glorydaz said:
francisdesales said:
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...
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...
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".
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...
This is nothing more than slander. A pack of lies from start to finish.
Because you don't understand what "covered" means, you think you can make up a lie and have it believed. There isn't a believer here that isn't retching at your words. Just as the blood "covered" the door post during the Passover, Jesus' blood means the death angel passes over us. No one knows better than a Protestant why the Catholic Church was left behind. It's because of this garbage you're putting forth. Our sins are gone...all of them. Past, present and future. Our "unrighteousness" is "covered" by His righteous robe. Not our sins...they are gone.
I left my post intact, so that you can later address the supposed slander of my post, "from start to finish". This appears to be an overreacting drama at work here. I have accurately laid out the classic sola fide response.
First of all, this is not a "Catholic" v "Protestant" issue. While it is true that sola fide is one of the classic pillars of the reformation, many non-Catholic Christians no longer see the Protestant reaction to Rome on this manner as correct. A number of Evangelicals and even many of the classic Protestants out there no longer believe in sola fide, but take on a much more "Catholic" take on justification, sanctification, and final entrance into heaven. The Reformation apparently was an overreaction to the need to reform some abuses in the Catholic Church. All we have to do is look at the various backgrounds of the posters who oppose you! Drew, Lovely, and a number of others who have posted only a few times disagree with sola fide, WHILE remaining in a faith community other than Roman Catholic...
Secondly, I posit that you do not know what "cover" means and how you use it in your scheme. Your explanation is yet again another contradiction, more sophistry. "
Unrighteousness" is covered, but sins are removed??? Sin and unrighteousness are synonymous, where one is, the other is there, also. Thus, it makes little sense that sin is removed, while unrighteousness remains. A person is righteous when they do right, when they do not sin - or when sin is REMOVED!!
We can go all the way back to the FIRST Creation. Paul calls regeneration a "new Creation". He clearly had in mind the "old creation". And what happened? "
God created... AND IT WAS GOOD"!
What God creates is good. There is no need to foist an alien righteousness on something because of the new creation's "unrighteousness". God desires to CREATE a "pure heart" and to "renew a steadfast spirit" within us.
Yes, Christ is righteous, but so is one who does good in God's eyes -
He who does what is right is righteous, just as HE (Christ) is righteous. 1 John 3:7
The degree of our sins and faults are not at issue here (as though one needs to be perfect - this is a reversion to the Law, again...), because earlier, John tells us that we HAVE AN ADVOCATE. NOW! For the purpose of asking for forgiveness of sins. (1 John 1:8-10). Our newest sins are set aside, as John tells us we are righteous!!! WE are righteous, not that we are "covered" with someone else's righteousness or faith...
The idea of imputing ANOTHER person's righteousness with the intent to COVER means that something still remains within us. Sin. Unrighteousness. As usual, sola fide fails to take into account all that the Bible says on the subject.
To cover something means that something is still present but hidden... SIN!
And Luther makes that perfectly clear when he tells us to sin, and sin all the more, because grace abounds, turning Romans upside down. If you have a problem with that, I suggest you bring out evidence that tells me what you suggest, that sin is removed while unrighteous remains. At least Luther and Calvin were consistent. You are not.
glorydaz said:
And you'd better hope God "pretends" you're righteous because it's obvious you're not. lol
I choose not to stoop to your level. My arguments are solid enough without having to revert to such childish antics...
glorydaz said:
Just because the Lord forgave you sin, Joe, does not mean that you will eventually be like God. You will never, in your wildest dreams, be like God. God is God and you are but His creation.
I will share in the divine nature. That is a gift from above. THAT, my friend, IS the Gospel. To become divinized. We are not just being saved from temporal issues, like our Jewish predecessors,
we are being FORMED into a new creation, one that is a return to our original state, and to become like the Second Adam (Stranger, a non-Catholic, does a good job explaining this viewpoint of the first Christians).
I am but a creation, but God has decided to give me such a wonderful gift. I won't become omniscent or all powerful, but I will become more like Christ was in the flesh - forgiving, merciful, loving, obedient, totally giving of myself to the Father. Christ was the visible manifestation of the Father, and in those ways, I can become as God, but on a lower scale.
glorydaz said:
I notice you add, "in God's eyes". That means Christ's righteousness has been imputed unto you.
I am not sure of the mentality that comes to that conclusion, but trust me, that is NOT what I had in mind, nor do I see that requirement. Perhaps those who read the Bible through the sola fide fallacy, that might be so...
But to me, it is clear that "dikaiosune" conveys a recognition of one's INDIVIDUAL righteousness. Jesus says OUR righteousness must exceed the Pharisees. You ignore that. You rarely cite Jesus because you realize that Jesus does not support sola fide, nor does He suggest that HIS "faith" or righteousness will cover anyone.
We are deemed righteous because we are made righteous, not because we are covered and given someone else's righteousness. That is just not found in the Bible. It is strictly a tradition of men from the 16th century that unfortunately STILL tickles the ears of men...
glorydaz said:
You aren't righteous or just, righteousness is not being "infused" into you. What is happening is you're being sanctified...growing to be more like Christ. All that slander against Protestants, and it turns out you believe the same thing we do. Ya gotta love it. :biglaugh
More childish antics. Rather than actually refute my arguments, you just wallow in self-righteousness without actually proving anything but the fact that your argument grows weaker by the day.
You speak of sanctification, but you, Calvin, and Luther cannot explain what is the POINT of sanctification if we are covered with an alien righteousness, one that is NEVER ours. Thus, you yet again contradict Scriptures.
The slander is not against Protestants, it is against sola fide, a false gospel. Those who treat is as a god have some serious issues, especially when it has been so mistreated and shown for what it is on these threads lately, from Protestants and Catholics... You prefer your beloved theology to the Word of God, even when it clearly refutes you... I am beginning to see the frustration Jesus must have experienced when He spoke to the Pharisees who thought they knew the Scriptures...
To summarize our discussions of late, showing the futility of sola fide,
Our discussion on James "
just in God's eyes" v "just in man's eyes". I have clearly shown your inability to read what the Bible clearly says. The only thing lacking is your final admittance to being wrong. James clearly says Abraham was declared just by God at the altar, so being just in human eyes is ruled out absolutely. This of itself begins the death knell of sola fide...
Our discussion on
justification "one time only" vs "over the course of our lives", again, is a lack of your Scriptural knowledge, since you seemed clueless on James stating that Abraham was declared just, yet again, YEARS after the promise was given. In addition, Hebrews discusses a THIRD time he was declared just. Thus, Abraham was declared just over and over again by God. This doesn't fit with sola fide, so rather than follow God's Word, you kick at the goad...
Our discussion on
imputed with righteousness of Christ v infused justification is clearly a manufactured point of view from your stance, since the Bible doesn't support ANOTHER person's righteousness being applied to the Christian. The way we are imputed justification is that God says so. We are "legally" declared just. But when God SAYS something, IT IS SO!!! Thus, we are also INFUSED with justification, it becomes ours, a gift, just as faith, hope, and works of love are gifts moved by God. There is no need to foist an alien covering upon us to hide us and our sins from the eyes of the Father, since we BECOME righteous...
The discussion on
faith "in" Christ v faith "of" Christ justifies. No matter HOW much you stress
Christ's righteousness or "faith" (which you never explain, you just ignore the implications!),
you CANNOT escape the fact that the faith of the individual must be of a CERTAIN QUALITY in order to receive divine righteousness. "Saving faith" is required to receive righteousness, and as soon as you introduce such a variable and require that someone have a certain level of faith PRIOR to being justified, then the determination of whether the individual receives
justification squarely falls on that man's shoulder, NOT Christ. It is the MAN'S faith or lack thereof that is judged, not Christ's faith. Yet again, you propose another contradiction, one that the Bible does not support.
If the faith "OF" Christ justified, then EVERYONE is just in God's eyes and there is no need to worry about saving faith! First you do away with sanctification, now you do away with man's need to repent and believe. Clearly, another contradiction of your point of view with the Bible. Have you read the Gospels???
From the dawn of time, God demands our obedience and faith in Him, and it is made clear that we have within us the ability, given to us by God. Even from the first family, this is not something new!!!
And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? if thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee [shall be] his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. Gen 4:6-7
Maybe you should remind God about total depravity...
Mine and Drew's defense of Romans 2 is not something just taken upon one verse. You clearly misunderstand the bigger picture. Throughout Scriptures, God notes that man can obey Him (forget about filthy rags, that is out of context) and that He desires men with a clean conscience. God desires an inner disposition, not merely external works while having an evil disposition (which was what "filthy rags" refers to...)
Back to Cain and Abel, why was Abel's gift accepted, while Cain's was not? Internal disposition. God desires those who seek Him. This is not something new. And since God cares for ALL mankind, (is He not the God of the Ethiopians, according to Amos??? The God of the Assyrians, according to Jonah???) even the pagan has access to a law written on the heart by which they are able to properly seek out God. While this may be a surprise to self-righteous Jews and you, it has always been the way of God, and Paul explains this to self-righteous Jews in Romans 2. There is no need to twist Scriptures to invent a false "faith v works" battle.
We need God to seek God, and as we obey that inner law, we are seen as righteous in God's eyes. Because of the work of Christ on the cross, God can look at OUR imperfect seeking and declare it as righteous, because He who does what is right is righteous, just as HE (Christ) is righteous.
Edited to add color for emphasis...