Ignoring Romans 2: An Error of Exegisis

[Drew]

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.

No. God indeed does impute a status of righteousness to the believer. But, and I cannot emphasize this enough, to insist that this is Christ;s righteousness is neither directly, nor indireclty supported by the text.

Every day around the world, judges and juries impute or ascribe a status of righteousness to defendents who are acquitted. Whose righteousness are they imputed with? The judge's? No. The defence lawyer's? No.

The point is that the very concept of imputing righteousness to a person does not require that the righteousness of some other person is imputed to that person. If some just-acquitted defendent comes out of the lawcourt and is asked "Whose righteousness did you get?, the defendent would rightly look at the questionner as though he were from Mars.

Yes, Jesus is indeed the place where our sins are borne or carried. But the next move - where Jesus' righteousness is ascribed to us - is not Biblically supported.

 

[LaCrum]

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.

Well, I suppose we should define “Holy†since the Bible uses it in several different ways. This is why it’s so important to read the text AROUND the scripture to figure out how “holy†is being used in this particular sense.

By one definition, we become “holy†(sanctified) the moment we become believers in the eyes of God.

Hebrews 10:10

And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. (past tense)

The other way it’s used it to describe becoming “wholeâ€. This process, unlike the process above, is the on-going work of the Holy Spirit in our lives making us more like Christ. It’s the Holy Spirit rebuilding within us what sin had previously destroyed. This type of “holiness†is how we are transformed into new beings.

What the problem is in your argument is that you’re using this type of “holy†definition as a blanket for all the types of “holy†in the NT, when this can’t be done.

If we take a look at the rest of the passage, we encounter this:

Hebrews 10:11-14

Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

If we take “holy†to mean only the definition you ascribe to it of becoming “wholeâ€, this passage makes no sense because in the same breath it says we are “made perfect forever†(past tense) by Christ’s sacrifice but also we are “being made holy†(present tense), and in the verse immediately preceding this, it says “we have been made holy†(past tense).

Additionally, in the following verses it speaks of how we can now enter the Most Holy Place, the curtain has been torn down between the outer and inner sanctuary of God’s temple. We have instant access to God whenever we want to without having to go through the sacrifices and cleansing rituals that the high priest had to do once a year. That’s the instant holiness we receive when we accept Christ’s sacrific on our behalf. Once this occurs, the process of being made “wholeâ€, can begin.

 

[glorydaz]

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.

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.

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.

Ivdavid said, "You're saying - only those who are holy,God will save. I'm saying - only those whom God saves, will be holy." A big AMEN to that, brother.

This is exactly what Paul addresses in Eph. 2 and Romans 8.

We are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works...which God has ordained that we should walk in them. It has been ORDAINED by God that we walk in the Spirit. We now have a heart of flesh...we are new creatures... led by the Spirit of God. We are no longer a "natural man", but a "spiritual man".

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

All this talk of puppets is demeaning to the character of God. God decreed before hand that those who are born of the Spirit will be conformed to the image of Christ. He has promised that He will chasten us as sons...for He loves us that much. There's nothing about being "puppets" in a loving relationship. He puts the desire in our hearts and we yearn to be like Christ.

For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.

When I hear man boasting about becoming holy and righteous, I cringe. We're to present ourselves a living sacrifice. What God wants is a broken spirit (the proud spirit of man needs to be broken), and a broken and contrite heart (not a proud heart...glorying in self). If we can't see ourselves as God sees us, we will never achieve a humble and contrite heart. We have nothing to glory over...God has to wrench every bit of obedience out of us. Those who claim otherwise are just not looking through the eyes of God. The secrets of man's heart are open and revealed to our Father in Heaven. We aren't fooling anyone but ourselves...others can see what we refuse to see, and that's pride...ever rearing it's ugly head.

For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise.

 

[glorydaz]

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


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.

Christ's righteousness is given to man for his "justification" before God. Now we can freely come before the throne....into the presence of God. We've been released from prison (we were in captivity to sin), and we can then begin our life with Christ. Our spirit has been regenerated...our soul (will, mind, and emotions) have to be brought under subjection to our new born spirit. We are babes in Christ who must grow into maturity...that's the sanctification process the Holy Spirit begins in us once we have been justified before God. It certainly doesn't separate "religion" or faith from morality. The reason we desire to please God by obeying His voice is because we love Him more than life itself. We count Him above all else...if we don't then we haven't been given a new heart at all. We've just claimed we're changed, but no one can fool God.

Ah...rewards. That's exactly right. He rewards obedience while in this life and in the life to come. He brings His rewards with Him. That's the Bema Seat of Christ. Because Christ took our sins and His righteousness is accounted to us, we do not come under condemnation. We do not face the judgment that will lead to everlasting punishment...we have run the race and we're given crowns depending on how faithful we have been in this life. We have God's "smiling approval" when we hear, "Well done, good and faithful servant". Our unprofitable deeds will be burned up, but we ourselves will be saved. We're written in the Lamb's book of Life when we become sons of God.

 

[glorydaz]

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.

And you'd better hope God "pretends" you're righteous because it's obvious you're not. lol

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.

"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."

I notice you add, "in God's eyes". That means Christ's righteousness has been imputed unto you. 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

 

[glorydaz]

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.

I'm bending nothing, and I'm getting a little tired of the way you "debate".

I can read your definitions...one of them is condemned. The reason I stressed "in the flesh" is because that is what's being talked about here. Jesus came in the "likeness of sinful flesh". You must read the verse in context. What the law could not do...it could not take away the power of sin. Man was still under the dominion of sin.

When God sent His Son IN THE LIKENESS OF SINFUL FLESH and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. That is NOT saying sin was punished...I don't care how much Greek you put forth. When Jesus went to the cross, He "cast satan" out (judged him) "Now is the judgment of this world"...took away the power satan had always held over us. Paul says, " For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear;" and is speaking of the bondage that came with the law and the bondage sin always held over man.

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Condemned speaks of judgment...it doesn't mean punishment when used in this context.

Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

In the same way, through death Jesus destroyed him that had the power of death...

Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

 

[glorydaz]

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.

A "re-thinking of some traditionally accepted doctrines?'

You're preaching another Gospel, Drew.
You're claiming some new revelation.
You're not adding "insight", you're totally remaking the Gospel.

There is nothing wrong with tradition...saints down through the ages have been taught by the same Spirit and there is no new wisdom or interpretation that can stand the test of time like a simple reading of the Word of God. When I read Paul, I hear the same thing a multitude of saints before me have heard. What you're preaching is error. I suggest you dump Wright and pray the Spirit opens your understanding to what Paul is saying quite clearly. Sin is not punished. Salvation is not ultimately based on works. Christ's righteousness has been imputed to us. Those are simple but true, and no "re-thinking" can change the truth.

 

[francisdesales]

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.

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...

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.

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...

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...

 

[francisdesales]

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.

A "re-thinking of some traditionally accepted doctrines?'

You're preaching another Gospel, Drew.
You're claiming some new revelation.
You're not adding "insight", you're totally remaking the Gospel.

There is nothing wrong with tradition...saints down through the ages have been taught by the same Spirit and there is no new wisdom or interpretation that can stand the test of time like a simple reading of the Word of God. When I read Paul, I hear the same thing a multitude of saints before me have heard. What you're preaching is error. I suggest you dump Wright and pray the Spirit opens your understanding to what Paul is saying quite clearly. Sin is not punished. Salvation is not ultimately based on works. Christ's righteousness has been imputed to us. Those are simple but true, and no "re-thinking" can change the truth.

I can only laugh at the irony of this statement, given you are not taking into account the tradition that preceded YOUR tradition for 1500 years and continues to this day!!! If one explores THAT tradition, rahter than schismatics (who are NEVER approved of in Scriptures) what the Spirit has moved the Church to proclaim, you'd find the dead end of sola fide. It is just not there...

Salvation is not by faith alone.
Christ's righteousness is imputed to no one.
A "simple reading of the Word of God" by an unbiased reader will NOT yield sola fide. The Bible is much more than a twisting of Romans, Galatians and Ephesians...

A multitude of the saints for 2000 years have said so....

 

[Drew]

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:30bh3k8i]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:30bh3k8i]
What is really amazing is that you feel no obligation at all to actually make a Scriptural case for the views which you hold, as if you are somehow "above" having to ground your position in the Scriptures.

If you are going to take the position that you claim here, I suggest that you actually need to engage the relevant texts and arguments not merely "declare" what you see to be truth.

So, again, what texts do you see as supporting the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer?

 

[Drew]

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.

As usual, you simply do not engage my arguments but make a broad statement of a position that effectively assumes the very thing that you should be making an actual case for - that God imputes or ascribes the righteousness of Christ to the believer. By contrast, I am making an actual case - providing the relevant texts and arguing from context what Paul's intended meaning likely was.

You are simply not engaging my argument. And that is not proper debate.

 

[Drew]

I'm bending nothing, and I'm getting a little tired of the way you "debate".

And I am getting tired with your continuing habit of dismissing texts, and changing the plain sense of sentences and phrases.

I can read your definitions...one of them is condemned. The reason I stressed "in the flesh" is because that is what's being talked about here. Jesus came in the "likeness of sinful flesh". You must read the verse in context. What the law could not do...it could not take away the power of sin. Man was still under the dominion of sin.

When God sent His Son IN THE LIKENESS OF SINFUL FLESH and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh. That is NOT saying sin was punished...I don't care how much Greek you put forth.

Well, at least you admit what you are doing - bending words to mean something other than what they mean.

Paul says what he says gd. He tells what happens to sin. It is condemned. And as much as you may not like it, the word "katakrino" has clear punishment implications. Paul says sin in condemned. Now you are free to say "I disagree with Paul". But you are not free to take "punishment out of katakrino".

When Jesus went to the cross, He "cast satan" out (judged him) "Now is the judgment of this world"...took away the power satan had always held over us. Paul says, " For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear;" and is speaking of the bondage that came with the law and the bondage sin always held over man.

I agree. And in 8.3 Paul tells us that sin was condemned on the cross - it was punished. Does Paul say that Jesus was punished? No. I choose to go with what Paul says.

For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Condemned speaks of judgment...it doesn't mean punishment when used in this context.

Well, sin is indeed judged, but the result is condemnation or punishment. As per usual, you are presented with text which cannot fit with your framework. So what do you do? In Romans 2, you simply do not read the english properly. Here, you take a word and re-define it so that we do not have God executing condemnatory punishment on sin on the cross. I know that you need to see Jesus as the target of God's condemnation, but why not let Paul tell us what he wants to tell us?

Sin is the target of God's wrathful condemnation on the cross.

 

[ivdavid]

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.

There may be many interpretations derived from a single premise. You yourself have conceded this and have asked us to see it according to your model and your perspective and not ours implying that there are 2 ways of seeing it. But which one is true? Now both of us could cling on to our own respective interpretations claiming these to be the only way to interpret them, continue to spout our own models as truth and what's the point - there wouldn't be any progress or unification.

So, we go down a little deeper - these initial premises are based on other premises below them and so we expect these new premises to point to the correct interpretation of the earlier premises. But then again, we find these new premises to have multiple interpretations and so we're still unable to zero in on a single model as truth. So we'll have to go deeper - down through many more levels of premises till we reach the foundational premises as we've done now.

Now, I don't necessarily count this top-down approach as inefficient because we do get the benefit of having a good idea, if not a perfect one, of what the other's interpretative model is. But once we've got that, it doesn't make any sense to keep arguing on an upper level premise while the foundational premises are still left unanswered. So let's complete our discussion on these fundamentals till we agree upon a single interpretation as truth which I strongly believe is possible, and then discuss these other premises. Basically, a bottom-up approach. And i do believe the foundational premises will lend a single unambiguous structure. So without sounding escapist(I've reasoned it out), I'd first like to iron out the fundamental beliefs - the very foundational pillars of truth in Christianity -

1. Why did Jesus have to die on the cross?

2. What is "believing in Christ" / "faith in Christ" ?

We have begun discussing these now - so let's complete it and I believe we'll be led into the truth of all other issues. Is that fine with you?

Also, I prefer not to be hasty in my responses - I'll respond to as many posts as possible now. The rest, I'll answer over the next few days.

 

[Drew]

There may be many interpretations derived from a single premise. You yourself have conceded this and have asked us to see it according to your model and your perspective and not ours implying that there are 2 ways of seeing it. But which one is true? Now both of us could cling on to our own respective interpretations claiming these to be the only way to interpret them, continue to spout our own models as truth and what's the point - there wouldn't be any progress or unification.

Well, yes, it is indeed apppropriate to consider different ways to interpret texts. But I am not suggesting that all are equally valid. The best interpretation, of course, is the interpretation that does little or no violence to the "plain sense" of the text in question and also "fits" into the overall context. This issue of how to determine meaning is complex and multi-facted. But for the present, I will say that while there are different possible interpretations, usually there is one which is more sensible than the others.

So, we go down a little deeper - these initial premises are based on other premises below them and so we expect these new premises to point to the correct interpretation of the earlier premises. But then again, we find these new premises to have multiple interpretations and so we're still unable to zero in on a single model as truth. So we'll have to go deeper - down through many more levels of premises till we reach the foundational premises as we've done now.

OK, I can go along with this.

1. Why did Jesus have to die on the cross?

2. What is "believing in Christ" / "faith in Christ" ?

I have already offered answers to both these questions – please see page 22.

I do not see any specific questions for me here that I have not already addressed. In general, our “interpretation†should be one which is internally consistent and honours both local and global Biblical context. And we should not accept an interpretation which forces one to have to radically re-define words to make certain texts “fit†into that interpretation – as gd is doing.

I will add this: I believe that Paul is a very careful and intelligent writer. It makes no sense at all to think that Paul does not believe in ultimate salvation by good works since he so clearly asserts this very thing in Romans 2 and again in Romans 8. We have seen no successful arguments at all as to why we should not believe him.

 

[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:20lma6l8]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.

What is really amazing is that you feel no obligation at all to actually make a Scriptural case for the views which you hold, as if you are somehow "above" having to ground your position in the Scriptures.

If you are going to take the position that you claim here, I suggest that you actually need to engage the relevant texts and arguments not merely "declare" what you see to be truth.

So, again, what texts do you see as supporting the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer?[/quote:20lma6l8]
Really, Drew...why do you bother to ask her when you will just ignore all the proof (it's already been offered and ignored countless times)? You demand proof and then throw out any scripture that plainly makes the case while bringing up verses that in no way state what you claim. You don't listen...so why ask?

 

[Drew]

Really, Drew...why do you bother to ask her when you will just ignore all the proof (it's already been offered and ignored countless times)? You demand proof and then throw out any scripture that plainly makes the case while bringing up verses that in no way state what you claim. You don't listen...so why ask?

This is not an accurate characterization of the transcript of this thread.

Neither you, nor anyone else has supplied an actual scriptural argument for the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer. Yes, you have provided texts, and yes you have made assertions. But there has been nothing that would be considered to be an actual case.

And, of course, no one has, in any sense engaged my argument about 1 Corinthians 5:21

These are not opinions gd, these are facts that are clear from the actaul transcript of this thread.

 

[LaCrum]

What is really amazing is that you feel no obligation at all to actually make a Scriptural case for the views which you hold, as if you are somehow "above" having to ground your position in the Scriptures.

If you are going to take the position that you claim here, I suggest that you actually need to engage the relevant texts and arguments not merely "declare" what you see to be truth.

So, again, what texts do you see as supporting the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer?

Wait, so what part of me quoting verses from Hebrews 10 did I not make a scriptural case for the views I hold? I did not "declare" what I see to be truth. Go ahead and research the word "holy" from the Hebrew and Greek texts, you will discover there is more than one meaning for it, and part of that meaning speakign of "wholeness) and I clearly laid out in Hebrews 10 a perfect example of different meanings of the word "holy" used within the same section yet clearly referring to different things.

You said:

"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."

Again, here is Hebrews 10:10-14

10And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

I provided scriptural evidence to support that we are considered "holy" in God's eyes because of Jesus's work on the cross (thus allowing us to enter the most holy of holies - God's inner temple), yet we are still in the process of becoming "holy" or "whole", through the Spirit's transformative work in our lives.

What part of what I just said and directly quoted from scripture do you disagree with?

I'm not talking about imputing Christ's righteousness on us, I'm talking about different meanings of "holy", so I'm not really sure why you brought that up in your response to me.

 

[LaCrum]

Neither you, nor anyone else has supplied an actual scriptural argument for the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer.

The scriptural doctrine in support of this is everywhere it speaks of the New Covenant.

To understand how God views us in light of what Jesus has done, you have to understand the New Covenant.

Do you understand how covenants worked in ancient Israel society? Do you understand what they represented when two people became bound by one?

What exactly do you think the New Covenant represents? What does it mean to you that Jesus is our Covenant Head? What role does he play as that?

 

[Drew]

Wait, so what part of me quoting verses from Hebrews 10 did I not make a scriptural case for the views I hold? I did not "declare" what I see to be truth. Go ahead and research the word "holy" from the Hebrew and Greek texts, you will discover there is more than one meaning for it, and part of that meaning speakign of "wholeness) and I clearly laid out in Hebrews 10 a perfect example of different meanings of the word "holy" used within the same section yet clearly referring to different things.

You said:

"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."

You are mixing me up with someone else – I never said this. I am partly to blame for the confusion, I was intending to only challenge you in respect to the matter of imputation of Christ’s righteousness. The other statement that you did not like was from somebody else. But anyway, I will address your text anyway, regardless of how you see this text.

Again, here is Hebrews 10:10-14

10And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

There is nothing here that requires to understand that Jesus’ own righteousness has been imputed to us. No one should simply assume that because Jesus work on the cross makes us holy, this means that Jesus’ righteousness is imputed to us.

The work of the doctor can make a person healthy, but this certainly does not mean that the health of the doctor is imputed to the patient.

I agree that we are made “holy†through the act of Jesus on the Cross. But, I also have to take seriously this statement from Paul:

12So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh-- 13for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live

This is a clear statement that eternal life is granted based on whether you have allowed the Spirit to work in you and put to the death the misdeeds of the body.

So we need to embrace both truths. And this is where people like gd and I differ. I take both truths seriously and conclude basically the following: We are made holy in the present in the sense that believing faith in Jesus results in the gift of the Spirit whose activity guarantees that we will be indeed transformed into the kind of person who will get life based on how we have lived.

Gd ignores or reworks texts that speak of how eternal life is ultimately granted based on works. That is, of course, one way to deal with the challenge of Paul saying we are “saved by faith†in the present and also “saved by deeds†in future. This is a pick and choose strategy. For my part, I will take the path of assuming that both are correct – that Paul means what says everywhere – and will come up with an interpretation that integrates all of Paul’s material.

 

[Drew]

Neither you, nor anyone else has supplied an actual scriptural argument for the doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer.

The scriptural doctrine in support of this is everywhere it speaks of the New Covenant.

To understand how God views us in light of what Jesus has done, you have to understand the New Covenant.

Do you understand how covenants worked in ancient Israel society? Do you understand what they represented when two people became bound by one?

What exactly do you think the New Covenant represents? What does it mean to you that Jesus is our Covenant Head? What role does he play as that?

You are asking me to explain "your" model back to you. Since it woud be speculation for me to try to infer what you mean, why don't you make your case as to why you think the Scriptures support the notion that Christ's righteousness is in any way imputed or ascribed to the Christian.