I have been taught all my Christian life that the uniquely Pauline expression "the works of the law" found in the Epistle to the Romans and the Epistle to the Galatians refers to acts of righteousness, good works and keeping God's commandment. So when Paul denounces the works of the law as lacking justification value, it is taught that it is acts of righteousness, good works and obedience to God's commandments that he denounces. Even though I often wrestled with this identification when I read some passages of Scripture that seem to contradict it, I generally accepted it as the truth. I have however studied the expression and the context in which it is used by Paul and have found it to be referring to circumcision and contingent works and not to righteousness, good works or acts of obedience to God's moral law. I am now curious to find out the origin of the interpretation. I want to be sure I have not missed anything that was considered to arrive at it which makes my conclusion to differ. Has anyone done a study on this or come across any exposition giving the background to this interpretation?

Considering the language of 1 John 1, this passage is clearly not addressed to believers, yet is widely mistaught in Christendom. 1 John 1:9 KJV >If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

The background of this question is in the conversation Abraham and God has over the inhabitants of Sodom. God is focusing on whether anyone within the city of Sodom is **good or righteous**, God doesn't care if they know him. You have most probably seen lots of people who are non-believers engage in humanitarian works of charity that supercede those of regular Christians. If God is to use the same criteria he used with the inhabitants of Sodom, can we be assured that these non-believers will be deemed good and worthy of heaven? Jesus said when you did it to them you did it to me, so aren't these non-believers doing good to Jesus, who will send them to life?

I understand that N.T. Wright, an Anglican Bishop, has been promoting this teaching in evangelical churches. [*Source*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._T._Wright) >According to Wright, "Paul in the twentieth century, then, has been used and abused much as in the first. Can we, as the century draws towards its close, listen a bit more closely to him? Can we somehow repent of the ways we have mishandled him and respect his own way of doing things a bit more?" Sounds eminently reasonable to me. However, after reading [this section](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._T._Wright#Views) re on his theological views, I found myself somewhat confused, and so I would appreciate a simplified summary of what he says about Justification, Righteousness, Covenant and works of the Law. [This article](https://www.gotquestions.org/New-Perspective-Paul.html) from the *GotQuestions* website presents arguments against the New Perspective on Paul, as does John Piper's 2007 book [The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1581349645) . I understand that Wright has addressed the issue of Justification in his 2009 book [*Justification: God’s Plan and Paul's Vision*](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0830851399) , but I do not have access to it. A very brief summary of his reply can be read in a [2009 interview by Trevin Wax](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/interview-with-nt-wright-responding-to-piper-on-justification/) , where he refers the reader to a fuller response in his book [Paul: In Fresh Perspective](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0800663578) .

We read at Mtt 1:18-19 (NRSVCE): > Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly. That implies that St. Joseph had always been a righteous man-- even before he was betrothed to Mary, and his decision to dismiss Mary quietly, would top up his righteousness. My question therefore is: are there stories available in Catholic tradition which throw light on the pre-betrothal life of St. Joseph , and which would substantiate that he was always a righteous man ?

I have seen people resort to arguments such as "if there is no afterlife, why be good (or religious)?". Counterarguments to living in sin during this life include final judgment and the infinite duration of eternity (which also form the basis of Pascal's Wager ), which I find compelling, but are there more reasons to be good than these? What Christian denominations advance an argument that is persuasive in favor of doing good in this life even if one thinks there is no afterlife, and what are those arguments?

OK, so to start, I searched this topic on the exchange and found no answers that were satisfying. I am not questioning God, I just have a hard time coming to terms with why bad things happen to the innocent. For instance, a mother through no fault of her own can't afford to feed her babies and has no means to do so except strip or other unsavory actions. Or, a young person who by all observable means did nothing to deserve developing an addiction to heroin. Even with charity, and the good things Christians do, people will inevitably fall through the cracks. How is this fair? I know that God given free will plays a part, but if God saw the way these people, for better or for worse grew up, how can he still put them through unspeakable hardship, when they did nothing to deserve it? I feel this question doesn't need references to prove what I am saying, all you have to do is look at the state of the world. These things happen on a daily basis. I ask because, I feel bad for these people and it is causing my faith to falter. I apologize if this doesn't meet the standards of the community, I did my best to adhere to them.

When someone believes on Jesus Christ how does Jesus sinless perfect righteousness is transferred to the believer and the believer's sin transferred to Jesus? Like what is the theory or doctrine that explains this in detail. And how is Jesus who was one man also God but one man imputes his righteousness for more than one sinner? For example if you have debt of $100 and I have $100 and I take your debt and you take my $100??

### The background I grew up in a Reformed church since I was a kid. In my adulthood as I become more concerned with my spiritual health, I increasingly expect theology to provide *at least* a rich enough vocabulary of the spiritual life of a believer that I can latch into and correlate them with aspects of experience in my spiritual life (which is given to me by Christ through faith). After a decade or so studying and reading, I found that compared to Catholicism (which has a rich store of concepts in its spiritual and mystical theologies) when pushed for clarity, Reformed pastors and teachers keep going back to concepts such as "godliness", "Christlike-ness", "ongoing sanctification" which (despite having REAL referents because Jesus and God are real) is linguistically CIRCULAR since those concepts go back to the theology of God and to Christology, thus **creating a wall that separate theology from philosophy/psychology** in the area of spirituality. In contrast, Catholicism since time immemorial (especially since St. Augustine) has been self-consciously **breaking the wall** by integrating theological discussion with philosophy & psychology so that referents of spiritual life concepts such as "godliness", "Christlikeness", and "ongoing sanctification" don't remain *ontologically* in the realm of the intellect, i.e. remain concepts (albeit having REAL referents to God). If theology is to have any relevance beyond remaining in the ivory tower, there needs to be a **spiritual theology** that provides clarity to abstract concepts so it can be "incarnate" (practically real) in a believer's daily life. Thus, if "maturity" can stand in for "godliness" then it is a better term (from spiritual theology perspective) since it's more concrete descriptively, something that humans can have a handle of, in philosophy & psychology. But I found out from experience discussing with Calvinists that most seem to have an aversion to breaking this WALL that separates theology of God/Christ from *something* that can be experienced and described by the servants of theology, namely philosophy and psychology. They would typically say that Christians are *not* supposed to pollute theology with humanism. But how can spiritual theology *NOT* having a philosophical/psychological conceptual tool to describe progress in a believer's spiritual life? For an evangelical introduction to spiritual theology that specifically connects the theology of sanctification with psychology, please watch/read a 2014 video (transcript included) of a talk at Biola by John Coe, Professor of Philosophy and Spiritual Theology / Director of the Institute for Spiritual Formation at Biola University: [Spiritual Theology for the Church](https://cct.biola.edu/spiritual-theology-for-the-church/) . ### The puzzle I am sometimes puzzled with *some* Calvinists / Reformed believers who insist that no one is righteous but God, EVEN after conversion, sanctification, and resurrection of the believer! This is often characterized by the theological concept of [imputed righteousness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_righteousness) and [alien righteousness](https://www.ligonier.org/posts/alien-righteousness) which emphasize that righteousness remains solely God's possession forever (but never ours), and they would cite verses like [Rom 3:10-12](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+3%3A10-12&version=CSB) and interpret them to hold true even when we are in heaven! My puzzle comes when I come across Bible verses that imply God working in us (during sanctification stage) to increase *something* within the believer. Example: [Phil 1:6,9-11](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=phil+1%3A3-11&version=CSB) (CSB): > 6 ... he who started a good work in you **will carry it on to completion** until the day of Christ Jesus. ... 9 And I pray this: that **your love will keep on growing** in knowledge and every kind of discernment, 10 so that you may approve the things that are superior and may be pure and blameless in the day of Christ, 11 **filled with the fruit of righteousness** that comes through Jesus Christ to the glory and praise of God. Later in the letter ([Phil 2:13](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Philippians+2%3A12-17&version=CSB) , CSB), Paul reiterates about God's work: > For it is God who is working in you both to will and to work according to his good purpose. This "growing" and "filling" language implies ***something* that is ontologically REAL within the psychological space** that increases within a believer, which is the result of God's work (with our passive cooperation since according to Calvinists all we can do is *not* rebel). This language also implies "progress" (see a [related question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/92209/50422)) . Sensitive / philosophically minded readers will ask: what is this ***something*** within us that God *produces within us progressively* to enable us "to will and to work according to his good purpose" more and more easily? ### The question So my question to Calvinists / Reformed is this: **what is the proper term in spiritual theology (a term that is MEANINGFUL, RELATABLE, and DESCRIBABLE to a human) for the aspect that God increases within us during our sanctification?** If not *righteousness*, can it be called *holiness* (*cf* [Rom 6:19](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+6%3A19&version=NIV) , NIV)? Or is there no unifying theological term but leaving it to individual fruits (love, joy, etc.) as in [Gal 5:22-23](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gal+5%3A22-23&version=NIV) ? Or do Reformed theologians use a term that is not in the Bible such as *virtues* for this something? Some comments have suggested "godliness", "Christlike-ness", and "ongoing sanctification" which are of course perfectly fine as a theological term, but those concepts leave the correlational hard work to poor believers who are untrained theologically to correlate those theological concepts to the realm of philosophy and psychology that they can latch on in daily spiritual life. So while I can accept those as correct answers, I have updated the question to "spiritual theology term" in order to induce answers that can provide synonymous terms which are more pertinent to human experience on the human side of the WALL (see "The background" section). Secondary questions (which is nice to be addressed in an answer, but not strictly asked for, to keep this Q from being too broad): 1. How do we discern the result of God's working in us, even if indirectly (through its effects)? 1. If this process does not finish when we die, what happens to God's promise in Phil 1:6? How does God bridge the gap between a faithful with lots of sinful habits to the finished version of that faithful that fits for heaven? Does God simply snap his finger like magic and finish the work without our involvement at all?

Protestant Christians in general believe that 'faith' makes a person righteous. The Letter to Hebrews chapter 11 in the N.T. talks about faith at length with specific examples. But what kind of 'faith' in 'what' can actually make a sinner justified or righteous as per the teachings of the Bible?

This is somewhat similar to this question, https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/82971/are-there-christian-denominations-or-movements-who-believe-that-jesus-didnt-act but **I wish to pursue the matter of God being the Righteous Judge of all the Earth** (Genesis 18:25). People are forever saying we have ***"a debt of sin" that Jesus "paid for", but I wonder if such language is clouding the issues here?*** Would it be right for any Judge to wave a hand and say, "Yes you are guilty of all those crimes but I'm just going to provide you with a free pardon. I expect you to be so grateful, you will then be a reformed character who will start to do good instead of doing evil" ? However, if the one sinned against arranged with his guiltless Son to bear all the punishment for your crimes against God, so that justice would be served that way, then would not mercy and justice have kissed at the cross? Does this not make sense of Romans 6:23, that we receive our well-earned wages for our sin - death - and after death comes divine judgment (Hebrews 9:26-27 & Revelation 20:11-15) which determines our eternal state? Then those for whom Christ bore the punishment for their sins are freely pardoned while it still remains to be endured by those who had no faith in that provision, effectively rejecting it? ***I would appreciate answers from those who claim there's no debt; God has but to freely pardon believing sinners.*** How can that square with perfect justice ordained by the Holy and Righteous God? Can we really expect no punishment in any form for crimes against God? Given that nobody from the group I addressed the Q to has answered, and 12 days have passed with nothing happening, I will now open the Q to those who believe in the grace of God to undeserving sinners, but to seek their ***views on how God's mercy does not over-rule or undermine his perfect justice. It's not the grace and mercy of God that is the question, but how that 'fits in' perfectly with God being the Righteous Judge of all the earth, as per Genesis 18:25.***

Many reformed protestants believe in "double imputation" - the idea that our sin is imputed to Christ, and his righteousness is imputed to us. 2 Corinthians 5 is often the source quoted for this: >God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. **2 Corinthains 5:21 (NIV)** The way this has often been explained to me is that we are not able to live a life perfectly obeying God, but Jesus did, and so his life counts for us. But is this all Jesus' righteousness is - the same as if we (theoretically) we to live a life in perfect submission? Or is it correct to say that even if we were to live a perfect life, the "righteousness of God" would still be greater than the righteousness we had achieved? I'm aware that this is an area of theology I struggle with, so perhaps this question doesn't make sense to people more learned than me. But do any of the greater Reformers, or other notable writers, comment on this comparison? *Note that I am specifically asking about those who believe we are imputed with the righteousness of Christ, as opposed to those who understand this verse differently.*

[Genesis 19:1-20](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2019:1-29&version=NIV) tells the famous story of Soddom and Gomorrah. In the story, the men of Sodom come to Lot's house, and demand that Lot release his visitors to be raped by the men of the town. Lot refuses, and instead offers his virgin daughters (verse 8) to appease the crowd. Nothing else is ever mentioned about Lot offering his daughters to be gang-raped by a crowd of men. In light of this, why is Lot considered "righteous?" (See [2 Peter 2:7](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%202:7&version=NIV)) Can we draw any other conclusions from Lot's actions here? I guess I don't really know what question to ask... I'm just kind of dumb-struck by the situation... What in the world?

I'm aware of several verses saying that God is righteous, but what's the biblical basis to say that God is or is not **the only righteous entity in the universe.**

This question regards Matthew 5:20: > "For I say to you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." and the orthodox interpretation of it. I found this site that basically says that the fasting on Monday is done by monks, but also observed by pious orthodox believer that ye may exceed the righteousness of scribes and Pharisees. Is that why orthodox fast on Monday? I don't mean to be rude, but I find much of orthodox theology concerning Theosis to be pelagian, as trying to earn heaven by merit, and while I know that the Orthodox Church does not teach that one can enter heaven by it's own power. It still feels like some strive from the bottom of their being to be more pious and righteousness that others, as it were a race, where Christ stands passive and the end of the ladder, while sinners try desperately to climb the ladder, always climbing never reaching the end. Always admiring the saints, never daring to feel worthy. And even know never daring to feel worthy, still, always fearing and questing, am I good enough, will I be received. Being told that the saints themselves where not sure if they are saved, then, much more shall the laity fear their fate.

I am looking for answer from a reformed theology perspective. I know that there are verses in the Bible that God does not show favor. But at the same time there has been many instances where the son was blessed because of the father. In some cases the children are cursed for sins of the father's when the children had not committed any wrong. Their family is put to death. People quote that all our curses where nailed on the Cross so if we believe in Christ we will be free from these. But the reality in some cases doesn't confirm this. I see that some believers are chosen to suffer all the time for no fault while others in faith are shown favor most of the time. This is more discouraging when it's in the ministry and you don't have any results to show. It is not encouraging as a child of God, as this is like a human parents favorite child. A child has to learn to trust the Father but is not given a chance. The most common answer I get is you are not praying enough or probably in heaven you will be rewarded. Reality here is some how different from Theology and the question of a righteous God.

I would like an Answer from a Reformed/Calvinist Perspective. There are many instances in scripture that affirm GOD is good (Psalm 119:68, 1 Tim 4:4). And that God is Righteous (Psalm 48:10, Jeremiah 12:1). I was considering God's Sovereignty - that all things move according to his will. Which means, earthquakes, disease, death etc... And he has the right to - for example, Kill a person, because all people are his possessions. So a person sins if he kills another person because he has no right to the lives of other people. But if a person were to kill a character in his/her books - is is not a sin, since the author has the right to do whatever he wants in his book. Because God owns all the earth, he has all rights to do whatever he wants. And cannot be guilty of sin- since there are no bounds for him to overstep. This is the only way I have thought of to reconcile 'God is Good' and 'God caused the earthquake'. However, If I was an author who killed a character in my book - you would not necessarily regard it as a 'good' action, just that the author cannot be condemned for it. So is the Righteousness of God based on the nature of his position over the world? or is God just defined as Righteous. Thanks.

How do one get to be in Christ? Is it same as to be righteous before God? I consider [Romans 8:1](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:1&version=NIV) as axiom. > Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,

What does the following verse mean? > Do not be overrighteous, neither be overwise - Why destroy yourself? *(Ecclesiastes 7:16, NIV)* The Bible often asks us to be righteous (Psalm 106:3, Matthew 5:20) so why is Solomon's request contradicting with the other verses?

> **James 2:24 NIV **
24 You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone. In James we are told that a person would be considered righteous by their deeds and not just their faith. Is righteousness a prerequisite for salvation?