Imputed versus infused righteousness

  • Thread starter Thread starter SyCarl
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SyCarl

Guest
I would like to throw an idea out for discussion with respect to imputed righteousness versus infused righteousness. Is it possible that what happens is really neither?

Protestants say that God imputes the righteousness of Christ to us but we are not actually made righteous. Catholics have pointed out that this would mean God accepting something as true that isn’t true.

Catholics say that God actually makes us righteous. Protestants point out that we cannot really be said to be righteous because we are not perfect and are still capable of sinning.

Both views seem to relate righteousness to the law. Christ’s perfect obedience to the law is imputed to us or grace is infused into us and we are actually made perfectly obedient to the law.

Perhaps, though our understanding of righteousness is mistaken. When Scripture says that “faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness” we are assuming that righteousness relates to right standing in the law. However Paul goes to great lengths to show that we are justified apart from the law. Why then should righteousness, in this instance, be determined by reference to something we are told can never justify us and which we are free from? We are imposing our understanding of righteousness on Scripture and trying to limit God to our view of righteousness.

However, is the definition of righteousness not up to God? Can God not mean that if we have faith we have righteousness? We have faith; we are therefore righteous, not because Christ’s obedience is imputed to us or because something has been infused into us, but simply because God has decided to define faith as being righteousness.

This would seem to make some passages of Scripture easier to understand. Jesus says that our righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and the Pharisees who were known for rigid adherence to the law. Doesn’t it make sense if what Jesus is saying is that our righteousness (reading faith) must exceed that of the scribes and the Pharisees? I think that Jesus indicates this meaning of the word righteousness when in John 6 he tells us that the work of God is to believe in Jesus? By believing, or having faith we are doing what God requires of us and are righteous because it. So we are righteous, not because we are made right, even though we are still able to sin, and not because we are hiding behind Jesus’ righteousness but are not actually righteous, but because God simply defines us as righteous, which it is His prerogative to do.

I am sure that I am not the first to think of this but I have not seen it elsewhere. I do not claim to be a Hebrew or Greek scholar. I would appreciate any comments you might have.
 
I would like to throw an idea out for discussion with respect to imputed righteousness versus infused righteousness. Is it possible that what happens is really neither?

Protestants say that God imputes the righteousness of Christ to us but we are not actually made righteous. Catholics have pointed out that this would mean God accepting something as true that isn’t true.

Catholics say that God actually makes us righteous. Protestants point out that we cannot really be said to be righteous because we are not perfect and are still capable of sinning.

Both views seem to relate righteousness to the law. Christ’s perfect obedience to the law is imputed to us or grace is infused into us and we are actually made perfectly obedient to the law.

Perhaps, though our understanding of righteousness is mistaken. When Scripture says that “faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness” we are assuming that righteousness relates to right standing in the law. However Paul goes to great lengths to show that we are justified apart from the law. Why then should righteousness, in this instance, be determined by reference to something we are told can never justify us and which we are free from? We are imposing our understanding of righteousness on Scripture and trying to limit God to our view of righteousness.

However, is the definition of righteousness not up to God? Can God not mean that if we have faith we have righteousness? We have faith; we are therefore righteous, not because Christ’s obedience is imputed to us or because something has been infused into us, but simply because God has decided to define faith as being righteousness.

This would seem to make some passages of Scripture easier to understand. Jesus says that our righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and the Pharisees who were known for rigid adherence to the law. Doesn’t it make sense if what Jesus is saying is that our righteousness (reading faith) must exceed that of the scribes and the Pharisees? I think that Jesus indicates this meaning of the word righteousness when in John 6 he tells us that the work of God is to believe in Jesus? By believing, or having faith we are doing what God requires of us and are righteous because it. So we are righteous, not because we are made right, even though we are still able to sin, and not because we are hiding behind Jesus’ righteousness but are not actually righteous, but because God simply defines us as righteous, which it is His prerogative to do.

I am sure that I am not the first to think of this but I have not seen it elsewhere. I do not claim to be a Hebrew or Greek scholar. I would appreciate any comments you might have.
This is deep. I will take some time to ponder on it.
 
I would like to throw an idea out for discussion with respect to imputed righteousness versus infused righteousness. Is it possible that what happens is really neither?

Protestants say that God imputes the righteousness of Christ to us but we are not actually made righteous. Catholics have pointed out that this would mean God accepting something as true that isn’t true.

Catholics say that God actually makes us righteous. Protestants point out that we cannot really be said to be righteous because we are not perfect and are still capable of sinning.

Both views seem to relate righteousness to the law. Christ’s perfect obedience to the law is imputed to us or grace is infused into us and we are actually made perfectly obedient to the law.

Perhaps, though our understanding of righteousness is mistaken. When Scripture says that “faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness” we are assuming that righteousness relates to right standing in the law. However Paul goes to great lengths to show that we are justified apart from the law. Why then should righteousness, in this instance, be determined by reference to something we are told can never justify us and which we are free from? We are imposing our understanding of righteousness on Scripture and trying to limit God to our view of righteousness.

However, is the definition of righteousness not up to God? Can God not mean that if we have faith we have righteousness? We have faith; we are therefore righteous, not because Christ’s obedience is imputed to us or because something has been infused into us, but simply because God has decided to define faith as being righteousness.

This would seem to make some passages of Scripture easier to understand. Jesus says that our righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and the Pharisees who were known for rigid adherence to the law. Doesn’t it make sense if what Jesus is saying is that our righteousness (reading faith) must exceed that of the scribes and the Pharisees? I think that Jesus indicates this meaning of the word righteousness when in John 6 he tells us that the work of God is to believe in Jesus? By believing, or having faith we are doing what God requires of us and are righteous because it. So we are righteous, not because we are made right, even though we are still able to sin, and not because we are hiding behind Jesus’ righteousness but are not actually righteous, but because God simply defines us as righteous, which it is His prerogative to do.

I am sure that I am not the first to think of this but I have not seen it elsewhere. I do not claim to be a Hebrew or Greek scholar. I would appreciate any comments you might have.
Doing the will of GOD makes you a righteous person. That is obeying HIS commands. As Luke 1 says:

And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord.

Referring to Elizabeth and Zechariah of course. But that doesn’t mean they didn’t sin and that we won’t sin. The Jews atoned for sin by sarificing at the Temple the appropriate animal. Since Christ represents the final sacrifice for the payment of sin then it would follow being a disciple of Christ and obeying the commands of the Lord would make us righteous before GOD.

PEACE
 
It’s been a long time since my college days…I believe the term is “imputed vs. imparted”.

Simply stated “imputed” righteousness says simply that when God “looks” at a person whom Christ has “saved”, He sees the righteousness of Christ “superimposed” over the soul of the 'redeemed." He doesn’t see their sin but Christ’s righteousness.

“Imparted” righteousness states that God doesn’t “pretend”…He sees the person exactly as they truly are…in all their sinfullness. He also “sees” the “change” wroght by the Holy Spirit in that persons soul. They are new creatures…while they may live flawed lives and still need repentance of sins committed, their nature has changed to begin to conform to the nature of His Son.

God sees us as ‘righteous’ becuase we are righteous in His Sight.

“Imputed righteousness” does not negate “Imparted righteousness”…they work together…it is not our righteousness that “saves” us but the righteousness of Christ…but we are imparted a “new nature” to live in obedience to God, like His Son lvied and IF we fall, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous.

This is extremely simplistic, but perhaps it offers insight.
 
**We know that nothing unclean can enter into heaven Rev. 21:27. ****We, therefore cannot accept Luther’s admonition that we are “snow-covered dunghills”. We are made righteous by Christ’s sacrifice. **
1 Cor. 3:15 tells us:
**But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire. **

This would require Purgatory, which is a final cleansing before entering into heaven. It does not negate Jesus’ finished work on the cross. On the contrary. As C.S. Lewis wrote, "Not only do our souls demand it, but justice demands Purgatory too."

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top