How Are We Made Right With God?

[francisdesales]

God justifies me when I approach Him with a humble heart...

Philippians 3:9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;

I have already responded to this and have explained it. My righteousness is not my own, as if I generated it.

You have your finger on the key, but are not getting it, bedazzled by the false theology of the classical reformers. Did the tax collector from Luke generate his own feelings of sorrow? I have already cited you Phil 2, since Paul must have had THAT in mind when he wrote Phil 3! But you ignore it and merely repeat the verse without explanation???

One obeyed the Law and trusted in his obedience. That's self righteousness. The other was poor in spirit. He didn't trust in himself at all. He asked God for mercy, as a guilty sinner, in faith and was justified.

The self-righteousness was that he thought God owed him for going BEYOND the requirements of the Law. "If I fast twice, instead of the once required, God owes me". Then, he compares his own righteousness to the tax colllector. Clearly, he thinks he is generating his OWN righteousness and God owes him some compensation (see Romans 4:4 on wages vs gift)

God demands perfect righteousness. God demands perfect sinlessness.

where is this in Scriptures???

God doesn't demand perfection. He desires a pentitent person. Again, you have your finger on the key to a MAJOR theme, but you don't get it.

The bible NOWHERE tells us that God requires anything other than just ASKING for forgiveness with a humble heart. The citation I gave you from Micah 6 quite clearly points this out...

God doesn't require human sacrifices - God requires that we rend our hearts (Joel). Does the OT make it clear that God forgives Israel's sins WHEN they truly repent??? Nothing more... Which prophet goes beyond that requirement? They all unanimously call for repentance from the people - NOT perfection that they cannot give! Not extreme sacrifices without an internal disposition.

The man in Luke's gospel is a good example. The NT is absolutely full of this idea that God does not require ANYTHING before forgiveness is given - except repentance from the heart. Jesus eats with sinners without anything more than their desire to repent and change. The shepherd of the lost sheep didn't require perfection. When Peter asked "should I forgive my brother seven times", Christ does not require perfection, but MORE forgiveness when asked with a repentant heart. The unforgiving debtor is even clearer on this, as he is unconditionally forgiven, merely on a heartfelt request. The paralytic lowered through the roof was forgiven without any perfection needed. The sinful woman who anointed Jesus' feet was forgiven on the strength of her expressive gestures of sorrow and love....

You want me to continue? there is more... Have you read the Gospels and you still don't get this???

God knows we are imperfect, but a truly sorrowful man, not one putting on only external displays, is what God desires before He forgives.

Now, the Theory of Atonement...

While the Catholic Church sees this as a viable teaching, and has taught it (secondarily) since the Middle Ages, it does not have the force of dogma. It is not found explicitly in the bible. Nor does it have the force of Apostolic Tradition, since ancient Christianity saw the INCARNATION as redemptive, linking God becoming Man as salvific, while the crucifixion, important as it was, was not the critical moment in the atonement. When God became man, THAT was enough for the Patristic thought to atone God to man. By becoming man, God enabled us to become like Him - clearly, atonement.

Coupled with the idea that the Trinity is THE doctrine of faith, and that God is love, it is incomprehensible to me that a loving Father would DEMAND that His Son die such a death when He has shown in the Scriptures over and over that such was not absolutely necessary. God didn't require a sacrifice before He forgave men of their sins! Given that the bible makes it quite clear that forgiveness is given freely by God to His People OVER AND OVER again based upon man being repentant, it is a major problem to accept the idea that God demands perfection and could only accept His Son dying on the cross to assuage His Divine Anger.

God doesn't want our tainted efforts. He calls them filthy rags.

Explained? You take one verse out of context that counteracts the very parable you bring up??? God calls the repentant man JUST.

NOT "why are you sorry, that is nothing but filthy rags, stop whining, it will do you no good unless you are perfect".

Have you actually read and comprehended the parable??? Apparently not...

NOWHERE do we have Christ talking about alien righteousness or man's efforts are all tainted and filthy rags. Go to Isaiah and read the context - it refers to those external acts WITHOUT the proper internal dispositions.

Also Jesus' command to love God with all of our heart, mind and soul, and to love our neighbor as ourselves did not replace the Law, but summarized it. He fulfilled it all.

A huge contradiction from your "filthy rags" proposition...

The righteousness of God is now revealed *apart* from the Law, being witnessed by it. Jesus did not come to remove the law, but to fulfill--and--establish it.

Indeed. We are righteous when we repent, not when we wash our hands before eating, refrain from pork, or have our child circumcised for the sake of following a written code, WITHOUT the internal dispositions. I take it you have read the prophets? don't they constantly call the higher echelon to TRUE worship of God, rather than mere rituals which are not done from the heart?

We are righteous apart from mere external obedience to a Jewish code. Gentiles do not have to refrain from pork - and can still be righteous. It has nothing to do with alien righteousness. You totally miss the point of Paul's writing to the Romans. It is not written to establish the perfection of Jesus Christ, but to let the Jewish Christians know that merely having a written code is insufficient to be deemed righteous in God's eyes. Even PAGANS can be righteous, when following the code written on their hearts...!!!

Unfortunately, the reformation has high-jacked Romans, and now we must go through great lengths to rescue Paul from such silly things as "faith v works" or an imputed alien righteousness or the idea that sanctification has absolutely no purpose...

Who justifies the ungodly, such as the tax collector in the Luke parable? Jesus does. He justifies---the ungodly. Faith alone, grace, not of ourselves, not of works. etc... Philippians 3:9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;

Faith alone??? We know what the Bible says about faith alone... It is dead. Both James and Paul agree.

God justifies the man in Luke's parable because of that man's repentance, not by Jesus' own righteousness. The man's repentance is moved by the Holy Spirit of God { Phil 2:12-13}, so no one can brag - it is not a righteousness that THEY generated, such as the Pharisee's.

work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of [his] good pleasure. Phil 2:12-13

You are close, Dave, but you need to remove the false teachings of the reformation to truly understand the Bible.

 

[Drew]

James 2:10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

True enough - I have never denied this. But how is this an argument against ultimate salvation by good works?

Romans 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Agree again - no one is justified by doing the Law of Moses. But, again, how is this an argument against ultimate salvation by good works? Doing the Law of Moses can hardly be deemed to be equivalent to doing good works - do you want me to make the relevant argument?

Christ has fulfilled the whole law perfectly. He's the Lamb without blemish. The Lamb of God. Whoever believes in Him is counted as just before God because of what Jesus did alone.

This is a commonly empbraced notion, but I suggest that it is incomplete. Yes, those who believe in Jesus can be presently declared to be justified - true members of God's family and juridically determined to be "in the right". But, the Scriptures also teach future salvation by good works (Romans 2, Romans 8, 2 Corinthians 5). So rather than deny this clear teaching of future salvation by good works, I sugggest that is better to go with Paul's argument: The person who places faith in Jesus at the point of "conversion" is given the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit most assuredly transforms that person into the kind of person who will perform the good works that are necessary for ultimate salvation. Consequently that person can indeed be described as "justified by faith" even though ultimate, final salvation is based on good works (produced by the Spirit). Dave, it seems to me that you screen out this text:

God "will give to each person according to what he has done." 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

Dave, please tell us, what do you make of this text?

 

[Drew]

Christ has fulfilled the whole law perfectly. He's the Lamb without blemish. The Lamb of God. Whoever believes in Him is counted as just before God because of what Jesus did alone. Therefore the Law is not made void, not even for Gentiles, but established! The fact that the Law needed to be satisfied on our behalf establishes the Law. It is only grace that seperates us from being under the Law (Romans 7:4).

I disagree at several point here: In summary:

(1) The Law of Moses was always for Jews only - I can give further arguments to supplement the one already provided.

(2) The Law of Moses is now retired - Ephesians 2 and elsewhere;

(3) As you point out, there is indeed a "law" that has been established, but it most certainly cannot be understood to be the Law of Moses. The reasons? (a) Paul talks about gentiles obeying this "second" law that has been established, and Paul is otherwise crystal clear both that the Law of Moses is now retired and that it was always only applicable to Jews. I will not elaborate the distinction between this "second law" and the Law of Moses in this post.

(4) So, yes, there is a "law" that has been established for both Jews and Gentiles, but it is not the Law of Moses;

(5) You seem to think that Jesus was fully obedient to the Law of Moses. If that is what you are asserting. I disagree, if not solely because of Jesus' clear overturning of the Levitical food laws (Mark 7). I will assert that when Paul speaks of Jesus' "perfect obedience", he is not, repeat not, referrring to Jesus' obedience to the Law of Moses, but rather that Jesus was fully obedient to Israel's covenant obligations. I will not explain further in the present post.

(6) None of any of this trumps the clear teaching of Paul that future justification / salvation is based on "good works".

Now, there a lot of claims here that need to be defended, and I will be glad to do so if you like and / or as time permits.

 

[Drew]

Paul connects what you're trying to seperate, that is Jew from Gentile in regards to the Law. Lets' see what he wrote...

Romans 3: 9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin....19-20 Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and **all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

Here is Romans 3:19 in the NASB:

Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God.

Now people will argue that Paul cannot mean “Law of Moses†(Torah) here when he uses the tem “lawâ€. That argument goes like this: The “so that†connective strongly implies that “law†is something that all mankind is under. So since Torah is for Jews only, Paul must be referring here to some general principle of law, and not Torah.

I think that this is a mistake for at least three reasons:

1. Paul almost always uses the word “Law†to denote the Law of Moses, so why we would he do otherwise here?

2. The phrase “it says to those under the law†strongly suggests that he is talking about a “law†that is limited in its applicability. Otherwise, this qualifier is entirely unnecessary;

3. The context provided by verses 1-18 support a “Torah†reading, specific to Jews, for the word “lawâ€

I will not make the case for point number 1 right here – that would be too lengthy a treatment and that case is made elsewhere. Point 2, I suggest, requires no further elaboration. So I now turn to point number 3 in relation to the understandable objection that it seems that the “so that the whole world….†clause makes it clear that this is some kind of universal law.

So why does he then talk about the whole world being accountable to God if “law†here is Torah, which is for Jews only. One needs to look at the preceding 18 verses where Paul has engaged in separate treatments of Jew and Gentile being sinners.

Here is the important point: He has just finished (in verses 9-18) an argument that the Gentile is a sinner just like the Jew. So his statement about the whole world being accountable is not only in relation to what he has just written about the Law - that could not be true since the Gentiles were never under the Law - but it is rather the capstone of his whole argument.

So Paul's basic point is this:

1. The Jews have been faithless (verses 1-8);

2. The Gentiles, too, are sinners (verses 9-18);

3. While the Law speaks only to those under the Law - the Jews - the whole world nevertheless stands condemned before God.

 

[Drew]

21-26 But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

I am not, repeat not, denying that faith in Jesus is fully sufficient for ultimate justification. I will not repeat the account I have already given at least twice in this thread as to how it is entirely coherent to assert both that a person can be declated to be justified by faith (i.e. in the present) and yet also embrace the notion that the same person is justified in the future based on works.

Some people will not accept this. But that's their problem, not Paul's. For Paul clearly asserts both. I suggest that many people bring a pre-defined "salvation can only be thought of a single discrete event" mind-set to the New Testament. And as a result, many of them think that because Paul does indeed assert that "we are saved by faith", that he simply cannot have meant what he has said in Romans 2, Romans 8, and elswhere about how we are ultimately granted eternal life based on "good works".

The better solution, I suggest, is to Paul seriously in respect to all he says. As I believe has already been shown, we can embrace present justification by faith and ultimate justification by good works.

 

[Drew]

27-31 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

Did you get that? Paul goes on...

Romans 4: 1-4 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.†Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt (Also see 11:6).

Drew, our lives are a package deal. If we sinned once, no amount of obedience will take away the guilt of that one sin. We are hoplesly guilty before God by our own merits for justification.

Dave, Paul is not making an argument against justification by good works, he is making an argument against the Jewish belief that salvation is restricted to those who do the works of the Law of Moses - that is, Jews.

Here is Romans 3:27-28 in the NASB:

27Where then is boasting? It is excluded By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

What are these works of the Law that Paul thinks cannot justify? Are they “good works†in general, or are they the practices or “works†of the Torah, the Law of Moses?

Paul is clearly talking about the Law of Moses here, and not “good worksâ€. And so the “boast†here (verse 27) is not the boast of the person who thinks he can climb to heaven by a ladder of good works, it is instead the boast of the Jew, who thinks that following Law of Moses will justify him.

That this is the case is borne out by verse 29, a verse which makes no sense if "good works" or a "or obedience to a general law" are in view in verse 28, but makes perfect sense if the works of Torah are what Paul is talking about:

29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too,

Paul is amplifying the implications of verse 27 and 28 and is clearly focusing on how the Jew and Gentile are both members of God’s family. In verses 27 and 28, he has written that “works†do not justify. In verse 29, it becomes clear that these are the works of the Law of Moses since, obviously, it is by doing the works of Torah that the Jew could boast "God is God of the Jews only". What marks out the nation Israel from the Gentile? Possession and doing of Torah, of course. Not good works.

In my next post, I will respond to the Romans 4 bit.

 

[Drew]

27-31 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law. Or is He the God of the Jews only? Is He not also the God of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also, since there is one God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

Did you get that? Paul goes on...

Romans 4: 1-4 What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.†Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt (Also see 11:6).

Romans 4:2 is clearly a reference to the Law of Moses and doing its works. True, the Law of Moses was not around in Abraham's time. But that is beside the point. I have been arguing that Paul denies justification by doing the works of the Law of Moses and not justification by good works. Those who argue otherwise have severe problems with Romans 2:6-7.

Paul's argument is basically directed at the Jew, telling him that salvation is not limited to Jews and Jews only:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too

Note that Paul has written these words just a couple of sentences back from Romans 4:2.

The problem with seeing Romans 4:2 as anything other than a reference to the Law of Moses makes Paul into a scattered incoherent thinker. In Romans 3, he has just told us how justification is not based on doing the Law of Moses. Then throughout the first 17 or so verse of chapter 4, Paul is still making the same argument – salvation is not limited to Jews.

This is a slam-dunk case the “works†of 4:2 are the works of the Law of Moses – the argument is about how Abraham was not justified in virtue of being Jewish and, by extension therefore, justification is not for Jews only:

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before!

The case makes itself – Paul is bending over backwards to make it clear that his topic here is the availability of justification to both Jew and Gentile alike. And this is precisely why it makes sense to assert, in 4:2, that the Jew (of whom Abraham is genetic father) is not justified by the works of the Law of Moses. Yes, the law of Moses was not around in Abraham’s time. But Paul is really making a broader argument about justification not being limited to the Jew.

And what is the ethnic delimiter of the Jew? The law of Moses, of course.

More on the "workman" stuff later....

 

[Drew]

I want to address Romans 4:4-5, a text often used to argue that Paul cannot have meant what he wrote in Romans 2 (and Romans 8 for that matter) about how eternal life is granted according to “how we liveâ€. Here is the relevant material, and I include stuff from the end of Romans 3 for context – remember, it is not Paul who inserts “chapter breaksâ€:

27Where then is boasting? It is excluded By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith (is one. 31Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we (establish the Law. 1What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 4Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, …

A vital point is to note that context clearly shows that the “works†in 4:2 are the works of the Law of Moses. In 3:28, Paul talks about how men are not justified by the works of the Law. It should be clear that this is a reference to the Law of Moses, not to “good works†generally. But even if this were not clear from 3:28, 3:29 seals the deal – Paul is talking about the works of the Law of Moses since the Jew who believes that the works of the Law of Moses justifies could claim that the Gentile, who is not under the Law of Moses, would be excluded from justification. And Paul clearly wants to argue that the Gentile is also a candidate for justification.

So there is really no doubt – Paul is making an argument about the Law of Moses, not good works in general. So why anybody thinks 4:2 is about “good works†is a mystery to me – Paul does not arbitrarily change topics without notice. No - in 4:2 Paul says Abraham was not justified by doing the works of the Law of Moses.

So now we come to the workman. I trust we all understand that this is a metaphor. As such, it cannot be taken literally in all its details – it is a comparison, like all metaphors. Paul has just finished arguing that Abraham, like any other Jew, cannot claim that God “owes†justification to the Jew, and only the Jew, in virtue of the cultural marker of the Law of Moses. The issue to this point is not “does someone who does good works have a claim on Godâ€, it is “does the Jew – the one who is under the Law of Moses – have a claim on Godâ€.

The workman expects to be paid because he has done something. Fine. What is the parallel to Abraham? The parallel is that Abraham might think he has claim on justification because of his obedience to the Law of Moses, not because he has done “good worksâ€. Paul is no doubt spinning in his grave, wondering how people have ignored the flow of the argument and instead impose their own “Paul mus be denying justification by good works†scheme onto his text.

 

[Drew]

2 Cor. 5:21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

1 Corinthians 5:21 is a text which only appears to support the imputation of God's righteousness to the believer.

Here is the text as per the NIV:

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God

The mere form of expression here does not require us to read this as a statement that we "get" the righteousness of God - that God's righteousness in ascribed or imputed to us. It could, of course, be read that way. But it could also be read as stating that "we are the agents through which God's own righteousness is expressed in the world". That this is indeed a plausible reading can be discerned by analogy to statements like “the soldiers become the righteousness of the Kingâ€. If the King is acting “righteously†in defending his nation through the deployment of the soldiers, it is entirely reasonable to see the soldiers as the agents that implement that righteousness. We do not need to read this as suggesting that the personal righteous character of the King is imputed or ascribed to the soldiers.

Here are reasons to be suspicious of the "imputed righteousness" reading of this text:

1. Paul never states anywhere else in Scripture that God imputes Christ's righteousness to us.

2. In the 2 Corinthians verse, it is God's righteousness that we become (if the imputed view is correct) not Christ's (as the imputation view normally asserts). This is indeed odd, since the text does indeed otherwise clearly draw a God-Christ distinction. This is a more important point that it might first seem. The whole point of the imputation view is that God looks at us and sees Jesus’s righteousness, and we are thus declared “righteous†in the great cosmic lawcourt. Watch what people do here. They will invariably try to respond with an assertion that “Jesus is Godâ€. Well that’s true, but not relevant to the immediate issue. And such a response entails using the God-Christ distinction when it serves the purposes of imputation, and yet collapsing it by the phrase “Jesus is God†when challenged on the fact that the text says we get “God’s righteousness, not Jesus’s. If Paul really believes that we are imputed the righteousness of Jesus in particular, why then does he say we get the righteousness of God (if the imputation view is correct, of course)?

3. An imputation reading is not true to the context of the preceding material, which is all about the paradoxical nature of Paul's ministry - where Christ is magnified through Paul's weakness. If the imputation reading is correct, Paul has suddenly, without notice, changed subject from his present topic - the nature of his apostleship - and inserted a soteriological statement about imputation. This would be very odd, especially for Paul who tends to argue very cohesively and not go off on tangents.

Look at some of the preceding text:

And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us.

I claim that the central idea here is that of the covenant ambassador who represents the one for whom he speaks in such a full and thorough way that he actually becomes the living embodiment of his King.

This reading, I assert makes much better contextual sense than an imputation reading. Paul sees himself as a minister of the new covenant who has, by this very role, become the "righteousness of God". The 2 Corinthians 5 text is about how we, in virtue of our apostolic vocation become the "foot-solidiers" who implement God's righteous faithfulness to the covenant.

No less than three times does Paul make it clear (in the text just before verse 21) that this issue is our commissioning from God to be the agents who work out his plan.

So when Paul says "we might become the righteousness of God", he has not changed topics. He is still referring to this commission and is stating that by being given this commission, we become the agents who "carry out" the righteousness of God.

 

[Drew]

Philippians 3: 4 though I also might have confidence in the flesh. If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so: 5 circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee; 6 concerning zeal, persecuting the church; concerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

7 But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. 8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;


Think about it!

I have indeed thought about it. Neither of texts support the imputation of Christ's righteousness and neither one makes Paul mistaken in his Romans 2 and Romans 8 claims that people are ultimately justified by good works.

In the Phillipians text, Paul despairs of the futility of doing the works of the Law of Moses. He is not despairing about the futility of doing good works. So the Philliipians text is not a counter to the assertion that people are ultimately saved by good works.

And the second text never asserts that we specifically get Christ's righteousness. It says that we get a righteousness from God. And indeed we do - I have always affirmed this. We are indeed imouted with "righteousness", but it is not Christ's righteousness, it is simply the righteousness the defendent acquitted in the lawcourt.

For Paul, justification never consists his suggesting that God in any sense imputes, imparts, or ascribes His own righteousness to the believer.

 

[glorydaz]

.
Glorydaz

""The Scriptures tell us, "But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction" (Romans 3.21-22). "And that I may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith" (Philippians 3:9).""

This is a quote from Bremmer as quoted by Dave, who obviously believes that we are saved by our faith in Christ, not by the faith of Christ.

You were the one that started the thread, “Justified by the faith of Jesus Christâ€. And here you are agreeing with this thread. What or who changed your mind so soon?

JamesG

No, I just see no need to nit-pick every time I see it posted as such.

And, I didn't see any profit in side-tracking this thread ,which has great merit on it's own.

 

[glorydaz]

Hi Joe,

Remember the necessary conflict in Romans 2:13 and Romans 3:20. These two witnesses must live in harmony and balance in our thoughts.

Romans 3:20 is clarified in 3:21-31
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... rsion=NKJV

This is also an important passage in 1 Corinthians. It clearly speaks of the basis for our justification and the extent that believers will be judged.

1 Corinthians 3:11-15 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire." Also see Galatians 2:16

This is who Paul is refering to in Romas 2:13...the context...

2:5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deedsâ€

Revelation speaks of unbelievers being judges by their works, which must be perfect and obviously won't be in light of God's perfect standards. (Revelation 20:11-15). All unbelievers will be judged by their works and fail.

There is the beginning justification that we personally experience and then there is the ending justification in the day of Jesus Christ.

When Jesus said "it is finished", the merits by which we are justified by before God were complete.

Those perfect merits which we are justified by are imputed, or credited towards us the moment we first believe and become one with Christ Jesus, beling placed into His Body. (2 Corinthians 5:21) "In Him" we become the righteousness of God.

Philippians 3:9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;

We cannot add to that. There cannot be both grace and works for justification (Romans 11:6). We cannot both glory in the blood of Christ on the cross while at the same time disparaging what Jesus did for us on the cross. If we trust in our works, even in combination with our faith, we have then rejected the righteousness of God through faith, the only thing that can justify us before God. (Romans 10:3-4, Galatians 3:10)

Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

At the time of our initial, authentic, God given faith, we are immersed into the Body by Jesus with the Holy Spirit (sealed with the seal of our inheritance). We become one with Him, actually "in Christ". At that same moment, we are imputed with Christ's perfect righteous. God recons us as perfectly righteous because of what Jesus did.

Over time, He manifests Himself in our lives more and more as we progressively begin to become what God already legally recons us to be "in Christ".

Many times evidence of a true believer is spoken about in scripture and people confuse that with the merit by which we are justified by. Evidence is evidence, it's a manifestation of what we already are.

Justification cannot be a process.

Dave

:amen :yes

 

[glorydaz]

Drew, why do you accuse me of doing what you have been doing all along. Perhaps you should answer the points I made in my post in reply to your post, instead of cherry picking something to use a springboard to say what you already knew you wanted to say, which is the same thing over and over again about the same verse. Go back and read the thread for yourself and you'll see that everything you've accused me of you are the guilty one. I simply gave up on begging for a discussion that would honestly entertain my replies.

Dave, you gave it a good shot, but neither Drew nor francisdesales will listen to any kind of reason on this issue. Drew insists Paul is addressing the Jews whenever works are mentioned, and francisdesales believes man can become righteous enough to approach the throne of God.

Everything you've posted is entirely correct. The book of Romans is the whole of the Gospel message, so it will naturally come under attack by those who insist on giving man a part in the glory for their own salvation. The fact remains, any good works that man can do...even in the power of the Holy Spirit...do not contribute to one's salvation. The work of the cross is the only "work" that counts. No number of good deeds done by man can forgive one single sin. We are bond slaves of the Lord...He paid the price for us and we get no credit for what He did. NONE. Paul makes that abundantly clear throughout the entire book of Romans, but you'll be attacked relentlessly for pointing it out. Personally, I hope you don't give up because it needs to be defended. We are talking essentials here.

 

[Drew]

Drew insists Paul is addressing the Jews whenever works are mentioned,

Alright, gd, you pick one example where you think I have incorrectly read "works" as "works of the Law of Moses" and we'll discuss that text based on contex.

Any single example is fine.

Now let's compare:

The fact remains, any good works that man can do...even in the power of the Holy Spirit...do not contribute to one's salvation.

6God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

The fact remains, any good works that man can do...even in the power of the Holy Spirit...do not contribute to one's salvation.

And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you. 12Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it. 13For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live,

Now who are going to believe? St. Paul or glorydaz?

 

[Dave...]

I have already responded to this and have explained it. My righteousness is not my own, as if I generated it.

And I do really understand that. But please understand that when the Bible speaks of the righteousness of God, it's speaking of God incarnate, from birth to physical death on the cross, living perfectly sinless and perfectly righteous. You're speaking of the fruit of the Spirit. That is after the fact of justification. That's an evidence, a manifestation of one who is already in Christ and justified. Your idea is not allowed in scripture in a multiple of places. I'll give you a few examples and spell some of it out.

Are your works within the realm of grace? Nope can't be (Romans 11:6).

In fact, working towards your justification is counted as dept, that means Jesus didn't pay for your sins. (Romans 4:1-5).

Abraham believed, and it was accounted to Him For righteousness. (Romans 4:1-5).

That's what is meant when the Bible says that faith in Jesus is the end of the Law for righteousness for the who believe (Romans 10:4)

"and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;" (Philippians 3:9)

If we are not in Him, we are under the Law. Grace is contrasted with works, and grace is also contrasted with the Law.(Romans 6:14)

We are saved by grace through faith, not of works, not of ourselves, but through faith. (Ephesians 2:8-10).

We are made the righteousness of God when we are placed in Him. (2 Corinthians 5:21)

In the same way that Jesus became our sin in a moment and died on the cross for us (everything we deserved), we became His righteousness (everything He deserved) in a moment (2 Corinthians 5:21) when we are are plced into His Body, Born again, in Spiritual union with Him.

It's His righteousness (1 Corinthians 1:30).

The moment we come to faith and are placed into the Body of Christ, we are declared righteous. Other wise we would still be under the Law. That was Pauls point in Philippians 3:9.

"To be "under the law" means to be under the condemnation of the law because of our violation of it. Romans 3:19 tells us that the sentence of the law against "them who are under the law" is that they are "guilty before God." Romans 3 emphasizes that all the world is guilty and therefore under the law, because all have sinned and transgressed the law. But Christ came "to redeem them that were under the law" (Galatians 4:5). He came to redeem us, not from the obligation of the law, but "from the curse of the law" (Galatians 3:13). Paying our penalty, He pardons our transgression, and places us under grace."
http://www.pathlights.com/theselastdays ... klet_E.htm

We are freed from the perfect demands of the Law as a result of being in Christ (Romans 10:4)

Jesus fulfilled the Law for us.

"But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness"

It's not something you do, it's something that God has already done.

Did the tax collector from Luke generate his own feelings of sorrow?

You're missing the point, both looked to God. Both prayed to God. One said "Lord, Lord...didn't I". The other looked not to Himself, but to God's mercy.

Where is this in scriptures? (God's perfect demands)

"...God, who cannot lie..." Titus 1:2

"The Rock! His work is perfect, For all His ways are just; A God of faithfulness and without injustice, Righteous and upright is He. (Deuteronomy 32:4)

Always just, never unjust, always perfect.

"Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?" (Genesis 18:25).

Why should any living mortal, or any man, Offer complaint in view of his sins? (Lamentations 3:39)

"The soul that sinneth shall die" and, "the wages of sin is death" (Exodus 18:4; Romans 6:23).

It's either all you, or all Jesus, and you, as did we all, failed. Jesus is not a gap filler. Either He died on the cross for your sin, or your sin is not been dealt with by God's justice yet. Either you become His perfect righteousness as a result of being in Him, or any sin that you have ever committed will meet God's justice.

That's all I have time for today. False bravado only shows the weakness of ones argument. Please, tone it down

Dave

 

[Drew]

In fact, working towards your justification is counted as dept, that means Jesus didn't pay for your sins. (Romans 4:1-5).

I have already provide a detailed argument addressing precisely this text. That argument makes the case, from context mind you, that "good works" justification is simply not the issue there.

Now, of course, anyone can import the pre-conception that "works" in Romans 4:1-5 means "good works" and then see the statement about works as endorsing that view (and not addressing what sense such a reading would make out of the context).

Please critique my argument if you can. Or provide one, from context, that you think would convince a reader that "good works", and not works of the Law of Moses, are on Paul's mind.

I suggest that you have a quite a challenge since from the end of chapter 3 and will into chapter 4, it is incontroveribly clear that Paul is making an argument that justification is not the sole province of the Jew, but includes the Gentile as well.

And, of course, the best way of making this case is - you guessed it - asserting that the works of the Law of Moses, which were only for the Jew, do not justify.

 

[Drew]

Romans 4:24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Romans 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

The -righteousness-of-God

Do these texts speak of imputed righteousness? Yes, indeed they do. I am not, and have never denied this.

But if one wants to say this text affirms that Christ's righteousness is imputed, then this is something one has read in - there is no textual evidence here that the imputed righteousness is that of Jesus Christ (or God).

And, as per arguments already provided, the context of the end of chapter 3 and the beginning of chapter 4 show that the "works" here are the works of the Law of Moses.

 

[Drew]

Drew, why do you accuse me of doing what you have been doing all along. Perhaps you should answer the points I made in my post in reply to your post, instead of cherry picking something to use a springboard to say what you already knew you wanted to say, which is the same thing over and over again about the same verse. Go back and read the thread for yourself and you'll see that everything you've accused me of you are the guilty one. I simply gave up on begging for a discussion that would honestly entertain my replies.

I have now exhaustively addressed each of your arguments, at least in the posts to me. Please tell me exactly how you see my responses are in anyway problematic. Pick any of my responses you like and we can talk about the text.

You, of course, have no basis at all for implying that I am less than "honest".

 

[Drew]

Are your works within the realm of grace? Nope can't be (Romans 11:6).

The "works" of Romans 11:6 are clearly the works of the Law of Moses, not "good works" in general. So this text has nothing to say to the matter of ultimate justification by good works. It is, again, about the Jew who thinks that salvation is a matter of ethnic privelege.

Once one accepts the (undeniable) possibility that "work" might, repeat might, denote works of the Law of Moses, then the context makes it clear that this is indeed the case. Do I need to provide other texts that use "works" in relation to the Law of Moses? I can do that, if you do not take my word for it.

Note what I am not doing. I am not baldly claiming that these works in 11:6 must be the works of the Law of Moses. I am simply, for now, pointing out this possibility needs to be considered alongside the possibility that Paul is making an argument about "good works".

Now, to be frank, those who insist that this text is about good works simply cannot allow the possibility that it is the works of the Law of Moses that are on Paul's mind. And the reason is obvious. If the two options are allowed to "compete fairly" in light of the context, the result is clear - Paul has to be talking about the works of Torah which, after all, were things only the Jew could do. Lool how the actual evidence of the text hits you over the head with the fact that the Law of Moses, not good works, are on Paul's mind. Note all the "Israel-specific" references here, precisely what you would expect if Paul was talking about the works of the Law of Moses:

I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. 2God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don't you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: 3"Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me"? 4And what was God's answer to him? "I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal." 5So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. 6And if by grace, then it is no longer by works; if it were, grace would no longer be grace. What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain,....

....and then Paul goes on to asset that most Jews, yes Jews, have been hardened. This context leaves no doubt - Paul is saying that some Jews are indeed saved by grace and sets this in contrast to salvation doing the works of the Law of Moses. If his point were really about "good works", why, o why, is he talking specifically about Israel and not humanity in general? If he is really talking about good works, he is making the biggest possible mistake he could make in respect to confusing his reader - that is, he is talking about "good works" when any discussion of Israel would naturally lead the reader to think that the "works" must be the works of the Law of Moses, which are done by Jews and Jews only.

Paul would have to the one of the most incompetent writers imaginable to make such a blunder. The works here are the works of the Law of Moses.

 

[francisdesales]

Dave, you gave it a good shot, but neither Drew nor francisdesales will listen to any kind of reason on this issue. Drew insists Paul is addressing the Jews whenever works are mentioned, and francisdesales believes man can become righteous enough to approach the throne of God.

GD,

I would suggest you stick to trying to answer MY questions that you refuse to listen to, like "what is the purpose of Sanctification in your scheme, if Christ completely covers me"?

Dave brings up a Gospel story from Luke about a man who was called just in God's eyes. Nothing is mentioned about Jesus' righteousness.

I have posted, and could post many more examples, of man being accepted by God based upon the man's internal dispositions. Perhaps it might be helpful if you read the posts in this particular thread, they point out some things that are not in our conversations that may resonate with your overall sense of Scriptures and may help you to put aside the false teachings of alien righteousness and man needing to be perfect...

by the way, the book of Romans is not the "whole Gospel message". That is an absolutely ridiculous thing to say. The Words of Christ, quite frankly, are the Gospel message. Paul's letter to the Romans is written for the sake of Jews proud in their having the written code, as if that alone makes them righteous. He deflates that idea especially in Romans 2-3. But this is not the "Gospel" message, my friend. Frankly, it is quite secondary.