Imputed Righteousness or Imparted Righteousness, what did the Thief on the Cross get?

[Hobie]

We can start with describing both so we have a starting point of the core doctrine. Imputed righteousness is the concept that the "righteousness of Christ ... is imputed to true believers that is, treated as if it were theirs through faith. This acceptance is also referred to as justification. Thus this doctrine is practically synonymous with justification by faith. So thus, those who accept Christ have their sins covered by His righteousness and are justified.

Now in the process of sanctification, the heart and mind of the true believers are changed by the Holy Spirit. This is where 'Imparted Righteousness' comes in. Imparted righteousness, is that gracious gift of God given at the moment of the 'new birth' when one accepts Christ, which enables a Christian disciple to strive for holiness and sanctification.

From the Wesleyan Arminianian view, we get the belief that imparted righteousness works in tandem with imputed righteousness. Imputed righteousness is the righteousness of Jesus credited to the Christian, enabling the Christian to be justified; imparted righteousness is what God does in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit after justification, working in the Christian to enable and empower the process of sanctification and, in Wesleyan thought, Christian perfection.

So my question is, which one did the thief on the cross get (and by extension what is there for us), or could it have been both, and if so, how?

 

[Dave]

Hi Hobie

If imparted righteousness (I call it practical sanctification) works in tandem with imputed righteousness (justification), wouldn't that create a works based salvation?

The thief on the cross was still in the OT dispensation, so he had an OT regeneration. The justification could not come until after Christ's death. That day, Jesus went to Paradise with the thief. Then later Pentecost, and Jesus ascends taking Paradise (thief included), to the third heaven. That adds another wrinkle into the mix. At that time, the thief on the cross next to Jesus was in very unique historical circumstances and should not be considered the norm for today.

Dave

 

[Lees]

We can start with describing both so we have a starting point of the core doctrine. Imputed righteousness is the concept that the "righteousness of Christ ... is imputed to true believers that is, treated as if it were theirs through faith. This acceptance is also referred to as justification. Thus this doctrine is practically synonymous with justification by faith. So thus, those who accept Christ have their sins covered by His righteousness and are justified.

Now in the process of sanctification, the heart and mind of the true believers are changed by the Holy Spirit. This is where 'Imparted Righteousness' comes in. Imparted righteousness, is that gracious gift of God given at the moment of the 'new birth' when one accepts Christ, which enables a Christian disciple to strive for holiness and sanctification.

From the Wesleyan Arminianian view, we get the belief that imparted righteousness works in tandem with imputed righteousness. Imputed righteousness is the righteousness of Jesus credited to the Christian, enabling the Christian to be justified; imparted righteousness is what God does in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit after justification, working in the Christian to enable and empower the process of sanctification and, in Wesleyan thought, Christian perfection.

So my question is, which one did the thief on the cross get (and by extension what is there for us), or could it have been both, and if so, how?

My opinion: The thief got imputed righteousness only. Just like all believers receive when they believe.

What you or they are calling 'imparted righteousness' I do not agree with. It seems to equate righteousness with the power of the Holy Spirit, or that the Holy Spirit can impart righteousness. The Holy Spirit is already in the Christian due to faith and 'imputed righteousness' He, the Holy Spirit, cannot improve on that. And He, the Holy Spirit, can do all He does in the life of a believer on the basis of that.

I am not surprised that its, imparted righteousness, end result is to be 'Christian Perfection'. For, in my opinion, it's just a way for the believer to be found righteous and good in himself.

Lees

 

[Dave]

I'll need to look into this imparted righteousness. My two monkeys and a yoyo never heard that term before. I must live in a cave, under a rock, frozen on the back of a Woolley mammoth. I'll get back.

Dave

 

[makesends]

My opinion: The thief got imputed righteousness only. Just like all believers receive when they believe.

What you or they are calling 'imparted righteousness' I do not agree with. It seems to equate righteousness with the power of the Holy Spirit, or that the Holy Spirit can impart righteousness. The Holy Spirit is already in the Christian due to faith and 'imputed righteousness' He, the Holy Spirit, cannot improve on that. And He, the Holy Spirit, can do all He does in the life of a believer on the basis of that.

I am not surprised that its, imparted righteousness, end result is to be 'Christian Perfection'. For, in my opinion, it's just a way for the believer to be found righteous and good in himself.

Lees

You say "The Holy Spirit is already in the Christian due to faith and 'imputed righteousness'". Are you saying that the Christian had faith and 'imputed righteousness' before the Holy Spirit is in him, and that the Holy Spirit is in him as a result of that faith and 'imputed righteousness'? Structurally, that is what the grammar of your sentence is saying, except, somehow, you say the Holy Spirit is "already" in him. So something isn't quite making sense to me here.

 

[Lees]

You say "The Holy Spirit is already in the Christian due to faith and 'imputed righteousness'". Are you saying that the Christian had faith and 'imputed righteousness' before the Holy Spirit is in him, and that the Holy Spirit is in him as a result of that faith and 'imputed righteousness'? Structurally, that is what the grammar of your sentence is saying, except, somehow, you say the Holy Spirit is "already" in him. So something isn't quite making sense to me here.

Read post #(1) as it was what I was addressing. There it is said imputed righteousness is first and then comes imparted righteousness.

In that time line, the believer already has righteousness imputed to him and has the Holy Spirit. Which is why what I said.

And what I said was, "The Holy Spirit is already in the Christian due to faith and imputed righteousness." And, "He, the Holy Spirit, cannot improve on that. And He, the Holy Spirit, can do all He does in the life of a believer on the basis of that."

In other words, there is no need for 'imparted righteousness'.

Lees

 

[Dave]

In other words, there is no need for 'imparted righteousness'.

Lees

I agree.

This is how google explains it.

"Imparted righteousness, in Methodist theology, is that gracious gift of God given at the moment of the new birth which enables a Christian disciple to strive for holiness and sanctification"

How it works:

• Imputed righteousness: God credits Jesus' righteousness to the Christian, which justifies them.
  
• Imparted righteousness: God works within the Christian to empower them to live a holy life.

I still don't see the difference in definition between imparted righteousness and sanctification. There seems to be a reason why someone felt the need to create the term, "imparted righteousness", I just can't figure out what it is. If I had to guess, it would have something to do with claiming goodness from the flesh.

Lees, you wrote in the OP... "From the Wesleyan Arminian view, we get the belief that imparted righteousness works in tandem with imputed righteousness.". That statement leaves a trail of red flags from here to Mars. lol I'm assuming that you don't agree with the statement.

Dave

 

[EarlyActs]

We can start with describing both so we have a starting point of the core doctrine. Imputed righteousness is the concept that the "righteousness of Christ ... is imputed to true believers that is, treated as if it were theirs through faith. This acceptance is also referred to as justification. Thus this doctrine is practically synonymous with justification by faith. So thus, those who accept Christ have their sins covered by His righteousness and are justified.

Now in the process of sanctification, the heart and mind of the true believers are changed by the Holy Spirit. This is where 'Imparted Righteousness' comes in. Imparted righteousness, is that gracious gift of God given at the moment of the 'new birth' when one accepts Christ, which enables a Christian disciple to strive for holiness and sanctification.

From the Wesleyan Arminianian view, we get the belief that imparted righteousness works in tandem with imputed righteousness. Imputed righteousness is the righteousness of Jesus credited to the Christian, enabling the Christian to be justified; imparted righteousness is what God does in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit after justification, working in the Christian to enable and empower the process of sanctification and, in Wesleyan thought, Christian perfection.

So my question is, which one did the thief on the cross get (and by extension what is there for us), or could it have been both, and if so, how?

He died. He didn't have a chance to develop any imparted righteousness.

 

[makesends]

Read post #(1) as it was what I was addressing. There it is said imputed righteousness is first and then comes imparted righteousness.

In that time line, the believer already has righteousness imputed to him and has the Holy Spirit. Which is why what I said.

And what I said was, "The Holy Spirit is already in the Christian due to faith and imputed righteousness."

I'm saying the structure doesn't make sense, unless by, "due to", you mean, "The Holy Spirit is already in the Christian, we know because we can see the Holy Spirit's effects—to wit, the faith and imputed righteousness."

Either way, you seem in agreement with me that "imparted righteousness", if it is not the same as imputed righteousness, is a misnomer, or worse, an invention.

And, "He, the Holy Spirit, cannot improve on that. And He, the Holy Spirit, can do all He does in the life of a believer on the basis of that."

In other words, there is no need for 'imparted righteousness'.

Lees

I don't know that the OP intended 'imparted righteousness' to be complete righteousness apart from the further 'sanctification' of walking with Christ. But I get your point, I think, if he did not.

He died. He didn't have a chance to develop any imparted righteousness.

Interesting notion. However, God does not measure how we do. Imparted (or imputed, or sanctification, for that matter, or any) righteousness, whether we consider it earned or developed by OUR works, is not ours to measure, I think.

 

[mailmandan]

If imparted righteousness (I call it practical sanctification) works in tandem with imputed righteousness (justification), wouldn't that create a works based salvation?

BINGO!

 

[Josheb]

We can start with describing both so we have a starting point of the core doctrine. Imputed righteousness is the concept that the "righteousness of Christ ... is imputed to true believers that is, treated as if it were theirs through faith. This acceptance is also referred to as justification. Thus this doctrine is practically synonymous with justification by faith. So thus, those who accept Christ have their sins covered by His righteousness and are justified.

Now in the process of sanctification, the heart and mind of the true believers are changed by the Holy Spirit. This is where 'Imparted Righteousness' comes in. Imparted righteousness, is that gracious gift of God given at the moment of the 'new birth' when one accepts Christ, which enables a Christian disciple to strive for holiness and sanctification.

From the Wesleyan Arminianian view, we get the belief that imparted righteousness works in tandem with imputed righteousness. Imputed righteousness is the righteousness of Jesus credited to the Christian, enabling the Christian to be justified; imparted righteousness is what God does in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit after justification, working in the Christian to enable and empower the process of sanctification and, in Wesleyan thought, Christian perfection.

One critical reality that was not addressed in this opening post is the fact that - even after any righteousness is imparted - the redeemed sinner still has no righteousness of his/her own. The sinner ALWAYS bears within himself the mark of prior sin. The covering work of Christ is the telltale sign of that fact.



Here's an analogy: I just got a bill in the mail for lawn service I canceled two months ago in December. My yearly subscription has been set to automatically renew for years. I, therefore, do not normally get a bill in the mail. I do not get a bill because the bill is paid automatically. The fact that I got a bill in the mail is evidence of my having previously canceled the service. So, when I called the lawncare service to ask why I was getting a bill for a service I canceled that had previously been auto-renewed the answers was, "????? I do not know???? What?????"

Idiots.

The bill is the tell-tale sign of their error. They cannot change the past. I will always be able to hold up that piece of paper and show them their errors (plural).

God covers the sinner. The covering identifies the person as a sinner, as an inherent, ontologically unrighteous person. God washes the sinner. The washing is proof the sinner is a sinner. One day (on the other side of the resurrection) all the redeemed sinners will be transformed, but on this side of the grave all sinners remain corruptible.

So my question is, which one did the thief on the cross get (and by extension what is there for us), or could it have been both, and if so, how?

I am curious why an example from the extremes was chosen. Arguments from the extremes invariably prove fallacious when it comes to setting sound doctrine. We can (or should) all acknowledge the thief's example is out of the ordinary. He was saved without being immersed in water. Does his example set the precedent for all other converts to Christ? Not according to the rest of the New Testament. The thief is the outlier, not the standard operating procedure.


As to the answer to the op's specific inquiry, I do not think the two, (imputed verses imparted righteousness) are mutually exclusive conditions and the correct answer to the question is "Yes." For the record: both are theological constructs; neither is an actual statement in scripture.

 

[Eleanor]

Hi Hobie

If imparted righteousness (I call it practical sanctification) works in tandem with imputed righteousness (justification), wouldn't that create a works based salvation?

No, because salvation has already occurred through faith.

Obedience to righteousness (Ro 6:16, 19) is the spiritual result of salvation, without which result no salvation occurred in the first place.

The thief on the cross was still in the OT dispensation, so he had an OT regeneration. The justification could not come until after Christ's death. That day, Jesus went to Paradise with the thief. Then later Pentecost, and Jesus ascends taking Paradise (thief included), to the third heaven. That adds another wrinkle into the mix. At that time, the thief on the cross next to Jesus was in very unique historical circumstances and should not be considered the norm for today.

Dave

 

[Lees]

I'm saying the structure doesn't make sense, unless by, "due to", you mean, "The Holy Spirit is already in the Christian, we know because we can see the Holy Spirit's effects—to wit, the faith and imputed righteousness."

Either way, you seem in agreement with me that "imparted righteousness", if it is not the same as imputed righteousness, is a misnomer, or worse, an invention.

I don't know that the OP intended 'imparted righteousness' to be complete righteousness apart from the further 'sanctification' of walking with Christ. But I get your point, I think, if he did not.

Then why are you arguing with me?

Lees

 

[Dave]

No, because salvation has already occurred through faith.

Obedience to righteousness (Ro 6:16, 19) is the spiritual result of salvation, without which result no salvation occurred in the first place.

Hi Elinor

That's sanctification. "Obedience to righteousness".

Curious, at what point does the filling of the Holy Spirit play a part in this? That being more under His control. I really don't see the need for the new terminology. We have terminology to cover all this already. Imparted righteousness sounds a lot like the infused righteousness of the Catholic church.

Dave

 

[makesends]

Then why are you arguing with me?

Lees

Trying to figure out what you are saying, at the least. Didn't know if you denied what I first took him to be saying.

 

[prism]

Since, in Scripture, we only read of imputed righteousness and not imparted (infused? ala Rome) righteousness in Scripture, there is nothing in Scripture about imparted (infused?) righteousness.
Since the thief had faith, righteousness is imputed to him when he had faith in Jesus.
I'll have to go with imputed righteousness, which was declared to the thief on the cross.

 

[makesends]

Hi Hobie

If imparted righteousness (I call it practical sanctification) works in tandem with imputed righteousness (justification), wouldn't that create a works based salvation?

Not that I accept the construction "imparted righteousness", but if it is merely what theology refers to as 'sanctification', then it works in tandem with imputed righteousness in that both are of the same faith, and monergistic (though in two somewhat different ways, since regeneration is accomplished apart from any consultation with or action by the human).

The thief on the cross was still in the OT dispensation, so he had an OT regeneration. The justification could not come until after Christ's death. That day, Jesus went to Paradise with the thief. Then later Pentecost, and Jesus ascends taking Paradise (thief included), to the third heaven. That adds another wrinkle into the mix. At that time, the thief on the cross next to Jesus was in very unique historical circumstances and should not be considered the norm for today.

Dave

That's a lot more than I know; seems a very time-dependent statement.

 

[Lees]

Trying to figure out what you are saying, at the least. Didn't know if you denied what I first took him to be saying.

No, your post #(5) to me had nothing to do with the opening post. Which is why I referred you back to post #(1).

Lees

 

[Paul]

We can start with describing both so we have a starting point of the core doctrine. Imputed righteousness is the concept that the "righteousness of Christ ... is imputed to true believers that is, treated as if it were theirs through faith. This acceptance is also referred to as justification. Thus this doctrine is practically synonymous with justification by faith. So thus, those who accept Christ have their sins covered by His righteousness and are justified.

Now in the process of sanctification, the heart and mind of the true believers are changed by the Holy Spirit. This is where 'Imparted Righteousness' comes in. Imparted righteousness, is that gracious gift of God given at the moment of the 'new birth' when one accepts Christ, which enables a Christian disciple to strive for holiness and sanctification.

From the Wesleyan Arminianian view, we get the belief that imparted righteousness works in tandem with imputed righteousness. Imputed righteousness is the righteousness of Jesus credited to the Christian, enabling the Christian to be justified; imparted righteousness is what God does in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit after justification, working in the Christian to enable and empower the process of sanctification and, in Wesleyan thought, Christian perfection.

So my question is, which one did the thief on the cross get (and by extension what is there for us), or could it have been both, and if so, how?

I’m not a theologian but I only hold to born again as the only new creation and no other post act by God that changes my being. Though I would hold to seasoning. But to me once Jesus made the judgement to forgive the man on the cross sins he had no sin. His sins were taken away. How could one who has no sin be considered unrighteousness in any manner?