| Author | Message | ||
| Schasc Registered user Username: Schasc Post Number: 53 Registered: 10-2004 |
Having not paid much attention the the terms "imputed or imparted" during most of my adult life, I find myself trying to wrap my mind around the concept now. I found this article: www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/impute.html Can anyone direct me to an article that takes the other side? Or maybe one that discusses the tension between the two views in scripture. Also if anyone has the thoughts on this one I would welcome them................ | ||
| Flyinglady Registered user Username: Flyinglady Post Number: 2372 Registered: 3-2004  |
Like you, I have not paid much attention to either of those terms. I remember in SDA school discussing them and the understanding I got was "clear as mud". Diana | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 390 Registered: 7-2004  |
This is a very important topic; thanks for bringing it up, Schasc. The way I understand it, the difference is this: Imputed righteousness - Jesus' righteousness is imputed, or credited to my account and that is the basis for salvation. (Romans 3:21 - 4:25 makes a good case for this) Imparted righteousness - Jesus imparts, or infuses His righteousness into our life so that we no longer sin and can live perfectly holy lives. It's up to us to allow this transformation, and if we don't fully allow it, then we won't be "safe to save" and thus our works (albeit through the power of the Holy Spirit) is the basis for our salvation. The big problem with this is, does anyone know of one person outside of Jesus who actually reached this perfection? The Bible clearly teaches that everyone will struggle with sin, and fail, clear up to the Second Coming. While it's true that believers are partially transformed in this life, that cannot possibly be the basis for our salvation. IMO, this is one of the key reasons it can be said that SDA's don't believe in salvation by faith alone, because SDA's teach imparted righteousness. Furthermore, I believe that is the main difference between the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic church, which came up at the Council of Trent. It was the whole point of contention, that Protestants insist on imputed righteousness being the basis for our salvation, and the Catholic Church insists on imparted righteousness being the basis for our salvation. Of course instead of teaching we must become perfect in this life, Catholics teach that's what purgatory is for, to finish the job. My personal opinion on why believers are not completely transformed in this life is to keep us humble and in constant recognition of our need for a Saviour. Maybe someone else has links to articles or further insights. | ||
| Chris Registered user Username: Chris Post Number: 1121 Registered: 7-2003  |
Schasc, The SDA view tends to be one of imparted righteousness which is similar to the Roman Catholic view and evidently the view of the website you linked to. This is NOT the evangelical Christian view. Evangelicals strongly champion imputed righteousness. I think there has always been much confusion in Adventism about justification versus sanctification and I see the same confusion in the article you cited above. It is important to understand that when we speak of imputed righteousness we are speaking of justification and not sanctification (at least not directly). The following issue of the Sound of Grace newsletter is all about Justification and deals at many points with the idea of imputed righteousness: SOUND OF GRACE. Chris | ||
| Lars Registered user Username: Lars Post Number: 16 Registered: 7-2005 |
Hi Schasc, The following is what I consider an excellent exposition on righteousness by John MacArthur from his "MacArthur's New Testament Commentary: Romans 1-8": The Character of the Accused ìThere is none righteous, not even one; there is none who understands, there in none who seeks for God; all have turned aside, together they have become useless; there is none who does good, there is not even one. (3:10-12) Under the heading of what could be called character, Paul lists the first six of the thirteen charges. Because of their fallen natures, men are universally evil (v. 10b). spiritually ignorant (v. 11a), rebellious (v. 11b), wayward (v. 12a), spiritually useless (v. 12b), and morally corrupt (v. 12c). First, mankind is universally evil, there being absolutely no exceptions. Quoting from the Psalms, Paul declares, There is none righteous, not even one. The full text of Psalm 14:1 is, ìThe fool has said in his heart, There is no God.í They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds; there is no one who does good.î Righteousness is a major theme of the book of Romans, appearing in one form or another more than thirty times. Other terms from the same Greek root are usually translated ìjustified,î ìjustification,î or the like. Together they are used more than sixty times in the book of Romans. It is not surprising, therefore, that the first charge Paul makes in his indictment is that of mankind's unrighteousness. Paul is using the term righteous in its most basic sense of being right before God, of being as God created man to be. Obviously, people are able do many things that are morally right. Even the most vile person may occasionally do something commendable. But the apostle is not speaking of specific acts or even general patterns of behavior, but of man's inner character. His point is that there is not a single person who has ever lived, apart from the sinless Lord Jesus Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 5:21), whose innermost being could be characterized as righteous by God's standard. To prevent some people from thinking that they might be exceptions, Paul adds, not even one. As already noted, there are obviously vast differences among people as to their kindness, love, generosity, honesty, truthfulness, and the like. But not even one person besides Christ has come remotely close to righteous perfection, which is the only standard acceptable to God. God's standard of righteousness for men is the righteousness that He Himself possesses, which was manifest in Christ. ìYou are to be perfect,î Jesus declared, ìas your heavenly Father is perfectî (Matt. 5:48). In other words, a person who is not as good as God is not acceptable to God. As Paul makes clear later in the epistle, and as the New Testament teaches throughout, men can become perfectly righteous, when the righteousness of Christ is imputed to them. The very truth that makes the gospel the ìgood newsî is that God has provided a way for men to become perfect, divinely perfect. But that perfection comes entirely by God's grace in response to faith in His Son, Jesus Christ. Paul is here speaking of men, all men, who are apart from Christ. In God's sight, there are no levels of righteousness as far as salvation is concerned. There is either perfect righteousness in Christ or perfect sinfulness apart from Christ. As mentioned above, from man's perspective there are vast moral and spiritual differences among people. But men's achieving God's standard of righteousness on their own may be compared to a group of people trying to jump from the shore of a south seas island to the United States. A good athlete could jump twenty-five feet or more. Many could jump ten or fifteen feet, and a few might be in such poor shape that they could barely jump five. Measured against each other, therefore, their efforts would be considerably different. But measured against the distance from those islands to the United States, the differences among them would be undetectable and their efforts would be equally futile. Almost as if commenting on such a contest, Paul declares a few verses later: ìAll have sinned and fall short of the glory of Godî (3:23). Second, man not only is universally evil but also spiritually ignorant. Quoting again from the Psalms, Paul says, There is none who understands (see Pss. 14:2; 53:3). Even if men somehow had the ability to achieve God's perfect righteousness, they would not know what it is or how to go about attaining it. To use the south seas island example again, they would have no idea as to which way to jump. Man has no innate ability to fully comprehend God's truth or His standard of righteousness. From God's magnificent creation, man has sufficient evidence of His ìinvisible attributes, His eternal power and divine natureî to make every person ìwithout excuseî for not honoring and glorifying God (Rom. 1:20). But apart from the ability to see that general revelation of His power and majesty, man has no spiritual capacity to know or understand God, because the ìnatural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraisedî (1 Cor. 2:14). In his letter to the Ephesians, the apostle points out that man's spiritual ignorance is not due to unfortunate outward circumstances or lack of opportunity. It is due solely to his own innate sinful nature that does not want to know and understand, much less obey and serve God. Unsaved persons are ìdarkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heartî (Eph. 4:18). Men are not sinful and hardened against God because they are ignorant of Him, but, to the contrary, they are ignorant of Him because of their sinful and hardened disposition. People have a certain sense about God through the testimony of creation, as already noted, and also through the witness of their consciences (Rom. 2:15). But their willfully sinful nature blocks out that testimony and witness. The natural man is thereby hardened in his heart and darkened in his mind. He not only does not understand God but has no inclination to do so. Some years ago a fascinating but pathetic story of a duck in a Toronto park made headlines for several days (Toronto Star, Nov. 4-13, 1971). The duck, who came to be called Ringo, made her home at the park lake. One day she accidentally poked her bill through the ring of a pull tab from a pop can and was not able to extricate herself. She was, of course, unable to eat and would soon starve to death. When her plight was noticed by some park visitors, she became something of a celebrity. Park personnel and animal experts tried numerous ways to catch Ringo so she could be helped. They even called in a champion duck caller. People tried luring her with food but without success. Unfortunately the frightened Ringo mistook all the efforts to help her as being threats. The rescuers lost sight of her and never did catch her. It is not known if Ringo eventually dislodged the pull tab before she died. Fallen and condemned man, trapped in his sin, is similarly confused. Because he sees it as a threat to his life-style rather than an eternal blessing, he makes every effort to escape the gospel, which the Lord has so graciously provided for his salvation. Third, in addition to being universally evil and spiritually ignorant, fallen man is rebellious. There is none who seeks for God, Paul declares, alluding again to Psalm 14:2. Judging from the vast number of religions in the world with millions of zealous adherents, one would think that a great many people are diligently seeking after God. But Scripture makes clear, in this passage and in many others, that all religious systems and efforts are, in reality, attempts to escape the true God and to discover or manufacture false gods of one's own liking. God has given the absolute assurance that anyone who seeks Him with his heart will find Him (Jer. 29:13). Jesus offers the divine promise that everyone who sincerely asks of Him will receive, that everyone who sincerely seeks Him will find Him, and that everyone who sincerely knocks on the door of heaven will have it opened to him (Matt. 7:8). But the Lord knows that man's sinful inclination is not to seek Him, and He therefore seeks individuals out to draw them to Himself. I trust that this is helpful! Blessings, Larry | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 1405 Registered: 3-2005 |
Amen Chris and Larry on those two references cited. John MacArthur and John Reisinger are two of the most solid expositors. Stan | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 127 Registered: 7-2005  |
Imputed and imparted righteousness were terms used to lighten the true basis of God's salvation. On what basis does God accept a man? YOu can choose between three answers: 1. A life of obedience to the law 2. Faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ 3. Some other way You be tempted to choose answer number 2. But the correct answer is number 1. God cannot accept a man who has sinned, even a single time. Only the man who obeyed perfectly the law can be accepted. This is the basis, the foundation of God's acceptance. But only Jesus has a life like this. Only He can be accepted by God. We are accepted on the basis of His obedience. This means that His righteousnes s is imputed to us. How could that be? In the same way that our sin was imputed to Him. In Him was no sin, but He was condemned and suffered our death. In us there is no righteousness, but we are justified and enjoy His gift, eternal life. For me, the difference between imputed and imparted righteousness became clear when I recognized that even if I will live a sinless life from this moment to the end of my life, this will never be the basis on what God accepts me. I will never be acceptable in the face of a holy God, because my former life will condemn me. I'll always be rejected, and condemned by God, even if I will live a blameless life, because I sinned. Only Jesus lived a holy and spotless life, from beginning to end. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3525 Registered: 12-2003  |
Great responses. Jackob, your explanation and personal experience is really insightful. Colleen | ||
| Heretic Registered user Username: Heretic Post Number: 250 Registered: 2-2005 |
Schasc, A couple weeks back in another thread I posted a link to a list of audio files presented by counter-cult evangelist Tim Oliver. I highly recommend the presentation on the Investigative Judgment (its 3 separate audio files due to their length) as he deals extensively with imputed versus imparted righteousness. I think youíll find it very helpful indeed. Hereís the link: http://www.thinkabouteternity.org/SDA/SDAFrameset.htm Make sure your window is open all the way and the audio file links are listed across the top of the page. Heretic | ||
| Zjason Registered user Username: Zjason Post Number: 34 Registered: 11-2005 |
So if I were to discuss this particular facet with a fellow adventist, likely I would get the response, " Well, God saved you, and He loves you too much to let you stay the way you are." On the surface, I wouldn't see anything wrong with that, and I might even embrace it. So how did this "imparted righteousness" come to be(the history of it?), and how do you respond to someone who gives you the reason stated above? | ||
| Raven Registered user Username: Raven Post Number: 392 Registered: 7-2004 |
Of course God changes us throughout our life, and I think it's okay to call that imparted righteousness. But that imparted righteousness can never be any basis for our salvation! Otherwise, where would the line be drawn? How much righteousness would have to be imparted and successfully received before we were savable? The Bible is clear that this changing is not completed until our transformation at the Second Coming. The Bible is also clear that the moment we are born again, the moment we believe, we have passed from death to life and we can know we have salvation. That would be impossible if salvation were based on imparted righteousness, and so that only leaves the basis to be on Christ's righteouness imputed to us. I have no idea when or how imparted righteousness affecting our salvation came into being. | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 229 Registered: 3-2005 |
Schasc: Thank you for re-posting the think about eternity file. Patria | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 3565 Registered: 12-2003 |
Actually, imparted righteousness is at the core of Catholic theology. They teach very much the same idea that traditional Adventism teaches: that we accept Jesus, then He gives us the power to BECOME righteous oursleves. They teach that one's works are part of one's salvation. This idea goes 'way back. Because people are works-oriented in their natural state, the idea finds eager acceptance in most people because naturally we want to be in charge and able to determine our own destinies. God says, though, that only He is righteous, and we must allow Him to impute His righteousness to us if we wish to be saved. That really goes against our natural grain; it requires submission and repentance and acceptance of His power and a relinquishment of our illusion of being in control. Colleen | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 230 Registered: 3-2005 |
I think this very concept is the reason I feel like I'm talking a different language to my Adventist friends/family much of the time. Rather, the same language with completely different meaning poured into the words. It's very, very difficult to get past that. I'm trying to figure out what square 1 is in relation to discussing the problems with Adventism with those who are asking questions. I am listening to the audio file that Schasc posted...it is GREAT. If you don't have time to listen to all of it, at least listen to part 2 of the IJ segment. He deals specifically with imparted/imputed righteousness and how Adventists use the same language as Evangelicals to teach imparted righteousness. Patria | ||
| Bobj Registered user Username: Bobj Post Number: 4 Registered: 1-2006 |
Partiar, your comment on speaking a different language is so true. The problem with a works based (imparted) righteousness is that you never know when you've done enough. My wife and I recently sat by the death bed of a very distressed dear lady who for nearly three hours expounded on all she had done for her church over the years and on how "God does His part, but we have to do our part, too." It was just heartbreaking. She would repeat things like, "I know that all you have to do is keep the Sabbath and be ready when Jesus comes." I tried to get words in about Jesus, but she kept redirecting the conversation to her many good deeds. It was like we were speaking a different language. For her, trusting in the Lord meant imparted righteousness--good behavior and perfect law keeping and good deeds or merits. When I used the term trusting in the Lord I meant imputed righteousness. Her understanding was the result of what Colleen describes above, basically a religion of the natural state and having nothing to do with saving faith. She was trying to convince herself herself that she was ready but it was obvious that the house was built on the wrong foundation. I've learned that there is little you can say to a person with such views other than to continue to talk about Jesus at every opportunity. She was so very agitated over the concern that she would be "ready" when she died, but had no testimony to share, no overflowing praise for Jesus, no peace, just overwhelming fear that she hadn't done enough to deserve to be saved. It was so sad. My wife and I will always remember it as an example of how we don't want to die! Our friend was trusting in her own obedience and performance and good deeds hoping God would like it in the judgment. She seemed to trust in the Lord partially, but not completely. I'm so glad for this forum and especially these threads that help readers cut through the fog on these important issues. We have to trust Jesus totally, completely, without reservation, for our salvation. We are complete in Him!! | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 231 Registered: 3-2005 |
Bobj: Amen! We are complete IN HIM. That is the key isn't it? It's all about Him and none about me! Patria | ||
| Patriar Registered user Username: Patriar Post Number: 232 Registered: 3-2005 |
Sorry, I just realized Heretic posted the thinkabouteternity website. Thank you Heretic! Patria |
