God-righteousness vs man-righteousness

Discussion in 'Theological Forum' started by KMK, Feb 12, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. KMK

    KMK Moderator Staff Member

    Is the difference between the righteousness of God and the righteousness of man one of kind or degree?

    If God's righteousness is "infinite, eternal, and unchangeable" then wouldn't it be a difference in kind in the same way that the "infinite, eternal, and unchangeable" being of God is a difference in kind with man's finite, limited, and changeable being?
     
  2. Peairtach

    Peairtach Puritan Board Doctor

    Well, post-Fall Man doesn't have any righteousness of his own.

    But pre-Fall Adam's righteousness was not worthy to merit the fulness of eternal life that he was offered; it was only because God in His abundant goodness to Adam and Mankind stooped down and offered eternal blessedness in the CoW by pactum merit.

    Christ's righteousness, which is God's righteousness, on the other hand merits all things by condign merit, and more.

    The merit of Christ's righteousness is far greater than Adam's would have been if he had fulfilled the probation, and is more than commensurate to the reward. Condign merit vs. Pactum merit.

    See Lane Keister's post in this thread:

    http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/condign-congruent-pactum-merit-66235/
     
  3. CharlieJ

    CharlieJ Puritan Board Junior

    I think Ken is asking an ontological question, which is distinct from what righteousness gets us (merit, salvation, etc.). When one says "God is righteous" and when one says "[anything else] is righteous," how much correspondence is there between the two statements?
     
  4. KMK

    KMK Moderator Staff Member

    Thanks for that, Richard. Lane's post is quite illuminating. In regards to my question, Lane says...

    Does the righteousness of God and the righteousness of man (pre-fall) differ in both degree and kind? Or do they in differ in kind because they differ in degree? (the one being infinite, eternal, and unchangeable and the other not)
     
  5. KMK

    KMK Moderator Staff Member

    Yes, that is the question.

    However, in regards to Rom 1:16,17, I might be barking up the wrong tree.

    Calvin:

    Hodge:

     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2013
  6. Peairtach

    Peairtach Puritan Board Doctor

    I would have thought it was the righteousness of God which is for us, then i.e. the righteousness that God wrought in the life and death of the man Christ Jesus for us.

    It is a man's righteousness, as it has to be for us men, and thus a righteousness that images God's righteousness and is derived from His, but because He is also God, it's value is far greater than that of Adam's would have been. God the Son wrought the righteousness as a man.

    E.g. Christ's passive righteousness in death is far more valuable than that of any mere man because His blood is called "the blood of God"

     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page