Sufficiency of Imputed Righteousness

[Romansthruphilemon]

Lots of responses. Thank you all.

I think it would be better to understand imputed righteousness as not doing anything at all. It's merely a useful promise. I mean, if I require a glorified body with infused righteousness to enter heaven, why would I call myself justified while here on earth? I'm a sinner. I'm not justified before God, but I one day will be when He transforms me into a completely righteous glorified creature.

John 3:6 That which is born of flesh is flesh; and that which is born of Spirit is spirit.

Quicken means to be made alive.

John 6:63(a) It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing

If you have trusted the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-4, how that Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again according to the scriptures) you are justified now before God.

Once a person trusts that Christ shed his blood for them that person is:

Crucified with Christ - Galations 2:20

They are baptized into his death - Romans 6:3

They are complete in Christ - Colossians 2:10

They are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ - Colossians 2:11

They are dead and their life is hid with Christ in God - Colossians 3:3

They have the righteousness of God upon them - Romans 3:22

They are sealed by the Holy Spirit - Ephesians 1:3

Until the next sin? No, until the day of redemption - Ephesians 4:30

They have been quickened, raised up, and made to sit together in heavenly places - Ephesians 2:5,6

They are blessed with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places - Ephesians 1:3

They have received the atonement now - Romans 5:11

They are washed, they are sanctified, they are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God - 1 Corinthians 6:11

 

[Joseph Hinkle]

So you don't believe that you have received eternal life here and now? What do you think being a new creature in Christ, born of God means? Might that mean that you are more than just a forgiven sinner? What is your definition of Justification?
Are you going to hold to Roman Catholic theology and no one will know whether they will get to heaven or not and it will be decided on the balance of good or bad deeds when we stand before God?

"What do you think being a new creature in Christ, born of God means?"
I think it means what the Catholics have been teaching. His righteousness is infused into us. I can't possibly see how the alien righteousness of Christ alone will make us a new creature under Protestant forensic justification. Either being "born again" isn't required to be saved or forensic justification isn't sufficient.

Evangelical theology traditionally is about hope in promises.

We usually do not think of righteousness as a moral quality but a status we have before God. You are either righteous, or you aren't. This notion of degrees of righteousness is more of a Catholic thing, like it's a moral or metaphysical quality. But we recognize it as a legal term, you are either guilty or you aren't.

That is a good way to think about it. The Protestant view is much more binary. You are saved or not saved. The Catholics are a little fuzzier on the exact outcome of each person.

@Romansthruphilemon You're not understanding the question I brought up. Go research imputed vs infused righteousness before commenting on this thread again...

 

[FireDragon76]

Imputed righteousness is really an outgrowth of medieval theology. In the medieval system, righteousness was seen as being infused by grace. Luther didn't totally deny that we become more and more mature as Christians, but he emphasized that we can have assurance that God has accepted us, and he does that by crediting us as being perfectly righteous on account of Jesus's work, and not our own.

Behind alot of Lutheran theology is the same emphasis that the early Church fathers had, on union with Christ. The doctrine of imputed righteousness is really about the pastoral need to deal with people prone to anxiety and fear in a world where Hell was very real and people feared their works were not good enough to enter Heaven.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

"What do you think being a new creature in Christ, born of God means?"
I think it means what the Catholics have been teaching. His righteousness is infused into us. I can't possibly see how the alien righteousness of Christ alone will make us a new creature under Protestant forensic justification. Either being "born again" isn't required to be saved or forensic justification isn't sufficient.

We are made up of body, soul and spirit. Our bodies are subject to death and so that is not the part of us that is born again. The born again part of us is our spirit, which was dead. Being born of God is the act of making our dead spirit alive to God. So, when we say that we have the righteousness of Christ it means that being born of God makes us acceptable to him. That's what righteousness is. It is not holiness of life. We seek holiness because we have receive the righteousness of Christ. He took our sin on the cross which made Him unrighteous in the Father's sight. Therefore He had to go to Hell as punishment for our sin. The sin we are talking about is not our sinful actions, it is the original sin principle that was implanted in us through Adam's disobedience.

The resurrection of Christ is when Jesus took the keys of death and of hell from Satan and rose in victory. Therefore He has become the first-born of many brethren.

Therefore the acceptability resides in our spirit, and there is always going to be a conflict between our bodies and our spirits until the day we die. When we die, our bodies decay in the grave, but our spirit goes into the presence of Christ, awaiting the Last Day. Therefore it is our spirit that is made perfect before God.

From what I know of RCC theology, one can have faith in Christ, but there will be a final judgment to weigh up people's good and bad deeds and if the scales weigh down on the good side, they are finally saved. This means that RCC people have no assurance of salvation in this life, but are hoping that their good lives will see them on the right side of the judgment of God on the Last Day.

Protestants believe that because our spirits are made perfect, we have received the righteousness of Christ now, and we have eternal life. There will be no weighing up of lives for them in the Judgment. They will not be in the great judgment of sinners. They will appear before the judgment seat of Christ to be welcomed as blood-bought children of God and brothers and sisters of Christ.

 

[Joseph Hinkle]

Behind alot of Lutheran theology is the same emphasis that the early Church fathers had, on union with Christ. The doctrine of imputed righteousness is really about the pastoral need to deal with people prone to anxiety and fear in a world where Hell was very real and people feared their works were not good enough to enter Heaven.

I think we can safely say Luther's doctrine wasn't born out of a pastoral concern. It was a product of the troubled inner life Luther experienced and the Church abuses of the day.

Even so, what the Reformation has led to is me, a man who grew up as a strong Christian, yet only learned of what a sacrament was this year. That is a tragedy. Since I've been on my way to Rome, I've had more confidence in Christ because I know His sacraments are efficacious. Faith alone never gives true assurance. There's always doubt that you weren't believing hard enough because you didn't have an emotional experience. I resent those days where I could never know for sure if Christ saved me. Now I know through the sacraments that He has.

 

[Joseph Hinkle]

We are made up of body, soul and spirit. Our bodies are subject to death and so that is not the part of us that is born again. The born again part of us is our spirit, which was dead. Being born of God is the act of making our dead spirit alive to God. So, when we say that we have the righteousness of Christ it means that being born of God makes us acceptable to him. That's what righteousness is. It is not holiness of life. We seek holiness because we have receive the righteousness of Christ. He took our sin on the cross which made Him unrighteous in the Father's sight. Therefore He had to go to Hell as punishment for our sin. The sin we are talking about is not our sinful actions, it is the original sin principle that was implanted in us through Adam's disobedience.

The resurrection of Christ is when Jesus took the keys of death and of hell from Satan and rose in victory. Therefore He has become the first-born of many brethren.

Therefore the acceptability resides in our spirit, and there is always going to be a conflict between our bodies and our spirits until the day we die. When we die, our bodies decay in the grave, but our spirit goes into the presence of Christ, awaiting the Last Day. Therefore it is our spirit that is made perfect before God.

From what I know of RCC theology, one can have faith in Christ, but there will be a final judgment to weigh up people's good and bad deeds and if the scales weigh down on the good side, they are finally saved. This means that RCC people have no assurance of salvation in this life, but are hoping that their good lives will see them on the right side of the judgment of God on the Last Day.

Protestants believe that because our spirits are made perfect, we have received the righteousness of Christ now, and we have eternal life. There will be no weighing up of lives for them in the Judgment. They will not be in the great judgment of sinners. They will appear before the judgment seat of Christ to be welcomed as blood-bought children of God and brothers and sisters of Christ.

So...you're denying the resurrection of our bodies? Great...that's not just a Catholic teaching. That's just a basic Christian one. The way you're headed sounds almost like you want to say our bodies are evil...I hope you don't mean that.

"From what I know of RCC theology, one can have faith in Christ, but there will be a final judgment to weigh up people's good and bad deeds and if the scales weigh down on the good side, they are finally saved."
What you heard about RCC seems to be borderline slander of what they actually believe...at least it's a sad caricature of it.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

So...you're denying the resurrection of our bodies? Great...that's not just a Catholic teaching. That's just a basic Christian one. The way you're headed sounds almost like you want to say our bodies are evil...I hope you don't mean that.

"From what I know of RCC theology, one can have faith in Christ, but there will be a final judgment to weigh up people's good and bad deeds and if the scales weigh down on the good side, they are finally saved."
What you heard about RCC seems to be borderline slander of what they actually believe...at least it's a sad caricature of it.

The resurrection of our bodies will not be our present physical bodies. We will have a glorified body similar to that of Jesus. This is why He is called the first-born of many brethren.

I got the information about RCC doctrine from their own catechism.

 

[Joseph Hinkle]

The resurrection of our bodies will not be our present physical bodies. We will have a glorified body similar to that of Jesus. This is why He is called the first-born of many brethren.

I got the information about RCC doctrine from their own catechism.

I'm pretty sure Christ's resurrected body was the same body He received from His Mother. His body was simply glorified--not done away with and replaced.

Quote the part of the catechism which says that. Otherwise I'm going to assume you have really bad reading comprehension.

 

[Joseph Hinkle]

And it looks like the original topic of the thread is forgotten. I think I got a good enough answer though so I'm not going to worry about saying on topic anymore.

My conclusion is that the Protestant view of justification is essentially a promise of a future real justification. That Christ's imputed righteousness is merely a sign that we will one day receive His infused righteousness, whether that be through a CS Lewis purgatory or just be receiving a glorified body.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I'm pretty sure Christ's resurrected body was the same body He received from His Mother. His body was simply glorified--not done away with and replaced.

Quote the part of the catechism which says that. Otherwise I'm going to assume you have really bad reading comprehension.

"Even though our personal salvation is not assured, we still must hope in it. In the Bible, St. Paul uses the phrases: "the hope of salvation" [1 Thess 5:8] or "hope of eternal life" [Titus 1:2; 3:7]. If we were assured of heaven, then there would be no need for hope. Hope is not the same as assurance (Romans 8:24). According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC):

Hope is the confident expectation of divine blessing and the beatific vision of God; it is also the fear of offending God's love and incurring punishment. [CCC 2090]"

You can read the rest at:
Salvation: Assurance or Hope? Are you saved? :: Catholic News Agency

 

[Joseph Hinkle]

"Even though our personal salvation is not assured, we still must hope in it. In the Bible, St. Paul uses the phrases: "the hope of salvation" [1 Thess 5:8] or "hope of eternal life" [Titus 1:2; 3:7]. If we were assured of heaven, then there would be no need for hope. Hope is not the same as assurance (Romans 8:24). According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC):

Hope is the confident expectation of divine blessing and the beatific vision of God; it is also the fear of offending God's love and incurring punishment. [CCC 2090]"

You can read the rest at:
Salvation: Assurance or Hope? Are you saved? :: Catholic News Agency

Yes...the Catholic Church teaches you can lose your salvation. So do many Protestants.

You claimed that Catholics teach you work your way to heaven. Good luck finding that in the catechism.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Yes...the Catholic Church teaches you can lose your salvation. So do many Protestants.

You claimed that Catholics teach you work your way to heaven. Good luck finding that in the catechism.

From the same article:

"The RSV, NAB and NASB Bibles translate the Greek verb, apeithon, as "obey." This verse connects "belief in Christ" with "obedience to Christ." Elsewhere St. Paul connects faith with obedience as in "the obedience of faith" [Romans 1:5] and with good works as in "faith working through love" [Galatians 5:6]. Also it is written, "By faith Abraham obeyed..." [Hebrew 11:8]. According to the Bible, "to believe" also means "to obey." We do not sincerely believe in Christ, if we disobey God's Commandments - i.e. commit sin (James 2:18-26). Sin is a break in faith (Numbers 5:6-7)."

"Repentance is not a single event in our life, but must be an ongoing, everyday process for us. Yesterday we may have sincerely repented and been forgiven, but tomorrow through our weakness, we may stumble back into sin"

What this is saying is that a person can be saved today and lost tomorrow. This is basic Arminian doctrine, which does not support the same ongoing assurance of Salvation as Calvinist doctrine.

"After receiving God's redeeming grace in Baptism, we must continue to "work out (our) own salvation with fear and trembling" [Philip 2:12]. Through Confession, we can ask God for His continuing merciful forgiveness and more graces to help us resist sins in the future. As sinners we are not assured of our salvation. But Christians, who faithfully use the Sacraments -Channels of God's saving grace - without giving up, can certainly hope for salvation."

Roman Catholics interpret this as maintaining good works to retain our salvation, and that a hope for salvation replaces the Calvinist's assurance of salvation.

 

[Joseph Hinkle]

From the same article:
"he RSV, NAB and NASB Bibles translate the Greek verb, apeithon, as "obey." This verse connects "belief in Christ" with "obedience to Christ." Elsewhere St. Paul connects faith with obedience as in "the obedience of faith" [Romans 1:5] and with good works as in "faith working through love" [Galatians 5:6]. Also it is written, "By faith Abraham obeyed..." [Hebrew 11:8]. According to the Bible, "to believe" also means "to obey." We do not sincerely believe in Christ, if we disobey God's Commandments - i.e. commit sin (James 2:18-26). Sin is a break in faith (Numbers 5:6-7)."

"Repentance is not a single event in our life, but must be an ongoing, everyday process for us. Yesterday we may have sincerely repented and been forgiven, but tomorrow through our weakness, we may stumble back into sin" What this is saying is that a person can be saved today and lost tomorrow. This is basic Arminian doctrine, which does not support the same ongoing assurance of Salvation as Calvinist doctrine.

"After receiving God's redeeming grace in Baptism, we must continue to "work out (our) own salvation with fear and trembling" [Philip 2:12]. Through Confession, we can ask God for His continuing merciful forgiveness and more graces to help us resist sins in the future. As sinners we are not assured of our salvation. But Christians, who faithfully use the Sacraments -Channels of God's saving grace - without giving up, can certainly hope for salvation. " Roman Catholics interpret this as maintaining good works to retain our salvation, and that a hope for salvation replaces the Calvinist's assurance of salvation.

Yeah, they believe faith without works is dead...I'm not sure what you're trying to prove anymore. Are you trying to prove that Catholics think works are necessary? Well you're right then. Are you trying to prove that Catholics believe our works in themselves can merit salvation? Well you can search the catechism for eternity and never find that.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Yeah, they believe faith without works is dead...I'm not sure what you're trying to prove anymore. Are you trying to prove that Catholics think works are necessary? Well you're right then. Are you trying to prove that Catholics believe our works in themselves can merit salvation? Well you can search the catechism for eternity and never find that.

The point I am making is that a Roman Catholic person does not have the same assurance of salvation right here and now that a Calvinist has. He has to maintain a holy life according to what the Catholic church views as venial and mortal sins. To maintain acceptance with God a Catholic person must use the sacrament of confession to a priest. The Calvinist will use 1 John 1:9 and confess directly to God and not a priest.

As far as good works merit salvation, they don't. Catholics are quite clear that belief that Jesus died for us on the cross is the basis for salvation. The difference is for the Catholic is that developing sanctification is essential for justification, while the Calvinist views justification as a done deal and provides the foundation for developing sanctification.

Calvinists believe that righteousness is bestowed on a believer as a free gift and is not dependent on the believers subsequent failures and shortcomings, unless the believer decides to reject Christ altogether and goes back into the world. Rejection of Christ is a deliberate act and cancels their interest in Christ. Hebrews describes it as trampling Christ underfoot.

 

[Joseph Hinkle]

The point I am making is that a Roman Catholic person does not have the same assurance of salvation right here and now that a Calvinist has. He has to maintain a holy life according to what the Catholic church views as venial and mortal sins. To maintain acceptance with God a Catholic person must use the sacrament of confession to a priest. The Calvinist will use 1 John 1:9 and confess directly to God and not a priest.

As far as good works merit salvation, they don't. Catholics are quite clear that belief that Jesus died for us on the cross is the basis for salvation. The difference is for the Catholic is that developing sanctification is essential for justification, while the Calvinist views justification as a done deal and provides the foundation for developing sanctification.

Calvinists believe that righteousness is bestowed on a believer as a free gift and is not dependent on the believers subsequent failures and shortcomings, unless the believer decides to reject Christ altogether and goes back into the world. Rejection of Christ is a deliberate act and cancels their interest in Christ. Hebrews describes it as trampling Christ underfoot.

How does a Calvinist know they are elect? Simple answer, they don't. How does a Catholic know their sins have been washed away? Simple, they've been baptized.

Listen from around 3:10 to 4:00 and tell me again that Calvinists are sure they are elect.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

My conclusion is that the Protestant view of justification is essentially a promise of a future real justification. That Christ's imputed righteousness is merely a sign that we will one day receive His infused righteousness, whether that be through a CS Lewis purgatory or just be receiving a glorified body.

I don't think that is a Calvinist view of Justification. From what I just quoted from the Catholic News Agency, your conclusion seems to fit more into the Catholic view. I suspect that you might be referring to the Arminian Protestant (Wesleyan Methodist and Nazarene) view more than the Presbyterian or Baptist view.

Of course, I'm biased.
My theological foundation is Calvinist Puritan mixed with Pentecostal. Of course some of my Pentecostal friends from churches that originated from the Methodist Holiness movements tended to look sideways at me and reckoned I was off beam when I shared my Calvinist Puritan views.

So I can concur that the following Protestants would be agreeable to your conclusion: Nazarenes, Wesleyan Methodists, Open Brethren, Methodist Holiness, Pentecostal Holiness, and Aminian Pentecostals. I don't include Charismatics in the group because the bulk of them have origins in the Anglican, Presbyterian and Baptist movements, which came out of the Puritan revival of the Elizabethan period. I am not sure where Lutherans are in the mix. I have read Luther's commentary on Galatians and strongly suspect that he believed in justification by faith alone, but there were divisions in his original movement and those might have gone more over to the Catholic side.

 

[Joseph Hinkle]

I don't think that is a Calvinist view of Justification. From what I just quoted from the Catholic News Agency, your conclusion seems to fit more into the Catholic view. I suspect that you might be referring to the Arminian Protestant (Wesleyan Methodist and Nazarene) view more than the Presbyterian or Baptist view.

Of course, I'm biased.
My theological foundation is Calvinist Puritan mixed with Pentecostal. Of course some of my Pentecostal friends from churches that originated from the Methodist Holiness movements tended to look sideways at me and reckoned I was off beam when I shared my Calvinist Puritan views.

So I can concur that the following Protestants would be agreeable to your conclusion: Nazarenes, Wesleyan Methodists, Open Brethren, Methodist Holiness, Pentecostal Holiness, and Aminian Pentecostals. I don't include Charismatics in the group because the bulk of them have origins in the Anglican, Presbyterian and Baptist movements, which came out of the Puritan revival of the Elizabethan period. I am not sure where Lutherans are in the mix. I have read Luther's commentary on Galatians and strongly suspect that he believed in justification by faith alone, but there were divisions in his original movement and those might have gone more over to the Catholic side.

Well any form of Protestantism which affirms forensic justification. I know what I said is not what they teach, but I'm coming to the conclusion that it is what is implicitly taught.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The following site is a synopsis of Calvin's teaching on Justification. It is basically what I believe.
Justification à la John Calvin

 

[FireDragon76]

I think we can safely say Luther's doctrine wasn't born out of a pastoral concern. It was a product of the troubled inner life Luther experienced and the Church abuses of the day.

Even so, what the Reformation has led to is me, a man who grew up as a strong Christian, yet only learned of what a sacrament was this year. That is a tragedy. Since I've been on my way to Rome, I've had more confidence in Christ because I know His sacraments are efficacious. Faith alone never gives true assurance. There's always doubt that you weren't believing hard enough because you didn't have an emotional experience. I resent those days where I could never know for sure if Christ saved me. Now I know through the sacraments that He has.

Lutherans don't see a contradiction between justification sola fide and sacramentalism. We aren't about having faith in faith so much, we are not inwardly focused, but having faith in the Word as it has been applied to us in baptism and the other sacraments of the Church. The sacraments are objective, external touchstones for faith.

It's true Luther had a troubled inner life which lead him to look for a surer foundation which he ultimately did not find in his good works but in Christ. However, that contributed to his pastoral concern regarding indulgences and the false assurances provided through them. The Church needs to be dealing with real grace, not pretend grace.

 

[Petros2015]

I think it would be better to understand imputed righteousness as not doing anything at all. It's merely a useful promise. I mean, if I require a glorified body with infused righteousness to enter heaven, why would I call myself justified while here on earth? I'm a sinner. I'm not justified before God, but I one day will be when He transforms me into a completely righteous glorified creature.

1 John 3:2-3

2 Beloved, we are now children of God, and what we will be has not yet been revealed. We know that when Christ appears, we will be like Him, for we will see Him as He is. 3 And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.

Per verse 3, I don't think 'not doing anything at all' is called for. We who have the hope purify ourselves. We don't force our way into heaven via this process, but because heaven has been opened to us, we make ourselves ready to receive it. If you want to use the wedding analogy - I am not invited to a wedding because I put on a wedding garment, but I put on a wedding garment because I am invited to a wedding.