Imputation of Christ's Righteous?

[cyberjosh]

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)

I think I can say that I agree with your expansion here. We are viewed by God as righteous, just as was my point above with "righteous Lot" despite all his faults.

I also think that since we so identify personally with Christ's very act on the cross ("I have been crucified with Christ" Galatians 2:20) and his resurrection (Romans 4:25 & Galatians 2:20) that it is absurd to say that when God looks at us that he does not see the work of His Son instead of our own works (though he will not ignore our works for purposes of judgment, nonetheless it is Christ's work that matters for our acceptance, reconciliation, and salvation and not our own works).

God bless,
~Josh

 

[JCitoL]

...

yes, it is not right that the righteous people be condemned

Blessings

 

[Doulos Iesou]

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.

Agreed, I am not saying that we have to become righteous on our own, and one can only be seen as righteous by the grace of God. Whether through practice, or the position to which one is reckoned that looks forward to the future condition of the believer at the final judgment.

Even if God is "reckoning" the righteousness to us, it would not be so unless God did it.

Yes, but the grounds for such reckoning is where there is disagreement.

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.

Indeed, though I don't see it as an issue of "getting enough righteousness so that one can go to heaven," that's not what the 1st Century Jews were concerned about, but rather being a part of God's community. Just like it was with the Law, which was not about salvation, but belonging to the Covenant community.

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).

The thing missing here is where God pours in his resurrection power via giving us the Holy Spirit to walk in newness of life in Christ. Where he then empowers us by grace to fulfill the righteous requirement of the law, which is to love.

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.

These are the central pillars to Paul's theology, and they are not simply dealing with being initiated into God's kingdom. Being united with Christ is the position from which we begin and end, Paul's hope in Philippians 3 was that he would be found in Christ. This being tied to the resurrection life now, and the resurrection later (Philippians 3:10-11).

It's all about being connected to Christ through the Holy Spirit who raised him from the dead to now empower us to be righteous, not just be regarded as such. This isn't of ourselves, but of God who works in us both to will and work for his good pleasure.

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.

Except our union with Christ is far deeper than the union of marriage, Paul most often argues for Christian virtue from the standpoint of unity with Christ. It is where we obtain every blessing and every promise, and it is because we are tied to the resurrection power that we have abundant life, now and forever in His name.

It is also the position from which we relate to each other, to have the same mind that we have in Christ, to not consider anyone according to the flesh but as part of the New Creation.

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.

It isn't the "righteousness of Christ," that we are filled with, but the rather same power that rose Jesus from the dead to dwell in us to give us power over sin, and to conform us to become like our risen savior.

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.

You're ignoring all the things that union with Christ confers, namely that we have every spiritual blessing and every promise from union with Christ, and that via union with Christ by the Holy Spirit's power we walk in the true fulfillment of the law, faith working through love.

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).

Yet, if they are regarded according to the works of others and not their own, then how can one fall away? If their sins were specifically punished in the death of Christ, then how is God Just in punishing them again for it?

I don't see how the doctrine of imputation is consistent with the rejection of OSAS.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

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 factdismiss salvation by works on account of boasting.

Jews weren't concerned with being "right with God," as an evangelical today would say it, they worried if they were a part of the Covenant Community which by extension involves being right with God. Their belonging to the Covenant people was sustained by their continued obedience to the law.

Which is then important to understand what Paul meant by "works."

For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Romans 3:28-30 (ESV)

Paul's point was to rob to Jews of their boasting, as he said it was excluded in v.27 on account of faith. The Jews boasted that they alone were God's people, but now Paul's doctrine of Justification has thrown that on it's head. Works of the law are not what distinguish God's people, because God is not the God of the Jews only, but of the whole world which includes the Gentiles. Therefore, he will justify the circumcised and uncircumcised through faith in the Messiah, and they will then be God's people for the world.

Paul's point is not about individual salvation, not even in Ephesians 1-3, which is about the unveiling of the mystery of the Messiah, which is that Gentiles are fellow heirs of the promise. If we then extract these doctrines from that framework, then we will misunderstand Paul's theology and make it about us getting to heaven, rather than heaven coming and dwelling among us.

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).

Again, you're forgetting the part where he gives us the power of the resurrection through the Holy Spirit. He didn't leave it up to us, nor did he complete it wholly without us, but rather he will work in us and through us to accomplish what he set out.

It is all of grace.

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.

You're only addressing righteousness in regards only to moral virtue, yet Paul argued that righteousness always came through faith rather than obedience to the law. That righteousness never could come through the law, which of course I don't think it means entirely the idea of moral virtue, but rather that stance of Covenant membership.

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.

That's not imputation though, that is looking at the perspective of the atonement where Christ is our perfect sacrifice for sins.

But Jesus offers us a way to participate in that righteousness with Him through the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, but not just through a simple declaration, but rather actual participation by being conformed to his image. We don't participate through a legal fiction, we participate through becoming.

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).

I agree here, which is one of the reasons I reject the doctrine of imputation. God sets out to transform us to the likeness of Christ, he doesn't simply claim that we are like Christ, when we aren't. He reckons as righteous on the basis of the future judgment which will be by the life of grace lived by the power of the Holy Spirit.
[/quote]

 

[Doulos Iesou]

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).

No one is arguing that one can have righteousness apart from 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.

Why would he reference Lot "righteous Lot," was it because Lot's righteousness stood out in particular, or was it because of the fact that God said that he would save the city on account of finding 10 "righteous" men. What is important to Peter's writing is not the moral virtue of Lot, but rather God's ability to save him from a sinful world, and that this is an example for us.

This whole reading of Reformed doctrine into every little bit of the OT really bugs me.

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!

Strange, the text says it is fulfilled in us who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. God condemned sin in the flesh of Jesus, but did this in order to allow us to serve in the new way of the Spirit. It is the works rendered by faith, in love, wrought by the Holy Spirit that fulfills the righteous requirement of the law, which was to love.

in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. Romans 8:4 (ESV)

 

[Butch5]

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.

God told Abraham He would give him the land as an everlasting possession. However, He swore it as an oath after Abraham obeyed.

15 And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, 16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: 17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. (Gen 22:1 KJV)

The initial statement was made before Abraham did anything, However, there has been no fulfillment of the promise before obedience.

Godf speaking to Isaac said it again.

KJV Genesis 26:1 And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar.
2 And the LORD appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of:
3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;
4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws. (Gen 26:1-5 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."

Did Paul say, not having my own righteousness which is of the Law? That shows that he considered keeping the Law as acts of righteousness.

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?

Can you be more precise and explain what you mean by grace precedes obedience. That statement could be understood in various ways.

To answer your question, no, I'm not LDS.

 

[cyberjosh]

Hi Doulos,

First of all thank you for your thorough responses to my post. It is refreshing to have a sincere discussion on this matter. Also I note that none of us here possess the ability to perfectly articulate our views in a way others will understand, so please allow for clarifications to be made (as I expect others to be able to do as well), if something seems to have been unduly emphasized or under-emphasized on one way or another.

Agreed, I am not saying that we have to become righteous on our own, and one can only be seen as righteous by the grace of God. Whether through practice, or the position to which one is reckoned that looks forward to the future condition of the believer at the final judgment.

So, firstly I would like to say that I do believe that the pursuit of sanctification is one of the primary goals of the Christian life once we have been born again by God. I understand perfectly there is indeed a pursuit of such a "future condition" of the believer as they seek to become more like Christ. Really this is all tied up in the doctrine of salvation, which has aspects that are are past, present, and future (all three tenses may be found for salvation in the NT); and the paradoxical animating principle of the Christian life and identity becomes succinctly summed up in Philippians 2:12-13, "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." God has saved us (past tense): we are already counted as his child and are reconciled and have been regenerated in the inward man (we are a new person). Yet we must still work amidst an ongoing salvation in our lives by God's grace. Essentially we must work out what God has worked in.

Our life is an expression of the outward manifestation of the inward realities and working of God. Such a life will produce righteousness, holiness, godliness, love, and other spiritually good things (all of which overlap). Nonetheless, judgment is based upon our standing before God and in the end, whether one dies after having been a Christian a week or a century, whether one is still a babe in Christ or a spiritually mature leader, the standard of assessment is the same: how do we stand in regards to accepting Jesus the Son of God to be our Savior from our sins and to reconcile us to God that we may be holy, righteous, and godly like God Himself is.

Holiness and righteousness do go together, and Hebrews talks of "the holiness without which no one will see the Lord" (12:14). You may say the Jews didn't believe they needed to be righteous to stand before God (I contest this to a degree) but we both know that they most definitely understood that they must be holy. The entire OT bears that out, and tells of some of the drastic things that come from approaching God in an unworthy and unholy manor (such as Nadab and Abihu).

Whether has done many righteous works or few, whether one has completely sanctified themselves or not (not 100% possible while we are alive - I believe), the moment that our life and works are done we are evaluated all against the same standard. The same for the thief on the cross as for the Apostle Paul. Just like the parable of the men who worked all day but some men were hired late in the day but received the same wages, so is God's gift to all men who all men who accept Jesus as their savior. God's gift is the same and in equal measure to all, as regards Christ. Differences in spiritual reward will indeed vary (as the difference in the number "fold" some will receive), but as regards the grounds of salvation and whether we may enter into God's presence in eternity depends on whether we are (in the final assessment) 100% blameless before him, which is impossible without a cleansing, a complete sanctifying work, and a reckoning of righteousness (which just means holy and blameless in its moral aspects) to us [I will debate your covenant references to righteousness later].

I say we must be 100% blameless since it is said of God, "Your eyes are too pure to look on evil, and You cannot tolerate wrongdoing" in Habakkuk 1:13 (he cannot tolerate evil in his presence so it must be completely purged), and we are told that "when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2). No one ever has reached that level of blamelessness on the earth, save one: Jesus Christ. This is why Christ must be basis and origin of our blamelessness.

Yes, but the grounds for such reckoning is where there is disagreement.

What do you say the grounds are? Not even Abraham, I believe, was reckoned as righteous apart from Christ's sacrifice since he was counted as having been slain from the foundation of the world. Covenant stipulations merely define the boundaries of a relationship. The Hebrew and OT scholar Douglas K. Stuart, who I heard give a lecture in person on Law in the OT and NT, after noting the fact that even the NT has a "Law of Christ" that we are bound to follow summarized his whole lecture series this way: No law, no relationship. Law is necessary even in covenant (though the blessings promised to Abraham were unconditional - those in the covenant - by grace), but the object and goal is the relationship.

Paul's masterful theological thesis in Romans is that in God's grand plan to draw men into relationship with himself a colossal hindrance (not divinely unplanned for however) entered: men fell from relationship with God through sinning. Sin is a moral consideration, thus the pursuit of righteousness (meaning in a large sense virtuous adherence to the laws, standards, and truths of God) is actually a pursuit of relationship, because God is too holy to court evil and unrighteousness. That is where Jesus comes in, he makes us right before God (the meaning of righteousness in this moral sin/blamelessness sense) so that we may BE in covenant relationship with God. Otherwise that relationship would not be possible.

[cont'd]

 

[cyberjosh]

The thing missing here is where God pours in his resurrection power via giving us the Holy Spirit to walk in newness of life in Christ. Where he then empowers us by grace to fulfill the righteous requirement of the law, which is to love.

This is not an intentional omission on my part. Trust me, perhaps the single biggest theological doctrine that I have spend my time studying is on the Holy Spirit, and I understand that the Christian life is utterly impossible without the δύναμις (dunamis) power of the Holy Spirit. The pastor John Bevere first awoke me to the fact that grace's primary function in our day-to-day lives is actually empowerment, and not simply forgiveness of our sins. This is grace-as-power, and not merely grace-as-blanket-covering. You may read this article that I adopted from a sermon series that I preached on holiness to get a sense of my appreciation of the role of the Holy Spirit in our lives: Sanctification unto God.

What I'm not understanding is what you think/thought this invalidated about what I already said?

These are the central pillars to Paul's theology, and they are not simply dealing with being initiated into God's kingdom. Being united with Christ is the position from which we begin and end, Paul's hope in Philippians 3 was that he would be found in Christ. This being tied to the resurrection life now, and the resurrection later (Philippians 3:10-11).

Oh, please don't get me wrong. Union with Christ is one of the most beautiful and powerful doctrines in the whole Bible. But union with Christ implies identifying with him to the degree that is is inevitable that one takes on his very attributes, though we are still yet assigned a role in applying them (Romans 12:2; Phil. 2:5,12-13). However since Christ is the only basis on which we may be right with God we must remain in union with him to have that justification:

"For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?" (Heb. 10:26-29)

Here we see packed all together forgiveness of sin, judgment, the law of Moses, the covenant in Jesus' blood, sanctification, the Holy Spirit, and grace. They all go together. If one steps outside of that covering of the blood of the covenant there remains no sacrifice or atonement for sins, and our sanctification (which is god's doing) will be no more. Righteousness sits right amidst these things. The atonement is the grounds for our justification (a right/just/righteous standing before God) and continued sanctification.

It's all about being connected to Christ through the Holy Spirit who raised him from the dead to now empower us to be righteous, not just be regarded as such. This isn't of ourselves, but of God who works in us both to will and work for his good pleasure.

You are quite right that the Holy Spirit empowers us to be righteous in this life, just as Jesus is righteous. What we are discussing is perhaps touching on opposite sides of the two different domains of where righteousness is significant in the Christian life: positional and progressive righteousness. You seem to be saying that the moral sense of righteousness only carries into the progressive and acted-upon obedience to God within confines of the covenant relationship. You however seem to be denying any positional value to righteousness whatsoever! That is a non sequitur, IMO, when it comes to considering passages on justification.

Though N.T. Wright had good intentions on wanting to better understand each instance of righteousness he, I believe, has gone too far not necessarily in what he affirms but rather in what he denies. The pendulum of response to the NPP has begun to swing the other way to a middle ground (as most scholarship does when observing historical trends) which corrects the imbalanced emphasis (I will say more on this later). Views similar to Wright's become so absorbed in the "First Century Jews didn't believe that" argument (which Frank Thielman, et al. show is not a completely true statement), that otherwise clear statements in Scripture get overlooked when they address that righteousness according to the law in insufficient. One wonders "insufficient for what?" in that case.

I pointed out earlier that regardless of the angle from which Paul was answering, he indeed made the point that salvation is not by works (works are evaluated against righteous obedience to a standard or law - thus works are a matter of righteousness) lest any should boast. He made that point, despite what the Jews believed, and I do not believe Paul was attacking a strawman argument (as some liberal scholars have suggested), nor that he primarily means something other than what he seems to rather clearly be denying: that works and not rather faith bring us salvation and right-standing with God. But faith is the conveyor and accessor into the realities of what Christ accomplished, which puts salvation and right-standing upon Christ's work and not our own.

I could almost say (though I will not really suggest it - certainly not with dismissive intention - only to elaborate what I mean by "despite") that it doesn't matter what the Jews believed, since Paul nonetheless is addressing it. Denying that would be like replying to the statement "God wants us to be holy" with "No, I wasn't saying anything about holiness". So? That doesn't change the fact that God wants us to be holy. Similarly, though I do believe that the Jews who paid most attention to their OT scriptures knew that God's grace had to save them, Paul still yet addressed and denied that our own righteous works would ever be grounds for assessment for acceptance before God (lest anyone should boast - since rather it would be God's gift to us).

Except our union with Christ is far deeper than the union of marriage, Paul most often argues for Christian virtue from the standpoint of unity with Christ. It is where we obtain every blessing and every promise, and it is because we are tied to the resurrection power that we have abundant life, now and forever in His name.

I was only using a conceptual analogy. I agree with you here.

It is also the position from which we relate to each other, to have the same mind that we have in Christ, to not consider anyone according to the flesh but as part of the New Creation.

Agree.

It isn't the "righteousness of Christ," that we are filled with, but the rather same power that rose Jesus from the dead to dwell in us to give us power over sin, and to conform us to become like our risen savior.

What I am not saying is that Christ's righteousness gets dumped into us somehow and we immediately become perfect beings with perfect acts of righteousness. That I agree has to be worked out. But this goes back to my distinction of positional versus progressive righteousness. I am saying that Christ's work accomplished for us positional right-standing and righteousness before God in terms of "reckoning" us acceptable to be in relationship with him (remember my summary of how sin was the "colossal hindrance" to relationship with God?). God reconciles us, and forgives our sin, on account of Christ to break through that hindrance in relationship with Him. As a result we are positionally right before God, and are therefore freed (whom the Son has set free [past tense] is free indeed) to live unto righteousness! "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness." (1 Peter 2:24). The living to righteousness part is the progressive part, and is what you are affirming, but I don't agree with what you (along with N.T. Wright) seem to be denying

[cont'd]

 

[cyberjosh]

Okay, whew. Now for a bit of the "scholarship" side, and to return to the "First century Jews didn't believe that" argument.

Frank Thielman in his book "Paul and the Law: A Contextual Approach" in chapter 2 after surveying Jewish views (from Josephus and intertestamental writings) on keeping the law and on God's coming redemption from exile writes on pages 64-67 (excerpted - you may be able to preview in Google Books here all of the pages):

Did these Jews also believe that their diligent obedience to the law would reverse the curse and bring about the eschatalogical restoration of their fortunes? And did some believe that, whatever might become of the nation they individually could attain salvation by their piety?

The law itself places obedience within the framework of God's gracious act of deliverance at the exodus. The first sentence of the Decalogue is, "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery" (Ex 20:2; compare Deut 5:6). Deuteronomy says repeatedly that Israel's election is a result not of its worthiness but of God's unconditional love (7:7-8; 8:14-18; 9:4-5). Leviticus urges Israel to imitate the holiness of God because of God's great act of deliverance in the exodus (11:45). Here and elsewhere, obedience is a response to God's grace, not the means of earning his goodwill.

These same Scriptures, moreover, prophesy that Israel's eschatological restoration will come at God's initiative, as a result of God's purification of Israel and re-creation of the people's hearts, not through their own efforts to win God's favor. Israel's repeated violation of the terms of the covenant, recounted so poignantly in Jeremaiah, Ezekiel, and the prayers of confession in Exra 9, Nehemaiah 9, and Daniel 9, stands as a preface to the hope that God will take the initiative and do for his people what their wayward hearts cannot accomplish.
... {snipped}

Despite all this, some Jews of Paul's time did not read their Scriptures this way. They saw Deuteronomy 30:11-20 as a simple statement that obedience to the law results in life, disobedience in death, and that the choice between the two lies in the hands of the individual. "Choose life, Moses says, "so that you and your descendants may life" (v. 19). Ben Sira, writing in the second century B.C., echoes these words and lays particular stress both on the life or death that the individual will receive as a result:
'If you wish, you will keep the commandments, and to act faithfully is a matter of free choice [eudokias].
He has placed before you fire and water. Stretch out your hand for the one you wish. Life and death are
before each person, and whatever each chooses [eudokese] will be given him.' (Sirach 15:15-17)
Psalms of Solomon, produced about a century and a half later, expresses a similar conviction:
... {snipped}

These texts do not betray an unwillingness to rely on God, a boastful spirit, or a fear that bad deeds will outweigh good ones at the final judgment. Nevertheless, they express unambiguously the idea that salvation from God's wrath depends at least to some extent on the human choice to do good and human success at doing it.

This was not the position of all Jews, however. Many appear to have understood the biblical stress on obedience as a response to God's gracious acts of redemption, on Israel's wickedness and on their need for a gracious act of God to deliver them from their inclination to sin.

Then adducing evidence from the Gospels he writes on page 67:

The Gospels provide evidence that both ways of understanding sinful humanity and god's grace were abroad in the first century. Jesus told the parable of the Pharisees and the tax collector "to some who had confidence in themselves, that they were righteous" (Lk 18:9). This confidence apparently led some to believe that they were not "sinners", despite their neglect of the weightier matters of the law (Mt 23:16-36; Lk 11:37-52). In the parable, therefore, the Pharisee believes that because he is innocent of robbery, wickedness and adultery and because he fasts and tithes, he will be justifies (Lk 18:11-12). Unlike the tax collector, he is unwilling to acknowledge his need for repentance, for he does not view himself as a sinner (v. 13).

The Gospels identify this self-trust as the reason that some rejected Jesus' preaching of repentance: they erroneously believed themselves to be "righteous" and criticized Jesus for associating with "sinners" (Mt 9:10-13; Mk 2:15-17; Lk 5:27-32; 7:36-47). The belief that righteousness before God depended on the human choice to cooperate with God's grace by producing good works did not necessarily lead to this kind of self-trust, but the Pharisee's conduct in the parable shows that it happened often enough to serve as the subject of an illustrative story.

Nevertheless, the tax collector in the parable was also a Jew, and as the Prayer of Manasseh shows, his plea, "God be merciful to me, the sinner!" (Lk 18:13), was no less typical of Jewish piety than the Pharisee's self-trust. Moreover, the Gospels affirm that many first-century Jews maintained both a commitment to the law and the conviction that they were sinners in need of God's eschatological act of redemption.
...

That is about all that I could bear to type, and that my fingers could take. I hope you get the gist of his argument at this point. Both types of Jew were seen in the 1st century. It is not purely a black or white proposition. If the Reformation thinkers had it all one way, the new perspective thinkers have it all the other way. Theologians and scholars like Frank Thielman, Douglas Moo, Thomas Schreiner, and Don A. Carson however have tried to temper this with careful scholarship-backed responses, and they are worth reading.

[cont'd]

 

[cyberjosh]

Lastly (for now), for the scholarship side of things, I wanted to share some invaluable audio lectures I found by Don Carson who was a fellow student with N.T. Wright, thus has some insights into his position, and was also editor and contributor to the massive two volume set entitled "Justification and Variegated Nomism: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism" in response to the NPP's "covenantal nomism" teaching. He is an excellent theologian besides and I have other theological works by him on my shelf.

So, I found this page of audio lectures here and #16 and #17 were on the NPP and provide a critique of it. I have listened to Part 1 & 2 so far of #17 and they were excellent and quite enlightening. I found that Carson doesn't think the NPP has it all wrong but rather it places the emphasis in the wrong place (as he says it places christology subordinate to [emerging from] ecclesiology, instead of ecclesiology subordinate to christology).

Also I felt partly vindicated (permit me to politely jump for joy ) in my initial "front loading" of my concern about not putting too much emphasis on the scholarship of 1st century Judaism and not enough on the revelation of the Holy Spirit, when I heard D.A. Carson say (in part 2 I think) [to paraphrase]: "I think that we cannot automatically assume that because we know the backdrop of 1st century Judaism that Paul could not alter the backdrop, critique the backdrop, or even propose something in place of the backdrop" (he puts it much more eloquently and sensibly than I do here). Essentially that is what I was saying in my first few posts here: we cannot merely adduce a "formula" understanding of 1st century Judaism and merely stamp it on the Pauline epistles and say "Eureka! This is what Paul must have meant in light of 1st Century Jewish beliefs." Paul as illuminated by the Holy Spirit, I believe, in some respects, did alter and challenge the 1st century Jewish beliefs.

Because of that, and many other interesting things and exegetical nuggets in the lectures, I highly recommend you listen to the Part 1 - Part 3 (I'm on #3 now) of D.A. Carson's lectures here:

"17. The So-Called New Pauline Perspective Critiqued (The links are working again- 3/25/07).
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3"

I may post a new thread specifically about the NPP in the near feature and recaiptulate some of what I've said here.

 

[By Grace]

The reason I asked about being LDS is that they have a uniform inability to see Scripture in its context die to them being spiritually blind

God told Abraham He would give him the land as an everlasting possession. However, He swore it as an oath after Abraham obeyed.

15 And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, 16 And said, By myself have I sworn, (PAST TENSE) saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: 17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; 18 And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice. (Gen 22:1 KJV)

The promise was FIRST made to Abraham and it externded forward to Isaac, the son if Abraham, and then to his grandson, Jacob. For some reason, you are not remembering that the exact words of that promise were stated to Abraham, and you want to condition the covenant with Abraham on the obedience of Jaccob???

That makes no sense.

The initial statement was made before Abraham did anything, However, there has been no fulfillment of the promise before obedience.

Thiis is absolutely correct, and by stating that, you nullify your works-conditioned promises fallacy.

God speaking to Isaac said it again.

KJV Genesis 26:1 And there was a famine in the land, beside the first famine that was in the days of Abraham. And Isaac went unto Abimelech king of the Philistines unto Gerar.
2 And the LORD appeared unto him, and said, Go not down into Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of:
3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto Abraham thy father;
4 And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed;
5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws. (Gen 26:1-5 KJV)

You again seem to be misreading what Scripture says quite clearly. Abraham obeyed AFTER the promises were given. This only says that Abraham obeyed God but you seem to be inserting something that is NOT in Scripture, a condition of the promises of God. If there were conditions attached, then grace would be non-existent.

Did Paul say, not having my own righteousness which is of the Law? That shows that he considered keeping the Law as acts of righteousness.

We went over that yesterday, and I demonstrated that by taking one verse, and ripping it from its context, you concoct an un-Scriptural pretext.

Can you be more precise and explain what you mean by grace precedes obedience. That statement could be understood in various ways.

I gave you several Scriptures for that, including Ephesians 2:8-9 and Titus 3:4-8 or so.

Please read them again if you are confused, or do not understand what they say.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Hi Doulos,

First of all thank you for your thorough responses to my post. It is refreshing to have a sincere discussion on this matter. Also I note that none of us here possess the ability to perfectly articulate our views in a way others will understand, so please allow for clarifications to be made (as I expect others to be able to do as well), if something seems to have been unduly emphasized or under-emphasized on one way or another.

Clarifications are absolutely welcome, and I imagine we'll discover that we believe much of the same thing except with regards to imputation.

Refreshing is definitely a proper way to characterize this exchange, appreciate your detailed feedback.

So, firstly I would like to say that I do believe that the pursuit of sanctification is one of the primary goals of the Christian life once we have been born again by God. I understand perfectly there is indeed a pursuit of such a "future condition" of the believer as they seek to become more like Christ. Really this is all tied up in the doctrine of salvation, which has aspects that are are past, present, and future (all three tenses may be found for salvation in the NT); and the paradoxical animating principle of the Christian life and identity becomes succinctly summed up in Philippians 2:12-13, "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." God has saved us (past tense): we are already counted as his child and are reconciled and have been regenerated in the inward man (we are a new person). Yet we must still work amidst an ongoing salvation in our lives by God's grace. Essentially we must work out what God has worked in.

I agree with everything written here, very good analysis.

Our life is an expression of the outward manifestation of the inward realities and working of God. Such a life will produce righteousness, holiness, godliness, love, and other spiritually good things (all of which overlap). Nonetheless, judgment is based upon our standing before God and in the end, whether one dies after having been a Christian a week or a century, whether one is still a babe in Christ or a spiritually mature leader, the standard of assessment is the same: how do we stand in regards to accepting Jesus the Son of God to be our Savior from our sins and to reconcile us to God that we may be holy, righteous, and godly like God Himself is.

I think it's important to note that our good works serve to increase our reward at the final judgment, that even one who fails to some degree will still be saved though his works be burned up.

For those who are spiritually immature or "babes" in Christ, then I don't doubt their salvation at the final judgment, as I embrace justification by faith and that this entails God's forgiveness of their sins. The moment a person believes, they belong to the Covenant people and have peace with God, those who die in this relationship remain so at the final judgment.

Holiness and righteousness do go together, and Hebrews talks of "the holiness without which no one will see the Lord" (12:14). You may say the Jews didn't believe they needed to be righteous to stand before God (I contest this to a degree) but we both know that they most definitely understood that they must be holy. The entire OT bears that out, and tells of some of the drastic things that come from approaching God in an unworthy and unholy manor (such as Nadab and Abihu).

Yes, and this holiness was to be pursued after becoming a part of the Covenant community, as God cannot stand unholiness in his presence. Hence, it was necessary for God to give us his Holy Spirit to sanctify us inwardly and not just outwardly was done in the Jewish Laws and Rituals.

I think I can overstate my position a bit if I say that a person doesn't have to be righteous or holy to stand in the presence of God, but I think I meant that a person doesn't have to be 100% righteous to stand before God.

Whether has done many righteous works or few, whether one has completely sanctified themselves or not (not 100% possible while we are alive - I believe), the moment that our life and works are done we are evaluated all against the same standard. The same for the thief on the cross as for the Apostle Paul. Just like the parable of the men who worked all day but some men were hired late in the day but received the same wages, so is God's gift to all men who all men who accept Jesus as their savior. God's gift is the same and in equal measure to all, as regards Christ. Differences in spiritual reward will indeed vary (as the difference in the number "fold" some will receive), but as regards the grounds of salvation and whether we may enter into God's presence in eternity depends on whether we are (in the final assessment) 100% blameless before him, which is impossible without a cleansing, a complete sanctifying work, and a reckoning of righteousness (which just means holy and blameless in its moral aspects) to us [I will debate your covenant references to righteousness later].

I don't disagree with hardly anything here, except confusing righteousness with holiness. It's the cleansing that we receive and the forgiveness of sins by which we stand blameless before God, however the righteousness we are judged by is our own, therefore it makes no sense to include this bit of theology.

I say we must be 100% blameless since it is said of God, "Your eyes are too pure to look on evil, and You cannot tolerate wrongdoing" in Habakkuk 1:13 (he cannot tolerate evil in his presence so it must be completely purged), and we are told that "when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2). No one ever has reached that level of blamelessness on the earth, save one: Jesus Christ. This is why Christ must be basis and origin of our blamelessness.

Christ's sinlessness isn't imputed, his righteousness is, which is moral merit in imputation theology. Our being blameless before God was accomplished on the Cross, where God dealt with sin and evil. We must be 100% blameless, but not 100% righteous.

What do you say the grounds are? Not even Abraham, I believe, was reckoned as righteous apart from Christ's sacrifice since he was counted as having been slain from the foundation of the world.

To me, that is streeetcching the theology to it's limits. Abraham was reckoned righteous on the grounds of his faith in the promises of God, and on this basis God has relationship and community with Abraham and his descendants.

Covenant stipulations merely define the boundaries of a relationship. The Hebrew and OT scholar Douglas K. Stuart, who I heard give a lecture in person on Law in the OT and NT, after noting the fact that even the NT has a "Law of Christ" that we are bound to follow summarized his whole lecture series this way: No law, no relationship. Law is necessary even in covenant (though the blessings promised to Abraham were unconditional - those in the covenant - by grace), but the object and goal is the relationship.

I can agree with this.

Paul's masterful theological thesis in Romans is that in God's grand plan to draw men into relationship with himself a colossal hindrance (not divinely unplanned for however) entered: men fell from relationship with God through sinning. Sin is a moral consideration, thus the pursuit of righteousness (meaning in a large sense virtuous adherence to the laws, standards, and truths of God) is actually a pursuit of relationship, because God is too holy to court evil and unrighteousness. That is where Jesus comes in, he makes us right before God (the meaning of righteousness in this moral sin/blamelessness sense) so that we may BE in covenant relationship with God. Otherwise that relationship would not be possible.

I think Romans is much more nuanced than that, though other consider it a huge theological treatise on salvation. While that is certainly in the text, he seems to be dealing with the inclusion of the Gentiles and God's faithfulness to his Covenant Promises.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

This is not an intentional omission on my part. Trust me, perhaps the single biggest theological doctrine that I have spend my time studying is on the Holy Spirit, and I understand that the Christian life is utterly impossible without the δύναμις (dunamis) power of the Holy Spirit. The pastor John Bevere first awoke me to the fact that grace's primary function in our day-to-day lives is actually empowerment, and not simply forgiveness of our sins. This is grace-as-power, and not merely grace-as-blanket-covering. You may read this article that I adopted from a sermon series that I preached on holiness to get a sense of my appreciation of the role of the Holy Spirit in our lives: Sanctification unto God.

What I'm not understanding is what you think/thought this invalidated about what I already said?

I think we are in agreement here, but I don't see how the doctrine of imputation makes sense with this. It's an unnecessary doctrine in my eyes.

Oh, please don't get me wrong. Union with Christ is one of the most beautiful and powerful doctrines in the whole Bible. But union with Christ implies identifying with him to the degree that is is inevitable that one takes on his very attributes, though we are still yet assigned a role in applying them (Romans 12:2; Phil. 2:5,12-13). However since Christ is the only basis on which we may be right with God we must remain in union with him to have that justification:

"For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?" (Heb. 10:26-29)

Here we see packed all together forgiveness of sin, judgment, the law of Moses, the covenant in Jesus' blood, sanctification, the Holy Spirit, and grace. They all go together. If one steps outside of that covering of the blood of the covenant there remains no sacrifice or atonement for sins, and our sanctification (which is god's doing) will be no more. Righteousness sits right amidst these things. The atonement is the grounds for our justification (a right/just/righteous standing before God) and continued sanctification.

Don't disagree with anything here either. Again, it's only when we reckon the actions of another (Christ) as being meritorious for Christians on account of their faith.

You are quite right that the Holy Spirit empowers us to be righteous in this life, just as Jesus is righteous. What we are discussing is perhaps touching on opposite sides of thetwo different domains of where righteousness is significant in the Christian life: positional and progressive righteousness. You seem to be saying that the moral sense of righteousness only carries into the progressive and acted-upon obedience to God within confines of the covenant relationship. You however seem to be denying any positional value to righteousness whatsoever! That is a non sequitur, IMO, when it comes to considering passages on justification.

I'm not denying the positional value, but rather the basis for the positional value. I see it as on the basis of the future judgment, God renders his future judgment in the present and by grace conforms us to that future attainment. Rather than it being on the basis of an alien righteousness, imputed to us as our sum total merit before God.

Though N.T. Wright had good intentions on wanting to better understand each instance of righteousness he, I believe, has gone too far not necessarily in what he affirms but rather in what he denies. The pendulum of response to the NPP has begun to swing the other way to a middle ground (as most scholarship does when observing historical trends) which corrects the imbalanced emphasis (I will say more on this later). Views similar to Wright's become so absorbed in the "First Century Jews didn't believe that" argument (which Frank Thielman, et al. show is not a completely true statement), that otherwise clear statements in Scripture get overlooked when they address that righteousness according to the law in insufficient. One wonders "insufficient for what?" in that case.

I think the NPP is a step in the right direction and I certainly have for the most part agreed with their conclusions, particularly as it concerns N.T. Wright. I don't agree with them completely, nor are they a monolithic group but have their various differences.

His arguments against the doctrine of imputation in particular are quite strong and convincing from my perspective, and their scholarship regarding 1st Century Judaism has done more not to demonstrate Covenantal Nomism, but rather in refuting the long held position that they were purely and mainly a meritorious works based religion.

There are obvious varieties among 1st Century Jews, but it is clear that the Pharisee's were the dominate thought at the time, and it is among whom Paul regarded himself. A Pharisee of Pharisees, and it is the mischaracterization of this group in particular with which the NPP has been so helpful, imo.

What I am not saying is that Christ's righteousness gets dumped into us somehow and we immediately become perfect beings with perfect acts of righteousness.

Yet, in the eyes of God we would then be seen as perfect, which to me doesn't make sense with how God deals with the us still.

That I agree has to be worked out. But this goes back to my distinction of positional versus progressive righteousness. I am saying that Christ's work accomplished for us positional right-standing and righteousness before God in terms of "reckoning" us acceptable to be in relationship with him (remember my summary of how sin was the "colossal hindrance" to relationship with God?). God reconciles us, and forgives our sin, on account of Christ to break through that hindrance in relationship with Him. As a result we are positionally right before God, and are therefore freed (whom the Son has set free [past tense] is free indeed) to live unto righteousness! "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness." (1 Peter 2:24). The living to righteousness part is the progressive part, and is what you are affirming, but I don't agree with what you (along with N.T. Wright) seem to be denying

Again, no denial of it's positional value, but rather the idea that this position is granted on the basis of Christ's imputed righteousness. I don't think you are granting all the logical implications of the doctrine of imputation, if our sins are wholly dealt with never to return again and we are regarded in the eyes of God as being completely perfect.

How then could one's standing before God ever come into question (as you believe it does), unless God sees us in multiple different ways, which then doesn't make any sense to me. The doctrine of imputation I don't think can be consistent if one doesn't embrace OSAS.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Lastly (for now), for the scholarship side of things, I wanted to share some invaluable audio lectures I found by Don Carson who was a fellow student with N.T. Wright, thus has some insights into his position, and was also editor and contributor to the massive two volume set entitled "Justification and Variegated Nomism: The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism" in response to the NPP's "covenantal nomism" teaching. He is an excellent theologian besides and I have other theological works by him on my shelf.

So, I found this page of audio lectures here and #16 and #17 were on the NPP and provide a critique of it. I have listened to Part 1 & 2 so far of #17 and they were excellent and quite enlightening. I found that Carson doesn't think the NPP has it all wrong but rather it places the emphasis in the wrong place (as he says it places christology subordinate to [emerging from] ecclesiology, instead of ecclesiology subordinate to christology).

Also I felt partly vindicated (permit me to politely jump for joy ) in my initial "front loading" of my concern about not putting too much emphasis on the scholarship of 1st century Judaism and not enough on the revelation of the Holy Spirit, when I heard D.A. Carson say (in part 2 I think) [to paraphrase]: "I think that we cannot automatically assume that because we know the backdrop of 1st century Judaism that Paul could not alter the backdrop, critique the backdrop, or even propose something in place of the backdrop" (he puts it much more eloquently and sensibly than I do here). Essentially that is what I was saying in my first few posts here: we cannot merely adduce a "formula" understanding of 1st century Judaism and merely stamp it on the Pauline epistles and say "Eureka! This is what Paul must have meant in light of 1st Century Jewish beliefs." Paul as illuminated by the Holy Spirit, I believe, in some respects, did alter and challenge the 1st century Jewish beliefs.

Because of that, and many other interesting things and exegetical nuggets in the lectures, I highly recommend you listen to the Part 1 - Part 3 (I'm on #3 now) of D.A. Carson's lectures here:

"17. The So-Called New Pauline Perspective Critiqued (The links are working again- 3/25/07).
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3"

I may post a new thread specifically about the NPP in the near feature and recaiptulate some of what I've said here.

I'm familiar with D.A. Carson and the contribution of these other scholars in the works of "Justification and Variegated Nomism," and while it seems they are trying to respond to the NPP scholarship, they haven't really demonstrated their perspective too well. What I more often hear is more of a cautious avoidance of 1st Century Judaism as being used for a backdrop of Paul's writings, while not wholly denying its usefulness.

Second Temple Judaism is not monolithic, Paul was not necessarily representing Judaism in general but a specific thread of that, namely from his perspective of being a Pharisee. One who generally looked at the world with three major themes, election, eschatology and monotheism. He then has all these concepts radically redefined within the Messiah, where the people of God are distinguished by faith in the Messiah rather than by works of the Law. Where the future Messianic age of the New Creation has begun with the Resurrection and is to have a deeper and fuller future fulfillment. Also, in regards to monotheism where the God of Israel has been revealed gloriously in the incarnation, the life of Jesus of Nazareth who is the exact image of the invisible God.

These are particular insights I borrowed, but also share with N.T. Wright, and I think they are very clearly rooted in that 1st Century Jewish context and are also exegetically useful and consistent with Scripture.

There were in fact difference in Paul's beliefs from other Jews, as many of them had embraced certain aspects of paganism as a result of the Hellenization of the region, and I think those have to be pointed out. However, I think beginning with his Jewish beliefs and how the Messiah has effected that, is a very good way to see Paul without reading him into our times and our perspectives.

 

[cyberjosh]

Thank you for your clear and concise responses. I have yet to learn the art of concise argument. I will see if I can return to this tonight, though I am packing to go out of town for 5-days so I may have to respond tomorrow night if I can't get on tonight. All of this conversation is great food for thought though!

P.S. I would genuinely be interested in your thoughts on Parts 1 & 2 of Don Carson's lecture if you get a chance to listen to them (you can PM me any responses if you like - though here is fine as well - assuming you find time for it). I will try to download part #3 onto my MP3 player to listen to while I'm on the road tomorrow.

God bless!
Josh

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Thank you for your clear and concise responses. I have yet to learn the art of concise argument.

I would rather go much longer, but I only am able to make these remarks when I get short breaks from my work. :P

I will see if I can return to this tonight, though I am packing to go out of town for 5-days so I may have to respond tomorrow night if I can't get on tonight. All of this conversation is great food for thought though!

Agreed, I appreciate having a polite and civil conversation where there is mostly agreement, yet the disagreement becomes more and more clear. I also appreicate that you're familiar with the discussion at the level of Biblical scholars, which I wish I had more time to deal with the full work of those of D.A. Carson, but I leave those responses to other scholars.

I used to be a Calvinist for a time, and it was then that I was made to be quite familiar with his work as he is the top scholar for the new Reformed movement.

P.S. I would genuinely be interested in your thoughts on Parts 1 & 2 of Don Carson's lecture if you get a chance to listen to them (you can PM me any responses if you like - though here is fine as well - assuming you find time for it). I will try to download part #3 onto my MP3 player to listen to while I'm on the road tomorrow.

I'd really like to, any idea on how long each lecture is?

 

[Butch5]

The reason I asked about being LDS is that they have a uniform inability to see Scripture in its context die to them being spiritually blind


The promise was FIRST made to Abraham and it externded forward to Isaac, the son if Abraham, and then to his grandson, Jacob. For some reason, you are not remembering that the exact words of that promise were stated to Abraham, and you want to condition the covenant with Abraham on the obedience of Jaccob???

That makes no sense.

I have no idea what you're talking about. What I posted showed that the oath was sworn to Abraham due to his obedience.

This is absolutely correct, and by stating that, you nullify your works-conditioned promises fallacy.

I don't know where you see a fallacy. God told Abraham to go to the Land and He would make Him a great nation, He didn't say sit there and I'll give you the land ands make you a great nation.

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: (Gen 12:1-2 KJV)

Notice what God said, go to the land I will show you and I'll make of you a great nation. The promise was conditional upon Abraham going to the land. He didn't become a great nation until after he went to the land.

You again seem to be misreading what Scripture says quite clearly. Abraham obeyed AFTER the promises were given. This only says that Abraham obeyed God but you seem to be inserting something that is NOT in Scripture, a condition of the promises of God. If there were conditions attached, then grace would be non-existent.

See above. Maybe it's your definition of grace. Charis just means favor.

We went over that yesterday, and I demonstrated that by taking one verse, and ripping it from its context, you concoct an un-Scriptural pretext.

No, you claimed that. However, looking at the passage in context Paul is saying that he sees keeping the Law as righteous deeds.

I gave you several Scriptures for that, including Ephesians 2:8-9 and Titus 3:4-8 or so.

Please read them again if you are confused, or do not understand what they say.

I'm not the least bit confused, just don't want to assume anything. My question wasn't about Scripture it was about what "you" mean by grace precedes obedience. Ephesian 2 is addressing the Mosaic Law and Titus is most likely addressing it too.

 

[cyberjosh]

I'd really like to, any idea on how long each lecture is?

Yeah each is about 45 minutes. I had a 1.5 hour drive last weekend and knocked out two in one sitting by listening in the car.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Yeah each is about 45 minutes. I had a 1.5 hour drive last weekend and knocked out two in one sitting by listening in the car.

I'm doing a solo snowshoeing on Mount Rainier this weekend, I think I may listen to a couple of them on the 2 hour drive.

 

[cyberjosh]

One more thing before I embark on my long road trip today. I watched a few videos on YouTube of Wright stating his position (including an interesting discussion on a radio program with Dr. James White which I only got a quarter of the way through), so I think I understand his personal approach to the NPP a little better now.

However I think that I would be aided by knowing exactly how Wright treats some of the verses in Romans and how he actually exegetes them (I, to be honest, have not read any of his books [yet] but rather quotes and summaries of what he says).

Assuming you have one of Wright's books at your disposal could you provide me with a quote of how he does each of the following (in Romans in particular)?

- How he exegetes a passage that has the noun "righteousness" in translation (preferably a passage that has been traditionally understood as a moral meaning of that word, so that I can better understand his contrast)
- The same for a passage with the noun "justification" in translation
- And then finally the same for a passage using the verb justify/justified in translation

One thing I am interested in is how Wright gets around the natural and etymological root sense of dikaioo and dikaiosune as being part of a word group that all have to do with justice (Carson mentions this as an obstacle to Wright's argument - so I'm interested to see how/if he deals with it.)

Lastly, for sake of utmost clarity, could you compile a list of all the verses in Romans that have the words righteousness/justification/justify (I think there are at least 15 in Romans according to a reference work I have) and divide them by what you think are the ones with a "Covenant" sense and "Moral" sense. Basically like:

- Covenant: Romans 3:X, 4:Y, 5:Z
- Moral: Romans 6:A, 7:B, 8:C

That would help avoid confusion to a tremendous degree! And as for the covenant list, I would like to know your (or the NPP's) distinction between that righteousness and hesed faithfulness (and its distinction from tzadik in the OT).

Tall order? Maybe, but if we are going to delve into this then the meat and potatoes have to be served sometime! ;-)