Imputation of Christ's Righteous?

[Butch5]

Indeed so! Most simply it goes like this :
Belief (intellectual assent) + imputation of righteousness (placed upon the one believing by God) results in eternal salvation.
What could more simple, and concurrently most profound?



That is good because Young expands the Greek to include the totality of one's sinful nature, meaning that there is no sort of works or "doing" by which we "merit salvation" but it is 100% by grace that anyone is saved. That is why there is only two religions in the world: grace and works. To make the difference more profound, there are only two sorts of religions in the world: Christianity and everything else. Those persons who are in "everything else" share the fact that they have to "do something" in order to get to their "Nirvana, or Paradise".

Since ALL of them have different "to do lists" to merit heaven", and the descriptions of their "Never-never Land are each different, they each contradict each other, Therefore, they are all false.

Mental assent and imputed righteousness results in salvation? God swore the oath to Abraham because Abraham obeyed His commands.

 

[Deborah13]

Mental assent and imputed righteousness results in salvation? God swore the oath to Abraham because Abraham obeyed His commands.

Hi Butch, good to see you.

I only add that Abraham obeyed God's commands, by faith. By that I mean it was his faith in God that enabled him to obey God's commands.

 

[Butch5]

Hi Butch, good to see you.

I only add that Abraham obeyed God's commands, by faith. By that I mean it was his faith in God that enabled him to obey God's commands.

Hi Deb,

What do you mean, "that enabled him to obey God's commands?"

 

[Deborah13]

Hi Deb,

What do you mean, "that enabled him to obey God's commands?"

If I didn't have faith, believe God, I would not be inclined to obey Him.

 

[Butch5]

If I didn't have faith, believe God, I would not be inclined to obey Him.

OK, when you said "enabled him" I thought maybe you were saying he wasn't able to obey until he had faith. This is getting off topic though.

 

[By Grace]

Mental assent and imputed righteousness results in salvation? God swore the oath to Abraham because Abraham obeyed His commands.

Please read this again.

Genesis 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.​

Paul explains this further in Romans 4:

Romans 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.​

That last part you posted is a part of neither Scripture.
Romans 4;5 is surely against works, as is Titus 3:

Titus 3:3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.
4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
​

Here is the ABRAHAMIC COVENANT in its context. You should notice that the promise preceded the fulfillment of any sort of obedience. the context of this is where God changed the first name of Abram to Abraham, meaning "Father of many".

Genesis 15:1 After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.
2 And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?
3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.
4 And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.
5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
7 And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.
8 And he said, Lord GOD, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?
9 And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.

13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.
15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.
16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.
17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.
18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,
20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims,
21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.
​

Ultimately, what I do not see is Scriptural support for the position that obedience precedes the promise. That would make the promises of God conditional, and is totally in opposition to the Great Theme in Scripture that grace precedes any promise.

What you seem to be promoting is actually a Mormon doctrine. I am NOT calling you that, but here for your reference is the source for my statement:
2 Nephi 15:23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

Since this is really an Evangelical forum, I will not discuss Mormonism further except to state the obvious that nothing in the BoM, excepting the things copied from the KJV can be found in the Bible, and their jesus is so different that any one attempting to make the case that the Mormon jesus is the same Jesus Christ as if found in the Scripture ALONE is clearly attempting an impossible and irrational task.

 

[Butch5]

Please read this again.

Genesis 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.​

Paul explains this further in Romans 4:

Romans 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.​

That last part you posted is a part of neither Scripture.
Romans 4;5 is surely against works, as is Titus 3:

Titus 3:3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.
4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
​

Here is the ABRAHAMIC COVENANT in its context. You should notice that the promise preceded the fulfillment of any sort of obedience. the context of this is where God changed the first name of Abram to Abraham, meaning "Father of many".

Genesis 15:1 After these things the word of the LORD came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.
2 And Abram said, Lord GOD, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?
3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.
4 And, behold, the word of the LORD came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir.
5 And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be.
6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
7 And he said unto him, I am the LORD that brought thee out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give thee this land to inherit it.
8 And he said, Lord GOD, whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it?
9 And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon.

13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;
14 And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.
15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; thou shalt be buried in a good old age.
16 But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full.
17 And it came to pass, that, when the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and a burning lamp that passed between those pieces.
18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,
20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims,
21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.
​

Ultimately, what I do not see is Scriptural support for the position that obedience precedes the promise. That would make the promises of God conditional, and is totally in opposition to the Great Theme in Scripture that grace precedes any promise.

What you seem to be promoting is actually a Mormon doctrine. I am NOT calling you that, but here for your reference is the source for my statement:
2 Nephi 15:23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

Since this is really an Evangelical forum, I will not discuss Mormonism further except to state the obvious that nothing in the BoM, excepting the things copied from the KJV can be found in the Bible, and their jesus is so different that any one attempting to make the case that the Mormon jesus is the same Jesus Christ as if found in the Scripture ALONE is clearly attempting an impossible and irrational task.

Hi Grace,

You've chosen a few passages but there are many more that can be quoted. However, if you take notice, the passage you quoted from Romans 4 is a conclusion that Paul has drawn from Chapter 3 where he argues that no one is justified by the works of the Law. So, when he speaks of works in chapter 4 this is what he is addressing. He's not saying that all work paly no role in salvation. On the contrary, in Romans 2 he specifically says that those doing good works are seeking eternal life.

You said the promise precedes any kind of obedience. Here's the first mention of the promises.

KJV Genesis 12:1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
4 So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.
5 And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came. (Gen 12:1-5 KJV)

God told Abram to leave his country and his father's house and go to the land that He would show him. He also said that He would make of him a great nation and that all nations would be blessed through him. Notice Abram's response, he got up and left, that is obedience. He obeyed before he went into the land, or became a great nation or before all the nations were blessed through him.

You also quoted Titus three where Paul said, not by righteous works which we have done. What does Paul consider righteous works? I think he gives us a clue in his letter to the Philippians.

9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: (Phi 3:9 KJV)

This seems to be what Paul is getting at when we look at what he said in the beginning of his letter to Titus.

9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.
10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:
11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake.
12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. (Tit 1:9-12 KJV)

They of the circumcision were Jews, most likely Judaizers who were telling Paul's converts that in addition to faith in Christ they also needed to be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses. We can see from Pau's words in Philippians that he considered keeping the Law as works of righteousness. It was these Judaizers who were telling his converts that they needed to keep the Law (works of righteousness).

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Hi DI,

I agree with you. The righteousness that is imputed is the persons faith. Paul said that it was Abraham's faith that was imputed to him for righteousness.

I don't agree with this, his believing was reckoned to him as righteousness, not the faith itself being imputed. I suppose I see it more as Covenant Membership, not necessarily God then decided Abraham was good enough to get into heaven because he believed and then God imputed his righteousness to him.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Please read this again.

Genesis 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.​

Paul explains this further in Romans 4:

Romans 4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.​

That last part you posted is a part of neither Scripture.
Romans 4;5 is surely against works, as is Titus 3:

This has always been a text I often seen ignored, despite the fact that James also quotes the same passage.

and the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”—and he was called a friend of God. You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. James 2:23-24

James seems to have a different position than you guys, as the only place we see the phrase "faith alone," is where he rejects that as the sole means of justification.

How do you reconcile this?

Titus 3:3 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.
4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
7 That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

Grace doesn't just save, it transforms us to be conformed to the image of God's Son so that at the final judgment we may stand before God and be judged favorably by the life lived via the power of grace imparted to us by the Holy Spirit.

Here is the ABRAHAMIC COVENANT in its context. You should notice that the promise preceded the fulfillment of any sort of obedience. the context of this is where God changed the first name of Abram to Abraham, meaning "Father of many".

Yes it did, which is why Covenant membership is based upon faith, but maintained by obedience to the Covenant. Which God in the New Covenant has promised to give us the Holy Spirit to conform us and mold us into our Covenant Head, Christ.

There is a present and a future justification.

Ultimately, what I do not see is Scriptural support for the position that obedience precedes the promise. That would make the promises of God conditional, and is totally in opposition to the Great Theme in Scripture that grace precedes any promise.

The promises precede obedience and are based upon the mercy of God which accords with faith. However, one being a part of the Covenant community is conditional, which is that one must have faith in order to be regarded as the offspring of Abraham and thus heir of the promise.

What you seem to be promoting is actually a Mormon doctrine. I am NOT calling you that, but here for your reference is the source for my statement:
2 Nephi 15:23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace thatwe are saved, after all we can do.

Since this is really an Evangelical forum, I will not discuss Mormonism further except to state the obvious that nothing in the BoM, excepting the things copied from the KJV can be found in the Bible, and their jesus is so different that any one attempting to make the case that the Mormon jesus is the same Jesus Christ as if found in the Scripture ALONE is clearly attempting an impossible and irrational task.

You bring Mormonism into everything...

This is essentially the fallacy of poisoning the well, where you say, "you're promoting Mormonism," and from that basis object.

Is it possible you can deal specifically with the writings of another poster without charging them with teaching cult theology?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I believe the doctrine itself.
My only point was that there's no verse that has the precise phrase "union with Christ". I would agree those are all verses that teach us this concept/doctrine though using slightly different words. Yet we know what Paul and John meant and I'm cool with calling it Union With Christ.

I already agreed that the fact that a phrase or word not being found in Scripture doesn't mean that the concept isn't in Scripture, however I think the idea of Christ's righteousness should be, but instead it says the "righteousness of God." This doesn't discredit the position, but I think doesn't help it at all.

I also object from the position that I disagree that this doctrine is even taught in Scriptures.

That's what I'm saying about 2 Cor 5:21 (and others). They seem to be teaching the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness to me a believer in Christ.

They seem, which denotes that is the perspective that many have taken regarding these passages, yet upon a closer inspection they don't fit the context. 2 Corinthians 5:21 doesn't say we receive the righteousness of God, but rather "become" the righteousness of God.

I have also shown what the verse means by observing the context.

I still don't see your counter point to my take on 2 Cor 5:21 but that's fine. That is, I don't understand what you mean, much less agree or disagree.

I'm a little stretched for time and I am not sure where the confusion on your part arises from so I cannot clarify what I have said at the moment.

This point, I just don't understand what you mean. Are you saying imputation (meaning: to reckon, to view, to think) is something that only happens in the future with God?

No, I am saying that the verb "to become," does not fit with imputation at all. If I impute something to you, you do not become that, it is merely how I regard you.

Also the fact that it is the believers collectively who become the righteousness of God that is another point that doesn't jive with imputation.

here, I think I understand your point, but maybe not.

I noticed you quoted the ESV above but most often use the LEB. Your comment on the significance of the difference between the ESV and LEB with Rom 6:5, i would appreciate:

Not sure why you pointed this out? Are you claiming that I change translation based upon what favors my perspective?

This seems to be implied, based upon the fact that you pointed it out. However, what you aren't aware of is the fact that I post from 2 different computers, one from home and one from work. At home, I have access to Logos and therefore use the LEB (as it is my favorite) and the ESV (primarily) at work as it is an acceptable translation in my eyes.

Romans 6:5 (LEB) For if we have become identified with him in the likeness of his death, certainly also we will be identified with him in the likeness of his resurrection,

Is there one more accurate than the other to the Greek or is this pretty much just a choice of the translators? They seem a little different to me.

I think the misunderstanding comes from the usage of the word "identified," which clearly means in this context as "to conceive as united." (Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/identify)

So, in the LEB much like every other translation, the terminology is around us being united with Christ in his death and resurrection.

The Greek word "symphytoi" literally means to be "grown together," and it denotes a close relationship and union where one recognizes themselves as being planted among another.

Is this the type of distinction you are making (your disagreement) with using a phrase like "imputation of Christ's righteousness" for a believer? That is, it's fairly obvious that believers (even the best of the best) aren't literally sinless (or righteous) for 33 minutes, much less 33 years? And therefore, don't think imputation is a word that matches the concept Paul and others present?

Well John seems to think we need to practice righteousness in order to be deemed righteous.

"Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as he is righteous." 1 John 3:7 (ESV)

In the context, John is arguing against antinomianism, the idea that one can live lawlessly and sinfully and yet claim to know God and be born of God. He then tells them to have no one deceive them, because those who practice righteousness are those who are righteous. The comparison is then made to Christ, which means that those who truly know Jesus will come to look like him, as he came to destroy sin.

I think you have conceived of this idea of righteousness that is 100% perfect, which I don't see taught anywhere.

A group of individual believers, sure. And the "something" we become is the righteousness of God (Christ).

How does a group of individual believers become "the righteousness of God?" From your understanding.

If this were to teach imputation, then it wouldn't say become.

Again, I do not really see how you said I just inserted an imputation of Christ's righteousness into this text. Frankly, I don't see how you get around it other than:

1. It doesn't actually use the word imputation or Christ.
2. you think Paul didn't mean individual believers but rather a group of them.
3. The righteousness he speaks of is only a future tense righteousness.
4. All of the above.
5. None of the above.

Which is it?

I don't see language the demonstrates the way imputation would work. If righteousness were imputed, then it wouldn't be something we become, but rather something that we are reckoned to have. The reformed doctrine of imputation teaches that one is simultaneously righteous on account of Christ's righteousness being imputed, and a sinner. This text is about a group becoming the righteousness of God, and is in the context of Paul's justification for his ministry of reconciliation.

We are the embodiment of God's Covenant faithfulness, those of us who are united in the Messiah. That God has fulfilled his promise to bless all nations of the world in Abraham's offspring, the Christ.

 

[Butch5]

I don't agree with this, his believing was reckoned to him as righteousness, not the faith itself being imputed. I suppose I see it more as Covenant Membership, not necessarily God then decided Abraham was good enough to get into heaven because he believed and then God imputed his righteousness to him.

Maybe I worded that incorrectly. I didn't mean faith was imputed to Abraham. Abraham believed God (faith) and it, the faith was counted from righteousness. I'm not saying that God gave Abraham faith, I saying that God reckoned Abraham's faith as righteousness. Is that any clearer?

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Maybe I worded that incorrectly. I didn't mean faith was imputed to Abraham. Abraham believed God (faith) and it, the faith was counted from righteousness. I'm not saying that God gave Abraham faith, I saying that God reckoned Abraham's faith as righteousness. Is that any clearer?

Yes! We are in perfect agreement now.

 

[By Grace]

Hi Grace,

You've chosen a few passages but there are many more that can be quoted. However, if you take notice, the passage you quoted from Romans 4 is a conclusion that Paul has drawn from Chapter 3 where he argues that no one is justified by the works of the Law. So, when he speaks of works in chapter 4 this is what he is addressing. He's not saying that all work paly no role in salvation. On the contrary, in Romans 2 he specifically says that those doing good works are seeking eternal life.

You said the promise precedes any kind of obedience. Here's the first mention of the promises.

KJV Genesis 12:1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
Those verses are the promise

4 So Abram departed... That is the obedience Notice that it comes AFTER the promise

I am really not trying to be nasty, but in the clear statements from the Bible, there is no exception when obedience precedes the promise, and the fact that you chose as your supporting text actually disproves your point.

So I am wondering if perhaps you are indeed LDS.

You also quoted Titus three where Paul said, not by righteous works which we have done. What does Paul consider righteous works? I think he gives us a clue in his letter to the Philippians.
9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: (Phi 3:9 KJV)

Here is another reason why I believe you are LDS. You take a verse, and rip it from its context and in doing so, you create an unscriptural pretext, and THAT is a common ploy from the LDS

Philippians 3: 4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless
7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.

8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.
​

In verses 1-3, Paul indicates that there were some who were doubting his apostleship, and his credentials to present the Gospel, so he spells the credentials out. Essentially, he has a Ph,D level education and has attended the best schools, and has strictly followed the Law to the point of being a Pharisee. therefore, he claims in verse 6 that there is no one who can find any blame or fault with him.

In verse 7, he contrasts all his accomplishments to the glory of Jesus Christ, and goes so far as to call them "dung" in verse 8 because the righteousness of Jesus Christ far exceeds the formidable self-righteousness he earned as a Pharisee.

Verse 9 continues with the same thought because of the connecting conjunction "and" he says "I want to be found in Jesus Christ, and not trust my own righteousness."

This seems to be what Paul is getting at when we look at what he said in the beginning of his letter to Titus.

No, it doesn't. And this is going far afield of the OP.

My point remains that grace precedes obedience as does the unconditional promises of God precede the obedience. If it were so that obedience precedes the promise, then you would be looking at a pay check, or a contigent promise. The God of the Bible is NOT like that, Butch.

Can you tell us that you are indeed are LDS?

 

[By Grace]

Hello By Grace, would you be able/willing to post some of your exegetical resources (as you have above) for two verses that seem to be key to this discussion? The two verses are 2 Corinthians 5:21 and Philippians 3:9. I have a feeling that we will need to delve into the Greek a bit, and especially the genitive constructions.

I am no expert in Greek but I do know that genitives can be taken in several different ways and relations, most of which are noted on this page: http://www.lectionarystudies.com/syntax/syntaxgen.html.

On another page that discusses Greek genitives (although I wish they had argued why their reading of Philipians 3:9 was like it was), under the "Genitives of Association" section they say:

"Now the third chapter of Philippians, just before Paul told us to imitate him and other mature Christians, said that these men were those who ere "not putting confidence in the flesh" (v. 3), "not having righteousness out of the law" (v. 9), that is, because they were not able to obey the law. Instead, their righteousness was "through faith, the righteousness out of God [i.e., God is the direct source from which righteousness comes] based upon faith" (v. 9). In this chapter, Paul also claimed he had "not already received [the power to make him like Christ in all things] or [had not] already been perfected" (v. 12). So our examples, whom we are told to imitate, did not have strong wills in themselves, to make themselves righteous, but were weak like us. They were not "holy saints" according to the humanistic model of the Roman Catholics or humanistic Protestant churches. They were not greater than us, but merely sinners who learned that "we should not be those having confidence upon ourselves, but upon God" (II Cor. 1:9)." [from: http://inthesaltshaker.com/drills/gencase.htm]

They read the genitive as a source ("out of"/"from") association. This is not inadmissible as a possibility for Greek genitives, but the question is which genitive usage (of the half dozen or so in Koine Greek) is meant in this passage?

But any way, if you might be so kind (if you have the time) as to supply us with some of your comments from your Logos Bible Software that would be wonderful!

God bless,
Josh

The first rule of Bible study is always: READ THE CONTEXT
In dealing with many posters on many different boards there is an axiom I learned, and it is an axiom because it is 100% true. That is "any verse ripped from its context is always a pretext".

In his post, Butch made a very clear example of that situation, and I discussed it in this reply Imputation of Christ's Righteous?

As to the Greek Genitive. Generally speaking in the declension of a noun, it is the case for possession, and there are some exceptions for that. Unless you are really looking for a fine point that is not covered by the primary common sense reading of Scripture, you can be wasting your time. It is not that the study of Koine Greek is unimportant, it is that because the Bible is perspicuous, meaning that it is its own, and best interpreter, most of us can get along just by reading the English. Personally, I found that if you recall your middle school grammar whereby you learned to diagram a sentence, it is almost a great a help as knowing the Greek grammar.

As far as nouns are concerned, I am wondering why you are focusing on them? The important things in Greek are the verbals, the verbs, and the gerunds, and the participles which give us much more information about the intent of the verse.

If you have other questions, please waiit till tomorrow.

Shalom

 

[chessman]

Not sure why you pointed this out? Are you claiming that I change translation based upon what favors my perspective?

No. Not at all. I was hoping you’d take the time to give your perspective on the actual Greek text/word/adjective translated as either “united, ESV” or “identified, LEB”, which you did. Thanks for that. It’s always educational for me to hear from those that are fluent in Koine Greek, versus a non-literate like me looking at the Lexicons and/or Concordances.

For example. If I were to just look up this word in an interlinear:
sumphutos: congenital, hence united with
http://biblehub.com/greek/4854.htm

I might miss the fact that a 1st Century Greek reader would understand Paul’s meaning of this word (in their 1st Century minds) and from Paul’s context, “a conception of being united” (from the 2014 Merriam-Webster 1.b definition, versus the 1.a. definition: to cause to be or become identical) or as you say “where one recognizes themselves as being planted among another” versus a stronger, more literal, meaning like “congenital” or “grown together” (actually planted) from the word’s origin:

Definition: I grow at the same time.
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from sun and phuó

I think the misunderstanding comes from the usage of the word "identified," which clearly means in this context as "to conceive as united." (Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/identify)
So, in the LEB much like every other translation, the terminology is around us being united with Christ in his death and resurrection.
The Greek word "symphytoi" literally means to be "grown together," and it denotes a close relationship and union where one recognizes themselves as being planted among another.

I think you have conceived of this idea of righteousness that is 100% perfect, which I don't see taught anywhere.

Actually, no. I don’t think (conceive) believers are made 100% perfect so much as I see these texts stating that God reckons us Christ believers are righteous due solely because of Christ’s literal righteousness and merely our faith in Christ, in His name.

Nor do I think (conceive) that is what “imputation” implies as a doctrine. Of course there may very well be theologians in the present and past that feel this way and even argue for it. I was merely asking you if that’s the fundamental problem that you have with a doctrine called “Imputation of Christ” Righteousness”. If it is, then I share your distain for that view as I’m sure that I’m still literally unrighteous in/of myself. Yet on the other hand I do find these texts indicating that God imputes (that is views, reckons) His righteousness to me. Amazingly!

How does a group of individual believers become "the righteousness of God?" From your understanding.

A group is created first with an individual Gospel believer (let’s just call him Abram, just for an example), a second individual believer is added (I don’t know, let’s call him Isaac), then a third (Paul), then a fourth (Timothy)… then I am added to all these other individual Gospel believers and poof (logically basic), a group of believers are “made the righteousness of God in Him [Christ])”.

I really don’t think, in this case, there is a difference in the text’s meaning given the group context. Obviously the text itself (the one verse) already requires a group of believers since it’s plural (our/we). Therefore, I don’t see any particular impact to this counter point. You and I both agreed that the “our/we” in this verse (2 Cor 5:21) are Christ believers and I have always recognized the context of Paul’s message within this chapter(s).

Anyway, I again appreciate your dialog, your input and answers to my questions on this topic. Unless I can clarify further my take on the verses I’ve mentioned so far, or I’ve left any questions unanswered, I think this particular sub-point seems to be at a reasonable conclusion.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

No. Not at all. I was hoping you’d take the time to give your perspective on the actual Greek text/word/adjective translated as either “united, ESV” or “identified, LEB”, which you did. Thanks for that. It’s always educational for me to hear from those that are fluent in Koine Greek, versus a non-literate like me looking at the Lexicons and/or Concordances.

For example. If I were to just look up this word in an interlinear:
sumphutos: congenital, hence united with
http://biblehub.com/greek/4854.htm

I might miss the fact that a 1st Century Greek reader would understand Paul’s meaning of this word (in their 1st Century minds) and from Paul’s context, “a conception of being united” (from the 2014 Merriam-Webster 1.b definition, versus the 1.a. definition: to cause to be or become identical) or as you say “where one recognizes themselves as being planted among another” versus a stronger, more literal, meaning like “congenital” or “grown together” (actually planted) from the word’s origin:

Definition: I grow at the same time.
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from sun and phuó

I believe we are in agreement here, sorry for misunderstanding your question about the translation I was using.

Actually, no. I don’t think (conceive) believers are made 100% perfect so much as I see these texts stating that God reckons us Christ believers are righteous due solely because of Christ’s literal righteousness and merely our faith in Christ, in His name.

It seems to me that we are reckoned righteous based upon our faith alone, and that faith being in Christ. Him being the object of the faith, does not prove that we somehow gain his righteousness.

Nor do I think (conceive) that is what “imputation” implies as a doctrine.

We are reckoned as 100% righteous, as Christ is 100% righteous. Would you not agree that is an implication?

Of course there may very well be theologians in the present and past that feel this way and even argue for it. I was merely asking you if that’s the fundamental problem that you have with a doctrine called “Imputation of Christ” Righteousness”.

I don't see any way around it. However, my disagreement arises primarily from exegetical reasons.

If it is, then I share your distain for that view as I’m sure that I’m still literally unrighteous in/of myself. Yet on the other hand I do find these texts indicating that God imputes (that is views, reckons) His righteousness to me. Amazingly!

This is then the other objection to the doctrine, it's not a forensic fiction, if it at the end of the day is just something that is reckoned, then I don't see how it works within some kind of Just legal framework.

A group is created first with an individual Gospel believer (let’s just call him Abram, just for an example), a second individual believer is added (I don’t know, let’s call him Isaac), then a third (Paul), then a fourth (Timothy)… then I am added to all these other individual Gospel believers and poof (logically basic), a group of believers are “made the righteousness of God in Him [Christ])”.

Yet, the word does not mean "made," it means they "become" the righteous of God.

I really don’t think, in this case, there is a difference in the text’s meaning given the group context. Obviously the text itself (the one verse) already requires a group of believers since it’s plural (our/we). Therefore, I don’t see any particular impact to this counter point. You and I both agreed that the “our/we” in this verse (2 Cor 5:21) are Christ believers and I have always recognized the context of Paul’s message within this chapter(s).

Except I don't misinterpret the word γενώμεθα, which means "become." I also take into consideration that outside of Romans, Paul primarily uses the "righteousness of God" to refer to God's faithfulness to the Covenant, and not just God being morally virtuous.

This text is about Paul, the Apostle's and now all believers becoming the embodiment of God's faithfulness in Christ, as the people of the New Covenant who will be heirs of the promise.

Anyway, I again appreciate your dialog, your input and answers to my questions on this topic. Unless I can clarify further my take on the verses I’ve mentioned so far, or I’ve left any questions unanswered, I think this particular sub-point seems to be at a reasonable conclusion.

I think we might have to agree to disagree here.

If you want a deep inspection from someone much more learned than I am on the matter, and who shares a similar perspective, you can read this from N.T. Wright.

http://ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Becoming_Righteousness.pdf

 

[chessman]

I will be careful to say "I don't know for sure, but this is my informed opinion" rather than saying "Scripture teaches...". This is kind of like Paul's "not from the Lord, but I say" exemptions when speaking of his own self. In that sense it impacts hermeneutics.

I’ve been meaning to interject a couple of pennies here for a few says but I've been busy:

I spent over three decades with this understanding of what Paul meant by “not from the Lord, but I say”, if I understand your point above. And, I suppose it’s still a possible meaning. However, I’ve since been highly convinced that is not at all what Paul meant by that statement. That is, Paul WAS NOT implying that he was inserting his personal opinion into Scripture. (take it or leave it, type of attitude)

I’d been taught that, I suppose, as a teenager and just held it as accurate for decades. Then along comes a pastor that explained it another way (more accurate, if you think it through). I may be the most stubborn person you’ve ever interacted with, yet I was persuaded to change my mind on this take. Here’s why:

1 Corinthians 7:12
Now to the rest I say—not the Lord—if any brother has an unbelieving wife and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her.​

To me, this statement indicates Paul was fully aware of the precise teaching of the Lord in previous Scripture(s) concerning divorce (be it OT or even NT) and that Paul was now adding clarification to a very special situation (the dawning of the Christian church within Judaism) to the Lord’s intention for marriage/divorce. That is, what’s a newly converted Christian Jew to do given the situation that his wife would not convert to the Gospel, yet the husband has. It’s a situation Jesus really didn’t give any direct teaching to (given the fact that there was no such thing as a Christian Jew pre-resurrection).

What no longer makes sense to me is that Paul meant to interject his personal opinion into an otherwise Holy Inspired letter.

Matthew 19:9 (LEB)
9 Now I [Jesus] say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the basis of sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”​

If we just had this verse from Jesus’s direct teaching, then it’s consistent with Paul’s teaching in 7:12. But, it’s not exactly on topic to the newly converted Christians at Corinth. Paul (I mean the Holy inspired Paul) clarifies that even if a new Christian finds himself in a marriage with an unbeliever (because just a few weeks back they both were unbelievers/non-Christians), then stay married!

The point/observation that clinched it for me was reading the whole chapter 7 (whole letter really) and re-reading Matt 19.

7:1 Now concerning the things about which you wrote: …​

Paul is writing a reply to some very specific and practical question(s) this church had for him to answer. Questions that weren’t previously asked of Jesus (or for that matter of the Jews). Jesus had been asked and He had answered different questions:

Question; Matt 9:3 if it was permitted for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?
Answered; with “…man must not separate”

Question; “Why then did Moses command us to give a document—a certificate of divorce—and to divorce her?”
Answer; “Moses, with reference to your hardness of heart, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not like this. 9 Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except on the basis of sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”


Therefore, it’s a very logical and practical question for these new believers to have asked (even knowing what Jesus taught). Really, A Christian husband should not even divorce his un-believing wife?
So Paul answers their very specific question in addition to the question the Pharisees had asked.

And I now believe he was Holy inspired in his answer. But I didn’t for a while.

 

[cyberjosh]

Hello Doulos Iesou,

I would like to step back for a moment apart from any specific verses and just talk generally about this.

We obviously know that Jesus took our sin upon him and also canceled the handwriting against us (our debt). This entails our forgiveness before God, but God hasn't simply taken guilt away from us but He means for us to become like Him (holy and righteous). God does not intend for this to be done separately from Himself. Even if God is "reckoning" the righteousness to us, it would not be so unless God did it. The origin of the righteousness reckoned to us is still God. If it were possible for us to attain holiness and righteousness apart from God then Jesus would have been unnecessary. But I argue that we cannot just have something taken away (sin) and not also have something given to us (right standing in Christ), when the objective of atonement is considered (that we be blamelessness so that God might dwell among His people).

Being united with Christ or being given his Holy Spirit is not enough to fill the gap, because those are initiatory and equipping things that are the means for receiving from God, but not the thing itself. Similarly the status of "being married" doesn't confer the fruits of the relationship itself, but is rather the blessed institution in which it takes place. For example when we are told to be filled with the Holy Spirit the Greek indicates actually that it means “by means of” or “through” the Holy Spirit (meaning the HS is not the content that we are filled with - but rather what the HS fills us with), and what we receive by those means (through the HS) are the good gifts of God. Even the word "grace" itself is not a specific but rather a general description to be substantiated by specifics. Physical healing is grace, forgiveness is grace, spiritual gifts are grace. But being united with Christ is not enough to gurantee our right standing with God. Paul clearly points this out when he describes our baptism in the body of Christ by the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12) with the Israelites who were baptized into Moses and drank the same spiritual drink but whose bodies fell in the wilderness because of their disobedience (1 Corinthians 10). This, incidentally, is why I am not in favor of OSAS. Nonetheless, even if one can fall out of fellowship with God that does not mean that salvation becomes about works, but rather God's ability to save us (which is the whole point).

Although you said in your response to me that you didn't want to seem like you were teaching salvation by works, that is precisely what needs to be addressed. Whether or not you think the Jews thought that they could be right with God through works, it does not change the fact (from whatever angle Paul was coming from) that Paul does in fact dismiss salvation by works on account of boasting. If God only forgives our sins but leaves the “righteousness part” up to us, then we would not only have to have some means of quantifying “enough” righteousness but also (though we would think that if we were really righteous that we would not be proud enough to do so) we technically would have grounds on which to boast (which is what I believe Paul is talking about).

We of course should realize that it is ridiculous to suggest that Jesus was himself anything other than perfectly righteous. Jesus was righteous in matters that even went outside of the Law of Moses proper, to the point where he would not do a single thing without the approval and will of His Father. For Jesus to obey the father WAS law, and in his obedience he was perfect. If Jesus was not completely righteous and blameless (spotless at the OT sacrifices required) then he could not have been offered effectually for our sins. So it is indeed Christ's righteousness that accomplished our forgiveness. But Jesus offers us a way to participate in that righteousness with Him through the leading of the Holy Spirit. This encompasses the initial justification and then the on going sanctification in our lives which is characterized by good works.

I hope that we can agree that similarly to what Paul said "I am what I am by the grace of God" that anything we we accomplish in our Spiritual walk with God is ultimately His working in us, while not denying the role of our will to perform good works and bear fruit in our sanctification (although the Bible is also clear that it is God who sanctifies us).

God bless,
Josh

 

[cyberjosh]

Also, I was talking with my dad about this subject this past weekend and he said that you really have to go back to the Old Testament to understand how God counted righteousness. King David was constantly talking about God's righteousness and even his own righteousness, yet should we think that David had any righteousness apart from God's enablement? The teaching in Ezekiel 36 shows that we must have our heart of stone taken away and a heart of flesh given (similar to the circumcised heart) to follow God's laws (and even then not as a means of making ourselves "righteous enough" before God).

My dad of course mentioned Abraham and that God reckoned his faith as righteousness, so it is indeed perhaps quite relevant to a discussion on imputation of the "reckoning" of God. Then my dad pointed out something I had not thought of. He said to me "What about Lot?". Lot was living in Sodom by his own (poor) choices and was far from the exemplar of a righteous man from what we read about him, yet God still graciously delivered him and in the NT Peter even calls him "righteous Lot" (2 Peter 2:7)!! I had close pastor friend of mine who several years ago was talking to me about Peter's reference to Lot here, and (although he took the inerrancy of the Bible very seriously and accepted what it said regardless of his own thoughts) he said he didn't understand how Peter could possibly call Lot righteous in light of his life choices. Lot was not righteous on account of his own deeds but because of God's reckoning.

This is the very picture of God's forgiving grace and a righteousness that is not our own being counted or imputed to us. The question is: on what grounds does He do so? The only answer I believe is that He does so because of Jesus' sacrifice for our sins. It is the only thing that would make such a reckoning just instead of unjust! Therefore the "righteous requirement of the law" (Romans 8:4) is fulfilled in us by Christ's atonement for us!

-Josh

 

[chessman]

We are reckoned as 100% righteous, as Christ is 100% righteous. Would you not agree that is an implication?

Yes. To expand how I’d see this I’ll break it down word-by-word.

We (NT individual believers within a group. Jewish or Gentile genetics doesn’t really matter to me nor Paul)
are (now, present tense)
reckoned as (viewed by God as righteous, but not necessarily viewed by ourselves or others as righteous)
100% righteous, (in accordance with God’s definition of what’s righteous by His plan of redemption of Man through Christ. But certainly not sinless none the less. Why would God need to make a sinless person right?)
as Christ is 100% righteous. (and always was, way before 33 A.D. and in full coporation with God's plan)

Yet, the word does not mean "made," it means they "become" the righteous of God.

Is “righteous” a typo and you meant righteousness?

2 Corinthians 5:21 Amplified Bible (AMP) 21 For our sake He made Christ [virtually] to be sin Who knew no sin, so that in and through Him we might become [endued with, viewed as being in, and examples of] the righteousness of God [what we ought to be, approved and acceptable and in right relationship with Him, by His goodness].​

I would agree with these amplifications in the AMP and I don’t really see the difference you are making with “made” and versus “become”. I’ve seen you say this to me several times but, I don’t understand your point/distinction in “made” versus “become” (and I’ve tried to really hard to). I’d asked you if it was about the tense of the verb. But that’s fine, it may very well be over my head to understand it.

Except I don't misinterpret the word γενώμεθα, which means "become

Me either, intentionally. Again, I don’t even understand your point here. All I can do is use Strong’s Concordance:
1096 gínomai – properly, to emerge, become, transitioning from one point (realm, condition) to another. 1096 (gínomai) fundamentally means "become" (becoming, became) so it is not an exact equivalent to the ordinary equative verb "to be" (is, was, will be) as with 1510 /eimí (1511 /eínai, 2258 /ēn).

1096 (ginomai) means "to become, and signifies a change of condition, state or place" (Vine, Unger, White, NT, 109).

M. Vincent, "1096 (gínomai) means to come into being/manifestation implying motion, movement, or growth" (at 2 Pet 1:4). Thus it is used for God's actions as emerging from eternity and becoming (showing themselves) in time (physical space).

All I can say is that I agree with all this. How have I misrepresented any of this?