Ignoring Romans 2: An Error of Exegisis

[LaCrum]

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.

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.

Both of these quotes are absolutely shocking in the sense that they go against the most basic meaning of the New Covenant, Christ becoming the Covenant Head - representation of humanity before God. Amazing.

 

[glorydaz]

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.

No, Drew...that is not what Paul is saying. Sin was not punished...it was condemned. We are dead to sin ...it no longer has power over us. Christ judged the power of sin over the flesh/u]. Sin has no more dominion over us. No wonder it didn't sound familiar ... it isn't...it's more like a "familiar spirit", if you ask me. It's no wonder you don't understand what Paul says in Romans 8.

Believers are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit. The body is dead because of sin...but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. That simply means we are dead to sin...Christ took our sin unto Himself on the cross and we took Christ and His righteousness unto us. It's imputed righteousness looking you right in the face and still you deny it. You need to look closely at exactly what you do believe, Drew, because it is not matching up with the Word of God.

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

Condemned sin in the flesh has nothing to do with punishing sin. It means sin has no more dominion over the believer who is a spiritual man as opposed to a natural man of the flesh.

This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of the flesh.

I have to say, Drew. For all your talk of "honoring" Paul, you certainly play fast and loose with everything he says. These are very simple and long-held concepts here, I'm really quite perplexed as to why you are unable to grasp them.

 

[francisdesales]

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.

[quote:2jr77wv2]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.

Both of these quotes are absolutely shocking in the sense that they go against the most basic meaning of the New Covenant, Christ becoming the Covenant Head - representation of humanity before God. Amazing.[/quote:2jr77wv2]


Yes, Jesus is our representative - and all that He is, we are enabled to become, on a lower scale. Thus, if we say Jesus is holy, we must also say that man in general can become holy - NOT PRETEND that we are holy.

Regards

 

[glorydaz]

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.

You predict incorrectly. I guess prophecy isn't your gift. LOL

In the first place...it isn't "punished, it's condemned". You're the one who keeps saying punished, and your translation, once again, is leading you down the wrong path. Condemned "in the flesh" is talking about the power sin has always had over the flesh of men. "Condemned sin in the flesh" is speaking of stripping sin of it's power to hold the entire race of man captive in sin. The wages of sin is death, and that penalty had to be executed. It was executed on Christ on our behalf. He took the penalty for our sin and gave us His righteousness when we were saved. That's how we're justified before God. We're in Christ, so when God looks at us He sees the righteousness of Christ and our sins are not imputed to us. Our sin was imputed to Him and His righteousness was imputed to us. It's really just that simple.

 

[glorydaz]

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.

It is the righteousness of God...Jesus is God come in the flesh. It had to be God who came...it has to be His righteousness because no human "ambassador" can stand before the glory of God.

In Greek the word for righteousness is dikaiosune, which literally means equity of character. Equity of character is to possess all good qualities in perfection and perfect balance. The qualities of God are the attributes of God. His communicable attributes are love, justice, holiness, truth, mercy, wisdom and power. He alone possesses these qualities or attributes in perfection and perfect balance. Therefore only God is righteous. Man can NEVER attain to the righteousness of God. It has to be through Jesus Christ that man can ever enter into the presence of God. We can do that the very moment Christ's righteousness has been imputed unto us. We can come boldly before the throne, and that is the ony way we can do so.

 

[glorydaz]

It is MY righteousness, but not of my own making. IT IS MINE NOW!

This is really too much. It is not your righteousness, Joe. I'm amazed by what you say. You are not even close to being righteous. You are very close to sounding like the pharisees, however, and they were called whited sepulchres.

If Christ is turning you into the righteousness of God, you're clearly not ever going to have boldness to enter through the veil. Why did Christ rend it if we can't enter through? A little bit of righteousness won't allow you to get close to God.

Your very words, "It is mine now" exhalts self. Pride is written with the letters "I", "ME", and "MINE".

But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

We are made holy (sanctified) through faith and obedience. We are servants...not gods. As we obey, we draw closer to the image of Christ, but the righteousness by which we come before the throne is never ours to claim. Even with the Holy Spirit leading and guiding us, we should never rob the glory from God by claiming His fruit is our own, or righteousness is ours. Humility is dreadfully lacking in your doctrine.

 

[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. 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...

It's the basic Gospel, Joe. I'm surprised you haven't heard it.

Let me spell it our for you. While we were yet sinners, we are justified before God by faith...when we believed. Now we stand innocent of sin (for Christ took it), and we are counted righteous before God because we are IN CHRIST. That is our legal standing before God. Justified by faith.

From the moment of our new birth, the Holy Spirit begins a work in us called sanctification. We now are called to grow in grace and faith. We now begin to take on the mind of Christ and bring our bodies and souls (will, mind, and emotion) under subjection to the spirit (which has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit). Our journey on this earth is one of sanctification...becoming like Christ. How far each of us goes on that path does not affect our salvation or the justification we received when we were born of God. It becomes a question of maturity...some remain babes and some grow into old men.

 

[glorydaz]

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.

[quote:2ua57ett]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.

Both of these quotes are absolutely shocking in the sense that they go against the most basic meaning of the New Covenant, Christ becoming the Covenant Head - representation of humanity before God. Amazing.

Yes, Jesus is our representative - and all that He is, we are enabled to become, on a lower scale. Thus, if we say Jesus is holy, we must also say that man in general can become holy - NOT PRETEND that we are holy.

Regards[/quote:2ua57ett]

You're the only one talking about "pretending". After salvation, we are empowered by the Holy Spirit to walk in newness of life. That is the process of sanctification. When we're saved, we are "set apart" and no longer held hostage by death, but are free to live the life God desires of us.

Even though we have been "set apart" as God's children, we continue to behave in ways that are contrary...there is a battle between our old sin-led nature and new Spirit-led nature.

For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.

Like Paul, our desire is to please and obey God, but our flesh is weak making sin difficult to resist. It is in our continual struggle with sin and obedience to God that sanctification does its work.

 

[francisdesales]

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...

It's the basic Gospel, Joe. I'm surprised you haven't heard it.

Let me spell it our for you. While we were yet sinners, we are justified before God by faith...when we believed.

I thought you said we were justified by the faith of Jesus Christ (in what, remains unexplained by you, as much of your disconnected scheme...). Thus, what does our belief have anything to do with the Faith OF Jesus Christ??? Now, you are changing again, just as Scriptures note of such false teachings... It proposes to be everything, but is nothing, since it collapses upon itself when someone ACTUALLY thinks about it...

You are confused and I will give you an opportunity to get all this in order... You have not told me WHY sanctification is necessary, either. I know what it is, according to the Bible, but in your scheme, why do we need to be sanctified? We are COVERED by perfection!!!

Trust me on this, I am quite familiar with the Gospel, and if you even got a whiff of what it was, you'd be amazed to find out how sola fide falls short.

We become like God. Not your pretend stuff...

 

[francisdesales]

You're the only one talking about "pretending".

that's because you are too embarrassed to admit where your scheme takes you. We are 'covered'. It is not ours. We pretend to be holy, but are not really holy, it is only Christ that the Father sees.

It's pretend holiness, GD, whether you don't want to admit it or not....

what is interesting is how people of the OT were holy, but now, with the new "scheme" that you propose, people have to fake it...

After salvation, we are empowered by the Holy Spirit to walk in newness of life. That is the process of sanctification. When we're saved, we are "set apart" and no longer held hostage by death, but are free to live the life God desires of us.

For what reason does this happen, yet again I ask, if Christ's faith ALONE saves, not ours. We count towards NOTHING in salvation, filthy rags, you call yourself... Our sanctification is pointless, since God sees only Christ's perfection.

How long are you going to ignore this? tell me why God sanctifies us, if we are imputed with perfect righteousness and God overlooks our sin - and of course, the icing on the cake, we cannot lose this perfection, no matter how much I sin!!!

:gah I can barely contain myself from such a twisting of the Gospel...

GD, I don't know if you have ever sat down and thought this through, but it is quite apparent to me that you do not understand the implications of your scheme... It has too many loose threads, too many contradictions.

 

[glorydaz]

It's the basic Gospel, Joe. I'm surprised you haven't heard it.

Let me spell it our for you. While we were yet sinners, we are justified before God by faith...when we believed.

I thought you said we were justified by the faith of Jesus Christ (in what, remains unexplained by you, as much of your disconnected scheme...). Thus, what does our belief have anything to do with the Faith OF Jesus Christ??? Now, you are changing again, just as Scriptures note of such false teachings... It proposes to be everything, but is nothing, since it collapses upon itself when someone ACTUALLY thinks about it...

You are confused and I will give you an opportunity to get all this in order... You have not told me WHY sanctification is necessary, either. I know what it is, according to the Bible, but in your scheme, why do we need to be sanctified? We are COVERED by perfection!!!

Trust me on this, I am quite familiar with the Gospel, and if you even got a whiff of what it was, you'd be amazed to find out how sola fide falls short.

We become like God. Not your pretend stuff...

We are justified by the faith of Christ...I can't help it if you think your own faith justifies you before God. As I've explained...His faith flows into us like living water when we but touch the rock. As we look upon the object that contains all grace and faith, we receive that measure of faith and believe.

At which time it is "accounted to us" as righteousness..not that we become righteous or perfect ourselves (we're just born babes), but God sees us as righteous because we are now IN CHRIST. Then, and only then, are we set apart...ordained to good deeds...filled with the Spirit and can begin our walk in this newness of life. That process of growth is what's called sanctification. We certainly have no righteousness of our own when we're first born of the Spirit. As we abide in Christ, He is the source of our strength...His Spirit produces fruit in our lives and we grow in wisdom and grace.

Sanctification is necessary because we're to bring our whole spirit, soul and body into subjection. The righteousness that justified us was not our own, but Christ's. We are now to learn to walk in a way that is acceptable to the God we serve....and our salvation does not depend upon our being holy and unblameable before God. If our salvation depended upon our righteousness...none would be saved. Even with the Holy Spirit's help, man could never obtain the righteousness God requires to come into His presence.

 

[glorydaz]

You're the only one talking about "pretending".

that's because you are too embarrassed to admit where your scheme takes you. We are 'covered'. It is not ours. We pretend to be holy, but are not really holy, it is only Christ that the Father sees.

It's pretend holiness, GD, whether you don't want to admit it or not....

what is interesting is how people of the OT were holy, but now, with the new "scheme" that you propose, people have to fake it...

It isn't my "scheme" and I'm not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ. You may pretend to be holy...that's actually a good call on yourself, Joe. And what OT people would it be that were "holy"? Abraham? David? Are you sure you've read the OT? We needed God to come down to earth in human form in order to get someone holy enough to die in our stead, and you stand there claiming anyone can do it. I submit you don't understand the word "holy" or "righteous. If you say you do not sin, you are a liar. One sin means you're not holy or righteous...in spite of how many times you claim to be.

It's a work of God that we believe. What....do you want to take credit for in this FREE GIFT FROM GOD? Do you get credit for reaching out and taking it? No, you get life if you do, and death if you don't.

After salvation, we are empowered by the Holy Spirit to walk in newness of life. That is the process of sanctification. When we're saved, we are "set apart" and no longer held hostage by death, but are free to live the life God desires of us.

For what reason does this happen, yet again I ask, if Christ's faith ALONE saves, not ours. We count towards NOTHING in salvation, filthy rags, you call yourself... Our sanctification is pointless, since God sees only Christ's perfection.

Wow...now you've got it. We count towards NOTHING in our own salvation. It was Christ's work on the cross and the grace of God that saved you, Joe. You didn't resist when you were drawn...WOW, I'm impressed.

How long are you going to ignore this? tell me why God sanctifies us, if we are imputed with perfect righteousness and God overlooks our sin - and of course, the icing on the cake, we cannot lose this perfection, no matter how much I sin!!!

:gah I can barely contain myself from such a twisting of the Gospel...

GD, I don't know if you have ever sat down and thought this through, but it is quite apparent to me that you do not understand the implications of your scheme... It has too many loose threads, too many contradictions.

We are imputed with perfect righteousness in order to get justified. It's acccounted as our righteousness in the same way our sin was accounted to Christ so He could suffer the penalty instead of us. The life that we now live (by the faith of Jesus Christ)...yet not I, but He lives in me. We die to self and live for Christ. We've been bought and paid for. We are no longer our own to claim righteousness for ourselves. No more self, Joe. Think about that.

 

[stranger]

francisdesales wrote:

Yes, Jesus is our representative - and all that He is, we are enabled to become, on a lower scale. Thus, if we say Jesus is holy, we must also say that man in general can become holy - NOT PRETEND that we are holy.

Regards

Hi francis,

If the argument is traced back to Adam. He imaged' God's original righteousness or holiness before the fall. Adam then lost/forfeited the original righteousness. So man can be holy and he can lose it. This raises the question can man regain that (real) original holiness?

blessings brother

 

[ivdavid]

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???

Fds, you become holy, endure sufferings, die to self, pray, and all of those things that make you more like Christ BECAUSE Christ has covered you with His own righteousness.

I love the way John Newton put it -

T'was Grace that taught my heart to fear.
And Grace, my fears relieved.
How precious did that Grace appear
The hour I first believed.

So let's not go about making holiness a "work" that can save us. Let's get this very clear - "works" are what make you merit salvation by crediting you with righteousness; "fruit of the Spirit" is what you do out of love for God which credits nothing to your righteousness or salvation - for salvation is a free gift and you are justified and saved by grace alone. All your righteousness is only Christ's righteousness which you rely on through faith.

To impute is to apply a legal term to something, but its reality does not change.

I'm not entirely sure what the confusion regarding imputation is. Let's try and sort it out here -
Rom 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Rom 4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

What does the phrase "sins are covered" mean? Who covers my sins? If it's not me, then are not my sins imputed to that other Person? And for a person to carry my sins, that Person should be perfectly righteous, right? So, by the very nature of my sins being imputed to that Person, i have that Person's righteousness imputed to me.

Any confusion here, i imagine, rises from a blindness to our sins. There aren't 3 states before God - sinful, neutral, righteous. There are only 2 states - sinful,righteous. Until conversion, I'm a sinner - implies I'm not righteous. At conversion, I am forgiven my sins based on Christ's sacrifice on the cross. My sins are covered by Christ. And I am allowed to partake in this free gift of grace through faith. So when I believe in Christ, I'm believing that His sacrifice is sufficient to absolve me of all my sins - I believe that He will lead me as Lord and Master into eternal life. So if all my sins are removed me, doesn't this imply that I'm declared righteous before God. But is this righteousness mine? Did I do anything to be justified as righteous? Then isn't this called imputed righteousness?

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.

Glorydaz was right on the money while guessing that self-pride was the obstacle here - I tried denying that - i thought we were only missing out on language - but the problem seems deeper.

You're absolutely right, fds. Man gets NO credit for the work of salvation. What credit do you get for Christ's work on the cross? Were you not a puppet, a passive bystander when Christ was crucified because of your sins? God does thrust man out of the way and takes his place to redeem man from the law of sin and death. But I disagree with the conclusion that man's nature remains the same. Man's nature is regenerated when being justified by Christ's blood through faith. But regeneration is an independent event apart from the justifying work of Christ.

Tell me, do you even believe in the doctrine of regeneration? If so, what is it according to you? Aren't you given a new heart and a renewed spirit? Aren't you given a heart of flesh that loves God in place of your heart of stone? Then how can a regenerated person continue to walk in unrepentant sin? Isn't this regenerated person, a new creature? Given a new nature, this person is eager to please God and walk in His statutes - not for saving himself - but to glorify and honor God by loving Him and being loved by Him. It's a relationship with God. If I die with Christ to rise up a new creature who has life in Christ, then how can I die again - unless of course, i never was known by Christ in the first place?

But the problem here seems to be about how we "maintain" this justification during our life. I don't believe a true believer has to worry about maintaining God's promise of a free gift of eternal life - he only has to be concerned with living true life in Christ, loving God, communing with the Spirit and participating in the furtherance of God's Kingdom. Besides, the just shall live by faith. We continue to believe in Christ as Lord and Master to lead us into eternal life by His work on the cross and His very nature - and this is our constant justification of imputed righteousness through faith. This is not a passive mental assent-faith - it's an active faith that makes a person conscious of what Christ has done for him and to what end, and having been regenerated with a new heart that can love God, the person strives unto holiness for the glorification of God and not for his own salvation. You're saying - only those who are holy,God will save. I'm saying - only those whom God saves, will be holy. We are preserved by God's grace alone.

But being under grace alone, the natural question to ask is - am i then free to do anything, can i commit sin too and still be saved? This question is addressed in Romans 6 and this is the perfect place for Paul to introduce or warn about a future justification/salvation based on works(if ever anything like that exists) - but No, Paul goes about explaining how true believers cannot walk in sin because of their death to sin when they died with Christ. Not a hint of any future justification - in fact, he ends Romans 6 with eternal life being a gift given to us. To quote you - "Are you familiar with a gift??? It is GIVEN TO ME, for heaven's sake..."

And what happens when you sin now, fds? Don't you go confess your sins and seek forgiveness? What exactly is happening here? Aren't you appealing to God's mercy to cover your sin? How does a Just God do that - He imputes it on Christ's atoning work. So, you are cleansed from unrighteousness into righteousness - but is it yours? If not, isn't it imputed? And what's the point in saying you'll be justified according to your good works if you aren't condemned according to your sins?

First of all, God provides purgation, either in this life or the next.

I know enough of the pagan religions to know that they purport theories on how one has a second chance to correct wrongs in his after-life/rebirth by doing good works there. Is purgation any different? And what's the Biblical basis? And Oh, are we allowed to discuss these doctrines here?

 

[francisdesales]

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???

Fds, you become holy, endure sufferings, die to self, pray, and all of those things that make you more like Christ BECAUSE Christ has covered you with His own righteousness.

I apologize, that doesn't make sense. If God doesn't look at anything I do, once covered by perfection, why is there such a huge emphasis on what I do in life, according to Scriptures???

This doctrine separates religion from morality. There's no need to be a moral person, and this is why the charge of libertinism floats around this brand of Protestantism

So let's not go about making holiness a "work" that can save us. Let's get this very clear - "works" are what make you merit salvation by crediting you with righteousness; "fruit of the Spirit" is what you do out of love for God which credits nothing to your righteousness or salvation - for salvation is a free gift and you are justified and saved by grace alone. All your righteousness is only Christ's righteousness which you rely on through faith.

While I agree that grace is INSTRUMENTAL in my salvation (both my initial justification and my ongoing justification), I think this scheme downplays the part that man MUST make. Not that he earns anything, but God, being righteous, rewards those who obey Him, even if it is human obedience out of love that is far from perfect.

It is like our smiling approval of our three year old child acting out of love for his parents. They are far from perfect, but their efforts bring out a "righteous reward" from our hearts. I see God acting in the same way, at a different level.

In addition, my righteousness is not "only Christ's righteousness". His righteousness enables me, by a freely given gift, to have a righteous relationship with God. But it is MY righteousness, just the same. It is a gift, and gifts given become MINE. They are not "borrowed" or "rented". The gift of faith given to me becomes MY faith. The gift of justification becomes MY righteousness, in God's eyes - Who now views me through Grace because of the works of Jesus on the cross.

To impute is to apply a legal term to something, but its reality does not change.

I'm not entirely sure what the confusion regarding imputation is. Let's try and sort it out here -
Rom 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Rom 4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

What does the phrase "sins are covered" mean? Who covers my sins? If it's not me, then are not my sins imputed to that other Person? And for a person to carry my sins, that Person should be perfectly righteous, right? So, by the very nature of my sins being imputed to that Person, i have that Person's righteousness imputed to me.

The sins are still there, according to classic reformation theology, they are just covered, "hidden" from the Father, so to speak. We remain a sinner and a saint at the same time. Our sins are not "REMOVED", unlike what Scriptures note, they are "COVERED". In reality, Jesus doesn't "carry" your sins - the punishment of sin is ETERNAL death, and no one is about to say that Christ remains in Hell for the sake of mankind. Jesus is a sin-offering, an expiation for sins - that's different. As a sin-offering, the Son can intercede, mediate, for the sake of mankind AS they sin, and the sin if forgiven. Sin is REALLY removed, not just covered.

Thus, imputation is legal fiction. We are declared something that we are not. The scheme demands that God pretend we are righteous...

Any confusion here, i imagine, rises from a blindness to our sins. There aren't 3 states before God - sinful, neutral, righteous. There are only 2 states - sinful,righteous. Until conversion, I'm a sinner - implies I'm not righteous. At conversion, I am forgiven my sins based on Christ's sacrifice on the cross. My sins are covered by Christ.

No, the sins are FORGIVEN, removed as the east is from the west. NEVER to be remembered again. GONE. They aren't "covered", still there, under a blanket...

And I am allowed to partake in this free gift of grace through faith. So when I believe in Christ, I'm believing that His sacrifice is sufficient to absolve me of all my sins - I believe that He will lead me as Lord and Master into eternal life. So if all my sins are removed me, doesn't this imply that I'm declared righteous before God. But is this righteousness mine? Did I do anything to be justified as righteous? Then isn't this called imputed righteousness?

Your sins are not removed, they are covered. That's Protestantism. The necessity of Christ's work COVERS your sin. It doesn't remove them, absolve them. They are still there, but covered. We REMAIN sinful men. "Sin all the more, because grace remains", Luther's twisting of Paul, who says quite the opposite rhetorically in Romans...

Imputation means we remain as we were before, except now we are given the righteousness of someone else. We are not righteous, the Christ is. And because of this, we call it "legal fiction".

God gives a gift. Accept it. We are just, righteous, being made holy. WE. By the grace of God, this is His work. There is no need for legal fiction.

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.

Glorydaz was right on the money while guessing that self-pride was the obstacle here - I tried denying that - i thought we were only missing out on language - but the problem seems deeper.

There is no self pride as long as we attribute all that we have to God. Accepting and recognizing what we have been given is not "pride". Read my signature line. Glorydaz is upset because he cannot back up his point of view, nor can he address my many questions that calls the scheme to task, so he must formulate some sort of "selfish pride", as if I take the full credit for my holiness. It is not so. I give God the credit, recognizing what He has graciously given to me.

You're absolutely right, fds. Man gets NO credit for the work of salvation. What credit do you get for Christ's work on the cross? Were you not a puppet, a passive bystander when Christ was crucified because of your sins? God does thrust man out of the way and takes his place to redeem man from the law of sin and death. But I disagree with the conclusion that man's nature remains the same. Man's nature is regenerated when being justified by Christ's blood through faith. But regeneration is an independent event apart from the justifying work of Christ.

Yes, man's nature is regenerated, and thus, there is no need to attribute to us a covering... The work of Christ enables ME, FDS, to be seen as righteous when I have faith working in love. God works through me, but it is also attributed to me. Christ, as the Mediator between God and man, ensures that my less than perfect works are seen in a positive light by God, and thus, upon judgment, I do not need to be absolutely perfect to be judged worthy of receiving eternal salvation.

Tell me, do you even believe in the doctrine of regeneration?

Are you joking?

If so, what is it according to you? Aren't you given a new heart and a renewed spirit?

Of COURSE! So why do I need to be hidden? Hasn't this sunken in yet, that my heart has been changed, Jeremiah and Ezekiel stated? Why the need to undergo legal fiction, when I am being MADE HOLY!!!

This line of questioning shows just how much classic protestantism is self-defeating.

But the problem here seems to be about how we "maintain" this justification during our life. I don't believe a true believer has to worry about maintaining God's promise of a free gift of eternal life - he only has to be concerned with living true life in Christ, loving God, communing with the Spirit and participating in the furtherance of God's Kingdom. Besides, the just shall live by faith. We continue to believe in Christ as Lord and Master to lead us into eternal life by His work on the cross and His very nature - and this is our constant justification of imputed righteousness through faith. This is not a passive mental assent-faith - it's an active faith that makes a person conscious of what Christ has done for him and to what end, and having been regenerated with a new heart that can love God, the person strives unto holiness for the glorification of God and not for his own salvation. You're saying - only those who are holy,God will save. I'm saying - only those whom God saves, will be holy. We are preserved by God's grace alone.

Everything sounded fine, you spoke about living by faith - which implies YOU are living by faith with that new heart you were given. But then, you must end it with "God's grace ALONE", giving homage to protestantism.

Do you REALLY believe we are regenerated? I contend that you do not, since you must add that "God does everything".

Sure, God's aid enables me to do ANYTHING good, but I, at the end of the day, MUST walk in faith.

I am judged based on what I do in Christ. CHRIST is not judged! I am. Did I respond to God's promptings of Love? Did I bury my talents, the gifts of God? Or did I use them? The gifts are now mine. Did I use them?

But being under grace alone, the natural question to ask is - am i then free to do anything, can i commit sin too and still be saved? This question is addressed in Romans 6 and this is the perfect place for Paul to introduce or warn about a future justification/salvation based on works(if ever anything like that exists) - but No, Paul goes about explaining how true believers cannot walk in sin

This is rhetoric, not an absolute statement that a person "saved" can NEVER return to sin. The idea is that "now that you are free, who would want to return to the slavery of sin", a rhetorical question which MOST would answer "no one"... But quite obviously, people DO return to a life of sin. This is why Paul tells the Corinthians and the Galatians that NO ONE will enter the Kingdom of they do particular acts. He tells the Hebrews that willful sin removes the saving blood of Christ from them. Peter tells us that a man once saved can return to the vomit, and become WORSE then BEFORE being saved. That clearly means he is unsaved...

No, ordinarily, the man who has been enlightened will remain on the path. But there are examples of men who do not, which tells us that Paul was not giving an absolute, but an exhortation. "True" believers will CHOOSE not to sin willfully. They make the CHOICE, based upon the promptings of the Spirit. But the Spirit can be grieved and faith can be lost over a period of time. Do you remember the parable of the sower and the seed? Luke tells us that faith can be lost, the gift squandered.

because of their death to sin when they died with Christ. Not a hint of any future justification - in fact, he ends Romans 6 with eternal life being a gift given to us. To quote you - "Are you familiar with a gift??? It is GIVEN TO ME, for heaven's sake..."

The gift is Jesus Christ's own presence, not a "get our of hell free" card... Both the evil and the good will be resurrected and have a life eternal...! There is a resurrection of the good and of the evil.

As the Bible states, we have Christ's presence clearly within us AS we obey the commandments. If we don't, then Christ is not in us. Re-read 1 John if you doubt me, the entire premise of the letter is based upon identifying That Eternal Life in us.

And what happens when you sin now, fds? Don't you go confess your sins and seek forgiveness? What exactly is happening here? Aren't you appealing to God's mercy to cover your sin?

I do, but I am asking that God REMOVE them, not just cover them... They are no longer on my soul, and when I return to God after such sin, I am forgiven and am renewed.

How does a Just God do that - He imputes it on Christ's atoning work. So, you are cleansed from unrighteousness into righteousness - but is it yours? If not, isn't it imputed?

It is mine, I am imputed with righteousness and AM righteous, infused. I am not just called just, I now AM just, in God's eyes, because of what Christ did on the cross. There is no legal fiction. God changes our hearts, doesn't he? This is the point where classic protestantism falls apart, contradicting itself. On the one hand, they speak of regeneration, but then, they don't really believe it, and must contend a legal fiction where God pretends that we are regenerated and applies the perfect righteousness of Christ to us, overlooking, covering our unregenerated and filthy rags...

First of all, God provides purgation, either in this life or the next.

I know enough of the pagan religions to know that they purport theories on how one has a second chance to correct wrongs in his after-life/rebirth by doing good works there. Is purgation any different?

Clearly, you don't understand the concept of purgation, there is no "second chance" and we don't do good works there. EVERYONE in Purgatory is saved, going to heaven. It is an opportunity to become fully holy if we didn't do so on earth - this holiness is not achieved by good works, but by purgation. It is a work of God's Mercy.

But this is an aside, we have other things to discuss here...

Regards

 

[Drew]

You predict incorrectly. I guess prophecy isn't your gift. LOL

In the first place...it isn't "punished, it's condemned". You're the one who keeps saying punished, and your translation, once again, is leading you down the wrong path. Condemned "in the flesh" is talking about the power sin has always had over the flesh of men.

No gd! Please - I believe I have already addressed this. The word rendered as "condemned" in Romans 8:3 is the word "katakrino". As you have already been told, the definition of this word is as follows:

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

In the following, you do what you always do - you bend the meaning of words and statements beyond any reason. You need to say that "katakrino" is devoid of implications of punishment. Well, you cannot do that, at least not legitimately.

The word means what it means! Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else can take this word and bend it into a statement like this;

"Condemned sin in the flesh" is speaking of stripping sin of it's power to hold the entire race of man captive in sin.

“Katakrino†does not denote “stripping of power†– it denotes what it denotes!! Condemnation, punishment, etc.

 

[Drew]

Fds, you become holy, endure sufferings, die to self, pray, and all of those things that make you more like Christ BECAUSE Christ has covered you with His own righteousness.

I see no evidence at all in the Scriptures for this notion of the imputation, as ascription, of the righteousness of Christ to the believer.

Yes, we are ascribed a state of righteousness, which is effectively an "anticipation" of a positive outcome to the future "good works" judgement. But I see no specifically Biblical evidence for the view that it is specificallyt Christ's righteousness that we get. Please note - to be declared "righteous", one need not be ascribed somebody else's righteous state. When a person is acquitted in a court, he is not told "you have been given the righteousness of such and such a person". No, that person is simply declared to be "in the right", at least from the legal perspective.

Perhaps you can tell me what texts you see as endorsing such a position. But, please, see my response to gd in respect to the 1 Corinthians 5:21 text. I went to considerable effort to make a detailed argument. If you are going to assert that 1 Cor 5:21 supports the notion of imputation, you need to actually engage my argument and appropriately critique it.

Also, please answer my question directed to you re what Paul means in Romans 2:6-7.

 

[Drew]

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???

Good point. Paul talks over and over again about a process whereby the Spirit molds the believer into image of Jesus. However, if we commit to this (non-Biblical) idea that Christ's righteousness is "instantly" imputed to the believer, then we basically triviliaze and dismiss as basically irrelevant the oft-repeated assertions by Paul about how the Spirit molds the person, over the course of time, into the kind of person who will - surprise surprise - pass the Romans 2 judgment that so many here seem to want to sweep under the carpet.

 

[francisdesales]

This is really too much. It is not your righteousness, Joe. I'm amazed by what you say. You are not even close to being righteous. You are very close to sounding like the pharisees, however, and they were called whited sepulchres.

Sorry, I missed this one...

GD, it is my righteousness. Jesus said that MY righteousness must exceed that of the Pharisees. He then proceeds to tell us how that can happen. A proper inner disposition. That is the KEY difference between good works of love and good works to earn something. The Pharisees did not have a true relationship with God - NOT because of what they did, but HOW they went about doing it and the resultant arrogance. They bragged that they fasted more often than usual, and thus, "God owes me". The prophets constantly are speaking about ritual done for the sake of self-righteousness. God desires a rending of the heart, not the garments.

Jesus taught the exact same thing. Not one ioata of the Law is done away with, Jesus is calling that the Law be done for the correct reasons, as God intended. Those who Jesus calls "white sepulchres" he does because of their inner intent. The white exterior hides the inner rot of the grave, correct? The corruption is hidden by the good deeds. Jesus compliments scribes and pharisees who DO have the right mentality, remember?

This is key, GD, because works of themselves is not the issue, and thus, there is no need to invent "the righteousness of Christ covers me and my imperfection". God desires from us proper inner dispositions. We give a glass of water and are found worthy of eternal life (Mat 25). Not because of the work, but because we are becoming like God, giving for the sake of giving, loving because we are "mirrors" of Jesus Christ, true God AND true man.

Do I take credit for it, in as much as I derived this from myself? No. It is a freely given gift, GIVEN to me for a purpose, and does NOT require a perfect righteousness ON TOP of that gift! We are not under the Law. James states that those under the Law require perfection.

If Christ is turning you into the righteousness of God, you're clearly not ever going to have boldness to enter through the veil. Why did Christ rend it if we can't enter through? A little bit of righteousness won't allow you to get close to God.

Untrue, I don't require to be perfect to enter into the "Temple", as you imply. Were the Jewish High Priests perfect? Jesus is the sin offering for the sake of the world. The point of the Jewish Priest entering the Temple was to provide the sin offering to God for the sake of the People. HE interceded to God, calling upon Him to forgive our sins. NOW, we have a better sin offering. We have Christ INTERCEDING, present tense, for us.

"Forgive them Father, see what I have done for their sake"?

How could the Father refuse such a request from His Son, esp. when His justice is fulfilled in Christ's work at Calvary? God's mercy, thus, doesn't require us to be PERFECT, and there is no need of a legal fiction.

THIS IS WHY SANCTIFICATION is VITAL for us. In your scheme, it is not needed, it doesn't add one iota to how God sees us individually. We will not exceed that perfection. Thus, a great amount of Scriptures is useless, all that NT stuff about morality and ethics and being made holy...

Your very words, "It is mine now" exhalts self.

Long time ago, I worried about that, and for awhile, it kept me out of ministry. Until I read St. Francis de Sales book called "An Introduction to the Devout Life". I quote from it in my signature line. There is no need to worry about pride if one keeps that in mind, and after 10 years, I have found it to be excellent advice. While I am not perfectly humble, I am light years ahead of what I was 10 years ago...

The gift is mine, but it remains a gift, something that I did not do on my own.

We are made holy (sanctified) through faith and obedience. We are servants...not gods. As we obey, we draw closer to the image of Christ, but the righteousness by which we come before the throne is never ours to claim. Even with the Holy Spirit leading and guiding us, we should never rob the glory from God by claiming His fruit is our own, or righteousness is ours. Humility is dreadfully lacking in your doctrine.

I KNOW about sanctification! The question I am asking, and you refuse to let me in on it, is WHY IS SANCTIFICATION NEEDED IN YOUR SCHEME OF PERFECT "COVERING"???

I can be the most arrogant person on earth, and CHOOSE to remain that way, although professing my faith in Christ, by your scheme, since Christ's perfect righteousness covers me completely. Christ will tell such a man "I never knew you"... Christ only "knows" (in the Biblical, intimate way) those who have the proper disposition towards God.

Luther said we were like mounds of dung covered with fresh snow. In God's eyes, we looked really nice... Tell me, what is the point of sanctification under such an analogy???

 

[Drew]

I have to say, Drew. For all your talk of "honoring" Paul, you certainly play fast and loose with everything he says. These are very simple and long-held concepts here, I'm really quite perplexed as to why you are unable to grasp them.

I cannot allow this outrageous statement to go unchallenged.

Who is it that takes Paul at his word in Romans 2:6-7?

Me. It is you, gd, who, intentionally or otherwise simply refuse to accept the text as it reads - you deny what any 7th grader would see, that the text makes an assertion about the granting of eternal life in the future.

Who is it that takes Paul at his word in Romans 8 where Paul says those who walk in the Spirit get life?

Me again, It is you who cannot, or will not, take the text as written but instead insist that Paul is mistaken here and that life is granted based on something other than what Paul says it is based on.

Who is it who reads Romans 8:3 and uses the proper meaning for the Greek word "katakrino"?

Me again. It is you who somehow think you can redefine the word to suit your purposes.

Time and time again you do this - bend what Paul says out of all reasonable shape. And time and time again, I am doing the exact opposite - honouring what Paul says even if it requires a re-thinking of some traditionally accepted doctrines.