Siu 1 John Wesley and the Imputation of Righteousness Prominently known for his dissemination of Arminian theology and the establishment of the Protestant movement known as Methodism, John Wesley's work and influence have inevitably shaped the current identity of Evangelicalism in ways that are still contested to this day. Highly controversial, one of Wesley's most notorious theological positions was his understanding of Justification. Though many scholars understand Wesley to be primarily echoing the Reformers in this area, some historians interpret Wesley's writings to fundamentally reject the notion of imputed righteousness. If Wesley's formulation of Justification did not include the concept of imputed righteousness, Wesley's soteriology would be better categorized under the Catholic understanding of infused righteousness rather than the Reformed formulations of imputed righteousness. The majority of the debate over Wesley's theology stems from the ambiguity of terms involved. To properly evaluate Wesley's understanding of justification, it is first necessary to concisely define imputed righteousness. Once defined, Wesley's understanding of justification can be fairly evaluated in light of his sermons and writings. Though there is much disagreement on Wesley's understanding of the doctrine of justification, a concise definition of justification as well as a careful consideration of Wesley's writing will reveal that John Wesley's soteriology implicitly included the doctrine of imputed righteousness when it was properly defined. Careful exegetical and historical analysis will reveal that imputed righteousness historically has included two key concepts: 1) the forensic declaration of righteousness 2) the obtaining of righteousness by grace through faith alone. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology defines the concept of imputation as, “to charge to ones account.” Romans 4:3 states, “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness” (NASB). The Greek the term for credit, logizomai, has several implication. It is defined in the Strong's concordance as, “to reckon to consider” (1544). group. In Luke 22:37 the concept logozimai is used in Siu 2 identifying a person with a particular group, “For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, 'AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS'; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.” In this sense, the word, logozimai, is used to describe Christ identification or “consideration” with sinners. Hence the term logozimai, in Romans 4:3 indicates that those who believe in Christ are considered as righteous by God just as Christ was considered in Luke 22:37 to be a sinner to fulfill his purpose for which He was sent. It is important to show that the concept of logozimai does not mean that Christ actually becomes sinful only identified with sinners. Therefore, the sinner imputed with righteousness does not mean that the sinner is actually righteous but rather is considered righteous by God. Furthermore, the foundation for God imputing righteousness to the sinner is not on the basis of their works, but rather on the basis of their faith in Christ “Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due” ( Romans 4:4 NASB). Other passages often used for support of this doctrine include Romans 5:17 and 1 Corinthians 1:30. Historically, the Reformers understood imputed righteousness as accounting for the forensic standing of a sinner. German reformer Philip Melanchthon emphasized that humans are justified by, “an external and alien righteousness, which is 'reputed' or 'imputed' to them.” (McGrath 241). John Calvin reiterates this by arguing that because man can only bring his sin before God on judgment day, “ Christ righteousness, which alone can bear the sight of God because it alone is perfect, must appear in court on our behalf...this righteousness is brought to us and imputed to us, just as if it were ours.” (35). Based on the Biblical evidence and the historical understanding of the doctrine throughout the reformation, the doctrine of imputed righteousness is best defined as a legal action wherein God declares a sinner to be justified by accounting Christ righteousness and sacrifice as ours on the basis of our faith in Christ alone. Pastor John Piper concisely defines imputation as, “the act in which God counts sinners to be righteous through their faith in Christ on the basis of Christ perfect 'blood and Siu 3 righteousness', specifically the righteousness that Christ accomplished by his perfect obedience in life and death.”(42). On this foundation, those who put their faith in Christ have no need to fear the condemnation of the Father any longer. God's actions towards the repentant are no longer enacted on the basis of their sins but on the basis of Christ righteousness. The doctrine of Justification is vital in understanding the divide between the Roman Catholic church and the Protestant reformation. Central to the dispute between the two branches was the distinction between the Reformers understanding of imputed righteousness and Roman Catholic formulation of infused righteousness. From the perspective of the Roman Catholic Church, the grounds for Justification is not the imputed righteousness of Christ but his infused righteousness into the believer. Hence the righteousness of Christ is not externally accounted to the repentant individual, but rather, it is infused into the individual giving the person the ability to participate in the process of justification.The Handbook of Catholic Theology explains the difference between the Reformers and the Roman Catholics in this manner, “[The Roman Catholic Church] maintains the possibility of human cooperation in grace, the reality of inner renewal and sanctification, and the need for hope and love to achieve eternal life, as well as the growth of grace by means of good works in the event of justification.” (Kraus 417). Reformed theologian Michael Horton argues that this understanding of infused righteousness inevitably reduces Justification to a type of works based salvation. “Justification is therefore regarded as a process of becoming actually and intrinsically righteous” (Horton 622). Though Wesley claims to affirmation the doctrine of imputation, there are a number of quotes from his other works which many have interpreted to be inconsistent with his affirmation. In general, Wesley was hesitant to use such a weighted term lest others utilize it to justify their worldly tendencies (176). From his perspective, the Biblical account of imputed righteousness was not sufficient in its articulations to warrant any sort of dogmatic stance. “We do not find it expressly affirmed in Scripture, that God imputes the righteousness of Christ to any; although, we do find that, 'faith is imputed' to us, Siu 4 'for righteousness'.” (Dorman). His earlier sermon “Justification by Faith”, carefully articulates that the doctrine of imputed righteousness in no ways made God ambivalent to the remaining sin within a believers life. “Least of all does justification imply , that God is deceived in those whom he justifies; that he thinks them to be what in fact they are not; that he accounts them to be otherwise than they are.” (47). These statements along with his strong claims of Christian perfectionism and rejection of the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints leads many historians to believe that Wesley's composite theological system inevitably rejected the notion of imputed righteousness. It is undeniably that Wesley often criticizes the formulations of imputed righteousness within a number of theological systems. However, A careful examination of his theology will reveal that at least in theory Wesley agreed with this understanding of imputed righteousness, even if he was at times loath to use the term itself. For Wesley to affirm the doctrine of imputed righteousness, he must affirm the two primary points: 1) Justification is a forensic act whereby a sinner is declared righteous 2) Justification is a gift of grace not obtained on the basis of works. Wesley's understanding of Justification is most clearly seen in his sermon, “The Lord Our Righteousness”. Written in the latter part of his life, Wesley attempts to answer his many critics who accuse him of preaching a gospel in which Justification is earned through infused righteousness rather than given of the basis of Christ alien imputed righteousness. In God's work of imputing righteousness to a sinner, Wesley remarks, “All believers are forgiven and accepted, not for the sake of any thing in them, or of any thing that ever was, that is, or ever can be done by them, but wholly and solely for the sake of what Christ hath done and suffered for them...And this is not only the means of out obtaining the favor of God but of our continuing therein.” (172) Wesley makes it explicitly clear that this righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinner, not when they do good works, but rather, “When they believe.” (171). Clearly from Wesley's understanding of Justification in this sermon, Wesley affirms the two primary concerns of imputed righteousness. To make his point more explicitly clear, Wesley quotes from Nicholaus L. Von Siu 5 Zinzendorf's hymn, “Jesus, Thy Blood and Righteousness”. It was Wesley who translated the hymn into English hence publishing it to say, “Jesu, thy blood and righteousness My beauty are thy glorious dress: 'Midst flaming worlds in these array'd, With joy shall I lift up my head” (173). In light of Wesley's particularly sharp critiques of imputed righteousness, a number of contextual matters must be understood. First, within the chronology of Wesley's work, historians have remarked that Wesley's understanding of imputed righteousness went through significant development throughout his life. So much so that in the latter portion of his writings, Wesley was confident to pronounce his affirmation of Imputed righteousness (Piper 38). Secondly, Wesley's concern for the actual righteousness of the believer was a concern shared with the Reformers who initially formulated the doctrine of Imputed Righteousness. Calvin in his institutes writes, “Thus it is clear how true it is that we are justified not without works yet not through works, since in our sharing in Christ, which justifies us, sanctification is just as much included as righteousness” (Institutes, 3.16.1). Finally, even at the beginning of his career, Wesley articulated that there was a distinction between justification and sanctification. Just as Christ was not sinful though he was accounted among sinners; so also those who are accounted as righteous have yet to attain the status of perfection. According to the Reformers, while Justification dealt with the forensic aspects of salvation, Sanctification dealt with the believers internal regeneration whereby the believer grows in righteousness. Implicit to the debate between Roman Catholics and the Reformers was whether or not Justification and Sanctification ought to be distinguished from one another. For the Reformers, it was imperative that the forensic declaration of righteousness preceded the regenerating work of Sanctification (Sproul 98). In his sermon “Justification by Faith” Wesley remarks, “It is evident from what has been already observed, that [Justification] is not the being made actually just and righteous. This is sanctification; which is, indeed, in some degree the immediate fruit of justification; but, nevertheless, is a distinct gift of god and of a totally different nature.” (47). Because of this distinction, it is highly unlikely that Wesley would Siu 6 conflate the two doctrines as the Roman Catholics do in their understanding of justification by infused righteousness. Some have argued that due to his prejudices against the theological system of Calvinism, Wesley would never have been able to affirm the doctrine of imputed righteousness. According to F. Dale Bruner, because Wesley denied that the atonement sufficiently covered all the sins of an individual including future sins Wesley could not logically affirm the doctrine of imputation (Dorman). Though the doctrine of Substitutionary Atonement of is the logical end of imputed righteousness, this was not the historical concern of the Reformers during the Protestant Reformation. According to the Protestant to confess the doctrine of Justification by means of imputed righteousness two things are required. The individual must first believe that God's act of accounting Christ righteousness to a sinners account was on the basis of grace through faith alone. Secondly, the individual must understand that this act of imputing Christ righteousness to a sinner is a forensic act whereby God legally declares that a sinner is considered righteous. Siu 7 Works Cited Beinert, Wolfgang, and Francis Schüssler. Fiorenza, eds. Handbook of Catholic Theology. New York: Crossroad, 1995. Print. Calvin, John. Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion. Ed. Ford Lewis. Battles and John T. McNeill. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960. Print. Coppedge, Allan. John Wesley in Theological Debate. Wilmore, KY: Wesley Heritage, 1987. Print. Dorman, Ted M. "Forgiveness Of Past Sins: John Wesley On Justification: A Case Study Approach." Pro Ecclesia 10.3 (2001): 275-294. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials. Web. 9 Dec. 2015. Horton, Michael Scott. The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011. Print. Mcgrath, Alister. Iustitia Dei A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Print. Piper, John. Counted Righteous in Christ: Should We Abandon the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness? Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2002. Print. Sproul, R. C. Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1995. Print. Strong, James. Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007. Print. Wesley, John., Wesley's Works. 13 Vol. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978. Print. Moody Bible Institute John Wesley The Imputation of Righteousness Theodore Siu CPO:1328 Theologian's Craft Professor David Finkbeiner December 9, 2015 Page number: 7 Word Count: 1995