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

[Eleanor]

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)

Justification is a declaration of acquittal, a forensic righteousness (Ro 4:25, 5:18).

 

[Dave]

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.

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.

The legality of our salvation happens in a moment, because it only takes the baptism with the Holy Spirit to receive it. Jesus did it already, we only need to receive it. Once we are "in Him", all the legal requirements have been settled. The legality of our salvation is called positional sanctification. Your trying to apply a practical sanctification truth to a positional sanctification reality (emboldened by me in your quote). These are two completely different things.

Dave

 

[makesends]

The legality of our salvation happens in a moment, because it only takes the baptism with the Holy Spirit to receive it. Jesus did it already, we only need to receive it. Once we are "in Him", all the legal requirements have been settled. The legality of our salvation is called positional sanctification. Your trying to apply a practical sanctification truth to a positional sanctification reality (emboldened by me in your quote). These are two completely different things.

Dave

No, actually, I am not. I'm plenty aware of the difference between Salvation ("Justification") and "Sanctification".

Hopefully, you can read this as non-confrontational —I certainly mean no antagonism, here— but I am not talking about Sanctification. In fact, you are demonstrating in this post the temporal view that puts boundaries on our thinking, yet I think you know that God is not bound by those terms. WE want to say it happened suddenly, but God says, "I did it", and even tells us somewhat of how he does it. And what he says is not defined by how quickly it happens, but how surely it happens. WE don't know if it is sudden or not. We only realize suddenly that it has happened. We were not consulted, but God gave us new life.

 

[Carbon]

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.

So good up to this point. The new heart and mind are through regeneration. I can see how some of this can be a bit confusing here. Imparted righteousness is the grace of God, it’s Christ’s righteousness progressively being infused in the believer. Where justification is imputed unto us changing our status before God, sanctification is by God’s grace us being conformed to the image of Christ.
sanctification is a progressive, lifelong process that begins at conversion and continues until glorification.

There is a big difference of justification and sanctification on the believer's relationship to sin. In justification, sin is pardoned, and the believer is no longer under the penalty of God's wrath and is thus eternally secure.

But, in sanctification, sin is subdued, indicating that the believer is progressively freed from the captivity of sin as they grow in holiness - monergistically

 

[Carbon]

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?

The thief on the cross was justified, as well as sanctified. So, both

 

[Carbon]

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?

How so Dave? Curious of your meaning

 

[Carbon]

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

But he was sanctified when regenerated.

 

[Carbon]

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.

Hey brother I’m not sure you’re familiar with the term, imparted righteousness? It’s legit

 

[Carbon]

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.

It’s explaining how sanctification works.

 

[Carbon]

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?

Right. Sanctification

 

[Eleanor]

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.

By "imparted" righteousness is meant Ro 6:16, 19, obedience leading to righteousness.

 

[Eleanor]

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.

Ro 6:16, 19 is what is meant by "imparted" righteousness.

 

[prism]

Ro 6:16, 19 is what is meant by "imparted" righteousness.

Romans 6:16,19 KJV
Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? [19] I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.

That sounds more like sanctification

I'd rather go with this...

Romans 4:5 KJV
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

 

[prism]

I just realized something...Where's @Hobie ( the OP)?
Is this one of those 'Drive-By' threads?

 

[Carbon]

I just realized something...Where's @Hobie ( the OP)?
Is this one of those 'Drive-By' threads?

Give him time, he should be back

 

[makesends]

By "imparted" righteousness is meant Ro 6:16, 19, obedience leading to righteousness.

I.e. obedience that leads one to righteousness given? I'm a little dense here. I mean, I'm of the opinion that even in Sanctification it is the work of God, so that, I would call imparted righteousness. But I haven't studied the term. Can you show me what is the difference between Sanctification and Imparted Righteousness and Imputed Righteousness? I can see the difference between Sanctification and Imputed Righteousness.

 

[makesends]

Hey brother I’m not sure you’re familiar with the term, imparted righteousness? It’s legit

Ok.. Can you show me?

 

[EarlyActs]

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)

That’s good but some lines above were about “imputed or imparted” righteousness. Which could not be an OR but rather a contrast, like yours.

 

[EarlyActs]

But he was sanctified when regenerated.

Really? He died. Of course, you may mean in the most general sense.

 

[EarlyActs]

I.e. obedience that leads one to righteousness given? I'm a little dense here. I mean, I'm of the opinion that even in Sanctification it is the work of God, so that, I would call imparted righteousness. But I haven't studied the term. Can you show me what is the difference between Sanctification and Imparted Righteousness and Imputed Righteousness? I can see the difference between Sanctification and Imputed Righteousness.

If I was to take a friend’s car without permission there would be the breaking of trust. It might be an irreconcilable offense. But there is also the debt of it, the monetary value, to be restored. Suppose we total it. Then a new car is needed and value restored.

Sin is both. But sanctification does not clear the debt of it. Sanctification is to always ask
and agree to answers about usage, going forward.

Debt is about past tense. Tomorrow, today’s sins will be past tense. We cannot re-live today. Transformation is present tense.

The sun produces both light and heat, but they are not exactly the same.

In Rom 6 we learn that we are dead to sin in our new life bc of the wondrous gift of justification from our sin-debt. In Rom 7 we learn that it is likely we will fail to perform again. In Rom 8, we see that even though we have Rom7 moments or times, we are not condemned bc of justification. Unless, of course, we see no need for justification from those sins!

The righteousness of Christ must be credited (imputed) to us about our sin-debt. Crediting is not personal change, though it produces relief and joy. With everyone condemned already , Jn 3:17, there must be a perfect and infinite way to be justified from that. It could not be mere imparted sanctification.