Imputed righteousness is a concept in Christian theology proposing that the "righteousness of Christ ... is imputed to [believers]—that is, treated as if it were theirs—through faith." It is on the basis of Jesus' righteousness that God accepts humans. This acceptance is also referred to as justification.
The teaching of imputed righteousness is a signature doctrine of the Lutheran, Reformed and Anglican traditions of Christianity.See James Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification (Carlisle, Pennsylvania: Banner of Truth Trust, 1997), pp. 296–298, for a discussion of this topic.
Formulation Catholic scholar Erasmus raises almost the first recorded distinction between to impute and to repute in 1503 Handbook of the Christian Knight. In his seminal 1516 Novum Instrumentum omne Latin rescension (finished late in 1515 but printed in March 1516), Erasmus consistently rendered the Greek logizomai (reckon) as "imputat" all eleven times it appears in Romans chapter four; however Erasmus did not believe that for every abstract word in Greek there was one exact equivalent in some other language. The Vulgate Erasmus intended to improve usually rendered it "reputat" (repute); Lorenzo Valla had previously used both.
Luther did use the term in this sense as early as 1516. Some modern Lutherans deny that Luther taught it before other reformers such as Melancthon. Erasmus held that Luther's subsequent development of forensic imputation went too far.
Imputed, infused and imparted righteousness
Discussion of these concepts are complicated by different definitions of key terms, such as "justification" and "grace".
In Protestant theology, imputed righteousness is the righteousness of Jesus credited to the Christian, enabling the Christian to be justified. Double imputation is to the imputation of believers' sin to Christ and the imputation of Christ's righteousness to believers. It is closely related to the Reformed doctrine of justification by grace through faith alone. Passages like 2 Corinthians 5:21, are employed to argue for a dual imputation – the imputation of one's sin to Christ and then of his righteousness to believers in him. In the (Lutheran, Calvinist) Protestant concept, justification is a status before God that is entirely the result of God's activity and that continues even when humans sin. Thus using different words for justification and sanctification reflects a distinction between aspects of salvation that are entirely the result of God's activity, and those that involve human cooperation. In Methodist theology, imparted righteousness, is what God does in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit after justification, working in the Christian to enable and empower the process of sanctification (and, in Wesleyan thought, Christian perfection). John Wesley believed that imparted righteousness worked in tandem with imputed righteousness. Infused righteousness, by contrast, can be described as: "In Augustine's view, God bestows justifying righteousness upon the sinner in such a way that it becomes part of his or her person." Starting with Augustine, the Catholic tradition has understood justification as the entire process by which God forgives and then transforms Christians.
Based on their reading of the use of "justification" in Paul's letters, the Reformers took justification to refer specifically to God's forgiveness and acceptance. The term "sanctification" was used to refer to the lifelong process of transformation. Thus the Catholic term "justification" effectively includes both what Protestants refer to as "justification" and "sanctification." This difference in definitions can result in confusion, effectively exaggerating the disagreement. However the difference in definitions reflects a difference in substance.
Catholic theology uses a single term, in part because it does not recognize a distinction of this type. In Catholic theology, while everything originates with God, the entire process of justification requires human cooperation, and serious sin compromises it.
Imputed vs. infused Both imputed and infused righteousness agree that God is the source of our righteousness, and that it is a gift that humans cannot deserve. Both models agree that God's activity results in humans being transformed, so that over time they become more obedient to God, and sin is progressively defeated in their lives.
The distinction includes at least two areas:
1 How justification is maintained, and the effect of sin According to imputed righteousness, the righteousness by which humans are made acceptable to God, remains "alien." Since their acceptability is based on God's actions, nothing humans do can forfeit their status as accepted. Sin can result in God treating them as disobedient, but not in God disowning them. Protestants differ on the question of whether it is possible for humans to forfeit justification. But if they do, it is by ceasing to have faith in God, not by any individual sin. Catholics hold that righteousness comes to be present in humans, and that the continuing status of acceptance is based on this. Humans have a responsibility to cooperate with God in maintaining and strengthening the presence of this "grace" in their lives. Certain serious sins (called "mortal sins") can result in its loss.Catechism of the Catholic Church, section 1861. Thus in the case of serious sins, Protestants believe that they continue to be treated as God's children, but as disobedient ones that require discipline, while Catholics believe that the bond with God is largely severed, and restoring it requires "a new initiative of God's mercy and a conversion of heart normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation."Catechism of the Catholic Church, section 1856.
2 Merit Protestants have avoided speaking of humans as having any "merit" before God. Because all justifying righteousness is alien, humans do not deserve anything good from God. Because Catholics hold that righteousness comes to be present in humans, humans can in a certain sense merit reward. Of course any such merit is ultimately due to God's activity. Protestants and Catholics agree that non-Christians can do things that are worthwhile. They do not merit salvation, but some Protestant writers have spoken of them as reflecting "civil righteousness."Melanchthon, Philip, Apology of the Augsburg Confession, translated by F. Bente, and W.H.T. Dau, in Triglot Concordia: The Symbolical Books of the Ev. Lutheran Church. St. Louis, Concordia Publishing House, 1921. Part 23, Article 18, Of Free Will. From http://www.ctsfw.edu/bsmith-cts/etext/boc/ap/apol23.asc .
While there are significant differences between imputed and infused righteousness, they can be regarded to a certain extent as differences in emphasis that are potentially complementary. Imputed righteousness emphasizes that salvation is a gift from God and is dependent upon him, while infused righteousness emphasizes the responsibility of humans to cooperate with God's actions in transforming their lives. The position that they are potentially complementary was taken in a joint declaration of the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church.Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church. Using the text at https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html. Apparent date: 1997. Enough differences remain, however, both in doctrine and in practical consequences, that not everyone agrees that the two views can be regarded as complementary.Joint Lutheran/Roman Catholic Declaration on Justification: A Response., Department of Systematic Theology, Concordia, Theology Seminary, Fort Wayne, Indiana, in Concordia Theology Quarterly, 62 (1998), no 2:83–106, at http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/474
What is meant by righteousness?
The concepts here are nominally derived from the letters of Paul the Apostle (particularly the Epistle to the Romans), which form a large part of the Christian New Testament.For this and the next paragraph, see McGrath, Alister, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3rd Edition 2005.
However the concepts have been filtered through the concerns of later Christian theology. From at least the time of Augustine of Hippo in the 5th century, "righteousness" has been seen as a moral and religious quality. In the Catholic model, Christians are transformed by God's action, developing a righteousness of their own. In the 16th century, the Protestant Reformers came to understand human acceptance by God according to a "forensic" model, in which God declares humanity not guilty, even though they were in a moral sense still guilty of sin. However, the Reformers continued to accept the traditional concept of righteousness. What changed is that the righteousness was seen as Christ's, which was credited ("imputed") to Christians by God.
Starting in the middle of the 20th century, increased knowledge of first century Judaism has produced a reassessment of many of the concepts with which Paul was working.N. T. Wright, Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision. Intervarsity Press Academic, 2009 and N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul really said Eerdmans, 1997. Many scholars now see "righteousness" as a Hebrew concept referring to fidelity to God's covenant with humanity (for God) or the status of being a proper member of that covenant (for a human). If this is correct, then righteousness is a status, not a quality of religious/moral perfection.
The case against both imputed and imparted righteousness
This section is a precis of N. T. Wright's work in "What Saint Paul Really Said".N. T. Wright, What Saint Paul really said Eerdmans, 1997.
Wright, one of the best-known advocates of the New Perspective on Paul, teaches that "righteousness of God" and "righteousness from God" are distinct concepts that have been confused and conflated in the past. He relates the court-room metaphor, pointing out that there are three parties in the Hebrew court – two parties in disagreement and one judge (there is no "Prosecuting Attorney"). The judge decides the dispute between the parties declaring one to be correct and the other incorrect. The one who is declared "correct" in court is called "righteous" in the matter that was judged.
The "righteousness of God", referring to God's (the judge's) faithfulness to the covenant relationship, can be neither imputed nor imparted to anybody but refers only to his role as judge. "Righteousness from God" is roughly equivalent to "vindication", meaning that God is pronouncing that particular party to be correct/vindicated/righteous/acquitted in their dispute with the other party. The dispute in question in Christian theology is between those of faith (in God's promises: the covenant, the Messiah), and "the wicked," meaning everyone else. Paul posited that the people of such faith are vindicated when the Messiah returns, being declared "righteous" (or in other words, vindicated for their stance), which is the meaning of the Biblical term "justified", in Wright's view.
This means that we do not "receive" the righteousness of God (or as often expressed, "of Jesus"), as in the classical Evangelical vernacular, nor is it "infused" as in the classical Catholic vernacular. The "righteousness of God" remains His alone, and our "righteousness from God" means that we are found to be "of" the people of God. Paul's argument is that it has always been so, but what has changed is that the Messiah, in Jesus of Nazareth, has now appeared.