Theological Dictionary: Called Righteous
In response to my “Theological Dictionary” post on Simul iustus et peccator , a reader questioned whether I was suggesting that “sinner” is an appropriate term to describe Christian identity. This is an important and insightful question, and because it helps to clarify what it does and does not mean to say the Christian is “at the same time righteous and sinner” I’ve decided to post my reply here.
“Sinner” is an identity word and it is misapplied if it is used to describe or name the Christian’s identity—their person. Before God, identity is not a both/and (sinner and righteous); it is an either/or (sinner or righteous). The basis of this difference is not anthropological (what I do or don’t do); it is strictly and solely Christological: to be in Christ is to be righteous before God. Paul does something unprecedented (in comparison with early Jewish literature) in that he designates all people outside of Christ with the identity “sinner” (Rom 5:8, for example). But even more novel and scandalous is his corresponding claim that it is precisely “sinners” who are, in Christ, identified as “righteous” (Rom 3:23-24). So, to borrow an expression from a Reformation confession, while the old Adam is a “stubborn, recalcitrant donkey,” this does not define Christian identity before God.
In this light, it’s important to clarify that simul iustus et peccator is NOT a description of our Christian identity; it is NOT a description of who we are before God. What it is, however, is a description of the both/and that characterizes the Christian life as lived. The pastoral payoff here is that it enables us to affirm (without crossing our fingers) that in Christ—at the level of identity—the Christian is 100% righteous before God while at the same time recognizing the persistence of sin. If we don’t speak in terms of two total states (100% righteous in Christ and 100% sinful in ourselves) corresponding to the co-existence of two times (the old age and the new creation) then the undeniable reality of ongoing sin leads to the qualification of our identity in Christ: some sin must mean not totally righteous. This is acid at the very foundation of the peace we have with God on the other side of justification. To say simul iustus et peccator is therefore not to say that “sinner” is our identity; it is to say that while we remain sinful in ourselves we are, in Christ, totally righteous.
This pastoral pattern is reflected in 1 Corinthians. In themselves, the Corinthians are anything but sanctified saints: they are quarrelling and creating factions around various Christian leaders; they are taking one another to court; sexual immorality is rampant and in one case nearly unheard of; the bodily resurrection is being denied; worship is chaotic. But writing to these people in the face of this sin, Paul addresses them as “those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints” (1 Cor 1:2). The possibility of this kind of speech is anchored in a distinction between who the Corinthians are in themselves and who they are in Christ. This confident and creative “calling”—this naming of a person or people in terms of who they are in Christ—is the catalyst of change. To call a person by their “new name” is to summon them away from faith in themselves—away from the sin and death that defines the old age and them in the old Adam—and to summon them to faith in Christ—to the salvation and status that defines the new creation and the Christian as one whose identity is “hid with God in Christ.”
Filed under: Blogs, Contributors, Theological Dictionary
Can a person be “in Christ” for a period of time, but at some point be severed from Christ due to unrepentant sin?
Josh C,
Wouldn’t the condition of either repenting or not repenting be a work that you either do or don’t do to maintain your salvation?
Christ finished the work necessary for your justification on the cross. It is not dependent on you or your works. Instead, when you repent of your sin as a Christian, even that is because of the grace of God in Christ.
“Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound”.
When I think about my sin as a Christian, I think about the relationship of a father and son. A father would not disown his child because that child messed up or even dishonored him. I would not do that to my kids and my father never did that to me. Actually, when I saw the unconditional love of my father and the sorrow in his heart brought by my actions I was much quicker to repent.
I believe scripturally and by experience that it is the same way with God! When I see the suffering of Christ and the glory He deserves and the love of God toward me, I WANT to repent, not because I feel He will reject me if I don’t but because He is a good Father!! He is worthy and He will help me. If I may use these words, I repent not because I HAVE to but because I WANT to and that desire is placed in me by God and because of God.
On the opposite end, if a servant of slave messes up it results in a severing of the relationship or corporal/penal punishment. This is a business relationship at best and love is not the motivating factor. This was our position before Christ. Slaves to sin and forced to scrap at earning righteousness which never was a possibility. But Christ has paid the price and made up acceptable before God. Now we are sons and daughters!
Hope my ramblings help. lol
what do you mean by severed from Christ?loosing eternal life?having eternal life is having Christ life without end.now I sure believe we are not antinomians,we don’t eliminate God’s moral law but is the fruit of true saving faith.
I think a better interpretation of what Luther proclaimed, “Simul iustus et peccator,” would be – I am at once justified and sinful. (as opposed to sinner) This more accurately describes the Christian existence between Christ’s two comings. I have heard Tim Keller give this interpretation and find it much more appropriate.
Johnny,
I understand what you’re saying here, and certainly agree that we can and often do experience these total states as partial realities. It’s worth noting, however, that “sinful” doesn’t really work as an interpretation of the Latin word “peccator” because it’s a noun rather than an adjective. If you wanted to say “sinful” you would say “peccatorius.”
The thing to remember is that “sinner” does not identify who we are in Christ and before God; it identifies who we are in ourselves — in the flesh. In Christ, we are, fully and finally righteous.
Thank you for that explanation. Well said, and patiently stated. It’s good to know our identity as His child, is forever secure regardless of our still present sinful nature. The physical dying of the old man is a long, painfully slow fight, so this was encouraging!
Chris
Thanks for writing this post
Would you consider writing one on repentance and how that relates to justification and Christian Growth.
I have some thoughts I’m working through and would like help:
I feel concern for the definition of sincere repentance saying things like, “it includes sorrow” and a “hatred for sin”.
Why?
Because that too easily implies personal righteousness. What do I mean? It takes a love of righteousness to hate sin and feel sorrow over it.
At conversion, the Law is to not just show us our sin, but that we have all kinds of it. We do not worship and serve the Lord, and we cannot, while in the flesh, and we can’t get ourselves out of the flesh.
So at conversion, we are actually shown how much we don’t love God and man, and this sets the stage for God’s (undeserved) mercy to be displayed in Christ.
So I’m opposed to the idea that in repentance at conversion, we must have some love of righteousness to be accepted by Christ. Rather, I think such a mindset obscures our need of Christ, and hinders receiving His grace.
So perhaps an author of a bible dictionary doesn’t intend such implications, or I am mistaken by what he means, but shouldn’t we be very careful?
I would rather say that we will often weep in God’s presence when He makes clear to us the gravity of our sin but that He still loved us, and that in receiving Him freely, a love of righteousness springs forth by the Spirit, but this is the *fruit* of true repentance, not what it is.
Because repentance is a condition, we have to be very careful how we define what it is, I would think.
Again, the Law is to empty us of self-trust, so that if I must love righteousness enough to weep over my lack of it, as a condition, then I’m not clearly seeing my need of Christ, it seems.
Thoughts?