The Doctrine of Imputed Righteousness

Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Monergist, Dec 9, 2004.

  1. Monergist

    Monergist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    0
    This come from another thread in the C/A debate forum, and although it is not truly a Calvinist vs. Arminian issue, I'm putting it here since a discussion about it originated here. I'll leave it to the moderators to decide if this is where it really belongs.

    I'll start by recommending John Piper's excellent book Counted Righteous in Christ to anyone who has an interest in the subject. The entire book is availible for viewing online here:
    Counted Righteous in Christ, or its definitely worth purchasing. Piper deals with modern day challenges to this important doctrine thoroughly and biblically, yet deals gently with those who disagree (something that I still find it a challenge to do :( -- guess some more work is needed in the santification department).

    In another thread, another member posted an article that I believe seriously distorts this doctrine. The article can be seenHERE.

    Though this is a somewhat complex issue, the orthodox view of this doctrine is stated here:
    From ARTICLE LINK.

    In the words on John Wesley:
    In the word's of his friend and sometimes theological opponent, George Whitefield:
    But the article referenced earlier states:

    and,

    Clearly, these are not the same. The opposing view states that faith itself is counted as righteousness, rather than faith being a means to receive the righteousness of another,that is, Christ.
     
  2. Monergist

    Monergist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    0
    LINK TO ARTICLE
     
  3. Monergist

    Monergist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    0
    LINK TO ARTICLE
     
  4. Monergist

    Monergist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    0
    LINK TO ARTICLE
     
  5. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    As most often we do not need expositors of the Word to explain 'imputation.' The Lord via the Apostle Paul offers a clear explanation. We are imputed with the righteousness of Christ when we believe in Jesus--savingly. [Romans 4:1-9] Once we are saved there is ' . . . no more (eternal) condemnation [Romans 8:1a] Why? Because he promises in Romans 4:8 never again to impute sin to our account, meaning against us. Discipline may come to the saved one,[Hebrews 12:5-13] but not the 'second death.' [Revelation 20:14] Salvation is all of grace. [Romans 5:20-21]
     
  6. Wes Outwest

    Wes Outwest
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    3,400
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ray are you saying that in light of Jesus' Atonement, that because we believe in Jesus, no sins are charged against us?

    I say that Because of Atonement No sins are charged against us whether or not we believe in Jesus.

    Atonement is a final state or condition, and in Jesus' case, his atonement covers all sin and does not require our participation through belief. Therefore Believing in Him does not change the condition brought about by Atonement.

    Because the penalty of sin has been atoned, when we become "saved through faith", we have everlasting life, Passing from death into life because we have no sins charged against us that require our death. Whereas, the unsaved, or those lacking faith, who also have no sin charged against them, are judged and cast into the lake of fire, the second death (which is death of human spirit) NOT BECAUSE OF SIN, but because of they lack faith.

    It is through faith that we are counted as righteous, exactly like what is said of Abraham.

    Once we have faith, it is through education and training that we become increasingly righteous in our activities and thoughts.

    Now, though sins are not charged against mankind since the Atonement, we are still subject to the "natural consequences" of our sins. Nothing has changed there.

    All sins are deeds, deeds are "works", and works can be either works of righteousness or works of unrighteousness. ALL works will be judged as if by fire. The works that come through the judgment as if gold, silver or precious gems, are good works and they are laid at the feet of Jesus who rewards according to our deeds. Works that are consumed in the manner of wood, hay and stubble, which leave only worthless ashes, are works of unrighteousness and they too have a "reward" but not a very good one. The lives of those whose works are consumed as if in fire, are spared, but as if one survives a fire. Having survived a fire, I can tell you that devastation is not just a word! It is a condition of existance that is very difficult to overcome.
     
  7. Monergist

    Monergist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    0
    :confused: :eek:
     
  8. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wes Outwest,

    You said,
    That is what Romans 4:8 & Romans 8:1 & 8:31-39 means.

    Sinner’s sins keep them alienated from God and at death they enter Hell. Read: (John 3:18 b, c) All lost people have the sentence of eternal death hanging over them even while they walk this earth.

    For Christians, God sees us through the blood of Christ all the way to Heaven. [John 5:24 & I John 2:1-2a]

    In this scenario the Bible would be teaching Universalism, meaning that in eternity all will be saved. And this is not a correct doctrine!

    Believing/trusting/relying on Jesus changes everything; we are brought out of death into life. [John 3:16; 3:18a; 5:24 & I John 5:11; 5:13]

    You are exactly right!

    Those without Christ are charged with Original Sin the Adamic nature, plus every violation against God and His laws. While the lack of faith insures eternal death, I would say that, in the case of sinners, ‘the wages of sin is {eternal/the second} death. [Romans 6:23a]

    This is to say that faithlessness toward Jesus is also a sin. At least we must say that this is only what keeps the sinner from a relationship with the living God. [John 3:18 b, c]

    I agree with your last paragraph which suggests that some will barely enter Heaven, and will suffer the loss of rewards, which will be the experience of these kinds of careless believers; plus there is the need of a life of inner sanctification of our spirits and souls. We will be perfect at His coming. [I Thess. 5:23] We are even now being 'preserved blameless at His coming.'

    All pastors love to study and preach but we really need to love other people, no matter what background they come from. Why? Because of I Corinthians chapter 13 and Galatians 5:22a. Love for the saved and lost is the reason for His message and witness that passes through laity and ministers of the Gospel.

    Even as Christians we must die physically because of the presence of the Adamic nature in our lives. We look toward the resurrection of our bodies at His coming, [I Thess. 4:16-18] and then we will be forever with the Lord.

    A brother,
    Ray
     
  9. dean198

    dean198
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nowhere does scripture speak of an imputation of Christ's righteousness. Piper has to indulge in some very extrapolated reasoning to get anywhere near it.
     
  10. GeneMBridges

    GeneMBridges
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course, you offer no positive exegesis of your own to substantiate this. :rolleyes:
     
  11. Monergist

    Monergist
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  12. Southern

    Southern
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Messages:
    397
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dean,
    Would you please offer a positive Biblical argument to start a discussion.

    In Christ
     
  13. dean198

    dean198
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    0
    Of course....how can I give positive exegesis to substantiate the fact that the scripture nowhere speaks of the righteousness of Christ being imputed? It's not there - just check a concordance! There is nothing to exegete - it doesn't exist!
    Dean
     
  14. GeneMBridges

    GeneMBridges
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    -

    [ December 11, 2004, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: GeneMBridges ]
     
  15. GeneMBridges

    GeneMBridges
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    You could offer a meaningful interaction with the text that Piper uses that takes a contrary position to Piper's exegesis. Saying something does not exist when others say it does, in fact, does not show that it something does not exist. It only shows you have a belief it does not exist. Do you have any contrary exegesis to Piper to offer? In your article all you do is tell what you think Calvinism does and you pull out some verses here or there and ask some questions. However, you do not exegete the text/s that you cite, you simply offer it / them as "proof" of you postion, followed by criticisms and questions. This is no better than saying "Whosoever will" as if that substantiates the Arminian position on John 3:16 and other references to "whosoever." Simply put, there is no interaction with Scripture to support your view that this doctrine does not exist, e.g. a careful examination of Piper's work. You simply say, "It does not exist" and proceed to criticize. You never engage Piper's exegesis or, for that matter, any other exegetical work on this idea.

    You say we shoud check a concordance. So what? We do not find the word "Trinity" in a concordance nor the words "substitutionary atonement," in a concordance, yet we believe them and teach them. Checking concordances does not exegesis make.
     
  16. dean198

    dean198
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the scripture says that Christ's righteousness is imputed, my question is Where? What text? For what text am I to offer contrary exegesis to Piper? Or perhaps somebody who actually agrees with Piper could challenge my assertion that the scriptures do not speak of an imputation of the righteousness of Christ. Ot they could challenge something I have written on the subject. The fact is, if it were there, you would have brought it forth. I have made my assertion - if someone wishes to challenge it then perhaps we can get a discussion going. I am happy for someone who is familiar with Piper to challenge my assertion - but I simply don't have time to disect Piper point by point....though I certainly did come across some unwarranted leaps in logic in the book.
    Dean
     
  17. GeneMBridges

    GeneMBridges
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    At the same time, most Calvinists will say that babies and young children who die are of the elect as well. They do not teach they are damned if they die. Can we say "straw man/appeal to emotion?

    You tell us what you think it does not say, but where do you tell us what it does say exegetically? You devote one sentence to this verse and never address it any further. This is not exegesis or good exposition.

    Why? This is not stated, only that this is a fact.

    I gather this attempts to explain the previous quote. However...Why? Again, no exegesis.

    Of course, this begs the question that you are correct. This sounds like poisoning the well, especially the other references to Papists, alleging either poisoning the well and/or guilt by association.

    .

    Why? Where is there any exegesis of why this is not so? After all, every positive presupposes a negative and vice versa.

    Again, no exegesis of the text itself, just a list of questions and criticisms.

    All of which has no exegesis to support it and fails to engage the reader with the texts that those that see this doctrine in Scripture use in a way that offers a counter-exegetical argument. It merely is so, and the reader must assume the truth of the argument.
     
  18. GeneMBridges

    GeneMBridges
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the scripture says that Christ's righteousness is imputed, my question is Where? What text? For what text am I to offer contrary exegesis to Piper? Or perhaps somebody who actually agrees with Piper could challenge my assertion that the scriptures do not speak of an imputation of the righteousness of Christ. Ot they could challenge something I have written on the subject. The fact is, if it were there, you would have brought it forth. I have made my assertion - if someone wishes to challenge it then perhaps we can get a discussion going. I am happy for someone who is familiar with Piper to challenge my assertion - but I simply don't have time to disect Piper point by point....though I certainly did come across some unwarranted leaps in logic in the book.
    Dean
    </font>[/QUOTE]You don't need to use Piper. How about A.W. Pink, Max Forsythe, James White and others? The texts atwww.monergism.com is full of articles at: http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/justification.html#imputation or www.aomin.org (search for imputation). Many go to Romans 4 and see the doctrine there.

    You are the one that is saying the doctrine does not exist...yet you offer no counter-exegetical argument. Find one that is manageable and go with it so we can have a discussion.
     
  19. dean198

    dean198
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2004
    Messages:
    323
    Likes Received:
    0
    The whole article explains those scriptures, showing both why they are being wrongfully used, and how they should be interpreted in context. I cannot see this discussion going anywhere.


    Every point was openly alleged right from scripture. How you could have failed to see that I do not know. Nevertheless, it seems that we are unable to agree on how to engage this topic. Not having any texts of scripture, you are forced to make groundless generalizations about my article. Choose any of those texts which you suppose to teach the Reformed doctrine of imputation, and let us consider it - put forward your interpretation, and I mine, and let us discuss why the other is wrong, and ours correct. I leave the text up to you - and if you wish to defer it to me I will choose one. Let's see who is and is not explaining the text.
    Dean
     
  20. GeneMBridges

    GeneMBridges
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Key Word:

    alleged

    Note: NOT EXEGETED. Your article is full of logical fallacies and without any exegesis. Allegations are not exegesis. The best part is the "why" they are being "mistused." That alone begs the question that a. They are, indeed, "misused," and b. there is a motive behind their "misuse."

    One could say, "The Trinity" is not taught in Scripture as well, because, hey, it's not in a concordance. Based on your style, the person making the claim would not have to prove anything, because, hey "there are no Scriptures."

    Again, offer a counter EXEGESIS of any text that Reformed exegetes, theologians, or expositors have used over the past, oh 400 years or so, and come back with a true refutation.

    Hint: Romans 4

    Give us a verse by verse exegesis from which to work, since YOU are the one here at this forum making a counterargument. Otherwise, all we are left with is you saying, "Its just not there, it is up to you to prove otherwise." That's exactly the kinds of things the atheists I often debate elsewhere say..."God does not exist," it is up to you to prove otherwise," and then they refuse to tell me on what basis they say God does not exist.

    If nothing else, reach into your article/s and do some cut and paste work to this forum so that everybody that enters this thread doesn't have to flip back and forth to your webhost.
     

Share This Page

Loading...