Ignoring Romans 2: An Error of Exegisis

[Drew]

I believe that I ascribe to the standard "sense" of this term": Judgement is effectively a "lawcourt" concept - an evaluation of whether some party has, or has not, conformed to some standard or "law".

And since we are not under the Law of Moses now, can we safely assume that this law is the Law of the Spirit of Life(Rom 8:2) or the Law of faith(Rom 3:27)?

I will very provisionally agree with you here in the the sense all human beings will be judged and eternal life given based on the good works the person manifests. To the extent that we now indeed have the "law written on our hearts" by the Spirit, there is indeed a connection between such a law and how we are judged.

[Just to clarify, when you say - "[it] does not mean that I think that "real" faith does not always results in good works, through the action of the Spirit." - do you imply that good works can happen without faith (separable in this sense)?
I hope not, considering this verse -
Jas 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

Your hope is indeed borne out - I do not believe that good works can happen without faith - at least not enough to pass the Romans 2 judgement.

 

[Drew]

While we are talking about "atonement" and such: For those interested, here is a question posed to theologian NT Wright followed by Wright's answer. I should be clear: my ideas about the atonement have been shamelessly "lifted" from Wright, as will, perhaps, become clear from this Q & A (I added emphasis:

Question: In your Romans commentary on 8.3-4 (page 578) you wrote, “What was at stake was not simply God’s judicial honor, in some Anselmic sense, but the mysterious power called sin, at large and destructive within the God’s world, needing to be brought to book, to have sentence passed and executed upon it, so that, with its power broken, God could then give the life that sin would otherwise prevent. That is what happened on the cross.†You have affirmed substitionary atonement, but what do you see as the limitation with the Anselmic penal substitution view? Does it rely too heavily on a Greco-Roman legal understanding rather than a more Hebraic covenant-relational model? Or is it insufficient in taking into account the God whose honor was at stake was the one who sent Jesus in the first place?

Answer: A full analysis of Anselm himself and (a different matter) of those who have in some way or other invoked him is beyond possibility at this moment, but the key thing is that in his scheme God’s honour was offended and needed to be restored, like a mediaeval prince who had been publicly shamed. This is to import into Paul’s picture ideas quite extraneous to it. There are in fact all kinds of different ways of speaking of substitutionary atonement, and using that last phrase as a shorthand often in my experience masks disagreement between different types of theology. Paul is concerned to speak here, which I think is if not his clearest statement of the doctrine then certainly one of the two or three most clear, not about God’s honour being wronged and the death of Jesus making satisfaction for that wrong — something he never puts like that, actually — but of sin as a force and power at large in the world which needs to be condemned and executed, which condemnation and execution took place in the death of Jesus. This makes sense, yes, within the larger Jewish world of thought to which the entire section and indeed entire letter belongs.

 

[glorydaz]

We walked in sin. The wages of sin is death. Hence, we are to die. Period.

I agree, but this is not an argument that God punishes Jesus on the cross. Paul says that God punished sin on the cross.

But Christ takes our place, faces the wrath of God on the cross on our behalf, reconciles us with God - having justified us by His blood through faith working in love.

I trust that you understand that Christ can take our place and still not be target of God's wrath.

It is sin that is borne in the flesh of Jesus that is the target of God's wrath. Or at least that is what Paul says.

So I do not think that God was in any sense punishing Jesus on the cross.

Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased Jehovah to crush Him; to grieve Him; that He should put forth His soul as a guilt-offering.....

You are doing it again - assuming that this "crushing" and being put forward involves Jesus being punished. One can read this perfectly well as Jesus being the place where sin is heaped, and then sin is defeated through crushing the "vessel" - Jesus who bears this sin.

This is no more "punishment" than a man who dives on top of a live grenade is "punished" in order to allow his comrades to live.

The live grenade analogy doesn't work. Neither does stepping in front of a car to push a baby carriage out of the way. The better example would be if a lawyer took the punishment of his client (murderer)...let the killer go free and went to the gas chamber in his place.

I'd be interested in reading where Paul said God punished sin on the cross. Sin was defeated at the cross, but punished? When a man commits murder, he is punished. Murder isn't punished.

Read this portion of Isaiah and see if that doesn't sound like punishment.
Sin must be punished. Jesus became sin for us, so He paid the sin debt we owed.

If Paul does say God punished sin on the cross (I'd like to see the context on that one), then it was Jesus (as sin) that was punished. Either way, it's Jesus who was punished for our iniquities.

He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he
shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

 

[glorydaz]

What is meant by propitiation for remission of "past sins"? And why is God to be "declared" Just?
Isn't it because He overlooked the sins of the world through His forbearance until the coming of Christ? And any perfect judge isn't to overlook any sin. Only Christ's sacrifice declares God's justice in dealing with sin. The innocent Lamb was slaughtered for our sins. What else do you think the OT sacrifices symbolized? What do you think atonement means? Why do we need to get reconciled with God and be justified in His presence if sin were only a disease? And still you think we need to abandon this idea?

Finally....too many people use this passage to claim Jesus only died for our past sins.

God is Righteous...so righteous that man can never come close to Him without the righteousness of Christ as a covering. Some people don't like to hear that. They think they can manifest some righteousness of their own and be able to come into His presence.

When we're found IN HIM...with His righteousness, we can have boldness to come before the throne of grace.

And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

 

[ivdavid]

Let's say that you have some kind of virus that can only be destroyed by being blasted with radiation while in a human body. If I volunteer to have your virus-laden laden blood transfused into me (while you get my "clean" blood) and I then volunteer to blasted with radiation, I have "died in your place" even though I am not being specifically punished. Do you see what I mean now?

My virus-laden blood transfused into you? Isn't that imputing my sin to Christ?
Your clean blood in me? Isn't that imputing Christ's righteousness to me?

Is there any other interpretation to this? Or is it simply us going round and round meaning the same things while calling it by contradicting terminology?

 

[francisdesales]

Finally....too many people use this passage to claim Jesus only died for our past sins.

God is Righteous...so righteous that man can never come close to Him without the righteousness of Christ as a covering. Some people don't like to hear that. They think they can manifest some righteousness of their own and be able to come into His presence.

You are confused because you still live under the Law...

You think men must be perfect to enter heaven, and thus, falsely manufacture this idea that Christ "covers" us and the Father (whom you apparently think is fooled by this) doesn't recognize who is sneaking into heaven. The Bible says NO ONE unclean shall enter into heaven.

But I guess you are forced to ignore that verse, as well as this one:

Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. 2 peter 1:4

Remain in your filthy rags, if you like. God has promised us much more than that pitiful "theology" presents. Read the earliest Christians' comments on this matter. "God became man so that we could become gods". There is no need to invent such ridiculous things that makes the Father LIE about our sanctification while actually "looking at Christ"!!!

WE ARE MADE HOLY!

Or do you doubt God can do it?

 

[francisdesales]

Let's say that you have some kind of virus that can only be destroyed by being blasted with radiation while in a human body. If I volunteer to have your virus-laden laden blood transfused into me (while you get my "clean" blood) and I then volunteer to blasted with radiation, I have "died in your place" even though I am not being specifically punished. Do you see what I mean now?

My virus-laden blood transfused into you? Isn't that imputing my sin to Christ?
Your clean blood in me? Isn't that imputing Christ's righteousness to me?

Is there any other interpretation to this? Or is it simply us going round and round meaning the same things while calling it by contradicting terminology?

No, it's not.

The key word here is "INFUSION" vs. "IMPUTATION".

To impute is to apply a legal term to something, but its reality does not change. A murderer is merely imputed to be an innocent man, when in reality, he is a murderer. The court imputes onto him a "term", but it doesn't make him so. Perhaps a technicality, whatever, the murderer is imputed to be an innocent man, when in reality he is not. The judge CALLS him innocent, knowing he is not. (yea, it is a strange thought to think God acts this way, calling us something we are not, but I digress...)

To be infused means something is actually changed. The blood is INFUSED into you. It becomes part of you. Jesus is "infused" into us. He is not merely "imputed" to us. There is a DRASTIC difference, because here is where "total depravity" totally throws Scriptures for a loop by not recognizing that an INFUSION has ALSO taken place. Not only is a person CALLED just, HE IS JUST!!!

How can someone be "totally depraved" if God HIMSELF is infused into a person??? This terminology also gives man absolutely no credit for anything he did - since the man is merely IMPUTED with something. He is a puppet, a passive bystander. His nature remains the same, as God thrusts the man out of the way to do His work. It is "fate" disguised, a pagan mindset, that pervades the thought of those who claim to follow Jesus Christ.

Christianity differs drastically. It sees God working WITH man, not against him. It sees God as an abiding PRESENCE WITHIN man, a close and intimate relationship. It sees that God judges men based upon how well this relationship went during earthly life, not based upon fate already decided.

Such a seemingly little thing has led to such an incredibly different view of Who God is and who we are in relationship to each other.

Regards

 

[Drew]

The live grenade analogy doesn't work. Neither does stepping in front of a car to push a baby carriage out of the way. The better example would be if a lawyer took the punishment of his client (murderer)...let the killer go free and went to the gas chamber in his place.

Well of course this is what you believe gd. I trust that you realize that people will not simply "take your word for it" that this is the correct way to understand the atonement. As per Romans 8:3, there is every reason to question whether the Scriptures actually sustain that view.

I'd be interested in reading where Paul said God punished sin on the cross. Sin was defeated at the cross, but punished? When a man commits murder, he is punished. Murder isn't punished.

Here is Romans 8:3:

For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh,

The greek word rendered as condemned has this defintion:

1) to give judgment against, to judge worthy of punishment
1a) to condemn
1b) by one's good example to render another's wickedness the
more evident and censurable

Again, we need to honour what Paul actaully writes, not what our traditions may tell us he writes. So, as you can see, Jesus was not punished on the cross, sin was.

 

[Drew]

All right, gd, lets talk about this text. Please tell us what words constitute a statement that Jesus is being punished, or condemned.

He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he
shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.

I can predict what will happen. You will tell us that statements about God “smiting†or “wounding†Jesus are statements of punishment.

Well that is simply not necessarily so – to make such assertions would be to read those words through a particular conceptual framework you have brought to the reading.

One can easily imagine other models. When someone donates a kidney to save a friend, the donor is “wounded†in the process. Is that donor being punished? Of course not.

Yes Jesus is wounded, smitten, bruised, and all that stuff for our iniquities. But that does not force us to understand Jesus as being punished. Sin is what is punished, as per Romans 8:3.

 

[Drew]

Let's say that you have some kind of virus that can only be destroyed by being blasted with radiation while in a human body. If I volunteer to have your virus-laden laden blood transfused into me (while you get my "clean" blood) and I then volunteer to blasted with radiation, I have "died in your place" even though I am not being specifically punished. Do you see what I mean now?

My virus-laden blood transfused into you? Isn't that imputing my sin to Christ?
Your clean blood in me? Isn't that imputing Christ's righteousness to me?

Is there any other interpretation to this? Or is it simply us going round and round meaning the same things while calling it by contradicting terminology?

The analogy served a particular function and was not intended to be rigorously applied in all its details. As I believe I have stated, I see no Biblical case for the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer. I am more than happy to make that case, if you wish.

As I have argued, there is simply no Biblical necessity to understand that Jesus was in any sense punished. Jesus can "bear our sins" without being punished. Think of that horrible sci-fi movie (I hated it anyway) called "Alien". One can imagine that in order to kill the alien that is growing inside a person, you need to kill the person also. But is the person being punished?" No.

Romans 8:3 - God condemns sin, not Jesus, on the cross.

 

[glorydaz]

Finally....too many people use this passage to claim Jesus only died for our past sins.

God is Righteous...so righteous that man can never come close to Him without the righteousness of Christ as a covering. Some people don't like to hear that. They think they can manifest some righteousness of their own and be able to come into His presence.

You are confused because you still live under the Law...You think men must be perfect to enter heaven, and thus, falsely manufacture this idea that Christ "covers" us and the Father (whom you apparently think is fooled by this) doesn't recognize who is sneaking into heaven. The Bible says NO ONE unclean shall enter into heaven.

But I guess you are forced to ignore that verse, as well as this one:

Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. 2 peter 1:4

Remain in your filthy rags, if you like. God has promised us much more than that pitiful "theology" presents. Read the earliest Christians' comments on this matter. "God became man so that we could become gods". There is no need to invent such ridiculous things that makes the Father LIE about our sanctification while actually "looking at Christ"!!!

WE ARE MADE HOLY!

Or do you doubt God can do it?

You must not understand what being under the law means, Joe, if you accuse me of being under it. On the contrary, I'm not the one who believes I can be made righteous by it's keeping.

You seem to want your cake and eat it, too, when you say man doesn't have to be perfect to enter heaven and then quote scripture that says NO ONE unclean shall enter heaven. Believers do not have their own righteousness that gains them entrance into the presence of God. You're only fooling yourself if you think you or any man can ever attain to the righteousness God requires of those who come into His presence. That is why Christ's righteousness is imputed to us...as the Word clearly states. I don't remain in my "filthy rags" as you claim because I understand my sins have been washed in the blood of the Lamb. It's a twisting of scripture to claim we're to be as gods. Those verses speak of the "judges"...the same word is translated as judges and gods. In no way are we to be gods, for God's name is Jealous, in case you didn't know. We are made "holy" because we are in Christ. The pride of man never ceases to amaze me.

 

[Drew]

That is why Christ's righteousness is imputed to us...as the Word clearly states.

I suggest that Word states no such thing. Please provide relevant texts and make relevant arguments. I see no scriptural case for the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer.

 

[glorydaz]

Let's say that you have some kind of virus that can only be destroyed by being blasted with radiation while in a human body. If I volunteer to have your virus-laden laden blood transfused into me (while you get my "clean" blood) and I then volunteer to blasted with radiation, I have "died in your place" even though I am not being specifically punished. Do you see what I mean now?

My virus-laden blood transfused into you? Isn't that imputing my sin to Christ?
Your clean blood in me? Isn't that imputing Christ's righteousness to me?

Is there any other interpretation to this? Or is it simply us going round and round meaning the same things while calling it by contradicting terminology?

No, it's not.

The key word here is "INFUSION" vs. "IMPUTATION".

To impute is to apply a legal term to something, but its reality does not change. A murderer is merely imputed to be an innocent man, when in reality, he is a murderer. The court imputes onto him a "term", but it doesn't make him so. Perhaps a technicality, whatever, the murderer is imputed to be an innocent man, when in reality he is not. The judge CALLS him innocent, knowing he is not. (yea, it is a strange thought to think God acts this way, calling us something we are not, but I digress...)

To be infused means something is actually changed. The blood is INFUSED into you. It becomes part of you. Jesus is "infused" into us. He is not merely "imputed" to us. There is a DRASTIC difference, because here is where "total depravity" totally throws Scriptures for a loop by not recognizing that an INFUSION has ALSO taken place. Not only is a person CALLED just, HE IS JUST!!!

How can someone be "totally depraved" if God HIMSELF is infused into a person??? This terminology also gives man absolutely no credit for anything he did - since the man is merely IMPUTED with something. He is a puppet, a passive bystander. His nature remains the same, as God thrusts the man out of the way to do His work. It is "fate" disguised, a pagan mindset, that pervades the thought of those who claim to follow Jesus Christ.

Christianity differs drastically. It sees God working WITH man, not against him. It sees God as an abiding PRESENCE WITHIN man, a close and intimate relationship. It sees that God judges men based upon how well this relationship went during earthly life, not based upon fate already decided.

Such a seemingly little thing has led to such an incredibly different view of Who God is and who we are in relationship to each other.

Regards

Once again you confuse justification with sanctification. Being justified means we stand before a court of law and are declared righteous because the righteousness of Christ as been imputed unto us....it's a one time event. Sanctification is an on-going process where we grow into holiness by the work of the Spirit within us.

We are justified while we are yet sinners. We are sanctified (perfected) every day we walk in the Spirit.

I'm surprised the Catholics don't see this difference. Are you sure you have this straight according to the CC?

 

[Drew]

Once again you confuse justification with sanctification. Being justified means we stand before a court of law and are declared righteous because the righteousness of Christ as been imputed unto us....it's a one time event

Again, you take liberties with what Paul actually writes:

for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

In any event, I am confident that there is no Biblical case for the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer.

 

[glorydaz]

That is why Christ's righteousness is imputed to us...as the Word clearly states.

I suggest that Word states no such thing. Please provide relevant texts and make relevant arguments. I see no scriptural case for the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer.

This is one of the basics of our faith, Drew. I know you know these verses and I'm not sure how you're going to try and turn them into something other that what they plainly state, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and answer your question as if it's asked in good faith.

Here we see our sin imputed unto Christ, and His righteousness imputed unto us as we are "in Christ".

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Christ is made unto us...righteousness.

But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

In that day He will be called...The Lord our Righteousness. His righteousness becomes ours as our sin is placed on Him.

In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

It isn't our righteousness, but that which is through the faith of Christ...His righteousness.

And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:

God imputes righteousness to us...not sin.

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

 

[glorydaz]

Once again you confuse justification with sanctification. Being justified means we stand before a court of law and are declared righteous because the righteousness of Christ as been imputed unto us....it's a one time event

Again, you take liberties with what Paul actually writes:

for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

In any event, I am confident that there is no Biblical case for the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer.

This is another instance where you totally misunderstand what Paul is saying. You take one verse from the middle of Paul's argument and build a doctrine on it.

James explains...there are no "doers" that are able to keep the whole law...therefore no one is justified by being a doer. That is the point Paul was making, and you would see that if you would stop looking at verses in isolation.

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

Paul makes it clear that the "doers of the law" will not be justified in His sight...because justification comes through the faith of Jesus Christ.

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. But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

 

[Drew]

This is one of the basics of our faith, Drew. I know you know these verses and I'm not sure how you're going to try and turn them into something other that what they plainly state, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and answer your question as if it's asked in good faith.

Here we see our sin imputed unto Christ, and His righteousness imputed unto us as we are "in Christ".

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

All right, let's talk about this text. Now please - respond to the actual content of the argument I am making.

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.

 

[francisdesales]

You are confused because you still live under the Law...You think men must be perfect to enter heaven, and thus, falsely manufacture this idea that Christ "covers" us and the Father (whom you apparently think is fooled by this) doesn't recognize who is sneaking into heaven. The Bible says NO ONE unclean shall enter into heaven.

But I guess you are forced to ignore that verse, as well as this one:

Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. 2 peter 1:4

Remain in your filthy rags, if you like. God has promised us much more than that pitiful "theology" presents. Read the earliest Christians' comments on this matter. "God became man so that we could become gods". There is no need to invent such ridiculous things that makes the Father LIE about our sanctification while actually "looking at Christ"!!!

WE ARE MADE HOLY!

Or do you doubt God can do it?

You must not understand what being under the law means, Joe, if you accuse me of being under it. On the contrary, I'm not the one who believes I can be made righteous by it's keeping.

If you think one must be perfect to prove you are "saved" to everyone and yourself, you are still under the Law.

I have asked you for evidence that one must be perfect while under Grace. Can you provide it, or must we again rely on "glorydaz said so"?

You seem to want your cake and eat it, too, when you say man doesn't have to be perfect to enter heaven and then quote scripture that says NO ONE unclean shall enter heaven.

Several things are at work here.

First of all, God provides purgation, either in this life or the next. Perfection will be achieved by the mercy of God. REAL perfection, not fake perfection where I personally am filthy rags. What sort of heaven is that, where we are ACTUALLY not purified and holy in love??? Sanctification takes place.

In your scheme, there is no need for sanctification, IS there???

Secondly, it is those under the Law who must strive for perfection. Why? Because they demand payment from God. We have already discussed Romans 4:4 and the meaning of "work". Work to attain heaven expects a reward. Thus, James says one must be perfect (under the Law), since perfection is the only thing that God would accept for the reward earned of heaven.

Thus, there is no need to be absolutely perfect before I die. God's mercy will complete what He began.

Believers do not have their own righteousness

True, and for some strange reason, you keep repeating something I agreed with LONG TIME ago... Rather than re-accusing me of this, try to understand my explanations. It is MY righteousness, but not of my own making. IT IS MINE NOW!

Are you familiar with a gift??? It is GIVEN TO ME, for heaven's sake...

when you give gifts to your wife, are they still yours? Your kids? You give them stuff, but then you say "that ball is not yours, it is really mine, you filthy rag."... what sort of God do you envision, if even YOU do not do such things?

Please. Get on board, here, we are talking about real life here...

That is why Christ's righteousness is imputed to us...as the Word clearly states.

It does and more. It says we share in the divine nature. We are not just CALLED righteous while remaining evil. We ARE RIGHTEOUS, because righteousness Himself is infused within us. It is now part of us, OURS. It says the Christ comes to abide in us, more personally then even our spouses. It says that there is a close synergy between Him and I. It says we have been GIVEN GIFTS of faith, hope, and love...

What becomes of your 'filthy rags', then??? That dies! but you prefer to remain in those rags and pretend being holy when God says we can BECOME HOLY - that we are TO BE holy, as the Father?

 

[francisdesales]

Once again you confuse justification with sanctification. Being justified means we stand before a court of law and are declared righteous because the righteousness of Christ as been imputed unto us....it's a one time event. Sanctification is an on-going process where we grow into holiness by the work of the Spirit within us.

Once again, you state things without thinking of the ramifications. Thus, you remain blind to the shortcomings of the reformation's soteriological formulas.

Let's try this another way, maybe the light will turn on...

Now, if Jesus' righteousness is imputed to us, and we cannot lose that ...

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF SANCTIFICATION????

WHY must I become holy, endure sufferings, die to self, pray, and all of those things that make me more like Christ, IF CHRIST COVERS ME ENTIRELY WITH HIS OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS???

For heaven's sake, is my righteousness going to outdo Christ's? Why does the Father bother to make me holy IF I am already imputed with perfect righteousness???

And pray tell how an evil man, simply covered, but not really holy, is going to actually SHARE in the divine nature???? More sophistry?

Please explain, as I am totally lost on this silliness and am amazed that more people do not just sit back and think about the actual meaning of such musings...

 

[lovely]

Ephesians 2:8-10
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

We are saved by grace through our faith, but that we are His workmanship and are meant to perform good works that God prepared for us to do. Jesus said that if we love Him, we will keep His commandments...Loving God with all, and others, which is the fulfillment of the Law in us. God will complete the work He has begun in us.

John makes it clear that Love will cause us to do charitable works, and James tells us that we are justified by our faith works, which can only be done 'in Christ'. All that's done for Christ will last, but the rest will not, and of the gifts, Love is the only one eternal. Faith includes works, and our love for God and others compels us to act with the help of the Holy Spirit. When we consider the parable of the sheep and the goats, it's what the sheep did and what the goats didn't do that made the difference.