How Are We Made Right With God?

[glorydaz]

Drew, perhaps you should have noticed after the "we", and the "you", the "for no one", and the "if any man" which directly set the table for the passage in question.

11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.

For no one, that's everybody, and includes Paul and Apollos. Their foundation is in Christ Jesus.

vs12 If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each man's work. 14 If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.

"If any man" (that's everybody, including Paul and Apollos) " "builds on this foundation" (That's Jesus Christ) "his" (still any man). Every time "he" is used after that, it refers back to "any man"

Drew, God is not a respecter of persons.

Exactly...it includes Paul and Apollos.

We are all part of the body of Christ. One in Christ Jesus.

Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

 

[Dave...]

Drew....Yes, he's speaking to Christians comparing the flesh to the Spirit, or what it means to be a true believer. But unlike you Drew, I'm not trying to make a case out of the negative as being for Christians too. So your argument here is really pointless. We all agree that we all should be obedient, but the motives of that obedience is what can make it legalism.

Dave, why don't you accept the text as written? If I showed the following text to a thousand people with training in english, and without religious bias, they would all agree. Paul is making a statement about how believers get life if, repeat if, they walk in the Spirit. So why do you think you do not need to honour the dictates of english composition:

10But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11And 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,

[quote="Dave...":1jomao4b]Lets see more context...

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, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you

Doesn't that say it all? Those who are born again will always overcome (1 John 5:1-5). Those who are of the flesh cannot be Christ have put on Christ.

No Dave - you are superimposing a system of thinking onto this text, and in so doing, you re-work the text itself. No literate, clear-thinking person would write the following words, if he did not believe that the believer has some kind of obligation to allow his life to be directed according to the Spirit to get, yes, life:

I, on the other hand, believe that Paul does not make mistakes in what he writes. So what he said in verse 10-13 must be true...

I think the fundamental issue is this: You (and gd) do not feel constrained to buy into what Paul actually, actually, actually writes.[/quote:1jomao4b]

Drew, you wrote, "I, on the other hand, believe that Paul does not make mistakes in what he writes"

Well Drew, I'm glad that you feel that way, I agree. But why do you then call it "superimposing" when I quote from scripture that Paul himself wrote? I posted scripture from Ephesians, Romans, and Galatians, Paul wrote those too. Do you feel the same way about John and Peter? I'll even take it a step further. I believe that the Holy spirit does not make mistakes in what He writes, and He wrote it all, from Genesis to Revelation. Here's the scripture once again for you to consider in light of the points I made in my last post with regards to the Romans passage quoted above.


Romans 8::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, nor indeed can be. 8 So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you

Romans 8:14-17 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.†The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together.

Ephesians 1:11-14 In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory. In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

2:1-10 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others. But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

1 Peter 1:3-5 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

Galatians 3:26-29 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were [Spirit] baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

And 1 John 5:1-5 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves Him who begot also loves him who is begotten of Him. By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and keep His commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome. For whatever is born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world—our[a] faith. Who is he who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?

Dave

 

[glorydaz]

This is the inconsistency I am talking about. Your scheme is like the mist in the wind, instable and not capable of addressing a thinking man's questions.

I have asked you for a Scripture verse, even one, where God requires that a human being be perfect BEFORE He forgives sins. Have you actually READ the OT??? Where does God call upon a perfect sacrifice before He forgives Israel? Where does JESUS speak about this requirement for perfection? My gosh...Is there a requirement ANYWHERE in Scripture for a perfect sacrifice to God???

God does not require a human being to be perfect before He forgives sin. I have certainly never said man is required to be perfect....ever. Man is incapable of being perfect.

God did require a spotless lamb all throughout the OT. It had to be offered over and over again, and it was just a lamb, after all. It was a picture of the Lamb of God that was to come.

And he shall offer his offering unto the LORD, one he lamb of the first year without blemish for a burnt offering, and one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish for a sin offering, and one ram without blemish for peace offerings,

God did, indeed, require a PERFECT sacrifice for our sins.

No sacrifice made by man...no good deeds done by man (even with the empowerment of the Holy Spirit) can take the place of the spotless Son of God. There is no redemption for man's sins ...no justification before God without the Perfect Sacrifice being offered to Holy God.

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

 

[glorydaz]

I don't even need to read past this first part to be amazed.

I'm not the one who requires a perfect sacrifice...God does.

WHERE DOES THE BIBLE SAY THIS??? HELLO, ANYONE OUT THERE????

Merely asserting that you are a 1 foot tall Martian is meaningless without some evidence. I have asked you and Dave for this ONE VERSE. SOME EVIDENCE! Nope. Just more idiotic assertions...

Lord God Almighty, give me patience... How much longer shall I toss pearls to such as these???

Why did you omit the "lamb without blemish" verses? God required that.

Why do you deny Jesus is the spotless Lamb of God without blemish? God required that, too.

Do you seriously not understand that God required a sinless sacrifice for our sins?
Why did Jesus have to die on the cross?

I stand in amazement.
Those aren't pearls you're tossing, Joe.
I'll refrain from saying exactly what they are out of respect for the readers on this forum.

 

[glorydaz]

We are saved and justified throughout our lives. The Bible tells us that justification and sanctification are processes in the Christian walk. We are made MORE righteous with MORE graces. The more God gives us, the more we are capable of becoming even more holy and just...

We aren't talking about balancing a check book, we are talking about a relationship with God. WHICH relationship in real life is a "one time and forget about it" idea???

The Bible compares our relationship with God to a marriage, for good reason.

Which marriage utterly relies on that one night of consummation, with nothing more needed??? We constantly need to hear "I love you" and we constantly share that love with each other. Being "good" or "righteous" in that relationship is ONGOING. Being righteous in God's eyes is ongoing. We grow in it.

And yes, sanctification and justification are synonymous. The Bible uses the words interchangeably.

Using your marriage analogy...You were justified (found worthy) of marrying your wife. Over the years, you are sanctified (conformed to her image of the perfect husband). Will she throw you out if you don't conform to her will in the first few years? Well, as you can see, the marriage analogy doesn't work that well, since we all know how stubborn you can be. :biglaugh

Sorry, Joe, there is a difference between being justified and sanctified. One gives you access to the throne of God (by Christ's righteousness, not your own), and the other is the work of the Holy Spirit in your life where you are being transformed into His image.

 

[JM]

Yes Dave..., you're insane! (inside joke, dave and I are buddies)

 

[francisdesales]

I have asked you for a Scripture verse, even one, where God requires that a human being be perfect BEFORE He forgives sins. Have you actually READ the OT??? Where does God call upon a perfect sacrifice before He forgives Israel? Where does JESUS speak about this requirement for perfection? My gosh...Is there a requirement ANYWHERE in Scripture for a perfect sacrifice to God???

God does not require a human being to be perfect before He forgives sin. I have certainly never said man is required to be perfect....ever. Man is incapable of being perfect.

Your requirement remains, GD, thus, the requirement of Jesus Christ's perfection.

The logic goes "since man cannot be perfect and God requires perfection, Jesus must do it". Oh, yes, you claim God requires perfection from somewhere before sins are forgiven. I will show that to be incorrect shortly, making you miss such an important part of the point of Scriptures in revealing Who God is!

God did require a spotless lamb all throughout the OT.

I would like to address this, since this may be part of your confusion...

For what reason did God command a spotless lamb of the Jews?

The idea that God requires a lamb for sacrifice is to give man a sense of ritualistic union with God. The outward display of a "spotless lamb" satisfies MAN'S desire and NEED to give something of value to God. Ritual expression is the outward display of our innner hearts - or so it is SUPPOSED to be. When Israel got away from that - sacrificing outwardly, but inwardly being as "filthy rags" (the proper context of that citation), they were not appealing to God, they did not satisfy Him.

And of course, as we have seen from the NT, forgiveness was available to those who NEVER were told to sacrifice lambs - Romans 2...

Repentance is the first stage of rebuilding a shattered relationship, agreed? The Bible does not require compensation, satisfaction, or anything of the sort BEFORE SIN was forgiven. You are thinking about "redressing the cosmic balance" in MAN'S mind. By offering something of value, TO MAN, a sense of sorrow is made externally present and known. It hurts to sacrifice, and this pain is part of the process of sorrowful repentance. God only requires repentance...

The OT is clear, especially in the prophets...

Here, Micah has a man asking God what is required:

With what shall I come before the LORD, [And] bow myself before the High God? Shall I come before Him with burnt offerings, With calves a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, Ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn [for] my transgression, The fruit of my body [for] the sin of my soul? He has shown you, O man, what [is] good; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your God? Micah 6:6-8

It is MAN who "requires" to offer the sacrifice for HIS OWN SENSE of sorrow. God knows that, and in the Law, made it a requirement so that proper disposition was acheived. But does GOD need the blood of bulls? Is He pleased with thousands of rams, or even human sacrifices? The answer here is simple. God desires a person with correct dispositions.

"Now, therefore," says the LORD, "Turn to Me with all your heart, With fasting, with weeping, and with mourning." So rend your heart, and not your garments; Return to the LORD your God, For He [is] gracious and merciful, Slow to anger, and of great kindness; And He relents from doing harm. Joel 2:12-13

"To what purpose [is] the multitude of your sacrifices to Me?" Says the LORD. "I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams And the fat of fed cattle. I do not delight in the blood of bulls, Or of lambs or goats. "When you come to appear before Me, Who has required this from your hand, To trample My courts? Bring no more futile sacrifices; Incense is an abomination to Me. The New Moons, the Sabbaths, and the calling of assemblies-- I cannot endure iniquity and the sacred meeting. Your New Moons and your appointed feasts My soul hates; They are a trouble to Me, I am weary of bearing [them]. When you spread out your hands, I will hide My eyes from you; Even though you make many prayers, I will not hear. Your hands are full of blood. "Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; Put away the evil of your doings from before My eyes. Cease to do evil, Learn to do good; Seek justice, Rebuke the oppressor; [fn] Defend the fatherless, Plead for the widow. Isaiah 1:11-17

Note, again, the problem with sacrifices without the proper inner dispositions. Does God require sacrifice? No, God even hates them, when done with an evil heart. What does He need with the blood of bulls?

God desires something more from us. Not sacrifices for the sake of assuaging our own prideful ideas of satisfying God and continuing with an evil life.

And finally, from the OT, the ultimate Psalm of a repentant heart, Psalm 51...

Deliver me from the guilt of bloodshed, O God, The God of my salvation, [And] my tongue shall sing aloud of Your righteousness. O Lord, open my lips, And my mouth shall show forth Your praise. For You do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give [it]; You do not delight in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God [are] a broken spirit, A broken and a contrite heart-- These, O God, You will not despise. Psalm 51:14-17

Note carefully. David asks God with a repentant heart to forgive him of his sin. He realizes that God does not desire sacrifice - OR ELSE HE WOULD GIVE IT. Proper sacrifices are a contrite heart, not an unblemished lamb. God does not ultimately desire such things - God does not feast on the blood of such creatures so has absolutely no use for them. Such sacrifices, when done with the correct inner dispositions, are pleasing to God only in the sense that they are an outward display of the man's sorrow and love for God. Just as God awaited for the knife of Abraham to rise above his son's neck before GOD said "NOW I KNOW".

And what about the NT? Does Jesus give us clear indications of what God requires before sin is forgiven???

I have detailed this to Dave, but here goes again...

Jesus ate with sinners at a feast in the calling of Levi, and tells his critics that he came for the sake of the sinner, not the righeous. There is no extravagent outward sacrifices here before God forgives, there was no compensation required before He joined them at table (Mat 9:13, Mark 2:17).

The parable of the lost sheep conveys the same message (Mat 18:12). The shepherd made no prior conditions before he set out in search of it.

When Peter asked if he should forgive his brother seven times (Mat 18:21), the answer was not about "paying back God first", but that merely UPON REQUEST, we are to forgive 70 times 7.

The paralytic lowered through the roof (Mark 2) was cured AND forgiven of sins without ANY prior sacrifice or offering to God. His dramatic approach made it clear of his intentions.

The sinful woman who anointed Jesus feet while he was at dinner (Luke 7:36) was forgiven simply on the strength of her love. No lambs were killed...

The prodigal son (Luke 15) emphasizes the idea most clearly of all, because the situation obviously called for payment back to the Father. He did not require anything but the son's repentance.

The good thief on the cross (Luke 23) made a simple request for acceptance and was promised forgiveness and paradise.

The narrative on the woman taken in adultery (John 8) is an example of unconditional forgiveness.

Peter's threefold profession of love (John 21) indicates yet again that God does not desire sacrifices BEFORE HE FORGIVES.

It is perfectly clear that throughout the Bible, there is not antecedent form of penance required before God forgives sin. Prior compensation is NEVER required before God forgives sins. God may demand punishment afterwards, but forgiveness has already been given.

Clearly, my point is made. There is no need for utter perfection before man is forgiven of sins. There is no requirement of a perfect "covering" or "righteousness" that God must view me through. The Bible time and time again details what He requires from man. A repentant heart. Nothing more, nothing less.

Perhaps later, I will tell you why Christ came...

 

[francisdesales]

Sorry, Joe, there is a difference between being justified and sanctified. One gives you access to the throne of God (by Christ's righteousness, not your own), and the other is the work of the Holy Spirit in your life where you are being transformed into His image.

The difference is so minor that the Bible is able to transpose the terms without destroying the meaning of the verses. Clearly, we are initially justified, one point in time. But we are continuously justified FURTHER in God's eyes - or we lose that justification, that righteousness, when we sin grieviously.

But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Cor 6:11

The same event, baptism (being washed) shows that the words are interchangeable and refer to the same event of the past.

I will deliver you from the [Jewish] people, as well as [from] the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, to open their eyes, [in order] to turn [them] from darkness to light, and [from] the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.' Acts 26:17-18

Here, you would expect to see "justified" by faith in me... But we see sanctified. Why? Because they are interchangeable. They are synonymous. One who is seen as righteous, just, is also holy and being made more holy...

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied. 1 Peter 1:1-2

Just as before, we see sanctified when we would expect to see "justify". It is during justification where we receive the spinkling of the blood of Christ at baptism... Note, here also, we have the Spirit performing in the realm of justification...

But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, 2 Thess 2:13

From the beginning we are chosen for salvation - the act of initial justification, correct? By the Spirit!
The Spirit is again working interchangeably with the Son in justifying and sanctifying you and I.

Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? Heb 10:29

And yet again, we have an example of sanctification used where you would expect to see justification, as Paul is describing that point where one entered into the Covenant of the blood of Christ, initial justification, being made righteous by the blood of Christ through Baptism.

There are more, but I would just be piling on. clearly, justification and sanctification are interchangeable words with similar meanings - and are ongoing in the life of the Christian. As one grows in holiness, one grows more just in the eyes of God.

He is more pleased with His handiwork...

In addition, I think the Bible very clearly tells us that Abraham was justified in God's eyes on several separate occasions. Justification is thus an ongoing event.

 

[Mysteryman]

Quote francis: "The idea that God requires a lamb for sacrifice is to give man a sense of ritualistic union with God. The outward display of a "spotless lamb" satisfies MAN'S desire and NEED to give something of value to God."


Hi francis

What you said above is just plain nonesense. Or as we would say in the dairy buisness -- bull !

God did not ask man to sacrifice a spotless lamb for the purpose of satisfying man's desire and need to give something of value to God ! !

God always does things with a purpose, no doubt about that. But your extra biblical comments do not hold water !

Of course God always looks upon the heart. But it was God who asked Israel to sacrifice a lamb without spot . It was to represent a pure sacrifice, until the Lord God himself sacrificed his only begotten Son.

We have been cleanse from all our unrighteousness, by the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the pure sacrifice by His Father, to give of His Son.

We can do nothing of ourselves to make ourselves righteous. It took a perfect sacrifice with the pure blood of our Lord, who was without sin, without blemish, to be our perfect sacrifice for our sins.

God made us right with God, we didn't !!

 

[francisdesales]

Quote francis: "The idea that God requires a lamb for sacrifice is to give man a sense of ritualistic union with God. The outward display of a "spotless lamb" satisfies MAN'S desire and NEED to give something of value to God."


Hi francis

What you said above is just plain nonesense. Or as we would say in the dairy buisness -- bull !

Maybe you should read the entire post. Perhaps it will then make more sense, since I clearly point out that GOD does not require sacrifices for Himself.

God doesn't require the blood or meat of bulls or sheep. God desires a rending of the heart. That rending needs to be expressed externally BY MAN. God doesn't need it. WE do.

 

[Mysteryman]

Quote francis: "The idea that God requires a lamb for sacrifice is to give man a sense of ritualistic union with God. The outward display of a "spotless lamb" satisfies MAN'S desire and NEED to give something of value to God."


Hi francis

What you said above is just plain nonesense. Or as we would say in the dairy buisness -- bull !

Maybe you should read the entire post. Perhaps it will then make more sense, since I clearly point out that GOD does not require sacrifices for Himself.

God doesn't require the blood or meat of bulls or sheep. God desires a rending of the heart. That rending needs to be expressed externally BY MAN. God doesn't need it. WE do.

Hi

Yes, I read your whole post thoroughly. And what I read, I came away with someone handling the righteousness of the Word in unrighteousness.

God did require the blood sacrifices and burnt offerings of Israel ! As I said, God is always looking at the heart of mankind. And it was not for us, that God required it !

II Corinthians 2:14 - 17

14) - "Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place"

15) - "For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish"

16) - "To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things ?"

17) - "For we are not as many , which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ"

Now, lets take this one step further -->

Ephesians 5:2 - "And walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweetsmelling savour"

Phil. 4:18 - "But I have all, and abound: I am full, having received of Epaphoroditus the things where were sent from you, and odour of a swee smell, a sacrifice acceptable, wellpleasing to God"

When a sacrifice is made, it is made to please God. A sacrifice is not "for us" , as you propose !

Yes, God looks at the heart, but the sacrifices in the OT , as well as the sacrifices made by Christ and the members of the body of Christ, are done to please God !

The burnt sacrifices were made at times , to see which sacrifice pleased God. Some were for an example , and God himself sent fire down and consumed that which was pleasing unto God.

God does not need the blood offerings himself. But he did require them ! Obedience was the desire of God, that they would obey him , thus worshipping him in doing so.

Even when reading the story of Balaam and Balak, that the first thing they did was sacrifice all three times before each request by Balak. And it was the prophet Balaam that made sure that this was the first thing that they did.

God does not always accept a sacrifice, but he still requires them !

Romans 12:1 - "present your bodies as a living sacrifice"

In the OT, the sacrifices were to be offered up for sins. Hebrews 9:7 - "But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people"

In the NT, we are a living sacrifice.

The sacrifices of the OT could not make them righteous. But it did cleanse them from their unrighteous acts. And that would put them in right standing with God. Thus there is no act that a Christian can do, that will cause them to be cleansed from all their unrigheousness. That act has been performed by the perfect sacrifice of the shed pure , sinless blood of our Lord.

Nothing that they did under the Law of Moses, could make one righteous. If righteousness came by the law and the sacrifices, then there would be no need for a perfect blood sacrifice.

But the sin of Adam had to be atoned for. And that could not be done by the blood of animals. An eye for an eye, and blood for blood. Life is in the blood, and the blood lineage of Adam was destined to die because of the sin of Adam. God himself requires a perfect sacrifice ,a blood sacrifice , the lamb of God.

 

[Drew]

Drew, perhaps you should have noticed after the "we", and the "you", the "for no one", and the "if any man" which directly set the table for the passage in question.

No Dave, this is simply not how language works. The "no one" and "if any man" do not open the domain of consideration up to include all people as you seem to think. These terms are all subject to the "we" vs "you" distinction that Paul has introducted in verse 9.

For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.

Note how Paul has clearly marked out those who function as builders - himself, Apollos, and other leaders (by implication). And to make things even more clear, Paul has identified the rest of believers as the "building" - the church that is being built by the builders.

Paul then goes on to make the statements you refer to (e.g. the "any man"). But these are statements that are clearly about the activity of building. These are things that builders do. And Paul has clearly marked out the builders from those who are the "building". So these "any man" kind statements are necessarily limited in application to the builders.

This is not "game-playing" on my part - this is honouring how language works. You cannot open up the scope of application of the "any man" statement without violating the logic of the argument.

 

[glorydaz]

Quote francis: "The idea that God requires a lamb for sacrifice is to give man a sense of ritualistic union with God. The outward display of a "spotless lamb" satisfies MAN'S desire and NEED to give something of value to God."


Hi francis

What you said above is just plain nonesense. Or as we would say in the dairy buisness -- bull !

God did not ask man to sacrifice a spotless lamb for the purpose of satisfying man's desire and need to give something of value to God ! !

God always does things with a purpose, no doubt about that. But your extra biblical comments do not hold water !

Of course God always looks upon the heart. But it was God who asked Israel to sacrifice a lamb without spot . It was to represent a pure sacrifice, until the Lord God himself sacrificed his only begotten Son.

We have been cleanse from all our unrighteousness, by the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the pure sacrifice by His Father, to give of His Son.

We can do nothing of ourselves to make ourselves righteous. It took a perfect sacrifice with the pure blood of our Lord, who was without sin, without blemish, to be our perfect sacrifice for our sins.

God made us right with God, we didn't !!

:amen God certainly did require a sacrifice. Not from man because man is not spotless. Jesus took our sins and covered us with His righteousness. That's about as basic a Christian doctrine as there comes. I'm a little surprised that the Catholics don't see that. Maybe they do and it's not widely known.

 

[Drew]

Drew, God is not a respecter of persons.

This is simply not a correct way to argue this matter.

The context is what it is - Paul has been quite clear that he is talking about builders, and not the church in general. You cannot, legitimately, anyway import this "God is not a respecter of persons" statement into the present context, as if this magically over-rides Paul's clear identification of church leaders as the subject of his treatment.

 

[glorydaz]

Sorry, Joe, there is a difference between being justified and sanctified. One gives you access to the throne of God (by Christ's righteousness, not your own), and the other is the work of the Holy Spirit in your life where you are being transformed into His image.

The difference is so minor that the Bible is able to transpose the terms without destroying the meaning of the verses. Clearly, we are initially justified, one point in time. But we are continuously justified FURTHER in God's eyes - or we lose that justification, that righteousness, when we sin grieviously.

But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Cor 6:11

The same event, baptism (being washed) shows that the words are interchangeable and refer to the same event of the past.

I will deliver you from the [Jewish] people, as well as [from] the Gentiles, to whom I now send you, to open their eyes, [in order] to turn [them] from darkness to light, and [from] the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.' Acts 26:17-18

Here, you would expect to see "justified" by faith in me... But we see sanctified. Why? Because they are interchangeable. They are synonymous. One who is seen as righteous, just, is also holy and being made more holy...

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied. 1 Peter 1:1-2

Just as before, we see sanctified when we would expect to see "justify". It is during justification where we receive the spinkling of the blood of Christ at baptism... Note, here also, we have the Spirit performing in the realm of justification...

But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, 2 Thess 2:13

From the beginning we are chosen for salvation - the act of initial justification, correct? By the Spirit!
The Spirit is again working interchangeably with the Son in justifying and sanctifying you and I.

Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, counted the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified a common thing, and insulted the Spirit of grace? Heb 10:29

And yet again, we have an example of sanctification used where you would expect to see justification, as Paul is describing that point where one entered into the Covenant of the blood of Christ, initial justification, being made righteous by the blood of Christ through Baptism.

There are more, but I would just be piling on. clearly, justification and sanctification are interchangeable words with similar meanings - and are ongoing in the life of the Christian. As one grows in holiness, one grows more just in the eyes of God.

He is more pleased with His handiwork...

In addition, I think the Bible very clearly tells us that Abraham was justified in God's eyes on several separate occasions. Justification is thus an ongoing event.

Sanctification is a process. We are "set apart", that is not the same as being justified. We are "washed" (regenerated) not by baptism, but by the cleansing of our sins by the blood of the Lamb. So we are washed (cleansed of sin by the washing of regeneration), sanctified (set apart and being made holy), and justified (given a right relation with God).

We are justified by faith and set apart (sanctified) for God's use. We are being made holy by the work of the Holy Spirit (on-going process of sanctification).

 

[Drew]

Well done

No. Gd is mistaken at each and every point. By the way, Dave, do you agree with gd's take that all the modern translations of Romans 2:6-7 are actually wrong? I will be interested in your opinion. Please do answer this question - do you think that the translators of all the modern versions have slipped up in rendering these versions as implying that God will render eternal life according to good works.

In the present post, I will re-post something I have already posted in respect to the 1 Corinthians 5:21 text. It is an argument that makes the case that imputation of Christ's righteousness is not on Paul's mind in that context. I look forward to your take on the content of this argument:

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 [/b]God's[/b] 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.

 

[glorydaz]

Note how Paul has clearly marked out those who function as builders - himself, Apollos, and other leaders (by implication). And to make things even more clear, Paul has identified the rest of believers as the "building" - the church that is being built by the builders.

Paul then goes on to make the statements you refer to (e.g. the "any man"). But these are statements that are clearly about the activity of building. These are things that builders do. And Paul has clearly marked out the builders from those who are the "building". So these "any man" kind statements are necessarily limited in application to the builders.

This is not "game-playing" on my part - this is honouring how language works. You cannot open up the scope of application of the "any man" statement without violating the logic of the argument.

Drew, are you really saying the body of Christ is being "built" by the preachers? :crazy

We are the building and the preachers are the builders? Really?

That's quite the theory, I must admit.

 

[Drew]

Well done

No, not in respect to Phillipians 3:9:

and 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,

Dave, I appeal to you as a reasonable person. Surely you must acknowledge that there is nothing in this text that requires us to see that we get Christ's righteousness. I have been crystal clear about the following: we are indeed imputed with a status of righteousness (that "anticipates" the future good works judgement) . But, and you have to acknowledge this Dave, this text from Phillipians only says that we get a status of righteousness that comes from God. It does not state that this is Christ's righteousness. If you say otherwise, you would simply not be honouring the texts as written. And I trust that you want to be true to what Paul has actually written.

Remember - in the Hebrew lawcourt, a person found to be "righteous" is indeed imputed a status of righteousness. But is not somebody' else's righteousness. The court has merely declared that the person in question is "in the right".

Dave, let me ask you a pointed question: Are you open to the possibility that you are mistaken on the matter of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer? If you are not, then there is no point in my pursuing this matter. For my part, I will state that I am indeed open to the position that we are imputed with the righteousness of Christ. I used to believe this, until I started to study the Scriptures in more depth.

 

[Drew]

Drew, are you really saying the body of Christ is being "built" by the preachers? :crazy

We are the building and the preachers are the builders? Really?

That's quite the theory, I must admit.

Well its Paul's theory not mine. You continue to simply ignore and / or dismiss texts that you do not like:

For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, God's building.

You have found an interesting, bold approach that few would dare to take: simply ignore and / or re-write texts that you do not like.

Paul could not possibly make a more clear statement than this that, yes, the "leaders" do indeed build the church.

What does Paul say about the church?

you.......are........what??........God's building

 

[Drew]

Of course the Bible teaches it, Drew. It's all about Christ's righteousness...not the righteousness of man. His righteousness being accounted to us is the bedrock of salvation. When the gospel is preached, the righteousness of Christ is revealed. The first sign of a person being regenerated is he becomes convinced of his unrighteousness, and the need for a perfect righteousness. The gospel declares to them the source of that perfect righteousness, which is the person and work of Christ alone. Jeremiah says His name shall be called "Our righteousness".

It is simply not correct to assume that the "rightousness" of Christ is specifically a quantity that is imputed or ascribed to us. Which is what you appear to be doing here.

I have, of course, never denied that the Bible is all about Christ's righteousness. I am instead denying that we are not imputed to us.

Although I will not argue the point in this present post, I will assert that when Paul speaks of the righteouness of Christ being revealed in the gospel, he is speaking of Jesus acting in fidelity with the Arbrahamic covenant. And this is certainly not something that God considers us to have done.

To any and all objective readers: Beware the "pre-emptive strike" where people insist that Christ's righteousness means one specific thing, and where such people simply will not consider how the Biblical evidence better supports a different interpretation.