Imputed Righteousness

[Notthemama1984]

This morning I stepped outside into the cold air and I started to think about something. Am I thinking properly or am I way off?

NT Wright makes the claim that "righteousness" is not a substance that can be imputed or infused. It is not something you can hold in your hand.

Well heat is not a substance either. I cannot give you a handful of heat. It is an aspect of something. It is an adjective describing something. Even though this is true, something that is hot or creates heat can affect me and cause me to warm up. For example, the sun creates massive amounts of heat and when that heat hits me, I warm up. I am physically changed.

Would it be wrong to see the same thing with righteousness? It may not be a substance, but it is an aspect that can change or affect someone. Righteousness comes from Christ and when it comes in contact with the spiritual man, it changes him. In the same way that my hot body can never claim the heat is its own (my body does not create the heat at any time. It is always a reaction to the sun), our spiritual man can never claim the righteousness, but must acknowledge that it is Christ's righteousness in us that is causing the change.

In my brain this analogy helps explain the idea of not being able to hold a cup of righteousness without throwing away imputed righteousness.

Thoughts?

 

[BobVigneault]

Infused is quite different from imputed. Righteousness is assigned to the believers standing, a foreign righteousness. Righteousness is not a substance but an evidence, an outcome of obedience to God's law. Infusion is a mistake the RCC makes.

 

[Notthemama1984]

I understand the difference. Are you saying my analogy leads to an infusion belief?

 

[discipulo]

Boliver, the Forensic language is more appropriate to Imputation, after all it is about violation (our) and obedience (Christ's) to God's Law.

It is foreign righteousness - Iustitia aliena - because it is not given in the sense of an object in the least way, but it is attributed in the way of a legal forensic statute – reckoned as righteous, counted as righteous, from Romans 4:

his faith is counted for righteousness.

that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness

The great error of Wright is trying to redefine Imputation (and confusing infusion with it) by building his own strawman and beating him down.

 

[BobVigneault]

Sorry, I read through your post too quickly and saw imputed, infusion and 'my hot body' and got all flustered.

I think your analogy confuses things a bit because you are using terms from physics to illustrate a legal transaction. There are court room illustrations that would do that just fine.

Your body gets heat by the sun, your body generates heat, it can get confusing. Just my HUMBLE opinion. Sorry for speed glimpsing your post.

 

[BobVigneault]

Ahhh, Cesar was typing as I was typing. Hey and he used latin! If you want to clear things up, always say something in english and then quickly say it in LATIN. Nobody can refute latin. Die dulci fruere!

 

[Notthemama1984]

Boliver, the Forensic language is more appropriate to Imputation, after all it is about violation (our) and obedience (Christ's) to God's Law.

It is foreign righteousness - Iustitia aliena - because it is not given in the sense of an object in the least way, but it is attributed in the way of a legal forensic statute – reckoned as righteous, counted as righteous, from Romans 4:

his faith is counted for righteousness.

that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness

The great error of Wright is trying to redefine Imputation (and confusing infusion with it) by building his own strawman and beating him down.

I apologize for more questions, but now I am confused.

NT Wright says that righteousness is merely being declared in the right. It is a legal sentencing. No moral change occurs.

I was under the impression that the proper view of righteousness is that we are declared right because of Christ's righteousness. This righteousness is like a robe that we wear. Now when God looks upon us, He sees Christ's righteousness and not our own sins. This righteousness also begins to inwardly sanctify us.

Am I completely off?

 

[discipulo]

Boliver, the Forensic language is more appropriate to Imputation, after all it is about violation (our) and obedience (Christ's) to God's Law.

It is foreign righteousness - Iustitia aliena - because it is not given in the sense of an object in the least way, but it is attributed in the way of a legal forensic statute – reckoned as righteous, counted as righteous, from Romans 4:

his faith is counted for righteousness.

that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness

The great error of Wright is trying to redefine Imputation (and confusing infusion with it) by building his own strawman and beating him down.

I apologize for more questions, but now I am confused.

NT Wright says that righteousness is merely being declared in the right. It is a legal sentencing. No moral change occurs.

I was under the impression that the proper view of righteousness is that we are declared right because of Christ's righteousness. This righteousness is like a robe that we wear. Now when God looks upon us, He sees Christ's righteousness and not our own sins. This righteousness also begins to inwardly sanctify us.

Am I completely off?

Boliver, I will be a bit harsh here on Wright, yes Wright has a lot of good stuff, but so does mice poison, it’s not the 95% of attractive food that kills the mouse, it is the 5% of poison that is in the mixture.

You may like to read Horton’s series of articles on Wright, here is a brief quote from the last one, so you’ll understand better what I meant in my last post.

From Michael Horton - Wright Wednesdays

First, he (N T Wright) routinely misinterprets the Reformation doctrine as teaching that God’s personal attribute of righteousness is transferred to believers. No reformer advocated such a thing. In fact, Calvin added a whole section to his final edition of the Institutes to rebut the teaching of Osiander that we are righteous because Christ’s divine nature is imparted to us through mystical union.

Wright Wednesdays: Part 10 - White Horse Inn Blog

 

[Notthemama1984]

Thanks for the info. I see that I have cracks in my understanding of Imputed Righteousness (as does Wright apparently).

I do not mind you being harsh on Wright. I am doing my best to come at a better understanding of things and doing a better job of explaining why Wright is wrong without reverting to, "Well, Wright is a dork."

 

[Skyler]

die dulci fruere!

qed.

---------- Post added at 09:56 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:53 AM ----------

Okay... why aren't my capital letters coming through?

 

[Peairtach]

Boliver, the Forensic language is more appropriate to Imputation, after all it is about violation (our) and obedience (Christ's) to God's Law.

It is foreign righteousness - Iustitia aliena - because it is not given in the sense of an object in the least way, but it is attributed in the way of a legal forensic statute – reckoned as righteous, counted as righteous, from Romans 4:

his faith is counted for righteousness.

that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness

The great error of Wright is trying to redefine Imputation (and confusing infusion with it) by building his own strawman and beating him down.

I apologize for more questions, but now I am confused.

NT Wright says that righteousness is merely being declared in the right. It is a legal sentencing. No moral change occurs.

I was under the impression that the proper view of righteousness is that we are declared right because of Christ's righteousness. This righteousness is like a robe that we wear. Now when God looks upon us, He sees Christ's righteousness and not our own sins. This righteousness also begins to inwardly sanctify us.

Am I completely off?

It's more that imputed righteousness - that of Christ's life, and also His payment for our sins - is always accompanied by a separate but related imparted righteousness whereby Christ by His Holy Spirit regenerates us, gives us faith, repentance, new obedience and sanctification.

But imputed righteousness, our justification, should be carefully distinguished from imparted righteousness, our sanctification.

We have imputed righteousness by saving faith alone, not because of any imperfect good works we do after coming to faith in Christ. But saving faith always produces imperfect good works - imparted righteousness.

 

[torstar]

Boliver:

My 2 cents, always subject to correction by my denom...

A forensic decision is simply one handed out as the decision of the judge. Guilty or not guilty. Vindicated or not vindicated. The Psalmist wants his day in "court" to end well.

This sinner is imputed with, cloaked and declared vindicated in God's judgment by the righteousness of Jesus Christ. That I deserve absolutely none of this, as would be demonstrated by the enemy's lawyers makes it all the more worthy of praise for the mercy of a sovereign God.

Now....

One imputed with righteousness will gain benefits from this union in/with Christ, of which change will occur. But that's another topic and area under a different subject heading.

Don't tell me I am agreeing with Wright....

(My work is in a field involving forensic investigations and I know the pain of cross-examination by mere man. I have watched cases that seemed lead-pipe seals lose and absolute dogs get vindicated. I cannot fathom what it will be before a Holy God.)

 

[Notthemama1984]

Boliver, the Forensic language is more appropriate to Imputation, after all it is about violation (our) and obedience (Christ's) to God's Law.

It is foreign righteousness - Iustitia aliena - because it is not given in the sense of an object in the least way, but it is attributed in the way of a legal forensic statute – reckoned as righteous, counted as righteous, from Romans 4:

his faith is counted for righteousness.

that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness

The great error of Wright is trying to redefine Imputation (and confusing infusion with it) by building his own strawman and beating him down.

I apologize for more questions, but now I am confused.

NT Wright says that righteousness is merely being declared in the right. It is a legal sentencing. No moral change occurs.

I was under the impression that the proper view of righteousness is that we are declared right because of Christ's righteousness. This righteousness is like a robe that we wear. Now when God looks upon us, He sees Christ's righteousness and not our own sins. This righteousness also begins to inwardly sanctify us.

Am I completely off?

It's more that imputed righteousness - that of Christ's life, and also His payment for our sins - is always accompanied by a separate but related imparted righteousness whereby Christ by His Holy Spirit regenerates us, gives us faith, repentance, new obedience and sanctification.

But imputed righteousness, our justification, should be carefully distinguished from imparted righteousness, our sanctification.

We have imputed righteousness by saving faith alone, not because of any imperfect good works we do after coming to faith in Christ. But saving faith always produces imperfect good works - imparted righteousness.

Just to clarify, my problem is that I am lumping the courtroom righteousness and the robe of righteousness as a single thing when I should be viewing them separately?

---------- Post added at 09:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:05 AM ----------

Boliver:

My 2 cents, always subject to correction by my denom...

A forensic decision is simply one handed out as the decision of the judge. Guilty or not guilty. Vindicated or not vindicated. The Psalmist wants his day in "court" to end well.

This sinner is imputed with, cloaked and declared vindicated in God's judgment by the righteousness of Jesus Christ. That I deserve absolutely none of this, as would be demonstrated by the enemy's lawyers makes it all the more worthy of praise for the mercy of a sovereign God.

Now....

One imputed with righteousness will gain benefits from this union in/with Christ, of which change will occur. But that's another topic and area under a different subject heading.

Don't tell me I am agreeing with Wright....

(My work is in a field involving forensic investigations and I know the pain of cross-examination by mere man, I cannot fathom what it will be before a Holy God.)

This was my thinking, but am completely open to correction.

 

[lynnie]

Bolivar, I have enjoyed reading this thread. You remind me of myself for the past 30 years on and off reading about the Norman Shepherd debate. He was a Westminster Seminary (PA) prof eventually dismissed for his position, although he was defended as orthodox well into the 90s by people like Richard Gaffin, John Frame (also profs at Reformed seminaries), and many others (inc my husband and myself). John Piper also tried hard to tackle this in his audios about the Federal Vision, and honestly, the intellectual confusion you can get is right up there with trying to figure out the trinity.

An essay by Ed Clowney was posted here recently detailing NS's views from the angle of his Covenantal theology, and it was the first time in 30 years I really finally understood the fuss. Even Green Baggins on his most excellent blog wrote that NS often said that there is zero merit in us, it is 100% from the Lord, even while addressing more vague and possibly unorthodox writings by NS. So you can see how difficult a subject it is and I think you are asking great questions and trying to understand something very complicated. The reason I mention NS is that the Federal Vision people appeal to him and NT Wright and there is some theological overlap.

If I, as a mere layman, may offer a few observations from my many years of listening to this debate:

What has helped me the most is to think about the day of judgment after I am dead. When God, seated on the throne, allows me to enter into heaven, it will be 100% by the blood and work of Jesus Christ, and all the merit, all the credit, all the glory will be His and His alone. Once I am in I may get rewards for righteous deeds, but they don't get me in, and I expect that even for them I will give all the glory and credit to the Lord.


Now, having said that, when God separates the sheep from the goats, the bible talks about things they did. And James talks about living and dead faith, and that living faith has works. Some of the writing that came out against Shepherd sounded very antinomian, as if there was no place for obedience that follows justification. Piper keeps saying this- Justification is by faith alone, but the faith that justifies is never alone. torstar is right when he says: This sinner is imputed with, cloaked and declared vindicated in God's judgment by the righteousness of Jesus Christ. That I deserve absolutely none of this, as would be demonstrated by the enemy's lawyers makes it all the more worthy of praise for the mercy of a sovereign God. Now.... One imputed with righteousness will gain benefits from this union in/with Christ, of which change will occur.

I know a guy who is into Wright, and yeah, he really confuses the infused righteousness as giving us merit before God. No, 100% of the merit is a legal imputation. But it doesn't help that certain people in the Reformed world in response started talking about justification in a way that implies you can have a justifcation that does not lead to union with Christ and a new nature and new heart from which good deeds will proceed. That is antinomianism sounding, to deny obedience. ( they really are not lawless men, they just overreact and talk that way).

Green Baggins blog had some of the best stuff I ever read on this whole subject, if you want to dig around. Short and consise one pagers if you don't want to read a pile of books about it.

 

[Notthemama1984]

Thanks Lynnie.

If it has taken you 30 years to get the NS thing, then I do not feel bad for not "getting" the whole Wright thing.

Whether you intended it or not, your post was very encouraging and just what I needed to hear.

Thanks.

 

[torstar]

Thanks Lynnie.

Piper's (what I'll call) academic work on Romans 9 and on Justification (against Wright) has been very helpful compared to his more "folksy" writings. I won't speak for all of it as I'm nowhere near qualified to, just a note of the help that it was.

Still at times it can be very hard to accept that a sinner can be justified purely at the mercy of God and His decree. I often want it to be something I can merit; it must be a lot harder if one prides themselves in their intelligence and has credentials in very specific areas of study (and then they love to generalize...) And then you can accept God's grace for yourself but not allow others to be acceptable in your eyes, making them prove themselves worthy to you.

Looking into the mirror of the Law cures this.

 

[MarieP]

Would it be helpful to think of imputed righteousness not as a what but as a Who? As Calvin said, Christ's work will do us no good apart from Himself. Christ fulfilled the law, atoned for sin, rose from the dead, and is seated at the right hand of the Father, interceding for His own. So while we say that Christ did fulfill the Law on our behalf, ought not we also say that the blood and resurrection justifies us as well? It is Christ's finished work that makes our own imperfect Spirit-wrought (non-meritorious- as the Psalmist said, our goodness is nothing apart from God, and yet they are rewarded) works pleasing to God.

1 Cor. 1:30- "But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God—and righteousness and sanctification and redemption"

Jeremiah 23:6- "In His days Judah will be saved, And Israel will dwell safely; Now this is His name by which He will be called: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS."

Jeremiah 33:16- "In those days Judah will be saved, And Jerusalem will dwell safely. And this is the name by which she will be called: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS."

What do you make of Packer's words here? Is he right in his thinking?

“[God] reckons righteousness to them, not because he accounts them to have kept his law personally (which would be a false judgment), but because he accounts them to be united to one who kept it representatively (and that is a true judgment)”
—J. I. Packer, “Justification,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1984], p. 596.

 

[greenbaggins]

Lynnie, thanks for your vote of confidence.

Boliver, my favorite analogy for imputation is that of two books. In one book is written all the things I've ever done or will do, including all my sin. In the other book is all the righteousness Christ did in His lifetime, including His death and resurrection. These two books have book covers. In imputation, God switches the book covers so that when he looks at my book, He sees the book cover of Christ's book, and when He looks at Christ's book, He sees my book cover. This transaction (which can also be described in banking or forensic metaphors) occurs completely outside of us. Nothing changes on the inside whatsoever in justification. However, at the very same time as justification happens, God starts the process of rewriting the inside of my book so that it matches the cover more and more. This is sanctification. We are God's penmanship, and He is the editor (see Benjamin Franklin's wonderful epitaph).

 

[Jack K]

Lynnie, thanks for your vote of confidence.

Boliver, my favorite analogy for imputation is that of two books. In one book is written all the things I've ever done or will do, including all my sin. In the other book is all the righteousness Christ did in His lifetime, including His death and resurrection. These two books have book covers. In imputation, God switches the book covers so that when he looks at my book, He sees the book cover of Christ's book, and when He looks at Christ's book, He sees my book cover. This transaction (which can also be described in banking or forensic metaphors) occurs completely outside of us. Nothing changes on the inside whatsoever in justification. However, at the very same time as justification happens, God starts the process of rewriting the inside of my book so that it matches the cover more and more. This is sanctification. We are God's penmanship, and He is the editor (see Benjamin Franklin's wonderful epitaph).

I've always found that a helpful metaphor. I use essentially the same one when explaining imputed righteousness to kids, only I make it report cards instead of books. Christ's report card switches envelopes with mine. It seems to work well.

 

[Peairtach]

Just to clarify, my problem is that I am lumping the courtroom righteousness and the robe of righteousness as a single thing when I should be viewing them separately?

The courtroom righteusness and the robe of righteousness are the imputed righteousness of Christ whereby the moment we exercise saving faith in Christ we are eternally and perfectly justified and made right with God for heaven.

The saints in Heaven are not more justified than you or I are, if we believe in Christ. You will not be more justified and adopted in Heaven than you are now, although you might feel more justified and adopted in Heaven.

But imparted righteousness is the work that God in Christ is doing in your heart and life by the Holy Spirit and is progressive. No saint e.g. the Apostle Paul in Romans 7 is perfectly sanctified in heart and life in this world; but we are perfected in progressive sanctification - imparted righteousness - at death.

 

[Gage Browning]

Lynnie, thanks for your vote of confidence.

Boliver, my favorite analogy for imputation is that of two books. In one book is written all the things I've ever done or will do, including all my sin. In the other book is all the righteousness Christ did in His lifetime, including His death and resurrection. These two books have book covers. In imputation, God switches the book covers so that when he looks at my book, He sees the book cover of Christ's book, and when He looks at Christ's book, He sees my book cover. This transaction (which can also be described in banking or forensic metaphors) occurs completely outside of us. Nothing changes on the inside whatsoever in justification. However, at the very same time as justification happens, God starts the process of rewriting the inside of my book so that it matches the cover more and more. This is sanctification. We are God's penmanship, and He is the editor (see Benjamin Franklin's wonderful epitaph).

Lane- excellent analogy. I'm stealing that from you of course with all the proper attribution!

 

[MW]

Well heat is not a substance either. I cannot give you a handful of heat. It is an aspect of something. It is an adjective describing something. Even though this is true, something that is hot or creates heat can affect me and cause me to warm up. For example, the sun creates massive amounts of heat and when that heat hits me, I warm up. I am physically changed.

Judging from the responses, most posters are concerned that you might be denying the forensic nature of justification in favour of an actual change that takes place in the person. When I read this particular paragraph I saw something the older writers were concerned to maintain, namely, that justification is not a legal fiction. Granting the forensic nature of justification as basic to the doctrine, what change does this new status, relation, etc., create in the person so justified? I think your illustration (though perhaps susceptible to a more scientific explanation) demonstrates an important dynamic of justification. Romans 5:1-11 mentions three things that the justified believer now glories in -- hope of the glory of God, tribulation as the beginning of a process of realised hope, and God Himself through Jesus Christ as a result of receiving reconciliation. To use your illustration we might call these the warming effects of the relational change. In the dynamics of justification this rejoicing serves as the mechanism for making a real difference in the life of the believer.