Comments on: Future of Justification 8: Imputation

By: u

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 03:45:06 +0000

Another thing I like about Wright is his view that “righteousness” cannot be transferred like a gas. too many theologians are treating righteousness like a “thing”, a “substance”, like atoms. It is none of those. It is a mistake of quadrants (to use philosopher Ken Wilber’s AQAL terminology) to say that righteousness can be imputed. It makes as much sense as to say that my stapler is very loving.

By: u

Wed, 16 Jan 2008 03:40:13 +0000

I haven’t read the book, but the assertion that, “An omniscient and just judge never ‘finds in favor’ of a guilty defendant. He always vindicates the claim that is true” needs to be backed up, and is not something I am inclined to agree with prima facie. Imputation is a wrong-headed attempt to “justify” God’s verdict. It is not needed.

By: Russell Roberts

Russell Roberts — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:19:10 +0000

Stephen Roye, you have stated N.T. Wright’s position well. Not many people can do that. Thanks brother.

By: Stephen Roye

Stephen Roye — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 20:44:56 +0000

I believe your last comment (By virtue of our union with Christ, we have everything that Christ can give us – including moral righteousness)
is the key to understanding why Bishop Wright does not use the term imputed righteousness. I think that for Bishop Wright to be “in Christ” makes the whole idea of imputation redundant. If you are in Christ, then you have his righteous by virtue of that union and his righteousness is counted as yours because it is in fact yours because of that union(as in the vine and the branches). The idea of imputation has in it a separate-ness from Christ, and therefore a need for a “credit” of righteousness to be applied to your account. This is the problem I have with imputation is that it forces you to think in term of you being separated from Christ and his righteousness being artificially applied not so much to you as to some metaphysical account. But the key is union with Christ and then you have everything that he is. I think imputation idea gets its strength from people not understanding that particular of union with Christ truth, and/or seeing union with Christ as just a metaphor, and imputation as the more fundamental idea when I believe it is the other way around.
As for the law court imagery I believe that the problem is that Bishop Wright is, correctly I believe, going back to the jewish law court to interpret what St. Paul is saying, and I don’t know if that is being appreciated as much as it should because we are perhaps accustomed to reading our own judicial forms back into St. Paul. Obviously there are many open questions left after Bishop Wrights use of this framework(I have them) and John Piper’s concerns about moral righteousness and omniscience are to my mind valid points but what I do not believe is valid is a reversion to a framework that is not at all in St. Paul’s mind in order to have easier resolution or to put it as Bishop Wright might: to “short circuit” the argument.

By: Trevin Wax

Trevin Wax — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 18:15:45 +0000

That might be the case… I encourage you to wait until next week’s posts. There are some other issues that I differ sharply from Piper and am in Wright’s camp. I don’t think that someone will be able to read all of my posts about this book (once they are all finished) and conclude that I am firmly in one camp or the other.

Both Wright and Piper have good points to make and both have significant weaknesses in their arguments.

By: Pete Scholtens

Pete Scholtens — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 17:21:13 +0000

I’ve really appreciated your posts on this. I’ve noted a couple of times that your differences with Wright and sympathy for Piper’s position on justification comes out of your shared credobaptist heritage.