Imputed righteousness

[frumanchu]

Because you reacted on me saying that Christ's life didn't save us, but His death? Didn't you say that that was "false"?

What I said was false was your statement that if Christ's righteousness could be counted for our righteousness that His death was therefore not necessary. That statement is false because the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us is not the only thing that happens. Our sins are imputed to Him on the cross and are thus expiated, just as with the scapegoat.

IOW, your conclusion was faulty, as was your interpretation of what I said.

 

[holdon]

What I said was false was your statement that if Christ's righteousness could be counted for our righteousness that His death was therefore not necessary. That statement is false because the imputation of Christ's righteousness to us is not the only thing that happens.

Actually that doesn't happen at all....

Our sins are imputed to Him on the cross and are thus expiated, just as with the scapegoat.

Yes, and where do you see the "spotlessness" of the animal imputed to the believer? It simply isn't there in any of the sacrificial types of the OT. Nor is it in the NT.

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

Holdon,

You are denying Romans 4.

 

[holdon]

Holdon,

You are denying Romans 4.

No, I'm not.

 

[cygnusx1]

Justification, strictly speaking, consists in God’s imputing to His elect the righteousness of Christ, that alone being the meritorious cause or formal ground on which He pronounces them righteous: the righteousness of Christ is that to which God has respect when He pardons and accepts the sinner. By the nature of justification we have reference to the constituent elements of the same, which are enjoyed by the believer. These are, the non-imputation of guilt or the remission of sins, and second, of the investing of the believer with a legal title to Heaven. The alone ground on which God forgives any man’s sins, and admits him into His judicial favour, is the vicarious work of his Surety—that perfect satisfaction which Christ offered to the law on his behalf. It is of great importance to be clear on the fact that Christ was "made under the law" not only that He might redeem His people "from the curse of the law" (Gal. 3:13), but also that they might "receive the adoption of sons" (Gal. 4:4, 5), that is, be invested with the privileges of sons.
This grand doctrine of Justification was proclaimed in its purity and clarity by the Reformers—Luther, Calvin, Zanchius, Peter Martyr, etc.; but it began to be corrupted in the seventeenth century by men who had only a very superficial knowledge of it, who taught that justification consisted merely in the removal of guilt or forgiveness of sins, excluding the positive admittance of man into God’s judicial favour: in other words, they restricted justification unto deliverance from Hell, failing to declare that it also conveys a title unto Heaven. This error was perpetuated by John Wesley, and then by the Plymouth Brethren, who, denying that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the believer, seek to find their title to eternal life in a union with Christ in His resurrection. Few today are clear upon the twofold content of Justification, because few today understand the nature of that righteousness which is imputed to all who believe.

To show that we have not misrepresented the standard teachings of the Plymouth Brethren on this subject, we quote from Mr. W. Kelly’s "Notes on Romans." In his "Introduction" he states, "There is nothing to hinder our understanding ‘the righteousness of God’ in its usual sense of an attribute or quality of God" (p. 35). But how could an "attribute" or "quality" of God be "upon all them that believe" (Rom. 3:22)? Mr. Kelly will not at all allow that the "righteousness of God" and "the righteousness of Christ" are one and the same, and hence, when he comes to Romans 4 (where so much is said about "righteousness" being imputed to the believer) he evacuates the whole of its blessed teaching by trying to make out that this is nothing more than our own faith, saying of Abraham, "his faith in God’s word as that which he exercised, and which was accounted as righteousness" (p. 47).

The "righteousness of Christ" which is imputed to the believer consists of that perfect obedience which He rendered unto the precepts of God’s Law and that death which He died under the penalty of the law. It has been rightly said that, "There is the very same need of Christ’s obeying the law in our stead, in order to the reward, as of His suffering the penalty of the law in our stead in order to our escaping the penalty; and the same reason why one should be accepted on our account as the other... To suppose that all Christ does in order to make atonement for us by suffering is to make Him our Saviour but in part. It is to rob Him of half His glory as a Saviour. For if so, all that He does is to deliver us from Hell; He does not purchase Heaven for us" (Jonathan Edwards). Should any one object to the idea of Christ "purchasing" Heaven for His people, he may at once be referred to Ephesians 1:14, where Heaven is expressly designated "the purchased possession."
The imputation to the believer’s account of that perfect obedience which his Surety rendered unto the law for him is plainly taught in Romans 5:18, 19, "Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." Here the "offence" or "disobedience" of the first Adam is set over against the "righteousness" or "obedience" of the last Adam, and inasmuch as the disobedience of the former was an actual transgression of the law, therefore the obedience of the latter must be His active obedience unto the law; otherwise the force of the Apostle’s antithesis would fail entirely. As this vital point (the chief glory of the Gospel) is now so little understood, and in some quarters disputed, we must enter into some detail.
The one who was justified upon his believing sustained a twofold relation unto God: first, he was a responsible creature, born under the law; second, he was a criminal, having transgressed that law—though his criminality has not canceled his obligation to obey the law any more than a man who recklessly squanders his money is no longer due to pay his debts. Consequently, justification consists of two parts, namely, an acquittal from guilt, or the condemnation of the law (deliverance from Hell), and the receiving him into God’s favour, on the sentence of the law’s approval (a legal title to Heaven). And therefore, the ground upon which God pronounces him just is also a double one, as the one complete satisfaction of Christ is viewed in its two distinct parts: namely, His vicarious obedience unto the precepts of the law, and His substitutionary death under the penalty of the law, the merits of both being equally imputed or reckoned to the account of him who believes.
Against this it has been objected, "The law requires no man to obey and die too." To which we reply in the language of J. Hervey (1750), "But did it not require a transgressor to obey and die? If not, then transgression robs the law of its right, and vacates all obligation to obedience. Did it not require the Surety for sinful men to obey and die? If the surety dies only, He only delivers from penalty. But this affords no claim to life, no title to a reward—unless you can produce some such edict from the Court of Heaven. Suffer this, and thou shalt live.’ I find it written ‘In keeping Thy commandments there is great reward’ (Ps. 19:11), but nowhere do I read, ‘In undergoing Thy curse, there is the same reward.’ Whereas, when we join the active and passive obedience of our Lord—the peace-speaking Blood with the Life-giving righteousness—both made infinitely meritorious and infinitely efficacious by the Divine glory of His person, how full does our justification appear! How firm does it stand!"
It is not sufficient that the believer stand before God with no sins upon him—that is merely negative. The holiness of God requires a positive righteousness to our account—that His Law be perfectly kept. But we are unable to keep it, therefore our Sponsor fulfilled it for us. By the blood-shedding of our blessed Substitute the gates of Hell have been forever shut against all those for whom He died. By the perfect obedience of our blessed Surety the gates of Heaven are opened wide unto all who believe. My title for standing before God, not only without fear, but in the conscious sunshine of His full favour, is because Christ has been made "righteousness" unto me (1 Cor. 1:30). Christ not only paid all my debts, but fully discharged all my responsibilities. The law-Giver is my law-Fulfiller. Every holy aspiration of Christ, every godly thought, every gracious word, every righteous act of the Lord Jesus, from Bethlehem to Calvary, unite in forming that "best robe" in which the seed royal stand arrayed before God.
Yet sad to say, even so widely-read and generally-respected a writer as the late Sir Rob. Anderson, said in his book, "The Gospel and Its Ministry" (Chapter on Justification by Blood), "Vicarious obedience is an idea wholly beyond reason; how could a God of righteousness and truth reckon a man who has broken law to have kept law, because some one else has kept it? The thief is not declared to be honest because his neighbor or his kinsman is a good citizen." What a pitiable dragging down to the bar of sin-polluted human reason, and a measuring by worldly relations, of that Divine transaction wherein the "manifold wisdom of God" was exercised! What is impossible with men is possible with God. Did Sir Robert never read that Old Testament prediction wherein the Most High God declared, "Therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvelous work among this people, even a marvelous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be hid" (Isa. 29:14)? It is pointed out that, "In the human realm, both innocence and righteousness are transferable in their effects, but that in themselves they are untransferable." From this it is argued that neither sin nor righteousness are in themselves capable of being transferred, and that though God treated Christ as if He were the sinner, and deals with the believer as though he were righteous, nevertheless, we must not suppose that either is actually the case; still less ought we to affirm that Christ deserved to suffer the curse, or that His people are entitled to be taken to Heaven. Such is a fair sample of the theological ignorance of these degenerate times, such is a representative example of how Divine things are being measured by human standards; by such sophistries is the fundamental truth of imputation now being repudiated.

http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Justification/just_05.htm

 

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,

quite easy...

Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Rom 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Rom 4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

Good Day,

quite easy...

Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Rom 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Rom 4:7Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Peace to u,

Bill

I already posted this, but it needed to be brought up again so I am glad you have done so.

It clearly says that faith is counted (reckoned, credited, attributed, imputed) for righteousness; i.e. that righteousness is counted (reckoned, credited, attributed, imputed) by faith.

 

[holdon]

Good Day,

quite easy...

Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Rom 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Rom 4:7Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Peace to u,

Bill

That's right: Faith is counted for righteousness. Not: "Christ's righteousness is imputed to us". That thought doesn't occur in Scripture.....

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

That's right: Faith is counted for righteousness. Not: "Christ's righteousness is imputed to us". That thought doesn't occur in Scripture.....

Whose righteousness is adequate to justify us?

 

[cygnusx1]

Whose righteousness is adequate to justify us?

i think holdon is plymouth brethren ?

anyway you were right about Romans 4

 

[BBAS 64]

That's right: Faith is counted for righteousness. Not: "Christ's righteousness is imputed to us". That thought doesn't occur in Scripture.....

Good Day, Holdon

Really lets see:

Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Who justifieth the ungodly?


Rom 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,7Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

God imputeth righteous, what or who's righteous in imputed, how are sins covered, method and means.

Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Who is the man here who is blessed? Why is his sin not imputed to him?

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[holdon]

Good Day, Holdon

Really lets see:

Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Who justifieth the ungodly?

God. (Now, if He is just, how can He do that?)

Rom 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,7Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

God imputeth righteous

Small correction: God imputes righteousness

, what or who's righteous in imputed

It is not a question about "what" or "who's" righteousness is imputed. The person who believes is deemed to be righteous.

, how are sins covered, method and means.

By the blood of Christ, meaning His expiatory death on the cross.

Rom 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Who is the man here who is blessed?

See verse 7

Why is his sin not imputed to him?

Because his sins are covered. How are his sins covered? By the blood of Christ. NOT: by Christ's righteous life.

 

[nobdysfool]

Small correction: God imputes righteousness

Redundant. You both said the exact same thing. Imputeth=imputes.

It is not a question about "what" or "who's" righteousness is imputed. The person who believes is deemed to be righteous.

Phi 3:9 KJV And be found in Him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that (righeousness) which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

This solidly establishes that the righteousness the believer possess is a foreign, not native, righteousness, which can only be the righteousness of Christ, imputed by God to those who believe on Him.

By the blood of Christ, meaning His expiatory death on the cross. See verse 7 Because his sins are covered. How are his sins covered? By the blood of Christ. NOT: by Christ's righteous life.

NO ONE is saying that sins are covered by Christ's Righteous life. How many time do we have to repeat it?

Sins are covered by the Blood of Christ. The blood is the ONLY covering for sin. The righteousness the believer is imputed with is the inherent Righteousness of Christ, because the person is declared justified by Christ's Death and Resurrection, and by their faith in that fact, Christ's Righteousness is imputed to them.

Philippians 3:9 is crystal clear, it is not our own righteousness. Our faith cannot be made into Christ';s righteousness. It is IMPUTED to us. By definition, it CANNOT therefore be our own righteousness. The only righteousness it can possibly be is Christ's. We are joined to Christ. We therefore participate in what He is, as he did in what we were and are, but without sin.

Case closed, holdon.

 

[holdon]

Redundant. You both said the exact same thing. Imputeth=imputes.

Again a sign of poor reading skills from your camp. He wrote: "righteous", I corrected: "righteousness"......

Phi 3:9 KJV And be found in Him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that (righeousness) which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

This solidly establishes that the righteousness the believer possess is a foreign, not native, righteousness, which can only be the righteousness of Christ, imputed by God to those who believe on Him.

No, it says it right there in the text. It is God's righteousness that we have. Not Christ's righteous life accomplishing the law at all.

NO ONE is saying that sins are covered by Christ's Righteous life. How many time do we have to repeat it?

Who are you spokesman for? Who is "we"?

Sins are covered by the Blood of Christ. The blood is the ONLY covering for sin. The righteousness the believer is imputed with is the inherent Righteousness of Christ, because the person is declared justified by Christ's Death and Resurrection, and by their faith in that fact, Christ's Righteousness is imputed to them.

Theory, theology even, but not Scripture.....

Philippians 3:9 is crystal clear, it is not our own righteousness. Our faith cannot be made into Christ';s righteousness. It is IMPUTED to us. By definition, it CANNOT therefore be our own righteousness. The only righteousness it can possibly be is Christ's. We are joined to Christ. We therefore participate in what He is, as he did in what we were and are, but without sin.

Case closed, holdon.

No, God esteems us righteous based on our faith. Like Abraham. Like David.

 

[nobdysfool]

Again a sign of poor reading skills from your camp. He wrote: "righteous", I corrected: "righteousness"......

Nothing but nit-picking. It is obvious he meant righteousNESS.

No, it says it right there in the text. It is God's righteousness that we have. Not Christ's righteous life accomplishing the law at all.

No one has stated that it was Christ's Righteous life. That is an invention of your own twisting. Christ IS God. Paul stated the same thing in two ways, as he often did.

the point is, it is not the person's OWN righteousness which is imputed, but the Righteousness of Christ. This verse nails that fact to the wall.

Who are you spokesman for? Who is "we"?

All of us who are trying to show you the error of your twisting and refusal to admit the Truth. I'm no spokesman, I am merely stating the Truth of the Bible.

Theory, theology even, but not Scripture.....No, God esteems us righteous based on our faith. Like Abraham. Like David.

And the Word specifically states that the righteousness is imputed, and by definition, that cannot be the person's own righteousness. The imputation is received by faith, the righteousness imputed is Christ's, and by extension, God's Righteousness. Do not divide the Godhead up like that. If it's God's, it is also Christ's because they are ONE.

 

[holdon]

Nothing but nit-picking. It is obvious he meant righteousNESS.

Of course: that's why I corrected it. But you took aim at "eth" vs. "es": that's nit-picking.

No one has stated that it was Christ's Righteous life. That is an invention of your own twisting.

That's what this thread is about....

Christ IS God. Paul stated the same thing in two ways, as he often did.

the point is, it is not the person's OWN righteousness which is imputed, but the Righteousness of Christ. This verse nails that fact to the wall.
[/color][/color][/size]


All of us who are trying to show you the error of your twisting and refusal to admit the Truth. I'm no spokesman, I am merely stating the Truth of the Bible.



And the Word specifically states that the righteousness is imputed, and by definition, that cannot be the person's own righteousness. The imputation is received by faith, the righteousness imputed is Christ's, and by extension, God's Righteousness. Do not divide the Godhead up like that. If it's God's, it is also Christ's because they are ONE.

It is someone's own faith. And by that, he is reckoned to be righteous. He is not receiving someone else's accomplishment of righteousness also called: vicarious righteousness.

 

[nobdysfool]

Of course: that's why I corrected it. But you took aim at "eth" vs. "es": that's nit-picking.That's what this thread is about....

It is someone's own faith. And by that, he is reckoned to be righteous. He is not receiving someone else's accomplishment of righteousness also called: vicarious righteousness.

Read Phillipians 3:9 again, and again, until you get it. Imputation by definition cannot be of something one already possesses. One's faith OBTAINS the declaration of justification, which is the imputation of Righteousness, but one's own faith IS NOT itself that Righteousness.

 

[holdon]

Read Phillipians 3:9 again, and again, until you get it. Imputation by definition cannot be of something one already possesses. One's faith OBTAINS the declaration of justification, which is the imputation of Righteousness, but one's own faith IS NOT itself that Righteousness.

I can agree with all of this, yes.

 

[PaulAckermann]

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.

This verse is an argument AGAINST imputed righteusness. It says that God has made Christ our wisdom as well as our righteousness. So if His righteousness is merely imputed to us, then that means His wisdom is only imputed to us. What does that mean? And the same with sanctififaction. Our sanctification is merely fictional.

Imputed righteousness is fictional righteusness. It means that God sees us as if we were righteous, even though we are actually unrighteous, because we are clothed with the righteousness of Christ. Martin Luther said something about us being hills of dung covered with snow.

But I have a problem with this idea that God sees us as being righteous even though we actually are not. Does not God see all, and knows all? Does He not know our innermost thoughts? So how did God cause himself to become blind so that He does not see what everyone else sees?

For 2,000 years of Christianity, both Western Christians and Eastern Christians believed we must actually be rigtheous in order to enter heaven, that righteousness being a gift of God through faith. Joseph was commanded to call the child Jesus because "he will save them from the sins", not "he will save them from the guilt of sin". Jesus wants to be a full Savior, not just from the guilt of sain from from sin itself. Jesus sald that not every who say "Lord, Lord" will enter heaven, but he to DOES the will of his Father. He said nothing about "imputed righteousness". The Apostle Paul wrote that he who is righteous is righteous, that is, that only he who is actually righteous will be declare by God to be righteous.

Yes, definitely Christ is my righteusness - Him living His life through me so that by His grace I am actually righteous. In the same way, Christ is my wisdom - Him living His life through me so that I am actually walking in His light and being actually wise. I do not see much benefit in "imputed" wisdom.

 

[ContraMundum]

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.

This verse is an argument AGAINST imputed righteusness. It says that God has made Christ our wisdom as well as our righteousness. So if His righteousness is merely imputed to us, then that means His wisdom is only imputed to us. What does that mean? And the same with sanctififaction. Our sanctification is merely fictional.

Imputed righteousness is fictional righteusness. It means that God sees us as if we were righteous, even though we are actually unrighteous, because we are clothed with the righteousness of Christ. Martin Luther said something about us being hills of dung covered with snow.

But I have a problem with this idea that God sees us as being righteous even though we actually are not. Does not God see all, and knows all? Does He not know our innermost thoughts? So how did God cause himself to become blind so that He does not see what everyone else sees?

For 2,000 years of Christianity, both Western Christians and Eastern Christians believed we must actually be rigtheous in order to enter heaven, that righteousness being a gift of God through faith. Joseph was commanded to call the child Jesus because "he will save them from the sins", not "he will save them from the guilt of sin". Jesus wants to be a full Savior, not just from the guilt of sain from from sin itself. Jesus sald that not every who say "Lord, Lord" will enter heaven, but he to DOES the will of his Father. He said nothing about "imputed righteousness". The Apostle Paul wrote that he who is righteous is righteous, that is, that only he who is actually righteous will be declare by God to be righteous.

Yes, definitely Christ is my righteusness - Him living His life through me so that by His grace I am actually righteous. In the same way, Christ is my wisdom - Him living His life through me so that I am actually walking in His light and being actually wise. I do not see much benefit in "imputed" wisdom.

You should remember that no Reformer ever said that our justification and sanctification began and ended ended with imputed righteousness. Imputed righteousness is only one of many things that occur with salvation. Sanctification occurs as well, and this is the transforming of the heart that fits us for Heaven.

As much as people of your theological bias dislike Reformation theology, there is one thing the Reformation left us that clearly outweighs the nominalism and antinomianism of the Orthodox and Roman culture-based Christianity at the time of the Reformation- the belief that being "born anew" is something that actually happens to people, it changes the heart, renews the mind and brings the pursuit of personal holiness through the new obedience of the law. Although individual members of Roman and EO churches have always experienced this as well, the emphasis on personal holiness, repentance and the personal pursuit of one's faith has largely been the legacy of the best Reformers.

But, on the other hand, when imputed righteousness is taught without sanctification, it leads to a form of dead Protestant orthodoxy. This has also happened in the past. Likewise, without the emphasis on personal holiness, antinomianism can result. The Reformers knew the dangers of this, which is why in every Protestant Confession there is always a call to holy living.