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

[makesends]

And I think the @makesends quote from Post 114 was either intended rhetorically, or it was intended the emphasis be on the continual sinning, not all sin in general. @makesends can clarify that but if he means sinless perfection follows redemption then neither Paul nor Peter were redeemed. Both men are on record sinning after their conversion to Christ. Peter was caught in hypocrisy pertaining to the differences in his behavior when with Jewish believers versus Gentile believers and his Judaization of Christian practice (Gal. 2:11-14). Paul was under some unidentified divine judgment that was intended to curb a tendency to self-exalt and teach him the sufficiency of God's grace (or so Paul believed (2 Corinthians 12:7-13). Sinless perfectionism is not something scripture asserts as a possibility on this side of the grave. On this side of the grave we remain corruptible. It is only as a function of resurrection that we are raised incorruptible and immortal (1 Cor. 15:42).

You are correct that I did not intend sinless perfection, this side of the grave. I think that notion is hogwash. Not only have I never met [nor heard of except by people who have some absurd notion of what sin is] anyone sinless, but the Bible consistently speaks of the redeemed as repentant (not needing not repent) and very many other such things, along with the Greek terminology proscribing habit, lifestyle, mindset, etc of sinfulness. We are changed at the core, and not without the influence of the "old man".