In reading Mark Driscoll's book Death By Love he makes a distinction between imparted and imputed righteousness. He says imputed transfers Christ's status before God to us,and imparted transfers Christ's character to us. I wonder if any of you have read this book, and also are uncomfortable with the dividing of Christ's imputation to us.
Imparted Righteousness by Mark Driscoll
- Thread starter rmb
- Start date
- Status
FenderPriest
Puritan Board Junior
When I first read that, it struck me as odd, but in thinking about it, the concept just seemed to me as him trying to make the imputed righteousness of Christ and Christian sanctification make sense, a basic Justification/Sanctification distinction. I'm interested in other people's input on this, but in general, while I was initially bothered by it, it seemed to me that he held an orthodox understanding of the issue upon further reflection.
raekwon
Puritan Board Junior
Yeah, when I read it, it just seemed to me that he was using different terminology for justification and sanctification. I'll take another look at it to see what scriptural backing he's using to see if there's anything whack about it, but I don't remember being taken off-guard on first read.
Jimmy the Greek
Puritan Board Senior
Driscoll continues to be loose with his theological terminology. Taking what you say as "imparted and imputed righteousness" and then relating it to what he calls Christ's standing and character is to confuse issues.
The term imparted righteousness is usually a red flag to me.
It is problematic to call it "imparted righteousness," for that which is imparted is a righteous principle into man's nature (in regeneration), not righteousness per se. Care must be taken in using the term imparted righteousness because it is sometimes confused with and sometimes intentionally used to refer to the Roman Catholic doctrine of infused righteousness, which in Romanism is the basis for justification.
PresbyDane
Puritanboard Doctor
Well I have never heard of it before and I am really uncomfterble about it.
I agree with this very strongly.
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
Just read Turretin (i.e. his reprint of Justification). This is a classic distinction in Reformed theology. Christ's righteusness is imputed for Justification and his righteousness is infused for Sanctification. Driscoll just changed "infused" to "imparted." As long as Driscoll does not say "imparted for Justification," then he's fine.
Now whether he actually read Turretin, I don't know. I just know that he makes the same distinction.
toddpedlar
Iron Dramatist
The one thing I would say about "imparted" if it is meant to mean "sanctification" is that sanctification is not an instantaneous conforming to the image of Christ, but a process that is not completed in this life (though it progresses). Imparting seems to me to imply an instantaneous change, just as "imputation" does. Imputation being instantaneous is fine, because it is associated with justification, which is instantaneous.
Now I'm sure Driscoll doesn't believe that we are perfectly Christlike instantaneously by this impartation of righteousness... but the use of the term confuses at best.
Now I'm sure Driscoll doesn't believe that we are perfectly Christlike instantaneously by this impartation of righteousness... but the use of the term confuses at best.
Barnpreacher
Puritan Board Junior
What word might be used in place of impart when referring to sanctification to avoid the confusion? I'm always careful when talking about sanctification to avoid confusing terms as well.
After God justifies a person, God begins to conform that person's life to the image of person. God starts the process of sanctifying that person. In order to avoid confusion, I would not call that believer's life that is being conformed to Christ's image, "imparted righteousness".
toddpedlar
Iron Dramatist
I guess I use the word sanctification, since it's perfectly clear in such a case what I mean.
-----Added 1/14/2009 at 12:05:22 EST-----
e.g. I don't like Turretin's use of "infuse" because it is the term used by Rome for a false notion.
Barnpreacher
Puritan Board Junior
Perhaps. Of course, some of the lack of confusion may stem from the fact that many of you gentlemen are teaching those that are familiar with the confessional understanding of sanctification. As one unfolds the meaning of sanctification he is going to use terms to do so, though I'm not saying that impart or infuse are the proper words. I especially don't like infuse for reasons already noted, but if explained properly then I think impart might not be the worst term in the world (in the process of teaching sanctification).
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
You need to read the man in context too. He obviously doesn't mean instantaneous sanctification because he teaches progressive sanctification. Not even the Reformers could stand up to your scutiny here. There's plenty of reasons to be critical of Driscoll, but this doesn't seem like one of them to me.
Regarding "infusion" it's a perfectly legitimate way to describe sanctification, which is why Turretin used it that way. He was making an apologetic to Rome, showing them that the Protestants did believe in a progressive growth in righteousness in the Christian life (answering Rome's charge of anti-nomianism), but that this righteousness didn't count for justification. Only imputed righteousness counts for that.
"Impart" is an accurate term so long as it's qualified by how the righteousness is imparted, and so long as it's made clear the grounds for justification are not in this "imparted" righteousness, which he does make clear in the summary provided in the OP.
Regarding "infusion" it's a perfectly legitimate way to describe sanctification, which is why Turretin used it that way. He was making an apologetic to Rome, showing them that the Protestants did believe in a progressive growth in righteousness in the Christian life (answering Rome's charge of anti-nomianism), but that this righteousness didn't count for justification. Only imputed righteousness counts for that.
"Impart" is an accurate term so long as it's qualified by how the righteousness is imparted, and so long as it's made clear the grounds for justification are not in this "imparted" righteousness, which he does make clear in the summary provided in the OP.
I do feel this is a bit unjust for Driscoll.
As believers we are not only 'imputed' with righteousness but in regeneration-the nature of Christ himself dwells within us. Christ the righteous one dwells within me. In this sense righteousness is also imparted and infused. As Peter says 'we partake in the divine nature'. As Paul says 'Christ within us the hope of Glory'. The nature of Christ is imparted to us through the indwelling Holy Spirit. As we grow in the Lord this inner 'new nature' begins to grow and take hold of us making us more Christ like.
As believers we are not only 'imputed' with righteousness but in regeneration-the nature of Christ himself dwells within us. Christ the righteous one dwells within me. In this sense righteousness is also imparted and infused. As Peter says 'we partake in the divine nature'. As Paul says 'Christ within us the hope of Glory'. The nature of Christ is imparted to us through the indwelling Holy Spirit. As we grow in the Lord this inner 'new nature' begins to grow and take hold of us making us more Christ like.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
