A pastor recently told me that when I was born again, all my sin was transferred (imputed) to Christ, and all His righteousness was transferred (imputed) to me.  How much of my sin was transferred to Christ, he asked?–ALL of it.  Therefore, even future sins would never be “imputed” to me.

I do not believe this view of “imputed righteousness” is correct, and I believe it leads to a whole host of other sin-excusing doctrines, including the infamous “once-saved-always-saved.”  After all, if my future sins cannot be imputed to me, then I have no reason to even feel guilty for them. According to this version of “imputed righteousness,” I can be positionally righteous even while being practically wicked. Or, as some would say, God doesn’t even see my sin–all He sees is Jesus. (Please click here for a refutation of that doctrine.)

Because “imputed righteousness” is a term used in the Bible, and misused and abused by so many teachers, it is imperative that the Christian learn what this term means in biblical context.

Some of the most common verses used to support the doctrine of a transferred righteousness are Psalm 32:2,  Rom. 4:5-25, and James 2:23.  We will look at each passage separately, and I hope to show you that the word “imputed” does not mean “transferred” at all!  Nowhere in Scripture does it expressly say that the obedience or personal righteousness of Christ is transferred to believers, although it is true that Christ’s atoning sacrifice makes our forgiveness possible.

1. Psalm 32:2

Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile. (Psa. 32:2)

The context of this verse is David’s adultery with Bathsheba and murder of her husband, and his repentance after being confronted by the prophet Nathan. The previous verse (Psa. 32:1) states, “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.” David was simply thankful for the blessedness of not having his past sins of adultery and murder counted against him AFTER he repented and was forgiven by God!  If David had not repented of his wickedness, his transgressions would not have been forgiven, his sin would not have been covered, and his iniquity would have been imputed to (counted against) him.

2.  Rom. 4:5-25

5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

6Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

7Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

8Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Here, Paul reviews Psalm 32:2, showing how God imputes righteousness without works. David was not counted as righteous because he worked off his sins of adultery and murder, but because he was forgiven after he repented. It was his faith, working together with his repentance, that was counted for righteousness; the verse does not say that Christ’s perfect obedience was somehow transferred to David. The imputation of righteousness, then, happens at the moment of forgiveness.   A forgiven person is counted as having never sinned and is therefore counted as righteous.

Please notice the Scriptures do not say that David’s sins were ever unseen by God, but only that they were forgiven by God (and his forgiveness was contingent upon repentance.)  The modern-day doctrine of imputation says God doesn’t even see your sin because Christ’s perfect obedience has been transferred to your account so that God sees Jesus rather than the sinner and his sin.

Notice also the use of the word “imputed” in verse 6 means the same thing as “counted” in verse 5.  David was counted as righteous once he was forgiven by faith.

9Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

10How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

12And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

13For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

Here, Paul is explaining to Gentiles that even “Father Abraham” was justified by faith, not by conformity to the law of circumcision, and he is the father of physically uncircumcised people who also walk in like faith.  Again, notice that the use of the word “imputed” in verse 11 carries the same meaning as the word “reckoned” in verse 9. The truth being taught here is that righteousness is imputed to (reckoned to) the believer by faith, rather than by keeping Jewish law; therefore salvation is open to all Gentiles who will exercise faith like Abraham. Anyone who repents and believes according to the gospel can have their sins forgiven, and righteousness imputed to (reckoned to) them.  In other words, they can be reinstated to a right relationship with God, and their debt of sin can be cancelled or erased–THIS is imputed righteousness.

Nowhere do we see a transference of God’s righteousness to the believer as a covering behind which they can continue in sin, but rather a righteousness (clean record) which belongs to the believer by faith and because of forgiveness.

20He [Abraham] staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;

21And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.

22And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

23Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;

24But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

25Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

Again, we see that it was Abraham’s patient faith in God’s Word which was imputed to him for righteousness. He possessed “the righteousness of faith” (vs. 13).  It was not that God’s righteousness was being transferred to him, but that his own faith was counted for righteousness, and his sins were forgiven. And verse 24 tells us that we too can be considered or reckoned righteous if we have the same faith toward Jesus.

3. James 2:23

And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

This Scripture is right in the middle of James’ teaching that faith without works is dead. James reminds us that Abraham offered his son Isaac in obedience to God, and his faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect.  According to James, it was this faith made perfect by works that became the basis for righteousness being imputed to him!  Again, nothing here suggests that the “righteousness of Christ” or “Christ’s perfect obedience to the law” was somehow transferred to his account, so that his future sins could be ignored.  Imputed righteousness is simply reckoned righteousness. Abraham was considered righteous in God’s sight because God had forgiven his sins.

To briefly summarize this paper, I believe that “imputed righteousness” is not a transference of Christ’s righteousness to our account, but a personal righteousness that is granted when a person repents and exercises saving faith, and God forgives his sins and declares him righteous (unblemished by sin.)  If a person–after being forgiven and declared righteous by God–returns to his sins, his righteousness will not be remembered (Eze. 3:20; 33:13).  Therefore, to the one who thinks he can hide present-tense sins behind a transferred “righteousness of Christ,” I repeat John’s words, “Let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.” (I John 3:7)

For more in-depth study on this subject, please read Imputed Righteousness by Jesse Morrell.  Jesse includes all the uses of the Greek word (logizomai) from which we get “impute” in the Bible,  as well as its equivalent in Hebrew (chashab)–this is very helpful in understanding the application of the word.

God bless you.

Article

great!

this is what you should care doing.preach your religion and what it says.no one would harrass you or refute you or expose your religion.

but when you try to provoke others particularly Muslims,you'd just be digging your own grave with your own hands.this has being my message to you all along.

Have they chased you back here again from the ISLAM section

frosbel:

Have they chased you back here again from the ISLAM section

won't you mind your business?

It is a shame that a leader in the church, a Pastor for that matter is twisting the scripture like this to his own destruction. What! Transference of sins. It means that we should just go ahead and do whatever we like on the basis of transference of sins. I call it backsliding or an excuse to commit sin. May God help us. God2man.

It is a shame that a leader in the church, a Pastor for that matter is twisting the scripture like this to his own destruction. What! Transference of sins. It means that we should just go ahead and do whatever we like on the basis of transference of sins. I call it backsliding or an excuse to commit sin. May God help us. God2man.

LagosShia:

great!

this is what you should care doing.preach your religion and what it says.no one would harrass you or refute you or expose your religion.

but when you try to provoke others particularly Muslims Christians,you'd just be digging your own grave with your own hands.this has being my message to you all along.

^Take your own advice. . .hypocrite!

aletheia:

^Take your own advice. . .hypocrite!

ignorance!

It's true ,the blood of Jesus paid or our sins past present and future. But such teaching have to be properly explained to avoid extremes which may lead into error. The death of Jesus made provision for every sin. That means there's no sin which can't be forgiven . There are different kinds of sin in this wise. There's a difference between making a mistake,falling into sin and wilful disobedience there is also a difference between all these and living in sin. There are consequences of sin. A misunderstanding of grace will destroy a man's life. Grace grants us ability to live right and to be cleansed from evil conscience. The provision in  grace is that when a man ask for forgiveness in repentance he is washed.

1 John 2:1
My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

Some teachings of  certain truths may not be for everybody at every level. For example the message of grace being refered to may be needed for a man who fell into a sin and finds it hard to forgive himself or to embrace Gods forgiveness . Such teaching may be required to strengthen his faith to RECIEVE forgiveness ,helping him deal with guilt and condemnation .by letting him know that whatever sin he would ever commit have been paid for. This truth can help him to be strengthened and believe in Gods love.

But if you teach someone who already has a careless lifestyle looking for opportunity to do evil,such truth may backfire. Because he will read different meaning into it.

Jude 1:4
4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.

Galatians 5:13
13 For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.

@frosbel,

I'm glad you study so fervently the teachings of God. I have no doubt you are on your way home without knowing it. One day that yearning in your heart will lead you home. . . Every christian's home. And you'll be most welcome.

italo:

@frosbel,

I'm glad you study so fervently the teachings of God. I have no doubt you are on your way home without knowing it. One day that yearning in your heart will lead you home. . . Every christian's home. And you'll be most welcome.

Frosbel,

if you are not careful and follow through with this, some day, you will arrive at Rome.

Imputed righteousness

Imputed righteousness is a theological concept directly related to the doctrine of Justification. It is particularly prevalent in the Reformed tradition.

“Justification is that step in salvation in which God declares the believer righteous. Protestant theology has emphasized that this includes the imputation of Christ’s righteousness (crediting it to the believer’s”account“), whereas Roman Catholic theology emphasizes that God justifies in accord with an infused righteousness merited by Christ and maintained by the believer’s good works,” (Elwell Evangelical Dictionary). Imputed righteousness therefore means that upon repentance and belief in Christ, individuals are forensically declared righteous. This righteousness is not the believer’s own, rather it is Christ’s own righteousness ‘imputed’ to the believer.

A primary line of argumentation for this doctrine maintains that perfect righteousness or holiness is necessary to be with God. All mankind “fall short of the glory of God” (Rom 3:23) because all their ‘righteousness’ is like filthy rags (Is 64:6) before the throne of God, and so all are “dead in their trespasses and sins” (Eph 2:1), and as a result “will not come into [God’s] light for fear that their evil deeds will be revealed” (John 3:20). All mankind is in this predicament because all are the offspring of Adam and Eve (Rom 5) who originally sinned against God. As a result of Adam’s fall, the world was cursed and sin entered the world. But upon confession of one’s own sin and faith in Christ’s death and resurrection, the sinner is justified and counted as having the righteousness of Christ.

Although all of Christianity would agree that Christ is the believer’s chief representative and head before the perfect holiness of God, not all would agree that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to the believer. In some circles, imputed righteousness is referred to as positive imputation - where the believer receives the righteousness of Christ. It stands in contrast to negative imputation - where the sin and judgment due to the repenting sinner is imputed to Christ. Virtually all would agree with the latter, but not all will agree with the former. The debate turns on a number of Bible verses not the least of which deal with what and whose righteousness was credited to Abraham when he believed God (Genesis 15:5–6).

Imputed righteousness is one of the classic doctrines of Protestantism and traces back through the Reformers - chiefly John Calvin and Martin Luther. These men stood against the Roman Catholic doctrine of infused righteousness where the righteousness of the saints and of Christ is gradually infused to the believer through the sacraments. For the Catholic, infused righteousness either gradually dissipates as the believer takes part in worldly sins or is enhanced by good works. If the believer dies without having the fullness of righteousness, coming in part from the last rites, he or she will temporarily spend time in purgatory until the sinful status is purged from his or her record.

http://www.theopedia.com/Imputed_righteousness

5solas:

These men stood against the Roman Catholic doctrine of infused righteousness where the righteousness of the SAINTS and of Christ is gradually infused to the believer through the sacraments.
http://www.theopedia.com/Imputed_righteousness

I knew you were a big liar but I didn't know you were this despicable.

When or where has the Catholic Church ever said the righteousness of SAINTS is infused to believers?

This thread had little to do with the Catholic Church but you have dragged it in just to discredit it with your malicious lies.

May God help you.

italo:

I knew you were a big liar but I didn't know you were this despicable.

When or where has the Catholic Church ever said the righteousness of SAINTS is infused to believers?

This thread had little to do with the Catholic Church but you have dragged it in just to discredit it with your malicious lies.

May God help you.

You want to bury your cult?

Ironically that is my aim. Here goes:

[Quote]

Supererogation (Late Lat. supererogatio, payment beyond what is due or asked, from super, beyond, erogare, to pay out, expend, ex, out, rogare, to ask) is the performance of more than is asked for, the action of doing more than duty requires. Supererogatory, in ethics, indicates an act that is good but not morally required to be done. It refers to an act that is more than necessary, when another course of action, involving less, would still be an acceptable action. It differs from a duty, which is an act that would be wrong not to do, and from acts that are morally neutral. Supererogation may be considered as performing above and beyond a normative course of duty to further benefits and functionality.


In the theology of the Roman Catholic Church, "works of supererogation" (also called "acts of supererogation" are those performed beyond what God requires. For example, in 1 Corinthians 7, Saint Paul says that while everyone is free to marry, it is better to refrain from marriage and remain celibate to better serve God. The Roman Catholic Church holds that the counsels of perfection are supererogatory acts, which specific Christians may engage in above their moral duties. Similarly, it teaches that to determine how to act, one must engage in reasonable efforts to be sure of what the right actions are; after the reasonable action, the person is in a state of invincible ignorance and guiltless of wrongdoing, but to undertake more than reasonable actions to overcome ignorance is supererogatory, and praiseworthy.

According to the classic teaching on indulgences, the works of supererogation performed by all the saints form a treasure with God that the Church can apply to exempt repentant sinners from the works of penitence that would otherwise be required of them to achieve full reconciliation with the Church. Opposition and the abuse of this teaching was the main point of Martin Luther when he began opposing the Church, and thus a seed of the Protestant Reformation as a whole. The Anglican Church also denied the doctrine of supererogation in the fourteenth of the Thirty-Nine Articles, which state that works of supererogation "cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety: for by them men do declare, that they not only render unto God as much as they are bound to, but that they do more for his sake, than of bounden duty is required: whereas Christ saith plainly, When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, We are unprofitable servants." Many later Protestant movements followed suit, e.g. in the Methodist Articles of Religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supererogation[/quote]

The Church 'waives' some of the acts of penance that sinner should do. . .it says nowhere that the righteousness infused is that of the saints. Its God's righteousness that's infused in the doctrine of 'Infused Righteousness'. Why don't you quote the particular doctrine. You're just a pathetic liar.

Your shamelessness has caused you to lose knowledge of common English.

And you want to bury you children? There's the shovel.

In other not to derail the thread, open another thread if you want to continue where others left off in their senseless tirade on the Catholic Church.

Face the topic of discussion, that's the truth staring you in the face.

funny thread.

The Reformers
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" (Romans 3:28).
Martin Luther dealt the symbolic blow that began the Reformation when he nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the door of the Wittenberg Church. That document contained an attack on papal abuses and the sale of indulgences by church officials.
But Luther himself saw the Reformation as something far more important than a revolt against ecclesiastical abuses. He believed it was a fight for the gospel. Luther even stated that he would have happily yielded every point of dispute to the Pope, if only the Pope had affirmed the gospel.
And at the heart of the gospel, in Luther's estimation, was the doctrine of justification by faith—the teaching that Christ's own righteousness is imputed to those who believe, and on that ground alone, they are accepted by God.
That doctrine, often called the Material Principle of the Reformation, is what the apostle Paul taught as well: "To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness" (Rom. 4:5).

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/rformers.htm

5solas:
The Reformers "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" (Romans 3:28). Martin Luther dealt the symbolic blow that began the Reformation when he nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the door of the Wittenberg Church. That document contained an attack on papal abuses and the sale of indulgences by church officials.
But Luther himself saw the Reformation as something far more important than a revolt against ecclesiastical abuses. He believed it was a fight for the gospel. Luther even stated that he would have happily yielded every point of dispute to the Pope, if only the Pope had affirmed the gospel.
And at the heart of the gospel, in Luther's estimation, was the doctrine of justification by faith—the teaching that Christ's own righteousness is imputed to those who believe, and on that ground alone, they are accepted by God.
That doctrine, often called the Material Principle of the Reformation, is what the apostle Paul taught as well: "To him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness" (Rom. 4:5).

So, this one here spreads Luther's agenda in place of that put forth by Jesus Christ Himself? Yikes!