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.