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