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

[Dave]

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).

I see that 'imparted righteousness' is often described using the term sanctification, as if it were a specific part of it. I'm still trying to define it. Perhaps 'built upon', as opposed to 'working in tandem', is a better way to say it. Positional sanctification cannot be a work in tandem with practical sanctification because practical sanctification is a process, and positional sanctification is a one time act. Practical sanctification is built upon positional sanctification.

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

God created us time dependent. lol

Dave

 

[Eleanor]

I see that 'imparted righteousness' is often described using the term sanctification, as if it were a specific part of it. I'm still trying to define it.

The NT refers to the elect's actual righteousness of obedience (Ro 6:16, 19) and imputed righteousness of faith (Ge 15:5, Ro 4:1-7, 5:18-19).

Perhaps 'built upon', as opposed to 'working in tandem', is a better way to say it. Positional sanctification cannot be a work in tandem with practical sanctification because practical sanctification is a process, and positional sanctification is a one time act. Practical sanctification is built upon positional sanctification.

God created us time dependent. lol

Dave

 

[makesends]

I see that 'imparted righteousness' is often described using the term sanctification, as if it were a specific part of it. I'm still trying to define it. Perhaps 'built upon', as opposed to 'working in tandem', is a better way to say it. Positional sanctification cannot be a work in tandem with practical sanctification because practical sanctification is a process, and positional sanctification is a one time act. Practical sanctification is built upon positional sanctification.

God created us time dependent. lol

Dave

Yep. OT, but it is one of the things I'm looking forward to, and speculating about, that it may be, in part, according to God's person or personality or something, such as efficiency and order are seen in the physics of the universe, but even better than that, or more curious than that, is the speculation that (within 'efficiency' the very words of scripture, while they may be anthropomorphisms, it may be a sort of play on words, involving the fact that we look at everything backwards, in our temporal viewpoint.

For example, God may well have arms and hands and eyes, but not like ours. Our best pearls may be poor copies, (and of a 'knock-off' vaporous substance), compared to that single pearl gate to The City.

 

[prism]

I see that 'imparted righteousness' is often described using the term sanctification, as if it were a specific part of it. I'm still trying to define it. Perhaps 'built upon', as opposed to 'working in tandem', is a better way to say it. Positional sanctification cannot be a work in tandem with practical sanctification because practical sanctification is a process, and positional sanctification is a one time act. Practical sanctification is built upon positional sanctification.

Isn't the same One who sanctifies us practically, is also the One who imputes righteousness to us for His name's sake will complete what he has done? (Phil 1:6)

 

[Dave]

anthropomorphisms,

What!!! lol

 

[Dave]

Isn't the same One who sanctifies us practically, is also the One who imputes righteousness to us for His name's sake will complete what he has done? (Phil 1:6)

But one happens in a moment, while the other is ongoing. For them to be working in tandem, positional sanctification, at least in my mind, would need to be a process.

I'm very cautious about opening doors that allow any false doctrines through. Even if that's not what was intended. I think that we all should be. I still don't see the need for the new terminology. I see it as red flags, and always will see it that way unless there is a better explanation for the need of the new way of explaining a theological matter that is very old. In short, I expect some new light on the subject to come with the new terminology to justify it. Otherwise, why do we need it?

Dave

 

[makesends]

What!!! lol

?

 

[Dave]

?

What does that mean?

 

[makesends]

What does that mean?

Is that a leading question, or are you asking me to give you an answer from the dictionary, or what?

anthropomorphism /ăn″thrə-pə-môr′fĭz″əm/

noun​

1. Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena.
2. The representation of the Deity, or of a polytheistic deity, under a human form, or with human attributes and affections.
3. The ascription of human characteristics to things not human

 

[prism]

But one happens in a moment, while the other is ongoing. For them to be working in tandem, positional sanctification, at least in my mind, would need to be a process.

That may be true, but my point is it's the same Person who begins our justification completes our sanctification; Phil.1:6

I still don't see the need for the new terminology.

You mean like 'positional sanctification'?

 

[makesends]

But one happens in a moment, while the other is ongoing.

That "happens in a moment" is a rule arrived at by reason, yet it too attributes validity to the temporal. WE are the ones who say it must happen 'in a moment', but in truth, we don't know that. All we really know is that it is logically necessary for God to regenerate the dead in their sins 'before' they can have salvific faith. But God doesn't operate according to our parameters.

This is partly why some are confused as to the terminology many sincere believers and even theologians use. The experience of some is of a deep need, and subsequent acquiescence and submitting of the will, or so they see it, simultaneous; and they being taught that it is a result of their inviting Christ into their heart, believe it so. They haven't been told why the deep need.

God could have been building that deep need—we really don't know, but you yourself may have heard testimonies that are interpreted according to temporal rules, that might even lead some to agree with 'Prevenient Grace', or some other language. I can't tell you how many arguments I have seen even here on this site about how the Gospel is effective, how one gets faith by the Gospel, and so on, with it nearly impossible to combine the mechanics of that thought with the mechanics of the work of the Spirit, indwelling and regenerating —all because some temporally experienced reality is brought to bear on the spiritual fact.

But when I read scripture on the matter, there is an awful lot that does not indicate temporal measurement.

 

[EarlyActs]

BINGO!

Not at all. They have to do with very different aspects of sin.

Imputation / credit has to with the debt of past sin. This is meant to apply new every morning.

Importation is current personal change out of the wonder and thrill of gaining the gift of justification.

You can prob see froM Rom 3 that the legal proceeding structure of justification has nothing to do with personal change except as a by-product; vs 27+ say as a result there is no boasting, no bias/partiality and no ignoring the law. Those are by-products.

But the gift of justification is the declaration by the Judge of all that the Son was the propitiating sacrifice for sin for all. The Judge credits that righteousness against our debt; case dismissed.

 

[EarlyActs]

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.

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.

We can’t impute to ourselves. It has to come from an outside source.

All students must answer: are we trying to figure what justifies us from past sin , or what helps us stop present failure?

 

[mailmandan]

Not at all. They have to do with very different aspects of sin.

Imputation / credit has to with the debt of past sin. This is meant to apply new every morning.

Importation is current personal change out of the wonder and thrill of gaining the gift of justification.

You can prob see froM Rom 3 that the legal proceeding structure of justification has nothing to do with personal change except as a by-product; vs 27+ say as a result there is no boasting, no bias/partiality and no ignoring the law. Those are by-products.

But the gift of justification is the declaration by the Judge of all that the Son was the propitiating sacrifice for sin for all. The Judge credits that righteousness against our debt; case dismissed.

There is a distinction between justification and ongoing or progressive sanctification. When we are justified, we are also sanctified/set apart/made holy in standing before God positionally in Christ. (1 Corinthians 6:11) Yet we also see progressive or ongoing sanctification in which the reality of that holiness becomes more and more evident in our actions, words, thoughts, attitudes, and motives. (1 Thessalonians 4:3,4) So, becoming washed, sanctified and justified in Christ is a one-time occurrence, yet abstaining from sexual immorality is not a one-time occurrence. The believer possesses a positional, judicial standing of righteousness in Christ and, second, experiences an ongoing process of growth in practical, progressive holiness which becomes increasingly evident in our actions, words, thoughts, attitudes, and motives.

Where certain folks go wrong with imparted righteousness, is when they teach we are merely "initially" justified by grace through faith and then, we are imparted with Christ’s righteousness gradually over time, so that we can meet the demands of the 10 Commandments (SDA theology) which keeps us in a state of grace on the road to final justification which creates a works-based salvation. This is similar to what Roman Catholicism teaches in regard to infusion of righteousness to the believer over the course of their life, which keeps the individual in a state of grace, making them righteous beings, leading to final justification. The Bible does not teach a two-tier system of justification or that Christ’s righteousness is gradually imparted or infused to a person so that their obedience maintains their justification. That is mixing two distinct categories, justification and sanctification.

 

[Dave]

You mean like 'positional sanctification'?

Positional sanctification. That's old terminology. It just means justification.

That "happens in a moment" is a rule arrived at by reason, yet it too attributes validity to the temporal. WE are the ones who say it must happen 'in a moment', but in truth, we don't know that. All we really know is that it is logically necessary for God to regenerate the dead in their sins 'before' they can have salvific faith. But God doesn't operate according to our parameters.

Hey make.

Would you say that God create the world, and all that is in it, in six literal days, resting on the seventh, or did He not operate according to our parameters and say something that is invalid when He claimed that He created the world and all that is in it in six days, resting on the seventh?

Dave

 

[Dave]

There is a distinction between justification and ongoing or progressive sanctification. When we are justified, we are also sanctified/set apart/made holy in standing before God positionally in Christ. (1 Corinthians 6:11) Yet we also see progressive or ongoing sanctification in which the reality of that holiness becomes more and more evident in our actions, words, thoughts, attitudes, and motives. (1 Thessalonians 4:3,4) So, becoming washed, sanctified and justified in Christ is a one-time occurrence, yet abstaining from sexual immorality is not a one-time occurrence. The believer possesses a positional, judicial standing of righteousness in Christ and, second, experiences an ongoing process of growth in practical, progressive holiness which becomes increasingly evident in our actions, words, thoughts, attitudes, and motives.

Where certain folks go wrong with imparted righteousness, is when they teach we are merely "initially" justified by grace through faith and then, we are imparted with Christ’s righteousness gradually over time, so that we can meet the demands of the 10 Commandments (SDA theology) which keeps us in a state of grace on the road to final justification which creates a works-based salvation. This is similar to what Roman Catholicism teaches in regard to infusion of righteousness to the believer over the course of their life, which keeps the individual in a state of grace, making them righteous beings, leading to final justification. The Bible does not teach a two-tier system of justification or that Christ’s righteousness is gradually imparted or infused to a person so that their obedience maintains their justification. That is mixing two distinct categories, justification and sanctification.

Exactly, Dan.

JOHN MACARTHUR: I was just going to add, the process of justification, and it is a process in the Catholic faith; starts with infant baptism. They say that justification is initiated as a process at infant baptism, and it progresses through life, based upon what you "do" with infused grace. Grace is infused into you supernaturally; it's infused into you through the Mass; it's infused into you through the sacraments, and as it is infused and you cooperate with it—you keep the justifying process going. Now, you can stop that process at any point in time with a mortal sin, but you keep it going even when you get to the end of your life. The odds are that you haven't kept it going good enough and you are going to Purgatory. Nothing could be a more convoluted view of what is an instantaneous act in the Word of God, as he said exactly, by which God places the righteousness of Christ on you. The truth is, I am no more righteous to the satisfaction of God now, than I was before I was declared righteous.

Taken from "Irreconcilable Differences: Catholics, Evangelicals, and the New Quest for Unity."

Dave

 

[Dave]

That may be true, but my point is it's the same Person who begins our justification completes our sanctification; Phil.1:6

I agree. The Author and Finisher of our faith, Jesus, Amen.

Dave

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
That "happens in a moment" is a rule arrived at by reason, yet it too attributes validity to the temporal. WE are the ones who say it must happen 'in a moment', but in truth, we don't know that. All we really know is that it is logically necessary for God to regenerate the dead in their sins 'before' they can have salvific faith. But God doesn't operate according to our parameters.

Hey make.

Would you say that God create the world, and all that is in it, in six literal days, resting on the seventh, or did He not operate according to our parameters and say something that is invalid when He claimed that He created the world and all that is in it in six days, resting on the seventh?

Dave

He said it, so I take it as literally 6 days, or at least, 6 stages. How does that imply that "it happens in a moment" is a valid rule? We don't know how it is done, temporally. God doesn't say, as far as I know, that regeneration always "happens in a moment". All we know is that the Spirit of God indwells the elect, transforming them from death to life. It is OUR logic that assumes it must happen suddenly.

 

[EarlyActs]

There is a distinction between justification and ongoing or progressive sanctification. When we are justified, we are also sanctified/set apart/made holy in standing before God positionally in Christ. (1 Corinthians 6:11) Yet we also see progressive or ongoing sanctification in which the reality of that holiness becomes more and more evident in our actions, words, thoughts, attitudes, and motives. (1 Thessalonians 4:3,4) So, becoming washed, sanctified and justified in Christ is a one-time occurrence, yet abstaining from sexual immorality is not a one-time occurrence. The believer possesses a positional, judicial standing of righteousness in Christ and, second, experiences an ongoing process of growth in practical, progressive holiness which becomes increasingly evident in our actions, words, thoughts, attitudes, and motives.

Where certain folks go wrong with imparted righteousness, is when they teach we are merely "initially" justified by grace through faith and then, we are imparted with Christ’s righteousness gradually over time, so that we can meet the demands of the 10 Commandments (SDA theology) which keeps us in a state of grace on the road to final justification which creates a works-based salvation. This is similar to what Roman Catholicism teaches in regard to infusion of righteousness to the believer over the course of their life, which keeps the individual in a state of grace, making them righteous beings, leading to final justification. The Bible does not teach a two-tier system of justification or that Christ’s righteousness is gradually imparted or infused to a person so that their obedience maintains their justification. That is mixing two distinct categories, justification and sanctification.

No it is not possible to put any experienced righteousness in the category of that which gets imputed to us through Christ. His is infinite.

You are thinking justification is a sort of initial experience in the believer; it is not. It is a historic declaration made by God through Christ to anyone who believes. It is such an outside-of-time message that God told Abraham of Christ —the Gospel— before it happened .

It has to do with the debt of sin , not the current level of victory over sin. We may sin tomorrow and the same offer of justification stands, unless, for some reason we don’t think we need it!

A position is a poor word choice for debt. Maybe there are some times when it is compared to a financial position. But the NT does not bother with some abstract ‘position’ idea.

You will find this most clear in how Rom 8 returns to justification after the wretched meandering of the ‘man of Rom 7.’ Rom 8:1 obviously not before that meandering, and not another fix of behavior. It is that there is a righteousness by Someone Else, of the Godhead, for our sakes, for the debt of that failure.

This is why Rom 3’s marvelous paragraph is not a human experience. “By His experience, my Righteous One will justify many…” Is 53. “although we once knew Christ in the ordinary way, we now know that God was in Christ clearing up the human debt problem…” 2Cor 5.

Now, people do indeed make mistake you described about justification, but not for your reason. They mistake an imparting, (improved or accumulative,) as counting toward justification precisely bc they have been told justification is an initial experience.

“Nothing dilutes the high bar of God’s justice more than to confuse justification with something that could happen experientially.” —Brinsmead, Ed, Present Truth forum.

 

[mailmandan]

No it is not possible to put any experienced righteousness in the category of that which gets imputed to us through Christ. His is infinite.

You are thinking justification is a sort of initial experience in the believer; it is not. It is a historic declaration made by God through Christ to anyone who believes. It is such an outside-of-time message that God told Abraham of Christ —the Gospel— before it happened .

It has to do with the debt of sin , not the current level of victory over sin. We may sin tomorrow and the same offer of justification stands, unless, for some reason we don’t think we need it!

A position is a poor word choice for debt. Maybe there are some times when it is compared to a financial position. But the NT does not bother with some abstract ‘position’ idea.

You will find this most clear in how Rom 8 returns to justification after the wretched meandering of the ‘man of Rom 7.’ Rom 8:1 obviously not before that meandering, and not another fix of behavior. It is that there is a righteousness by Someone Else, of the Godhead, for our sakes, for the debt of that failure.

This is why Rom 3’s marvelous paragraph is not a human experience. “By His experience, my Righteous One will justify many…” Is 53. “although we once knew Christ in the ordinary way, we now know that God was in Christ clearing up the human debt problem…” 2Cor 5.

Now, people do indeed make mistake you described about justification, but not for your reason. They mistake an imparting, (improved or accumulative,) as counting toward justification precisely bc they have been told justification is an initial experience.

“Nothing dilutes the high bar of God’s justice more than to confuse justification with something that could happen experientially.” —Brinsmead, Ed, Present Truth forum.

Justification is where the righteousness of God is imputed to the believer who is then accounted as righteous by faith. (Romans 4:2-6; Philippians 3:9)

Justification is an instantaneous occurrence with the result being eternal life and is based upon Christ's finished work of redemption (Romans 3:24-28) and not our works. (Ephesians 2:8,9)

Ongoing or progressive sanctification is the process of being set apart for God’s work and being conformed to the image of Christ. This conforming to Christ involves the work of the believer, but it involves God working in us. (Philippians 2:12-13)

Ongoing or progressive sanctification is not instantaneous and it also has no bearing on justification. That is, even if we don’t live a sinless, perfect life, 24/7 (which we won't) we are still justified by faith. (Romans 5:1)