The Myth of saying that Jesus Christ died for all men without exception !

[mondar]

No, I don't, Mondar. It is an attempt to transcend such discussion.

The more I read about the profoundness of God's offer to man, beginning with the depths of the teachings on the Trinity, the more I realize that these "salvation schemes" entirely miss the point of the true relationship that God is offering to man.

Have you ever wondered why such discussions are quite rare in ancient Christian writings, while discussions on divinization and theosis are prominent? The Bible is not teaching us about merely being returned to the Garden, Mondar...

"Eyes have not seen...etc.

Regards

Duh! responded to the wrong post. Let me again respond.

I would agree there is much more to revelation of the work of God in salvation then just the concept of imputation. This is not to say that imputed righteousness is not one part of it. I would not agree that they "entirely miss the point." I would agree that it is one part of a bigger point and that other doctrines should be taught along side imputation.

You mention that it was not a major issue among the early Church Fathers, I guess that is true.

Not to come guns ablazing here--- but neither was the bodily asumption of Mary found in the early Church Fathers. Certainly some of Romes dogma comes from the middle ages (or would you disagree?).

Of course there is an underlying reason Calvinists feel little need for support from the Church Fathers. Should we discuss imputation and Romans 4?
3 For what saith the scripture? And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness.
That would reckoned is found throughout Chapter 4.

 

[Drew]

I don't think Wright connects "justification" to eternal life.

I am quite confident that he does. But I certainly agree that Wright does not use the word "justification" as if its denoted how one acquires salvation.

"Justification" is definitely a part of the context of Romans 5?
1 Being therefore justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ;
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of God through him.
16 And not as through one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment came of one unto condemnation, but the free gift came of many trespasses unto justification.

Justification results in "righteousness unto eternal life?"
21 that, as sin reigned in death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

So then, with the concept of eternal life and justification in the very same context, how does N T Wright make justification non-salvific? There seems to be a problem with his view when we get to the statement on "eternal life" in verse 21. Justification is salvific.

I do not believe there is any problem with Wright's view. First, Wright definitely sees justification and salvation as "connected", although not the same thing. Wright sees justification as the declaration that a person is a member of the true covenant family. And one of the outworkings of that is final salvation.

Wright never disassociates justification from salvation, at least on my readings of him.

 

[mlqurgw]

LOL! False. God has created man with a sovereign will of His own, as He has given us dominion over the earth. He has given us a sovereignty of will that He will not violate. He will never force us to accept His Son or to love Him. He loves and respects us that much!

The problem is that people neglect the authority that He has given them. As far as Pharaoh goes, Pharaoh abused the authority given him. the consequence for that is dire JUDGMENT.

Genesis 1:28-29
28 Then God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground.†29 Then God said, "Look! I have given you every seed-bearing plant throughout the earth and all the fruit trees for your food.

If what you claim is correct then God gave up His sovereignty in order to give man sovereignty. Nonsense. What you seem to want to do is make God subject to you. You seem to be the one who doesn't grasp the concept of sovereignty.

As for your ideas of man being sovereign because God put him over the Garden it again isn't very well thought out. Man is the only creation of God that is said to be made in the image of God but we are said to be a little lower than the angels. Heb. 2:6-9. Show me one passage of Scripture where man is elevated above angels and especially above God. Show me one passage of Scripture where man determines anything concerning eternal things. Show me one passage of Scripture where man is said to anything more than a weak and rebellious wretch. You have a far too high view of man and a fer too low view of God.

 

[mlqurgw]

mondar;

I believe that SBG is talking about eternal justification as laid out in Gill, which I too hold to. I recognize that Reformed folks hold to justification at the time of faith but I believe a very sound Scrtiptural argument can be made for eternal justification of the elect of God.

 

[mondar]

mondar;

I believe that SBG is talking about eternal justification as laid out in Gill, which I too hold to. I recognize that Reformed folks hold to justification at the time of faith but I believe a very sound Scrtiptural argument can be made for eternal justification of the elect of God.

OK, I suspected that. I am not sure this is the place for such a discussion. That is more of an insider discussion.

In any case, no, I would not hold to eternal justification. I must admit this is the first I have been confronted with it.

I have read some of Gill's commentaries, but not what you are referring to concerning eternal justification.

I would agree that the basis of justification is the eternal decree of God and the blood of Jesus Christ. While agree that the basis of justification is eternal, the actual logical order of justification would be after regeneration and calling.

Rom 8:30 and whom he foreordained, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

 

[francisdesales]

I agree that Christianity is about relationship, and it is not about religion. However, we cannot enter into relationship with God without allowing Jesus Christ to remove our debt load of sin from our backs.

Clearly, God could have done a number of things to "remove the debt of sin" from us. The Son of God didn't have to die to remove us from that debt. The MANNER speaks volumes, transcends the mere "legality" that seems to be prevalent in this conversation. Furthermore, the relationship that is offered is much more than we could have ever hoped for. Entrance into the Mystical Body of Christ is not just a metaphor. Dying with Christ, being "IN" Christ. Again, Alabaster, these are THE key components of our religion.

Only then can we share in His life-giving nature, and 'participate in that love towards our neighbours'.

God DID have to become man to free us! If there was some other way, He would have done it.

The only "have to" in this "equation" is that GOD IS LOVE...! Reflect on that TOTAL SELF-GIVING, rather than fulfilling a debt to some unknown "bill collector" that God has to pay for our sake...

Stare at the cross for awhile, you'll begin to see the depths of God's Love. THAT is the "have to". Not any legal force or formality that required the Father allow His Son to die.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Duh! responded to the wrong post. Let me again respond.

I would agree there is much more to revelation of the work of God in salvation then just the concept of imputation. This is not to say that imputed righteousness is not one part of it. I would not agree that they "entirely miss the point." I would agree that it is one part of a bigger point and that other doctrines should be taught along side imputation.

Imputation is a MINOR piece of the puzzle, hardly worth wondering about, especially when we have God INFUSED WITHIN US. What did you think "UNION" was??? All that talk about being "IN CHRIST"??? It follows that if God enters and dwells within us, we are legally justified in His eyes. God doesn't abide in the evil, unjust man. He comes and "makes His Home" where He finds the obedient servant of God.

This is why I find the conversation missing the forest for arguing over a sapling. It misses the point of Christianity and turns it into a salvation scheme, where, apparently, we continue life as before in all ways but some vague legal notion, only with a "Get out of Jail Free card" in hand.

You mention that it was not a major issue among the early Church Fathers, I guess that is true.

Not to come guns ablazing here--- but neither was the bodily asumption of Mary found in the early Church Fathers. Certainly some of Romes dogma comes from the middle ages (or would you disagree?).

Are we changing the subject? Not to douse those guns with water, but I don't make the "Bodily Assumption of Mary" the center of my faith. It points to something greater, the subject I have spoken about.

Of course there is an underlying reason Calvinists feel little need for support from the Church Fathers.

Wrong answer, Mondar. Any Calvin worth his salt knows full-well that Jean Calvin DESPERATELY ATTEMPTED to find his "support" from the Church Fathers, thinking he found it in St. Augustine... Can you tell me WHY ELSE Calvin cited Church Fathers so often???

I never was for "picking and choosing". If you are in for a penny, you are in for a pound...

St. Augustine had many other things to say about Christianity than just predestination and sin... For all his citations of Augustine, you'd think Calvin would have cited OTHER Catholic doctrines for refreshing bed-side reading, as well.

Should we discuss imputation and Romans 4?
3 For what saith the scripture? And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for righteousness.
That would reckoned is found throughout Chapter 4.

See above. Further, I don't recall saying we are not forensically justified. The point is it is irrelevant to argue it. Paul's point is not to lay out the beauty and wonder of "FORENSIC JUSTIFICATION", but that one didn't have to be a Jew or to successfully fulfill the rigors of the Mosaic Law to receive it. Note carefully WHEN Abraham and David were declared just.

It is the "WHEN" that is Paul's point, not "WHETHER" we are justified or the "LEGALITY" of it! He lays out what THAT means in Romans 8, which most agree is the pinnacle and point of Paul's letter to Rome - being united with God and THOSE effects...

Regards

 

[Alabaster]

If what you claim is correct then God gave up His sovereignty in order to give man sovereignty. Nonsense. What you seem to want to do is make God subject to you. You seem to be the one who doesn't grasp the concept of sovereignty.

I don't know if you can say that God gave up anything, but He sure did add to His kingdom by sharing it with those he made in His very image, didn't He?

As for your ideas of man being sovereign because God put him over the Garden it again isn't very well thought out. Man is the only creation of God that is said to be made in the image of God but we are said to be a little lower than the angels. Heb. 2:6-9. Show me one passage of Scripture where man is elevated above angels and especially above God. Show me one passage of Scripture where man determines anything concerning eternal things. Show me one passage of Scripture where man is said to anything more than a weak and rebellious wretch. You have a far too high view of man and a fer too low view of God.

We are told in scripture that we will judge angels as co-heirs with Christ.

1 Corinthians 6:3
Don’t you realize that we will judge angels? So you should surely be able to resolve ordinary disputes in this life.

We have sovereignty over the planet and its contents and we have sovereignty over our choice as to whether to serve and obey the Father or not.

I have a realistic view of man as wretched but another view of men and women of God--as joint heirs with Christ, and already seated in the heavenlies with Christ, having His authority in all things as He has seen fit to have given us!

 

[Alabaster]

[/B]


Clearly, God could have done a number of things to "remove the debt of sin" from us. The Son of God didn't have to die to remove us from that debt. The MANNER speaks volumes, transcends the mere "legality" that seems to be prevalent in this conversation. Furthermore, the relationship that is offered is much more than we could have ever hoped for. Entrance into the Mystical Body of Christ is not just a metaphor. Dying with Christ, being "IN" Christ. Again, Alabaster, these are THE key components of our religion.



The only "have to" in this "equation" is that GOD IS LOVE...! Reflect on that TOTAL SELF-GIVING, rather than fulfilling a debt to some unknown "bill collector" that God has to pay for our sake...

Stare at the cross for awhile, you'll begin to see the depths of God's Love. THAT is the "have to". Not any legal force or formality that required the Father allow His Son to die.

Regards

What could God have done other than what He did do to remove sin from us? What He did do was more than sufficient and was the ultimately perfect thing.

It is useless to project there could be another way.

 

[mondar]

Imputation is a MINOR piece of the puzzle, hardly worth wondering about, especially when we have God INFUSED WITHIN US. What did you think "UNION" was??? All that talk about being "IN CHRIST"??? It follows that if God enters and dwells within us, we are legally justified in His eyes. God doesn't abide in the evil, unjust man. He comes and "makes His Home" where He finds the obedient servant of God.

Really Francis? You puzzle me here. Surely you don't expect to dismiss Calvinism and Romans 4 with such a simple dismissal? You are surely aware that Calvinists will defend the concept of "imputed righteousness with good biblical support. So why make a statement that it is a "minor piece of the puzzle?" The debate is over the scriptural teaching on the nature of justification. I believe I can make a good biblical defense for my doctrine if you want to debate.

I do not see "infused righteousness" in the scriptures, or the term justification.

This is why I find the conversation missing the forest for arguing over a sapling. It misses the point of Christianity and turns it into a salvation scheme, where, apparently, we continue life as before in all ways but some vague legal notion, only with a "Get out of Jail Free card" in hand.

Wow, Francis, your language seems quite provocative here. You call imputation "some vague legal notion." Don't you think that could sound a little provocative? It would be like me saying "those silly people that think all they need to do is take the sacraments to get to heaven." You also suggest that Calvinists believe that we can "continue life as before in all ways..." Why such provocative straw man language? Calvinists believe that regeneration is the cause of a new life. Don't you remember so many times I have stated that the true Christian can be seen by his works? Francis, I think you know better, so why are you making such wild statements?

Are we changing the subject? Not to douse those guns with water, but I don't make the "Bodily Assumption of Mary" the center of my faith. It points to something greater, the subject I have spoken about.

Wrong answer, Mondar. Any Calvin worth his salt knows full-well that Jean Calvin DESPERATELY ATTEMPTED to find his "support" from the Church Fathers, thinking he found it in St. Augustine... Can you tell me WHY ELSE Calvin cited Church Fathers so often???

I never was for "picking and choosing". If you are in for a penny, you are in for a pound...

St. Augustine had many other things to say about Christianity than just predestination and sin... For all his citations of Augustine, you'd think Calvin would have cited OTHER Catholic doctrines for refreshing bed-side reading, as well.

Calvin "desperately" wanted to quote the Church Fathers. Please, very please, do show me this in Calvin's writings.

As far as my reference to the Bodily Asumption, I am not changing the subject. I was simply asking you to be consistent and judge your own theology by the standards you judge mine. You wanted to see imputation in the Church Fathers, I was simply asking you to show me that your doctrine is also in the early Church Fathers. I take it your standard only applies to me?

See above. Further, I don't recall saying we are not forensically justified. The point is it is irrelevant to argue it. Paul's point is not to lay out the beauty and wonder of "FORENSIC JUSTIFICATION", but that one didn't have to be a Jew or to successfully fulfill the rigors of the Mosaic Law to receive it. Note carefully WHEN Abraham and David were declared just.

It is the "WHEN" that is Paul's point, not "WHETHER" we are justified or the "LEGALITY" of it! He lays out what THAT means in Romans 8, which most agree is the pinnacle and point of Paul's letter to Rome - being united with God and THOSE effects...

Regards

Paul was justified in Genesis 15 when he had faith. His works with Isaac did not come until Genesis 22. Genesis 15:6 is clear that Abraham was justified by faith.

To bring issues of the Law in at this point would be a surprise. The Mosaic Law was when? Not in the time of Abraham. So then, after Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 in Romans 4:3, then Paul makes this statement.....

Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt.
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness.

This is Paul's application of his quote from Romans 4:3. There is no law at all here. There is "works" but not law. But the works only bring debt. Faith justifies, and the justification of Romans is not infused, but imputed.

 

[francisdesales]

What could God have done other than what He did do to remove sin from us? What He did do was more than sufficient and was the ultimately perfect thing.

It is useless to project there could be another way.

So tell me what forced God to send His Son to die?

Of course there could have been other ways, we are talking about a Divine Being. Are you saying that some OTHER being required God to send His Son to die a gruesome death or did God CHOOSE to show His love in that particular fashion?

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Really Francis? You puzzle me here. Surely you don't expect to dismiss Calvinism and Romans 4 with such a simple dismissal?

Again, Mondar, I am not disputing the concept of imputed righteousness. However, it pales in comparison to infused righteousness. If one has the later, one has the former... I am not asking you to defend imputed righteousness, but whether it is the heart of the Gospel and Christianity per sec. If so, then you have relegated Christianity to another "salvation scheme".

Wow, Francis, your language seems quite provocative here. You call imputation "some vague legal notion." Don't you think that could sound a little provocative? It would be like me saying "those silly people that think all they need to do is take the sacraments to get to heaven." You also suggest that Calvinists believe that we can "continue life as before in all ways..." Why such provocative straw man language? Calvinists believe that regeneration is the cause of a new life. Don't you remember so many times I have stated that the true Christian can be seen by his works? Francis, I think you know better, so why are you making such wild statements?

AH, Mondar, you know there is a point in all of this, and it is not about making wild statements...

In comparison to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, I would say that imputation is of little consequence, especially when it is rendered as only a legal action (as if God is bound by some legal court before He chooses to have a relationship with man). Do you deny that if the Spirit dwells within, regenerates us, etc., then legal imputation is an afterthought and is not central to Christianity? Wasn't that my point? That God forging an intimate relationship with man is more important than a legal declaration (which, in many Prot. circles, is of no actual effect, as man REMAINS a pile of garbage, albeit covered by Christ)

Calvin "desperately" wanted to quote the Church Fathers. Please, very please, do show me this in Calvin's writings.

You must be joking, Mondar...

Here is one link to wet your appetite.

Calvin’s erroneous views on Monasticism

Or, if you prefer something more close to "home", which I will cite below:

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/calvin.pdf

In it, Calvin is said to have cited Augustine over 400 times... Here is what Mr. Hunt writes rather quickly...


In his eye-opening book, "The Other Side of Calvinism",, Laurence M. Vance thoroughly documents that "John Calvin did not originate the doctrines that bear his name. This is stated emphatically by Calvinists. ..." Vance quotes numerous well-known Calvinists to this effect. For example, Kenneth G. Talbot and W. Gary Crampton write, "The system of doctrine which bears the name of John Calvin was in no way originated by him. B.B. Warfield declared, "The system of doctrine taught by Calvin is just the Augustinianism common to the whole body of the Reformers." 4 Thus the debt which the creeds coming out of the Reformation owe to Augustine is also acknowledged....C.H. Spurgeon admitted that "perhaps Calvin himself derived it [Calvinism] mainly from the writings of Augustine."

Maybe you are just out of the loop, Mondar, but clearly, even Calvinist theologians admit that much of Calvin's thought is based upon an intepretation of Augustine. He indeed DOES cite Augustine, quite often. If he cited him 400 times, it begs the question - did YOU read the primary sources of Calvin, or just commentary?​

As far as my reference to the Bodily Asumption, I am not changing the subject. I was simply asking you to be consistent and judge your own theology by the standards you judge mine. You wanted to see imputation in the Church Fathers, I was simply asking you to show me that your doctrine is also in the early Church Fathers. I take it your standard only applies to me?

You are changing the subject, especially since there is little connection or application. "Imputation" is the center of your "theology". I have already stressed repeatedly that this is NOT a major feature of Christianity. That is my entire point, lost on you, apparently. The Assumption has never been claimed to be a central tenet of our faith, so your point is lost in this conversation. It is indeed an attempt to change the subject.​

This is Paul's application of his quote from Romans 4:3. There is no law at all here. There is "works" but not law. But the works only bring debt. Faith justifies, and the justification of Romans is not infused, but imputed.​

Only if Romans consisted of chapter 4 and that's it...​

You are only addressing a part of Romans, Romans 4, where Paul's point is to state that the Mosaic Law, in of itself, does not justify. Why? He brings up Abraham and David as case in points. We are not justified by the works of the Law. It says nothing about "infused righteousness" because Paul addressses that later in Romans 8. However, he also states it in Romans 2 upon further inspection. We are indeed righteous, spiritual Jews, by the "LAW" written in our hearts, the Spirit of God - which Paul re-addresses later. Clearly, the man bound to heaven in Romans 2 has been infused with God's Law, and as a result, has circumcised his heart and gained eternal life - without ANY declaration of imputation even mentioned... Clearly, to Paul, the Gospel is about having the Law written in one's heart, having God come to dwell within, A RELATIONSHIP, NOT being "legally declared righteous".​

Being legally declared righteous is not Paul's point, even in Romans 4! He is merely telling Jews that the Mosaic Law does not justify, proving it by pointing to examples found in Scripture of men justified BEFORE the Mosaic Law even came into effect. Paul's point is that being justified is a result of a relationship with God's Spirit dwelling in our hearts - yes, infused. No one who is justified is left unchanged - they become a new creation as a result of an internal change, an infusion of grace Himself.​

God justifies whom HE WILLS, not based upon any works of the Law. Thus, it is grace, not works. GOD takes the initiative. But the point is that, not "legal fiction", where man is merely "declared" righteous WITHOUT any sort of internal change of man. On this, though, I think we would agree, as most Calvinists are more Catholic-minded post-regeneration.​

Regards​

 

[Alabaster]

So tell me what forced God to send His Son to die?

Of course there could have been other ways, we are talking about a Divine Being. Are you saying that some OTHER being required God to send His Son to die a gruesome death or did God CHOOSE to show His love in that particular fashion?

Regards

Who forces God to do anything? Our sin was a powerful motivator to Him, but no one had to force Jesus to go to the cross---He went there willingly out of unfathomable love.

Seems to me you are suggesting that God could have found another way. There was no other way.

 

[savedbygrace57]

mondar:

the actual logical order of justification would be after regeneration and calling.

Do you understand what a regenerated person is ?

 

[francisdesales]

Who forces God to do anything? Our sin was a powerful motivator to Him, but no one had to force Jesus to go to the cross---He went there willingly out of unfathomable love.

Seems to me you are suggesting that God could have found another way. There was no other way.

God CHOSE to send His Son to die for our sake as a man. Of course God could have chosen other ways to redeem us. As Thomas Aquinas said, "it is fitting that God would show His Love in such a manner". And that's the point. Of the options available to a free God, the death of God's only Begotten Son for our sake was most fitting in manifesting His Love.

There are many ways to show one's love for another. God chose the manner of our redemption, it was not forced upon Him.

Regards

 

[Drew]

Surely you don't expect to dismiss Calvinism and Romans 4 with such a simple dismissal? You are surely aware that Calvinists will defend the concept of "imputed righteousness with good biblical support.

I would be happy to discuss "imputed righteousness" if you like.

Even though the view is widely held, I am prepared to argue that while there is indeed a sense in which a "righteousness" is imputed to the believer, it is not specifically Christ's righteousness.

In short, it is not the case that we attain salvation specifically because God sees us as "having", in any sense, the righteousness of Christ.

 

[savedbygrace57]

drew:

I would be happy to discuss "imputed righteousness" if you like.

Its imputed to all for whom Christ died, His death unto obedience shall make them righteous.

rom 5:

19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

 

[Drew]

Paul was justified in Genesis 15 when he had faith. His works with Isaac did not come until Genesis 22. Genesis 15:6 is clear that Abraham was justified by faith.

To bring issues of the Law in at this point would be a surprise. The Mosaic Law was when? Not in the time of Abraham. So then, after Paul quotes Genesis 15:6 in Romans 4:3, then Paul makes this statement.....

Rom 4:4 Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt.
Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness.

This is Paul's application of his quote from Romans 4:3. There is no law at all here. There is "works" but not law. But the works only bring debt. Faith justifies, and the justification of Romans is not infused, but imputed.

Paul is indeed talking about the Law of Moses in Romans 4:2, even though we all know that the Law of Moses was only given 400 years after Abraham.

What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."

Romans 4:2 is clearly a reference to the Law of Moses and doing its works. True, the Law of Moses was not around in Abraham's time. But that is beside the point as I will demonstrate in a follow-on post. I believe that Paul denies justification by doing the works of the Law of Moses and not justification by good works. Those who argue otherwise have severe problems with Romans 2:6-7.

Paul's argument is basically directed at the Jew, telling him that salvation is not limited to Jews and Jews only:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. 29Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too

Note that Paul has written these words just a couple of sentences back from Romans 4:2.

The problem with seeing Romans 4:2 as anything other than a reference to the Law of Moses makes Paul into a scattered incoherent thinker. In Romans 3, he has just told us how justification is not based on doing the Law of Moses. Then throughout the first 17 or so verse of chapter 4, Paul is still making the same argument – salvation is not limited to Jews.

The argument is about how Abraham was not justified in virtue of being Jewish and, by extension therefore, justification is not for Jews only:

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before!

The case makes itself – Paul is bending over backwards to make it clear that his topic here is the availability of justification to both Jew and Gentile alike. And this is precisely why it makes sense to assert, in 4:2, that the Jew (of whom Abraham is genetic father) is not justified by the works of the Law of Moses. Yes, the law of Moses was not around in Abraham’s time. But Paul is really making a broader argument about justification not being limited to the Jew.

And what is the ethnic delimiter of the Jew? The law of Moses, of course.

 

[Drew]

drew:



Its imputed to all for whom Christ died, His death unto obedience shall make them righteous.

rom 5:

19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

This statement does not force us to conclude that we are made righteous specifically by having the righteousness of Christ imputed to us. It could mean that, but it is also open to other readings.

 

[savedbygrace57]

mondar:

Paul was justified in Genesis 15 when he had faith.

You meant Abraham I am sure. But Abraham was Justified in gen 12 when God made this promise to Him Gen 12:


1Now 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:

2And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:

3And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.

Now, do believe that God would have told [promised] a unjustified man, that His seed [ which was Christ] would be the blessing of all the families of the earth ?

Could Christ be of the seed of a unjustified person ?