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

[Alabaster]

Jesus Christ's righteousness is indeed imputed to us.

Romans 4:20-25 says so...
20 He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, 21 and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. 22 And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
23 Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, 24 but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.

 

[Drew]

Jesus Christ's righteousness is indeed imputed to us.

Romans 4:20-25 says so...
20 He did not waver at the promise of God through unbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, 21 and being fully convinced that what He had promised He was also able to perform. 22 And therefore “it was accounted to him for righteousness.”
23 Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, 24 but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.

No. There is no actual evidence in this text that we are imputed with Jesus's righteousness.

Look at what the text actually asserts.

In verse 20, we are told that Abraham's belief (faith) was accounted to him for righteousness. Nowhere does Paul say that the righteousness ascribed to Abraham was Jesus' own righteousness. Paul then goes on to connect the imputation of righteousness to Abraham with the work of Jesus.

But there is no statement, nor any implication, that the righteousness that Abraham gets is Jesus' own righteousness.

Again, a person can be "made righteous" through the actions of another without that other person's righteousness being imputed to the first person.

This is clear, and entirely consistent with the Old Testament, but many people seem unable to see this.

Let's bring up that metaphor about the courtroom where I am obliged to pay a $ 1000 fine in order to be "declared righteous". But I do not have the money. So my friend "Fred" pays the $ 1000 for me. Does this mean that I am now "righteous"? Yes, it does - the penalty for my "sin" has been paid for.

Does this also necessarily mean that the judge, and society at large, now consider me to have righteous status of Fred? Of course not! That makes no sense whatsoever. Suppose Fred's righteousness consists largely in the fact that he gives 90 % of his money to the poor. If I am imputed Fred's righteousness, then I, too, am considered to have that righteous habit of giving money to the poor.

This simply does not make sense - I am simply declared "righteous" before the court. The fact that Fred has paid has paid the fine does not suddenly force people to adopt the outrageous untruth that I possess the righteous status that Fred has attained by giving 90 % of his money to the poor.

Do I give 90 % of my money to the poor? Of course not! So it makes no sense at all to say that I am imputed with the righteousness of Fred.

So, again, the fact that a person is imputed a status of righteousness in virtue of what another person has done, whether it be Fred or Jesus, does not mean the person acquires the righteous status of that other person (Fred or Jesus).

 

[Alabaster]

Don't water down the word of truth with intellectual argument. It just doesn't work. Have faith in God's word and simply believe what He says.

Romans 4:23-25
23 Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, 24 but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.

Philippians 3:8-9
8 Yes, everything else is worthless when compared with the infinite value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have discarded everything else, counting it all as garbage, so that I could gain Christ 9 and become one with him. I no longer count on my own righteousness through obeying the law; rather, I become righteous through faith in Christ. For God’s way of making us right with himself depends on faith.

Romans 3:22
We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are.

 

[Drew]

Don't water down the word of truth with intellectual argument. It just doesn't work. Have faith in God's word and simply believe what He says.

This sounds very much like a refusal to actually deal with the arguments I have raised.

Romans 4:23-25
23 Now it was not written for his sake alone that it was imputed to him, 24 but also for us. It shall be imputed to us who believe in Him who raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.

As has already been pointed out, this is simply not a statement that Jesus' righteousness is imputed to us.

Let's see what the text actually says in context:

In hope against hope he believed, so that he might become a father of many nations according to that which had been spoken, "SO SHALL YOUR DESCENDANTS BE." Without becoming weak in faith he contemplated his own body, now as good as dead since he was about a hundred years old, and the deadness of Sarah's womb; yet, with respect to the promise of God, he did not waver in unbelief but grew strong in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully assured that what God had promised, He was able also to perform.

Therefore IT WAS ALSO CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.
Now not for his sake only was it written that it was credited to him, but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited,

Paul is describing the fact that Abraham's belief resulted in Abraham being credited with a status of righteousness in virtue of his belief.

Please be specific - where in this text are we told that the righteousness ascribed to Abraham was Jesus's righteousness?

 

[Drew]

Philippians 3:8-9
8 Yes, everything else is worthless when compared with the infinite value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have discarded everything else, counting it all as garbage, so that I could gain Christ 9 and become one with him. I no longer count on my own righteousness through obeying the law; rather, I become righteous through faith in Christ. For God’s way of making us right with himself depends on faith.

This text simply does not say that we are imputed with the righteousness of Christ. Yes, Paul get's righteousness. And, yes, this righteousness arises in virtue of faith in Christ.

But the text never says that God sees Paul as "possessing" Jesus' own righteousness.

Nor does the text logically force us to draw this conclusion. We can and do "get righteousness", but not the righteousness of Christ.

Romans 3:22

We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are.

Again, this text does not say we are seen by God as possessing Jesus' righteousness. It says we get righteousness by placing faith in Jesus, but the text does not go the next step and assert that the righteousness we get is the righteousness of Christ.

Again, please honour what the text actually says, and do not go beyond that.

 

[Alabaster]

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.


We are the righteousness of God in Christ. So be it! What a great deal!

 

[Drew]

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.


We are the righteousness of God in Christ. So be it! What a great deal!

1 Corinthians 5:21 is a text which only appears to support the imputation of God's righteousness to the believer.

Here is the text as per the NIV:

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God

The mere form of expression here does not require us to read this as a statement that we "get" the righteousness of God - that God's righteousness in ascribed or imputed to us. It could, of course, be read that way. But it could also be read as stating that "we are the agents through which God's own righteousness is expressed in the world". That this is indeed a plausible reading can be discerned by analogy to statements like “the soldiers become the righteousness of the Kingâ€. If the King is acting “righteously†in defending his nation through the deployment of the soldiers, it is entirely reasonable to see the soldiers as the agents that implement that righteousness. We do not need to read this as suggesting that the personal righteous character of the King is imputed or ascribed to the soldiers.

Here are reasons to be suspicious of the "imputed righteousness" reading of this text:

1. Paul never states anywhere else in Scripture that God imputes Christ's righteousness to us.

2. In the 2 Corinthians verse, it is God's righteousness that we become (if the imputed view is correct) not Christ's (as the imputation view normally asserts). This is indeed odd, since the text does indeed otherwise clearly draw a God-Christ distinction. This is a more important point that it might first seem. The whole point of the imputation view is that God looks at us and sees Jesus’s righteousness, and we are thus declared “righteous†in the great cosmic lawcourt. Watch what people do here. They will invariably try to respond with an assertion that “Jesus is Godâ€. Well that’s true, but not relevant to the immediate issue. And such a response entails using the God-Christ distinction when it serves the purposes of imputation, and yet collapsing it by the phrase “Jesus is God†when challenged on the fact that the text says we get “God’s righteousness, not Jesus’s. If Paul really believes that we are imputed the righteousness of Jesus in particular, why then does he say we get the righteousness of God (if the imputation view is correct, of course)?

3. An imputation reading is not true to the context of the preceding material, which is all about the paradoxical nature of Paul's ministry - where Christ is magnified through Paul's weakness. If the imputation reading is correct, Paul has suddenly, without notice, changed subject from his present topic - the nature of his apostleship - and inserted a soteriological statement about imputation. This would be very odd, especially for Paul who tends to argue very cohesively and not go off on tangents.

Look at some of the preceding text:

And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us.

I claim that the central idea here is that of the covenant ambassador who represents the one for whom he speaks in such a full and thorough way that he actually becomes the living embodiment of his King.

This reading, I assert makes much better contextual sense than an imputation reading. Paul sees himself as a minister of the new covenant who has, by this very role, become the "righteousness of God". The 2 Corinthians 5 text is about how we, in virtue of our apostolic vocation become the "foot-solidiers" who implement God's righteous faithfulness to the covenant.

No less than three times does Paul make it clear (in the text just before verse 21) that this issue is our commissioning from God to be the agents who work out his plan.

So when Paul says "we might become the righteousness of God", he has not changed topics. He is still referring to this commission and is stating that by being given this commission, we become the agents who "carry out" the righteousness of God.

 

[Alabaster]

As Jesus is God, is His righteousness something different than the Father's?

This part of the discussion is rather pointless.

 

[mlqurgw]

Drew,

When you get to responding to my other questions and the beginnings of the Biblical argument I made I will continue.

 

[francisdesales]

1 Corinthians 5:21 is a text which only appears to support the imputation of God's righteousness to the believer.

Here is the text as per the NIV:

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God

I think I have already touched on this, Drew, this idea that we are MERELY imputed righteousness. I think we need to go beyond the "legal" aspect and look at what happens to the believer IN CHRIST. This legal imputation is focusing on the sapling and not seeing the forest.

When we are in Christ, we BECOME PART OF HIM! We, as the BODY OF CHRIST, do not merely receive some legal justification. We, in Christ, are justified BECAUSE we are PART of Christ. Thus, if Christ is in me and I in Him, I am justified because I am infused with Christ's righteousness (being part of Him and He part of me). The Law is written in my heart, I am a new creation in Christ, not just declared so from afar while I remain a pile of filthy rags!!!

This was my initial point long ago - that discussion about merely legal imputation doesn't go far enough, we are MORE than "imputed" with some legal justification.

Though we are not ontologically Christ, we do share in everything that He is at some level, being that Jesus is the God-man, the TRUE Mediator between mankind and God. We have died with Him, we have risen with Him, we sit on thrones at the right hand of the Father. This is what we call the "communication of properties". What Christ is as the Second Adam, we share in. In this sense, we indeed DO "receive" the justification of Christ, but not in ONLY a legal sense, but a total sense of being IN Christ, part of Christ. As His Body, we share in that justification. Thus, there is no sense in talking about being "covered" or merely receiving legal imputation without any inner change. That is majoring in minors.

In other words, we don't go to God alone with the "blanket of Christ" tossed over us, we go to God as part of Christ, being made pure and holy (Ephesians speaks a lot about this), He abiding in us and we in Him, just as the Father abides in the Son and the Son in the Father. (as adopted children, not natural). The focus on legalism overlooks this basic tenet of Christianity, a union with God Himself through Jesus Christ.

Regards

 

[Drew]

I think I have already touched on this, Drew, this idea that we are MERELY imputed righteousness. I think we need to go beyond the "legal" aspect and look at what happens to the believer IN CHRIST. This legal imputation is focusing on the sapling and not seeing the forest.

I actually agree with you on this. I have, as you know, been indeed arguing that we are imputed a status of righteousness. My intent was to draw attention to the very real distinction between the notion that we are imputed with a status of righteousness and the distinct notion that it is specifically the righteousness of Christ that we are imputed. And I do believe that we are imputed a status of righteousness. However, I suspect we agree that the nature of the process by which a person becomes a fully human member of God's true family cannot be reduced to notions of "legal imputation" of either type. Perhaps my posts have been misleading - the reader might get the impression that I think "its all about legal imputation, with the qualification that it is not Jesus' righteousness with which we are imputed."

Nothing could be further from the truth. I suspect we are both concerned that the "legal imputation" metaphor is deeply misleading.

More shortly.....

 

[Drew]

When we are in Christ, we BECOME PART OF HIM! We, as the BODY OF CHRIST, do not merely receive some legal justification. We, in Christ, are justified BECAUSE we are PART of Christ. Thus, if Christ is in me and I in Him, I am justified because I am infused with Christ's righteousness (being part of Him and He part of me). The Law is written in my heart, I am a new creation in Christ, not just declared so from afar while I remain a pile of filthy rags!!!

As I think you know from a lot of my other posts, I agree with this.

This was my initial point long ago - that discussion about merely legal imputation doesn't go far enough, we are MORE than "imputed" with some legal justification.

I agree - we are new creations and as God works through us, we develop into the kind of person of whom God will truly say "you persisted in righteousness". In other words, I entirely reject the notion that God will welcome us into His family because "He looks at us and sees Jesus". That is a comforting thing to believe, especially for those who might wish to abdicate their responsibility to allow the Spirit to transform them, with all the sacrifice this might involve.

I basically agree with the rest of your post. So please do not think that since I indeed think there is a sense in which we are imputed a status of righteousness, that I therefore see justification and the process of becoming "suitable" for final salvation to be simply a matter of legal imputation.

I think we have taken the legal metaphor too seriously.

 

[Drew]

As Jesus is God, is His righteousness something different than the Father's?

This part of the discussion is rather pointless.

I agree that the discussion is pointless, but for a different reason.

 

[Drew]

First, I think it is imperitive that you define what you mean by righteousness.

I think that Paul has a complex concept of what constitutes "righteousness". I ascribe to the view that Paul's model of righteousness has three aspects:

1. Covenant Membership: For Paul, to be declared righteous is primarily a matter of being deemed to be within the covenant family. Hence Paul's repeated concern about who the "true children of Abraham" are. I think this is the dominant sense of what Paul means by "righteousness". To be declared "righteous" fundamentally means to be declared a member of God's true family.

2. Legal Righteousness: For Paul, the lawcourt functions largely as a metaphor - it is not his primary way of thinking about righteousness. But this is not a denial that there is a forensic or "legal" aspect to righteousness - but rather that is secondary to the fundamental sense of righteousness: covenant membership.

3. Future Righteousness: In Romans 2, Paul speaks about people being declared righteous at the future coming judgement. So Paul's model of righteousness includes this "eschatological" element as well. We are indeed a "project" and final salvation is indeed based on what kind of person we have become. But, again, the fundamental sense of righteousness for Paul is covenantal.

This a complex model, but I believe that it honours what Paul actually writes. And, of course, this very brief description leaves a lot of question unanswered.

But I have now answered your question above, at least in a preliminary sense.

 

[francisdesales]

As I think you know from a lot of my other posts, I agree with this.


I agree - we are new creations and as God works through us, we develop into the kind of person of whom God will truly say "you persisted in righteousness". In other words, I entirely reject the notion that God will welcome us into His family because "He looks at us and sees Jesus". That is a comforting thing to believe, especially for those who might wish to abdicate their responsibility to allow the Spirit to transform them, with all the sacrifice this might involve.

I basically agree with the rest of your post. So please do not think that since I indeed think there is a sense in which we are imputed a status of righteousness, that I therefore see justification and the process of becoming "suitable" for final salvation to be simply a matter of legal imputation.

I think we have taken the legal metaphor too seriously.

Yes, I thought we agreed on this idea that "legal imputation", while true, is a very minor thing, when compared with God HIMSELF coming to dwell within us, writing His Law within us, changing us into new creations, making us adopted sons and daughters, and many other things that result because of being IN Christ in a truly mysterious and intimate fashion.

The "legal imputation" is focusing on such a minor thing that it threatens to change Christianity into a salvation scheme, rather than a close familial union with God Himself. Naturally, if God Himself calls us His Body, linking us with Christ in such a manner, why stop at "legal imputation"???

In a sense, we do possess Christ's righteousness, but that is because we are IN Christ, not because we are "separate" and it is given to us like some sort of "Get out of Jail Free" card...

I was pretty sure we were on the same page...

Regards

 

[savedbygrace57]

mlq:

I believe that SBG is talking about eternal justification as laid out in Gill, which I too hold to

Actually I was not, but I believe its just as a vital Gospel Truth, Eternal Justification.

 

[savedbygrace57]

Christ Intercession is for all that He died for !



rom 8:


33Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

34Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

One of the many blessings that Christ death secured for all them He died for is His Present Intercession for them to God premised solely upon His Blood shed for them..

All that Christ died for would be born in sin, but God would have to deliver them all, and this is ensured by Christ being in Heaven making intercession for them.

Remember, He gave Himself for us [ The elect] in order that He would deliver us from this present evil world according to Gods will Gal 1:


4Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:

5To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

To their shame, many today do not believe that Christ Intercession is effective, in that they believe, many for whom Christ gave himself for, and is now presently interceding for, will yet perish in their sins..how frightening..

What they fail to realize, is that Christ Intercession ensures for every sinner He died for, a Divine Intervention in their lives delivering them from sin and converting them unto God..

This was vividly demonstrated in the intervention in the Life of the apostle Paul when he was on the road to Damascus.

The effects of the Intercession of Christ for those He died is bringing them to God by Him heb 7:


25Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

Their coming to God is evidence of He having saved them to the uttermost and His Intercession for them..

So, for you who believe that there are some to perish in their sins for whom Christ died and rose, you discredit the value of His redeeming blood, and His Intercession is uneffectual..because of your insistence that mans freewill determines these outcomes..

 

[Alabaster]

Jesus blood was shed to cover all sins, but men still insist on keeping their sin. God will always oblige those who exercise their free will to opt out of the salvation plan and pay for their own sin.

That is sad for millions of people, but I appreciate that God and His holiness cannot abide evil in His presence. He is providing all believers with a sin-free eternal home. He had had to provide a permanent place of containment for evil.

If one isn't covered in the blood, then one is still in one's sin.

 

[mlqurgw]

Jesus blood was shed to cover all sins, but men still insist on keeping their sin. God will always oblige those who exercise their free will to opt out of the salvation plan and pay for their own sin.

That is sad for millions of people, but I appreciate that God and His holiness cannot abide evil in His presence. He is providing all believers with a sin-free eternal home. He had had to provide a permanent place of containment for evil.

If one isn't covered in the blood, then one is still in one's sin.

Then Jesus blood doesn't actually do anything unless man makes it effectual by opting in. If His blood covers all sin then how can a just God punish sin?

 

[theLords]

Then Jesus blood doesn't actually do anything unless man makes it effectual by opting in. If His blood covers all sin then how can a just God punish sin?

God isn't going to force his love on anyone. He isn't going to force anyone to choose Him and His gift of salvation.

A just God must punish sin, for the reason you mentioned, JUSTICE. God is Holy. He must punish sin. Look at Hitler, 60(?) years later and his hatred is STILL influencing the world. Sin must be punished, there's no escaping it. That is the reason Jesus paid the price so we wouldn't have to. A Christian's sin has been punished, we just didn't have to be punished for it because of the love of God. Others, nonbelievers, prefer to be punished for their own sins, and that is exactly what they will be allowed to do.