Justification by Faith-Out Of Date

[ToBeLoved]

..

 

[hedrick]

Yes, I understand the Reformed position. Calvin followed Augustine view of Original sin. John Murray takes it further, than those two. You disagree with the imputation of the Adam's sin. But you say that we are guilty as a result of Adam's sin. How so, if they did not personally participated?

After Adam's sin things changed. See Gen 3:14 ff. One of things that changed was the human were no longer capable of resisting sin. Our nature is now corrupted. For God to recognize that we ourselves are corrupted is not imputing Adam's sin to us, even though that condition is a result of Adam's sin. I don't think there's much more I can say if you don't see the difference.

There are certainly Calvinists who believe in imputation of his sin. Indeed it seems to be the most common view among traditional Calvinists. It's often referred to as federal headship." See e.g. https://www.monergism.com/adam-and-federal-headship.

However it doesn't appear that Calvin himself believed this. Here's an article looking at the texts from Calvin that have been cited in favor of something like imputation of Adam's sin, and notes that none of them really supports that idea: http://www.calvin.edu/library/database/crcpi/fulltext/ctj/2009-442-226.pdf. The article also clarifies the difference between the two models. These really are two separate theories about original sin, and shouldn't be confused by using "imputation" for both. Oddly, the article doesn't quote the one place where Calvin deals with this most explicitly, in his commentary on Gen 3. This is from Gen 3:6: "But now, from the time in which we were corrupted in Adam, we do not bear the punishment of another’s offence, but are guilty by our own fault." This is, of course, the end of a longer argument, which you might want to look up.

 

[ladodgers6]

We have a different view of "original sin".

The curse involved physical death, and the fall of creation. Decay, thorns, sickness, suffering attendant with all of that. It is the condition of the created order as a result of Adam's sin. Everyone is born subject to that. And everyone themselves sins, as a result of that.

Condemnation is a separate matter. It is a fine distinction, since all DO sin, and so all are subject to that in themselves as well.

But this does bring up the question of infants.

We don't suppose to know God's mind. Perhaps the status of the parents as believers does matter. (I'm speaking from myself, and not for Orthodoxy here.) But we DO know God as a loving and merciful God. Certain ways of looking at condemnation seem to have crept in with some of the much later writers. You know that we reject the Penal Substitution model of the atonement? Without those later ideas of God's desire to inflict suffering on men in retribution for their sins, the idea of condemned infants doesn't make a lot of sense. But still ... we do not presume to know the mind of God and we simply trust in His mercy.

Thanks for comments, I appreciate it. I agree that God is merciful and loving. But God is also Holy, and Righteous. You cannot carve up God into pieces. The Bible is clear that He hates Sin. I do not know that the EOC rejects the Penal Substitution. What then do you guys believe?

 

[~Anastasia~]

Thanks for comments, I appreciate it. I agree that God is merciful and loving. But God is also Holy, and Righteous. You cannot carve up God into pieces. The Bible is clear that He hates Sin. I do not know that the EOC rejects the Penal Substitution. What then do you guys believe?

That is difficult to answer in a short reply, and I am not the best person to do so, but I will try.

We don't carve God up into pieces, btw. I'm not wishing to be argumentative, but I find it an irony that often such things others may say Orthodox theology does is exactly what I see competing theologies do. God IS Holy, as well as merciful and loving. But how do you actually integrate those ideas in your Theology? Do your explanations never seem at odds with this part or that part of God's nature? They did to me, when I was taught them. I'm not sure exactly what you believe, but some would say that because God is Holy and just, God will torture an infant who dies for all of eternity, because of something that infant's great-great-many-greats-grandfather did. And some even suggest that God gets some pleasure from this, or "needs" it in some sense. How on earth is this just? And even more, if you manage to describe some part of it as just, how is it merciful or loving?

What do Orthodox believe? We believe that God is the source of all life, that He is holy, and that yes, He hates sin (though "hate" risks being misunderstood by modern minds and language). That He IS love, and because of that great love, willed the Incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection, as a means of restoring mankind and all creation with Himself, defeating the curse of death, and providing the means for forgiveness of sin.

What we do not believe is that such a God can only be satisfied, requires, or takes pleasure in the suffering of some persons as payment for some imagined debt as though sin were weighed out and counted. That He is somehow cosmically prevented from showing mercy until such suffering has been exacted. That some rule of "justice" outweighs and constrains His will.

There are nuances that have crept in and created these (mis)understandings.

If a person chooses to reject God's forgiveness and the atonement offered through Christ's shed blood, they will suffer as a result. They will never be healed from the effects of their sin, and so will exist in eternity being perverted (changed, twisted) from what God desired then to be - which are whole, healed, rational creatures in His image and likeness, free from the injury and infection of sin, forever in communion with Him and sharing in His life in eternity. These poor creatures will instead be tormented by their sins, by their own being, and by the very Presence of a God who still loves them, but whom they choose to hate.

The suffering is not pleasing to God. But it is an experience caused by the condition of those who hate God, and it will be real.


Is God just?

You tell me. Is is actually just to forgive humans of sins based on the death of Christ? Is is just to forgive us at all, given that we all have rebelled against God and rejected Him at times? True justice is harsh.

I do not say that God is UNjust. God forbid! But depending on what one means by "justice" it might not be properly applicable to God.

What God does, and how God judges, will always be perfectly RIGHT. That we shall certainly see. But justice (in human eyes) is perhaps an idea best reserved for other arenas.

I hope this answers your question. I have probably failed in some respects - what does not make sense is my own error, so please forgive me in any case for that.

Peace to you.

 

[hedrick]

It's worth noting that I've been presenting Calvin's views. They are closely related to my personal views but not identical. The biggest issue with his position is that Adam isn't a historical character. However I still think our nature is incapable of being sinless. Rather than seeing it as a corruption of a nature original perfect, I think God never intended us to be perfect on our own. We were always intended to depend upon his grace. Rom 11:32.

 

[~Anastasia~]

It's worth noting that I've been presenting Calvin's views. They are closely related to my personal views but not identical. The biggest issue with his position is that Adam isn't a historical character. However I still think our nature is incapable of being sinless. Rather than seeing it as a corruption of a nature original perfect, I think God never intended us to be perfect on our own. We were always intended to depend upon his grace. Rom 11:32.

Quick aside ... I'm just curious. Do you see the life in the age to come to be a time when mankind will be perfect in sinlessness? God's grace is of course required for everything, including our very existence (from our pov - but then we do see grace very differently). But I'm not asking apart from God. Just curious whether you see persons as (possibly) fixed in a state of sinlessness in the life of the age to come?

 

[GoodFruit]

This is my opinion on faith.
Our faith is in Christ and His promises. Our faith is that what He did on the cross was enough to save us from our sins.
Our faith is in the hope of Christ coming and fulfilling His promises. That is where our faith is.

But to be counted worthy we must do good works, we must produce good fruit.
We must put on the wedding garment spoken of in the banquet parable, which is righteousness through the guidance of His Holy Spirit and the Holy Bible in our lives, daily. We must be doing His will every day to be counted worthy. Not just when you feel like it.

That is what this whole thing is about. the righteous and the wicked. Do you think that you can live in sin and be counted worthy? Can you follow Christ mon-fri and go rob someones house on the weekend and everything be ok?

Matthew 12:50 KJV For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.

Whoever does God's will in their life every day, every minute of the day, and endures until the end, that person will be saved. No others.

Matthew 24:13 KJV But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

James 2:20 KJV But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

Faith in Christ is the mere minimum of Christianity. What kind of faith do you have if you aren't in the word, in prayer, fasting daily almost, reading His word. If you aren't doing these things. I worry for you.

 

[hedrick]

We’ve gotten side-tracked. The original question was about justification by faith.

Someone asked who claims it is out of date. I have heard that claim made. The argument is that justification by faith was a response to bad 16th Cent Catholic theology, but that at this point moderate Protestant and Catholic theology agree enough that at this point we no longer need to see the positions as competing. In favor of this is the agreement between Lutherans and Catholics about justification.

I agree only in part. It’s true that there’s more agreement now than the was in the 16th Cent. Part of this results from an understanding that the two traditions use language differently. In the Catholic tradition, justification is the entire process in which God’s image is restored in us. In the Protestant tradition, justification and sanctification together play this role. Catholics were often upset at justification by faith because they correctly noted that a change in life is also necessary. If justification is the whole process it can’t possibly be by faith alone. But Protestant theology sees our change as being part of sanctification.

I do agree that clarifying terms helps us see correspondences between the Protestant and Catholic approaches. But I think there is still a difference, and that this difference matters. In my opinion the practical side of that difference is mortal sin.

Catholic theology still maintains that our relationship with Christ is largely broken by serious, voluntary sin. “Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation.” (CCC 1856)

If mortal sin were something akin to apostasy, which most Christians don’t do, and is normally a final break from Christianity, I might agree. But the list of possibly mortal sins (there’s no official list) is fairly long, and most people surely commit them on a fairly regula basis.

Protestant theology, on the contrary, maintains that are status as God’s children -- justification -- is more or less permanent. Depending upon the sub-tradition, it’s possible to fall, but this is generally seen as very unusual, and typically one-time. It’s also normally the result of abandoning Christianity, not sin.

In my view, Jesus’ teaching shows us that God doesn’t give up on his children. When they sin he may discipline them, but they remain his children. When he speaks of judgement it’s not people who committed some specific sin. It’s people who didn’t show any sign of Christ’s love.

Each position has its dangers. The danger of the Protestant position is that people can get lax about being Christian. The danger of the Catholic position is that people can’t feel confident in God’s love, and that it tends to encourage a certain legalism. I think the difference matters. Our congregation has a number of former Catholics. They left because of the legalistic emphasis on individual sins. In all honesty, there are also former Protestants among the Catholics. They may well have left because Protestantism was unsatisfying to them.

 

[hedrick]

Quick aside ... I'm just curious. Do you see the life in the age to come to be a time when mankind will be perfect in sinlessness? God's grace is of course required for everything, including our very existence (from our pov - but then we do see grace very differently). But I'm not asking apart from God. Just curious whether you see persons as (possibly) fixed in a state of sinlessness in the life of the age to come?

The prophetic visions always seem like an ideal world, as is the vision at the end of the Revelation. I'm not sure that means no one would ever make a mistake or inadvertently offend someone. But it seems to me that in some sense it's morally perfect. Most visions also say that we see God face to face. So his influence at that point is also stronger. Thus you could certainly attribute the moral improvement to grace. I'm not sure whether you can completely separate a restoration of human nature and grace.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The prophetic visions always seem like an ideal world, as is the vision at the end of the Revelation. I'm not sure that means no one would ever make a mistake or inadvertently offend someone. But it seems to me that in some sense it's morally perfect. Most visions also say that we see God face to face. So his influence at that point is also stronger. Thus you could certainly attribute the moral improvement to grace. I'm not sure whether you can completely separate a restoration of human nature and grace.

Indeed - I tend to think it's impossible (and even nonsensical) to separate restoration of human nature and grace.

Thank you for your answer, as well as detailing some nuances of your belief. I was just curious.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Hnm, why does that explaination leave so much lacking in the context of Prots and Caths

 

[ladodgers6]

So you are saying that Christ commits works by saving His children?

This is an old song and dance. Faith and works together.

So explain justification by Christ's works and justification in general?

You're right same old song and dance. The adding of our works to finalize what Christ could not? Our works? What works? As B.B. Warfield points out in the OP. People who pervert the Gospel of Christ that Paul rebuked. Romans 4 is clear that its Faith apart from works in God who justified the ungodly.

Justification

60. Q.
How are you righteous before God?
A.
Only by true faith in Jesus Christ. 1
Although my conscience accuses me
that I have grievously sinned
against all God's commandments,
have never kept any of them, 2
and am still inclined to all evil, 3
yet God, without any merit of my own, 4
out of mere grace, 5
imputes to me
the perfect satisfaction,
righteousness, and holiness of Christ. 6
He grants these to me
as if I had never had nor committed
any sin,
and as if I myself had accomplished
all the obedience
which Christ has rendered for me, 7
if only I accept this gift
with a believing heart. 8
​

• 
  
  
  • 1. Rom 3:21-28; Gal 2:16; Eph 2:8, 9; Phil 3:8-11.
  • 2. Rom 3:9, 10.
  • 3. Rom 7:23.
  • 4. Deut 9:6; Ezek 36:22; Tit 3:4, 5.
  • 5. Rom 3:24; Eph 2:8.
  • 6. Rom 4:3-5; 2 Cor 5:17-19; 1 Jn 2:1, 2.
  • 7. Rom 4:24, 25; 2 Cor 5:21.
  • 8. Jn 3:18; Acts 16:30, 31; Rom 3:22.

Q. 70. What is justification?​

A. Justification is an act of God’s free grace unto sinners, in which he pardoneth all their sins, accepteth and accounteth their persons righteous in his sight; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but only for the perfect obedience and full satisfaction of Christ, by God imputed to them, and received by faith alone.

Q. 71. How is justification an act of God’s free grace? ​

A. Although Christ, by his obedience and death, did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to God’s justice in the behalf of them that are justified; yet inasmuch as God accepteth the satisfaction from a surety, which he might have demanded of them, and did provide this surety, his own only Son, imputing his righteousness to
them, and requiring nothing of them for their justification but faith, which also is his gift, their justification is to them of free grace.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Justification by Faith is nothing other than obtaining everlasting life by believing in Christ.

Back to the OP, though with perhaps a different observation from the New Testament Believers (IN the New Testament) ...
It looks like the ones IN the New Testament
the closer they were to YHWH and Y'SHUA
the more blameless they were.
They even walked in union with Y'SHUA after His ascension ,
and in union with one another.
This was just exactly as Y'SHUA prayed for them to be - or for YHWH to accomplish in them, and YHWH did.

The further people got away from Y'SHUA,
the further they got/ get away from union with Him.

The closer they get to Y'SHUA,
the closer they get to living daily in union with Him, until they are that close and actually are living in union with Him, as it is written.

YHWH is for us, who can be against us ?

 

[ladodgers6]

After Adam's sin things changed. See Gen 3:14 ff. One of things that changed was the human were no longer capable of resisting sin. Our nature is now corrupted. For God to recognize that we ourselves are corrupted is not imputing Adam's sin to us, even though that condition is a result of Adam's sin. I don't think there's much more I can say if you don't see the difference.

The answer or attempt to explain 'OUR' corruption as the result of Adam, leaves too many blanks for me. If humans can no longer resist sin, and our fallen nature is corrupt because of One Man. Why is it difficult to include the One trespass to all humans? Because Paul enunciates in verse 19 that we are constituted "SINNERS", because of this One Trespass. I am not a smart guy, the dumbest in Christendom. But this parallelism of Romans 5:12-19, is crystal clear to me. Adam's sin is imputed to us because of our solidarity with Adam as our first parents. And then we are removed from Adam to Christ because of One Man's Righteous Act, so now we are in solidarity with the Second Adam. Union is how we receive not only all of Christ's heavenly blessings; redemption, sanctification, and Justification, peace with, love, joy, assurance, confidence, inheritance, reconciliation, co-heirs, but Christ himself.

There are certainly Calvinists who believe in imputation of his sin. Indeed it seems to be the most common view among traditional Calvinists. It's often referred to as federal headship." See e.g. https://www.monergism.com/adam-and-federal-headship.

Yes, I do hold too Federal headship. Because of the contrasts & comparisons of the TWO Adams. Why does Paul use this term in reference to Christ? Because the first Adam entered into a Covenant of Works with God, and the condition of this Covenant is Perfect Obedience. Adam needed to fulfill God's Law with perfect righteousness that would have earn him eschatological Sabbath rest with God. But Adam breach this Covenant and bought judgement and condemnation on all of us! That's why a Second Adam came into time & history, born in the flesh, under the Law. To kill sin in the flesh, and to fulfill the Law not abolish it! Through His One Righteous Act, many were made righteous.

However it doesn't appear that Calvin himself believed this. Here's an article looking at the texts from Calvin that have been cited in favor of something like imputation of Adam's sin, and notes that none of them really supports that idea: http://www.calvin.edu/library/database/crcpi/fulltext/ctj/2009-442-226.pdf. The article also clarifies the difference between the two models. These really are two separate theories about original sin, and shouldn't be confused by using "imputation" for both. Oddly, the article doesn't quote the one place where Calvin deals with this most explicitly, in his commentary on Gen 3. This is from Gen 3:6: "But now, from the time in which we were corrupted in Adam, we do not bear the punishment of another’s offence, but are guilty by our own fault." This is, of course, the end of a longer argument, which you might want to look up.

Yes, I am familiar with that argument. But its taken out of context. People have caricatured what Calvin said. Here's a list of book you must read, The Law is not of Faith by Bryan D. Estelle, J.V. Fesko, David Van Drunen. Justification and the New Perspectives on Paul by Guy Prentiss Water is a former student of E.P. Sanders and Richard Hays. This book is a helpful overview of the trajectory of the 20th century scholarship on Paul and a trenchant critique of the work of Sanders, James Dunn, and N.T. Wright. And especially one of my favorites, Calvin and the Federal Vision by Jeong Koo Jeon; and The Imputation of Adam's sin by John Murray.

 

[ladodgers6]

That is difficult to answer in a short reply, and I am not the best person to do so, but I will try.

We don't carve God up into pieces, btw. I'm not wishing to be argumentative, but I find it an irony that often such things others may say Orthodox theology does is exactly what I see competing theologies do. God IS Holy, as well as merciful and loving. But how do you actually integrate those ideas in your Theology? Do your explanations never seem at odds with this part or that part of God's nature? They did to me, when I was taught them. I'm not sure exactly what you believe, but some would say that because God is Holy and just, God will torture an infant who dies for all of eternity, because of something that infant's great-great-many-greats-grandfather did. And some even suggest that God gets some pleasure from this, or "needs" it in some sense. How on earth is this just? And even more, if you manage to describe some part of it as just, how is it merciful or loving?

What do Orthodox believe? We believe that God is the source of all life, that He is holy, and that yes, He hates sin (though "hate" risks being misunderstood by modern minds and language). That He IS love, and because of that great love, willed the Incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection, as a means of restoring mankind and all creation with Himself, defeating the curse of death, and providing the means for forgiveness of sin.

What we do not believe is that such a God can only be satisfied, requires, or takes pleasure in the suffering of some persons as payment for some imagined debt as though sin were weighed out and counted. That He is somehow cosmically prevented from showing mercy until such suffering has been exacted. That some rule of "justice" outweighs and constrains His will.

There are nuances that have crept in and created these (mis)understandings.

If a person chooses to reject God's forgiveness and the atonement offered through Christ's shed blood, they will suffer as a result. They will never be healed from the effects of their sin, and so will exist in eternity being perverted (changed, twisted) from what God desired then to be - which are whole, healed, rational creatures in His image and likeness, free from the injury and infection of sin, forever in communion with Him and sharing in His life in eternity. These poor creatures will instead be tormented by their sins, by their own being, and by the very Presence of a God who still loves them, but whom they choose to hate.

The suffering is not pleasing to God. But it is an experience caused by the condition of those who hate God, and it will be real.


Is God just?

You tell me. Is is actually just to forgive humans of sins based on the death of Christ? Is is just to forgive us at all, given that we all have rebelled against God and rejected Him at times? True justice is harsh.

I do not say that God is UNjust. God forbid! But depending on what one means by "justice" it might not be properly applicable to God.

What God does, and how God judges, will always be perfectly RIGHT. That we shall certainly see. But justice (in human eyes) is perhaps an idea best reserved for other arenas.

I hope this answers your question. I have probably failed in some respects - what does not make sense is my own error, so please forgive me in any case for that.

Peace to you.

Please note, I will not get upset with you. We are discussing God's word, and I do believe we can talk about it without hate, all love. Though I am not well versed in EOC beliefs, I have been reading and studying it. All that I ask in respect, is to understand the other's view, and not caricature it. This is a bit much to reply too, right now. I will have too, read and do some homework before I can intelligently respond. If that is okay with you?

All in Love, not hate!

 

[ladodgers6]

Mr. Hedrick, I have request, and hope you will grant it. I am very curious to your take on what Murray says on the parallelism in Romans 5. Here it is:



The parallel instituted in Romans 5:12-19 as a whole is that between the way in which condemnation passes upon men through the sin of Adam and the way justification comes to men through the righteousness of Christ. In the case of the righteousness of Christ, this righteousness comes to the justified through no other medium than that of UNION with Christ; it is not mediated through the righteousness inwrought in the believer in regeneration and sanctification. To use the language of imputation, it is not by mediate imputation that believers come into the possession of the righteousness of Christ in justification. It would be contradictory of Paul's doctrine of Justification to suppose that the righteousness and obedience of Christ becomes ours unto justification because holiness is conveyed to us from Christ or that the righteousness of Christ is mediated to us through the holiness generated in us by regeneration. The one ground upon which the imputation of the righteousness of Christ becomes ours is the union with Christ through Faith. In other words, the justified person is constituted/declared righteous by the obedience of Christ because of the solidarity established between Christ and the justified person. The solidarity constitutes the bond by which the righteousness of Christ becomes that of the believer. Once the solidarity is posited there is no other mediating factor that could be conceived of as necessary to the conjunction of the righteousness of Christ and the righteousness of the believer. This is to say that the conjunction is immediate. If the case is thus on that side of the analogy which pertain to justification, we should expect the modus operandi (a particular way or method of doing something, especially one that is characteristic or well-established: "the volunteers were instructed to buy specific systems using our usual modus operandi—anonymously and with cash") to be the same in connection with condemnation. To put the argument in the order underlying the parallelism, immediate imputation in the case of Adam's sin provides the parallel by which to illustrate the doctrine of justification and is thus eminently germane to the governing thesis of the apostle in this part of the epistle.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Please note, I will not get upset with you. We are discussing God's word, and I do believe we can talk about it without hate, all love. Though I am not well versed in EOC beliefs, I have been reading and studying it. All that I ask in respect, is to understand the other's view, and not caricature it. This is a bit much to reply too, right now. I will have too, read and do some homework before I can intelligently respond. If that is okay with you?

All in Love, not hate!

Certainly, take all the time you need.

And I do apologize if I seemed to caricature your beliefs. I tried to be clear that I wasn't sure what you personally believed, but contrasted Orthodoxy with various steps along the PSA continuum, in order to answer your question.

We are taught not to take offense easily. I doubt you could be offensive to me.

God be with you.

 

[hedrick]

Analogies are never perfect. In Rom 5, Paul refers to the analogy several times. Each time he is talking about how sin came into the world, not the mechanism by which we are considered sinners. The problem, of course, is that we don’t have a spiritual union with Adam nor do we have faith in Adam. So about all you can say is the Adam is the source of the problem as Christ is the source of the solution.

Of course Paul never says that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us as righteousness. He says that our faith is counted as righteousness. Interestingly Paul never refers to Christ’s righteousness nor Christ as righteous (though obviously he is). That’s kind of odd if it plays the role you think it does. (Rom 5:18 refers to a righteous act, but not Christ as righteous.)

Rom 5:12 is an important text here, since it might answer the question. It says that death spread to all because all sin, which doesn’t seem very supportive of imputation or federal headship. Some have suggested other translations, but that approach doesn’t seem common today. Dunn says “The classic debate on the meaning of ἐφʼ ᾧ has more or less been settled in favor of the meaning “for this reason that, because” (cf. 2 Cor 5:4; Phil 3:12; 4:10; classical parallels in BGD, ἐπί IIbγ),” but since you’re not likely to place much weight on Dunn, note that even Moo agrees. His commentary is probably the best that adopts a traditional Reformed understanding of Romans. He notes, as Dunn does, that this is the meaning adopted by most commentators and almost all English translations (NRSV, ESV, NASB95, HCSB, NKJV, NIV). Moo believes that 5:12 is speaking only of how sin entered human history, not its spread. He sees the explanation for the spread in 5:18-19, though I don’t see how.

I’m going to summarize TDNT’s treatment of righteousness, but only when applied to man. In Greek and LXX usage it is “observance of the will of God which is well-pleasing to Him.” In Rabbinic usage it narrowed to almsgiving and benevolence, also to be worthy and to have merit. In the NT outside Paul it means right conduct before God, which is closely tied to earlier usage: “right conduct of man which follows the will of God and is pleasing to Him, for rectitude of life before God, for uprightness before His judgment.” For Paul it means being right before God, which is obviously connected with meaning outside Paul. [This fails to do justice to the TDNT treatment, as it is a long exposition of Lutheran theology, and thus goes far beyond definition, but that’s the basic definition they use.]

If righteousness means being right before God, then it’s perfectly sensible for Paul to say that God accepts our faith as indicating that we are right before him, declares us as being right before him based on our faith, and uses our faith to set us right before him (all of which I think are said at various points in Romans). The imputation is that God accepts our faith, credits us with righteousness because of it, or imputes righteousness to us based on it. He simply never says that God imputes Christ’s righteousness to us.

 

[hedrick]

As far as I can tell, the 16th Cent discussion of righteousness got misdirected because people understood it as meaning merit. Obviously we have no merit of our own before God. So if it’s a matter of merit, then we’re dependent upon Christ’s. Thus I can understand saying that the merit imputed to us in faith must come from Christ. The problem is that this isn’t what righteousness means.

 

[ToBeLoved]

It's worth noting that I've been presenting Calvin's views. They are closely related to my personal views but not identical. The biggest issue with his position is that Adam isn't a historical character. However I still think our nature is incapable of being sinless. Rather than seeing it as a corruption of a nature original perfect, I think God never intended us to be perfect on our own. We were always intended to depend upon his grace. Rom 11:32.

Well if we are giving Biblical answers which it seems that you are, you know this disagree's with the Bible.

If that concept is taken further that God creates things that are bad or not perfect, than that viewpoint is against God's perfect nature and is a very slippery slope.

I think Calvin was sola scripture? Yes?