Imputation of Christ's Righteous?

[cyberjosh]

Oh and comparing Wright's exegesis on the righteousness/justification/justify word group would be interesting to compare to this assessment of that topic: https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/justification/systematic-theology/louis-berkhof

 

[Doulos Iesou]

One more thing before I embark on my long road trip today. I watched a few videos on YouTube of Wright stating his position (including an interesting discussion on a radio program with Dr. James White which I only got a quarter of the way through), so I think I understand his personal approach to the NPP a little better now.

However I think that I would be aided by knowing exactly how Wright treats some of the verses in Romans and how he actually exegetes them (I, to be honest, have not read any of his books [yet] but rather quotes and summaries of what he says).

I actually own his in depth commentary on Romans so I could do that for you, just need to know specifics.

Assuming you have one of Wright's books at your disposal could you provide me with a quote of how he does each of the following (in Romans in particular)?

- How he exegetes a passage that has the noun "righteousness" in translation (preferably a passage that has been traditionally understood as a moral meaning of that word, so that I can better understand his contrast)
- The same for a passage with the noun "justification" in translation
- And then finally the same for a passage using the verb justify/justified in translation

I can take care of this, though not until later this weekend as I don't have access to the book right now.

One thing I am interested in is how Wright gets around the natural and etymological root sense of dikaioo as being part of a word group that all have to do with justice (Carson mentions this as an obstacle to Wright's argument - so I'm interested to see how/if he deals with it.)

A lot of people mischaracterize Wright as denying the forensic meaning to the word, but he specifically does not and notes that Paul draws on this type of language specifically and primarily within Romans.

Lastly, for sake of utmost clarity, could you compile a list of all the verses in Romans that have the words righteousness/justification/justify (I think there are at least 15 in Romans according to a reference work I have) and divide them by what you think are the ones with a "Covenant" sense and "Moral" sense. Basically like:

- Covenant: Romans 3:X, 4:Y, 5:Z
- Moral: Romans 6:A, 7:B, 8:C

That would help avoid confusion to a tremendous degree! And as for the covenant list, I would like to know you (or the NPP's) distinction between that righteousness and hesed faithfulness (and its distinction from tzadik in the OT).

Tall order? Maybe, but if we are going to delve into it the meat and potatoes have to be served sometime! ;-)

I would have no problem with that, it will cause me to look a little deeper into my position which I have no problem with. I will work on this over the weekend.

Have a good trip brother!

 

[By Grace]

Since you are not LDS,are you perhaps RLDS?

I have no idea what you're talking about. What I posted showed that the oath was sworn to Abraham due to his obedience.

If you want to believe that then there is nothing that I can do to convince you otherwise. However that is not supported in the original Hebrew, nor in the English translation

I don't know where you see a fallacy. God told Abraham to go to the Land and He would make Him a great nation, He didn't say sit there and I'll give you the land ands make you a great nation.

KJV Genesis 12:1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: (Gen 12:1-2 KJV)

Notice what God said, go to the land I will show you and I'll make of you a great nation. The promise was conditional upon Abraham going to the land. He didn't become a great nation until after he went to the land.

Now I see where you have made your error. You are taking the word "and" and morphing it into "then" . The letter vav is a word of inclusion and continuity. It is not a letter meaning "subsequently" as you seem to interpolate it .

You are misrepresenting a command to leave as a condition of a promise. Additionally you are not pointing out any place where God gives Abram a "pat on the back" by saying "Since you obeyed me, then I will do as I said." Since that is absent in ALL of Scripture, you are then making an argument from silence.

See above. Maybe it's your definition of grace. Charis just means favor.

See Titus 3:5
Mercy:
In Gk. ἔλεος is a πάθος, i.e., the emotion roused by contact with an affliction which comes undeservedly on someone else. There is in it an element of φόβος that this can happen. Thus we have the definition in Aristot. Rhet., II, 8, p. 1385b, 13 f.: ἔστω δὲ ἔλεος λύπη τις ἐπὶ φαινομένῳ (naturally not “apparent” but “appearing”) κακῷ φθαρτικῷ ἢ λυπηρῷ τοῦ ἀναξίου τυγχάνειν, ὃ κἂν αὐτὸς προσδοκήσειεν ἂν παθεῖν. To this extent ἔλεος and φθόνος correspond, for φθόνος is concerned with the welfare of others. νεμεσᾶν also corresponds to ἐλεεῖν as justifiable pain at unmerited prosperity.

Kittel, G., Bromiley, G. W., & Friedrich, G. (Eds.). (1964–). Theological dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

See Ephesians 2:8-9
the article preceding Charis is dative, which means "by way of"

3. The Pauline Corpus.


a. Here χαρά is never a profane mood. In Paul it is bound up with his work as an apostle. It is χαρὰ τῆς πίστεως, Phil. 1:25, a fruit of the Spirit, Gl. 5:22. There is thus reference to the eschatological and paradoxical element in it. “The kingdom of God is righteousness and peace and joy,” R. 14:17 → II, 416, 10 ff. The eschatological significance may also be seen in the connection with ἐλπίς, R. 12:12; 15:13 → II, 417, 11 ff. The material relation between the two is brought out in R. 5:1 ff. with the help of the opposite concept of θλῖψις. Joy is the actualisation of freedom, which takes concrete form in fellowship, R. 12:15. The dialectic is worked out most sharply in 1 C. 7:30. Those who rejoice should be ὡς μὴ χαίροντες. Joy is an essential factor in the relation between apostle and community. Paul asks the Roman church to pray that he might come with joy, R. 15:32. Joy is reciprocal, Phil. 2:28 f.; 2 C. 2:3 in contrast to λύπη. It is a matter of more than mood. In 1 Th. 3:9, with a play on εὐχαριστέω, joy is in God, and in Phil. 3:1; 4:4, 10, with the formula ἐν κυρίῳ, which has ecclesiological significance, it is in the Lord. Joy in the relation between apostle and community is eschatological. In the parousia the community will be manifested as the apostle’s work, 1 Th. 2:19, cf. Phil. 4:1. The same thought stands behind the prologue to Phil. In Phil. 2:17 f. we find συγχαίρω alongside the simple χαίρω; this reflects the mutuality → lines 21 ff.


Kittel, G., Bromiley, G. W., & Friedrich, G. (Eds.). (1964–). Theological dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

BTW these quotes are from an upper level source for Greek, recognized world wide for excellence

No, you claimed that. However, looking at the passage in context Paul is saying that he sees keeping the Law as righteous deeds.

I do not understand WHY you are arguing with a fundamental hermeneutical principle. (Hermeneutics is the science of Biblical interpretation, using the original languages.) By doing as you did, I can string together three different NT Scriptures to justify suicide, and we both know that that is not endorsed in Scripture.

I'm not the least bit confused, just don't want to assume anything. My question wasn't about Scripture it was about what "you" mean by grace precedes obedience. Ephesian 2 is addressing the Mosaic Law and Titus is most likely addressing it too.

By definition, any reference in the NT to "law" refers to the Decalogue PLUS the 600+ additional laws that the rabbis used to keep people from breaking the 10 Commandments. So I do not know what your point is here.

My mere opinion is irrelevant. For example it is my opinion that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl next year.

What is important is what the Bible says. That is why it is important to go into the original languages, as I see that you have started to do. Continue learning Kione Greek, it is a good study

 

[Butch5]

Since you are not LDS,are you perhaps RLDS?

Or perhaps I'm a Christian who got tired of the contradictions in the teachings of men.

If you want to believe that then there is nothing that I can do to convince you otherwise. However that is not supported in the original Hebrew, nor in the English translation

Original Hebrew? We don't have that. We do, however, have the Septuagint.

15 And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, 16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: 17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. (Gen 22:1 KJV)

Now I see where you have made your error. You are taking the word "and" and morphing it into "then" . The letter vav is a word of inclusion and continuity. It is not a letter meaning "subsequently" as you seem to interpolate it .

You are misrepresenting a command to leave as a condition of a promise. Additionally you are not pointing out any place where God gives Abram a "pat on the back" by saying "Since you obeyed me, then I will do as I said." Since that is absent in ALL of Scripture, you are then making an argument from silence.

Is it your contention that Abraham would receive the promises if he has said no and stayed in his land?

You said, the promises came first, Paul said otherwise.

12 That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,
14 Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.
15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. (Heb 6:12-15 KJV)

See Titus 3:5
Mercy:
In Gk. ἔλεος is a πάθος, i.e., the emotion roused by contact with an affliction which comes undeservedly on someone else. There is in it an element of φόβος that this can happen. Thus we have the definition in Aristot. Rhet., II, 8, p. 1385b, 13 f.: ἔστω δὲ ἔλεος λύπη τις ἐπὶ φαινομένῳ (naturally not “apparent” but “appearing”) κακῷ φθαρτικῷ ἢ λυπηρῷ τοῦ ἀναξίου τυγχάνειν, ὃ κἂν αὐτὸς προσδοκήσειεν ἂν παθεῖν. To this extent ἔλεος and φθόνος correspond, for φθόνος is concerned with the welfare of others. νεμεσᾶν also corresponds to ἐλεεῖν as justifiable pain at unmerited prosperity.

Kittel, G., Bromiley, G. W., & Friedrich, G. (Eds.). (1964–). Theological dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

See Ephesians 2:8-9
the article preceding Charis is dative, which means "by way of"

3. The Pauline Corpus.


a. Here χαρά is never a profane mood. In Paul it is bound up with his work as an apostle. It is χαρὰ τῆς πίστεως, Phil. 1:25, a fruit of the Spirit, Gl. 5:22. There is thus reference to the eschatological and paradoxical element in it. “The kingdom of God is righteousness and peace and joy,” R. 14:17 → II, 416, 10 ff. The eschatological significance may also be seen in the connection with ἐλπίς, R. 12:12; 15:13 → II, 417, 11 ff. The material relation between the two is brought out in R. 5:1 ff. with the help of the opposite concept of θλῖψις. Joy is the actualisation of freedom, which takes concrete form in fellowship, R. 12:15. The dialectic is worked out most sharply in 1 C. 7:30. Those who rejoice should be ὡς μὴ χαίροντες. Joy is an essential factor in the relation between apostle and community. Paul asks the Roman church to pray that he might come with joy, R. 15:32. Joy is reciprocal, Phil. 2:28 f.; 2 C. 2:3 in contrast to λύπη. It is a matter of more than mood. In 1 Th. 3:9, with a play on εὐχαριστέω, joy is in God, and in Phil. 3:1; 4:4, 10, with the formula ἐν κυρίῳ, which has ecclesiological significance, it is in the Lord. Joy in the relation between apostle and community is eschatological. In the parousia the community will be manifested as the apostle’s work, 1 Th. 2:19, cf. Phil. 4:1. The same thought stands behind the prologue to Phil. In Phil. 2:17 f. we find συγχαίρω alongside the simple χαίρω; this reflects the mutuality → lines 21 ff.


Kittel, G., Bromiley, G. W., & Friedrich, G. (Eds.). (1964–). Theological dictionary of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

BTW these quotes are from an upper level source for Greek, recognized world wide for excellence

Yeah, I know who Kittle is. However, I don't see your point. Is charis favor or not?

As I pointed out before Eph 2:8-9 Isa referring to the Mosaic Law. Pauls point is that one is not saved by the works of the Mosaic Law. That becomes clear when one reads the rest of the chapter. Paul goes on to explain how they not saved by works.

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
(Eph 2:8-17 KJV)

I do not understand WHY you are arguing with a fundamental hermeneutical principle. (Hermeneutics is the science of Biblical interpretation, using the original languages.) By doing as you did, I can string together three different NT Scriptures to justify suicide, and we both know that that is not endorsed in Scripture.

I'm not arguing with hermeneutical principles. I asked you a question which you didn't answer. In the context of that passage is Paul equating righteous deeds with keeping the Mosaic Law/

By definition, any reference in the NT to "law" refers to the Decalogue PLUS the 600+ additional laws that the rabbis used to keep people from breaking the 10 Commandments. So I do not know what your point is here.

My mere opinion is irrelevant. For example it is my opinion that the Eagles will win the Super Bowl next year.

What is important is what the Bible says. That is why it is important to go into the original languages, as I see that you have started to do. Continue learning Kione Greek, it is a good study

I wouldn't say any reference since there is reference to the Law of Liberty and the Law of Christ. However, the passages you quoted to say one is not saved by works are referring to specific works not just any kind of works that one might do. The passages you've quote could be used to argue that no one is saved by keeping the Mosaic Law. On the other hand we cannot use those passage to say that works play no role in Salvation at all.

 

[By Grace]

Or perhaps I'm a Christian who got tired of the contradictions in the teachings of men.

The reason that I asked those 2 Qs is because your postings here are exactly the same sort of stuff I get from Mormons on a regular basis on other sites. By trying to ascertain where you hang your "theological hat" is so I could find the best way to respond to you

Original Hebrew? We don't have that. We do, however, have the Septuagint.

Are you aware that the LXX is a translation of Hebrew scrolls into Greek?
Are you aware that the Qumran Scrolls c. 125 BC and the Masoretic texts c. 600 are almost identical, excepting for minor variations, such in spelling, and easily discernible?

15 And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, 16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: 17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. (Gen 22:1 KJV)

I will give you credit for being tenacious, but what you are doing time after time is that you are NEGLECTING THE CONTEXT
When did the promise first come to Abram?
.

Genesis 15: 3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.
4 And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.
5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be​

When you so consistently neglect the context, you consistently come up with stuff that is not supported by the Bible

Is it your contention that Abraham would receive the promises if he has said no and stayed in his land?

For several good reasons I do not deal with hypotheticals. It is enough to deal with what DID happen.

You said, the promises came first, Paul said otherwise.

12 That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,
14 Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.
15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. (Heb 6:12-15 KJV)

I believe that Paul could have written Hebrews, but that is not important to me.

Did you not read verse 13-14? The promise came FIRST. Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. Then after many years, Sarah became pregnant at age 90. The birth of Isaac did not come because Abraham waited patiently, he didn't.

You are creating a historical summary as a conditional promise, and that is an egregious violation of hermeneutical principles.

Yeah, I know who Kittle is. However, I don't see your point. Is charis favor or not?

Obviously you did not fully read/ or perhaps did not fully understand this:

a. Here χαρά is never a profane mood. In Paul it is bound up with his work as an apostle. It is χαρὰ τῆς πίστεως, Phil. 1:25, a fruit of the Spirit, Gl. 5:22. There is thus reference to the eschatological and paradoxical element in it. “The kingdom of God is righteousness and peace and joy,” R. 14:17 → II, 416, 10 ff. The eschatological significance may also be seen in the connection with ἐλπίς, R. 12:12; 15:13 → II, 417, 11 ff. The material relation between the two is brought out in R. 5:1 ff. with the help of the opposite concept of θλῖψις. Joy is the actualisation of freedom, which takes concrete form in fellowship, R. 12:15. The dialectic is worked out most sharply in 1 C. 7:30. Those who rejoice should be ὡς μὴ χαίροντες. Joy is an essential factor in the relation between apostle and community. Paul asks the Roman church to pray that he might come with joy, R. 15:32. Joy is reciprocal, Phil. 2:28 f.; 2 C. 2:3 in contrast to λύπη. It is a matter of more than mood. In 1 Th. 3:9, with a play on εὐχαριστέω, joy is in God, and in Phil. 3:1; 4:4, 10, with the formula ἐν κυρίῳ, which has ecclesiological significance, it is in the Lord. Joy in the relation between apostle and community is eschatological. In the parousia the community will be manifested as the apostle’s work, 1 Th. 2:19, cf. Phil. 4:1. The same thought stands behind the prologue to Phil. In Phil. 2:17 f. we find συγχαίρω alongside the simple χαίρω; this reflects the mutuality → lines 21 ff.


The Greek word definition for χαρά (the root word for charis is a snippet from a larger section on that word. I was attempting to demonstrate the wideness of the meaning instead of the simple definition you gave.


As I pointed out before Eph 2:8-9 Isa referring to the Mosaic Law. Pauls point is that one is not saved by the works of the Mosaic Law. That becomes clear when one reads the rest of the chapter. Paul goes on to explain how they not saved by works.

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
(Eph 2:8-17 KJV)

I'm not arguing with hermeneutical principles. I asked you a question which you didn't answer. In the context of that passage is Paul equating righteous deeds with keeping the Mosaic Law/

Indeed you are consistently violating hermeneutic principles Perhaps you may wish to do a search on the term "hermeneutic principles". Here is just another reason why and how you are violating hermeneutic principles here:

Isaiah 64: 6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
7 And there is none that calleth upon thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of thee: for thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast consumed us, because of our iniquities.

Romans 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
​

These verses make it clear that there is NOTHING good dwelling in us whereby we can claim salvation based on the works, which we may do. therefore there is no such thing in the eye of God as "works of righteousness" and more important, is there any one of us who is able to keep the Law in its entirety because we are all sinners, and due to that, we are all condemned.

I wouldn't say any reference since there is reference to the Law of Liberty and the Law of Christ. However, the passages you quoted to say one is not saved by works are referring to specific works not just any kind of works that one might do. The passages you've quote could be used to argue that no one is saved by keeping the Mosaic Law. On the other hand we cannot use those passage to say that works play no role in Salvation at all.

You are arguing for self-salvation here and NOT unmerited salvation by the grace and mercy of Jesus Christ alone. that dear friend is basic Mormon theology, and Mormons are not Christians because they have a totally different god, jesus and holy spirit than is found in the Bible alone. There is absolutely no support for the Lorenzo Snow couplet in the Bible

 

[Butch5]

The reason that I asked those 2 Qs is because your postings here are exactly the same sort of stuff I get from Mormons on a regular basis on other sites. By trying to ascertain where you hang your "theological hat" is so I could find the best way to respond to you

I hang my theological hat on the Scriptures not the teachings of men. I’m simply a Christian.

Are you aware that the LXX is a translation of Hebrew scrolls into Greek?
Are you aware that the Qumran Scrolls c. 125 BC and the Masoretic texts c. 600 are almost identical, excepting for minor variations, such in spelling, and easily discernible?

I’m aware that the LXX was translated from the Hebrew texts but not the ones we have today. A look at the Scriptures shows that. Many of the NT quotes don’t match the Masoretic texts we have today.

I will give you credit for being tenacious, but what you are doing time after time is that you are NEGLECTING THE CONTEXT
When did the promise first come to Abram?
.

Genesis 15: 3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.
4 And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.
5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be

When you so consistently neglect the context, you consistently come up with stuff that is not supported by the Bible

That’s not the promise we’re dealing with, this is.

KJV Genesis 12:1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:

2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: 3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. (Gen 12:1-3 KJV)

You said, the promises came first, Paul said otherwise.

12 That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,
14 Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.
15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. (Heb 6:12-15 KJVI believe that Paul could havewritten Hebrews, but that is not important to me.

Did you not read verse 13-14? The promise came FIRST. Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. Then after many years, Sarah became pregnant at age 90. The birth of Isaac did not come because Abraham waited patiently, he didn't.

You are creating a historical summary as a conditional promise, and that is an egregious violation of hermeneutical principles.

You can argue with Paul if you want to but he said “after” Abraham endured he obtained the promise, not before. God swore the oath after Abraham endured, He was tested when told to offer Isaac, he passed the test and received the promise.

Obviously you did not fully read/ or perhaps did not fully understand this:The Greek word definition for χαρά (the root word for charis is a snippet from a larger section on that word. I was attempting to demonstrate the wideness of the meaning instead of the simple definition you gave.

It’s a yes or no question. I don’t really see the need to go into such depth on the word.

As I pointed out before Eph 2:8-9 Isa referring to the Mosaic Law. Pauls point is that one is not saved by the works of the Mosaic Law. That becomes clear when one reads the rest of the chapter. Paul goes on to explain how they not saved by works.

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
(Eph 2:8-17 KJV)

No response?

Indeed you are consistently violating hermeneutic principles Perhaps you may wish to do a search on the term "hermeneutic principles". Here is just another reason why and how you are violating hermeneutic principles here:

Isaiah 64: 6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

7 And there is none that calleth upon thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of thee: for thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast consumed us, because of our iniquities.

Romans 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

These verses make it clear that there is NOTHING good dwelling in us whereby we can claim salvation based on the works, which we may do. therefore there is no such thing in the eye of God as "works of righteousness" and more important, is there any one of us who is able to keep the Law in its entirety because we are all sinners, and due to that, we are all condemned.

This is interesting. You’ve accused me several times of violating hermeneutical principles by taking passages out of context and here you have taken a passage out of context. In the passage from Isaiah, it is not God speaking it is Isaiah. He is giving a prayer of repentance to God on behalf of Israel. When he says all of our righteousnesses are as filthy rags he is speaking of Israel, not mankind.

The works based salvation argument is a straw man. No one is arguing for a works based salvation. However, that doesn’t mean that works play no role in salvation. No one can save themselves only God can save. However, that doesn’t mean we do nothing.

You are arguing for self-salvation here and NOT unmerited salvation by the grace and mercy of Jesus Christ alone. that dear friend is basic Mormon theology, and Mormons are not Christians because they have a totally different god, jesus and holy spirit than is found in the Bible alone. There is absolutely no support for the Lorenzo Snow couplet in the Bible

Again, the self-salvation that you speak of is a straw man. Your argument is also fallacious, it’s a false dilemma. There is a third option that being obedience. Where do you find unmerited salvation in the Scriptures?

 

[By Grace]

I hang my theological hat on the Scriptures not the teachings of men. I’m simply a Christian.

So you have studied and taught yourself the original languages of Scripture? [/sarcasm]

I really have come to the point that you are not making this stuff up, but are actually reading a book from someone.

I’m aware that the LXX was translated from the Hebrew texts but not the ones we have today. A look at the Scriptures shows that. Many of the NT quotes don’t match the Masoretic texts we have today.

Are you aware of the anachronism which you just posted there?

You said, the promises came first, Paul said otherwise.

12 That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.
13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,
14 Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.
15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. (Heb 6:12-15 KJVI believe that Paul could have written Hebrews, but that is not important to me.


You can argue with Paul if you want to but he said “after” Abraham endured he obtained the promise, not before. God swore the oath after Abraham endured, He was tested when told to offer Isaac, he passed the test and received the promise.

Paul is not schizophrenic, as you seem to want him to be. You are making him say something contrary to what he consistently says. Here it is again, and VERY clear:
Galatians 3:18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

Please expand this entire box.

QUOTE]

Obviously you did not fully read/ or perhaps did not fully understand this:The Greek word definition for χαρά (the root word for charis is a snippet from a larger section on that word. I was attempting to demonstrate the wideness of the meaning instead of the simple definition you gave

.

It’s a yes or no question. I don’t really see the need to go into such depth on the word.

The Greek word definition for χαρά (the root word for charis is a snippet from a larger section on that word. I was attempting to demonstrate the wideness of the meaning instead of the simple definition you gave.

I beg your pardon??? It was you who first brought up that word, and wanted to apply a very simple definition to it. Therefore I answered the question that you brought up.

No response?

What exactly are you asking?

This is interesting. You’ve accused me several times of violating hermeneutical principles by taking passages out of context and here you have taken a passage out of context. In the passage from Isaiah, it is not God speaking it is Isaiah. He is giving a prayer of repentance to God on behalf of Israel. When he says all of our righteousnesses are as filthy rags he is speaking of Israel, not mankind.

Indeed, Isaiah is making a prayer; you caught that. However are you aware of the role of a prophet of God? I suspect not because if you did, you would know that the prophet does not speak his own words; he speaks the words of God to his people.

BTW do you know what hermeneutics is?

The works based salvation argument is a straw man. No one is arguing for a works based salvation. However, that doesn’t mean that works play no role in salvation. No one can save themselves only God can save. However, that doesn’t mean we do nothing.

No it is not. ANY works that men do in their salvation (an impossibility, I know) is an act of effrontery on the efficacy, and the scope of the Atonement of Jesus, essentially calling it worthless. The adage "Do your best and let god do the rest" is heretical nonsense.

Again, the self-salvation that you speak of is a straw man. Your argument is also fallacious, it’s a false dilemma. There is a third option that being obedience. Where do you find unmerited salvation in the Scriptures?

It is all over both the OT and NT

It is too late for me to continue. I suspect that someone else will be happy to supply a boat load of Scriptures on salvation by grace alone.

 

[Butch5]

So you have studied and taught yourself the original languages of Scripture? [/sarcasm]

You didn’t have to note the sarcasm I’ve noticed that for quite a while, along with talking down to me. I’m thinking you’re a Calvinist

I really have come to the point that you are not making this stuff up, but are actually reading a book from someone.

You’re right, I am reading a book it’s called the Bible.

Are you aware of the anachronism which you just posted there?

I’m aware that that the LXX was translated from texts that precede the Masoretic texts we use today

Paul is not schizophrenic, as you seem to want him to be. You are making him say something contrary to what he consistently says. Here it is again, and VERY clear:


Galatians 3:18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

Not at all, I’m simply keeping Paul’s statements in context.

Let me ask you, do you know what the inheritance is? I ask because this doesn’t seem to fit your argument. Before you arguing that no one is righteous not you post this passage about the inheritance. Can you tell me where you’re going with this?

I beg your pardon??? It was you who first brought up that word, and wanted to apply a very simple definition to it. Therefore I answered the question that you brought up.

Yes, and is that simple definition a meaning of the word?

What exactly are you asking?

I wasn’t asking anything, I was pointing out that the passage is about the works of the Law.

Indeed, Isaiah is making a prayer; you caught that. However are you aware of the role of a prophet of God? I suspect not because if you did, you would know that the prophet does not speak his own words; he speaks the words of God to his people.

That’s correct; however, this prophet is talking “TO” God. I don’t think God uses prophets to prophesy to Himself. Isaiah is speaking of Israel, God is not.

BTW do you know what hermeneutics is?

This doesn’t help your case.

No it is not. ANY works that men do in their salvation (an impossibility, I know) is an act of effrontery on the efficacy, and the scope of the Atonement of Jesus, essentially calling it worthless. The adage "Do your best and let god do the rest" is heretical nonsense.

Now that’s the teachings of men, not the Scriptures.

 

[By Grace]

So you have studied and taught yourself the original languages of Scripture? [/sarcasm]

You didn’t have to note the sarcasm I’ve noticed that for quite a while, along with talking down to me. I’m thinking you’re a Calvinist

I should not have done that, and it was done with a sense of frustration. I am sorry for that. But that was the only act of sarcasm I have done to you here, AND despite the sarcasm, my point remains valid. How can you seek to be get a proper understanding of what the Bible says by relying only on English translations?

You’re right, I am reading a book it’s called the Bible

Any particular translation? It does not matter to me, because there is no " Perfect translation" of any Bible

I’m aware that the LXX was translated from the Hebrew texts but not the ones we have today. A look at the Scriptures shows that. Many of the NT quotes don’t match the Masoretic texts we have today.

Are you aware of the anachronism which you just posted there?

I’m aware that that the LXX was translated from texts that precede the Masoretic texts we use today

Thank you for your clarification and correction of your chronology
[

You said, the promises came first, Paul said otherwise. <SNIP>

Paul is not schizophrenic, as you seem to want him to be. You are making him say something contrary to what he consistently says. Here it is again, and VERY clear:
Galatians 3:18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

Not at all, I’m simply keeping Paul’s statements in context.
Let me ask you, do you know what the inheritance is? I ask because this doesn’t seem to fit your argument. Before you arguing that no one is righteous not you post this passage about the inheritance. Can you tell me where you’re going with this?

I did not include the context of the passage because I assumed that you may have been familiar with the Galatians Heresy, which Paul addressed in that book. Boiled down the heresy said that in order to be a Christian you first had to be Jewish. So with that as a background, look at the context of verse 18:

Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.​

In this passage the word "inheritance" means also "salvation" as does one part of the meaning of "covenant". From the rest of Paul's writings, we can see how he uses these important and legal terms to mean "our salvation"

BTW did you notice the 430 years mentioned in verse 17?

Yes, and is that simple definition a meaning of the word?
I wasn’t asking anything, I was pointing out that the passage is about the works of the Law.

Perhaps it is just my "hard wiring" clashing with your "hard wiring" but I believe that rarely does God use a "simple meaning" in the stuff He has written, and when I look at a specific word in a historic and theological perspective, it brings out riches that are not apparent to the English reader (or Spanish reader or whatever) and that excites me.

You may not have been "hard wired" to delve into the meanings of things, and that is just as OK as my wanting to dig stuff from Scripture. Neither of us are wrong in using our particular approach.

That’s correct; however, this prophet is talking “TO” God. I don’t think God uses prophets to prophesy to Himself. Isaiah is speaking of Israel, God is not.

I quoted the verse to give you a perspective on the so-called "acts of righteousness" that men can do to "impress God". Regardless of your quibbling, that verse is indeed proof that there is none who is righteous.

BTW do you know what hermeneutics is?

This doesn’t help your case.

Here is the definition of "hermeneutics"
1. the science of interpretation, especially of the Scriptures.
2.the branch of theology that deals with the principles of Biblical exegesis.
from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hermeneutics?s=t

Notice the word SCIENCE in the first definition, and then please notice the word "EXEGESIS" in the second definition. That is what I try to do with the tools and books that I have.

Now that’s the teachings of men, not the Scriptures.

I was making an allusion to the Book of Mormon to ferret out if you were actually a Mormon.

At least we agree on something that is a heresy, and not found in the Bible

 

[WIP]

Let's try to keep things on topic please.

 

[Butch5]

I should not have done that, and it was done with a sense of frustration. I am sorry for that. But that was the only act of sarcasm I have done to you here, AND despite the sarcasm, my point remains valid. How can you seek to be get a proper understanding of what the Bible says by relying only on English translations?

No problem.

I’m not using English translations alone.

Any particular translation? It does not matter to me, because there is no " Perfect translation" of any Bible

I can agree with that. Typically, I use the KJV but I also consult other translations along with the Greek and Hebrew texts when necessary.

Thank you for your clarification and correction of your chronology

You’re welcome!

I did not include the context of the passage because I assumed that you may have been familiar with the Galatians Heresy, which Paul addressed in that book. Boiled down the heresy said that in order to be a Christian you first had to be Jewish. So with that as a background, look at the context of verse 18:

Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.
15 Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.
16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.


In this passage the word "inheritance" means also "salvation" as does one part of the meaning of "covenant". From the rest of Paul's writings, we can see how he uses these important and legal terms to mean "our salvation"

BTW did you notice the 430 years mentioned in verse 17?

Actually, I am quite aware of Galatians 3 it’s one of the most important chapters in the Scriptures when I comes to understanding God’s plan and what the Bible says. Regarding verse 18, I would submit that while salvation is ultimately tied up in the inheritance it is not the primarily what Paul is getting here. Notice Paul says that the inheritance was promised was made to Abraham and that it didn’t come through the Law. So, the inheritance is the promise to Abraham. The question is what is the promise? You quoted verses 13-14 which say Christ redeemed us (Jews) from the Law that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles. What is the blessing of Abraham, the phrase only appears twice in Scripture? It is the land that God promised to give to Abraham. Isaac states this when blessing Jacob.

KJV Genesis 28:1 And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan.

2 Arise, go to Padanaram, to the house of Bethuel thy mother's father; and take thee a wife from thence of the daughters of Laban thy mother's brother.

3 And God Almighty bless thee, and make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, that thou mayest be a multitude of people;

4 And give thee the blessing of Abraham, to thee, and to thy seed with thee; that thou mayest inherit the land wherein thou art a stranger, which God gave unto Abraham. (Gen 28:1-4 KJV)

Paul argues that his blessing comes to the Gentiles through faith in Christ. The promise was made to Abraham and his seed. The Jews understood this to be them the physical seed of Abraham, however, we see in verse 16 that Paul says when the promises were made to Abraham and his seed God didn’t mean many seed but one seed and that Seed is Christ. The Land was promised to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Christ. Christ was the ultimate Seed of Abraham that would inherit the Land.

6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.

7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. (Psa 2:6-9 KJV)

However, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, never inherited the land. Therefore the only way the promise can be fulfilled is for these men to be resurrected. God told Abraham that He would give him the land for an everlasting possession.

I quoted the verse to give you a perspective on the so-called "acts of righteousness" that men can do to "impress God". Regardless of your quibbling, that verse is indeed proof that there is none who is righteous.

It’s not. Isaiah is speaking to God on behalf of Israel, not mankind. I’m surprised you posted this passage as much as you’ve been talking about hermeneutics.

Here’s something to consider, Paul is the apostle who argues against being saved by the works of the Law. If he was arguing that man could not do anything righteous don’t you suppose he would have quoted this passage? Nowhere in any of his writings that we have does he quote this passage in Isaiah, which if he was making the argument that you are would be a perfect passage for him to quote. Not only does Paul not quote it, neither do any of the apostles or Jesus Himself quote the passage in any of the writings we have. In addition, to the best of my knowledge the passage isn’t quoted by the Ante-Nicene writers either. It seems the passage was made popular by Luther when espousing in his “Faith Alone” doctrine.

Here is the definition of "hermeneutics"
1. the science of interpretation, especially of the Scriptures.
2.the branch of theology that deals with the principles of Biblical exegesis.
from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hermeneutics?s=t

Notice the word SCIENCE in the first definition, and then please notice the word "EXEGESIS" in the second definition. That is what I try to do with the tools and books that I have.

And I do likewise. What is your methodology or system that you use?

I was making an allusion to the Book of Mormon to ferret out if you were actually a Mormon.

At least we agree on something that is a heresy, and not found in the Bible

I’ve already said that I’m not a Mormon. I’m a Christian who got tired of being told to just accept illogical doctrines. I got tired of being told, it’s a mystery or some things are hard to understand when they couldn’t answer my questions. It’s not a mystery, it’s a contradiction. I got tired of people telling me that things that are mutually exclusive are both true, and so on.

 

[By Grace]

Before we go on further, you need to know that my purpose is NOT to attack you personally in any manner. Instead, the purpose is to come to an understanding of where you are first, then delve into the differences we may have. Thus, I am curious if your church belongs to a larger fellowship? "Do either of them have a web site?

I can agree with that. Typically, I use the KJV but I also consult other translations along with the Greek and Hebrew texts when necessary.

Have you had any training in either languages? I ask not as a snob, but as a way to turn down my responses so there will be no way that I would seem to "put you down" or make you feel that I was trying to "talk down to you.

Actually, I am quite aware of Galatians 3 it’s one of the most important chapters in the Scriptures when I comes to understanding God’s plan and what the Bible says. Regarding verse 18, I would submit that while salvation is ultimately tied up in the inheritance it is not the primarily what Paul is getting here. Notice Paul says that the inheritance was promised was made to Abraham and that it didn’t come through the Law. So, the inheritance is the promise to Abraham. The question is what is the promise? You quoted verses 13-14 which say Christ redeemed us (Jews) from the Law that the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles. What is the blessing of Abraham, the phrase only appears twice in Scripture? It is the land that God promised to give to Abraham. Isaac states this when blessing Jacob.

This is a cultural thing, and we are not familiar with blessing another in the USA. Having married a Hispanic, I am familiar with how they do in Porto Rico and other Spanish-speaking places. You place your hand on the head of a child, and say to him/her, "may the Lord bless you". The Hassidim and other observant Jews say "Sahlom Alechem" to each other, meaning "peace be upon you" and the response is to repeat it backwards, "Alechem Shalom" "unto you, peace". Yo should see their face when a goy says that to them upon leaving their presence!

KJV Genesis 28:1 And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan.
2 Arise, go to Padanaram, to the house of Bethuel thy mother's father; and take thee a wife from thence of the daughters of Laban thy mother's brother.
3 And God Almighty bless thee, and make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, that thou mayest be a multitude of people;
4 And give thee the blessing of Abraham, to thee, and to thy seed with thee; that thou mayest inherit the land wherein thou art a stranger, which God gave unto Abraham. (Gen 28:1-4 KJV)

Paul argues that his blessing comes to the Gentiles through faith in Christ. The promise was made to Abraham and his seed. The Jews understood this to be them the physical seed of Abraham, however, we see in verse 16 that Paul says when the promises were made to Abraham and his seed God didn’t mean many seed but one seed and that Seed is Christ. The Land was promised to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Christ. Christ was the ultimate Seed of Abraham that would inherit the Land.

6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. (Psa 2:6-9 KJV)
However, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, never inherited the land. Therefore the only way the promise can be fulfilled is for these men to be resurrected. God told Abraham that He would give him the land for an everlasting possession.

Galatians 3:.6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. ​

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.​

According to vs 7-9:
ALL who believe (in Jesus) are the children of Abraham, as are the Jews.
God knew that the righteousness which God imputed to Abraham came on a basis of (not a condition of) his faith.
The promise/blessing that God gave to Abraham was two fold: that his seed would be more numerable than the stars, and then that ALL notions of the world would be blessed through Abraham's (literal and grafted in) seed.

In a conclusion to his syllogism, Paul reiterates the premise, ALL who are believers (and the Jews) are the blessed ones of Abraham​

It’s not. Isaiah is speaking to God on behalf of Israel, not mankind. I’m surprised you posted this passage as much as you’ve been talking about hermeneutics.

The conclusion to such a narrow application is that the gentiles (heathen) are not sinners. The explication which I made above includes that "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God" IMHO, I believe that this is also in line with Galatians 3

Here’s something to consider, Paul is the apostle who argues against being saved by the works of the Law. If he was arguing that man could not do anything righteous don’t you suppose he would have quoted this passage?

I have enough trouble doing what Paul says. It is too much for me to speculate on hypotheticals, which is really an argument from silence.

Nowhere in any of his writings that we have does he quote this passage in Isaiah, which if he was making the argument that you are would be a perfect passage for him to quote. Not only does Paul not quote it, neither do any of the apostles or Jesus Himself quote the passage in any of the writings we have. In addition, to the best of my knowledge the passage isn’t quoted by the Ante-Nicene writers either. It seems the passage was made popular by Luther when espousing in his “Faith Alone” doctrine.

WOW! That covers much ground. Please tell me if this a correct understanding of what you posted:

Because did not reference that verse from Isaiah, then the verse is of a dubious nature.
The same argument holds true for Jesus, and the Apostles who wrote Scripture.
To your recollection the Pre-Nicene Early Church Fathers did not mention that verse either.
Therefore, the verse was accepted ONLY by Martin Luther, and it is merely a product of the Reformation.

For those reasons, that verse Isaiah 64:6 is bogus.

6 All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away.​

The fallacy of your argument is that you are attempting to make a positive (the verse is bogus) from a negative (silence) The ONLY thing that silence on any issue can establish is silence on an issue. Additionally, you may not understand the things behind the transmission and perserverance of the Scriptures. Many people do not. Let me assure you that is not the case that the Bible was corrupted in either the OT or the NT. Most surprizing is this fact, that due to the numbers of extant ancient sources, that there are over 6000 different pieces of NT writings, we are able to come up with the original words of the writers of the NT books with an accuracy rate of .99999. That means that only one ten thousandth is unsure.

The better scholars can determine which scribe (not by name, of course) created a variation, and they can see it traced through that corpus of manuscripts.

The reason why I say thall that is to assure you of the accuracy of the transmission of the documents, and the net effect of your "syllogism" is to create a big hole in Scripture.

And I do likewise. What is your methodology or system that you use?

Read it in English, then go to the original languages.

It’s not a mystery, it’s a contradiction. I got tired of people telling me that things that are mutually exclusive are both true, and so on.

Some things MUST be accepted as true even though they SEEM contradictory to us. The God who placed the "Calvinist verses" in the Bible is the same God who put the "Arminian verses" in the Bible. Our God is not schizophrenic; He placed both of those doctrines in the Bible, so He must be right, or else He is not God.

Make sense?

 

[His_nee (Jeff)]

What has historically been called the "wondrous exchange," the doctrine of imputation has been seen as one of the integral parts of the gospel message and what Christ accomplished for us on the Cross..........

Let's try to keep things on topic please.

I don't know anyone who thinks the doctrine of (i want sooooo much to say something else!) imputation is at all a part of Scripture, God's Word, or part of the Gospel Message,or of what Christ accomplished.

At least none of the ekklesia has ever mentioned it that i'm aware of, not in person, nor in writing, nor in any other way.

That said, is there a topic to stay on ? Nice and simple the way God created all things please. Shalom!

 

[Butch5]

Before we go on further, you need to know that my purpose is NOT to attack you personally in any manner. Instead, the purpose is to come to an understanding of where you are first, then delve into the differences we may have. Thus, I am curious if your church belongs to a larger fellowship? "Do either of them have a web site?

No, it no longer has a website. However, the church I attend does not hold the doctrine I do. However, You can find what I believe here

Have you had any training in either languages? I ask not as a snob, but as a way to turn down my responses so there will be no way that I would seem to "put you down" or make you feel that I was trying to "talk down to you.

Personally, I have no formal training in the languages other than what I’ve studied, though I do have association with those who translate the original languages

This is a cultural thing, and we are not familiar with blessing another in the USA. Having married a Hispanic, I am familiar with how they do in Porto Rico and other Spanish-speaking places. You place your hand on the head of a child, and say to him/her, "may the Lord bless you". The Hassidim and other observant Jews say "Sahlom Alechem" to each other, meaning "peace be upon you" and the response is to repeat it backwards, "Alechem Shalom" "unto you, peace". Yo should see their face when a goy says that to them upon leaving their presence!

I don’t know if you got my point. My point is that he inheritance is the land promised to Abraham.

Galatians 3:.6

Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.


According to vs 7-9:
ALL who believe (in Jesus) are the children of Abraham, as are the Jews.
God knew that the righteousness which God imputed to Abraham came on a basis of (not a condition of) his faith.
The promise/blessing that God gave to Abraham was two fold: that his seed would be more numerable than the stars, and then that ALL notions of the world would be blessed through Abraham's (literal and grafted in) seed.

In a conclusion to his syllogism, Paul reiterates the premise, ALL who are believers (and the Jews) are the blessed ones of Abraham

Yes, those of faith are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise as Paul says in concluding the chapter. Paul’s argument is that God reckons Abraham’s seed through faith and not physical birth. That is why Jesus told Nicodemus he needed to be born again. Nicodemus, being a Jew believed that he was heir of the promises made to Abraham through his physical descent from Abraham. Jesus said no, that which is born of the flesh is flesh. He was telling his that his physical birth was not sufficient to gain him access into the Kingdom of God. Paul’s converts were being told by the Judaizers that they, in addition to faith in Christ also needed to keep the Laws of Moses and be circumcised. It is these works of the Law that Paul argues against not good deeds that a believer does. This whole chapter is about believers are Abraham’s seed and heir of the inheritance which is the land.

The conclusion to such a narrow application is that the gentiles (heathen) are not sinners. The explication which I made above includes that "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God" IMHO, I believe that this is also in line with Galatians 3

I’m not sure how you’ve drawn that conclusion. The passage is about Israel it doesn’t address whether or not he Gentiles are sinners.

Here’s something to consider, Paul is the apostle who argues against being saved by the works of the Law. If he was arguing that man could not do anything righteous don’t you suppose he would have quoted this passage?

Click to expand...

I have enough trouble doing what Paul says. It is too much for me to speculate on hypotheticals, which is really an argument from silence.

Nowhere in any of his writings that we have does he quote this passage in Isaiah, which if he was making the argument that you are would be a perfect passage for him to quote. Not only does Paul not quote it, neither do any of the apostles or Jesus Himself quote the passage in any of the writings we have. In addition, to the best of my knowledge the passage isn’t quoted by the Ante-Nicene writers either. It seems the passage was made popular by Luther when espousing in his “Faith Alone” doctrine.

Click to expand...

WOW! That covers much ground. Please tell me if this a correct understanding of what you posted:

Because did not reference that verse from Isaiah, then the verse is of a dubious nature.
The same argument holds true for Jesus, and the Apostles who wrote Scripture.
To your recollection the Pre-Nicene Early Church Fathers did not mention that verse either.
Therefore, the verse was accepted ONLY by Martin Luther, and it is merely a product of the Reformation.

For those reasons, that verse Isaiah 64:6 is bogus.

6 All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away.


The fallacy of your argument is that you are attempting to make a positive (the verse is bogus) from a negative (silence) The ONLY thing that silence on any issue can establish is silence on an issue. Additionally, you may not understand the things behind the transmission and perserverance of the Scriptures. Many people do not. Let me assure you that is not the case that the Bible was corrupted in either the OT or the NT. Most surprizing is this fact, that due to the numbers of extant ancient sources, that there are over 6000 different pieces of NT writings, we are able to come up with the original words of the writers of the NT books with an accuracy rate of .99999. That means that only one ten thousandth is unsure.

The better scholars can determine which scribe (not by name, of course) created a variation, and they can see it traced through that corpus of manuscripts.

The reason why I say thall that is to assure you of the accuracy of the transmission of the documents, and the net effect of your "syllogism" is to create a big hole in Scripture.

It’s not. I simply threw it out there for consideration. It was not used to support any argument I made. I don’t make arguments from silence, as you pointed out that is fallacious.

Read it in English, then go to the original languages.

I use the Grammatical/Historical method of hermeneutics. It has four main principles,

1. Authority of Scripture
   
   
2. Grammatical historical interpretation
   
   
3. Historical Precedent
   
   
4. Sound Logic

Some things MUST be accepted as true even though they SEEM contradictory to us. The God who placed the "Calvinist verses" in the Bible is the same God who put the "Arminian verses" in the Bible. Our God is not schizophrenic; He placed both of those doctrines in the Bible, so He must be right, or else He is not God.

Make sense?

I disagree, God is a God of logic not confusion. The reason there seems to be contradictions is because people are misunderstanding the Scriptures. The “Arminian Verses” and the “Calvinist Verses” do not contradict, they are simply being misunderstood. The passages when understood correctly don’t have any tension. You see, I have no problem reconciling Ephesians 1:4

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: (Eph 1:4 KJV)

With

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2Pe 3:9 KJV)

I have no problems reconciling Romans 9 or John 6 with those “Arminian passages. It’s all about context.

 

[By Grace]

...I don’t know if you got my point. My point is that he inheritance is the land promised to Abraham.



Yes, those of faith are Abraham’s seed and heirs according to the promise as Paul says in concluding the chapter. Paul’s argument is that God reckons Abraham’s seed through faith and not physical birth. That is why Jesus told Nicodemus he needed to be born again. Nicodemus, being a Jew believed that he was heir of the promises made to Abraham through his physical descent from Abraham. Jesus said no, that which is born of the flesh is flesh. He was telling his that his physical birth was not sufficient to gain him access into the Kingdom of God. Paul’s converts were being told by the Judaizers that they, in addition to faith in Christ also needed to keep the Laws of Moses and be circumcised. It is these works of the Law that Paul argues against not good deeds that a believer does. This whole chapter is about believers are Abraham’s seed and heir of the inheritance which is the land.




I’m not sure how you’ve drawn that conclusion. The passage is about Israel it doesn’t address whether or not he Gentiles are sinners.



It’s not. I simply threw it out there for consideration. It was not used to support any argument I made. I don’t make arguments from silence, as you pointed out that is fallacious.

I use the Grammatical/Historical method of hermeneutics. It has four main principles,

1. Authority of Scripture
   
   
2. Grammatical historical interpretation
   
   
3. Historical Precedent
   
   
4. Sound Logic

Ahah! I think that you may have given me a clue to the origins of your church's Arminian leanings. i studed Wesley in grad school, and I have come to a great respect for what he has done, both ecclesiastically and theologically. The effects of his work actually saved England from the same horrors and chaos that France went through during the French Revolution (1789-1799). Instead of having church in churches, Wesley preached to the masses out side, gave them hope, and helped them to grow in Chist through his "Holy Club",which would "small group studies" today.

Can you see the similarities in what you posted, and what has become known as the "Wesleyan Quadalateral"?

Scripture

• Wesley insisted that scripture is the first authority and contains the only measure whereby all other truth is tested. It was delivered by authors who were divinely inspired. It is a rule sufficient of itself. It neither needs, nor is capable of, any further addition. The scripture references to justification by faith as the gateway to scriptural holiness are well known to true Wesleyans: Deut. 30:6; Ps. 130:8; Ezek. 36:25, 29; Matt. 5:48; 22:37; Luke 1:69; John 17:20-23; Rom. 8:3-4; II Cor. 7:1; Eph. 3:14; 5:25-27; I Thess. 5:23; Titus 2:11-14; I John 3:8; 4:17.

Tradition

• Wesley wrote that it is generally supposed that traditional evidence is weakened by length of time, as it must necessarily pass through so many hands in a continued succession of ages. Although other evidence is perhaps stronger, he insisted: "Do not undervalue traditional evidence. Let it have its place and its due honour. It is highly serviceable in its kind, and in its degree".[7] Wesley states that those of strong and clear understanding should be aware of its full force. For him it supplies a link through 1,700 years of history with Jesus and the apostles. The witness to justification and sanctification is an unbroken chain drawing us into fellowship with those who have finished the race, fought the fight, and who now reign with God in his glory and might.

Reason

• Although scripture is sufficient unto itself and is the foundation of true religion. Wesley wrote: "Now, of what excellent use is reason, if we would either understand ourselves, or explain to others, those living oracles".[8] He states quite clearly that without reason we cannot understand the essential truths of Scripture. Reason, however, is not a mere human invention. It must be assisted by the Holy Spirit if we are to understand the mysteries of God. With regard to justification by faith and sanctification Wesley said that although reason cannot produce faith, when impartial reason speaks we can understand the new birth, inward holiness, and outward holiness. Although reason cannot produce faith, it can shorten the leap.

Experience

• Apart from scripture, experience is the strongest proof of Christianity. "What the scriptures promise, I enjoy".[9] Again, Wesley insisted that we cannot have reasonable assurance of something unless we have experienced it personally. John Wesley was assured of both justification and sanctification because he had experienced them in his own life. What Christianity promised (considered as a doctrine) was accomplished in his soul. Furthermore, Christianity (considered as an inward principle) is the completion of all those promises. Although traditional proof is complex, experience is simple: "One thing I know; I was blind, but now I see." Although tradition establishes the evidence a long way off, experience makes it present to all persons. As for the proof of justification and sanctification Wesley states that Christianity is an experience of holiness and happiness, the image of God impressed on a created spirit, a fountain of peace and love springing up into everlasting life.

Does your group/church have a Wesleyan heritage?

I disagree, God is a God of logic not confusion. The reason there seems to be contradictions is because people are misunderstanding the Scriptures. The “Arminian Verses” and the “Calvinist Verses” do not contradict, they are simply being misunderstood. The passages when understood correctly don’t have any tension. You see, I have no problem reconciling Ephesians 1:4

I have no disagreement with that, but quibbling is another matter!

It seems from your statement that you believe that if you study enough, you will eliminate mysteries. Would that be accurate? I am content knowing that I will never understand things sufficiently when I am in this body, and I believe that this Scripture gives me reason for that position

Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.​

BTW you will note that both "Calvinist verses" and " Arminian verses " are in quotes because they are actually misnomers, but I used them as terms of convenience to indicate that each group uses their favorite verses to wage war on the other side, and as I said previously, I do not believe that Christ is lifted up when Christians lob hand grenades at each other.

It’s all about context.

Yes, and that is precisely where I got the initial idea that you were a Mormon, or some other cultist. It seemed to me, and you can go back to examine my postings, that you were ripping a verse from its context, and I spent some time trying to convince you that because what you believed about a verse was not congruent to the context of the passage in which the verse was found.

 

[By Grace]

Sorry, but I messed up the formatting n my previous post.
To see it all, you need to expand it

 

[cyberjosh]

Hi Doulos Iesou, sorry I've been away. I just got back from my trip very late Monday night (driving south from Wisconsin to Alabama) amidst 20mph winds the whole way, tornado warnings, and heavy rain on the road while we were driving through Tennessee, which lengthened the trip even more (18 hours by car - since we had to stop in order to avoid driving right into the path of the storms). That trip wiped me out and I'm still trying to recover my sleep. I hope to return to this topic by the weekend with some fresh research into Thielman's books which I was able to delve a little into during the trip. I hope you too can post some of the stuff I mentioned before.

Well, until then....

God bless,
Josh

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Hi Doulos Iesou, sorry I've been away. I just got back from my trip very late Monday night (driving south from Wisconsin to Alabama) amidst 20mph winds the whole way, tornado warnings, and heavy rain on the road while we were driving through Tennessee, which lengthened the trip even more (18 hours by car - since we had to stop in order to avoid driving right into the path of the storms). That trip wiped me out and I'm still trying to recover my sleep. I hope to return to this topic by the weekend with some fresh research into Thielman's books which I was able to delve a little into during the trip. I hope you too can post some of the stuff I mentioned before.

Well, until then....

God bless,
Josh

Hey Josh,

My time here has been very limited lately. I started a discipleship class with my wife at our local church which is taking up most of my free time. I might not be able to do the in depth study until after the Month is over (the class lasts a month).

I'll keep you posted though.

 

[Butch5]

Ahah! I think that you may have given me a clue to the origins of your church's Arminian leanings. i studed Wesley in grad school, and I have come to a great respect for what he has done, both ecclesiastically and theologically. The effects of his work actually saved England from the same horrors and chaos that France went through during the French Revolution (1789-1799). Instead of having church in churches, Wesley preached to the masses out side, gave them hope, and helped them to grow in Chist through his "Holy Club",which would "small group studies" today.

Can you see the similarities in what you posted, and what has become known as the "Wesleyan Quadalateral"?

Scripture

o Wesley insisted that scripture is the first authority and contains the only measure whereby all other truth is tested. It was delivered by authors who were divinely inspired. It is a rule sufficient of itself. It neither needs, nor is capable of, any further addition. The scripture references to justification by faith as the gateway to scriptural holiness are well known to true Wesleyans: Deut. 30:6; Ps. 130:8; Ezek. 36:25, 29; Matt. 5:48; 22:37; Luke 1:69; John 17:20-23; Rom. 8:3-4; II Cor. 7:1; Eph. 3:14; 5:25-27; I Thess. 5:23; Titus 2:11-14; I John 3:8; 4:17.

Tradition

o Wesley wrote that it is generally supposed that traditional evidence is weakened by length of time, as it must necessarily pass through so many hands in a continued succession of ages. Although other evidence is perhaps stronger, he insisted: "Do not undervalue traditional evidence. Let it have its place and its due honour. It is highly serviceable in its kind, and in its degree".[7] Wesley states that those of strong and clear understanding should be aware of its full force. For him it supplies a link through 1,700 years of history with Jesus and the apostles. The witness to justification and sanctification is an unbroken chain drawing us into fellowship with those who have finished the race, fought the fight, and who now reign with God in his glory and might.

Reason

o Although scripture is sufficient unto itself and is the foundation of true religion. Wesley wrote: "Now, of what excellent use is reason, if we would either understand ourselves, or explain to others, those living oracles".[8] He states quite clearly that without reason we cannot understand the essential truths of Scripture. Reason, however, is not a mere human invention. It must be assisted by the Holy Spirit if we are to understand the mysteries of God. With regard to justification by faith and sanctification Wesley said that although reason cannot produce faith, when impartial reason speaks we can understand the new birth, inward holiness, and outward holiness. Although reason cannot produce faith, it can shorten the leap.

Experience

o Apart from scripture, experience is the strongest proof of Christianity. "What the scriptures promise, I enjoy".[9] Again, Wesley insisted that we cannot have reasonable assurance of something unless we have experienced it personally. John Wesley was assured of both justification and sanctification because he had experienced them in his own life. What Christianity promised (considered as a doctrine) was accomplished in his soul. Furthermore, Christianity (considered as an inward principle) is the completion of all those promises. Although traditional proof is complex, experience is simple: "One thing I know; I was blind, but now I see." Although tradition establishes the evidence a long way off, experience makes it present to all persons. As for the proof of justification and sanctification Wesley states that Christianity is an experience of holiness and happiness, the image of God impressed on a created spirit, a fountain of peace and love springing up into everlasting life.

Does your group/church have a Wesleyan heritage?

Not to my knowledge. I wouldn’t be considered a Wesleyan though. I see two of the 4 tenets.

I have no disagreement with that, but quibbling is another matter!

It seems from your statement that you believe that if you study enough, you will eliminate mysteries. Would that be accurate? I am content knowing that I will never understand things sufficiently when I am in this body, and I believe that this Scripture gives me reason for that position

Deuteronomy 29:29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.

The passage says the things that are revealed belong to us. The things in the Scriptures have been revealed that is why I believe they can be understood. I believe any apparent conflict comes from misunderstanding the passages. That is why I believe both Calvinists and Arminians are misunderstand the passages that they lob back and forth.

BTW you will note that both "Calvinist verses" and " Arminian verses " are in quotes because they are actually misnomers, but I used them as terms of convenience to indicate that each group uses their favorite verses to wage war on the other side, and as I said previously, I do not believe that Christ is lifted up when Christians lob hand grenades at each other.

Agreed.

Yes, and that is precisely where I got the initial idea that you were a Mormon, or some other cultist. It seemed to me, and you can go back to examine my postings, that you were ripping a verse from its context, and I spent some time trying to convince you that because what you believed about a verse was not congruent to the context of the passage in which the verse was found.

I’ll have to disagree. I think it’s that Paul was indicating that keeping the Law of Moses was doing deeds of righteousness.

3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:

5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.

8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: (Phi 3:3-9 KJV)

 

[By Grace]

BACKGROUND FOR YOUR REPLY:
Yes, and that is precisely where I got the initial idea that you were a Mormon, or some other cultist. It seemed to me, and you can go back to examine my postings, that you were ripping a verse from its context, and I spent some time trying to convince you that because what you believed about a verse was not congruent to the context of the passage in which the verse was found.

I’ll have to disagree. I think it’s that Paul was indicating that keeping the Law of Moses was doing deeds of righteousness.

3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

All of the above was before the Damascus Road experience. Yes, indeed he was very zealous for the Law, and went so far as to kill Christians, and MAY have been present at the stoning of Stephen.

Paul does not make a dichotomy as we may do between law and grace, nut he surely explains the difference between the new and old covenants:

Galatians 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
​

As a result of that understanding, he could expand that statement better in Romans:

Romans 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? ...
​

Of course the Law is good! Can you expect a Pharisee to state otherwise (see verse 16) ? In that passage there are 8 mentions of "sin," and one of "evil" which is synonymous in the way that Paul uses it here So Apostle Paul makes no bones about being a sinful man because (see verse 24) even though he is now saved; he calls it a "war" between what he knows he should do, and knowing what he actually does.

Plaintively, he calls out his plight in verse 24.

The answer is his "Hallelujah Chorus" in Romans 8:1, and we MUST realize that even though it is a different chapter, it is still a continuation of the thoughts in Romans 7

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his​

It is EXTREMELY important to note that Romans 8:1 is UNCONDITIONAL. By that I mean that there is no "if" or "when"in the verse between Jesus Christ and "who". The grammar of the sentence is that entire clause beginning with "who" is adjectival in that they describe the pronoun "them" which can only speak of ALL believers because there is nothing to limit the participants in "them".

Here are sources substantiating what I stated:

FIRST: The Sanctification of Believers (Ro 8:1–13).

1. There is therefore now, &c.—referring to the immediately preceding context [OLSHAUSEN, PHILIPPI, MEYER, ALFORD, &c.]. The subject with which the seventh chapter concludes is still under consideration. The scope of Ro 8:1–4 is to show how “the law of sin and death” is deprived of its power to bring believers again into bondage, and how the holy law of God receives in them the homage of a living obedience [CALVIN, FRASER, PHILIPPI, MEYER, ALFORD, &c.].

no condemnation: to them which are in Christ Jesus—As Christ, who “knew no sin,” was, to all legal effects, “made sin for us,” so are we, who believe in Him, to all legal effects, “made the righteousness of God in Him” (2 Co 5:21); and thus, one with Him in the divine reckoning. There is to such “NO CONDEMNATION.” (Compare Jn 3:18; 5:24; Ro 5:18, 19). But this is no mere legal arrangement: it is a union in life; believers, through the indwelling of Christ’s Spirit in them, having one life with Him, as truly as the head and the members of the same body have one life.

who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit—The evidence of manuscripts seems to show that this clause formed no part of the original text of this verse, but that the first part of it was early introduced, and the second later, from Ro 8:4, probably as an explanatory comment, and to make the transition to Ro 8:2 easier.​

Jamieson, R., Fausset, A. R., & Brown, D. (1997). Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (Ro 8:1–39).

Here is another:

[​

Sentence ] 1 Οὐδὲν ἄρα νῦν κατάκριμα
οὐδείς ἄρα νῦν κατάκριμα
JNSN CLI B NNSN
92.23 89.46 67.38 56.31
no consequently now condemnation

Relative Clause​

τοῖς
ὁ
DDPM
92.24
for those

Prepositional Phrase​

ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ
ἐν Χριστός Ἰησοῦς
P NDSM NDSM
89.119 93.387 93.169
in Christ Jesus
Lukaszewski, A. L., & Dubis, M. (2009). The Lexham Syntactic Greek New Testament (p. 422).

As a result of his consistent view of himself, his flesh, and the unmerited Grace of Jesus Christ, he can state this, below

7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.

8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: (Phi 3:3-9 KJV)

I suspect that I have made my case But REALLY my objective is more important than "point winning" I am hoping that you and others reading this can sit back and exclaim with great joy "HOW GREAT ARE YOU, LORD JESUS!!!
​