imputed righteousness

[nebula]

Here is a question for the Protestants about imputed righteousness. One reason the Catholic position makes sense is that it correlates to observed reality. People who profess Chrsit to be baptized are often no ‘nicer’ than people who don’t, that is, we need continual grace throughout life and our perfection is a process. According to the Protestant opinion as soon as someone accepts Christ as Savior that person has Christ’s imputed righteousness and is now saved. Any goodness that they do is a response to this grace, the grace has enabledt hem to do good and also causes in them a deep sense of gratitude that they express through good works. But one thing that never completed made sense to me is that if this is the case why isn’t much more obvious if some is saved vs non saved? It would seem that if someone is perfected in Christ, if this is the ontological reality, then such a huge immediate change should be very obvious.

You may ask, how is the Catholic position any improvement on this? Because it acknowledges that life is a process, faith is a process and the road to perfection is a process- that is just the empirical reality. Hence there are saints who are closest to perfection and they are in a very obvious way different from those just starting down the road. That’s why we need continual infusions of grace in life, and that’s also why Catholicism posits purgatory.

Any thoughts?

 

[With_Questions]

Here is a question for the Protestants about imputed righteousness. One reason the Catholic position makes sense is that it correlates to observed reality. People who profess Chrsit to be baptized are often no ‘nicer’ than people who don’t, that is, we need continual grace throughout life and our perfection is a process. According to the Protestant opinion as soon as someone accepts Christ as Savior that person has Christ’s imputed righteousness and is now saved. Any goodness that they do is a response to this grace, the grace has enabledt hem to do good and also causes in them a deep sense of gratitude that they express through good works. But one thing that never completed made sense to me is that if this is the case why isn’t much more obvious if some is saved vs non saved? It would seem that if someone is perfected in Christ, if this is the ontological reality, then such a huge immediate change should be very obvious.

You may ask, how is the Catholic position any improvement on this? Because it acknowledges that life is a process, faith is a process and the road to perfection is a process- that is just the empirical reality. Hence there are saints who are closest to perfection and they are in a very obvious way different from those just starting down the road. That’s why we need continual infusions of grace in life, and that’s also why Catholicism posits purgatory.

Any thoughts?

My first reaction is that this is a false dichotomy.

Why can’t both be true?

BTW, I have never heard it stated that one is perfected in Christ at the point of salvation. Or that growth is not necessary following the point of salvation.

 

[nebula]

My first reaction is that this is a false dichotomy.

Why can’t both be true?

BTW, I have never heard it stated that one is perfected in Christ at the point of salvation. Or that growth is not necessary following the point of salvation.

Growth is expected to happen, my question is why shoujldn’t we expect there to be perfection if a person have received the imputed righteousness of Christ?

That’s why I’ve posed hte question. I’m sure protestants around here are equipped to shed more light on the issue for me.

 

[With_Questions]

Growth is expected to happen, my question is why shoujldn’t we expect there to be perfection if a person have received the imputed righteousness of Christ?

That’s why I’ve posed hte question. I’m sure protestants around here are equipped to shed more light on the issue for me.

Why should you expect there to be perfection if a person has received the imputed righteousness of Christ? I don’t get it.

 

[nebula]

Why should you expect there to be perfection if a person has received the imputed righteousness of Christ? I don’t get it.

Because their nature had been indelibly altered and they’ve received a fulness of grace. They’ve taken on the fullness of Christ’s righteousness. I’d guess on the surface of thing that such a transformation would be followed by perfection.

 

[With_Questions]

Because their nature had been indelibly altered and they’ve received a fulness of grace. They’ve taken on the fullness of Christ’s righteousness. I’d guess on the surface of thing that such a transformation would be followed by perfection.

Is that your understanding of what “imputed righteousness” is?

Now I am not a theologian by any stretch of the word, and I am sure there are folks here who can explain it better than myself. Actually that is a term I have never heard used in my church anyway FWIW. So I will defer to these folks.

But I do know enough (a little knowledge is a dangerous thing I suppose) to know what it is not. What you are saying it is, I am quite sure it is not.

For starters I suppose wikipedia works for an introduction to this topic.

 

[Publisher]

The righteousness of God is “imputed” to us through repentance and faith in Christ. We cannot “earn” salvations…it is a gift…we do not deserve mercy…but mercy is given just the same…through grace.

We also not only receive an “imputed righteousness” but an “imparted righteousness” in that through the work of God we are given a “new nature”…and this new nature which takes place as we are made “new creations” provides us with the grace to resist sin…God declares us “righteous through the merits of Christ” AND gives us a new nature to live a life for God…“imparted righteousness”…both are the works of mercy and grace…neither are earned…to walk in “newness of life” with Christ is an act of will as we “live in Him” thorugh grace.

“Imputed righteousness” in a sense is when God looks at us He sees Christ in our stead…“imparted righteousness” is in a sense when He looks at us…He sees “new creations” through the work of grace through faith in Him…we are not only “declared” righteous…we “become” righteous…not because of who we are…but because of the work Christ has begun in us.

 

[nebula]

with- I have a little more than a ‘little knowledge’. What I want is for someone who really knows their stuff to explain to me how it is that someone would have enough grace to be saved, and yet could be no ‘better’ than an unsaved person. Wouldn’t we expect the response to such a reception of grace to be overwhelming? If you have nothign better than to direct me to wikipedia that’s fine, just say “I’m not sure,” or “I don’t know how to explain this clearly”.

 

[nebula]

Publisher,

Thanks for your response. I suppose my question really has to do with the idea of becoming a new creation. LIke you said, given protestant theology there is no way that we can on our own become justified. That is an act that God initiates and fulfills through Christ. But if it is such a black and white change between saved and unsaved, why isn’t it a more obvious and startling change? If someone is made a new creation, shouldnt’ be expect a profound change to be obvious? I suppose you could argue that they are still fallible and so forth, and tell me how sanctification is separate from justification, but I am doubting that those two things can be so readily separated.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Once upon a time I was asked by a 5-point Calvinist if the Orthodox Church believed in infused or imputed righteousness.

I said, “Huh?”

I asked several priests, and they said, “Huh?”

I asked a Melkite priest about it, and he said, “Huh?”

The general Orthodox feeling is that righteousness is righteousness. We don’t think about its coming in different flavors.

 

[Publisher]

Publisher,

Thanks for your response. I suppose my question really has to do with the idea of becoming a new creation. LIke you said, given protestant theology there is no way that we can on our own become justified. That is an act that God initiates and fulfills through Christ. But if it is such a black and white change between saved and unsaved, why isn’t it a more obvious and startling change? If someone is made a new creation, shouldnt’ be expect a profound change to be obvious? I suppose you could argue that they are still fallible and so forth, and tell me how sanctification is separate from justification, but I am doubting that those two things can be so readily separated.

Justification before God is “instantanious” and an “event” in time…“sanctification” is a process where we as new creatures come to understand our new natures…it is a process where we “die to sin” daily…where we come continually before the Father in repentance as the Holy Spirit convicts us of sin in our lives. “If we confess our sins he is faithful and just to cleanse us from sin…” The gist is “continue to cleanse us from sin…” through our constant turning to Him as we become aware of our sin through the ministry of the Holy Spirit in our lives…this is one of the “works” of the Holy Spirit as He indwells the believer…it is a process of “becoming”.

Some of those men and women I know who have truly had a “conversion” experience do in fact have a profound change in their lives…others experience this as a “slow and certain light”…but the “work” of regeneration is two fold…sins remitted by the baptism of His Spirit and sanctification through His indwelling Spirit.

“So it is with the wind…”…sometimes the wind(pneuma) has a profound interaction upon the physical like a hurricane…other times it is a gentle zephyr cooling the brow.

We BECOME “conformed to the image of His Son…”…we seek to “walk in newness of life”…“to speak as the Spirit gives utterance”…we “become” through obedience and immersing ourselves in the Life we have with Him.

 

[With_Questions]

with- I have a little more than a ‘little knowledge’. What I want is for someone who really knows their stuff to explain to me how it is that someone would have enough grace to be saved, and yet could be no ‘better’ than an unsaved person. Wouldn’t we expect the response to such a reception of grace to be overwhelming? If you have nothign better than to direct me to wikipedia that’s fine, just say “I’m not sure,” or “I don’t know how to explain this clearly”.

Hi:

Well I got the impression from your opening post that it followed from “imputed righteousness” that a Christian should be perfect.

That is not the case.

However, there should be an interior and an exterior change when you are born again (we will assume adult conversions at this time). For some the change might be dramatic (being set free from drugs, alcohol, or other harmful addictions). For others the change might be more subtle.

I would expect that in all cases there should be an interest in the things of God that was not there before.

Be aware that the balancing factor is that the new believer still has the same body and the same unrenewed mind. He also is living in a world with temptations from satan and the worldly system. So despite the new nature, there are still battles to be fought.

 

[nebula]

My problem is that if the ontological reality is that a person upon the moment of salvation has taken upon themselves the natur eof Christ that it would be a startling event. The empirical reality doesn’t seem to support that so much s it does seem to support the catholic view of infused grace.

Just a thought, I don’t suppose any Protestants have some thought as to how empirical reality better matches the notion of imputed grace or is this just going to have be a matter of exegesis?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

My experience, in all the protestants that I have known, MANY of them demonstrate sanctification and the radiance of Christ’s love. Many times I’ve worked with folks who are protestant, who believe in imputation, and yet they are so kind, charitable, giving, and honest that sanctification was evident. And I’ve worked with a host of Catholics who claim that God makes us holy and changes us and I see very little good in them? I’ve also worked with lousy protestants and wonderful Catholics.

I don’t think protestant theology of imputation necessitates some outward change. Imputation is a declaration of righteousness, credit given by God freely for the sake of His Son’s sacrifice, pure and simple. Hopefully sanctification follows and the person grows in grace, love, and charity becoming a better person. But God’s grace is not dependent on that change nor is the person’s salvation, from a protestant perspective.

It is rare from what I’ve seen in my life that any of the Catholics I know are any nicer, more caring, holier, or more giving/self-sacrificing than my protestant friends/neighbors? It’s either a draw or some of the protestants seem a bit “kinder and gentler” to quote Bush lol…

 

[dzheremi]

Once upon a time I was asked by a 5-point Calvinist if the Orthodox Church believed in infused or imputed righteousness.

I said, “Huh?”

I asked several priests, and they said, “Huh?”

I asked a Melkite priest about it, and he said, “Huh?”

The general Orthodox feeling is that righteousness is righteousness. We don’t think about its coming in different flavors.

Does this make me Orthodox? Because this is the only response in this thread that has even made the slightest bit of sense to me…am I missing something? A lot of things, perhaps?

 

[brkn1]

Does this make me Orthodox? Because this is the only response in this thread that has even made the slightest bit of sense to me…am I missing something? A lot of things, perhaps?

If you are sincere when you say that only the Orthodox label makes sense for yourself, then you are definitely missing something.
Without being truly born from above, which Jesus explained to Nicodemas as being the most necessary requirement for salvation, nothing of God’s Reality will make the “slightest bit of sense” to you.
The only “reality” you can accept is what your limited mind presents or allows you to have as a possibility. Your Orthodox label won’t save you either.

 

[nebula]

gurney,

True. I am NOT saying there aren’;t great protestants out there. My questioning is of the concept, not of the sincerity of the people.

 

[nebula]

Does this make me Orthodox? Because this is the only response in this thread that has even made the slightest bit of sense to me…am I missing something? A lot of things, perhaps?

dz,

The reason that this is such a big issue is because of Protestants coming out of the Western church and questioning the infusion of grace as comes through sacraments, indulgences, and so forth. The Protestant mindset says either you are saved or not, there are not degrees of perfection when it comes to soteriology. In a way Catholics agree with this when they say that either you are going to heaven or not, purgatory just being ‘the front porch’ to heaven but Protestants take offense at this because it suggests that people can participate in their justificaction. Protestants want to say that no one can contribute to their justification before God through any action (monergy- imputed), whereas Catholics want to say that you can participate (synergy- infused). So you can see how these terms came to be rather important for the RCC as it dialogues with Protestants.

 

[dzheremi]

Thanks very much, Nebula! That is exactly what I was asking, though I wasn’t sure how to phrase it.

brkn1: I did not say that only the Orthodox “label” made sense to me; only the Orthodox response made sense. To be honest, it still doesn’t make sense to me to talk about different flavors of righteousness, as bpbasilphx put it, but now I understand why the Catholic position is as it is, and I agree with it. It’s amazing how often that happens.

 

[brkn1]

dz,

The reason that this is such a big issue is because of Protestants coming out of the Western church and questioning the infusion of grace as comes through sacraments, indulgences, and so forth. The Protestant mindset says either you are saved or not, there are not degrees of perfection when it comes to soteriology. In a way Catholics agree with this when they say that either you are going to heaven or not, purgatory just being ‘the front porch’ to heaven but Protestants take offense at this because it suggests that people can participate in their justificaction. Protestants want to say that no one can contribute to their justification before God through any action (monergy- imputed), whereas Catholics want to say that you can participate (synergy- infused). So you can see how these terms came to be rather important for the RCC as it dialogues with Protestants.

The problem with the whole idea of infused justification is that it makes Jesus’ Sacrifice unnecessary. If we can, in any way, participate in our own justification by our own works, then there was another way, such as “purgatory” etc. to cleanse us, instead of God needing to send His Only Son to do the job. That there was no other way means that we can’t do anything to justify ourselves.

There really seems to be no way to logically explain how Paul could say that the “…Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.”, if our own infused works of participation were supposed to also be necessary.
That was the great “stumblingstone” to those who incorrectly assumed that their own righteous works could obtain proper saving righteousness for them.