Lets start with describing both. Imputed righteousness is the concept that the "righteousness of Christ ... is imputed to true believers that is, treated as if it were theirs through faith. This acceptance is also referred to as justification. Thus this doctrine is practically synonymous with justification by faith. So thus, those who accept Christ have their sins covered by His righteosness and are justified.

Now in the process of sanctification, the heart and mind of the true belivers are changed by the Holy Spirit. This is where 'Imparted Righteousness' comes in. Imparted righteousness, is that gracious gift of God given at the moment of the 'new birth' when one accepts Christ, which enables a Christian disciple to strive for holiness and sanctification.

From the Wesleyan Arminianian background, Adventist get the belief that imparted righteousness works in tandem with imputed righteousness. Imputed righteousness is the righteousness of Jesus credited to the Christian, enabling the Christian to be justified; 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).


So my question is, which one did the thief on the cross get (and by extension what is there for us), or could it have been both, and if so, how?

Imputed and imparted righteousness are simultaneous realities for those who experience genuine, thorough rebirth. Both the Thief and Paul (two extremes) were justified and sanctified the instant they experienced rebirth. Both were reborn with all the fruits of the Spirit, all the righteous attributes of God's character. Not one was missing. The only difference between the two was the length of time each had to mature in the fruits of the Spirit after they experienced rebirth.

"When we live by faith on the Son of God, the fruits of the Spirit will be seen in our lives; not one will be missing. {DA 676.4} "All righteous attributes of character dwell in God as a perfect, harmonious whole, and every one who receives Christ as a personal Saviour is privileged to possess these attributes. {COL 330.2}

The idea that born-again believers are reborn with all or some of their sinful habits in tact and then gradually thereafter swap sinful traits of character for sinless ones does not harmonize with the biblical explanation and description of rebirth and growth in grace. However, the reality is, most people do not experience genuine, thorough rebirth in God's appointed way. Many, so many, are baptized and join the church before self is crucified.

"The minds of many are clouded with unbelief because those who unite with the church as the chosen of God do not reveal the virtues that are the fruits of the Spirit. Joining the church is not a sure evidence that a man has joined himself to Christ. The new birth is a rare experience in this age of the world. This is the reason why there are so many perplexities in the churches. Many, so many, who assume the name of Christ are unsanctified and unholy. They have been baptized, but they were buried alive. Self did not die, and therefore they did not rise to newness of life in Christ. Thousands who claim to be religious are not Christians. {12MR 51}

This is a good point.

If one looks at the writings of Jones and Waggoner, one can see the emphasis that justification involves a change of heart; it's not simply a book entry. To "justify" means "to make righteous," which involves the writing of the law in the heart and mind. Waggoner, in particular, repeatedly emphasized this.

In the SOP, she uses the term "imputed" at times to refer to a change of heart, sometime to refer more to the "book entry."

Here's an example:

This definition disturbs me. In my opinion, it should be avoided, because of its similarity with the Catholic view. By the way, is there any way in which the definition of "to make righteous" includes the concept of "to declare righteous"?

I would have to agree, as the disciples were justified with all their faults and failures. So they were not 'made' righteous, it was definitely more of they were 'declared'. The thief on the cross was not made righteous when he showed his faith, he was still the same thief with all his failings, but by faith he was justified.

Rick!..., and Rosangela.

It's being made righteous.

Rick, you sound somewhat RC with at least your first line. Rosangela: RCism has "infused righteousness", obtained exclusively by participating in their 7(?) sacraments...Rather, to believe and be justified is being converted - daily, to experience the rebirth and new heart: imputed righteousness is not just 'declared', but is also experienced by receiving the HS, which is the mind of Christ which we have and by which we are righteous indeed, by faith.

Imparted righteousness can then only be handled by us and built into a Godly character, since we beforehand have the spiritual mind imputed, to live righteously, to live toward God: imputed righteousness is truly also "in us", receiving the mind of Christ. The new heart is the experience of justification which qualifies us for heaven, renewable & renewed daily by the faithful.

Our list of faults, etc, of character/personality do not prevent us being made righteous as we experience justification by faith, for they do not affect our spiritual awakening. Our mind is made righteous in practice, not our character (see below), at conversion of justification, so that living righteously may witness our conversion: reflecting Christ's character is evidence of our experience of justification and renewal of our minds.

Our Christian character is potentially all righteous at conversion - for Christ is our righteousness and we have him in us by his Spirit from then, but we tend not to realise and practise all Christlikeness immediately...Repenting of sinful traits step by step to develop Christian character does not mean we are either not fully qualified with Christ's imputed mind all the way along or his full character is not ours all the way.

It is mild but definite confusion to say justification is only "for us" but sanctification is in contrast "in us": it's true revival to recognise indeed both justification and sanctification as comprising the Gospel up to probation closing - some Adventists think only justification is "required" for salvation, but sorting out what each involves is indeed the preparation for revival and reformation, and more...

Also keeping clearly in mind that imparted righteousness is being fitted for heaven - the final generation indeed walking into heaven without seeing death, and is based on the qualification of imputed righteousness making us righteous, gives us the remnant message finishing the Reformation and preparing for Jesus' soon return.

Both Jones and Waggoner used this definition. It's easy to see the difference in their explanation and the Catholic explanation.



It does so implicitly, as explained here by Jones:

But should it be used if it gives a false impression to others?


I got the impression that "to declare righteous" includes the concept of "to make righteous," not the other way around. "He spake, and it was."

I think we should be careful of any language we use, in terms of taking into account the background of the people we're talking to. So for a given person, "set right" might be a better choice than "make righteous," for example.

However, if there's time to explain what's meant, such as in the Jones quote I provided, or in the explanations of Waggoner, I don't think there would be a problem, as I think the explanations are very clear.



They go together. The declaration of righteousness is how God makes the person righteous.