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

[Arial]

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

Yes, and it is "imparted" because it is still not our righteousness, but the work of the Holy Spirit in us conforming us to the image of Christ. A work of God that is ongoing. Our only "part" is the actual obedience.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

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 may interject here with an answer (one that at least Carbon would agree with): In Reformed theology, imparted righteousness typically refers to the righteousness that God works in a believer through sanctification. It is distinct from imputed righteousness, which is the righteousness of Christ credited to the believer in justification.

(And I distinguished this usage as being Reformed because the term is also used by Roman Catholics, who more commonly use the term "infused righteousness," but for them it is central to their view of justification. They don't distinguish justification and sanctification as we do in Reformed theology.)

 

[Eleanor]

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

Imparted righteousness is sanctification through obedience in the Holy Spirit.

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.

Then we are in agreement, because
imputed (logizomai) = counted for, reckoned to, put down to a person's account (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:5, 6, 8, 11, 22, 23, 24).

 

[Eleanor]

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.

Sanctification and imparted righteousness are the same; i.e., actually acquired through obedience in the Holy Spirit (work of God), and which imparted righteousness is sanctification.

Imputed righteousness is simply credited to one's account in justification through faith (Ge 15:6, Ro 3:28, 4:1-7) but is not actual righteousness, as is sanctification.

imparted = actually acquired (Ro 6:16, 19)

imputed (logizomai) = credited, but not actual, only counted as actual (Ge 15:6, Ro 3:28, 4:1-7).

 

[Arial]

Sanctification and imparted righteousness are the same; i.e., actually acquired through obedience in the Holy Spirit (work of God), and which imparted righteousness is sanctification.

Imputed righteousness is simply credited to one's account in justification through faith (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:1-7) but is not actual righteousness, as is sanctification.

imparted = actually acquired (Ro 6:16, 19)

imputed (logizomai) = credited, but not actual, only counted as actual (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:1-7).

I would add here to imputed (which I know you know) it is the righteousness of Christ imputed to us as though it were our own. It is the "in Him" of the "in Him", as one of the aspects of "in Him". We wear his robes of righteousness.

 

[Eleanor]

Ok.. Can you show me?

Though the word "imparted" is not used, we find imparted (acquired) righteousness in Ro 6:16, 19.

 

[makesends]

Though the word "imparted" is not used, we find imparted (acquired) righteousness in Ro 6:16, 19.

I don't see how that is not sanctification.

Sanctification and imparted righteousness are the same; i.e., actually acquired through obedience in the Holy Spirit (work of God), and which imparted righteousness is sanctification.

Imputed righteousness is simply credited to one's account in justification through faith (Ge 15:6, Ro 3:28, 4:1-7) but is not actual righteousness, as is sanctification.

imparted = actually acquired (Ro 6:16, 19)

imputed (logizomai) = credited, but not actual, only counted as actual (Ge 15:6, Ro 3:28, 4:1-7).

Ok, yes. That I agree with.

 

[makesends]

If I may interject here with an answer (one that at least Carbon would agree with): In Reformed theology, imparted righteousness typically refers to the righteousness that God works in a believer through sanctification. It is distinct from imputed righteousness, which is the righteousness of Christ credited to the believer in justification.

(And I distinguished this usage as being Reformed because the term is also used by Roman Catholics, who more commonly use the term "infused righteousness," but for them it is central to their view of justification. They don't distinguish justification and sanctification as we do in Reformed theology.)

Yeah, the distinction between imparted and imputed is simple. My puzzlement is that it sounded like imparted righteousness was not sanctification. I get it now, though.

 

[makesends]

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.

People keep getting my puzzlement wrong. I don't have any problem understanding imputed righteousness. It is not a difficult concept. My question was, why call 'imparted righteousness' a righteousness that is neither 'imputed righteousness' nor 'sanctification'? But @Eleanor says it is one and the same with 'sanctification'. So I'm ok with it.

 

[prism]

Imparted righteousness is sanctification through obedience in the Holy Spirit.

Then we are in agreement, because
imputed (logizomai) = counted for, reckoned to, put down to a person's account (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:5, 6, 8, 11, 22, 23, 24).

I just wouldn't mix justification with sanctification.

 

[Eleanor]

I just wouldn't mix justification with sanctification.

Just to be clear:

Justification is simply a declaration of "not guilty" by God, a sentence of acquittal, a pronouncement of righteous.

It is not the actual righteousness of sanctification (Ro 6:16, 19), but
an imputed righteousness (Ro 5:18-19, 2 Co 5:21) of faith (Ge 15:6, Ro 4:1-5).

 

[Dave]

How so Dave? Curious of your meaning

Carbon

This is going to sound redundant. When we are placed into Christ, we are complete in Him and lacking nothing according to Colossians 2:10-14, and other places. At that point positional sanctification is settled. It's a one time act, that we receive what Jesus did for us. What He did for us legally is everything, because we could do nothing to merit anything but judgment. That's positional sanctification.

At that point, to quote Macarthur, we then begin the process of being conformed to what God already reckons us to be in Christ legally. Remember, we are complete in Him and lacking nothing. Being filled with the Holy Spirit simply means to be more under His control, not receiving more of Him. Yielding everything to Him, for Him to work His goodness through us. And that's it, it's His goodness, not ours. It's not us that produces good, it's God. Only God is good. This term "infused grace strongly, and I emphasize, strongly, suggests that the goodness is coming from us. That God just makes it possible for goodness to come from our flesh. Some people are falling for this because, as we have all seen in the past, there are those who will do anything to inject mans ability in the flesh to produce good. Whether God helped him or not.

I'm telling you, there is absolutely no reason for the term "infused grace", or "imparted grace" unless someone is trying to back door a works based salvation. I've seen this tried many different ways and it never stops. Nothing new under the sun. They just keep trying.

I still have not heard an answer as to why we need the term "imparted grace", or "infused grace". Isn't that what we call the filling? If these new terms are just practical sanctification, then why not use the term practical sanctification?

Only God is good. Not one person here can do one good work unless it came from God Himself.

Dave

 

[Eleanor]

This is going to sound redundant. When we are placed into Christ, we are complete in Him and lacking nothing according to Colossians 2:10-14, and other places. At that point positional sanctification is settled. It's a one time act, that we receive what Jesus did for us. What He did for us legally is everything, because we could do nothing to merit anything but judgment. That's positional sanctification.

At that point, to quote Macarthur, we then begin the process of being conformed to what God already reckons us to be in Christ legally. Remember, we are complete in Him and lacking nothing. Being filled with the Holy Spirit simply means to be more under His control, not receiving more of Him. Yielding everything to Him, for Him to work His goodness through us. And that's it, it's His goodness, not ours. It's not us that produces good, it's God. Only God is good. This term "infused grace strongly, and I emphasize, strongly, suggests that the goodness is coming from us. That God just makes it possible for goodness to come from our flesh. Some people are falling for this because, as we have all seen in the past, there are those who will do anything to inject mans ability in the flesh to produce good. Whether God helped him or not.

I'm telling you, there is absolutely no reason for the term "infused grace", or "imparted grace"

It's not "infused grace" or imparted "grace", it is actual righteousness imparted through obedience in the Holy Spirit, leading to righteousess (Ro 6:16) which leads to holiness (Ro 6:19).

unless someone is trying to back door a works based salvation. I've seen this tried many different ways and it never stops. Nothing new under the sun. They just keep trying.

I still have not heard an answer as to why we need the term "imparted grace", or "infused grace". Isn't that what we call the filling? If these new terms are just practical sanctification, then why not use the term practical sanctification?

The NT doesn't call it "grace" (unmerited favor), it calls it righteousness, which leads to holiness.

 

[EarlyActs]

Carbon

This is going to sound redundant. When we are placed into Christ, we are complete in Him and lacking nothing according to Colossians 2:10-14, and other places. At that point positional sanctification is settled. It's a one time act, that we receive what Jesus did for us. What He did for us legally is everything, because we could do nothing to merit anything but judgment. That's positional sanctification.

At that point, to quote Macarthur, we then begin the process of being conformed to what God already reckons us to be in Christ legally. Remember, we are complete in Him and lacking nothing. Being filled with the Holy Spirit simply means to be more under His control, not receiving more of Him. Yielding everything to Him, for Him to work His goodness through us. And that's it, it's His goodness, not ours. It's not us that produces good, it's God. Only God is good. This term "infused grace strongly, and I emphasize, strongly, suggests that the goodness is coming from us. That God just makes it possible for goodness to come from our flesh. Some people are falling for this because, as we have all seen in the past, there are those who will do anything to inject mans ability in the flesh to produce good. Whether God helped him or not.

I'm telling you, there is absolutely no reason for the term "infused grace", or "imparted grace" unless someone is trying to back door a works based salvation. I've seen this tried many different ways and it never stops. Nothing new under the sun. They just keep trying.

I still have not heard an answer as to why we need the term "imparted grace", or "infused grace". Isn't that what we call the filling? If these new terms are just practical sanctification, then why not use the term practical sanctification?

Only God is good. Not one person here can do one good work unless it came from God Himself.

Dave

There is no such thing as positional sanctification and to be in Christ is to have sin-debt dealt with , not a ‘position’ unless you mean sin-debt specifically . If you mean that , drop the term position which is theology jargon and not meaningful.

God’s salvation deals with past sin as debt, from which we need justification. And with ongoing transformation of current practice.

There is also glorification but that’s not part of this question. Fortunately!

 

[Carbon]

When we are placed into Christ, we are complete in Him and lacking nothing according to Colossians 2:10-14, and other places.

Agreed.

At that point positional sanctification is settled. It's a one time act, that we receive what Jesus did for us. What He did for us legally is everything, because we could do nothing to merit anything but judgment. That's positional sanctification.

You're talking about salvation; we are sanctified. Made clean because of what christ has done.

At that point, to quote Macarthur, we then begin the process of being conformed to what God already reckons us to be in Christ legally. Remember, we are complete in Him and lacking nothing. Being filled with the Holy Spirit simply means to be more under His control, not receiving more of Him. Yielding everything to Him, for Him to work His goodness through us. And that's it, it's His goodness, not ours. It's not us that produces good, it's God.

I agree only God produces good, our best are as filthy rags. But sanctification is a lifelong process, or scripture wouldn't teach such. And it is also monergistic, God does the work, we do not do it with Him.

Only God is good. This term "infused grace strongly, and I emphasize, strongly, suggests that the goodness is coming from us.

Perhaps to you, but I believe you misunderstand. Maybe the WCF will help.

Q. 77. Wherein do justification and sanctification differ?
A. Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification, yet they differ, in that God in justification imputeth the righteousness of Christ; in sanctification his Spirit infuseth grace, and enableth to the exercise thereof; in the former, sin in pardoned; in the other, it is subdued; the one doth equally free all believers from the revenging wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life, they never fall into condemnation; the other is neither equal in all, nor in this life perfect in any, but growing up to perfection.

That God just makes it possible for goodness to come from our flesh.

You see the Spirit infuses grace, which enables us to walk by the Spirit, because we cannot of our own. At regeneration, we are imputed with Christ's righteousness, and at faith we are declared righteous. The sanctification process (internal) the Spirit infuses grace
Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. 1 Cor 6:11.

27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances. Eze 36:27.

Some people are so worried about Catholicism that it sometimes confuses a word that they seem to use.
I believe infused is the proper term.

1828 Noah Webster dictionary: INFU'SED, participle passive Poured in; instilled; steeped.

Some people are falling for this because, as we have all seen in the past, there are those who will do anything to inject mans ability in the flesh to produce good. Whether God helped him or not.

I hope you may see that differently now?

I'm telling you, there is absolutely no reason for the term "infused grace", or "imparted grace" unless someone is trying to back door a works based salvation. I've seen this tried many different ways and it never stops. Nothing new under the sun. They just keep trying.

Again, I hope you can see it differently now?

I still have not heard an answer as to why we need the term "imparted grace", or "infused grace". Isn't that what we call the filling? If these new terms are just practical sanctification, then why not use the term practical sanctification?

Only God is good. Not one person here can do one good work unless it came from God Himself.

Dave

 

[Carbon]

If I may interject here with an answer (one that at least Carbon would agree with): In Reformed theology, imparted righteousness typically refers to the righteousness that God works in a believer through sanctification. It is distinct from imputed righteousness, which is the righteousness of Christ credited to the believer in justification.

(And I distinguished this usage as being Reformed because the term is also used by Roman Catholics, who more commonly use the term "infused righteousness," but for them it is central to their view of justification. They don't distinguish justification and sanctification as we do in Reformed theology.)

Nice explanation.

 

[Dave]

Hi @Carbon

Lets try this a different way.

What would it mean if our sin was infused into Christ instead of imputed?

Just put that in the other direction. Are we talking about the fruit of the Spirit, or the fruit of Carbon?

I still don't understand why sanctification is a term that falls short and needs help with new terminology.

Anyways, never under estimate the power of redefining words. The Catholic church loves when the terminology used means different things to different people. We see this in politics all the time. The chameleon. They will wear the mask that suits them depending on who they are standing in front of. They are always doing things and claiming that they are not really doing them. And saying things, and claiming that they are not really saying them. Then they claim that you just don't understand.

I don't like the term "imparted righteousness" to be used to describe sanctification. Even though the definition of that term is apparently different from Catholics beliefs to protestants beliefs, there will be Catholic priests who tell there congregations that protestants now agree with Catholicism, even though they don't, just because we are using the same theological terms to describe our beliefs. Paul was very careful not to leave any opening for any false teaching to enter.

What's the point of the new terminology other that to open the door for the possibility for deception?


Continued...

 

[Dave]

You see the Spirit infuses grace, which enables us to walk by the Spirit, because we cannot of our own. At regeneration, we are imputed with Christ's righteousness, and at faith we are declared righteous. The sanctification process (internal) the Spirit infuses grace
Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. 1 Cor 6:11.

Isn't this passage speaking of positional sanctification?

The question at hand comes down to this. Does God enable our flesh to be good in and of itself, or is it God who is good through us?

The filling suggests that it is the latter. If it were possible, if God would take His Spirit from us, there would be no good left in us, only the flesh which can only produce sin. This idea of infused grace seems to suggest that God's infused grace is a goodness booster shot that allows our flesh to be good. That's what it sounds like. Jesus said that without Him we can do nothing.

27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances. Eze 36:27.

This is pointing to the Promise of the Father, the NT indwelling. My "What happened in Acts?" thread that was moved out of the Acts forum. I'm not sure where it's at now.

Isn't what you are calling infused grace what we call being filled with the Holy Spirit?

Dave

 

[Eleanor]

Agreed.

You're talking about salvation; we are sanctified. Made clean because of what christ has done.

Sanctified = set apart. . .from sin and to God.

I agree only God produces good, our best are as filthy rags. But sanctification is a lifelong process, or scripture wouldn't teach such. And it is also monergistic, God does the work, we do not do it with Him.

Perhaps to you, but I believe you misunderstand. Maybe the WCF will help.

Q. 77. Wherein do justification and sanctification differ?
A. Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification, yet they differ, in that God in justification imputeth the righteousness of Christ; in sanctification his Spirit infuseth grace, and enableth to the exercise thereof; in the former, sin in pardoned; in the other, it is subdued; the one doth equally free all believers from the revenging wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life, they never fall into condemnation; the other is neither equal in all, nor in this life perfect in any, but growing up to perfection.

You see the Spirit infuses grace, which enables us to walk by the Spirit, because we cannot of our own. At regeneration, we are imputed with Christ's righteousness, and at faith we are declared righteous. The sanctification process (internal) the Spirit infuses grace
Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. 1 Cor 6:11.

27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances. Eze 36:27.

Some people are so worried about Catholicism that it sometimes confuses a word that they seem to use.
I believe infused is the proper term.

1828 Noah Webster dictionary: INFU'SED, participle passive Poured in; instilled; steeped.

I hope you may see that differently now?

Again, I hope you can see it differently now?

 

[Carbon]

Hi Carbon

Lets try this a different way.

What would it mean if our sin was infused into Christ instead of imputed?

Dave, my hope is that you consider what you said here. Even though justification and sanctification are inseparable, they are two different things.
Just how do you believe we are sanctified? You do know sanctification is a process that lasts a lifetime?
Do you believe Christ's righteousness is imputed each time we need sanctification? or are you teaching that there is no need for sanctification after the new birth (regeneration)?