Theology Club: Imputation of Christ's Righteousness
- Thread starter Nang
- Start date
You are probably confusing Open Theism and Moral Government Theology. Many Open Theists would agree with you, including the TOL types, I think. There are various views on imputation, so you beg the question by assuming only your theory is right (just like you do with TULIP, sovereignty, etc.).
I would say a consistent free will Open Theist would not be OSAS/POTS. The TOL Enyart types claim Open Theism and are OSAS, but this is probably more MAD or Exchanged Life theories than Open Theism.
I would say a consistent free will Open Theist would not be OSAS/POTS. The TOL Enyart types claim Open Theism and are OSAS, but this is probably more MAD or Exchanged Life theories than Open Theism.
I guess you could call me an open theist and I believe in Christ's imputed righteousness for my salvation. What else would we rely on? Certainly not our own righteousness.
For all those in the Body of Christ, yes. I would say it was also eternally settled that all those in the Body would be conformed to the image of Christ, be holy and blameless, be justified and glorified.
I can't answer for open theists in general. For me, I am saved by virtue of having faith in Christ. Salvation is faith in Christ. I've no objection to the notion that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, however, that seems an overly legalistic or transactional way of putting it. God has provided for us a means of salvation by faith in his Son and the exact mechanism that he himself gets to approve of us is not that important. I quite like the idea (from Noah) that we give something to God and he is consequently pleased with us and then overlooks (he is after all a God of mercy) our offences. Our giving to God is our response to Christ in faith - a complete giving of self to the Lordship of Christ.
Eternally settled, no. God will not withdraw from the relationship but we can.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
I do not think so. :chuckle:
Well, since the OP, no Open Theists have responded to my post. What does that tell you?
Oh really? What are these "various views?" I know of none.
The gospel message is: God imputed His righteousness to undeserving sinners, in order that they may have everlasting life based upon faith in His Person and Works.
What other view of imputed righteousness, is there?
I do not ask about OSAS,Bob, or MAD. :dead:
I asked for response regarding the Open Theist's view of Imputed Righteousness.
Your answer amounts to nothing but an empty deflection and deliberate distraction from my question of concern.
Nang
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Nang
TOL Subscriber
The imputation of the righteousness of Jesus Christ, to undeserving sinners, is wholly and nothing other, than a legal ruling on the part of God that transacts saving grace to whom He pleases.
I disagree. The "mechanism" by which sinners are saved, is by the legal rendering of grace and pardon and forgiveness, alone.
There is no other way by which God can "approve" of sinful creatures, but by the substitutional work of Jesus Christ . . . that is then imputed to those for whom He died.
You might quite like such a notion, but it is nothing but a belief that favor with God can be achieved by the works of His creatures. That is NOT the gospel of grace, which teaches that favor and grace comes from God only and stricly according to Christ's righteousness, alone.
You have a backwards gospel.
Sinners do not give themselves to Christ. Christ has given Himself for sinners.
Time you learned that truth . . . I would dare say!
The legal rendering of imputation righteousness, from God to man, cannot ever be withdrawn or reversed. It IS settled forever and ever.
Thankfully, righteousness depends upon the successful works of Jesus Christ and the grace of God, and not the sinful human's choice or efforts to maintain or withdraw from any human imaginary relationship with salvation, at all.
Such is the crux of my OP.
When and if God determines to legally impute righteousness to individual sinners named according to and by the power of Christ's blood shed, and His grace . . . does that legal ruling not settle the eternal fate of the recipient of His grace, forever and ever?
Nang
Last edited:
Imputation issues are not germane to Open Theism. Your arrogant ignorance is showing. You assume the Calvinistic view is the right one, but the Wesleyan one must also be considered (both sides claim biblical support). Just because you think your view is the only one does not mean it is not a debated subject in Christian circles of various stripes.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
As I suspected!
Frankly, I have never studied a genuine theology of the Christian faith, that was not founded upon the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. Such belief in the righteousness of Christ alone, is the sole foundation of the Gospel of Grace.
The imputed righteousness of Christ is not debatable.
If a sinner has no trust and assurance in the righteousness of Jesus Christ being forensically applied to his soul which eternally changes his spiritual standing before God, that sinner has no knowledge or belief in the true gospel that saves the soul.
There is NO other righteousness that can save sinners, but the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ!
If Open Theists fail to found their faith on this truth, they are following and teaching a false gospel.
The Open Theism debate focuses on foreknowledge, predestination, etc. The soteriological views, including imputation, are not part of the debate, but are personal and influenced by denominational background, etc.
Using your logic, eschatological debates and controversies (you have them in your camp also) are the warp and woof of TULIP. No, they are not, so don't make models of providence the same as soteriology.
Most Open Theists would not quibble with you on that point, but they will disagree on your deterministic system because they are free will theists. That IS a pivotal issue, but imputation is another can of worms not related to the Open Theism debate.
Now, if you are talking about Finney/Barnes (who reject Open Theism) and their Moral Government Theology, then you can make a fuss about MGT and your version of imputation. If you get Wesley, Whitefield, Calvin, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Moody, Sproul, Packer, Piper, etc. in the same room, they will also not spout your exact version on the subject and may agree or disagree with each other in general or on specific details. You have to define what YOU mean, since Nang's version might not be AMR's version, etc.
You are not infallible nor are the Calvinistic creeds.:deadhorse:
Using your logic, eschatological debates and controversies (you have them in your camp also) are the warp and woof of TULIP. No, they are not, so don't make models of providence the same as soteriology.
Most Open Theists would not quibble with you on that point, but they will disagree on your deterministic system because they are free will theists. That IS a pivotal issue, but imputation is another can of worms not related to the Open Theism debate.
Now, if you are talking about Finney/Barnes (who reject Open Theism) and their Moral Government Theology, then you can make a fuss about MGT and your version of imputation. If you get Wesley, Whitefield, Calvin, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Moody, Sproul, Packer, Piper, etc. in the same room, they will also not spout your exact version on the subject and may agree or disagree with each other in general or on specific details. You have to define what YOU mean, since Nang's version might not be AMR's version, etc.
You are not infallible nor are the Calvinistic creeds.:deadhorse:
Nang
TOL Subscriber
I highly suspect you have no clue as to the significance of the doctrine of Federal Imputation. That is sad, for it is the core truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
However, you are able, if willing, to research the subject with a bible (or even a Google) search, if the Spirit so leads you.
Or you could inquire of AMR for discussion and study of his (and mine) understanding of this most vital teaching. He would be most pleased, I am sure, to fill you and other Open Theists in about this wonderful truth!
I went to Bible College and have a Bachelor of Theology. This view was taught to me in a Pentecostal denominational college as the traditional, correct view from Romans. I believed it and understood it in general, but now feel Adamic Federal Headship is not without problems and is more Augustinian/philosophical than explicitly biblical.
Regardless of whether I agree with you, Wesley, Augustine, Finney, etc., it is moot since most believers cannot intelligently articulate the issues apart from just saying it like a cliche. Either way, the important thing is that you and I fully trust the person and work of Christ alone by grace through faith apart from law/works. We do not need to pass your theological quiz and articulations to get to heaven in light of Jn. 1:12; Jn. 3:16; Rom. 10:9-10; Eph. 2:8-10; I Jn. 5:11-13; I Cor. 15:1-4; Titus 3:5, etc.
I consider myself an open theist because I believe that Scripture teaches that the future is partly open and partly settled. In other words, it does not teach that the entire future is settled.
This is clearly reality. The burden of proof is on those who deny this.
The imputation of His righteousness isn't an open vs. settled view issue. It's dispensational issue, though. It's odd that the Bible clearly states His righteousness is imputed to those of us who are in Him and yet many people believe otherwise and that salvation can be lost, i.e. we can become unrighteous, through our own actions yet they confirm that we cannot be righteous of our own accord. It's dizzying.
As the Newsboys put it in one of their songs [I don't recall which one at the moment], "How could we ever return that which we never could earn?"
As the Newsboys put it in one of their songs [I don't recall which one at the moment], "How could we ever return that which we never could earn?"
That is one way of looking at and as such, as I said, I have no objection to it. However, it is certainly not the only way of looking at it. It is not merely a legal issue. If it were, it sounds as if you would conclude that God is subject to the law. Judges make their rulings according to the law and your insistence on 'wholly and nothing other' than the legal nature of salvation implies that God is subject to that law. Imputed righteousness is simply a way of looking at what Christ has done for us.
Well, I got the notion from the Bible.
God recognises that man's heart is wicked but he refrains from further (global) judgement and instead agrees to cause the seasons to endure, thus making man's life on Earth tolerable. Whether you call it 'a work', as you seem to, or an act of faith, as Paul does (grace through faith), doesn't matter - the fact is that God is pleased with it and overlooks our sins.
I'm not quite sure what argument you are picking here. As GR has said, most OVers would concur that Christ's righteousness is imputed to believers. Perhaps what you are trying to do is to make faith a work and then we are not really having a discussion about whether righteousness is imputed to believers but whether our works save us.
Yes, so there it is, you said it yourself. Your argument is not about imputation but about what you define as a work. Thankfully, we believe in a God who responds to our faith, who attributes our faith in Christ to us as righteousness and who actually loves us. We don't believe that a god who decides in advance whether we will get salvation or damnation and that our choices are predetermined to agree with him, loves us at all. And we don't believe that they are real choices as they are already predetermined.
And we don't accept Calvinism because it destroys faith. Whereas Paul distinguished between faith and works, Calvinists are so misanthropic that they cannot accept this distinction and want to make all faith the same as works and they want relationships with God to be strictly on the imaginary level.
That's what you really wanted an OVer to say isn't it?
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Jesus Christ incarnated to subject Himself to the Law of God as Mediator for His people.
Indeed. I have no idea how any soul can look at what Christ did on the cross, without understanding it was the ultimate fulfillment of the Law.
No, for I believe there is no such thing as saving faith apart from the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. It is His righteousness imputed to the sinner, that causes that sinner to repent and believe.
I do not believe any sinner has an innate capacity to exhibit faith and repentance. Both spiritual abilities come as a gift of God's grace.
This is not the doctrine of "Imputed Righteousness." This is teaching rewards for human exhibitions of faith that may or may not proceed from the Holy Spirit indwelling.
"Imputed Righteousness" is God's grace that accords with the faith and works of Jesus Christ, which is not contingent upon sinners' at all.
O.K. And that answers my OP. Apparently you do not quite understand the doctrine.
Let me explain briefly the significance of "Imputed Righteousness." It is a biblical refutation against the Roman Catholic error of teaching an "infused righteousness" which comes as a religious reward and blessing, according to good works of penance, oblations, sacramental observances, and several good works demanded by the institutional church.
IOW's, the RCC taught that sinners who follow all the rituals and rites demanded by the magistrates, might be given graces to become righteous in themselves, according to their own spiritual deeds. Of course, we all know this is the error of semi-pelagianism, which the Protestants opposed in the days of Luther and Calvin.
When Christians are born again by the power of God, they are gifted with faith and repentance from God, and legally they are justified from all guilt of sin, through the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ, alone.
Regenerated believers remain sinners, but they are forgiven sinners, who are newly enabled to turn away from their sins and live by faith in the righteousness of Jesus Christ.
I have been under the impression that Open Theists do not approve of the works-righteousness demanded by the RCC.
Thus, my OP.
I am trying to clarify your OT views, and the responses so far are interesting.
Well, that opinion is directly contrary to what I just explained. It was the Protestant Reformers (Luther, Calvin, etc.) who opposed and broke from the RCC over what you describe above. For it is the RCC which fails to distinguish between faith and works, making faith a means to find God's graces, rather than faith being the spiritual fruit and result of God's free grace.
Ephesians 2:8-10
Any form of free-will advocacy unto obtaining salvation through acts of faith that are mistakenly thought to reside in sinful human hearts (e.g. Arminianism, OT, etc.) proves to be a return of Protestants to the Roman Catholic beliefs.
Which is too bad . . .
Unless God changes our corrupted hearts, minds, and wills, we sinners have no hope of exhibiting faith and repentance; let alone any human righteousness or inherent virtues. (John 3:3)
All of these things must be gifted to us from above, to the glory of God, alone.
Nang
This does not fairly represent the non-Calvinistic, non-OSAS view. The issue is faith vs unbelief, not self-righteousness, not actions/works/behaviour.
Faith that ceases is unbelief. Faith that continues is the condition for salvation/perseverance. Like Calvinists, you think Arminian faith/continuing in faith is tantamount to a self-work/action/behavior. No, it is FAITH, the antithesis being unbelief (an unbelieving believer is an oxymoron except to wrong OSAS). Nang is wrong to think that free will faith (involves mind/will) is Roman Catholic or works vs grace. She confuses grounds and conditions of salvation and injects a monergistic view that is not biblical.
Scripture?
All the verses about faith/belief that use the Greek present tense (normally a habitual, continuous tense).