Justification: Why works are a stumbling block for some.

[Dave...]

francisdesales

I disagree. And I think here is the main difference on this issue between Catholics and Protestants. Catholics see our relationship with God as familial, while Protestantism sees it first as a legal issue.

Romans 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law.

Two different things, unless you believe all men always have a relationship with God. I believe that unbelievers are enemies of God, and when unbelievers become believers, only then do they have a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. There is a transition from unbeliever to believer that requires satisfying the law, God's perfect standards. You then have two choices: 1) Try to do it yourself (if you've sinned once, you failed and all the good works in the world will not change that fact.); 2) Put you faith in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and receive His imputed righteousness, this is the only way to be made just before God and His holy, perfect standard. Jesus Christ makes the payment for our sin on the cross.

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,

2 Corinthians 5:21 For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

Thus, the idea of crediting righteousness to your account and being imputed with justice that is not yours. This legalisation of how salvation works is an innovation of the Protestant Reformation - primarily coming from Luther's idea on man's utter depravity.

Righteousness Imputed (lists scripture supporting)
http://www.bible-topics.com/Righteousness-Imputed.html

Righteousness of God, The (lists scripture supporting)
http://www.bible-topics.com/Righteousne ... d-The.html

T.U.L.I.P. (Under TOTAL DEPRAVITY) (lists scripture supporting)
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lo ... ip.html#t1

I've provided the imputed righteousness link already to show you some of the scripture. I also wrote a whole post on the righteousness of God. Remember, you didn't have time to anser all of it, so you answered none of it. If you are going to continue to deny it, then I will need you to at least go over the scripture and adress some of it. That would be fair, no?

Catholic teaching has never seen man as utterly depraved, but wounded. Man does maintain a wounded free will - unlike what Luther said. Thus, there is nor never was a need to consider salvation as a legal transaction. Rather, as the OT also formulates, man and God have a covenantal relationship, one of familial love. As a result, we see justification and sanctification as synonymous.

Romans 3:9 What then? Are we better than they? Not at all. For we have previously charged both Jews and Greeks that they are all under sin.
10 As it is written:


“ There is none righteous, no, not one;
11 There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
12 They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.â€Â
13 “ Their throat is an open tomb;
With their tongues they have practiced deceitâ€Â;

“ The poison of asps is under their lipsâ€Â;
14 “ Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.â€Â
15 “ Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 Destruction and misery are in their ways;
17 And the way of peace they have not known.â€Â
18 “ There is no fear of God before their eyes.â€Â

John 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.

T.U.L.I.P. (Under TOTAL DEPRAVITY) (lists scripture supporting)
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lo ... ip.html#t1

In Protestantism, justification is a one-time process, while sanctification, quite honestly, serves very little purpose (since supposedly, Christ has already done everything necessary for a man to enter heaven -

I need to make clear, I could care less about Protestantism, and I feel the same for Catholicism. It's the Bible that matters. We are justified as a result of positional sanctification. Jesus did do it all.

being further sanctified serves no purpose in salvation in this scheme).

Sure it does, just not anything that you or I can boast about. The purpose is Growing in likeness to the Lord while serving Him in understanding and obedience makes us more useful. We glorify Him. That's the whole reason we are saved to begin with, to glorify Him. Even your caticism shows this truth. Remember, mercy, not sacrifice.

Although justification begins at a specific point - Baptism

Grace flows in our lives, but baptism doesn't, it's a one time act by God placing us in his Body. If you are speaking of water baptism I disagree completely. We are baptised by Jesus, with the Holy Spirit, into His death i.e. born again (imputed with His righteousness).

grace continues to flow in our lives.

I agree.

We gain grace as we live a life of obedience. As grace increases, so does justification - and we become more sanctified (holy) in God's eyes.

I disagree. "Where sin abounds, grace abounds much more." If grace were earned by us, it would cease to be grace. You are confusing our being "filled with the Holy Spirit", which means to be more under His control, which results from obedience, which is part of our progressive sanctification, with our justification before God that can only come about with the imputed righteousness of God.

"Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. And such some of you were; but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God."

"were washed"
"were sanctified"
"were justified"

All past tense. Why? shouldn't it say "were being washed, ...sanctified, ...justified"

1 Corinthians 1:2 To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

Why does Paul say that they are sanctified, and not "are being sanctified? Why do they only need to call on the name of Jesus Christ, I.e. believe?

Paul is speaking of Baptism (the washing of regeneration) as being instrument by which God sanctifies and justifies us. The only other place New Testament uses "washing" is in Acts 22:16, which is the act of Baptism...

I hope we are not speaking of water baptism. If you can, in the future, specify when you are speaking of water baptism so I can answer more directly. "which is the act" would that be a one time act by God?

"And now why tarriest thou? Rise up, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, invoking his name. "

The context of 1 Cor 6 deals with the conduct of the Corinthians, not the alien righteousness of Christians. Thus, when Paul switches around these terms interchangeably, we see there is no chronological order - justification and sanctification are two synonymous terms. In fact, the verb "justified" NEVER precedes the verb "sanctified" in the New Testament!

You are reading into these verses something that is not there.

First, just to be sure we are on the same note here, grammatically this phrase "calling on the name of the Lord" or as your verse says "invoking his name" precedes "arise and be baptised" or as your translation reads "Rise up, and be baptized" Salvation come from calling on the name of the Lord. Romans 10:9-10, Romans 10:13.

Is justification a one-time act? Scriptures disagree:

"He that hurteth, let him hurt still: and he that is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is just, let him be justified still: and he that is holy, let him be sanctified still." Rev 22:11

Again, you are reading into these verse your preconceived ideas, and it's not fitting. For a proper understanding. "Justified" past tense, "sanctified" past tense. see...

1 John 3:1-31 Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. 2 Beloved, now we are children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is. 3 And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.

And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself (progressive), just as He is pure (positional).

Why are they already pure? Jesus Christ by His imputed righteousness. This is our standing before God, our justification.

It's saying the same thing that the verse you provided does.

"Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?" James 2:24

Dealt with this already...

"This does not contradict Paul's clear teaching that Abraham was justified before God by grace alone through faith alone (Romans 3:20, Romans 4:1-25, Galatians 3:6,11)

James could not mean that Abraham was constituted righteous before God because of his own works because...

1) James already stressed that salvation is a gracious gift (James 1:17-18).

2) In the middle of this disputed passage (v23), James quoted Genesis 15:6, which forcefully claims that God credited righteousness to Abraham solely on basis of his faith (also see Romans 1:17; Romans 3:24; Romans 4:1-25).

3) The work that James said justified Abraham was his offering up of Isaac (Genesis 22:9,12), an event that occurred many years after he first exercised faith and was declared righteous before God (Genesis 12:1-7; Genesis 15:6). Instead, Abraham's offering of Isaac demonstrated the genuineness of his faith and the reality of his justification before God. James is emphasizing the vindication before others of mans claims to salvation. James' teaching perfectly compliments Paul's writing; salvation is determined by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9) and demonstrated by faithfulness to obey God's will alone (Ephesians 2:10)." (JMSB)

Also, at times, the Bible uses the word "sanctify" or "sanctification" when you would expect to see "justify:

"...to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive remission of sins and an inheritance among them that are sanctified by faith in me." Acts 26:18 (KJV)

This fits perfectly with what i've been say and all the scripture that I've been posting so far. Again, you are really distorting the meaning of these passages to conform them to preconceived ideas that did not come from scripture, but from man made doctrines.

The word "sanctified" is used, rather than "justified". Men are forgiven by sanctification, rather than by justification.

I don't know how much clearer i can make it.

There is a positional sanctification, and a progressive sanctification. the positional sanctification is why we are justified before God.

"Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers dispersed through Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, elect, According to the foreknowledge of God the Father, unto the sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you and peace be multiplied." 1 Peter 1:1-2

Again, we have been chosen as the elect through the sanctification (rather than justification) of the Spirit...

Sanctification begins with justification (declaring the sinner just before God by graciouslyimputing Christ's righteousness to him.). (positional)...

Phil. 3:9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;

Hebrews 10:10 10 By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

...and continues (progressive) as a process of purification that goes until glorification.

Positional sanctification justifies us before God.

Progressive sanctification is the evidence, fruit, that the justified, saved person produces.

2 Thess. 13 But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth,

Sanctification means "set apart", read it that way with this passage.

Hebrews 10:29; Jude 1; and Eph 5:26 are further examples of this utilization of the word "sanctification" where "justification" would have been expected. Thus, we see the words as NOT separate. As a result, since sanctification means justification and vice versus, and sanctification continues throughout one's life, we can also say that justification continues to ebb and increase throughout one's life. God sees our holiness in Christ change as our obedience, humility, and love change as a result of the Spirit's work in our hearts.

Read these verses understanding what I have already said and you will see them properly.

Note: Hebrews 10:29 is speaking of Jesus' sanctification "set apart" unto God.

John 17:19 And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth.

An apostate are not, were never sanctified.

Gotta go.

 

[francisdesales]

I've provided the imputed righteousness link already to show you some of the scripture. I also wrote a whole post on the righteousness of God. Remember, you didn't have time to anser all of it, so you answered none of it. If you are going to continue to deny it, then I will need you to at least go over the scripture and adress some of it. That would be fair, no?

Dave,

It was never my intent to argue the ENTIRE subject of justification and all its various subcategories. Do you truly expect me to go to three different links and refute the many Scriptural verses provided? I do not intend on writing a book on such a broad subject. I am not purposely "denying" anything. I am saying that the subject matter is too much and not conducive to this form of communication. I realize that long posts are rarely read, so we'd be wasting our time.

If it pleases you, I would like to discuss whether justification and sanctification are synonymous. Is justification a one-time act or is it synonymous with sanctification? That is the issue I addressed in my last posts to you. I do not desire to discuss TULIP or the Righteousness of God or Imputed Justification. I would like to narrow our discussion to my above question.

If you would prefer, we can discuss something else, but please limit your topic somewhat.

I appreciate your kindness in this matter. Feel free to cut and paste the parts of your last posts to form a new, more narrow subject matter.

Regards

 

[Dave...]

Do you truly expect me to go to three different links and refute the many Scriptural verses provided?

But that's the point. You are missing out on the bigger picture which is important in understanding your question about justification and sanctification. The imputed righteousness of God is central to the discussion if I am to use the Bible to prove these things.

The difference is that you have two justifications and one sanctification to my one justification and two sanctifications (really one sanctification that serves two purposes, actually three, but I'll save that for another time). :o

I raise you one sanctification. :o Do you call? :-D

I'll try to think of a more condensed way to make my point starting tomorrow.

Peace

Dave

 

[francisdesales]

But that's the point. You are missing out on the bigger picture which is important in understanding your question about justification and sanctification. The imputed righteousness of God is central to the discussion if I am to use the Bible to prove these things.

Dave,

If you feel that it is more important to discuss imputed vs. infused righteousness, if you think that would prove your case, you may proceed. I only ask that you don't over-extend the length of the post which would require 3-4 hours to respond to.

Regards

 

[Solo]

Dave,
I wouldn't waste my time. I don't believe that ole francis wants to see the truth. If he does not want to spend the time analyzing your information, then he is evidently content with the Roman Catholic gospel.

Too bad the Roman Catholic gospel screws up justification, santification, and glorification.
Michael

 

[francisdesales]

Dave,
I wouldn't waste my time. I don't believe that ole francis wants to see the truth. If he does not want to spend the time analyzing your information, then he is evidently content with the Roman Catholic gospel.

Too bad the Roman Catholic gospel screws up justification, santification, and glorification.
Michael

Solo,

I have been quite generous to you and your attempts to express your beliefs. I am sorry that I do not consider you as an infallible interpreter of Scripture, but please do not take it personal or direct such venting towards me on a thread that you were not involved in. From my discussions with Dave, I feel he is perfectly capable of judging whether to discuss the issue of justification from a biblical perspective with me and without resorting to name calling, as you tend to do.

I have no problems with analyzing the information. As I explained previously, I do not desire to launch a veritable book for a reply. I would like to point out that my posts are "hand-made" by little old me. I don't cut and paste, thus, I take longer to respond to posts. I cannot answer very long posts effectively. I believe Dave understands that. If you don't, I'm sorry. Say what you like about me.

If you would prefer to join our discussions by not sabotaging it with your 3000+ word "cut and paste" articles or resort to such belittling statements as above, you are welcome to join us in this discussion. Otherwise, I will ask that the Moderators join us - or take this to private mail with Dave. I do not see the need to put up with your attacks just because I disagree with you. Whether you like it or not, I am a "saved" Christian.

Regards

 

[Solo]

Solo,

I have been quite generous to you and your attempts to express your beliefs. I am sorry that I do not consider you as an infallible interpreter of Scripture, but please do not take it personal or direct such venting towards me on a thread that you were not involved in. From my discussions with Dave, I feel he is perfectly capable of judging whether to discuss the issue of justification from a biblical perspective with me and without resorting to name calling, as you tend to do.

I have no problems with analyzing the information. As I explained previously, I do not desire to launch a veritable book for a reply. I would like to point out that my posts are "hand-made" by little old me. I don't cut and paste, thus, I take longer to respond to posts. I cannot answer very long posts effectively. I believe Dave understands that. If you don't, I'm sorry. Say what you like about me.

If you would prefer to join our discussions by not sabotaging it with your 3000+ word "cut and paste" articles or resort to such belittling statements as above, you are welcome to join us in this discussion. Otherwise, I will ask that the Moderators join us - or take this to private mail with Dave. I do not see the need to put up with your attacks just because I disagree with you. Whether you like it or not, I am a "saved" Christian.

Regards

Dear francis,
I am still awaiting an answer from you concerning the following post that was made on page one of this thread:

Solo wrote:

When you understand justification/salvation, then you can speak about works. Works comes AFTER justification/salvation.

How much clearer can the scriptures state that:

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. Ephesians 2:8-10

Yawn. NO WORKS, NO FAITH...

If you have no evidence of your faith by works, then you don't have faith. Thus, a faith without works is dead. How many times are you going to deny Sacred Scriptures clear sayings?

Without submitting our selves to Christ, without faith working through love, you do not have faith that saves...

"if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." 1 Cor 13:2

Without love, Paul says we are NOTHING... Certainly not saved...

Regards

What comes first, Works or Faith?

Faith without Works is dead, meaning that one does not have saving faith without the good Works following. One cannot get saved by doing Works.
Roman Catholics get taught that one must jump through hoops to get salvation, and then they are never assured that they are saved, and will not know until after they die. What a shame.

I will post again with emphasis added:

• What comes first, Works or Faith?
  
  Faith without Works is dead, meaning that one does not have saving faith without the good Works following. One cannot get saved by doing Works.
  Roman Catholics get taught that one must jump through hoops to get salvation, and then they are never assured that they are saved, and will not know until after they die. What a shame.

 

[francisdesales]

I will post again with emphasis added: What comes first, Works or Faith?

Faith.

but without works, your faith is dead. Thus, you must have faith AND works. Both Paul and James say that without love, you are nothing. I will interpret that to mean "unsaved".

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I will post again with emphasis added: What comes first, Works or Faith?

Faith.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I will post again with emphasis added: What comes first, Works or Faith?

Faith.

By the way, Roman Catholics do NOT get taught that one must jump through hoops or do any sort of 'work' before we are saved. Have you not read the Council of Trent's Documents on Justification? Also, the Catechism clearly states we cannot earn salvation.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

I will post again with emphasis added: What comes first, Works or Faith?

Faith.

By the way, Roman Catholics do NOT get taught that one must jump through hoops or do any sort of 'work' before we are saved. Have you not read the Council of Trent's Documents on Justification? But as I and Dave were discussing, the problem is the definition of what "salvation" is... We believe that salvation is a journey. But you can read more about that in MY posts previously made here on this thread.

Regards

 

[Dave...]

Hey all, sorry for the delay in my reply. I use a public library computer so i'm confined to library hours, which doesn't always line up well with my free time.

francisdesales

I would appreciate you taking the time to you read the first link provided under the title "Obedience: Love or Legalism?". You don't need to reply to any of it, but I do think it will help you to understand what i've been trying to say. It's a well written piece and covers all the importants topics without overwelming you with scripture or in the explination of the scripture it does use. You can always reference more of the supporting scripture in some of the past posts of mine in this thread if you would like.

The link starts out with a question written in a letter form. I'm not sure exactly where the reply begins, but I promise it's well worth your time to read it.

Obedience: Love or Legalism?
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/obedience.htm

This is the best and most condenced/productive way that I know to cover all the important issues surrounding this discussion with substance while at the same time keeping it to a minimum.

God Bless

Dave

P.S. I would still like to discuss this with you, so if you have any questions, please feel free to ask and I'll do the best I can to answer.

Macarthur's sermons
http://www.biblebb.com/mac.htm

 

[Solo]

Faith.

but without works, your faith is dead. Thus, you must have faith AND works. Both Paul and James say that without love, you are nothing. I will interpret that to mean "unsaved".

Regards

After one has faith in Jesus Christ, does God give the gift of eternal life to that person? And does God the Spirit come to live inside the one who has faith in Jesus Christ at that time?

 

[francisdesales]

After one has faith in Jesus Christ, does God give the gift of eternal life to that person? And does God the Spirit come to live inside the one who has faith in Jesus Christ at that time?

After Baptism, the gift of eternal life, God Himself, is given to that person. The person is saved, healed of all past sins.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

francisdesales

I would appreciate you taking the time to you read the first link provided under the title "Obedience: Love or Legalism?".

Dave,

I tried, but the link doesn't work...

Could you give me the gist of what it said?

Regards

 

[Solo]

After Baptism, the gift of eternal life, God Himself, is given to that person. The person is saved, healed of all past sins.

Regards

So then the Roman Catholic teachings teach that one must be Baptized in the Roman Catholic Church and participate in the sacraments in order to be saved? And only the past sins are forgiven, which means that the infants that have been baptized have only the original sin forgiven. That means that all Roman Catholics must follow the Roman Catholic Church's sacraments in order to accomplish the right walk in order to be saved, and the work of Jesus Christ on the cross was not sufficient.

 

[francisdesales]

So then the Roman Catholic teachings teach that one must be Baptized in the Roman Catholic Church and participate in the sacraments in order to be saved? And only the past sins are forgiven, which means that the infants that have been baptized have only the original sin forgiven. That means that all Roman Catholics must follow the Roman Catholic Church's sacraments in order to accomplish the right walk in order to be saved, and the work of Jesus Christ on the cross was not sufficient.

Tell me, Solo, if Christ's death on the cross was sufficient for sins as yet unrepented for, then why did Christ say this to the Apostles, AFTER the Resurrection???

"And when he had said this, he breathed on [them], and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; [and] whose soever [sins] ye retain, they are retained." John 20:22-23

Why, if after Baptism, ALL sins, past and future, are totally forgiven as you claim, then why the need for giving the Apostles the power to remit and retain sins???


The fact of the matter is that only PAST sins are forgiven of the individual. Our future sins will not be forgiven until we repent of them. The forgiveness is awaiting to be applied to our individual case - thus, there is no need for further sacrifice (a la Yom Kippur). The merit won by Christ is merely awaiting man's asking for it, whether during Baptism or through the Confession of sins following Baptism. Thus, as I have said already, the sacraments are the application of the Work of Christ to ourselves - our participation in His saving Works.

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:9 --- spoken to Christians ALREADY Baptized!!!

And perhaps the most OBVIOUS one - I'm sure you've heard of it...

"Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil. Luke 11:2-4

A strange prayer for those whose sins have ALREADY BEEN FORGIVEN... (according to you)

The Scriptures clearly tell us that we must confess post-Baptismal sins to God - they haven't been forgiven yet.

Regards

 

[Solo]

Tell me, Solo, if Christ's death on the cross was sufficient for sins as yet unrepented for, then why did Christ say this to the Apostles, AFTER the Resurrection???

"And when he had said this, he breathed on [them], and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; [and] whose soever [sins] ye retain, they are retained." John 20:22-23

Man cannot forgive sins as the Roman Catholics teach. Only God forgives sins; that is why Jesus said, "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained".
The Apostles could discern those whose sins were forgiven, and those whose sins were not forgiven, by the fruits of those who they came into contact with.

The Apostle preached the remission of sins by those who believe in the blood of Jesus Christ being shed for their sins. The Apostles preach the remission and retention of sins based on the gospel of Jesus Christ, yet they do not forgive the sins of men against God, for that is not their place.

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. Mark 16:16

and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Luke 24:47

Why, if after Baptism, ALL sins, past and future, are totally forgiven as you claim, then why the need for giving the Apostles the power to remit and retain sins???

The Apostles preach the remission of sins, and give the message that those who do not believe will remain in their condemnation. Man can forgive man those trespasses against him, but only God can forgive the sins that man commits against Him.

The fact of the matter is that only PAST sins are forgiven of the individual. Our future sins will not be forgiven until we repent of them. The forgiveness is awaiting to be applied to our individual case - thus, there is no need for further sacrifice (a la Yom Kippur). The merit won by Christ is merely awaiting man's asking for it, whether during Baptism or through the Confession of sins following Baptism. Thus, as I have said already, the sacraments are the application of the Work of Christ to ourselves - our participation in His saving Works.

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. 1 John 1:7

Believing that our works can cleanse us from sin is a heretical lie against all scripture. The blood of Jesus cleanses from ALL sin, once for ALL.

1 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. 2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it. 3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works. 5 And in this place again, If they shall enter into my rest. 6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief: 7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts. 8 For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. 9 There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God. 10 For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God did from his.

11 Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief. 12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. 14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. 15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need. Hebrew 4:1-16

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us [our] sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1:9 --- spoken to Christians ALREADY Baptized!!!

And perhaps the most OBVIOUS one - I'm sure you've heard of it...

"Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil. Luke 11:2-4

A strange prayer for those whose sins have ALREADY BEEN FORGIVEN... (according to you)

The Scriptures clearly tell us that we must confess post-Baptismal sins to God - they haven't been forgiven yet.

Regards

All of my sins, past, present, and future have been paid for, and I do not need any other sacrifice for payment. I am a saint, and a priest, before almighty God.

 

[Dave...]

Dave,

I tried, but the link doesn't work...

Could you give me the gist of what it said?

Regards

I'll do better, i'll post it. Macarthur allows the use/copy of these sermons for group studies/personal use. We may be stretching his offer a bit, but in this case I don't think that he would mind. I eliminated the question and opening statements to shorten it even more. These are critical truths that without them, we could not understand the true Gospel that saves. I think that it's important that all these points are at least recognised to understand why we can never be saved under the law. That was the whole point of Jesus' atoning death on the cross. It's central to the understanding of the true Gospel.

I've read this many times, but read it four more times before I posted it and two more times after just to make sure it dealt with the critical questions that needed to be raised and answered with scripture such as: 'What is self-righteousness?' And as Paul said in Galatians 4:21: "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?", In other words: What does it mean to be under the law? And so on.

Dave
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


...Nonetheless, the danger of overemphasis is very real on both sides of this truth. It is not quite right to say "We obey out of love for Christ . . . and not out of duty." Duty and love are not incompatible motives. A father provides for his children because he loves them. Yet it is also his legal and moral duty to do so. The fact that a man loves his children does not lessen his duty to them. The more he loves them, the more he will see the duty as a joy and not a drudgery. But even when the duty is a delight, it should not diminish the father's solemn sense of duty.

Our obedience to Christ is like that. Certainly we ought to obey Him out of a deep love for Him. And the sheer joy of pleasing Him should permeate our obedience. Yet we should never think of obedience as anything less than a sacred duty. Our love for Christ does not make submission to Him elective. Christ is still our Master, and our relationship with Him carries a great weight of responsibility. We ought to serve Him as loving, devoted bond servants. "Abject slaves" is probably not too strong a term.

Jesus Himself underscored this very thing:

But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat? And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink? Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not. So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do (Lk. 17:7-10).

That imagery paints a clear picture of the kind of servitude we are expected to render to Christ as His servants.

But that's only half the picture. Our Lord also called for the obedience of love: "If ye love me, keep my commandments" (Jn. 14:15). And He elevated those who obey to the level of friends:

Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you (Jn. 15:14-15).

Obviously, our Lord viewed our love for Him and our duty to Him as motives for obedience that are inextricably and necessarily bound together: "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me" (Jn. 14:21). "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love" (Jn. 15:10).

Far from being a drudgery, Christian obedience is thus the bond of our relationship with Christ and the source of our deepest joy. And the fact that we are obliged to submit to His lordship should never alter the joy we find in doing so.

Of course, because we are still fleshly creatures, our obedience is not always joyful. And so we must realize that even when our hearts are not brimming with the joy of the Lord, obedience remains our duty. We are to obey when it brings us pleasure, but we also must obey even when we do not feel like it. Both our love for the Lord and our sense of duty to Him should motivate this obedience. One must never cancel out the other.

I fear that the church in our generation is losing sight of the role of duty in the Christian life. Multitudes see "duty" as something altogether foreign to Christianity. Compliance with the commandments of Christ is deemed optional. If you dare suggest that obedience is mandatory, you will be branded a legalist.

"We are not under the law, but under grace" is becoming the mantra of modern Christianity. But most who chant that phrase today mean something dramatically different from what the apostle Paul meant in Romans 6:14, when he wrote, "Ye are not under the law, but under grace."

In What Sense Are We Freed from the Law under Grace?

The phrase "under the law" occurs at least ten times in Paul's epistles, so we know it is a crucial concept in his theology. In Galatians 3:23, for example, He writes, "Before faith came, we were kept under the law" (Gal. 3:23). Now, however, he says as Christians we are "not under the law" (Gal. 5:18).

I often hear Christians recite the phrase "not under the law, but under grace" as if it meant no standard of law whatsoever is ever binding on believers. Grace is seen as a grand permissiveness, contrasting with the uncompromising moral standard of the law.

One man wrote,

According to Paul, I am not under law. That has radical practical consequences for my Christian life. It means I do not have to look over my shoulder at the law and judge my life by it. The law was a negative standard. It was filled with prohibitions and punishments. Grace is the opposite. It is filled with positive inducements and promises. Which would you rather have as a rule of life? I live under grace, not law. And that means whenever the law brings its negative messageâ€â€when it says, "thou shalt not"â€â€it does not apply to me.

The notion that no law is binding on the Christian is a classic form of antinomianism. This type of thinking sets grace against law, as if the two were antithetical. It has some dire theological consequences.

It is crucial to understand that in terms of moral standards, grace does not permit what the law prohibits. "Grace" never signifies the lowering of God's moral demands. The word grace in scripture signifies a lot of things, but licentiousness is not one of them. In fact, those who turn the grace of God into promiscuity are expressly condemned as false teachers (Jude 4).

Grace according to Scripture is the undeserved kindness of a sovereign God. More than that, grace means that God mercifully gives us the very opposite of what our sin merits. Grace includes not merely pardon for our sin, but also the power to live a transformed life. In other words, the grace Scripture describes is a dynamic forceâ€â€the sovereign influence of a holy God operating in the lives of undeserving sinners. This is the key to grace: it is God working in us to secure our working for Him (Phil. 2:13). Grace first transforms the heart and thus makes the believer wholly willing to trust and obey. Grace then conveys upon us both the desire and the strength to fulfill God's good pleasure. Far more than mere pardon, grace also insures our obedience, gives us a true love for God, and transforms our lives in every sense. Ultimately grace totally conforms us to the image of Christ (Rom. 8:29). Even now, grace is doing what the law could not do: it is fulfilling the righteous requirement of the law in us (Rom. 8:3-4).

So the moral standard set by the law does not change under grace. Indeed, it could not; it is a reflection of God's character. But divine grace actually empowers us to fulfill the moral demands of the law in a way that the law alone could never do.

Just what does the apostle Paul mean when he says we are not under law? There are two ways Scripture clearly teaches we are not under law:

We are not under the ceremonial law

Paul's epistle to the Galatians uses the expression "under the law" several times (3:23; 4:4-5, 21; 5:18). Paul wrote this epistle to confront the influence of the Judaizers. They were Jewish legalists who were trying to impose the ceremonies and rituals of the Mosaic law on all Christians. According to the Judaizers, in order to become a true Christian, a Gentile first had to become a Jewish proselyte.

Circumcision and the dietary laws became the test issues. This had been a running dispute in the early church from the very beginning. The earliest church council in Jerusalem had been convened to deal with this very question. According to Acts 15:5, some Pharisees who had converted to Christianity rose up and demanded that Gentiles who joined the church be circumcised and directed to obey the law of Moses. Luke records what happened:

the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they (vv. 6-11).

The council saw a heated debate on the question. But led by James, they ultimately came to consensus: "Trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but . . . write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood" (vv. 19-20).

This meant that the ceremonial requirements of the Mosaic law were not to be imposed upon the church. Circumcision could not be required of the Gentiles. Strict adherence to the dietary laws was not to be prescribed. But in order not to offend the Jewish brethren, the Gentiles were asked to abstain from the most offensive dietary practices: the eating of meat offered to idols, the eating of strangled animals, and the eating of blood. Even those restrictions were not imposed as binding matters of legal necessity, but were required of the Gentiles only as a matter of charity toward their Jewish brethren.

How do we know that these prohibitions against eating certain things were not meant to be a permanent standard for the church for all time? As Paul wrote to Timothy, nothing is to be viewed as ceremonially unclean if it is received with thanksgiving (1 Tim. 4:4). But these measures were called for by the Jerusalem Council in the primitive church as a matter of charity to the many Jewish believers who saw such practices as inherently pagan. The apostle Paul summed up this principle of freedom and deference in Romans 14:14-15: "I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean. But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably."

A side note is necessary here with regard to the restriction against "fornication." The biblical prohibitions against fornication are moral, not ceremonial, commandments. So why was it necessary to include a ban on fornication in the Jerusalem Council's instructions? After all, fornication would clearly be deemed morally reprehensible and strictly forbidden under any standard in the early church. And from the beginning the dispute that prompted the Jerusalem Council had to do only with the ceremonial aspects of Moses' law.

The answer lies in an understanding of the pagan religions from which many of these Gentile converts had come. The practice of ceremonial fornication was common. Many of the pagan shrines featured temple prostitutes, with whom acts of fornication were deemed religious experiences. So when they forbid "pollutions of idols, and . . . fornication," the Council was prohibiting the observance of pagan religious ceremonies. And when they called for abstinence "from things strangled, and from blood," they were asking the Gentiles to have respect for the deeply-ingrained scruples of their Jewish brethren, resulting from lifelong obedience to Mosaic ceremonies.

In other words, pagan religious ceremonies were forbidden, and Jewish ceremonies were not made the standard. But charity was enjoined upon all.

It is crucial to see that this Council was explicitly not establishing the Mosaic ceremonial lawâ€â€or any portion of itâ€â€as the standard for the church. The New Testament is explicit throughout that the types and ceremonies of the Law are not binding on Christians. The dietary and ceremonial requirements of Moses' law "are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ" (Col. 2:17). The priesthood and Temple worship of the Old Testament economy also "serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things" (Heb. 8:5). Christ is the fulfillment of all that, and He is the Mediator of a New Covenant. To cling to the types and shadows of the Old Covenant is in effect to deny that Christ, the One foreshadowed, is superior. Therefore, the ceremonial aspects of Moses' law have no place whatsoever in the Church.

Why did both Paul and the writer of Hebrews view the Judaizers' doctrine as such a serious error? Because by retreating to the types and shadows of the Old Covenant, these people were guilty of replacing the all-important reality of a living Savior with outmoded symbols that only pointed to Him. Their attachment to those now-barren religious emblems necessarily thrust them into a system of works. To return to the Old Covenant was a de facto rejection of Christ in favor of obsolete types and symbols.

In one of the most unusual encounters between two apostles recorded anywhere in Scripture, Peter and Paul had a very public conflict over the question of obedience to the ceremonial law. Paul describes the confrontation in Galatians 2:11-14:

When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

The issue at stake here was no longer the question of charity toward Jewish brethren, but the whole doctrine of justification by faith. Apparently, even after the Jerusalem Council had rendered its decision, the Judaizers nevertheless reverted to demanding circumcision for every Gentile convert. They were actually suggesting that observance of the ceremonial law was essential for justification. And as Paul suggests, Peter, of all people, should have known better, "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (v. 16).

We are not under the law for justification

The centerpiece of New Testament theology is justification by faith. This is the doctrine that makes Christianity distinct. Every other religion in the world teaches some system of human merit. Christianity alone teaches that the merit necessary for our salvation is supplied by God on our behalf.

Justification is defined theologically as that act of God whereby He declares the believing sinner righteous. When God justifies a sinner, he looks at the person and says, I accept that person as completely righteous. It is a divine "not guilty" verdictâ€â€and more. It elevates the sinner from the condemnation he deserves to a position of divine privilege in Christ.

Justification poses a huge theological problem. Proverbs 17:15 says, "He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord." In other words, God Himself strictly forbids us to declare a guilty person righteous. And God says definitively in Exodus 23:7, "I will not justify the wicked."

Two obstacles exist with regard to justifying sinners. One is our sin. We accumulate guilt every time we sin, and true justice demands that every sin be punished. To let an evildoer go unpunished is by definition unjust. So God is obligated by His own perfect standard of justice to exact a full penalty for every sin.

The second obstacle to justification is our utter lack of merit. Not only do we accumulate guilt (or demerit) every time we sin, but we also lack the necessary merit. Even if our slate could be completely wiped clean, all we would have would be a blank slate. But in order to be acceptable to God, we are required to have the full merit that comes with perfect obedience His law. Forgiveness for our sin isn't enough. We still need the merit of an absolutely perfect righteousness (Matt. 5:20, 48).

From the human perspective, those would seem to be impossible obstacles to the justification of any sinner. We can certainly understand the disciples' bewilderment when they saw these same difficulties: "Who then can be saved?" (Matt. 19:25).

However, there were people in Paul's day who thought if they could just be as good as they could possibly be, they might earn enough merit to please God. This was the attitude behind the Judaizers' insistence on adhering to the ceremonial laws. They were trying to justify themselves before God through their own works. They were trying to earn their own righteousness. That is the very definition of "self-righteous."

Jesus' Sermon on the Mount was an attack on that kind of thinking. He pointed to the Phariseesâ€â€legalists who kept the law more fastidiously than anyone else. By human standards they were as "good" as it is possible to be. But Jesus said their goodness is simply not good enough to earn God's favor: "I say unto you that except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:20).

Jesus was teaching as plainly as possible that God will be pleased with nothing but an absolutely perfect righteousness. He taught that it is not good enough to avoid killing; we must also avoid the sin of hatred (v. 22). He said if you lust in your heart, it is the same as committing adultery (v. 28). He set the standard as high as possible, and then said if you don't have a righteousness that perfect, you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. And thus He condemned us all.

The apostle James destroyed any vestige of hope we might have for being justified by law when he wrote, "Whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all" (Jas. 2:10).

What are we supposed to conclude? That we cannot be justified by the works of the law. It is utterly impossible. The apostle Paul underscores this same truth again and again:

• Acts 13:39: "Ye could not be justified by the law of Moses."

• Romans 3:19-20: "What things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

• Romans 4:15: "The law worketh wrath."

• Galatians 3:10: "As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them."

• Galatians 3:11: "No man is justified by the law in the sight of God."

Paul could not state it any more clearly than that. To make the fatal mistake of thinking you can be justified by being good enough to make yourself acceptable to God is to put yourself under the condemnation of the law.

This was the heart of the problem in Galatia. People were teaching that it was necessary to obey the law in order to be justified. In chapter 1 Paul calls this "another gospel," and he pronounces a solemn curse on those who were teaching it.

When Paul spoke of those who were "under the law," he was speaking of people who thought they could be justified by obedience to the law. Two parallel expressions in Galatians make this extremely clear. One is Galatians 4:21: "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?" (emphasis added). If they had listened to the law itself, they would have heard that it establishes impossible conditions for justification. It condemns those who fail to obey it. For sinners, the law could be a means of condemnation, but never a means of justification. For a sinner to embrace the law as a means of justification is sheer folly. Yet there were those in Galatia who "desire[d] to be under the law" (4:21).

Notice the parallel expression in Galatians 5:4: "You who are seeking to be justified by law" (NASB). Those who were seeking to be "justified by law" in Galatians 5:4 were the same as those who desired to be "under the law" in 4:21.

Therefore, to be "under the law" in Paul's terminology is to be under the law as a means of justification. It is crucial to understand the way the apostle Paul uses this expression. When he says we are not under the law but under grace in Romans 6, he is not discarding the moral teachings of the law. He is not lending credence to any sort of antinomian doctrine. He is not minimizing the sin of disobedience to the moral teachings of the law. He is not disparaging the law itself. In fact, in Romans 7:12, he calls the law "holy, just, and good."

Paul's consistent teaching with regard to the law is that it can never be a means of justification. And when he says we are "not under law," he means we do not ground our justification in our own personal obedience. We are no longer trying to justify ourselves by obedience to the law. We are justified by grace through faith, not by the works of the law (Gal. 2:16). And therefore we are no longer under the condemnation of the law.

How Can God Justify the Ungodly?

How, then, can we be justified? How can God declare guilty sinners righteous without lowering or compromising His own righteous standard?

The answer lies in the work of Christ on our behalf. In Galatians 4:4, the apostle states that Jesus Christ was born "under the law." Obviously, this does not mean merely that Jesus was born Jewish. It means that He was under the law in the Pauline sense, obligated to fulfill the law perfectly as a means of justification.

In this same context, in the span of two verses, Paul twice employs the phrase "under the law." There is a clear logical connection between the last phrase in verse 4 and the first phrase in verse 5: Christ was "made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law.

We've already said that the law cannot be a means of righteousness for sinners. But Christ was no sinner. He lived impeccably "under the law." Hebrews 4:15 tells us He "was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." He fulfilled the law perfectly, to the letter. First Peter 2:22 says He "did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth." Hebrews 7:26 says He is "holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens." Thus His flawless obedience to the law earned the perfect merit that is necessary to please God.

If Christ was perfectly sinless, then He did not deserve to die. As one "under the law," He would have been subject to the curse of the law if He had violated even one command, but of course He did notâ€â€He could not, because He is God. He fulfilled every aspect of the law to the letterâ€â€to the jot and tittle.

Yet He did die. More than that, He suffered the full wrath of God on the cross. Why? Scripture tells us the guilt of our sin was imputed to Him, and Christ paid the price for it. Consequently, the merit of His perfect obedience can be imputed to our account. That is the meaning of 2 Corinthians 5:21: God "hath made [Christ] to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

His death takes care of our guilt, and His perfect life supplies us with all the merit we need to be acceptable to God. That is how God overcame the two great obstacles to our justification. And as Paul says in Romans 3:26, that is how God can remain just, and justify those who believe in Jesus. Christ has personally paid the penalty for their sin, and He has personally obtained a perfect righteousness on their behalf. So He can justify the ungodly (Rom. 4:5).

Scripture teaches no other means of justification. This is at the core of all gospel truth. As early as Genesis 15:6, Scripture teaches that Abraham was justified by an imputed righteousness. Anytime any sinner is redeemed in Scripture, it is by an imputed righteousness, not a righteousness that is somehow earned or achieved by the sinner for his own redemption.

Romans 4:6-7 says David also knew the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works. In fact, this is the whole point Paul is making in Romans 4: Justification has always been by faith, not by works, and through a righteousness that is imputed to the believer. Abraham understood the doctrine of justification that way. David knew the same truth. So from the beginning of Scripture to the end, we are taught that the only merit God accepts is a merit that is imputed to our account. He never pronounces us righteous because of our own works of righteousness.

On the contrary, God says all our righteousnesses are fatally flawed. They are of no more value to God than filthy rags (Isa. 64:6). But that is how God sees our worksâ€â€no matter how good they are by human standards. They are unacceptable, filthy, to God.

That is why our obedience can never be good enough. That is why those who hang their hope of heaven on their own good works only doom themselves.

How Deadly is Legalism?

All of this should make it very clear that the legalism Paul condemned as "another gospel" is a brand of legalism that seeks to ground our justification in personal obedience rather than the imputed righteousness of Christ. How deadly is such legalism? The apostle Paul suggested it was precisely what caused the majority of Israel to reject Christ: "They being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God" (Rom. 10:3). Turning aside from the perfect righteousness of Christ (which would have been imputed to them by faith), they opted instead for an imperfect righteousness of their own. They mistakenly assumed, like most people today, that the best they could do would be good enough for God.

Here is the good news of the gospel: for everyone who believes, Christ's blood counts as payment for all our sins, and His fulfillment of the law counts as all the merit we need. Romans 10:4 therefore says, "Christ is the end [Gk., telos, "the thing aimed at"] of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth." Christ is the fulfillment of everything the law intended. In Christ, the ultimate goal of the lawâ€â€a perfect righteousnessâ€â€is made available to every believer. His righteousness is imputed to us by faith, and that is why God accepts us in Christ and for Christ's sake.

To the apostle Paul himself, this truth had deeply personal implications. He had labored his whole life as a legalistic Pharisee trying to establish his own righteousness by the law. He described his efforts in Philippians 3:4-8:

If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more: 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; concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. 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 . . .

What was so important to Paul about dumping all his own righteousness? Why did he count a whole lifetime of good works as mere rubbish? Because he knew it was flawed. And he knew that in Christ he would be the recipient of a perfect righteousness. Notice verse 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."

Any righteousness other than the imputed righteousness of Christ is mere legalism. It is incapable of saving anyone. More than that, it is an affront to Godâ€â€as if we were to offer him soiled rags and expect Him to applaud us for doing so. That kind of legalism is spiritually fatal.

How Is Christian Obedience Different from Legalism?

It has become fashionable in some circles to pin the label of legalism on any teaching that stresses obedience to Christ. At the beginning of this chapter I quoted someone who stated that "the whole difference between legalism and true Christianity" is sewn up in the issue of whether we view obedience as a duty.

Biblically, there is no basis for such thinking. The Christian is still obligated to obey God, even though we know our obedience in no sense provides grounds for our justification. That is precisely why our obedience should be motivated primarily by gratitude and love for the Lord. We are free from the threat of eternal condemnation (Rom. 8:1). We are free from the law of sin and death (v. 2), and empowered by God's grace both to will and to do of His good pleasure (Phil. 2:13). We have every reason to obey joyfullyâ€â€and no true Christian will ever think of obedience as something optional.

We are not under law, but under grace. Far from being a manifesto for antinomianism or a authorization for licentious behavior, that important truth teaches us that both our justification and our obedience must properly be grounded in Christ and what He has done for us, rather than in ourselves and what we do for God.

The doctrine of justification by faith therefore provides the highest, purest incentive for Christian obedience. As Paul wrote to the Romans, the mercies God displays in our justification provide all the reason we need to yield ourselves to Him as living sacrifices (Rom. 12:1). Freed from the penalty of the lawâ€â€loosed from the threat of condemnation for our disobedienceâ€â€we are thus empowered by grace to surrender to God in a way we were powerless to do as unbelievers. And that is why the Christian life is continually portayed in Scripture as a life of obedience.

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/obedience.htm

 

[francisdesales]

Man cannot forgive sins as the Roman Catholics teach.

Wrong. God forgives man through a visible priest. We as humans need to hear "you are forgiven". The priest acts in the "Person of Christ". He is the voice and hands of the priest offering Christ's forgiveness through a visible medium. That is what a sacrament is: a visible sign of invisible graces. The invisible graces are from Christ.

The Apostles could discern those whose sins were forgiven, and those whose sins were not forgiven, by the fruits of those who they came into contact with.

No. How can the apostles discern the sins of others unless that person make them known? Thus, we are told to repent and confess our sins. While the "fruits" may give one a general idea of a person's relationship with God, you should know by now that people can and do hide many things behind that facade presented to the rest of the world. Humans have a knack for hiding their sins from others. Considering we are of similar ages, I don't have to tell you that - I am just reminding you.

The Apostle preached the remission of sins by those who believe in the blood of Jesus Christ being shed for their sins. The Apostles preach the remission and retention of sins based on the gospel of Jesus Christ, yet they do not forgive the sins of men against God, for that is not their place.

Again, the first part is fine if you are speaking of converting an adult from a sinful way of life - what we would call "initial justification". However, WE all fall into sin on occasion; consider reading Romans 7 if you disagre. We all need to be "re-healed". Thus, as Paul tells the Corinthians, he is a minister of reconcilliation. And he is not talking about only that first time. It is an ongoing process, one of healing, falling back, repentance and healing, falling back, and so forth. Just like a physical sickness, our souls can and DO get sick again. And again, I am only reminding you - you must certainly have experienced that in life.

Regarding the second part, you are twisting John 20:20-23, it clearly tells the Apostles have been given the authority to bind and loosen. Through them, God works reconcilliation among men, as Jesus explains in Mat 16 and Mat 18. The Apostles were given authority to bind and loosen - not on their own power, but God working through them. The Jews understood this concept...They didn't think their priests forgave sins - they understood that during the Day of Atonement, God worked through the actions of the priest, making God's forgiveness VISIBLE to mankind through ritual. The New Covenant CLEARLY overshadows the sacraments of the Old Testament, and now man is forgiven of sin through the blood of Christ - a much superior manner.

Regards