Imparted righteousness, inMethodisttheology, is thatgracious gift of God given at the moment of thenew birth which enables aChristian disciple to strive forholiness andsanctification.John Wesley believed that impartedrighteousness worked in tandem withimputed righteousness.Imputed righteousness is the righteousness ofJesus credited to the Christian, enabling the Christian to bejustified; imparted righteousness is what God does in Christ by the power of theHoly Spiritafter justification, working in the Christian to enable and empower the process of sanctification (and, in Wesleyan thought,Christian perfection).[1]
Charles Wesley believed in imparted righteousness. This comes through in the Wesleyan hymnody such as his famous hymn "And can it be". The last verse reads:
No condemnation now I dread;Jesus, and all in Him, is mine !Alive in Him, my living Head,And clothed in righteousness divine,Bold I approach the eternal throne,And claim the crown, through Christ my own.
Clothed in righteousness divine. Ephesians 6:14 [TNIV] says "Stand firm then with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with thebreastplate of righteousness in place...."
Preachers and theologians from various Protestant traditions (not only Wesleyan) use the term "imparted righteousness" to identify the righteous principle imparted by God to believers when Heregenerates them. Believers thereby become "partakers of the divine nature" (cf. 2 Peter 1:4). It is this principle of righteousness imparted to men in regeneration which is ever in conflict with theold Adamic nature. Protestants, however, maintain the distinction between the "imputed righteousness" of Christ which is the basis forjustification and the "imparted righteousness" which is the basis for subsequentsanctification.
It is somewhat problematic for some Christians (notably Calvinists) to call the doctrine "imparted righteousness," for that which is imparted is a righteousprinciple into man's nature, notrighteousness per se. Care must be taken in using the termimparted righteousness because it is sometimes confused with and sometimes intentionally used to refer to the Roman Catholic doctrine ofinfused righteousness, which in Catholicism is the basis for justification.
This section is a precis ofN. T. Wright's work in "What Saint Paul Really Said".[2]
N. T. Wright, who is one of the best-known advocates of theNew Perspective on Paul, explains that although the "righteousness of God" and "righteousness from God" have been confused and conflated in the past, they are distinct concepts. 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 outcome of 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 everybody opposed to those of faith. Paul was positing that the people of such faith are vindicated when Messiah returns, being declared "righteous" (or in other words, vindicated for their stance), which is exactly the meaning of the Biblical term "justified" inN. T. 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 stated in the classical Roman 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, inJesus of Nazareth, has now appeared.
An important verse to note is 2 Cor 5:21, "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God." (ESV), which has traditionally been interpreted to mean that the Christian has, in some way, become righteous (by infusion or imputation), in exchange for Jesus' sinlessness. In fact,N. T. Wright says, Paul is speaking hereof the apostles, and pointing out thatin their role as apostles, their activity is effectively God's righteousness (covenant faithfulness) in action ("we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God" - vv 20–21). This meaning is natural when taken in context from verse 11 through 21.
