Is this quote proper?

[earl40]

When God looks at a person who has faith in The Son He sees a person who is covered by the righteous of The Man Jesus, and not the righteous of God has in Himself according to His divinity.

 

[MW]

When God looks at a person who has faith in The Son He sees a person who is covered by the righteous of The Man Jesus, and not the righteous of God has in Himself according to divinity.

The question needs to be divided in order to distinguish what is proper to the person and what is proper to the nature.

"Man," with reference to his human nature is under law. Righteousness is a law-term. Therefore the righteousness imputed is that which is demanded of men by the law. Being imputed that "person" is accounted righteous, but the righteousness is suited to the human nature of the person. Our Lord has two natures, not one. In working righteousness it is the work of the whole person. His divine personhood gives it infinite value, but the nature of the righteousness which He wrought is bound upon the human nature of our Lord. Hence "made of a woman, made under the law."

Concerning the negative part of the question, yes, it is not the divine attribute of righteousness which is imputed to the believer. As applied to the believer righteousness is a law-relation, whereas God is absolutely and originally righteous in Himself.

 

[earl40]

The question needs to be divided in order to distinguish what is proper to the person and what is proper to the nature.

"Man," with reference to his human nature is under law. Righteousness is a law-term. Therefore the righteousness imputed is that which is demanded of men by the law. Being imputed that "person" is accounted righteous, but the righteousness is suited to the human nature of the person. Our Lord has two natures, not one. In working righteousness it is the work of the whole person. His divine personhood gives it infinite value, but the nature of the righteousness which He wrought is bound upon the human nature of our Lord. Hence "made of a woman, made under the law."

Concerning the negative part of the question, yes, it is not the divine attribute of righteousness which is imputed to the believer. As applied to the believer righteousness is a law-relation, whereas God is absolutely and originally righteous in Himself.

Thank you. I should have noted the infinite value of Who Jesus is.

 

[arapahoepark]

The question needs to be divided in order to distinguish what is proper to the person and what is proper to the nature.

"Man," with reference to his human nature is under law. Righteousness is a law-term. Therefore the righteousness imputed is that which is demanded of men by the law. Being imputed that "person" is accounted righteous, but the righteousness is suited to the human nature of the person. Our Lord has two natures, not one. In working righteousness it is the work of the whole person. His divine personhood gives it infinite value, but the nature of the righteousness which He wrought is bound upon the human nature of our Lord. Hence "made of a woman, made under the law."

Concerning the negative part of the question, yes, it is not the divine attribute of righteousness which is imputed to the believer. As applied to the believer righteousness is a law-relation, whereas God is absolutely and originally righteous in Himself.

Succinctly refuted NT Wright!

 

[earl40]

Succinctly refuted NT Wright!

So does Wright teach that the divine attribute of righteousness is imputed?

 

[hammondjones]

So does Wright teach that the divine attribute of righteousness is imputed?

He misunderstands Reformed theology to teach this.


This is from Michael Horton's ST:

However, it is crucial to point out that it has never been the Reformation position that God’s righteousness is imputed. First, this assumes that righteousness is a substance or a commodity that is transferred from one person to another, rather than a legal status. Second, missing from Wright’s courtroom setting is the third party: the mediator who, as representative head, fulfills the law and merits for himself and his covenant heirs the verdict of “righteous” or “just” before God. Although the one who fulfilled the terms of the law covenant as the human servant is also the divine Lord, it is his active obedience rather than the essential divine attribute of righteousness that is credited to believers.

https://yinkahdinay.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/horton-wright-and-justification/

 

[Dachaser]

So does Wright teach that the divine attribute of righteousness is imputed?

Doesn't he disagree with the idea that in Justification God Himself declares us to be just in Christ, but that we have to actually merit that due to how well we responded and worked with the grace of God in our lives?

 

[arapahoepark]

Doesn't he disagree with the idea that in Justification God Himself declares us to be just in Christ, but that we have to actually merit that due to how well we responded and worked with the grace of God in our lives?

Wright is funny. I could write a book on him! Pun intended.
But, my point was that through his lens, which neglects exegesis, he sees the Romans theme 'righteousness of God' as God's divine attribute period as opposed to genitive of origin which most reformers and a lot of exgetes see today (if not tainted with Cremer's views). So his not so very well read self in the reformers is baffled as to why we see some verses of that phrase referring imputation.

 

[Dachaser]

Wright is funny. I could write a book on him! Pun intended.
But, my point was that through his lens, which neglects exegesis, he sees the Romans theme 'righteousness of God' as God's divine attribute period as opposed to genitive of origin which most reformers and a lot of exgetes see today (if not tainted with Cremer's views). So his not so very well read self in the reformers is baffled as to why we see some verses of that phrase referring imputation.

All that I needed to read to know that Wright was wrong was when I read that he rejected the reformed view on justification, as he rejected God declaring us right, as he rejected Penal substitution atonement! He also rejected inerrancy of the scriptures also...