Sin and Righteousness: Imputed or Imparted or Both?

[Tobias Crisp]

I was at a conference this past weekend and in one of the messages the preacher talked about Christ taking on the believer's sin and that it was so real that Christ was truly guilty. He said a number of things to the same affect. In essence Christ's taking on the believer's sin was more than by imputation.

In other messages preached elsewhere this same preacher has advocated the idea that Righteousness is both imputed and imparted and that both are equally important. Again, saying in essence that the believer's righteousness is more than by imputation.

Although I have a lot of respect for this particular preacher the concepts that he has been preaching are disturbing.

I am interested to see what others on this boad believe regarding these issues. Is sin and righteousness more than by imputation?

[Brandan Kraft]

Hi Anthony,

I was at the same conference, and I remember him explaining that. I believe he was simply pressing home the reality of the imputed righteousness of Christ. Don Fortner the other night talked about imparted righteousness, and it's my opinion that it's just different terminology for sanctification and holy spirit regeneration. Christ indwells every believer through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, and Christ is perfectly righteous - thus the impartation/indwelling of the Spirit equals impartation of Christ's righteousness.

Brandan

[Eileen]

If you are talking about Don Fortner, he has an article in the April/May issue of New Focus magazine entitled "The Unbearable Burden of Guilt" that emphasizes 2 Cor 5:21 and teaches us that:

"He hath made him sin"

Not, he hath made him to be sin but in effect he was made sin.

Is that the same teaching you are talking about as far as the sin question?

Eileen~

[Tobias Crisp]

If you are talking about Don Fortner, he has an article in the April/May issue of New Focus magazine entitled "The Unbearable Burden of Guilt" that emphasizes 2 Cor 5:21 and teaches us that:

"He hath made him sin"

Not, he hath made him to be sin but in effect he was made sin.

Is that the same teaching you are talking about as far as the sin question?

Eileen~

Eileen,

I mean no disrespect for Don, he has many great messages, he has preached at our church several times and I do plan on attending the conference hosted by the church in Danville. But, I do very much disagree with him on this issue of impart righteousness and believe it is bad terminology and can lead to serious error. The bottom line is that Christ took the believer's sin by imputation only, to infer that Christ became sin in some other way more than imputation can lead to serious error. I will post two brief articles on this subject by Bill Parker and Daniel "Moose" Parks that should help in this issue.

My aim here is not to desparage any of these men as I currently fellowship with them. But, I do find some of teachings to be probablematic.

[Tobias Crisp]

IS RIGHTEOUSNESS IMPUTED, IMPARTED, OR INFUSED?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~

GOOD NEWS FROM THE REDEEMER

August 18, 2002 RADIO MESSAGE #437

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~

One often hears in Christian circles the terms "imputed righteousness," "imparted righteousness," and "infused righteousness." What do these terms mean? And are they Scriptural?

I. The doctrine of "imputed righteousness" teaches that God graciously charges to the account of believers in Christ the righteousness wrought by Christ. This doctrine is Scriptural. It is at length expounded in Romans 3:21-4:25. Here we are taught that the righteousness wrought by Christ during the days of His incarnation is imputed to, or charged to the account of, believers by God in justification. The justified acknowledge Christ to be not only "Jehovah Our Righteousness" (Jeremiah 23:6) – but also their only righteousness (Psalm 71:16). And they pray to be "found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith" (Philippians 3:9).

It may aid one in understanding this doctrine if he will ever bear in mind that in justification righteousness is imputed, not imparted. And justification does not make one righteous, but merely declares him to be so. And the imputation of righteousness does not change one inwardly and subjectively, this being the work of sanctification, not justification.



II. The doctrine of "imparted righteousness" teaches that God bestows righteousness to believers. This term and its doctrine are problematic.

If by the righteousness imparted one refers to the righteousness wrought by Christ, this term is a misnomer. That righteousness was a merit earned by Christ. And the merit of one person cannot be imparted to another. Just as surely as the guilt of Adam was imputed, not imparted, to all his race, the righteousness of Christ is imputed, not imparted, to all His people.

Some theologians use the term imparted righteousness to identify the righteous nature imparted by God to believers when He regenerates them. They thereby become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4). This "divine nature" (not God's essential nature) is the new one placed in men in regeneration, and which is ever in conflict with the old Adamic nature. It is the "seed" of God placed in man which "cannot sin" (1 John 3:9). While the doctrine here set forth is Scriptural, it is problematic to call it "imparted righteousness." That which is imparted is a righteous nature, not righteousness.

Another problem associated with the term imparted righteousness is that many who use it mean by it the heresy of infused righteousness.

III. The doctrine of "infused righteousness" teaches that God justifies in accord with a righteousness merited by Christ instilled into the believer and maintained by good works. This doctrine, especially prominent in the Roman Catholic Church, is anti-Scriptural, but accords with its doctrine of justification by works. It posits the believer receives both imputed and infused righteousness, the latter becoming his inherent righteousness, and one is justified on the basis of what he personally does with it.

This doctrine may be illustrated by three statements made by a certain gentleman upon hearing a gospel message on the subject of the wedding garment of Christ's bride (Revelation 19:8). His first statement was an objection to the preacher's declaration that the imputed righteousness of Christ is the only righteousness of the saints, on the ground that they possess also imparted righteousness. His second statement was his declaration that he furthermore possessed a "personal righteousness through Christ." His third statement was his response when told Isaiah 64:6 declares "all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags": "I would not call that which is done through the Holy Spirit a filthy rag!" In other words, he believed he was capable of performing works God would declare to be "righteous," not "filthy rags." It was very clear that what he called imparted righteousness manifested itself as infused righteousness, and that his "personal righteousness" was "self-righteousness."

Saints at the final day will be clothed in the imputed righteousness of Christ alone (Revelation 19:8; Isaiah 54:17; 61:10; Philippians 3:9). In what will you be clothed?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~

Your servant for Jesus' sake, Daniel E. Parks (2 Corinthians 4:5)

Pastor, Redeemer Baptist Church
2801 Cleveland Boulevard, Louisville, KY 40206 / 502.899-9205

[Tobias Crisp]

IMPUTED OR IMPARTED -- WHICH?

by Pastor Bill Parker

One of the greatest debates amongst those who claim to be "Christian," amongst various denominations, is this -- Are we saved based on an imputed righteousness, an imparted righteousness, or a combination of both? This issue can be easily settled if we rely upon and bow to God's Word. First, what is righteousness? Strictly speaking, when the Bible speaks in terms of the ground of salvation, justification before God, and when it speaks of fitness and entitlement to Heaven, righteousness refers to the perfect satisfaction to God's holy law and inflexible justice worked out and provided by God in the obedience and death of His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 1:16-17; 3:21-26; 10:4). Righteousness, in this sense, refers to the entire merit of Christ's work on behalf of God's elect, as their Mediator and Surety. God's Word tells us plainly that sinners can only be saved, justified before God, and made fit and entitled to all of Heaven based solely upon Christ's righteousness imputed to them (Romans 5:18-21; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Philippians 3:7-10). Imputed means that the merit of Christ's work of mediation is legally charged to their persons, to their accounts, so that they are saved, justified, made fit and entitled to all of salvation based on a righteousness they personally did not produce, the righteousness of Christ, their Substitute and Surety. This is salvation by grace!


The Bible knows no such term as imparted righteousness, however, when men refer to this, most mean the work of the Holy Spirit in a sinner to give that sinner spiritual life (a principle of life and godliness), faith, repentance, love, humility, and all the graces of the Spirit. These wonderful graces of the Spirit are imparted, infused and implanted, into the sinner by way of the heart (the mind, the affections, and the will). These things are not the merit of a work such as is the righteousness Christ produced. They are moral qualities of character freely given to God's elect by virtue of their oneness with Christ and as the fruit and result of His righteousness imputed to them (Romans 8:32). Therefore, these blessed and necessary graces of the Spirit cannot form any part of the ground of salvation, of justification before God, nor can they make us fit or entitled to any part of Heaven. They are all necessary in salvation, but not as the ground of salvation. They are all the fruit and effect of the work of Christ which is the only ground of salvation.


So it is true that in salvation there must be the merit of a work imputed and there must be moral qualities of character imparted. Christ's righteousness is imputed as the only ground of salvation, as the only merit that makes us fit and entitled to all of Heaven, so that He might have the preeminence in all things. As a result, the work of the Holy Spirit is imparted to bring God's elect to a saving knowledge of Christ and His righteousness as the only ground. God the Holy Spirit points us to and glorifies God the Son incarnate (John 16:13-14). Righteousness, the merit of Christ's work for us, is imputed, as the only ground of salvation. Spiritual life, and all that it includes, is imparted to us by the Holy Spirit as the fruit and effect of Christ's work for us. To confuse this as if the work of the Holy Spirit in us forms some part of the ground of our salvation is to make salvation a matter of works, not grace.


Now, Christ's righteousness cannot be imparted to a sinner, because the merit of a work cannot be imparted or infused. It can only be imputed, or legally charged to the sinner. Spiritual life, saving faith, repentance, love, and humility cannot be imputed to a sinner because a moral quality of character cannot be imputed, or charged to their account. It can only be imparted. This is the only way it can be in order for God to be glorified, Christ to be exalted, and sinners be saved in a way that removes all boasting in themselves. God cannot save sinners based on any moral quality of character infused into them nor based on anything the Holy Spirit enables them to do. Why? It is because God is holy and just, and He cannot save sinners or entitle them to Heaven based on anything less than perfect satisfaction to His holy law and inflexible justice. This is why the term imparted righteousness is confusing. Many imply or derive from this that God the Holy Spirit enables a sinner to meet up to, or at least progressively grow toward, the perfect standard of God's holy law. They imagine, therefore, that God will save them, bless them, or entitle them to some part of salvation based on what they have been enabled to do, not based solely upon what Christ has done. This is works salvation!


All the graces of the Holy Spirit imparted to God's elect, though they are perfect as given by the Spirit, when imparted or infused into a sinner become tainted with sin (Romans 7:14-24). Our faith, though it lays hold of the perfect righteousness of Christ, is not yet itself perfect faith. Our love is not yet perfect love. Our obedience is not yet perfect obedience. And even though we should try to make great improvements in these areas, when we do, we cannot say that we are any holier, or any more righteous, than we are in Christ by virtue of His righteousness imputed. Therefore, we cannot expect God to save us or entitle us to any part of Heaven based on these things, or anything else that is imparted to us. Yes, we must have faith in order to be saved, but we must never believe that faith forms any part of the ground of our salvation or any part of our entitlement to Heaven. We must look to Christ's righteousness imputed alone for this! This glorifies God who justifies the ungodly based on the righteousness of His Son. This exalts Christ who obeyed, suffered, bled, and died in order to establish a righteousness that would enable God to justify sinners and entitle them to all of Heaven. This removes all grounds of boasting in saved sinners and inspires them to love and obedience without legalism.


Salvation is based on the righteousness of Christ freely imputed and received by faith. Salvation is not based on any so-called imparted righteousness. Again, it is true that no sinner will be saved without the work of the Holy Spirit imparting spiritual life, saving faith, true repentance, Godly love, and humility, but all of these things point us to Christ and His righteousness alone as the only ground upon which God will save sinners and entitle them to Heaven. As John Bunyan wrote, "There is no other way for sinners to be justified from the curse of the law in the sight of God, than by the imputation of that righteousness long ago performed by, and still residing with, the Person of Jesus Christ."


What, then, does the Scriptures mean when they talk about doing righteousness (ex. 1 John 2:29; 3:7). As in every case of Scriptural interpretation, context determines the meaning. Doing righteousness does not mean that the Holy Spirit enables a believer to perfectly satisfy God's holy law and inflexible justice. That would be contrary to His main purpose -- to point us to Christ and cause us to rest in Him alone as the one who satisfied God's law and justice. Doing righteousness does not mean that the Holy Spirit imparts a principle in us that enables us to progressively meet up to God's perfect standard of holiness. We as believers are to aim for holiness in our character and conduct, but as we aim at this, we must keep two things in mind --

• (1) Although we are free from the guilt, condemnation, and defilement of sin as to our persons, in this life we will never be free from the power, influence, and presence of sin in our character and conduct. We will only be free from sin in this sense in the next life. Until then, we are sinners in our character and conduct, and as we grow in grace and in knowledge, we will realize more and more how sinful we are. We will realize more and more that our efforts to be holy cannot make us holy and cannot entitle us to any part of the inheritance of grace. This continually drives us to Christ for comfort and assurance. It continually causes us to plead His righteousness alone as our complete entitlement to all of Heaven.
• (2) Before we ever take the first step in seeking to be holy or in doing good works, we are already completely justified, sanctified, fit and entitled to all of Heaven based on the imputed righteousness of Christ. We are to run the Christian race, persevere in the faith, walk in the light, seek to bear fruit and bring forth good works, not in order to become saints, but we are to do all of this as having been made full-fledged saints by virtue of Christ and His righteousness alone.

Doing righteousness, then, is walking by a particular standard, and that standard is the Gospel -- God's promise to save us (and this includes the work of the Holy Spirit in us), bless us, keep us, and entitle us to all of Heaven based on the imputed righteousness of Christ. Doing righteousness is walking and living by faith in Christ, seeking to obey God, not in order to be entitled to any part of Heaven, but as we are already fully entitled to Heaven in Christ (Romans 12:1-2; Ephesians 1:3; Colossians 2:9-10). Doing righteousness is walking by the rule of the Gospel -- "But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world" (Galatians 6:14).


One last note on the issue of the term "imparted righteousness." Those who insist on using this term are usually very adamant against using the term "progressive sanctification." They say that "progressive sanctification" is not a Scriptural term, and it leads people to wrong thoughts about Biblical sanctification. I have heard people defend the use of this term by stating that they mean growth in grace. I agree that "progressive sanctification" is not a Scriptural term, and most who use it mean that believers become progressively holier by their efforts to obey God's commands. This is legalism and opposed to the Gospel. But I submit, in light of what has been written here, that the use of the term "imparted righteousness" is just as confusing and can be just as legal. Neither "progressive sanctification" nor "imparted righteousness" are Scriptural terms. This does not mean that we can only use words and phrases as quoted exactly from the Bible. If that were true, we would not use the term "Trinity" or the word "sovereign." However, we know these are Scriptural terms because they convey the right meaning of Scriptural truth. They do not confuse the issues of truth. Any words or phrases that confuse the issues of truth and life should be discarded. It is true that some people will twist and wrest any word or phrase. Peter spoke of those who would wrest the Scriptures "unto their own destruction" (2 Peter 3:16). We cannot stop this, but when words and phrases have historically and continually confused people and implied things contrary to the Scriptures, we need to discard them. Truth is more important than our own egos and reputations.

[Tobias Crisp]

Hi Anthony,

I was at the same conference, and I remember him explaining that. I believe he was simply pressing home the reality of the imputed righteousness of Christ. Don Fortner the other night talked about imparted righteousness, and it's my opinion that it's just different terminology for sanctification and holy spirit regeneration. Christ indwells every believer through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, and Christ is perfectly righteous - thus the impartation/indwelling of the Spirit equals impartation of Christ's righteousness.

Brandan

Brandan,

As Bill and Moose point out, this is very bad terminology at best. Also, this same preacher said that Rev. 7:14 regarding the robes being made white through the blood of the Lamb is the believer's own imparted righteousness. I am convinced that this is so wrong. The only righteousness that a believer has is an alien righteousness: the Righteousness of Christ imputed.

My goal here is not to criticize particular preachers but the specific concept that some of them are preaching. This was the main topic of discussion between Scott (who you met at the conference) and myself at the picnic following the conference which you were unable to attend. This same preacher also brought up these issues with Scott both before and during the conference in order to convert him to these ideas.

Eager Avenue Grace Church is also dealing with this issue in Albany, GA. This church rejects the concept of imparted righteousness and apparently the preacher from the conference recommended Mark Daniel to the church, who they ended up calling as their pastor. But within a few months Mr. Daniel began slowly introducing this concept of imparted righteousness into his messages. The church knew what was happening and ended up asking him to leave. Mr. Daniel hid his views on this issue knowing full well where they stood and tried to change them. If you want to discuss these things further offline let me know via email (anthonylawson2@juno.com). We can then discuss names and issues.

Again, my aim isn't to criticism or tear down these men, I have a lot of respect for them, but find this specific issue a major problem that many of them promote.

[Eileen]

Anthony,

The article in New Focus deals only with the imputation of our sin to Christ and doesn't address the 'Righteousness of Christ' that is imputed to us.

The bottom line is that Christ took the believer's sin by imputation only, to infer that Christ became sin in some other way more than imputation can lead to serious error. (Anthonys's quote)

Would you address the differences that you see between what Fortner is teaching and what the normative teaching on imputation of our sin to Christ is?

Bottom line question in the article is and I quote Fortner:

"Were our sins trasferred to Christ and made to be His, or was our Saviour only treated as if that were the case?"

He doesn't deny imputation but believes that Christ actually bore our sins themselves, not just the consequences, when He was made an offering for sin. Isaiah 53 (vv 6, 8-12)

Some clarification on the errors of this would be much appreciated by me. And I fully understand that you are not personally attacking Fortner.

Thanks for any input!
Eileen~

[L-Today]

Tobias Crisp,


I agree with your stance on imputation vs impartation/infusion absolutely. It is dangerous to go down any other road apart from imputation because all of them eventually (and logically) lead to Rome. Our (own) righteousness is (forever) filthy rags - that is why we can never and under no circumstances rely upon it. And I am very happy over this truth without which I am undone. Maybe others can be righteous by themselves, but I CANNOT. No amount of infusion will help our corrupt flesh which is ever striving against the spirit in our present bodies of death. What other joy is comparable to the knowledge that we are robed ONLY in Jesus Christ's robe of perfect righteousness? Who wants infusions?


Listening to Don Fortner's tapes and reading his books and articles at home, I was as disturbed by the strong emphasis he places upon how our Lord Jesus really and truly became ''sin'', not that our sin (and sins) were imputed into His account, the result of which transaction was that His Father's wrath was unleashed upon His Son instead of on us.


Hard for me to understand why this magnificent concept of imputation is not enough for some people. (As Mike cannot understand ''what if's''). Of course, Isaiah 53.6 says '' . . . and the LORD hath LAID ON him the uniquity of us all.'', but I thought it is obvious here, and in all other relevant passages, that our sins were imputed into the account, not imparted nor infused into the Person of our Redeemer, because He never actually committed any sin ever, being born and remaining forever impeccable, even when going through unspeakable agonies on the cross paying penalties for our sins.


If Don Fortner by ''impartation'' means ''imputation'', he'd better say so. This is far too important doctrine to be ambiguous about, especially with so much general and particular confusion in today's Christendom. Why give food for error to any potential Romish aspirants if it is easy to be clear on this matter, as Daniel E Parks has shown, for example. Maybe somebody can ask Don Fortner to deal with this matter, especially that Brandon, and maybe others, think that DN means ''imputation'' when he says ''impartation''.

There are other issues with Don Fortner that I don't agree with, although I readily and happily admit that he is a very effective preacher and, most certainly, a very nice and kind man and pastor. He is brilliant when bashing universalists.

L-Today.

[Brandan Kraft]

Here is what Fortner has to say on imparted righteousness... I would prefer the term imparted holiness myself, but I don't think he in any wise means infused righteousness!

http://www.freegrace.net/articles/do...article230.htm

Imputed righteousness is an act of God's grace in redemption. Because the Lord Jesus Christ lived in righteousness upon this earth as our Representative and died under the penalty of God's law as our Substitute, the law and justice of God declare that we are righteous. The very righteousness of Christ, his perfect obedience to God as a man, has been imputed to us. That is to say, righteousness has been laid to our account. In exactly the same manner as our sins were imputed to Christ, his righteousness has been imputed to us. When God made Christ to be sin for us, he charged him with our sin. The Son of God became responsible to the law of God for the sins of his elect. And the penalty of sin was exacted from him. He died under the wrath of God. Even so, God having imputed the righteousness of Christ to us who believe, we have become responsible for righteousness in the sight of God's law. And we shall receive the just reward of the law for righteousness, eternal life and everlasting glory. As our works of sin were made to be our Lord's, so his works of righteousness have been made ours. As he received the reward of our sin, we must receive the reward of his righteousness. That is substitution. Our righteousness before God is perfect, unalterable righteousness. It is the righteousness of Christ, our Substitute. Child of God, can you realize this? Your standing, your acceptance with God never varies. God is always well pleased with you in his Son!

Imparted righteousness is an act of God's grace in regeneration. In the new birth God gives his people a new heart, a new will, a new nature, created in righteousness and true holiness. Your standing before God is not improved at all by the new birth. God has given you a heart, nature and will of righteousness so that you now love the things you once hated and hate the things you once loved. By this act of divine grace in regeneration the righteous nature of Christ is imparted to God's elect.

http://www.freegrace.net/dfradio/dfrh595.htm
IMPARTED RIGHTEOUSNESS II Peter 1:3-4

Just as the fallen, unrighteous nature of Adam was imparted to all men by natural birth, the holy, righteous nature of Christ is imparted to all God's elect in the new birth. The righteousness of Christ is imputed to us for justification. And the righteousness of Christ is imparted to us in regeneration, by the irresistible power and effectual grace of God the Holy Spirit (I Pet. 3:10-12; I John 3:7-9).

I am not saying that the believer is without sin! He is not. Sin is what we are by nature. Sin is mixed with all we do. Sin mars our best thoughts, blackens our best deeds, corrupts our best words, and defiles our best aspirations.

I am not saying that the old nature is changed in regeneration; It is not. Flesh is always flesh. It never improves. It never becomes spirit. It only corrupts, rots and, thank God, in time dies.

I am not saying that the believer's works can ever be accepted before God upon their own merit! They are not. We offer up our prayers and sacrifices to God, which are accepted by him, only upon the merits of Christ's righteousness and blood atonement (I Pet. 2:5).

But I am saying that the person who is born of God is a new creature in Christ (II Cor. 5:17). He has a new nature, which is Christ in him the hope of glory. All who are born of God walk in the Spirit (Gal. 5:16-23). We love the law and truth of God. We love holiness. But, oh, the evil of our hearts!

There is a constant warfare within! (See Rom. 7:14-25). All who are born of God mind the things of God (Rom. 8:5). This is imparted righteousness. Believers love Christ and one another. They identify themselves with Christ, his gospel and his church. Believers are men and women of honesty and integrity. They live honestly, pay their bills and speak the truth, Believers hate their sin and long to be free of it. They are generous, kind and merciful. In a word, all who are born of God are committed to Christ, sold out to him. And they will continue in the faith, clinging to Christ alone unto the end.

Those who do not have this imparted righteousness are no more born of God than those who do not have Christ's imputed righteousness are justified before God.

Here is something from Dan Parks on the subject... Don Fortner was just at his church preaching, so I don't think Dan thinks Don is preaching infused righteousness!

http://grace-for-today.com/2194.htm



IS RIGHTEOUSNESS IMPUTED, IMPARTED, OR INFUSED?

GOOD NEWS FROM THE REDEEMER

August 18, 2002 RADIO MESSAGE #437

One often hears in Christian circles the terms "imputed righteousness," "imparted righteousness," and "infused righteousness." What do these terms mean? And are they Scriptural?

I. The doctrine of "imputed righteousness" teaches that God graciously charges to the account of believers in Christ the righteousness wrought by Christ. This doctrine is Scriptural. It is at length expounded in Romans 3:21-4:25. Here we are taught that the righteousness wrought by Christ during the days of His incarnation is imputed to, or charged to the account of, believers by God in justification. The justified acknowledge Christ to be not only "Jehovah Our Righteousness" (Jeremiah 23:6) – but also their only righteousness (Psalm 71:16). And they pray to be "found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith" (Philippians 3:9).

It may aid one in understanding this doctrine if he will ever bear in mind that in justification righteousness is imputed, not imparted. And justification does not make one righteous, but merely declares him to be so. And the imputation of righteousness does not change one inwardly and subjectively, this being the work of sanctification, not justification.

II. The doctrine of "imparted righteousness" teaches that God bestows righteousness to believers. This term and its doctrine are problematic.

If by the righteousness imparted one refers to the righteousness wrought by Christ, this term is a misnomer. That righteousness was a merit earned by Christ. And the merit of one person cannot be imparted to another. Just as surely as the guilt of Adam was imputed, not imparted, to all his race, the righteousness of Christ is imputed, not imparted, to all His people.

Some theologians use the term imparted righteousness to identify the righteous nature imparted by God to believers when He regenerates them. They thereby become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4). This "divine nature" (not God's essential nature) is the new one placed in men in regeneration, and which is ever in conflict with the old Adamic nature. It is the "seed" of God placed in man which "cannot sin" (1 John 3:9). While the doctrine here set forth is Scriptural, it is problematic to call it "imparted righteousness." That which is imparted is a righteous nature, not righteousness.

Another problem associated with the term imparted righteousness is that many who use it mean by it the heresy of infused righteousness.

III. The doctrine of "infused righteousness" teaches that God justifies in accord with a righteousness merited by Christ instilled into the believer and maintained by good works. This doctrine, especially prominent in the Roman Catholic Church, is anti-Scriptural, but accords with its doctrine of justification by works. It posits the believer receives both imputed and infused righteousness, the latter becoming his inherent righteousness, and one is justified on the basis of what he personally does with it.

This doctrine may be illustrated by three statements made by a certain gentleman upon hearing a gospel message on the subject of the wedding garment of Christ's bride (Revelation 19:8). His first statement was an objection to the preacher's declaration that the imputed righteousness of Christ is the only righteousness of the saints, on the ground that they possess also imparted righteousness. His second statement was his declaration that he furthermore possessed a "personal righteousness through Christ." His third statement was his response when told Isaiah 64:6 declares "all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags": "I would not call that which is done through the Holy Spirit a filthy rag!" In other words, he believed he was capable of performing works God would declare to be "righteous," not "filthy rags." It was very clear that what he called imparted righteousness manifested itself as infused righteousness, and that his "personal righteousness" was "self-righteousness."

Saints at the final day will be clothed in the imputed righteousness of Christ alone (Revelation 19:8; Isaiah 54:17; 61:10; Philippians 3:9). In what will you be clothed?

Your servant for Jesus' sake, Daniel E. Parks (2 Corinthians 4:5)
Pastor, Redeemer Baptist Church

2801 Cleveland Boulevard, Louisville, KY 40206 / 502.899-9205

All believers in regeneration are given a new nature - a holy consecrated nature. I think these theologians are simply using the word "imparted righteousness" to describe this, although I think it's a term that should not be used due to the confusion that it has brought. Nowhere do the scriptures use the word "impart" to describe this, so the terminology ought to be dropped.

[Brandan Kraft]

Silly me, I overlooked the earlier post by dan parks by Anthony - Sorry!

[cih92]

Our sin was imputed to Christ, but this does not mean that Christ became guilty.

The believer does not have a righteousness of his own (Phil. 3:9). The believer has the imputed righteousness of Christ. The believer has a changed life, but I would not call this changed life, "righteousness".

[L-Today]

Brandan, sorry for misspelling your name! Never thought it could happen to me! (Maybe lack of recent communication could be blamed).

You are right: best of all is to drop the term ''impartation''. To tell you the truth, I get even more confused after reading DF's thoughts on the subject.

L

[Eileen]

Luba,

Do you have the April/May issue of New Focus magazine? That is where I read the article where DF presents his ideas about our sins being more than imputed. In the bit of article that Brandan posted he used the full idea:

When God made Christ to be sin for us, he charged him with our sin.

In the magazine article he is saying that the 'to be' has been inserted by our translators to make the text read more smoothly, though there are no words corresponding to them in the text. In otherwords, it should read: "He hath made him sin" I'm wondering if he himself, DF that is, has changed his thinking on this and now believes something new? I'm hoping someone who has knowledge about translations (such as WB) will comment on the 'to be'.

I'm settled in my assurance that I have NO RIGHTEOUSNESS of my own but that the Righteousness of Christ is and ever will be my standing before a Holy God, today, tomorrow and the day I stand before Him. Christ Alone!

Hoping someone will comment on the 'to be' issue that DF has introduced.

Eileen~

[Robert R. Higby]

I agree with all of you that dropping the term 'impartation' is the most wise option, in light of history. Impartation (a 'gift') has been equated with both imputation and infusion, TWO OPPOSITE CONCEPTS, depending on the interpreter. We don't want to introduce this confusion to those who love the true gospel of imputation ALONE as the sum and substance of Christ's redemption in which we savingly believe.

I do believe in REAL and not merely forensic imputation. What this means is that God in his sovereignty really and trully imputes our sins to Jesus in his atoning work and Christ's righteousness to us in that same work. Some who teach purely forensic imputation make it out to be an 'AS IF' proposition that can be wiped out by the unfaithfulness of the believer. God forbid!

[Robert R. Higby]

We in the dark 21st century are in the midst of an awful crisis. The truth of the gospel is hated increasingly by the established 'church' every day of our lives, with the heretical New Perspective on Paul gaining more and more prominence. This is no time for unclear and confusing language; it is a most awful error to use jargon that IN ANY WAY might confuse believers and sound similar to those heretics promoting the Roman doctrine of gratia infusa.

By very definition I am one of the ignorant sheep of Christianity. Being a Nonconformist, I hold no 'ordained' office in any 'church'--therefore I have no 'right' to teach others. So let those who have the 'official' right to teach speak clearly and avoid all of this confusion. Don't confuse us men and women of the plow with a new language unless it is clearly explained so that a child might understand it! That is my only request.

[Ian Potts]

I haven’t time to discuss this subject but I did one to make a brief comment on the matter.

Essentially two points are being discussed here and contributors to the thread would be wise to keep clarity on which point they are dealing with, firstly the issue of imputation and impartation of righteousness to the elect, and secondly the imputation (or otherwise) of sin to Christ.

I have a high regard for Don Fortner both as a preacher and as a man. I count him as a faithful and bold preacher of the gospel in a day where such are few and far between. Very few.

Part of Brother Fortner’s attraction to me is his no-nonsense, black and white, forthright approach. He is a preacher of the gospel. Not a debater, not a scholar, not one to discuss and analyse, but a preacher. It is such men whom God sends forth with His word. The Gospel is to be preached not debated.

With regard to Don Fortner’s position on the points raised I’d say this:-

• In common with Brandan I think Don’s usage of the phrase ‘imparted righteousness’ is really just a terminology issue. He is not preaching anything akin to Roman Catholic dogma. All he is meaning by this is that which is a result of the new birth. At the cross Christ justified his people and the righteousness of God in Christ is imputed to them from that point. When they are born again of the Spirit they who were dead are quickened to life, and that life is the Spirit of Christ within them. His life is RIGHTEOUSNESS and that life will bring forth fruit in the person’s actual conduct. It is this which Fortner is referring to by ‘imparted righteousness’. Not that something of Christ is ‘transferred’ to us, but that Christ Himself dwells within by His Spirit. Hence although the phrase ‘imparted righteousness’ might conjure up certain errors to some I wouldn’t be too hard on Fortner over this. Perhaps he could just use more scriptural language here.

• Fortner’s position that Christ didn’t just have our sin IMPUTED to Him, but that He was actually MADE SIN (2 Corinthians 5:21) is spot on. He is absolutely right here and I agree completely. Hence I reproduce his article on my website: http://www.ipotts.freeserve.co.uk/article18.html

For Christ to be a true substitute for the sinner in death He had to truly become what they are, sin, in order to take it away by suffering under the wrath of God. That doesn’t make Christ a sinner, but it did mean that He was made sin during those hours of darkness at the cross, until that hour at which He cried out ‘It is finished!’ when all that sin was GONE. Consumed, burnt up. Judged. Taken away. And Christ arose from the grave on the third day spotless, perfect, righteous. And us in Him.

Will I debate such a truth? Not now. I’d rather preach it, as I’m sure Don Fortner would.

In Grace,

Ian

[Brandan Kraft]

I'm having a hard time trying to understand the difference between imputation of sin and being made sin. Aren't they the same? Christ was made a sinner by imputation. I thought that is what imputation meant! To have sin charged to one's account is to be made a sinner... Am I missing something? I really don't know what the distinction is.

[Ian Potts]

I'm having a hard time trying to understand the difference between imputation of sin and being made sin. Aren't they the same? Christ was made a sinner by imputation. I thought that is what imputation meant! To have sin charged to one's account is to be made a sinner... Am I missing something? I really don't know what the distinction is.

Brandan,

A very brief explanation, just for you.

To impute, is reckon something to be something, to 'put it to its account'. So to impute sin to someone is to reckon that person to have that sin, whether they have it or not.

Imagine I have a wall painted white. I could impute black to it, reckon it to be black and treat it accordingly. If I particularly hate black walls I may well paint it white again....

But the fact is that wall was white all along, and repainting it white doesn't alter its colour.

But if I take a white wall and throw black paint on it, I haven't imputed black to it, I've MADE IT black. Then I can paint it white to erase the black.

This is much the case with Christ being MADE SIN. If sin was just imputed to Him, then God would simply put our sin to His account, treat Him as the sinner and judge Him for that sin. But nothing would actually happen TO THAT SIN. Christ wouldn't be made it, the sin itself wouldn't be transferred from us to Him, and taken out of the way in the judgement.

But if Christ was MADE SIN (our sin) for us, as He was, then God took our black sin, and made the righteous Christ (white), black with sin. God then burnt up that sin in Christ as He blotted it out. All the black burnt away leaving Christ white again. And us white in Him.

This is not merely imputation. Not merely forensic. Not merely 'as if'. But actually AS. Christ was MADE SIN for us that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

As saith the scriptures.

In Grace,
Ian

P.S. And just to throw another cat among the pigeons (and I haven't time to discuss.... )....

Scripture makes a distinction between SIN and SINS. Christ was MADE SIN, and He bore OUR SINS.

SIN is what we are. SINS are what we do. We have by nature a wicked heart, a sinful heart. We are sin. Out of that heart proceed evil things. We DO wicked things, sins. The two are not the same. Christ in His death dealt with both, our state in the fall, and our actions. He was MADE SIN, and He BORE OUR SINS.

2 Corinthians 5:21 deals essentially with the state, SIN. Christ was MADE SIN (our state by nature) that we might become the RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD IN HIM (His state by nature, not the actions He did - eg. under the law in His life - but what He IS, righteousness of God). His blood washed away our sins.

[Eileen]

Thank you Ian for your willingness to further clarify/explain what "He hath
made him sin" truly does mean. Certainly answered my questions!
Eileen~