Some passing thoughts on imputed righteousness

OK all, give me your thoughts and critiques. What can be said better and how.

Ever in your debt: Cyril

Read all about it!

5 Responses to Some passing thoughts on imputed righteousness

  1. Iohannes says:

    Thanks for your reply

  2. Cyril says:

    Iohannes, I wish I knew more about him. He is one of the great outliers in a movement of outliers. One of the chief problems comes from the fact that Luther rejected Osiander’s views that we are justified by the indwelling Christ, a point which seems to beg the whole question about the Finnish school of Luther. This rejection by Luther made Osiander from the beginning a pariah to other Reformers, and his views we can only gleam from some letters and some fragments reproduced in other writings (e.g., in Calvin). Some work has been done, but very limited in the last 30 years, and much that is out there (some libraries still have editions of his various works) has yet to be reproduced.

  3. Iohannes says:

    Cyril, I’m curious, what’s your opinion of Andreas Osiander?

  4. Ansgar Olav says:

    I have some thoughts on its relation between God and the believer. While we don’t hold to absolute divine simplcity, all Christians hold to a form of divine simplicity and impassibility. Here is a corollary to your question: propitiation posits a change in God. He’s no longer angry at us.

    Now to your question: The Westminster Confession says Jesus fulfilled the law according to his human nature, which assumes earning some kind of righteousness. Posits a disjunction between the two natures. Isn’t the Person of Christ already righteousnes vis-a-vis his divine status? Are these two righteousness the same or different? If the same, then why bother? If different….

  5. Cyril says:

    Perry, I can post the whole thing here if you want. I am not looking for traffic (it is nice to see those big stat bars, though).

%d bloggers like this: