted righteous. Again, no transfer of righteousness from someone else. That is not even in the picture: it is based on faith, not on works, not even Christ's good works during His life.

Romans 2:26 is a similar passage: the uncircumcision is counted for circumcision.

Imputed means this: reckoned to be something while you're not. So, was Abraham completely righteous after Gen 15:6? Yes, in God's sight he was. But he still failed after that too...
"Blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute sin." Does it mean he is no sinner anymore? No, but God does see him as not having any sin at all.

Why can God do that? Because we believe that Christ died for our offences and was raised for our justification. That's how we are justified on the principle of faith. See the "therefore" of Rom 5:1.

 

[holdon]

God's righteousness must either be imputed or imparted for our benefit. If His righteousness is imparted to us in some actual, practical way then we are all in big trouble because it is obvious that no one has ever achieved a perfect partaking of practical holiness. A legal imputation of righteousness is the only other avenue. It is imputation or nothing at all.

But Scripture is clear: righteousness is on the basis of faith, not works, not law.

 

[cygnusx1]

God's righteousness must either be imputed or imparted for our benefit. If His righteousness is imparted to us in some actual, practical way then we are all in big trouble because it is obvious that no one has ever achieved a perfect partaking of practical holiness. A legal imputation of righteousness is the only other avenue. It is imputation or nothing at all.

AMEN!!!!

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

Yeah, when I start being told that I'm deformed it's time for me to leave the conversation.

I get reported for that kind of thing.