Double imputation?

[dwilkins]

"I see very little difference between righteous and being justified. If we are considered to be righteous because we are in Christ, is it not imputed as a gift to us? Paul didn't count his own righteousness as adequate:

Philippians 3:9, American King James Version
9. And be found in him, not having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:"



Do you "see very little difference" or is there in fact very little difference? Is that your opinion, or do you have some sort of reference to the fact?

Wright's assertion, after researching the meanings of the terms in detail, is that the difference is significant. Righteousness would be moral perfection. Justification has to do with being accepted by God as one of the good guys. The Jews of Paul's era believed that they were justified by being members of the Old Covenant nation. They knew they had unrighteousness, but that wasn't too big of a deal as long as they followed the rules about how to deal with it. Though God wants people to be righteous, he only accepts those whom are justified. Let's take a look at the verse above using both words to see which makes more sense:

Philippians 3:9, American King James Version
9. And be found in him, not having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

Philippians 3:9, American King James Version
9. And be found in him, not having my own justification, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the justification which is of God by faith:

How, exactly, was the Law of Moses supposed to have imputed moral perfection to its adherents? I thought that it was obvious from Paul that everyone knew that moral imperfection was impossible. In that generation, on the other hand, the Jews fully expected that being members of the nation under the Law of Moses would automatically qualify them for justification (AKA a positive judgment at the final judgment as opposed to the destiny of the members of the rest of the nations). Paul is claiming that he doesn't want to have justification provided by the Law of Moses (or by being a member of the nation), but rather justification that comes through membership in the New Covenant nation of Christ. Which would make more sense, to impute moral perfection, or status of acceptance? I've never heard a decent explanation for exactly how moral perfection is supposed to be imputed, inserted, or injected into a person. But, the application of the status of acceptance into the people of God under the New Covenant, or justification, is a rather easy thing to envision being imputed or applied to someone.

Doug

[Homer]

Hi Doug,

We are probably (at least I think) not as far apart as it seems.

You wrote:

How, exactly, was the Law of Moses supposed to have imputed moral perfection to its adherents?

It was not possible for it to do so.

I thought that it was obvious from Paul that everyone knew that moral imperfection was impossible.

You mean perfection don't you? I do not think perfection is possible.

In that generation, on the other hand, the Jews fully expected that being members of the nation under the Law of Moses would automatically qualify them for justification (AKA a positive judgment at the final judgment as opposed to the destiny of the members of the rest of the nations).

No disagreement here.

Paul is claiming that he doesn't want to have justification provided by the Law of Moses (or by being a member of the nation), but rather justification that comes through membership in the New Covenant nation of Christ.

I would only add "or any other kind of law keeping".

Which would make more sense, to impute moral perfection, or status of acceptance? I've never heard a decent explanation for exactly how moral perfection is supposed to be imputed, inserted, or injected into a person.

I suspect our difficulty is in how we are employing English words. You seem (to me) to take "impute" to mean something I do not take it to mean. When I think of ""imputed righteousness", I see it as Paul (I think) used it in Romans where he spoke of an uncircumcised person being "regarded" (credited) as being circumcised, though he wasn't. Likewise, I am certainly not perfectly righteous, though in God's eyes, through faith, I am credited, or regarded, as though I am (at least that is my hope). I do not see righteousness as being inserted or injected into me. Never crossed my mind.

But, the application of the status of acceptance into the people of God under the New Covenant, or justification, is a rather easy thing to envision being imputed or applied to someone.

No disagreement. Could that be said to be a positional thing, as being "in Christ" or "chosen in Him"?

[dwilkins]

You're correct that I meant perfection. Sorry for the confusion.

One of the problems that I have with your statement, " Likewise, I am certainly not perfectly righteous, though in God's eyes, through faith, I am credited, or regarded, as though I am (at least that is my hope).", requires a certain disingenuous approach on the part of God. I don't see how he can simply pretend that something is true when it is untrue. However, if you were to use the dikaiosune derivative English words as I propose (by choosing justification more often than we usually do) then there is no make believe.

Doug

[Paidion]

If we are considered to be righteous because we are in Christ, is it not imputed as a gift to us?

But we aren't considered to be righteous because we are in Christ. There is no scripture which affirms positional righteousness. All scriptural indications are that God wants actual righteousness.

Paul didn't count his own righteousness as adequate.

Correct. Self-effort cannot result in a consistent righteousness. But self-effort is not the only alternative to the imaginary "positional righteousness".

One can become actually righteous by the enabling grace of God, made possible by the supreme sacrifice of Jesus the Messiah. This actual righteousness is the consequence of the synergy between our willingness and faith combined with God's enabling grace.

1. We can't become righteous by self-effort (monergy on man's part).
2. God won't make us righteous sovereignly (monergy on God's part).
3. We can become righteous through submission to Christ and trust in Him together with God's enablement (synergy—man with God)

Working together (Greek—synergeō English—synergy) with him, then, we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain. (2Cor 6:1)

For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all people, training us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and to live sensible, righteous, and devout lives in the present age, expecting the blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good works. Declare these things; encourage and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you. (Titus 2:11-15)

[dwilkins]

The quote about the gift was actually from Homer's last post on the first page of this topic. I was commenting on it, but it didn't come from me.

I can agree that we have dikaiosune imputed to us. The question is whether or not that is moral perfection or position in the covenant.

Doug

[Paidion]

As a teen-ager and a man in my early twenties, I believed in positional righteousness, eternal security, and that everyone was predestined to heaven or hell. It was through reading early Christian writings that I was jolted out of that mindset, and realized that my whole basis of Calvinist thought had to collapse. I repented of those false beliefs and through God's enabling grace began to learn the truth of discipleship throughout the ensuing decades.

I don't know whether you have ever encountered the song "Take Up thy Cross and Follow Me". I think it was written sometime between 1920 and 1940. You can listen to it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLuqmcThE8Q

In any case, I rewrote the title and the words of the verses as follows:

The Call of Christ

I came to Jesus oh so long ago,
The Jesus that the tracts portray;
Accepted Him into my heart and soul,
But then I heard the Saviour say:

Chorus:
“Take up your cross and follow me.”
I heard the blessed Saviour’s call.
How could I make a lesser sacrifice
When Jesus gave His all!

They never said I had to count the cost;
By grace I’d get to heaven some day;
For once you’re saved, you never can be lost.
But then I heard the Saviour say:

“Take up your cross and follow me.”
I heard the blessed Saviour’s call.
How could I make a lesser sacrifice
When Jesus gave His all!

I thought it didn’t matter how I lived,
For all my sin the Lord did pay.
No matter what I did, I’d get to heaven,
But then I heard the Saviour say:

“Take up your cross and follow me.”
I heard the blessed Saviour’s call.
How could I make a lesser sacrifice
When Jesus gave His all!

I lived for self; I didn’t live for Christ;
I didn’t fear, for come what may
My sin was hid; God saw Christ’s righteousness.
But then I heard the Saviour say:

“Take up your cross and follow me.”
I heard the blessed Saviour’s call.
How could I make a lesser sacrifice
When Jesus gave His all!

And then I knew I must submit to Him
And live for Christ from day to day.
I will be in His likeness when He comes.
And still I hear my Saviour say:

“Take up your cross and follow me.”
I hear my blessed Saviour’s call.
How can I make a lesser sacrifice
When Jesus gave His all!

[dwilkins]

I'm not sure how you made the jump from positional dikaiosune to eternal security. It didn't come from me. As I think about it, I think it's from imagining positional righteousness instead of positional justification. There is all sorts of talk of people being cut off from the covenant in the Old Testament and New. Positional justification allows quite easily for conditional salvation security.

Doug

[Paidion]

The New Testament seems to use "justification" and "sanctification" (sometimes translated as "holiness") interchangeably.

[dwilkins]

Do you get the point Wright is making about the meaning of dikaiosune? I don't think that making up the meaning of words as you seem to be doing is a very good foundation.

[Paidion]

Of which words do you judge I have made up the meaning? δικαιοσυνη (dikaiosunā)? The word occurs 85 times in the New Testament. I have stated that the word means "righteousness". How many times does the New King James Version translate it as "righteousness"? 85 times. Have the translators of the NKJV "made up" the meaning of the word? Indeed, I haven't been able to find ANY translation which renders the word as "justification" for any of these 85 occurrences. Do you know of one which does?

Or is it some other word of which I have "made up the meaning"? Please be specific.[/quote]