Reckon that St Paul, if he came back today, would be utterly bamboozled by the imputation argument. It could be that the likes of White, Sproule, Piper et al may have inadvertently wandered way off track.
I like the relational perspective of this approach, which seems to fit with God who as Father draws near to us in Christ rather than seeming to only settle our standing with him by being a distant judge making a legal ruling. It links with so much else of NT teaching, eg the vine and branches of John 15, and Christ in us the hope of glory.
Apostle Paul there makes a big distinction between ' a righteousness of his own' and 'the righteousness from God'
One's understanding of imputed righteousness may still suffer from the problem of being a righteousness of one's own. It can be seen as the righteousness God gives me on the basis of my faith, that he declares over me. But this righteousness can still be a righteousness of one's own.
So I might say to myself 'I have a righteousness that is mine because God has reckoned it to me.' The basis for it may be different, not from the law, but it may be still considered a righteousness of my own that God gives me.
But how different is that righteousness from the the righteousness that Paul says he had as Pharisee. He says in v6 'as to righteousness under the law, blameless' ?
As a Pharisee he must have considered that God had declared him righteous because of his impeccable torah- keeping. It was a righteousness, but he says it was a righteousness of his own.
The big difference for Paul seemed to be that the new righteousness that he now had in Messiah was not 'his own'. It was an alien righteousness. It was a righteousness from God. Not just imputed to him from God but a God righteousness that he now partakes in through union in Christ.
There is certainly an imputation of righteousness within that, it is not just a mystical association, but it is no longer a righteousness that can be considered as his own.
I think both concepts are biblical. I like both words. Imputed and incorporated. The various passages seem to point to one or the other. Imputed alone without incorporated can be used as a cover for a poor relationship with God, so I think it's an inadequate explanation of our being righteous. Incorporated alone seems to lean too heavily on our part in this.
Well said Fr Mike.
Reckon that St Paul, if he came back today, would be utterly bamboozled by the imputation argument. It could be that the likes of White, Sproule, Piper et al may have inadvertently wandered way off track.
It really is a post-medieval debate that he wouldn't recognize.
I like the relational perspective of this approach, which seems to fit with God who as Father draws near to us in Christ rather than seeming to only settle our standing with him by being a distant judge making a legal ruling. It links with so much else of NT teaching, eg the vine and branches of John 15, and Christ in us the hope of glory.
I thing you are onto something very important.
Philippians 3:8-9 is the biggy of course.
Apostle Paul there makes a big distinction between ' a righteousness of his own' and 'the righteousness from God'
One's understanding of imputed righteousness may still suffer from the problem of being a righteousness of one's own. It can be seen as the righteousness God gives me on the basis of my faith, that he declares over me. But this righteousness can still be a righteousness of one's own.
So I might say to myself 'I have a righteousness that is mine because God has reckoned it to me.' The basis for it may be different, not from the law, but it may be still considered a righteousness of my own that God gives me.
But how different is that righteousness from the the righteousness that Paul says he had as Pharisee. He says in v6 'as to righteousness under the law, blameless' ?
As a Pharisee he must have considered that God had declared him righteous because of his impeccable torah- keeping. It was a righteousness, but he says it was a righteousness of his own.
The big difference for Paul seemed to be that the new righteousness that he now had in Messiah was not 'his own'. It was an alien righteousness. It was a righteousness from God. Not just imputed to him from God but a God righteousness that he now partakes in through union in Christ.
There is certainly an imputation of righteousness within that, it is not just a mystical association, but it is no longer a righteousness that can be considered as his own.
I think both concepts are biblical. I like both words. Imputed and incorporated. The various passages seem to point to one or the other. Imputed alone without incorporated can be used as a cover for a poor relationship with God, so I think it's an inadequate explanation of our being righteous. Incorporated alone seems to lean too heavily on our part in this.