PDA

View Full Version : When did the dispensation of grace begin?



ananias
Sep 17th 2008, 06:52 PM
Adam and Eve's provision in the garden of Eden was God's provision of grace for mankind.

Gen.3: 15 speaks about the beginning of the dispensation of grace:

"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He will bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel." (Gen. 3:15).

This promise was fulfilled by the Lord Jesus Christ:

"For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Mat.26: 28).

God's grace and God's judgment was manifested by God's shutting of the door of the ark - sealing grace for the redeemed family within, and judgment for all the families outside.

God's grace was manifested through the birth of Isaac, and again when through the intercession of Moses, God relented of the destruction of all Israel. And God's grace was manifested through Cyrus of Persia's edict to release the captive Jews and by Artaxerxes Longimanus's later edict to reconstruct the walls of Jerusalem - the beginning of the 70 "weeks" of Daniel's 70 "weeks" prophecy.

The Dispensation of Law, said Paul, was temporary - and Paul said that the Law was ADDED:

"Why then the Law? It was added because of transgressions, until the Seed should come to those to whom it had been promised, being ordained through angels in the Mediator's hand." (Gal.3: 19).

What was the Law added to? And when did "the Dispensation of grace" REALLY begin?

ananias

keck553
Sep 17th 2008, 07:17 PM
The dispensation of Grace began when God had to kill an animal (as a substitute for the wages of sin) to cover Adam and Eve with it's skin.

Richard H
Sep 17th 2008, 07:21 PM
For me: when I was born again. :rolleyes:

petepet
Sep 17th 2008, 07:24 PM
The dispensation of grace began the moment that Adam sinned.

The Law was introduced in order to control transgression. BUT IT WAS NOT introduced in order to be a way of salvation.

The covenant of Exodus 20 was a covenant of grace. It began with the declaration of what God had done to redeem His people and then called for a response in terms of the Law. But under that covenant salvation was by grace. Even Moses only entered heaven by the grace of God, and very much needed it at the end. As Paul tells us, David was saved in the same way (Romans 4.6-8).

Today as Christians we are redeemed through the blood of Christ, but having been saved we are to obey the law of Christ, namely that we shall love our neighbours as ourselves (Galatians 5.13-14), which in fact sums up the Law.

ananias
Sep 17th 2008, 08:10 PM
For me: when I was born again. :rolleyes:

Amen to that, Richard H. Same for me!:)

ananias

ananias
Sep 17th 2008, 08:13 PM
The dispensation of grace began the moment that Adam sinned.

The Law was introduced in order to control transgression. BUT IT WAS NOT introduced in order to be a way of salvation.

The covenant of Exodus 20 was a covenant of grace. It began with the declaration of what God had done to redeem His people and then called for a response in terms of the Law. But under that covenant salvation was by grace. Even Moses only entered heaven by the grace of God, and very much needed it at the end. As Paul tells us, David was saved in the same way (Romans 4.6-8).

Today as Christians we are redeemed through the blood of Christ, but having been saved we are to obey the law of Christ, namely that we shall love our neighbours as ourselves (Galatians 5.13-14), which in fact sums up the Law.

So when Paul says the Law was ADDED, what does he mean? To what was the Law added? The Law could surely not be added to grace? Grace is grace and the Law is the Law.

ananias

pastor_john
Sep 18th 2008, 01:16 PM
Concerning when did the dispensation of grace begin?


What's the meaning of grace in the Bible? Grace refers to the Holy Spirit according to Titus 3:6-7. Therefore, grace is to be our king and commander (Isa55:3-4).
The Bible says: We have to approach the throne of grace to receive grace (Heb4:14-16). What does this mean? The throne is the dwelling place, like the body of Ezekiel is the throne, where the LORD dwells, for Ezekiel, filled with the open scroll in his stomach, warns people from the mouth of YAHVEH (Eze3:1-4,10-11,16-17), so what he speaks is the word from the mouth of GOD. The same with Peter, Paul, John, Moses. And the Holy Spirit comes upon those hearers of the word (Ac10:44, 19:1-6, Nu11:23-26), for the breath of the word is the Holy Spirit (Jn20:21-22, 6:62-63). So, we can see the throne of grace refers to these people who speak the word of GOD and distribute the Holy Spirit upon hearers on the spot.
Therefore, on the day we have found the throne of grace, and have received the grace, his dispensation begins!

Coptichristian
Sep 18th 2008, 01:29 PM
I don't buy into dispensationalism in the least. Grace has always been with mankind.

Kahtar
Sep 18th 2008, 01:42 PM
So when Paul says the Law was ADDED, what does he mean? To what was the Law added? The Law could surely not be added to grace? Grace is grace and the Law is the Law.

ananias

I'll take a stab at it. In Gen. 6, God remembered His covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and because of that covenant, He brought the Israelites out of bondage.
But they sinned in the wilderness, and refused to hear God, and then God provided the law.
Thus, it would by my guess that the law was added to the covenant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

Sold Out
Sep 18th 2008, 02:27 PM
The dispensation of Grace began when God had to kill an animal (as a substitute for the wages of sin) to cover Adam and Eve with it's skin.

And there it is............

1of7000
Sep 18th 2008, 04:14 PM
The age of grace began on the day of pentecost, Holy Spirit was given to man as a permanent indwelling, we became sons of God and given more power than we imagine or will use. it will end at the Lord's return for His saints.

keck553
Sep 18th 2008, 04:40 PM
I don't buy into dispensationalism in the least. Grace has always been with mankind.


Amen to that. God doesn't change. He changes us.

threebigrocks
Sep 18th 2008, 04:53 PM
The dispensation of Grace began when God had to kill an animal (as a substitute for the wages of sin) to cover Adam and Eve with it's skin.

To broaden on this - the law still came first. Do not eat the fruit of that tree meaning do not covet. There was transgression of that law, which lead to man being covered physically. Now, could that animal skin, or sacrafice, give man grace and their own righteousness?

keck553
Sep 18th 2008, 05:00 PM
To broaden on this - the law still came first. Do not eat the fruit of that tree meaning do not covet. There was transgression of that law, which lead to man being covered physically. Now, could that animal skin, or sacrafice, give man grace and their own righteousness?

Great observation and great point. And no, that animal skin did not redeem them, make them righteous, or bring them back to the garden relationship. But it was a down payment on a promise. A visa card, God - style. God in His Grace and Meercy and true to His word provided a way to begin His plan of redemption for mankind.

threebigrocks
Sep 18th 2008, 05:03 PM
A visa card, God - style.

And the debt to be paid in full 4,000 years later when the fullness of grace became available to all who believe. :pp

Man, that's a lot of interest on a very large balance! :lol:

keck553
Sep 18th 2008, 05:07 PM
Speaking of the credit-card analogy, remember His Torah command that creditors forgive debts after (I think) 7 years and not charge interest to their countrymen? Pretty cool allusion.

watchinginawe
Sep 18th 2008, 05:34 PM
Grace isn't "invented" by God but rather "dispensed".

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

God most recently, in these last days, "dispensed" grace through Jesus Christ. God "dispensed" grace through the giving of the Holy Ghost. These were promises of God before they occurred and have now come to pass. It is self evident that these frame a new "dispensation" of God's grace towards man. The news of this "dispensation" is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 2:11 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.

18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:

22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Ephesians 3:1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,

2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,

4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)

5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.

8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;

9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,

11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:

12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ has no basis without the birth, life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. We could pull more scripture to demonstrate that fact but it should be evident to any Bible reader that there was an "appointed time" where this all took place and that as a consequence we now live on the other side of that appointment, and thus the current dispensation of God's grace to us-ward.

God Bless!

keck553
Sep 18th 2008, 05:45 PM
I definately understand God adds promises and covenants at appointed times He chose to draw us nearer in His plan of redemption, however, His grace has not changed one iota. Nada. Zip.

Redemption is in the TeNaKh, but it doesn't dimish Yeshua one bit.

David Taylor
Sep 18th 2008, 07:41 PM
The dispensation of Grace began when God had to kill an animal (as a substitute for the wages of sin) to cover Adam and Eve with it's skin.

Good point Keck,
I almost agree here....except that really it began even a little bit before that....

"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began" 2 Timothy 1:9

"the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" Revelation 13:8

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world" Ephesians 1:4

ananias
Sep 18th 2008, 08:24 PM
Yet God's grace was predetermined even before the creation:

"But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, which God has hidden, predetermining it before the world for our glory;" (1Cor.2: 7).

And surely, those who had faith in the seed who was to come (Gen.3: 15) are equally covered by His sacrifice for sins as those who have faith in the seed who has come. "For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." (Eph.2: 8-9).

Originally Posted by ananias http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1791783#post1791783)
So when Paul says the Law was ADDED, what does he mean? To what was the Law added? The Law could surely not be added to grace? Grace is grace and the Law is the Law.

ananias


I'll take a stab at it. In Gen. 6, God remembered His covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and because of that covenant, He brought the Israelites out of bondage.
But they sinned in the wilderness, and refused to hear God, and then God provided the law.
Thus, it would by my guess that the law was added to the covenant of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

But the covenant - the Abrahamic Covenant - was a covenant of grace. So how can Law be ADDED to grace?

Am I wrong to say that the Law was only added to the transgression and not to the Abrahamic Covenant?:

"Why then the Law? It was added because of transgressions, until the Seed should come to whom it had been promised, being ordained through angels in the Mediator's hand." (Gal.3: 19)

"But the Law entered so that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound," (Rom.5: 20).

There we have grace being mentioned again as abounding even before the sacrifice of the Savior whose sacrifice for sin was predetermined before the world was made.

So am I wrong in saying that because the basis of grace has always been the sacrifice of Jesus for our sins (which was predetermined by the God of all grace who transcends time), the dispensation of grace therefore pre-dates Jesus' sacrifice in time?

ananias

ananias
Sep 18th 2008, 08:42 PM
Concerning when did the dispensation of grace begin?


What's the meaning of grace in the Bible? Grace refers to the Holy Spirit according to Titus 3:6-7. Therefore, grace is to be our king and commander (Isa55:3-4).
The Bible says: We have to approach the throne of grace to receive grace (Heb4:14-16). What does this mean? The throne is the dwelling place, like the body of Ezekiel is the throne, where the LORD dwells, for Ezekiel, filled with the open scroll in his stomach, warns people from the mouth of YAHVEH (Eze3:1-4,10-11,16-17), so what he speaks is the word from the mouth of GOD. The same with Peter, Paul, John, Moses. And the Holy Spirit comes upon those hearers of the word (Ac10:44, 19:1-6, Nu11:23-26), for the breath of the word is the Holy Spirit (Jn20:21-22, 6:62-63). So, we can see the throne of grace refers to these people who speak the word of GOD and distribute the Holy Spirit upon hearers on the spot.
Therefore, on the day we have found the throne of grace, and have received the grace, his dispensation begins!

I'd agree that the Holy Spirit of Jesus our Savior and of God our Father is the vehicle for the impartation of God's grace to us - but I disagree that God's grace IS His Holy Spirit - for grace refers to the favor of God which is undeserved, unearned and unmerited by us. God's Holy Spirit led, guided, taught, rebuked and chastised Israel before the time of Christ - albeit through priests and prophets - and before that God's Holy Spirit led Noah to build an ark. So I don't think grace IS the Holy Spirit, even though we can call Him the Spirit of grace - but He is also the Spirit of justice - which at times meant judgement, not grace.

ananias

ananias
Sep 18th 2008, 08:44 PM
Good point Keck,
I almost agree here....except that really it began even a little bit before that....

"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began" 2 Timothy 1:9

"the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" Revelation 13:8

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world" Ephesians 1:4


My thoughts exactly. The Son of God transcends time.

ananias

watchinginawe
Sep 18th 2008, 09:36 PM
My thoughts exactly. The Son of God transcends time.

ananiasI respectfully disagree as it pertains to your thread.

Galatians 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Fulness of time? Indeed, God had purposed it for mankind and before the time it was a promise and after the time we receive the "adoption of sons".

The question is simple: When was (is) the fulness of time? Has it always been the fulness of time?

God Bless!

ananias
Sep 18th 2008, 09:49 PM
I respectfully disagree as it pertains to your thread.

Galatians 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world:

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.

Fulness of time? Indeed, God had purposed it for mankind and before the time it was a promise and after the time we receive the "adoption of sons".

The question is simple: When was (is) the fulness of time? Has it always been the fulness of time?

God Bless!

"The fullness of time" refers to the pre-ordained time appointed by God which takes place in "time". But are not Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses and the prophets adopted as sons?

ananias

Joe King
Sep 18th 2008, 09:50 PM
Before the foundation of the world.

keck553
Sep 18th 2008, 09:51 PM
Good point Keck,
I almost agree here....except that really it began even a little bit before that....

"Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began" 2 Timothy 1:9

"the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" Revelation 13:8

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world" Ephesians 1:4


yes indeed. I love a good mystery!!

SIG
Sep 18th 2008, 10:05 PM
Answers like these are difficult for we who are stuck in time--which God is not.

The dispensation of grace began at Pentecost, which is the point at which believers were able to fully enter into Christ, and He into them.

As for Galatians 3: Read in context, of course. Paul refers to Abraham, then the Egyptian captivity, then the law being added...

(I'm not claiming to be a dispensationalist--but it is clear to me through Scripture that although God's attributes never change, His revelation of Himself to humankind, and their understanding of Him, has.)

keck553
Sep 18th 2008, 10:18 PM
So no one was filled with the Spirit of God before Yeshua?

That everything is centered around Yeshua, I have no argument. Maybe I have the wrong definition of 'dispensation'??

SIG
Sep 18th 2008, 10:23 PM
So no one was filled with the Spirit of God before Yeshua?

That everything is centered around Yeshua, I have no argument. Maybe I have the wrong definition of 'dispensation'??

People were filled with the Spirit (temporarily), but not indwelt. That was not possible until after the resurrection.

watchinginawe
Sep 18th 2008, 10:36 PM
"The fullness of time" refers to the pre-ordained time appointed by God which takes place in "time". But are not Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses and the prophets adopted as sons?

ananiasSaid simply, the Gospel of Jesus Christ has to do with REAL events in time. :hmm: For example:

Acts 1:10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;

11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.

Is Jesus coming again or not? Is that a future event or not? Will things after His coming be the same as they are now?

Regarding Jesus and whether He has been eternally slain or eternally purposed, consider the following words of Jesus:


John 17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

I just don't see how one could say that Jesus Christ had already accomplished His work before the foundation of the world. Eternally purposed, yes, but not possible until Jesus Christ was sent forth as a man. And even that is complicated. Consider some of these "ages" of Jesus Christ:

Matthew 2:9 When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was.

Luke 2:42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.

Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,

So the Son of God is eternal, but as Jesus Christ, God incarnate, I don't think it can be said that Jesus has been a man eternally and therefore already having been "slain" eternally. JMHO.

God Bless!

ananias
Sep 18th 2008, 10:39 PM
People were filled with the Spirit (temporarily), but not indwelt. That was not possible until after the resurrection.

Is the word grace synonymous with the words "filled with the Spirit"?

ananias

ananias
Sep 18th 2008, 10:50 PM
John 17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.

3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

I just don't see how one could say that Jesus Christ had already accomplished His work before the foundation of the world. Eternally purposed, yes, but not possible until Jesus Christ was sent forth as a man.

So the Son of God is eternal, but as Jesus Christ, God incarnate, I don't think it can be said that Jesus has been a man eternally and therefore already having been "slain" eternally. JMHO.

God Bless!


I agree with all of the above. There is also something else which Paul said:

"Truly, then, God overlooking the times of ignorance, now He strictly commands all men everywhere to repent," (Act.17: 30).

So this is a paradox, perhaps - because God still had grace on those whose faith was in the Word of God, even BEFORE the fullness of time had come for the sacrifice of the only Holy One.

?

ananias

SIG
Sep 18th 2008, 10:54 PM
Is the word grace synonymous with the words "filled with the Spirit"?

ananias

I'm not sure I'm understanding your question.

God is gracious. The word "favor" in the OT is the equivalent of "grace." Nonetheless, no one was indwelt with the Holy Spirit before Pentecost, and so no one experienced the fullness of God's grace until then.

watchinginawe
Sep 18th 2008, 11:00 PM
I agree with all of the above. There is also something else which Paul said:

"Truly, then, God overlooking the times of ignorance, now He strictly commands all men everywhere to repent," (Act.17: 30).

So this is a paradox, perhaps - because God still had grace on those whose faith was in the Word of God, even BEFORE the fullness of time had come for the sacrifice of the only Holy One.

?

ananiasYes, that is a very good scripture reference as pertains to the Gospel and God's disposition towards man. And also for the assurance God has given to us of the matter.

God Bless!

keck553
Sep 18th 2008, 11:29 PM
People were filled with the Spirit (temporarily), but not indwelt. That was not possible until after the resurrection.

Where does it say that in the Bible? What about John the Baptist?

SIG
Sep 19th 2008, 01:46 AM
Jhn 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.


Jhn 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet [given]; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

IBWatching
Sep 19th 2008, 07:35 PM
...What was the Law added to? And when did "the Dispensation of grace" REALLY begin?

ananias

Your use of the word dispensation distracts me some. A dispensation in Scripture is an administration or stewardship. It can either be done by God alone or by God through man. Nor does Scripture tie that administration to a specific time period.

A dispensation as defined by those who call themselves "classic" dispensationalists is an administration given to man. When man fails in that administration, then it is given to someone else.

The Church age is not a dispensation even by their own definition. For one thing, it will not fail. Secondly, it is not man who is doing the administration, it is Jesus Christ, the Head. Paul stated that he had an administration (dispensation). In context of what he said, that administration was over the message of reconciliation which brought Jews and gentiles together, not over all of God's Grace, nor over the Church. While it is true that Paul certainly helped Jesus in His administration of the Church by doing this, Jesus Christ was/is still the Head.

Insofar as God's Grace goes, it has been and will always be there because God is Grace (Love). Genesis 3:15 was the first pronouncement of this Grace to mankind. But it has always been there. OT saints (before and during the time of the Law) had faith in God's Word. When they acted on their faith, those actions were deemed to have perfected (James 2:22) their faith and that faith was then reckoned as Righteousness and they became Justified in God's eyes.

In this Church age, saints have the same faith in God's Word, but actions are not needed to perfect that faith (in fact it is already Perfect because it comes from God - Eph 2:8-9) nor is that faith needed to appropriate Righteousness because we have Jesus' as our own. It is His Righteousness which gains us Justification in God's Eyes.

There is only one eternal Gospel and faith is always the means by which God's Grace is accessed in that Gospel. Right now, in this Church age, all has been done for us through Jesus Christ. That ends when Church age ends. But faith as a means to Grace and that Grace Itself do not end.

drew
Sep 19th 2008, 08:18 PM
....nor is that faith needed to appropriate Righteousness because we have Jesus' as our own. It is His Righteousness which gains us Justification in God's Eyes.
I do not believe that the Scriptures teach that we get "Jesus's Righteousness", even though many, if not the majority of people believe this.

I am willing to discuss this further but I am also equally willing to let it drop, since I do not think that resolution of this is central to the topic under discussion.

drew
Sep 19th 2008, 08:26 PM
The Law was introduced in order to control transgression.
I agree with everything in your post except this statement which tells only part of the story. I suggest that, strange though it may seem, Paul teaches that Torah was added or given with the divine intention of making trespass abound or increase. From Romans 5 and then 7:

20The law was added so that the trespass might increase.

So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

The matter of Torah - the reasons for its being given and its present status - is a complex one indeed.

IBWatching
Sep 19th 2008, 08:39 PM
I do not believe that the Scriptures teach that we get "Jesus's Righteousness", even though many, if not the majority of people believe this.

I am willing to discuss this further but I am also equally willing to let it drop, since I do not think that resolution of this is central to the topic under discussion.

If you are talking about "imputed" Righteousness, then I agree, it is a a human construct and not worth talking about. But on the point of Jesus' Righteousness being ours, I am unyielding:


1 Corinthians 1:30 But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption,

keck553
Sep 19th 2008, 08:51 PM
I do not believe that the Scriptures teach that we get "Jesus's Righteousness", even though many, if not the majority of people believe this.

I am willing to discuss this further but I am also equally willing to let it drop, since I do not think that resolution of this is central to the topic under discussion.

I agree with this. If I had His imputed righteousness, I would be nicer and not worry about tomorrow's bills.

Despite what some anti-missionary rabbi's say about our idolatry for having Yeshua as our mediator, Moses was clearly a mediator for the Hebrew nation at Mt. Sinai.

One thing I do know, is that I belong to Jesus, lock stock and barrel, and He is sufficient to be my mediator.

How much better is our Mediator Who sits at the right hand of God?

drew
Sep 19th 2008, 08:55 PM
If you are talking about "imputed" Righteousness, then I agree, it is a a human construct and not worth talking about. But on the point of Jesus' Righteousness being ours, I am unyielding:
I am not sure what distinction you are drawing here. But in any event, I do not believe that the Scriptures teach that in any way we are seen by God as "having" Jesus' righteouness. Jesus' righteousness, for Paul, is his covenant-fulfilling actions. And we obviously do not "get" that righteousness. Instead, we get the righteousness of the defended who is acquiitted in the lawcourt. And that is no one else's righteousness.

But let's look at the text:

But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption

Paul says that Christ has become for us wisdom from God, and righteousness, sanctification and redemption. Wisdom is the main point he is making, and the other three nouns come in as a way of saying ‘and everything else as well’.

Paul's statement would seem to demand equal air time for us getting of Christ's wisdom, sanctification and redemption as well. And I cannot see how that can be true. Do you know any Christian of whom it could be said "That person has the wisdom of Christ"?

Kahtar
Sep 20th 2008, 12:43 AM
Romans 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which [he had yet] being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him(Abraham) for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. (Romans 4:21-25 KJV)

SIG
Sep 20th 2008, 03:50 AM
drew: "Instead, we get the righteousness of the defended who is acquiitted in the lawcourt."

I don't think so. Rather, we are dismissed from the suit and have Jesus stand in for us; He is then declared "not guilty."

We certainly don't become righteous as He is. Rather, we become more and more righteous as we are conformed to His image. But--this side of Heaven, we always were and still are sinners--which He never was or is.

His righteousness is credited to us. When the Father looks at us, He sees His Son. We are hidden in Christ. Although we are still sinners, God sees us as Christ's righteousness--sinless. That's grace.

Kahtar
Sep 20th 2008, 04:41 AM
Do you know any Christian of whom it could be said 'That person has the wisdom of Christ'?
For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom ; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; (1 Corinthians 12:8 KJV)
Wherefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus, and love unto all the saints, Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers; That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: (Ephesians 1:15-17 KJV)
For this cause we also, since the day we heard [it], do not cease to pray for you, and to desire that ye might be filled with the knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; (Colossians 1:9 KJV)
Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time. (Colossians 4:5 KJV)
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all [men] liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. (James 1:5 KJV)
But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, [and] easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy. (James 3:17 KJV)

None of us of course are righteous in and of ourself, nor do we possess wisdom apart from Christ, for the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God.
Nevertheless, in Christ we are accounted righteous, and are given wisdom by the Holy Spirit.
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. (Galatians 2:20 KJV)

drew
Sep 20th 2008, 03:02 PM
Romans 4:11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which [he had yet] being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him(Abraham) for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. (Romans 4:21-25 KJV)
And where does this text, or any other, say that it is specifically Jesus's righteousness that is imputed?

drew
Sep 20th 2008, 03:04 PM
His righteousness is credited to us. When the Father looks at us, He sees His Son.
This is a popular view. However, I see absolutely zero evidence for it in the Scriptures. But if you can find evidence, please present it.

drew
Sep 20th 2008, 03:12 PM
None of us of course are righteous in and of ourself, nor do we possess wisdom apart from Christ, for the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God.
Nevertheless, in Christ we are accounted righteous, and are given wisdom by the Holy Spirit.
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. (Galatians 2:20 KJV)
If you have been reading my post carefully, you should know that I have never denied, and certainly would not deny, that Christ lives in me. However, it does not follow that God sees us as, in any sense, possessing the righteousnes of Christ.

If one carefully reads Romans one will see that when Paul refers to "Christ's righteousness" or to "God's righteousness", he is referring to actions that are carried out to fulfill the covenant.

So it makes no sense at all for Paul to then turn around and say that we possess that same attribute - that we are seen by God as having acted in fidelity with the covenant. In fact, he says the exact opposite in the first half of Romans 3.

My point about the 1 Corinthians text is that if you read it as entailing an imputation of Christ's righteousness to each believer, you also have to read it as entailing the imputation of Christ's wisdom to each believer. And I think we all know a lot of fellow believers that clearly do not manifest the same wisdom that Christ manifested.

drew
Sep 20th 2008, 03:15 PM
I sometimes wonder if people think that if we "imputed" or "ascribed" a status of righteousness, this has to be the righteousness of some other person. This is not the case. Every day, hundreds of people are declared in courtrooms to be "in the right" ("righteous") in respect to the charges brought against them.

Whose righteousness do those people get? The judge's righteousness? The jury's righteousness? No. They simply get ascribed or imputed a status of righteousness.

And it is the same with the believer. The scriptures simply do not support the position that we are imputed Jesus' own righteousness.

IBWatching
Sep 20th 2008, 04:47 PM
I am not sure what distinction you are drawing here. But in any event, I do not believe that the Scriptures teach that in any way we are seen by God as "having" Jesus' righteouness. Jesus' righteousness, for Paul, is his covenant-fulfilling actions. And we obviously do not "get" that righteousness. Instead, we get the righteousness of the defended who is acquiitted in the lawcourt. And that is no one else's righteousness.

But let's look at the text:

But by His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification, and redemption

Paul says that Christ has become for us wisdom from God, and righteousness, sanctification and redemption. Wisdom is the main point he is making, and the other three nouns come in as a way of saying ‘and everything else as well’.

Paul's statement would seem to demand equal air time for us getting of Christ's wisdom, sanctification and redemption as well. And I cannot see how that can be true. Do you know any Christian of whom it could be said "That person has the wisdom of Christ"?

You are arguing with more arguments and not using Scripture to "prove" your assertions. I know of plenty of passages in the NT which state clearly that we have all Wisdom in Jesus Christ. I also know of plenty of passages that state we have Jesus Christ (and thus His Righteousness) Indwelling us. I'll let you read them for yourself. When you have, let me know and we'll talk again. :)

Kahtar
Sep 20th 2008, 05:16 PM
Drew, certainly there are many who do not always display the wisdom God gives us if we ask for it. Part of the reason is we don't ask for it. The other reason is that every one of us are battling with our own flesh, and it is an easy thing for us to display our own wisdom, which the Word says is mere foolishness.
But the simple fact that not all Christians display that knowledge does not mean that NONE do. The fact is, if you ask God for His wisdom regarding a matter, He will give it, and if you walk in obedience to it, you will be displaying God's wisdom.
Some have the 'gift' of wisdom, and that comes straight from the Holy Spirit.
I am afraid you'll have to give more than mere opinion to prove otherwise.
As for righteousness, there are none righteous, no, not one. Not even you.
Nevertheless, the righteousness we have, we have through faith in Jesus Christ.
He took our unrighteousness and sins upon Himself on the cross, and it is through His righteousness that we are able to approach the most holy God.
If you plan on standing before Him in your own righteousness, good luck........

threebigrocks
Sep 20th 2008, 05:16 PM
This is a popular view. However, I see absolutely zero evidence for it in the Scriptures. But if you can find evidence, please present it.


Romans 3
Quote:
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
Here we have Paul explaining that righteousness doesn't come from the law or by what we do, but only, ONLY, through faith in Jesus Christ to all WHO BELIEVE. There is no other way to gain that righteousness.

Galatians 2
Quote:
15"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' 16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified. 17"If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. 19For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

The law only brought death. We couldn't work our way to salvation nor gain a grain of righteousness of our own. ALL things are through Christ, and we do not have our own righteousness, we cannot learn it, we cannot buy it.

We can only receive it by faith in Christ and Christ alone. There is no other way.

Phillippians 3
Quote:
7But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. 10I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.

Christ is all in all. We loose our life so we can gain it. We only can gain through Him. We have not our own righteousness, but Christ's until we experience death and the power of the resurrection just as Christ did. It is only then - at the time of judgment at the Great White Throne at the resurrection of the dead - that we receive our own righteousness. Until then, it's a promise.

Romans 8
Quote:
22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? 25But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

We do not yet have it for ourselves, to claim personally. It's hope in the promise.


__________________

petepet
Sep 20th 2008, 05:22 PM
I agree with everything in your post except this statement which tells only part of the story. I suggest that, strange though it may seem, Paul teaches that Torah was added or given with the divine intention of making trespass abound or increase. From Romans 5 and then 7:

20The law was added so that the trespass might increase.

So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

The matter of Torah - the reasons for its being given and its present status - is a complex one indeed.

Hi In my view this does not mean that Paul was expecting the Law to increase the number of transgressions (although man's awkwardness might have this result) but that it should make more clear precisely what transgression is. This had a twofold purpose. 1). In order to convince men of sin. 2). In order to control transgression as people became more aware of what was displeasing to God.

petepet
Sep 20th 2008, 05:25 PM
So when Paul says the Law was ADDED, what does he mean? To what was the Law added? The Law could surely not be added to grace? Grace is grace and the Law is the Law.

ananias

The Law was added to the resources that God had made available to man in order to assist him in his living. It was added both to show him his sin, and in order to control the amount of transgression be demonstrating to the righteous what God required of them..

petepet
Sep 20th 2008, 05:30 PM
I sometimes wonder if people think that if we "imputed" or "ascribed" a status of righteousness, this has to be the righteousness of some other person. This is not the case. Every day, hundreds of people are declared in courtrooms to be "in the right" ("righteous") in respect to the charges brought against them.

Whose righteousness do those people get? The judge's righteousness? The jury's righteousness? No. They simply get ascribed or imputed a status of righteousness.

And it is the same with the believer. The scriptures simply do not support the position that we are imputed Jesus' own righteousness.

The Scripture tell us that Jesus is 'made unto us righteousness' (1 Corinthian 1.30). To my mind that indicates that we in some way receive the righteousness of Christ.

Furthermore Paul tells us that 'He was made sin for us, He Who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him' (2 Corinthians 5.21). As it is 'in Him' that we are made the righteousness of God it can only be because His righteousnss is imputed to us. The righteousness of Christ IS the righteousness of God.

BroRog
Sep 20th 2008, 05:33 PM
drew: "Instead, we get the righteousness of the defended who is acquiitted in the lawcourt."

I don't think so. Rather, we are dismissed from the suit and have Jesus stand in for us; He is then declared "not guilty."

We certainly don't become righteous as He is. Rather, we become more and more righteous as we are conformed to His image. But--this side of Heaven, we always were and still are sinners--which He never was or is.

His righteousness is credited to us. When the Father looks at us, He sees His Son. We are hidden in Christ. Although we are still sinners, God sees us as Christ's righteousness--sinless. That's grace.

Actually, that's not grace, it's blindness. I agree with Drew. When God looks at us he sees us.

Our sin is part of us, to be sure. But in the case of a genuine believer, such as Abraham, his sin isn't all that he was. When God looked at Abraham he saw a humble man without pretense, who accepted God's word in faith. God sees the total package, not just the sin.

It is not true that Christ's righteousness was credited to Abraham and it certainly isn't true for us. As it says, it was Abraham's faith that was accredited to him as righteousness, just as it is our faith that is accredited to us. It isn't Christ's moral goodness that is put down to our credit. We are given credit for our humble and contrite heart, willing to accept and believe God's word. That is being put down to OUR credit.

BroRog
Sep 20th 2008, 06:17 PM
Romans 3
Quote:
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Here we have Paul explaining that righteousness doesn't come from the law or by what we do, but only, ONLY, through faith in Jesus Christ to all WHO BELIEVE. There is no other way to gain that righteousness.

I agree with you here. However, I believe Drew's challenge was to find a passage of scripture which supports the view that God has accounted Christ's righteousness to us, as opposed to Paul's picture in Romans 4, in which God has accounted Abraham's faith, not Christ's righteousness, to him as righteousness.

The passage you quoted from Romans 3 supports the idea that God is accounting our faith to us as righteousness when Paul says this "righteousness comes through faith in Jesus Christ." Just as in the case with Abraham, God is accounting our faith to us as righteousness. The only difference between Abraham and us is the fact that our faith has more content than his. Being on this side of the cross, we know more of the details. But the transaction is still the same. God looks at the humble and contrite heart of the believer and gives credit to his or her faith.



Galatians 2

15"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' 16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified. 17"If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. 19For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

The law only brought death. We couldn't work our way to salvation nor gain a grain of righteousness of our own. ALL things are through Christ, and we do not have our own righteousness, we cannot learn it, we cannot buy it.

We can only receive it by faith in Christ and Christ alone. There is no other way.


I underlined the word "justified" because here is where our translators allow Paul's distinction between justification and righteousness to surface. The issue here, and in Romans is not moral goodness or moral purity. When God saw Abraham's faith, he did not declare Abraham "morally worthy", as the term "righteousness" seems to imply. Rather, God declared Abraham to be "justified", which speaks to Abraham's status before God, not his moral worthiness.

To say that Abraham is "justified" in view of his faith, is to say that something is "right" about Abraham that isn't "right" about someone else who doesn't have faith. And for God to give Abraham credit for that, is to say, "I accept you, Abraham, based on your faith, even if you are not a morally perfect person."

Thus, I agree with you. God is not accepting us based on what we do to merit his favor. Rather, God is granting his favor to those who, despite their sins, have a humble and contrite heart that wants to believe and trust God. If that describes me; then something is "right" about me. I may not be "righteous" as in "morally in the right", but I am "justified" as in "God gives me credit for my faith."



Phillippians 3


7But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. 8What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. 10I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.

Christ is all in all. We loose our life so we can gain it. We only can gain through Him. We have not our own righteousness, but Christ's until we experience death and the power of the resurrection just as Christ did. It is only then - at the time of judgment at the Great White Throne at the resurrection of the dead - that we receive our own righteousness. Until then, it's a promise.

I agree with your conclusion that we will receive our own righteousness in the coming age. But I don't think your passage from Philippians 3 makes THAT point. I think this passage is still speaking about our justification not our moral perfection. When Paul says he doesn't have a righteousness of his own from the Law, he means to say what you said earlier, that is, he can not merit God's declaration of "righteous" through the Law, because the Law's purpose to great effect is to declare him "unrighteous." The blood trail leading from his door to the alter does nothing but declare him "unrighteous". But as Paul said in Romans, God is willing to overlook our sin to look at our faith and declare the sinner, "in the right" in view of his or her faith. God is willing to declare us "right", if we are willing to humble ourselves and declare to him that we deserved what Christ got on the cross. It should have been me instead of him.

Romans 8


22We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has? 25But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

We do not yet have it for ourselves, to claim personally. It's hope in the promise.

Exactly! This is the passage that speaks to the issue of our future. To be made morally perfect is the hope of the believer. Paul's term for this moment is "glorification".

When God gave Abraham credit and favor in view of his faith, he wasn't saying that Abraham was morally perfect. And neither was God putting on his Jesus glasses so that when he looked at Abraham he was seeing Christ's moral goodness. Rather, God declared Abraham to be "in the right" in view of his faith, even though Abraham remained a sinner. And God does the same for us. He accounts our faith as being "in the right" as we humble ourselves in contrition and await the hope of our glorification. We admit our sinfulness, but we repudiate it and want to be changed.

BroRog
Sep 20th 2008, 06:22 PM
Hi In my view this does not mean that Paul was expecting the Law to increase the number of transgressions (although man's awkwardness might have this result) but that it should make more clear precisely what transgression is. This had a twofold purpose. 1). In order to convince men of sin. 2). In order to control transgression as people became more aware of what was displeasing to God.

This is exactly right, in my opinion. The law was given as a mirror so that we might see ourselves for who we really are.

drew
Sep 20th 2008, 07:19 PM
You are arguing with more arguments and not using Scripture to "prove" your assertions.
I am not the one who has asserted that we "get" Christ's righteousness, you are. I merely have countered that I see no Scriptural evidence for this position. You then provided the 1 Cor text. I then argued, correctly I believe, that if you are going to read that passage as conferring Christ's righteousness to us, you need to read it as also conferring Christ's wisdom to us.

And let the reader decide whether all Christians exhibit Christ's wisdom.


I know of plenty of passages in the NT which state clearly that we have all Wisdom in Jesus Christ.
But that is not the issue. You have claimed that we get Christ's righteousness on the basis of the 1 Cor text. If you take that line, you need to also believe that we are imputed the wisdom of Jesus. That's not the same things as having "wisdom in Christ". A claim that we get "Jesus's wisdom" is an exceedingly dramatic claim. And one that I suggest is not sustained by the evidence.


I also know of plenty of passages that state we have Jesus Christ (and thus His Righteousness) Indwelling us.
This does not follow logically. Just because there is indeed a sense in which Jesus indwells us, this does not necessarily mean that we are seen by God as possessing Jesus' righteousness.


I'll let you read them for yourself. When you have, let me know and we'll talk again. :)
It is not me who has made a claim about texts supporting the view that we get Christ's righteousness - it is you. It is incumbent on you to provide texts that show that we are, in any sense, imputed or ascribed the righteousness of Jesus. There are plenty of reasons to believe otherwise, not least that in contexts where Paul addresses the issue of imputation of righteousness (and he never says we get Christ's righteousness, that is something you have to read in), it is clear that Christ's righteousness consists not in a status that can be imputed, but rather in the covenantally faithful behaviours that Jesus engages in. And these clearly cannot be imputed to us - we did not fulfill the covenant, Jesus did.

If you wish, I can fill in the details of why Paul has this particular meaning for "Christ' righteousness" in mind, a meaning of for righteousness that cannot be sensibly imputed to us.

drew
Sep 20th 2008, 07:24 PM
But the simple fact that not all Christians display that knowledge does not mean that NONE do.
But that's not the point. If one is going to say that all Christians get Christ's righteousness, using the 1 Corinthians texts as evidence, you need to also assert that all Christians get His wisdom as well - the structure of the statement forces you into this position.

And I suggest that this is clearly not the case - we do not all get the wisdom of Jesus "inserted" or imputed to us.


Nevertheless, the righteousness we have, we have through faith in Jesus Christ.
I agree, but this does not necessarily mean that Christ's own righteousness is imputed to us. I have already showed that the Romans 4 text you posted only refers to the imputation of righteousness. It never statest that we get Christ's righteousness.
He took our unrighteousness and sins upon Himself on the cross, and it is through His righteousness that we are able to approach the most holy God.


If you plan on standing before Him in your own righteousness, good luck........
I never expressed or even remotely implied such a position.

drew
Sep 20th 2008, 07:35 PM
Romans 3
Quote:
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.
I am glad you posted this text. It is a good starting point for people to come to realize that the translators who produced this translation made a decision to interpret the greek phrase "Righteousness of God" as a righteousness that comes from God.

That is a translation decision, not necessitated by the original Greek. The original Greek phrase "dikasone theu" (or however that's spelled) is inherently ambiguous. It can mean either of the following:

1. A righteousness that comes from God;
2. God' own righteousness.

In the same way the greek phrase "love of God" is inherently ambiguous. It can means "God's love for us" or "Our love for God".

Now look how the NASB has translated the same verses you posted:

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets,
22even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for (AJ (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203&version=49#cen-NASB-28014AJ))there is no distinction

The meaning is, of course, completely different. There is no sense in the NASB rendering of a righteousness that comes from God and is imputed to us.

And I think the NASB interpretation is correct - Paul is not talking about status of righteousness that comes from God and is imputed to us; he is talking about God's own righteousness - the righteous behaviours that God (and Jesus) perform in order to be faithful to the covenant.

I can fill the details of the argument that support this position if you wish.

drew
Sep 20th 2008, 07:37 PM
Hi In my view this does not mean that Paul was expecting the Law to increase the number of transgressions (although man's awkwardness might have this result) but that it should make more clear precisely what transgression is.
But that is simply not what the text says. The text does not say that the Law make transgressions "visible" or "more clear". It says that it makes them increase (or abound as in the NRSV)

We need give Paul the benefit of the doubt for saying what he means and meaning what he says.

threebigrocks
Sep 20th 2008, 07:43 PM
1. A righteousness that comes from God;
2. God' own righteousness.



Indeed, either way you look at it, it doesn't belong or originate with us, but with God. ;) For now!

petepet
Sep 20th 2008, 07:43 PM
Drew says But that's not the point. If one is going to say that all Christians get Christ's righteousness, using the 1 Corinthians texts as evidence, you need to also assert that all Christians get His wisdom as well - the structure of the statement forces you into this position.

And I suggest that this is clearly not the case - we do not all get the wisdom of Jesus "inserted" or imputed to us.

<b> My hopefully loving reply is. Forgive me for disagreeing, but when we are told that Christ is made unto us wisdom from God it does mean precisely that, that we are given Christ's wisdom. That does not mean that we become as wise as Christ, but is does mean that the source of our spiritual wisdom is Christ in us providing us with His wisdom. If our hearts were as open to truth as Christ's was then we would have full wisdom. What hinders us from having full wisdom is our sinfulness and unwillingness fully to accept all truth.</b>


Drew says: I agree, but this does not necessarily mean that Christ's own righteousness is imputed to us. I have already showed that the Romans 4 text you posted only refers to the imputation of righteousness. It never statest that we get Christ's righteousness.
He took our unrighteousness and sins upon Himself on the cross, and it is through His righteousness that we are able to approach the most holy God.

<b> My reply is : But we are 'made the righteousness of God IN HIM.' (2 Corinthians 5.17). He came to enclose us in His righteousness both by imputing it to us and imparting it to us. He came to make us righteous with His righteousness. He is 'made unto us righteousness'. (1 Corinthians 1.30). He clothes us with the garment of salvation, and covers us with the robe of righteousness (Isaiah 61.10). </b>

threebigrocks
Sep 20th 2008, 08:08 PM
<b> My hopefully loving reply is. Forgive me for disagreeing, but when we are told that Christ is made unto us wisdom from God it does mean precisely that, that we are given Christ's wisdom. That does not mean that we become as wise as Christ, but is does mean that the source of our spiritual wisdom is Christ in us providing us with His wisdom. If our hearts were as open to truth as Christ's was then we would have full wisdom. What hinders us from having full wisdom is our sinfulness and unwillingness fully to accept all truth.</b>

We have the ability to know the things of Christ through the Spirit because of FAITH. That's the key - we have it by faith. We do not have it fully now.

We will know the fullness if we are judged worthy. We will gain a righteousness of our own and the fullness of the wisdom of the things of God.

1 Corinthians 13

11When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. 12For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then ace to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also have been fully known.

SIG
Sep 20th 2008, 09:39 PM
This is a popular view. However, I see absolutely zero evidence for it in the Scriptures. But if you can find evidence, please present it.

2Cr 5:21 "He made Him who knew no sin {to be} sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." (emphasis mine)

SIG
Sep 20th 2008, 09:41 PM
And where does this text, or any other, say that it is specifically Jesus's righteousness that is imputed?

It is certainly not our righteousness, because even as the saved, we still sin.

petepet
Sep 20th 2008, 09:50 PM
But that is simply not what the text says. The text does not say that the Law make transgressions "visible" or "more clear". It says that it makes them increase (or abound as in the NRSV)

We need give Paul the benefit of the doubt for saying what he means and meaning what he says.

Yes, the sins 'increase' because as a result of the Law they are recognised as sins. Previously people sinned in certain ways but did not realise that they were sins. Thus the Law made sin to 'abound'. But it did not mean that people were sinning more. It meant that they were now recognising as sins what previously they had not recognised as sins.

Indeed if you think about it we all sin continually (none of us really loves God with our whole being or loves all our neighbours as ourselves). That being so sin cannot increase. It is only 'transgressions' (disobedience to God's Laws) that increase.

So you see Paul does say what he means. And he says what I mean too. :-))))

SIG
Sep 20th 2008, 09:55 PM
I sometimes wonder if people think that if we "imputed" or "ascribed" a status of righteousness, this has to be the righteousness of some other person. This is not the case. Every day, hundreds of people are declared in courtrooms to be "in the right" ("righteous") in respect to the charges brought against them.

Whose righteousness do those people get? The judge's righteousness? The jury's righteousness? No. They simply get ascribed or imputed a status of righteousness.

And it is the same with the believer. The scriptures simply do not support the position that we are imputed Jesus' own righteousness.

They may be innocent of one particular charge, but they are still guilty sinners.

SIG
Sep 20th 2008, 09:59 PM
This is a popular view. However, I see absolutely zero evidence for it in the Scriptures. But if you can find evidence, please present it.

I did, above. And consider that it may be a popular view because it is true.

drew
Sep 20th 2008, 10:02 PM
Indeed, either way you look at it, it doesn't belong or originate with us, but with God. ;) For now!
But that is not the issue we are talkng about. We are talking about whether the righteousness of God (or Christ) is imputed to the believer. And with that issue in mind, the different translations give greatly different meanings. No one, least of all me, is suggesting that credit for our status of righteousness does not lie with God.

But the issue on the table is the specific question as to whether God's (or Christ's) own righteousness is imputed to us - whether we are seen as having the righteous status of Jesus or God.

And the Romans 3 text does not support the assertion that such a righteousness is imputed. It might, depending on a translation decision. But translation decisions are not inspired Scripture.

SIG
Sep 20th 2008, 10:12 PM
Semingly, imputed righteousness is a reformed theology, while infused righteousness is closer to RCC.

[I see in some of the above posts that a humble heart is required--I see this as justification by works (YOU must be humble before you are justified). Christ is always humble; His imputed righteousness justifies.]

http://www.theopedia.com/Imputed_righteousness

And more along these lines:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_righteousness#Roman_Catholic_view

drew
Sep 20th 2008, 10:21 PM
Drew says But that's not the point. If one is going to say that all Christians get Christ's righteousness, using the 1 Corinthians texts as evidence, you need to also assert that all Christians get His wisdom as well - the structure of the statement forces you into this position.

And I suggest that this is clearly not the case - we do not all get the wisdom of Jesus "inserted" or imputed to us

<b> My hopefully loving reply is. Forgive me for disagreeing, but when we are told that Christ is made unto us wisdom from God it does mean precisely that, that we are given Christ's wisdom. That does not mean that we become as wise as Christ, but is does mean that the source of our spiritual wisdom is Christ in us providing us with His wisdom. If our hearts were as open to truth as Christ's was then we would have full wisdom. What hinders us from having full wisdom is our sinfulness and unwillingness fully to accept all truth.</b>
But by the very terms of your own argument: If the 1 Corinthians text does not allow to conclude that we are given Christ's wisdom,then it likewise does not allow us to conclude that we are given (or imputed) Christ's righteousness.

Here is the text again:

It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.

One cannot have it both ways - if this text is used as evidence that we all get Christ's righteousness, then it also is evidence that we all get Christ's wisdom.

And since it is obvious that we do not get the latter, we equally cannot claim to get the former, at least based on this text.

I will address the 2 Corinthians 5 text in another post.

drew
Sep 20th 2008, 10:32 PM
Does 2 Corinthians 5:17 endorse the notion of imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer? I assume that you (petepet) mean the block of text that runs from verse 17 to verse 21.

Here is the block:

17Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come! 18All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. 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. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. 21God made him who had no sin to be sin[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%205;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28883a)] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

The reader needs to acknowledge that the mere form of expression here in verse 21 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".

And this is what I think it indeed means, not that we "get" God's righteousness ascribed to us.

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 draw a God-Christ distinction.

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 the preceding verse:

20We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God

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".

drew
Sep 20th 2008, 10:34 PM
It is certainly not our righteousness, because even as the saved, we still sin.
True. But that does not mean it is God's righteousness (or Christ's). In the lawcourt, when a defendent is declared to be "in the right" or "righteous", he is not being ascribed or imputed any other person's righteousness. He is merely declared to be "in the right".

drew
Sep 20th 2008, 10:49 PM
Yes, the sins 'increase' because as a result of the Law they are recognised as sins. Previously people sinned in certain ways but did not realise that they were sins. Thus the Law made sin to 'abound'. But it did not mean that people were sinning more. It meant that they were now recognising as sins what previously they had not recognised as sins.
I will repeat - you are not reading the text as it is written.

The text does not say that the trespass is now recognized (although that is also true). It says that the Law was given to make the trespass increase (NIV). Other translations used words like abound.

Let's look at a related text from Romans 7:

12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

It is true that the phrase "might be recognized as sin" supports your position here. And I do not deny that the Law "reveals" sin. But it also makes it increase (as per Romans 5:20) and as per the phrase "sin might become utterly sinful".

If sin becomes "utterly sinful", it is not merely being revealed, it is getting worse, or increasing.

SIG
Sep 21st 2008, 04:17 AM
True. But that does not mean it is God's righteousness (or Christ's). In the lawcourt, when a defendent is declared to be "in the right" or "righteous", he is not being ascribed or imputed any other person's righteousness. He is merely declared to be "in the right".

The analogy falls short. A better analogy would be that Christ offers to stand in for the defendant, and to receive the punishment, and the judge allows it. Law courts do not do this--but God did.

Furthermore--according to the spiritual analogy--the defendant never would be found innocent.

drew
Sep 21st 2008, 02:10 PM
The analogy falls short. A better analogy would be that Christ offers to stand in for the defendant, and to receive the punishment, and the judge allows it. Law courts do not do this--but God did.
And who is the judge in the lawcourt? It is Jesus:

This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares

So in the model you propose, the judge hops down out of the judge's chair, becomes the defendent, then somehow remains as judge so that he can deliver punishment to Himself.

Not only does this not work, the Scriptures never support this idea that Jesus is punished. As Romans 8:3 tells us, it is sin that is condemned on the cross:

what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature,[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28105b)] God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28105c)] And so he condemned sin in sinful man

drew
Sep 21st 2008, 02:13 PM
Furthermore--according to the spiritual analogy--the defendant never would be found innocent.
This is not correct. If you are going to operate in the lawcourt formalism, the relevant determination is purely a judicial one - whether or not, in a legal sense, the defendent is "in the right" (righteous) or not.

drew
Sep 21st 2008, 02:57 PM
By the way, I am happy to leave the "imputation" question aside. I worry that the thread has deviated from its intent......

SIG
Sep 21st 2008, 05:06 PM
Re post #78:

"This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares"

In the (faulty) courtroom analogy, God the Father would be the judge. Christ stands in for the defendant.

And Christ, as sin, certainly was punished on the cross; that was the whole point.

SIG
Sep 21st 2008, 05:16 PM
drew: "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."

No--the ambassador speaks for the King; he or she does not become the King.

As for the imputation/infusion question--it may have much to do with the original intent of the thread. It was at the beginning of the dispensation of grace that Christ's righteousness was imputed to (or, if you prefer, infused into) the Church.

drew
Sep 21st 2008, 07:38 PM
Re post #78:

"This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares"

In the (faulty) courtroom analogy, God the Father would be the judge. Christ stands in for the defendant.
While this text is a little unclear - we have both God and Jesus referred to - I think the clear intent is to identify Jesus as the agency through which the Triune Godhead judges the world. And any ambiguity is resolved by this statement from 2 Timothy 4:

In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge

Here there is no ambiguity. Jesus is the judge. Jesus is the one who appears.

Paul certainly felt that the courtroom analogy was valid. And although it does not well with your postion, Jesus is indeed the judge. The 2 Timothy 4 text could not be more clear.
And Christ, as sin, certainly was punished on the cross; that was the whole point.
This is not what Paul believes. Here is Romans 8:3 again. Notice how Paul is clear that it is sin that is condemned on the cross, not Jesus. Jesus dies, of course. But God's plan, as Paul describes it, is that on the cross, sin is condemned:

For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature,[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28105b)] God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28105c)] And so he condemned sin in sinful man

I challenge you to produce any texts which show that Jesus was punished or "condemned" on the cross.

drew
Sep 21st 2008, 07:47 PM
drew: "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."

No--the ambassador speaks for the King; he or she does not become the King.
The point is that the phrase "we might become the (AL (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%205;&version=49;#cen-NASB-28899AL))righteousness of God" can indeed be read as "we become the agents that implement or "carry out" God "righteousness" - His covenant faithfulness.

The overall context supports this view. To quote NT Wright on this text:


The entire passage is about the way in which Paul’s new covenant ministry, through the death and resurrection of Jesus, is in fact God’s appointed means for establishing and maintaining the church. ‘So that we might become God’s righteousness in him’ means that in Christ those who are called to be apostolic preachers actually embody God’s own covenant faithfulness.

Now perhaps you are not convinced. But let there be no doubt - the phrase "we might become the righteousness of God" is open to such a reading, as set against another reading that it is open to - the imputation view.

We can pursue this further if you like, but I suggest the broader context shows that Paul is not concentrating on abstract matters of soteriology here. He is talking about the nature of the apostolic vocation.

And in such a context, the expression "we might become the righteousness of God" is entirely off-topic if it truly is about "imputation", but is bang on, if the point is that the nature of the apostle's task is that the apostle enacts, carries out, and implements the God's covenant faithfulness.

drew
Sep 21st 2008, 07:57 PM
Further evidence that it is indeed Jesus who is the judge in Paul's courtroom model:

From Acts 10:

"We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, 40but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. 41He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. 43All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name

Who is the "he" in verse 42. It is obviously Jesus (the one who has killed on a "tree").

This is one of the many problems with the imputation view. The whole premise of the imputation view is based on a lawcourt model in which the judge sees the defendent as having the righteousness of Jesus.

Yet Jesus is the judge.

If you buy the imputation view, we have Jesus as judge acquitting Jesus as defendent. This sounds suspiciously confused and incoherent. I think Paul is too clever to make such a blunder in constructing his metaphors.

ananias
Sep 21st 2008, 08:52 PM
Sig.

Sorry I only noticed DAYS later that you had replied to this question of mine:

Originally Posted by SIG http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1793386#post1793386)
People were filled with the Spirit (temporarily), but not indwelt. That was not possible until after the resurrection.

Originally Posted by ananias http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1793400#post1793400)
Is the word grace synonymous with the words "filled with the Spirit"?

ananias


I'm not sure I'm understanding your question.

God is gracious. The word "favor" in the OT is the equivalent of "grace." Nonetheless, no one was indwelt with the Holy Spirit before Pentecost, and so no one experienced the fullness of God's grace until then.

I think there is a distinction between God's grace which has existed from the time of the fall of Adam and the gift of the indwelling and filling of the Holy Spirit - even though that gift came only as a result of God's grace. The one (grace) refers to God's unmerited favor. The other is just one of many gifts which have been given as a result of God's grace.

ananias

petepet
Sep 21st 2008, 08:59 PM
I will repeat - you are not reading the text as it is written.

The text does not say that the trespass is now recognized (although that is also true). It says that the Law was given to make the trespass increase (NIV). Other translations used words like abound.

Let's look at a related text from Romans 7:

12So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. 13Did that which is good, then, become death to me? By no means! But in order that sin might be recognized as sin, it produced death in me through what was good, so that through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

It is true that the phrase "might be recognized as sin" supports your position here. And I do not deny that the Law "reveals" sin. But it also makes it increase (as per Romans 5:20) and as per the phrase "sin might become utterly sinful".

If sin becomes "utterly sinful", it is not merely being revealed, it is getting worse, or increasing.

Not at all. It gets worse because now that the Law has come it is particularised. It is a specific transgression whereas before it was a 'possible sin'. That is why it 'increases transgressions'. Until there was a law there were no transgressions, only sins. Sin becomes utterly sinful because now it has become a specific transgression of the Law.

Indeed that is why OFFENCES abounded (romans 5.20). Because they were identified as such.

As to reading the text. As you ask I am reading it in the Greek. How about you?

ananias
Sep 21st 2008, 09:04 PM
Jesus is the last Adam. He represents me before God. If His righteousness is not imputed to me through my faith in Him, God help me. But praise God, He has helped me:

"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all." (Isa.53: 6).

"In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." (Jer.23: 6)

The first Adam's unrighteousness - his disobedience and unbelief of the Word of God (when he chose to believe the word of the serpent which contradicted the Word of God) produced death which came to all men.

The last Adam's righteousness (His obedience) brought Life to many. We are either still in the first Adam or we are born again into the last Adam.

God only sees man with respect to two Adams. Christ's righteousness is the robe of righteousness with which we have been clothed. God help us if we don't repent of our sins daily and place our faith and trust in Jesus and in HIS righteousness with which we are clothed, since His righteousness is imputed to those who repent and believe in Him. But God HAS helped us - and He's not going to help us any other way if we do not trust in ythe righteousness of the last Adam who represents us before God, and whose blood intercedes for us in heaven.

ananias

ananias
Sep 21st 2008, 09:15 PM
The point is that the phrase "we might become the (AL (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%205;&version=49;#cen-NASB-28899AL))righteousness of God" can indeed be read as "we become the agents that implement or "carry out" God "righteousness" - His covenant faithfulness.



Drew,

I think you are attempting to turn into a present-tense and future-tense fulfillment a righteousness which has already been (past tense) lived out by the Righteous One who lived a perfectly righteous, sinless life on behalf of we WHO COULD NOT AND CANNOT, and then DIED as a sacrifice - God making Him who knew no sin to become sin for us - the ones who committed (and still commit) the sin.

The righteous requirements of the Law HAVE BEEN fulfilled (past tense) ONCE AND FOR ALL by the last Adam, who is Christ the Lord, and HE and HIS righteousness represents us before God TODAY AND FOREVER - and HIS blood intercedes for us TODAY AND FOREVER.

IMO you are trying by your theology to make sinful, fallen man capable of doing something that has already been done and which could be done ONLY by Christ who is THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

ananias

petepet
Sep 21st 2008, 09:17 PM
Further evidence that it is indeed Jesus who is the judge in Paul's courtroom model:

From Acts 10:

"We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, 40but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. 41He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead. 42He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. 43All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name

Who is the "he" in verse 42. It is obviously Jesus (the one who has killed on a "tree").

This is one of the many problems with the imputation view. The whole premise of the imputation view is based on a lawcourt model in which the judge sees the defendent as having the righteousness of Jesus.

Yet Jesus is the judge.

If you buy the imputation view, we have Jesus as judge acquitting Jesus as defendent. This sounds suspiciously confused and incoherent. I think Paul is too clever to make such a blunder in constructing his metaphors.

Oh dear we seem to keep meeting. You cannot take a Petrine metaphor and apply it to Paul. Metaphors change with context. That is the nature of metaphors. For example in Hebrews Jesus is both sacrifice and high priest. That is not being mixed up. It is bringing out two truths.

Jesus is in the remarkable position of being the accused, the innocent, the guilty, and the judge. So yes it is possible to conceive of Jesus both covering us with His righteousness, and then as passing the verdict, although I am not aware that Paul uses the two metaphors in the same example. He sees the judge as God. But of course Jesus is God, and all judgment has been committed to Him.

What is the robe of righteousness with which we are covered in Isaiah 61.10. It is certainly not our righteousness. It is the righteousness of God. And Jesus is God.

That is why Jesus is made unto us righteousness (1 Corinthians 1.30). It cannot be avoided. He Who knew no sin was made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him (2 Corinthians 5.21).

Note that Jesus was 'made sin' even though He was sinless (counted as sinful, had sin imputed to Him). So that we might made righteous (be counted as righteous, have righteousness imputed to us. And Whos righteousness could that be? Why the righteousness of Jesus.

As by the offence of one judgment came on all men to condemnation even so by the righteousness of One the free gift came on all men unto justification of life. (Romans 5.18).

For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one many shall be made righteous. (Romans 5.19). In context this can only be by imputation.

SIG
Sep 21st 2008, 11:16 PM
Oh dear we seem to keep meeting. You cannot take a Petrine metaphor and apply it to Paul. Metaphors change with context. That is the nature of metaphors. For example in Hebrews Jesus is both sacrifice and high priest. That is not being mixed up. It is bringing out two truths.

Jesus is in the remarkable position of being the accused, the innocent, the guilty, and the judge. So yes it is possible to conceive of Jesus both covering us with His righteousness, and then as passing the verdict, although I am not aware that Paul uses the two metaphors in the same example. He sees the judge as God. But of course Jesus is God, and all judgment has been committed to Him.

What is the robe of righteousness with which we are covered in Isaiah 61.10. It is certainly not our righteousness. It is the righteousness of God. And Jesus is God.

That is why Jesus is made unto us righteousness (1 Corinthians 1.30). It cannot be avoided. He Who knew no sin was made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him (2 Corinthians 5.21).

Note that Jesus was 'made sin' even though He was sinless (counted as sinful, had sin imputed to Him). So that we might made righteous (be counted as righteous, have righteousness imputed to us. And Whos righteousness could that be? Why the righteousness of Jesus.

As by the offence of one judgment came on all men to condemnation even so by the righteousness of One the free gift came on all men unto justification of life. (Romans 5.18).

For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one many shall be made righteous. (Romans 5.19). In context this can only be by imputation.

This is very nice, and thinking outside the box.

drew
Sep 21st 2008, 11:22 PM
Not at all. It gets worse because now that the Law has come it is particularised. It is a specific transgression whereas before it was a 'possible sin'. That is why it 'increases transgressions'. Until there was a law there were no transgressions, only sins. Sin becomes utterly sinful because now it has become a specific transgression of the Law.

Indeed that is why OFFENCES abounded (romans 5.20). Because they were identified as such.

As to reading the text. As you ask I am reading it in the Greek. How about you?
Perhaps your argument works in respect to Romans 5:20, but it does not work in respect in respect to this phrase from Romans 7:

through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

Here we are clearly talking about sin. And what does the law do? Does it merely reveal and particularize sin? No it makes sin utterly sinful. Paul is making the strange claim that Torah has actually increased or worsened sin in national Israel. Let's be fair here; to say sin is made utterly sinful makes no statement about the revealing of sin - it makes a statement about sin getting worse.

And there is other evidence to support this interpretation. In Romans 9 and 11, Paul describes the hardening of Israel - a hardening caused by God. This supports the argument that Torah does not merely reveal sin, it makes Israel "hardened". Here in Romans 9, Paul explains that God has hardened Israel just as He has hardened Pharoah:

17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."[g (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=9&version=31#fen-NIV-28158g)] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[h (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=9&version=31#fen-NIV-28161h)] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? 22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

It is Israel that is the vessel fitted for destruction. And God has molded her that way - He has "caused her hardening" through the introduction of the Torah. If the Torah merely reveals sin, this is not hardening. But we know that Israel has indeed been hardened, as per what Paul goes on to write in Romans 11:

What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8as it is written:
"God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes so that they could not see
and ears so that they could not hear,
to this very day."[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=31#fen-NIV-28203d)] 9And David says:
"May their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
10May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
and their backs be bent forever

The overall picture is this: God has given the Torah to Israel to harden them. Why is God doing this? Because he is luring or deceiving sin into being accumulated and localized in national Israel. With sin thus accumulated in Israel, she truly is an "object of wrath, prepared for destruction".

Is she ultimately destroyed? No she is not, her faithful Messiah steps in, and all the sin built up in Israel by the hardening effect of Torah is transferred to Jesus. What happens then? God finishes his plan of luring sin into a position of vulnerability. He condemns sin (not Jesus) on the cross:

For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature,[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208%20;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28105b)] God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208%20;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28105c)] And so he condemned sin in sinful man,

petepet
Sep 21st 2008, 11:41 PM
Perhaps your argument works in respect to Romans 5:20, but it does not work in respect in respect to this phrase from Romans 7:

through the commandment sin might become utterly sinful.

Here we are clearly talking about sin. And what does the law do? Does it merely reveal and particularize sin? No it makes sin utterly sinful. Paul is making the strange claim that Torah has actually increased or worsened sin in national Israel. Let's be fair here; to say sin is made utterly sinful makes no statement about the revealing of sin - it makes a statement about sin getting worse.

And there is other evidence to support this interpretation. In Romans 9 and 11, Paul describes the hardening of Israel - a hardening caused by God. This supports the argument that Torah does not merely reveal sin, it makes Israel "hardened". Here in Romans 9, Paul explains that God has hardened Israel just as He has hardened Pharoah:

17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."[g (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=9&version=31#fen-NIV-28158g)] 18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' "[h (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=9&version=31#fen-NIV-28161h)] 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? 22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?

It is Israel that is the vessel fitted for destruction. And God has molded her that way - He has "caused her hardening" through the introduction of the Torah. If the Torah merely reveals sin, this is not hardening. But we know that Israel has indeed been hardened, as per what Paul goes on to write in Romans 11:

What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8as it is written:
"God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes so that they could not see
and ears so that they could not hear,
to this very day."[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=52&chapter=11&version=31#fen-NIV-28203d)] 9And David says:
"May their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them.
10May their eyes be darkened so they cannot see,
and their backs be bent forever

The overall picture is this: God has given the Torah to Israel to harden them. Why is God doing this? Because he is luring or deceiving sin into being accumulated and localized in national Israel. With sin thus accumulated in Israel, she truly is an "object of wrath, prepared for destruction".

Is she ultimately destroyed? No she is not, her faithful Messiah steps in, and all the sin built up in Israel by the hardening effect of Torah is transferred to Jesus. What happens then? God finishes his plan of luring sin into a position of vulnerability. He condemns sin (not Jesus) on the cross:

For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature,[b (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208%20;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28105b)] God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208%20;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28105c)] And so he condemned sin in sinful man,

But why did sin become utterly sinful? Because instead of being a frailty of a man who did not realise it was sin it became the transgression of a man who knew very well that it was sin because the Law told him so. Howver I do not think you or I will ever agree. What matters is that others have the cahnce to weigh up the arguments.

Actually what hardens man's heart is man. The Law might be one means by which he does it. But it is man's rejection of the Law that hardens him.

God hardened Pharaoh's heart, but that did not mean that Pharaoh was not hardening his heart. He was deliberately doing so. God hardened his heart by pressing on him the requirement to respond. By doing so He was hardening Pharaoh's heart because as a result of it Pharaoh hardened his own heart.

Israel were not hardened because God said to Himself. 'I think I will harden Israel'. Israel were hardened because they refused to respond to God's activity. God actually hardened their hearts by offering them mercy.

In the same way Jesus hardened the hearts of the Pharisees by seeking to present them with the truth. Because they harened their hearts against it it was Jesus Who had hardened their hearts.

drew
Sep 21st 2008, 11:41 PM
Jesus is in the remarkable position of being the accused, the innocent, the guilty, and the judge. So yes it is possible to conceive of Jesus both covering us with His righteousness, and then as passing the verdict, although I am not aware that Paul uses the two metaphors in the same example. He sees the judge as God. But of course Jesus is God, and all judgment has been committed to Him.
I doubt it. Paul makes it clear that Jesus is the judge. Using the argument that "Jesus is God" does not rescue your position from its inherent contradiction. Of course, Jesus is God, but the Scriptures are clear. It is Jesus the Son who is the judge - it is not God the Father. You are buying into a metaphor where Jesus is judge and defendent. That would be a very incoherent position for Paul to take.


What is the robe of righteousness with which we are covered in Isaiah 61.10. It is certainly not our righteousness. It is the righteousness of God. And Jesus is God.
Just because we are imputed a righteousness that we cannot claim as our own, this does not mean it is the righteousness of some other person. In the Hebrew lawcourt, the judge determines that one of the two parties appearing before him is "in the right". Does that person "get" the righteousness of some other person? The judge, perhaps? No. That person merely gets a status of righteousness.


That is why Jesus is made unto us righteousness (1 Corinthians 1.30). It cannot be avoided. He Who knew no sin was made sin for us that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him (2 Corinthians 5.21).
I have provided arguments that neither of these text support the imputation position. These arguments are what they are, and I see no sense in repeating them.

Gotta go. I will respond to the rest of your material later.

petepet
Sep 21st 2008, 11:52 PM
I doubt it. Paul makes it clear that Jesus is the judge. Using the argument that "Jesus is God" does not rescue your position from its inherent contradiction. Of course, Jesus is God, but the Scriptures are clear. It is Jesus the Son who is the judge - it is not God the Father. You are buying into a metaphor where Jesus is judge and defendent. That would be a very incoherent position for Paul to take.


Just because we are imputed a righteousness that we cannot claim as our own, this does not mean it is the righteousness of some other person. In the Hebrew lawcourt, the judge determines that one of the two parties appearing before him is "in the right". Does that person "get" the righteousness of some other person? The judge, perhaps? No. That person merely gets a status of righteousness.


I have provided arguments that neither of these text support the imputation position. These arguments are what they are, and I see no sense in repeating them.

Gotta go. I will respond to the rest of your material later.

But Jesus IS both judge and defendant. Just as he is sin offering and high priest in Hebrews. These are earthly metaphors seeking to make clear a heavenly reality beyond our understanding.

The judge declares a man righteous because he sees him as righteous. It is not a legal fiction. The reason he is declared righteous is because the accused's own righteousness is perceived (whether rightly or wrongly). if he is not righteous then the verdict is WRONG.

But God's verdict is never wrong. Nor is it a legal fiction. It is based on an actual righteousness perceived, in this case the righteousness of Jesus Christ which is imputed to me. Glory to God.

(Something to come back to :-))))) ).

drew
Sep 22nd 2008, 02:11 AM
But why did sin become utterly sinful? Because instead of being a frailty of a man who did not realise it was sin it became the transgression of a man who knew very well that it was sin because the Law told him so. Howver I do not think you or I will ever agree. What matters is that others have the cahnce to weigh up the arguments.
I do not deny that the Law “tells us” about sin. I have repeatedly affirmed this very thing. But my assertion is that the Torah actually does more than simply reveal sin, it makes sin worse in absolute terms. And there is a clear conceptual distinction here. It is one thing to say that Torah reveals sin. It is another to say it increases sin. Now let’s return to the phrase “so that sin might become utterly sinful”. I still claim that this not an assertion about the sin-revealing property of the Torah, it is a claim that Torah has the effect of worsening sin. The language here seems pretty clear – sin is getting worse, it is approaching its maximum. If something is described as “utterly evil”, it will be understood as being more evil than something that is merely “evil” – it is not simply evil that is “revealed”. But for the sake of argument, let me concede that perhaps the phrase does not clearly indicate that Torah makes sin worse.

But there are other indications in the same chapter that settle the matter. We have this:

“For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the Law were at work in our bodies……”

This makes things more clear. The Torah actually stimulates sinful passions – it arouses them. It does not merely reveal them. Now are you going to argue that to “arouse” something is to “reveal” that something?

And there’s more:

“But sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, produced in me every kind of covetous desire….”

Again, the Torah is generating sinful desire, it is not merely revealing it. Are you going to argue that to “produce covetous desire” means to “reveal covetous desire”?

And even more:

“For sin, seizing the opportunity afforded by the commandment, deceived me, and through the commandment put me to death”

Again, Paul says that the Torah gave sin a means, a vehicle to deceive. This is not a statement that Torah reveals sin – it is the stronger claim that Torah empowers or energizes sin – gives it powers it would not otherwise have.

Paul really does hammer the point home. I do not see how one take Paul seriously and yet deny that he (Paul) is claiming that the Torah makes Israel more sinful, over and above the role of Torah in revealing sin.

You may wonder why I have, to this point, implicitly equated the “I” in Romans 7 with Israel. I am prepared to address that question, but not in the present post. Either way, what Paul says about Torah, whether in relation to him personally or Israel as a wholestill stands – it generates sin, it energizes and empowers sin.

drew
Sep 22nd 2008, 02:32 AM
But God's verdict is never wrong. Nor is it a legal fiction. It is based on an actual righteousness perceived, in this case the righteousness of Jesus Christ which is imputed to me. Glory to God.
There are simply no texts that say that Christ's righteousness is imputed or ascribed to the believer. Two texts have been put forward in defence of the imputation position: 1 Corinthians 1:30 and 2 Cor 5:21

The first does not work because to take it as entailing imputation of Christ's righteousness to all believers also requires us to take it as imputing other attributes of Christ to all believers.

And we all know that all believers do not have these other attributes. Therefore whatever Paul means in this text, he cannot mean that we are imputed the righteousness of Christ.

30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption.

Paul cannot be intending us to understand that we "get" Christ's righteousness. If so, we also get his holiness and redemption (the other 2 constituents of the wisdom that we get). I doubt anyone would say that we get Christ's holiness and his redemption.

What Paul is saying here is that Jesus has become the means by which we are redeemed and declared to be righteous (but not by the imputation of Christ's own righteousness).

And 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. Note the preceding material:

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.

Now, Paul then goes on to write this in verse 21:

God made him who had no sin to be sin[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%205;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28883a)] for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God

Paul has not suddenly changed topics without notice - he has not abandoned the ambassadorial role we serve. 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 commision, we become the agents who "carry out" the righteousness of God.

drew
Sep 22nd 2008, 02:35 AM
Actually what hardens man's heart is man. The Law might be one means by which he does it. But it is man's rejection of the Law that hardens him.
This is incomplete with respect to what the relevant texts say. Even if man (or Israel) has “taken the first step” down a road of disobedience, the scriptures are quite clear that God takes an active role in the hardening of the person (or the nation). For example, there are repeated statements in Exodus about God hardening Pharoah’s heart. So God is clearly in the hardening business, whether or not responsibility for prior hardening lay with Pharoah. And what you say about “man’s rejection of the Law hardening him” does not work with texts like this one from my previous post:

“For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the Law were at work in our bodies”

We have to let Paul tell us what he wants to tell us and not impose our own systems on him. Paul here says the Law arouses sinful passion – he does not say “our rejection of the Law arouses sinful passions”

drew
Sep 22nd 2008, 02:40 AM
Israel were not hardened because God said to Himself. 'I think I will harden Israel'. Israel were hardened because they refused to respond to God's activity. God actually hardened their hearts by offering them mercy.
Again, regardless of Israel’s initial disobedience, God does indeed harden them. He does not merely “let them continue down a road of their own choosing” – He actively hardens them. This is what the potter metaphor in Romans 9 is all about. Widely held to be a treatment about the pre-destination of individuals to ultimate salvation or loss, the potter metaphor is clearly about God’s treatment of Israel and his right to actively shape her into a vessel fitted for destruction.

In the Romans 9 text, Paul is alluding to numerous Old Testament texts which compare God’s relationship to Israel to that between a potter and his pot. I can give the texts if you like.

In Romans 9-11, Paul is constructing an argument that God has hardened Israel for a specific reason – to bring salvation to "true Israel" - made up of both Jews and Gentiles.

What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

So you are indeed correct – God does not harden Israel for no good reason. But He does harden them:

What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, 8as it is written:
"God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes so that they could not see

This text makes it clear – God is actively hardening Israel. God is not simply “letting Israel freely take a path of her own choosing” – that simply is not true to the text above And I am arguing that Paul sees the Torah as the vehicle which produces this hardening.

drew
Sep 22nd 2008, 02:42 AM
In the same way Jesus hardened the hearts of the Pharisees by seeking to present them with the truth. Because they harened their hearts against it it was Jesus Who had hardened their hearts.
I am afraid that I do not understand you here. One the one hand, you say the Pharisees hardened their own hearts. And then in the next sentence, you say it was Jesus who did the hardening. In any event, it is clear from the scriptures that, in the cases of both Pharoah and Israel, God takes an active role in hardening hearts. It is simply not true to the relevant scriptures to say that Pharoah and Israel “hardened their own hearts”. There is indeed an element of this, but in both cases, we have clear statements that God actively contributes to the hardening. This is difficult to accept, but the Scriptures are clear on this.

drew
Sep 22nd 2008, 02:16 PM
Jesus is the last Adam. He represents me before God. If His righteousness is not imputed to me through my faith in Him, God help me. But praise God, He has helped me
I agree that Jesus is the last Adam. But there simply is no scriptural evidence for the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer. I suggest that the 2 texts put forward in defence of the imputation position have been shown to not really support that position at all. I am happy to discuss those texts in more detail if you wish.

You seem to almost think that the only possible way for you to be saved from the wrath to come is for Jesus' righteousness to be imputed to you.

But Paul does not hold to that belief. He clearly states in Romans 2 that eternal life and a righteous status will be conferred to people based on the good works that are manifested in their lives, and not that God will "look at you and see Jesus":

6God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202;&version=31;#fen-NIV-27954a)] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.
12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous

Many in the reformed tradition do not know how to handle this text. So many make the implausible claim that Paul is speaking about a hypothetical path to eternal life and righteousness that zero persons will actually take.

But that is an exceedingly odd thing for Paul to do - to describe a coming judgement at which eternal life is granted based on good works, yet all the while believing nobody gets eternal life in that way. What kind of a confused and misleading writer would Paul have to be to do that? Does he given any indication at all, that he is describing a hypothetical path? No he does not. You have to read that in. And people justify such a reading by claiming that Paul later denies "justification by works". Well he does, but when he refers to "works" in such statements, the context shows he is clearly talking about the works of the Law of Moses - the Torah - and not the category of good works.

No. Paul means what he says in Romans 2 - eternal life and righteousness are conferred on the basis of the content of one's life, not on God "seeing Jesus's righteousness in you".

What kind of sense is Paul making here, given all his statements about how we are justified by faith and how the Christian, at least at the point of conversion is full of sin. He is making Spirit sense. As Paul says elsewhere, not least in Romans 8, it is the Holy Spirit, given to us on the basis of nothing other than faith, that then molds us into the kind of person that will pass the Romans 2 "good works" judgement.

Watch what people do with Romans 2. They will inevitably mangle it to force-fit it into schemes that they bring to the text. Paul means what he says in Romans 2. And among other things, this eliminates the possibility that we are imputed the righteousness of Christ. Paul clearly says that "obeying 'the law'" is basis for getting righteousness at the coming judgement:

it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous

Now, how do you accomodate this statement of Paul's into the "imputed righteousness" model?

ananias
Sep 22nd 2008, 03:58 PM
I agree that Jesus is the last Adam. But there simply is no scriptural evidence for the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer. I suggest that the 2 texts put forward in defence of the imputation position have been shown to not really support that position at all. I am happy to discuss those texts in more detail if you wish.

You seem to almost think that the only possible way for you to be saved from the wrath to come is for Jesus' righteousness to be imputed to you.

But Paul does not hold to that belief. He clearly states in Romans 2 that eternal life and a righteous status will be conferred to people based on the good works that are manifested in their lives, and not that God will "look at you and see Jesus":

6God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202;&version=31;#fen-NIV-27954a)] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.
12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous

Many in the reformed tradition do not know how to handle this text. So many make the implausible claim that Paul is speaking about a hypothetical path to eternal life and righteousness that zero persons will actually take.

But that is an exceedingly odd thing for Paul to do - to describe a coming judgement at which eternal life is granted based on good works, yet all the while believing nobody gets eternal life in that way. What kind of a confused and misleading writer would Paul have to be to do that? Does he given any indication at all, that he is describing a hypothetical path? No he does not. You have to read that in. And people justify such a reading by claiming that Paul later denies "justification by works". Well he does, but when he refers to "works" in such statements, the context shows he is clearly talking about the works of the Law of Moses - the Torah - and not the category of good works.

No. Paul means what he says in Romans 2 - eternal life and righteousness are conferred on the basis of the content of one's life, not on God "seeing Jesus's righteousness in you".

What kind of sense is Paul making here, given all his statements about how we are justified by faith and how the Christian, at least at the point of conversion is full of sin. He is making Spirit sense. As Paul says elsewhere, not least in Romans 8, it is the Holy Spirit, given to us on the basis of nothing other than faith, that then molds us into the kind of person that will pass the Romans 2 "good works" judgement.

Watch what people do with Romans 2. They will inevitably mangle it to force-fit it into schemes that they bring to the text. Paul means what he says in Romans 2. And among other things, this eliminates the possibility that we are imputed the righteousness of Christ. Paul clearly says that "obeying 'the law'" is basis for getting righteousness at the coming judgement:

it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous

Now, how do you accomodate this statement of Paul's into the "imputed righteousness" model?

It's very simple: Paul's theological treatise right up to Romans chapter 8 is that neither justification nor righteousness can be imputed through fallen man's obedience to the Law.

In Romans 2 to Romans 3: 20 Paul is preparing this treatise which is to follow by proving that neither justification nor righteousness is imputed through obedience to the Law, for "as it is written: "There is none righteous, no not one;" (Rom.3: 10). From Rom.3: 21, Paul then speaks about imputed righteousness which comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all and on all who believe.

Paul goes on to say that not only is it only through walking according to the Spirit who has been given to dwell in those who belong to Christ that any human being can walk righteously, but that we who are saved cannot but walk according to the Spirit of Christ, and that this gracious gift of God is no license to continue to sin.

Now since Paul proves in Romans 2 to Romans 3: 20 that righteousness cannot be imputed through obedience to the Law, he is able to establish his theological treatise - which is that justification comes through the shed blood of Christ, and that HIS righteousness is imputed to the believer who walks according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh.

IMO, you have chosen to isolate Rom.2: 6-13 from the rest of Paul's theological treatise in order to create an entirely different theological treatise which contradicts Paul's original treatise.

It is very presumptuous for man who is born first of the first Adam's seed to even think that righteousness can be imputed to him through his obedience to the Law/faithfulness - either before or after he is born again and is found in the last Adam, who is Christ the Lord. This is the whole point of Paul's theological treatise in Rom.1: 28 to Romans chapter 8. To miss this point is to create another gospel, which, IMHO, is no gospel at all.

ananias

ananias
Sep 22nd 2008, 04:07 PM
It's very simple: Paul's theological treatise right up to Romans chapter 8 is that neither justification nor righteousness can be imputed through fallen man's obedience to the Law.

In Romans 2 to Romans 3: 20 Paul is preparing this treatise which is to follow by proving that neither justification nor righteousness is imputed through obedience to the Law, for "as it is written: "There is none righteous, no not one;" (Rom.3: 10). From Rom.3: 21, Paul then speaks about imputed righteousness which comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all and on all who believe.

Paul goes on to say that not only is it only through walking according to the Spirit who has been given to dwell in those who belong to Christ that any human being can walk righteously, but that we who are saved cannot but walk according to the Spirit of Christ, and that this gracious gift of God is no license to continue to sin.

Now since Paul proves in Romans 2 to Romans 3: 20 that righteousness cannot be imputed through obedience to the Law, he is able to establish his theological treatise - which is that justification comes through the shed blood of Christ, and that HIS righteousness is imputed to the believer who walks according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh.

IMO, you have chosen to isolate Rom.2: 6-13 from the rest of Paul's theological treatise in order to create an entirely different theological treatise which contradicts Paul's original treatise.

It is very presumptuous for man who is born first of the first Adam's seed to even think that righteousness can be imputed to him through his obedience to the Law/faithfulness - either before or after he is born again and is found in the last Adam, who is Christ the Lord. This is the whole point of Paul's theological treatise in Rom.1: 28 to Romans chapter 8. To miss this point is to create another gospel, which, IMHO, is no gospel at all.

ananias

In other words, everything Paul says from Rom.1: 28 to Rom.3: 20 lays the foundation for his theological treatise - which is that justification cannot come through our works, neither can righteousness be imputed to us through our obedience to the Law/faithfulness.

We simply cannot isolate a few verses from the rest and then say, "AHA! see, so Paul here says Christ's righteousness is not imputed to us" - since it is those very verses which Paul is using to prove that Christ's righteousness CAN ONLY be imputed to the believer.

ananias

drew
Sep 22nd 2008, 04:19 PM
In Romans 2 to Romans 3: 20 Paul is preparing this treatise which is to follow by proving that neither justification nor righteousness is imputed through obedience to the Law, for "as it is written: "There is none righteous, no not one;" (Rom.3: 10).
I agree, if by "Law" you mean the Torah. If by "the Law", you mean good works, then you have a big problem since Paul clearly affirms justification / righteousness by good works in Romans 2.


From Rom.3: 21, Paul then speaks about imputed righteousness which comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all and on all who believe.
I agree again, as long as this righteousness that we are imputed is not Christ's righteousness.


Paul goes on to say that not only is it only through walking according to the Spirit who has been given to dwell in those who belong to Christ that any human being can walk righteously, but that we who are saved cannot but walk according to the Spirit of Christ, and that this gracious gift of God is no license to continue to sin.
Again, I agree.


Now since Paul proves in Romans 2 to Romans 3: 20 that righteousness cannot be imputed through obedience to the Law, he is able to establish his theological treatise - which is that justification comes through the shed blood of Christ, and that HIS righteousness is imputed to the believer who walks according to the Spirit and not according to the flesh.
You cannot legitimately make this step. Your argument appears to be of this form:

1. We cannot attain righteousness through "self-motivated" adherence to the Torah;

2. Jesus died to procure our justification - our "righteousness";

3. Therefore we are imputed the righteousness of Christ.

Conclusion (3) is not logically requiremd in virtue of assertions (1) and (2) - assertions that I agree are scriptural. You seem to be assuming that a righteous state has to be status of some other person. But this is clearly not so. In the Hebrew lawcourt, as per Old Testament precedent, one party is simply deemed to be "in the right". They are not imputed the righteousness of another person.

So one could equally well argue thus:

1. We cannot attain righteousness through "self-motivated" adherence to the Torah;

2. Jesus died to procure our justification - our "righteousness";

3. Therefore we are imputed the righteousness of the acquitted defendent - a righteousness that is not some other person's righteousness.


It is very presumptuous for man who is born first of the first Adam's seed to even think that righteousness can be imputed to him through his obedience to the Law/faithfulness - either before or after he is born again and is found in the last Adam, who is Christ the Lord.
Well, Paul is presumptive because he clearly states that indeed a final judgement of righteousness is based on "our" (and by "our" I am really giving credit to the Spirit) good works:

it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous

Let me ask this question another way. What do you think Paul intends us to understand by the above statement? Please address this particular statement. I will give my interpretation:

"At the coming judgement, the status of "righteousness" will be conferred on those who have obeyed the essence or heart of Torah, as they have been made able to do by the Spirit."

I will be interested to see how your version matches with the notion that our righteous state is based on Jesus' imputed righteousness.

drew
Sep 22nd 2008, 04:28 PM
In other words, everything Paul says from Rom.1: 28 to Rom.3: 20 lays the foundation for his theological treatise - which is that justification cannot come through our works, neither can righteousness be imputed to us through our obedience to the Law/faithfulness.
Please tell us precisely where Paul ever denies that we can be justified by the good works that the Spirit produces in our lives. He denies justification by doing the works of the Torah all over the place. But this is not the same as denying justification by good works. Paul denies justification by Torah to refute the boast of the Jew who thinks that being Jewish - a practicer of Torah - procures his justification.


We simply cannot isolate a few verses from the rest and then say, "AHA! see, so Paul here says Christ's righteousness is not imputed to us" - since it is those very verses which Paul is using to prove that Christ's righteousness CAN ONLY be imputed to the believer.

How do the following verses "prove" that Christ's righteousness is imputed to the believer. In the following verses, Paul states - three times no less - that ultimate justification is based on "good works". Why do you not think he means exactly what he says?

6God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202&version=31#fen-NIV-27954a)] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.
12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous

Paul means something in these verses. Please tell us what you think he is saying in these verses. I suggest that a strategy that effectively reduces to "Paul cannot mean what he says in Romans 2, because he later goes on to show that he wrote in Romans 2 is actually incorrect" should rightly be met with skepticism.

Would you write that way? Would you assert that "X is the case", later assert that "X is not the case", and expect the reader to make sense of it all?

ananias
Sep 22nd 2008, 04:57 PM
I agree, if by "Law" you mean the Torah. If by "the Law", you mean good works, then you have a big problem since

(a) Paul clearly affirms justification / righteousness by good works in Romans 2.

(b) it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous

Let me ask this question another way. What do you think Paul intends us to understand by the above statement? Please address this particular statement. I will give my interpretation:

"At the coming judgement, the status of "righteousness" will be conferred on those who have obeyed the essence or heart of Torah, as they have been made able to do by the Spirit."

I will be interested to see how your version matches with the notion that our righteous state is based on Jesus' imputed righteousness.

(a) I'm 100% sure in my mind that Paul's theology does not contradict the the following verse:

"But we are all as the unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as a menstruation cloth. And we all fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." (Isa.64: 6).

Whether before or after we are born again, our "righteousness" is stained with the filth of our sin - would you throw two good eggs into the mixture for an Omelette which has 2 rotten eggs in it, and then think that the Omelette is now good enough to eat? Then how can you even think that you can submit your good works (righteouness) to God (whether before or after you believe and repent of your sin and turn to faith in Jesus for your salvation), and expect GOD to accept your good works as righteousness?

You said, "Paul clearly affirms justification / righteousness by good works in Romans 2."

No, Paul doesn't affirm any such thing in Romans 2. In Romans 2, Paul is proving that our righteousness cannot justify us/declare us rightouus before God.

(b) You said, "it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous".

But Paul said, "For all have sinned (transgressed the Law) and fall short of God's glorious standard" (Rom.3: 10-18, 23).

Brother, if you think you can stand before God one day on the basis of a righteousness produced by your own good works instead of the righteousness of Christ, then I suggest that you pray to God and ask Him to reveal your sin to you. Once you become truly aware of what a sinner you are before God, then you'll begin to understand that your good works ("righteousnesses") are as filthy as used menstrual cloths in God's sight (Isa.64: 6). And no, God wasn't speaking only to the Jews or the Israelites in Isa.64: 6 - they are/were like us - the seed of Adam.

We are not declared righteous on the basis of our good works ("righteousness"). We praise God that HIS righteousness - the righteousness of God the Son, the last Adam - is imputed to us.

I'm not going to debate this with you any longer, because what you are teaching is not the gospel of Christ but another gospel. I encourage you to get on your knees before God and ask Him to reveal the true gospel of Christ to you.

ananias

drew
Sep 22nd 2008, 05:50 PM
(a) I'm 100% sure in my mind that Paul's theology does not contradict the the following verse:

"But we are all as the unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as a menstruation cloth. And we all fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away." (Isa.64: 6).
I am 100 % sure of this verse as well. And it works perfectly well the interpretation I am setting forth in respect to what Paul is saying. In Romans 2, Paul is not talking about "our" works, he is talking about the works we indeed "manifest" but are really the work of the Spirit. Are you going to challenge this distinction that I attribute to Paul?


Whether before or after we are born again, our "righteousness" is stained with the filth of our sin - would you throw two good eggs into the mixture for an Omelette which has 2 rotten eggs in it, and then think that the Omelette is now good enough to eat? Then how can you even think that you can submit your good works (righteouness) to God (whether before or after you believe and repent of your sin and turn to faith in Jesus for your salvation), and expect GOD to accept your good works as righteousness?
It is true that after we are born again, we are still imperfect. We are indeed a mixed bag. But you should not impose your belief that we need to be "perfect" in order to be declared righteous at the last day. Paul means what he says in Romans 2. And please stop talking as if I am suggesting "my" works will save me. I believe I have been quite clear - in Romans 2, Paul is not talking about works that arise from moral self-effort or in any reasonable sense from "me". He is talking about the works generated by the Spirit. If you do not believe this, perhaps Romans 8 will help. Paul starts with this:

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus...

Why is there no condemnation? Paul goes onto explain:

For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28105c)] And so he condemned sin in sinful man,[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28105d)] 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit

If we live according to the Spirit we can indeed meet the criteria of the Romans 2 judgement.


You said, "[B]Paul clearly affirms justification / righteousness by good works in Romans 2."

No, Paul doesn't affirm any such thing in Romans 2. In Romans 2, Paul is proving that our righteousness cannot justify us/declare us rightouus before God.
Well I will let the reader judge whether the following statement from Romans 2 is or is not a plain statement that connects a declaration of righteousness to how we have lived:

it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous

Paul clearly states here (and two other times) that we are justified at the end by the good works that are evident in our lives. He nevers states, here in chapter 2, or anywhere else, that "good works" do not justify. Please try to provide a counter-example.


(b) You said, "it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous".

But Paul said, "For all have sinned (transgressed the Law) and fall short of God's glorious standard" (Rom.3: 10-18, 23).
It is more correct to say that Paul says "it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous". I am qouting Paul verbatim.

It is you who are claiming that what Paul goes on to say in Romans 3 undermines Paul's own words from Romans 2. The objective reader should find this very odd indeed. Why is Paul contradicting himself. This contradiction does not seem to bother you. You seem to simply rationalize this by effectively saying Paul does not mean what he says when he writes: it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. I would think that is not a very good position to take.

In Romans 3, Paul is talking about the Torah - the Law of Moses. This is the stumbling block for so many. You read "Law" in Romans 3 and think Paul is denying what he has said in Romans 2. After all, you will reply, Paul does say:

it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous

Things are indeed quite complicated here. But, and I cannot emphasize this enough, I cannot see how one can basically claim that Paul is contradicting himself and not see how that undermines the authority of the Scriptures. Paul is not "kidding" in Romans 2 when he says this:

God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202;&version=31;#fen-NIV-27954a)] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life

The path out of the seeming contradiction between 2:13b and the stuff in Romans 3 is to realize that in Romans 2:13b, Paul is talking about a different sense of keeping Torah than he is in 3:20, for example, when he states that no one will be declared righteous by keeping the law. Am I inventing this distinction to save my position. Well, Paul endorses this very same distinction when he writes this in Romans 9:

What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith;
31but Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though it were by works

Paul himself gives the key. There are two modes of doing Torah. Complicated as this seems, it has the benefit of giving us a way to say tht Paul is not contradicting himself - and I see your position as clearly asserting that Paul simply does not mean what he says in Romans 2. And I am not prepared to go there.


Brother, if you think you can stand before God one day on the basis of a righteousness produced by your own good works instead of the righteousness of Christ, then I suggest that you pray to God and ask Him to reveal your sin to you.
If you or others are actually reading my posts, you will know that I never, repeat never, have said that "my" righteousness will justify me. I simply go along with Paul in Romans 2 when he says that "good works" do justify and I go along with him in Romans 8 when he explains that it is the Holy Spirit who gets any credit for it.


And once you are born again, you will never again teach that we are declared righteous on the basis of our good works ("righteousness"). You will praise God that HIS righteousness - the righteousness of God the Son, the last Adam - is imputed to you.
I will politely choose to go with what the Scriptures say on this matter. Paul is not kidding in Romans 2. And it should not go un-noticed that you have not told me what you think Paul means by those texts in Romans 2 that are so damaging to your position. You have only told us why other texts show us that he actually believes something else altogether.

This is a common response to Romans 2. People invariably will not say what they think Paul is saying there since to do so, would reveal that they simply do not accept his statements from Romans 2.

ananias
Sep 22nd 2008, 06:50 PM
I am 100 % sure of this verse as well. And it works perfectly well the interpretation I am setting forth in respect to what Paul is saying. In Romans 2, Paul is not talking about "our" works, he is talking about the works we indeed "manifest" but are really the work of the Spirit. Are you going to challenge this distinction that I attribute to Paul?


It is true that after we are born again, we are still imperfect. We are indeed a mixed bag. But you should not impose your belief that we need to be "perfect" in order to be declared righteous at the last day. Paul means what he says in Romans 2. And please stop talking as if I am suggesting "my" works will save me. I believe I have been quite clear - in Romans 2, Paul is not talking about works that arise from moral self-effort or in any reasonable sense from "me". He is talking about the works generated by the Spirit. If you do not believe this, perhaps Romans 8 will help. Paul starts with this:

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus...

Why is there no condemnation? Paul goes onto explain:

For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering.[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28105c)] And so he condemned sin in sinful man,[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208;&version=31;#fen-NIV-28105d)] 4in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, [B]who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit

If we live according to the Spirit we can indeed meet the criteria of the Romans 2 judgement.



Perhaps I've misunderstood you, and I apologize if that's the case.

If what you're saying is the same as what James said, then I agree with you:

"But someone will say, You have faith, and I have works. Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith from my works." (Jam.2: 18).

But IF you're saying that Paul is saying in Romans 2 that the righteousness (or "right actions", "good works" or whatever you want to call it) performed by the Spirit of Christ in us TODAY is imputed to us for righteousness, then I cannot agree with you - for it is the righteousness of Christ which was (past tense) performed by Christ Himself when HE was in the world which is imputed to the one who repents of his sin and believes in Christ. Yes, it is true that the sign that we are saved is that we will produce good works:

"For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to good works, which God has before ordained that we should walk in them." (Eph.2: 10).

But Paul is not making a case by his statements in Romans 2 that these works of righteousness produced by the Spirit of Christ in us are imputed to us for righteousness - for the only righteousness that God has imputed to us for righteousness is the righteousness of Christ Himself which He worked while He was in the world - and that only because the Righteous One bore our sins.

Imputed righteousness is something which is based solely on righteous acts which are now past tense - or else Christ would have to be crucified over and over again on our behalf in order that the righteous acts produced by His indwelliing Holy Spirit today can be imputed over and over again to the believer.

ananias

drew
Sep 22nd 2008, 07:10 PM
If what you're saying is the same as what James said, then I agree with you:

"But someone will say, You have faith, and I have works. Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith from my works." (Jam.2: 18).
I am basically saying this, yes.


But IF you're saying that Paul is saying in Romans 2 that the righteousness (or "right actions", "good works" or whatever you want to call it) performed by the Spirit of Christ in us TODAY is imputed to us for righteousness, then I cannot agree with you - for it is the righteousness of Christ which was (past tense) performed by Christ Himself when HE was in the world which is imputed to the one who repents of his sin and believes in Christ. Yes, it is true that the sign that we are saved is that we will produce good works:
We still disagree. No texts support this notion of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer. Please show me one text that supports the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer. I have extensively addressed both 1 Corinthians 1:30 and 2 Corinthians 5:21, but if you want to go over those again, I am game.

Paul means what he says when he writes these words:

God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202;&version=31;#fen-NIV-27954a)] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life

Now lets be clear. These words conflict with your assertion that Jesus' own righteousness has been imputed to us in the past. If it is indeed Christ's own righteousness, imputed to us, that is grounds for our getting eternal life, then why does Paul say here that is the good works that we do (by the Spirit!!!!) - in our lives in the here and now - that is the basis for our receiving eternal life.

Now, please explain what you think Paul meant when he wrote these very words from Romans 2. I am confused as to why you think references to other texts somehow make this text not mean what it so plainly expresses. So can you please tells us what Paul means, not elsehwere, but in the quoted text above?


for the only righteousness that God has imputed to us for righteousness is the righteousness of Christ Himself which He worked while He was in the world - and that only because the Righteous One bore our sins.
The fact that Jesus bore ours sin simply does not necessitate the conclusion that we get His righteousness. Suppose I am found guilty of an offence and am fined $ 1000. My friend Fred pays the fine. Am I now "righteous" in the eyes of the court? Yes. The demands of the law have been fulfilled. Do I get Fred's righteousness? Of course not.

ananias
Sep 22nd 2008, 10:21 PM
I am basically saying this, yes.


We still disagree. No texts support this notion of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer. Please show me one text that supports the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer. I have extensively addressed both 1 Corinthians 1:30 and 2 Corinthians 5:21, but if you want to go over those again, I am game.

Paul means what he says when he writes these words:

God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202;&version=31;#fen-NIV-27954a)] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life

Now lets be clear. These words conflict with your assertion that Jesus' own righteousness has been imputed to us in the past. If it is indeed Christ's own righteousness, imputed to us, that is grounds for our getting eternal life, then why does Paul say here that is the good works that we do (by the Spirit!!!!) - in our lives in the here and now - that is the basis for our receiving eternal life.

Now, please explain what you think Paul meant when he wrote these very words from Romans 2. I am confused as to why you think references to other texts somehow make this text not mean what it so plainly expresses. So can you please tells us what Paul means, not elsehwere, but in the quoted text above?


The fact that Jesus bore ours sin simply does not necessitate the conclusion that we get His righteousness. Suppose I am found guilty of an offence and am fined $ 1000. My friend Fred pays the fine. Am I now "righteous" in the eyes of the court? Yes. The demands of the law have been fulfilled. Do I get Fred's righteousness? Of course not.

Fred is not the last Adam and the Son of God, drew - Jesus is. Fred was not born of a virgin - Jesus was. Fred is not the incarnate Word of God - Jesus is. Fred couldn't die for your sins anymore than Fred could die for his own sins - but Jesus could, and did.

Sorry, but that's a terrible example and very lame argument, drew.

You wrote,

"Paul means what he says when he writes these words:

God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202;&version=31;#fen-NIV-27954a)] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life "

I've already said that Paul is laying the foundation of his theological treatise that good works performed by us CANNOT be considered as righteousness:

"... who will render to each according to his works; indeed to those who with patience in good work are seeking for glory, and honor, and incorruptibility, everlasting life. But to those who indeed disobeying the truth out of self-seeking, and obeying unrighteousness, will be anger and wrath, tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man who has worked out evil; of the Jew first, and also of the Greek...

... But He will give glory, honor and peace to every man who works good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no respect of faces with God. For as many as sinned without Law will also perish without Law. And as many as have sinned within Law shall be judged through Law. For it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified." (Rom.2: 6-13)...

... But now a righteousness of God has been revealed apart from Law, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets; even the righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus Christ,..."

Note that Paul did NOT say that this righteousness of God is "through the acts of righteousness produced through the indwelling Holy Spirit of Christ" - he said it is through faith in Jesus Christ

"... toward all and upon all those who believe."

Once again, Paul did NOT say, "... upon all those who through persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality," - he said this righteousness of God is "... "... toward all and upon all those who believe....

... For there is no difference, for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness through the passing by of the sins that had taken place before, in the forbearance of God; for the display of His righteousness at this time, for Him to be just and, forgiving the one being of the faith of Jesus. Then where is the boasting? It is excluded. Through what law? Of works? No, but through the law of faith." (Rom 3:21-27)

You say Paul is NOT laying the foundation in Romans 2 of his theological treatise that Christ's righteousness is imputed to the believer - but that's just a matter of your understanding of this part of Romans which you have isolated from the rest of Romans and from the rest of the N.T and interpreted by itself.

"... not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit," (Tit.3: 5).

It is true that even Christians will be judged by Jesus for what we have done in the flesh - but we will not be judged unto condemnation - unless of course we turned away and did not hold fast our confession to the end

"For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end," (Heb.3: 14).

Sorry, drew. It doesn't seem like you and I are going to agree on this one - I believe that the only reason why Paul says what he says (and the way he says it) in Romans 2, is to prove his theological position - namely that were it not for Christ's righteousness imputed to us, we would not be able to stand before God.

The good works performed by disciples of Jesus which are produced by the Holy Spirit of Christ neither justify us nor are they counted as our works of righteousness.

ananias

drew
Sep 23rd 2008, 02:50 AM
You wrote,

"Paul means what he says when he writes these words:

God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202;&version=31;#fen-NIV-27954a)] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life "

I've already said that Paul is laying the foundation of his theological treatise that good works performed by us CANNOT be considered as righteousness:
Well if Paul is, as you say, "laying the foundation of his treatise" then you have him saying something he believes to be false in 2:6-7 - that good works justify, only to later contradict himself. Does Paul ever say anywhere in Romans 2 anything at all to the effect "I am about to tell you about a path to justification that is impossible to achieve"? No he does not. You read that in to make your theological system hang together.

I will say it again - watch what people do with Romans 2. It is wildly implausible that Paul would say something that he knows to be false - that good works justify - without any announcement or clue that this is what he is doing.

What kind of a writer would lay a foundation by making a statement he knows to be false? And yet this is precisely what you have Paul doing here. How, please tell us all, does asserting something you believe to be false, "lay the foundation" for an argument that ends up asserting the exact opposite?

Please tell us: How, exactly, does stating the opposite of his true position "lay the foundation of his treatise"?

threebigrocks
Sep 23rd 2008, 02:56 AM
No texts support this notion of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer.


Drew, I did share scripture on this, earlier in this thread in post 52.

drew
Sep 23rd 2008, 02:59 AM
... But now a righteousness of God has been revealed apart from Law, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets; even the righteousness of God through the faith of Jesus Christ,..."

Note that Paul did NOT say that this righteousness of God is "through the acts of righteousness produced through the indwelling Holy Spirit of Christ" - he said it is through faith in Jesus Christ
No. You are not correctly reading this text. The text says through the faith of Jesus Christ, and you claim it says "through faith in Jesus Christ". There is a big difference. Reading the text as it is actually written states that it is through the covenant faitfulness of Jesus Christ that we get a status of righteousnes. So this text is entirely consistent with Romans 2 as it is written. Why? Because in fulfilling the covenant. Jesus brings about the giving of the Spirit, which allows us to meet the Romans 2 judgement.


toward all and upon all those who believe."

Once again, Paul did NOT say, "... upon all those who through
persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality," - he said this righteousness of God is "... "... toward all and upon all those who believe
You have Paul arguing against himself here. Do you really expect a reader who accepts the authority of Scripture to accept such a strategy? You have Paul saying A in one place and something that contradicts A in another. Is this how Paul lays a foundation for a treatise?

Fine, you deny Romans 2:6-7. But on what grounds? On the grounds that other texts contradict it? That is hardly a strategy that will work for those of us who hold to the inerrancy of the Scriptures?

drew
Sep 23rd 2008, 03:11 AM
Drew, I did share scripture on this, earlier in this thread in post 52.
The Romans 3 text you posted does not support the imputation position. I provided a detailed counterargument in a later post - the NIV has made a dubious translation decision. I admit to having overlooked the other texts. I hope to get to them.

What do you think about Romans 2:6-7? Do you, like ananias, believe that Paul is asserting something he believes to be false, in those verses.

That position might have some life if there was a hint that this is what Paul is up to. But there is not.

And it is not acceptable exegesis to say "Paul does not mean what he says in Romans 2:6-7 because he says the opposite of that later". That is a sure sign that one is on the wrong track.

drew
Sep 23rd 2008, 03:15 AM
You say Paul is NOT laying the foundation in Romans 2 of his theological treatise that Christ's righteousness is imputed to the believer - but that's just a matter of your understanding of this part of Romans which you have isolated from the rest of Romans and from the rest of the N.T and interpreted by itself.

"... not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit," (Tit.3: 5).
Again, you are adopting the rather questionable strategy of using one Pauline text to undermine another.

There is no contradiction between the Titus 3:5 text and Paul's clear statement about how we are justified by "good works" in Romans 2:6-13. In the Titus text, Paul is talking about works we have done by moral self-effort. In Romans 2, he is talking about works done by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

drew
Sep 23rd 2008, 03:23 AM
Galatians 2
Quote:
15"We who are Jews by birth and not 'Gentile sinners' 16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified. 17"If, while we seek to be justified in Christ, it becomes evident that we ourselves are sinners, does that mean that Christ promotes sin? Absolutely not! 18If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker. 19For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God. 20I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

The law only brought death. We couldn't work our way to salvation nor gain a grain of righteousness of our own. ALL things are through Christ, and we do not have our own righteousness, we cannot learn it, we cannot buy it.

We can only receive it by faith in Christ and Christ alone. There is no other way.
This text does not support the imputation of Christ's own righteousness to the believer. Paul is indeed denying righteousness through the Torah, but he is not denying righteousness achieved by the action of the Holy Spirit producing good works in the life of a believer. It is important to keep the Torah / "good works" distinction in mind. If there were not such a distinction then we have Paul contradicting himself. In light of your post above, what do you think Paul means here:

God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202;&version=31;#fen-NIV-27954a)] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life

Is Paul making a true statement here. I believe that he is. What do you say?

threebigrocks
Sep 23rd 2008, 03:27 AM
When did Paul ever assert that he came in his own name? Why would he say something he knows to be false?

All thing for us now, as we exists in this world, are through faith. All things are through Christ. Our faith is in Christ. All things we receive are because of Him, in His nature, through the Spirit.

I don't use the NIV, drew. I use the NASB, the older versions. Scripture says what it says. Just because we don't get it means that something is wrong.

Romans 2

6who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS:
7to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;
8but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.
9There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek,
10but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
11For there is no partiality with God.


IF we persevere, our deeds will reflect that. Those actions come from the heart and God will know and recognize that, giving us eternal life.

I don't see the problem.

threebigrocks
Sep 23rd 2008, 03:29 AM
This text does not support the imputation of Christ's own righteousness to the believer. Paul is indeed denying righteousness through the Torah, but he is not denying righteousness achieved by the action of the Holy Spirit producing good works in the life of a believer. It is important to keep the Torah / "good works" distinction in mind. If there were not such a distinction then we have Paul contradicting himself. In light of your post above, what do you think Paul means here:

God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202;&version=31;#fen-NIV-27954a)] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life

Is Paul making a true statement here. I believe that he is. What do you say?

If righteousness could be found, but not in Torah, then where else can it be found?

There is a difference drew in the moment of being saved and the process of sanctification.

SIG
Sep 23rd 2008, 03:31 AM
drew: "No texts support this notion of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer."

It would be indeed odd for both Martin Luther and John Calvin to hold this doctrine without Scriptural support.

From Wikipedia

"The case for imputed righteousness
Imputed righteousness is the Christian doctrine that a sinner being declared righteous by God is declared such purely by God's grace, without any merit or personal worthiness. On the one hand, God is infinitely merciful, "not wishing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9). On the other, God is infinitely holy and just, which means that he cannot approve of or even look upon evil (Habakkuk 1:13), neither can he justify a wicked person (Book of Proverbs 17:15). Because the Bible describes all men as sinners and says that there are none who are righteous (Epistle to the Romans 3:23, 10) this is a classic theological tension. To use the words of the apostle Paul, how can God be "just and the justifier of those who believe (Rom. 3:26)?" Through this argument God cannot ignore or in any way overlook sin.

Adherents' say that God the Father resolves this problem by sending His Son to lead a perfect life and sacrifice himself for the sake of all people. Then the sins of the wicked person are cast onto Christ, who is a perfect sacrifice. First of all, they note that the New Testament describes the method of man's salvation as the "righteousness of God" (Rom. 3:21, 22; 10:3; Philippians 3:9). They then note that this imputed righteousness is particularly that of the second member of the Trinity, Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Corinthians 1:30). When they refer to the "imputed righteousness of Christ," they are referring to his life of sinlessness and perfect obedience to God's law on this earth, usually called his active obedience. The need for a human life of perfect obedience to God's law was the reason that Christ, who is God, had to become incarnate (take on human flesh) and live as a human being. Paul's statement in Romans 4:6, that God "imputes righteousness apart from works," bolsters the fourth step in the argument that this righteousness of Christ is imputed to our accounts. By this terminology they mean that God legally credits the believer with the righteous acts that Christ performed while on this earth. Luther uses the language of a "fortunate exchange" to describe this, borrowed from Saint Paul's imagery in Colossians 3. Christ trades his "garments," holiness, righteousness, being blessed by God the Father, in exchange for human sin. This is really Good News for sinners - Christ takes our sin and believers receive his blessed condition and righteousness.

This righteousness of Christ and its relationship to the recipient can also be likened to adoption. Adoption legally constitutes a child the son or daughter of a person that is not that child's birth parent. Similarly, in marriage the married partners are considered one entity legally. When a sinner believes in Christ, they are spiritually united with Christ, and that union makes it possible for God to credit believers with the righteousness of Christ without engaging in "legal fiction."

drew
Sep 23rd 2008, 03:37 AM
IF we persevere, our deeds will reflect that. Those actions come from the heart and God will know and recognize that, giving us eternal life.

I don't see the problem.
I agree with what you say. But Paul says in 2:6-7 that eternal life will be granted according to what we have done. This means that when God looks at us on the last day, He does not see the allegedly imputed righteousness of Jesus, He sees the works that the Spirit has produced in our lives.

If by "imputed righteousness" you mean that "God gives us the Spirit and the Spirit produces good works", then we are on the same page. But that is not what most people means when they refer to imputed righteousness.

You watch. Most people are forced into the corner of admitting that they believe Romans 2:6-7 is a false statement - it is true of zero persons.

threebigrocks
Sep 23rd 2008, 03:43 AM
I agree with what you say. But Paul says in 2:6-7 that eternal life will be granted according to what we have done. This means that when God looks at us on the last day, He does not see the allegedly imputed righteousness of Jesus, He sees the works that the Spirit has produced in our lives.

If by "imputed righteousness" you mean that "God gives us the Spirit and the Spirit produces good works", then we are on the same page. But that is not what most people means when they refer to imputed righteousness.

You watch. Most people are forced into the corner of admitting that they believe Romans 2:6-7 is a false statement - it is true of zero persons.

No, imputed righteousness is as I said before - we are given the righteousness of Christ in faith. Because of faith we have hope in the promise of the resurrection to come, because of Christ. We are judged on our works, and will gain our own righteousness IF we persevere.

SIG
Sep 23rd 2008, 03:44 AM
Back to the OP:

I read this today in F.F. Bruce's Commentary on Romans, re "according to the Spirit of holiness" in 1:4:

"It is one and the same Son of God who appears as the earthly Jesus and as the heavenly Christ; but his Davidic descent, a matter of glory 'according to the flesh', is now seen nevertheless to belong to the phase of his humiliation, and to be absorbed and transcended by the surpassing glory of his exaltation, by which he has inaugurated the age of the Spirit."

I would rather call the "dispensation of grace" "the age of the Spirit," also. And I agree with Bruce that this began at Christ's exaltation, and was first manifested in believers at Pentecost.

drew
Sep 23rd 2008, 03:48 AM
If righteousness could be found, but not in Torah, then where else can it be found?
Paul tells us in Romans 2. And let's be clear - it is salvaition and righteousness that is on the line here:

God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202;&version=31;#fen-NIV-27954a)] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.
12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

Do you or do you not believe this? If you do, you are saying that "getting eternal life" is "according to what you have done" - please look at the wording of 2:6-7.

All I am saying is that we need take Paul at his word here - eternal life is granted according to the good deeds that the Spirit has generated in our lives. Do you believe otherwise?

drew
Sep 23rd 2008, 03:52 AM
No, imputed righteousness is as I said before - we are given the righteousness of Christ in faith. Because of faith we have hope in the promise of the resurrection to come, because of Christ. We are judged on our works, and will gain our own righteousness IF we persevere.
OK. What specific texts do you put forward in defence of your position

Romans 3 does not show imputation of Christ's righteousness - this has been demonstrated. Same with the Galatians 3 text and with 1 Cor 1:30 and 2 Cor 5:17.

If my arguments about these verses are wrong - and I have addressed each in detail -, then these arguments should be demonstrated as such.

So by all means, please take your best shot.

BroRog
Sep 23rd 2008, 03:55 AM
drew: "No texts support this notion of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer."

It would be indeed odd for both Martin Luther and John Calvin to hold this doctrine without Scriptural support.

From Wikipedia

"The case for imputed righteousness
Imputed righteousness is the Christian doctrine that a sinner being declared righteous by God is declared such purely by God's grace, without any merit or personal worthiness. On the one hand, God is infinitely merciful, "not wishing for any to perish, but for all to come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9). On the other, God is infinitely holy and just, which means that he cannot approve of or even look upon evil (Habakkuk 1:13), neither can he justify a wicked person (Book of Proverbs 17:15). Because the Bible describes all men as sinners and says that there are none who are righteous (Epistle to the Romans 3:23, 10) this is a classic theological tension. To use the words of the apostle Paul, how can God be "just and the justifier of those who believe (Rom. 3:26)?" Through this argument God cannot ignore or in any way overlook sin.

Adherents' say that God the Father resolves this problem by sending His Son to lead a perfect life and sacrifice himself for the sake of all people. Then the sins of the wicked person are cast onto Christ, who is a perfect sacrifice. First of all, they note that the New Testament describes the method of man's salvation as the "righteousness of God" (Rom. 3:21, 22; 10:3; Philippians 3:9). They then note that this imputed righteousness is particularly that of the second member of the Trinity, Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Corinthians 1:30). When they refer to the "imputed righteousness of Christ," they are referring to his life of sinlessness and perfect obedience to God's law on this earth, usually called his active obedience. The need for a human life of perfect obedience to God's law was the reason that Christ, who is God, had to become incarnate (take on human flesh) and live as a human being. Paul's statement in Romans 4:6, that God "imputes righteousness apart from works," bolsters the fourth step in the argument that this righteousness of Christ is imputed to our accounts. By this terminology they mean that God legally credits the believer with the righteous acts that Christ performed while on this earth. Luther uses the language of a "fortunate exchange" to describe this, borrowed from Saint Paul's imagery in Colossians 3. Christ trades his "garments," holiness, righteousness, being blessed by God the Father, in exchange for human sin. This is really Good News for sinners - Christ takes our sin and believers receive his blessed condition and righteousness.

This righteousness of Christ and its relationship to the recipient can also be likened to adoption. Adoption legally constitutes a child the son or daughter of a person that is not that child's birth parent. Similarly, in marriage the married partners are considered one entity legally. When a sinner believes in Christ, they are spiritually united with Christ, and that union makes it possible for God to credit believers with the righteousness of Christ without engaging in "legal fiction."

If, indeed, Wikipedia has faithfully spoken the teachings of Luther and Calvin in this regard, then Luther and Calvin were wrong. Righteousness is not imputed to us, but rather justifiedness was imputed to us.

SIG
Sep 23rd 2008, 04:06 AM
Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness
Jam 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

ananias
Sep 23rd 2008, 10:07 AM
Back to the OP:

I read this today in F.F. Bruce's Commentary on Romans, re "according to the Spirit of holiness" in 1:4:

"It is one and the same Son of God who appears as the earthly Jesus and as the heavenly Christ; but his Davidic descent, a matter of glory 'according to the flesh', is now seen nevertheless to belong to the phase of his humiliation, and to be absorbed and transcended by the surpassing glory of his exaltation, by which he has inaugurated the age of the Spirit."

I would rather call the "dispensation of grace" "the age of the Spirit," also. And I agree with Bruce that this began at Christ's exaltation, and was first manifested in believers at Pentecost.

Brilliant, SIG. Then we can truthfully say that "the dispensation of grace" began with God's gracious provision for man in the garden of Eden, and that the dispensation of grace manifested in mercy began at the time of the fall of man, and that the age of the Spirit of liberty began on the Day of Pentecost, after the sacrifice of the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world?

ananias

ananias
Sep 23rd 2008, 10:18 AM
... when God looks at us on the last day, He does not see the allegedly imputed righteousness of Jesus, He sees the works that the Spirit has produced in our lives.

When God looks at us on the last day, He sees the imputed righteousness of Jesus. If he did not see the imputed righteousness of Jesus, all He would see is our sin - and that would condemn us.

But now tell me, drew, what do you think: is the term "dispensation of grace" which is used with reference to the age which began on the Day of Pentecost after the sacrifice of the Passover Lamb of God a bit misleading? Wouldn't it be more accurate to call the current age "the age of the Spirit of liberty"?

ananias

Emanate
Sep 23rd 2008, 01:09 PM
Brilliant, SIG. Then we can truthfully say that "the dispensation of grace" began with God's gracious provision for man in the garden of Eden, and that the dispensation of grace manifested in mercy began at the time of the fall of man, and that the age of the Spirit of liberty began on the Day of Pentecost, after the sacrifice of the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world?

ananias


You mean the first Lamb and the first Shavuot?

ananias
Sep 23rd 2008, 02:08 PM
Originally Posted by ananias http://bibleforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php?p=1797919#post1797919)
Brilliant, SIG. Then we can truthfully say that "the dispensation of grace" began with God's gracious provision for man in the garden of Eden, and that the dispensation of grace manifested in mercy began at the time of the fall of man, and that the age of the Spirit of liberty began on the Day of Pentecost, after the sacrifice of the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world?

ananias


You mean the first Lamb and the first Shavuot?

We're talking about when the age of the Spirit of liberty began - not about when the age of remaining under Law began.

ananias

drew
Sep 23rd 2008, 02:12 PM
With respect to the wikipedia article, it is really just the statement of the imputation position. It appeals to texts whose support for the imputation position has already been argued against (e.g. 1 Cor 1:30 and 2 Cor 5:21). If anyone wants wants to challenge we "non-imputers" on specifics from that article, please do so.

drew
Sep 23rd 2008, 02:17 PM
Rom 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness
Jam 2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
I do not necessarily wish to speak for BroRog, but I have never denied that we are imputed a status of righteousness. I have denied we are imputed with Christ's righteousness. I agree with BroRog that it would be more correct to assert that we have been imputed a status of "justifiedness". This is an insightful distinction which I embrace.

The reader will note that however you want to describe or characterise the quantity that is imputed to us and the status we get as a result, the Romans 4 text above never states that we get Christ's righteousness.

The Romans 4 text above says a lot of interesting things, but it never states that we get Christ's own righteousness.

drew
Sep 23rd 2008, 02:29 PM
When God looks at us on the last day, He sees the imputed righteousness of Jesus. If he did not see the imputed righteousness of Jesus, all He would see is our sin - and that would condemn us.
What texts do you provide in defence of this position? 1 Cor 1:30? That text, if read as denoting imputation of Christ's righteousness to all believers, also demands that we conclude that all believers have been imputed other attributes which we obviously do not have. That throws the imputation reading into severe question. 2 cor 5:21? That text is not about imputed righteousness but how we, as ambassadors, become the foot-soldiers that carry out God's covenant faithfulness.

So I ask: What texts do you put forward in defence of the imputation position?

And your assertion that "when God looks at us on the last day, He sees the imputed righteousness of Jesus" seems to conflict with this assertion of Paul about the basis for ultimate salvation:

6God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202&version=31#fen-NIV-27954a)] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life

How do you reconcile your statement with the above statement from Paul?


But now tell me, drew, what do you think: is the term "dispensation of grace" which is used with reference to the age which began on the Day of Pentecost after the sacrifice of the Passover Lamb of God a bit misleading? Wouldn't it be more accurate to call the current age "the age of the Spirit of liberty"?
I do not think the term "dispensation of grace is misleading". The "good works" that justify at the last day (Romans 2:6-13) are effectively a gift from God - they are the product of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. So while these good works are carried out by "us", the engine that drives them, and is due all credit for them, is the Holy Spirit, given to us by an act of sheer grace.

So the position that I am defending here is really consistent with the notion of grace.

Emanate
Sep 23rd 2008, 03:26 PM
We're talking about when the age of the Spirit of liberty began - not about when the age of remaining under Law began.

ananias


So deliverance from the bondage of Egypt brought no liberty? You are suggesting there is no Liberty in the Law of YHWH? You are confusing Liberty with Anarchy.

ananias
Sep 23rd 2008, 03:36 PM
So deliverance from the bondage of Egypt brought no liberty? You are suggesting there is no Liberty in the Law of YHWH? You are confusing Liberty with Anarchy.

O.k, O.K. Correct me if you MUST :)

ananias

keck553
Sep 23rd 2008, 03:40 PM
So deliverance from the bondage of Egypt brought no liberty? You are suggesting there is no Liberty in the Law of YHWH? You are confusing Liberty with Anarchy.

Exactly. God freed the Hebrews before He sanctified them with Torah. Just as He does with us through Yeshua. God doesn't change.

SIG
Sep 23rd 2008, 09:56 PM
Brilliant, SIG. Then we can truthfully say that "the dispensation of grace" began with God's gracious provision for man in the garden of Eden, and that the dispensation of grace manifested in mercy began at the time of the fall of man, and that the age of the Spirit of liberty began on the Day of Pentecost, after the sacrifice of the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world?

ananias

To avoid (further) hair-splitting, I would say "yes." Names, labels, and words are often, if not usually, inadequate...

SIG
Sep 23rd 2008, 10:01 PM
With respect to the wikipedia article, it is really just the statement of the imputation position. It appeals to texts whose support for the imputation position has already been argued against (e.g. 1 Cor 1:30 and 2 Cor 5:21). If anyone wants wants to challenge we "non-imputers" on specifics from that article, please do so.

The article also includes arguments against imputed righteousness.

For me, it's a non-issue. I never believe I conditionally have the righteousness of Christ; though I do believe I have it positionally. In either case, if I'm assured I'll be with Christ in Heaven, I'm content.

watchinginawe
Sep 24th 2008, 12:30 AM
Back to the OP:

I read this today in F.F. Bruce's Commentary on Romans, re "according to the Spirit of holiness" in 1:4:

"It is one and the same Son of God who appears as the earthly Jesus and as the heavenly Christ; but his Davidic descent, a matter of glory 'according to the flesh', is now seen nevertheless to belong to the phase of his humiliation, and to be absorbed and transcended by the surpassing glory of his exaltation, by which he has inaugurated the age of the Spirit."

I would rather call the "dispensation of grace" "the age of the Spirit," also. And I agree with Bruce that this began at Christ's exaltation, and was first manifested in believers at Pentecost.I think part of the problem with the ideas here (here being in the thread) are that "the" dispensation of grace is being equated as the only one, an exclusive one. I think "the" fits where "the age of the Spirit" is concerned though. So, I would modify the above to: "I would rather call this "dispensation of grace" "the age of the Spirit". There is something particular about this dispensation of grace.

God Bless!

BroRog
Sep 24th 2008, 01:29 AM
When God looks at us on the last day, He sees the imputed righteousness of Jesus. If he did not see the imputed righteousness of Jesus, all He would see is our sin - and that would condemn us.

ananias

This would be true under the assumption that every act of injustice must be met with a fitting punishment -- an eye for an eye for example. The forensic model of God's righteousness, the one Luther and Calvin accepted, is predicated on a form of justice that assumes every act of injustice must be punished.

However, what if Paul knew another kind of forensic justice in which the crime did not necessarily require punishment, retribution or redress?

As I understand it, the Roman courts were not like the British/American courts in which each crime or injustice must be punished in which the idea of court is to bring two parties back into judicial equilibrium.

For instance, suppose I get mad at my neighbor and hit him in the head with a baseball. In the American courts (if I am not arrested for assault) my neighbor has the option to sue me. The court compels my attendance to face my neighbor and the evidence against me and accept such punishment my neighbor, the law or the judge will want to inflict, partly as a punishment, partly as a deterrent, but mostly as a recompense for my neighbor.

In the Roman courts, once the matter of my guilt has been established, the judge has, not only the obligation to seek retribution for my neighbor, but in many cases, to seek a way that will bring reconciliation between me and my neighbor. The judge is allowed to ask my neighbor, "what will it take to satisfy you and bring peace between you and the defendant?" He could ask for a hundred bucks, or he could simply ask for an apology. In a Roman court, the fact that I committed assault on my neighbor, perhaps in a fit of rage, doesn't necessarily obligate the court to punish me. If my neighbor desires to find a way to reestablish a righteous relationship with me, the court can let me go without punishment. It simply becomes a matter of what it would take from me to put me back into a right relationship with my neighbor.

I might repent and ask my neighbor to forgive me before we get to court. I might explain that at the time I really wanted to hit him on purpose, but now, I repudiate what I did, acknowledge it was wrong, and wish to deeply and sincerely apologize. My neighbor is free to say, "okay, I accept your apology and believe you really have repented and plan to never do it again. I want to continue to be your neighbor and live in peace."

Now, I wasn't "in the right" to hit him. In terms of forensic justice, I was "in the wrong" to hit him. And after my trial the court will declare me to be "in the wrong" with respect to a standard of morality. But due to my conversation with my neighbor, my repentance, and his forgiveness, my neighbor declared me to be "in the right" with him. With respect to a moral code, I am in the wrong; but with respect to my relationship with my neighbor, I have returned to a right relationship with him.

The word the Greeks used to express this idea is "dikaios". Though I deserved to be punished and my neighbor derserves redress for what I did, my neighbor is free to declare me "dikaios" (in a right relation to) him. With respect to a moral standard, I was "a-dikaios" (unrighteous) to hit my neighbor, but with repect to my wish to be at peace with my neighbor and his wish to forgive me, I am "dikaios" (in a right relationship with) my neighbor.

When Paul says that Abraham was "justified" by faith, he means Abraham became "dikaios" with God in the sense that God declared that Abraham and he were in a "right relationship" with each other. Paul isn't saying that Abraham was "in the right" with respect to a moral standard. And he isn't saying that God put on Jesus glasses so that when he looked Abraham's way, he actually saw Jesus instead. He is simply saying that Abraham's faith became the bases on which God was willing to accept Abraham as having a right relation to him.

In God's form of justice, sin doesn't automatically require punitive action. It isn't as if the fabric of the universe will be irreparably damaged if God lets a sin go unpunished. In his universe, God is free to accept a person on his own terms and to declare that person, "in the right" with respect to his relationship with that person without inflicting punishment on them.

Emanate
Sep 24th 2008, 07:06 AM
This would be true under the assumption that every act of injustice must be met with a fitting punishment -- an eye for an eye for example. The forensic model of God's righteousness, the one Luther and Calvin accepted, is predicated on a form of justice that assumes every act of injustice must be punished.

However, what if Paul knew another kind of forensic justice in which the crime did not necessarily require punishment, retribution or redress?

As I understand it, the Roman courts were not like the British/American courts in which each crime or injustice must be punished in which the idea of court is to bring two parties back into judicial equilibrium.

For instance, suppose I get mad at my neighbor and hit him in the head with a baseball. In the American courts (if I am not arrested for assault) my neighbor has the option to sue me. The court compels my attendance to face my neighbor and the evidence against me and accept such punishment my neighbor, the law or the judge will want to inflict, partly as a punishment, partly as a deterrent, but mostly as a recompense for my neighbor.

In the Roman courts, once the matter of my guilt has been established, the judge has, not only the obligation to seek retribution for my neighbor, but in many cases, to seek a way that will bring reconciliation between me and my neighbor. The judge is allowed to ask my neighbor, "what will it take to satisfy you and bring peace between you and the defendant?" He could ask for a hundred bucks, or he could simply ask for an apology. In a Roman court, the fact that I committed assault on my neighbor, perhaps in a fit of rage, doesn't necessarily obligate the court to punish me. If my neighbor desires to find a way to reestablish a righteous relationship with me, the court can let me go without punishment. It simply becomes a matter of what it would take from me to put me back into a right relationship with my neighbor.

I might repent and ask my neighbor to forgive me before we get to court. I might explain that at the time I really wanted to hit him on purpose, but now, I repudiate what I did, acknowledge it was wrong, and wish to deeply and sincerely apologize. My neighbor is free to say, "okay, I accept your apology and believe you really have repented and plan to never do it again. I want to continue to be your neighbor and live in peace."

Now, I wasn't "in the right" to hit him. In terms of forensic justice, I was "in the wrong" to hit him. And after my trial the court will declare me to be "in the wrong" with respect to a standard of morality. But due to my conversation with my neighbor, my repentance, and his forgiveness, my neighbor declared me to be "in the right" with him. With respect to a moral code, I am in the wrong; but with respect to my relationship with my neighbor, I have returned to a right relationship with him.

The word the Greeks used to express this idea is "dikaios". Though I deserved to be punished and my neighbor derserves redress for what I did, my neighbor is free to declare me "dikaios" (in a right relation to) him. With respect to a moral standard, I was "a-dikaios" (unrighteous) to hit my neighbor, but with repect to my wish to be at peace with my neighbor and his wish to forgive me, I am "dikaios" (in a right relationship with) my neighbor.

When Paul says that Abraham was "justified" by faith, he means Abraham became "dikaios" with God in the sense that God declared that Abraham and he were in a "right relationship" with each other. Paul isn't saying that Abraham was "in the right" with respect to a moral standard. And he isn't saying that God put on Jesus glasses so that when he looked Abraham's way, he actually saw Jesus instead. He is simply saying that Abraham's faith became the bases on which God was willing to accept Abraham as having a right relation to him.

In God's form of justice, sin doesn't automatically require punitive action. It isn't as if the fabric of the universe will be irreparably damaged if God lets a sin go unpunished. In his universe, God is free to accept a person on his own terms and to declare that person, "in the right" with respect to his relationship with that person without inflicting punishment on them.


In other words, Saul taught a Hebraic mindset based in Torah.

drew
Sep 24th 2008, 02:45 PM
When Paul says that Abraham was "justified" by faith, he means Abraham became "dikaios" with God in the sense that God declared that Abraham and he were in a "right relationship" with each other. Paul isn't saying that Abraham was "in the right" with respect to a moral standard. And he isn't saying that God put on Jesus glasses so that when he looked Abraham's way, he actually saw Jesus instead. He is simply saying that Abraham's faith became the bases on which God was willing to accept Abraham as having a right relation to him.

In God's form of justice, sin doesn't automatically require punitive action. It isn't as if the fabric of the universe will be irreparably damaged if God lets a sin go unpunished. In his universe, God is free to accept a person on his own terms and to declare that person, "in the right" with respect to his relationship with that person without inflicting punishment on them.
I agree. History and cultural context matter, even if this makes work for us. I think that ignoring the cultural context from which the Scriptures spring has lead us to error with respect to such issues as the "immortality of the soul". I submit that the belief in the immortality of the soul never was a Hebrew belief and we (in the west) only believe it because "we read the Hebrew scriptures through Platonic lenses". But that's another debate.

I think that BroRog's argument here is another reason why we can take Paul seriously in Romans 2 when he speaks of ultimate justification by "good works". We do not need to be perfect to meet the Romans 2 standard.

On a related note, and I am not sure whether you will agree here, I think that a common error we make (especially in the Reformed tradition?) is to see the forensic metaphor as primary. I am convinced by arguments that Paul's primary framework for explaining the righteous of God is covenantal.

So, for Paul, being "justified" is primarily not a declaration of one's lawcourt status, it is primarily the declaration that a person is a true member of the covenant (the Abrahamic covenant). Same thing (maybe) with "righteousness".

ananias
Sep 24th 2008, 07:12 PM
I think part of the problem with the ideas here (here being in the thread) are that "the" dispensation of grace is being equated as the only one, an exclusive one.

I think "the" fits where "the age of the Spirit" is concerned though. So, I would modify the above to: "I would rather call this "dispensation of grace" "the age of the Spirit". There is something particular about this dispensation of grace.

God Bless!

Agreed! (I'm learning as we go along here) :)

ananias

ananias
Sep 24th 2008, 07:31 PM
This would be true under the assumption that every act of injustice must be met with a fitting punishment -- an eye for an eye for example. The forensic model of God's righteousness, the one Luther and Calvin accepted, is predicated on a form of justice that assumes every act of injustice must be punished.

However, what if Paul knew another kind of forensic justice in which the crime did not necessarily require punishment, retribution or redress?

As I understand it, the Roman courts were not like the British/American courts in which each crime or injustice must be punished in which the idea of court is to bring two parties back into judicial equilibrium.

For instance, suppose I get mad at my neighbor and hit him in the head with a baseball. In the American courts (if I am not arrested for assault) my neighbor has the option to sue me. The court compels my attendance to face my neighbor and the evidence against me and accept such punishment my neighbor, the law or the judge will want to inflict, partly as a punishment, partly as a deterrent, but mostly as a recompense for my neighbor.

In the Roman courts, once the matter of my guilt has been established, the judge has, not only the obligation to seek retribution for my neighbor, but in many cases, to seek a way that will bring reconciliation between me and my neighbor. The judge is allowed to ask my neighbor, "what will it take to satisfy you and bring peace between you and the defendant?" He could ask for a hundred bucks, or he could simply ask for an apology. In a Roman court, the fact that I committed assault on my neighbor, perhaps in a fit of rage, doesn't necessarily obligate the court to punish me. If my neighbor desires to find a way to reestablish a righteous relationship with me, the court can let me go without punishment. It simply becomes a matter of what it would take from me to put me back into a right relationship with my neighbor.

I might repent and ask my neighbor to forgive me before we get to court. I might explain that at the time I really wanted to hit him on purpose, but now, I repudiate what I did, acknowledge it was wrong, and wish to deeply and sincerely apologize. My neighbor is free to say, "okay, I accept your apology and believe you really have repented and plan to never do it again. I want to continue to be your neighbor and live in peace."

Now, I wasn't "in the right" to hit him. In terms of forensic justice, I was "in the wrong" to hit him. And after my trial the court will declare me to be "in the wrong" with respect to a standard of morality. But due to my conversation with my neighbor, my repentance, and his forgiveness, my neighbor declared me to be "in the right" with him. With respect to a moral code, I am in the wrong; but with respect to my relationship with my neighbor, I have returned to a right relationship with him.

The word the Greeks used to express this idea is "dikaios". Though I deserved to be punished and my neighbor derserves redress for what I did, my neighbor is free to declare me "dikaios" (in a right relation to) him. With respect to a moral standard, I was "a-dikaios" (unrighteous) to hit my neighbor, but with repect to my wish to be at peace with my neighbor and his wish to forgive me, I am "dikaios" (in a right relationship with) my neighbor.

When Paul says that Abraham was "justified" by faith, he means Abraham became "dikaios" with God in the sense that God declared that Abraham and he were in a "right relationship" with each other. Paul isn't saying that Abraham was "in the right" with respect to a moral standard. And he isn't saying that God put on Jesus glasses so that when he looked Abraham's way, he actually saw Jesus instead. He is simply saying that Abraham's faith became the bases on which God was willing to accept Abraham as having a right relation to him.

In God's form of justice, sin doesn't automatically require punitive action. It isn't as if the fabric of the universe will be irreparably damaged if God lets a sin go unpunished. In his universe, God is free to accept a person on his own terms and to declare that person, "in the right" with respect to his relationship with that person without inflicting punishment on them.

I found this very, very interesting and useful information. Thanks, Brorog. :pp

BUT - it's brought other questions to my mind:

(1) Since God is Holy, He cannot allow sin to dwell in His presence.

Mankind - whichever part of it - which gets to dwell eternally with God (as opposed to being cast outside for all eternity) - must be 100% righteous in order to dwell eternally with God.

The last Adam represents all those who are born again and are found IN HIM - therefore since fallen man isn't righteous - he must be clothed with the righteousness of the last Adam - and this must include Abraham, Noah, Seth, Moses, Isaiah - they were not 100% righteous - it was not Abraham's "righteousness" which was imputed to him for righteousness - it was his faith in the Word of God which was imputed to him for righteousness.

So Abraham MUST be clothed with Christ's righteousness in order to dwell eternally in the presence of a Holy God.

(2) If God only punishes some sins, which sins are/were punished when Jesus shed His blood for the forgiveness of sins?

(3) Why did God add, after He said to Moses, "The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin,

... and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation." (Exo.34: 6-7).

Sorry if I'm making this complicated, but though what you said makes sense, yet it's not all adding up for me :help:.

ananias

petepet
Sep 24th 2008, 07:47 PM
This would be true under the assumption that every act of injustice must be met with a fitting punishment -- an eye for an eye for example. The forensic model of God's righteousness, the one Luther and Calvin accepted, is predicated on a form of justice that assumes every act of injustice must be punished.

However, what if Paul knew another kind of forensic justice in which the crime did not necessarily require punishment, retribution or redress?

As I understand it, the Roman courts were not like the British/American courts in which each crime or injustice must be punished in which the idea of court is to bring two parties back into judicial equilibrium.

For instance, suppose I get mad at my neighbor and hit him in the head with a baseball. In the American courts (if I am not arrested for assault) my neighbor has the option to sue me. The court compels my attendance to face my neighbor and the evidence against me and accept such punishment my neighbor, the law or the judge will want to inflict, partly as a punishment, partly as a deterrent, but mostly as a recompense for my neighbor.

In the Roman courts, once the matter of my guilt has been established, the judge has, not only the obligation to seek retribution for my neighbor, but in many cases, to seek a way that will bring reconciliation between me and my neighbor. The judge is allowed to ask my neighbor, "what will it take to satisfy you and bring peace between you and the defendant?" He could ask for a hundred bucks, or he could simply ask for an apology. In a Roman court, the fact that I committed assault on my neighbor, perhaps in a fit of rage, doesn't necessarily obligate the court to punish me. If my neighbor desires to find a way to reestablish a righteous relationship with me, the court can let me go without punishment. It simply becomes a matter of what it would take from me to put me back into a right relationship with my neighbor.

I might repent and ask my neighbor to forgive me before we get to court. I might explain that at the time I really wanted to hit him on purpose, but now, I repudiate what I did, acknowledge it was wrong, and wish to deeply and sincerely apologize. My neighbor is free to say, "okay, I accept your apology and believe you really have repented and plan to never do it again. I want to continue to be your neighbor and live in peace."

Now, I wasn't "in the right" to hit him. In terms of forensic justice, I was "in the wrong" to hit him. And after my trial the court will declare me to be "in the wrong" with respect to a standard of morality. But due to my conversation with my neighbor, my repentance, and his forgiveness, my neighbor declared me to be "in the right" with him. With respect to a moral code, I am in the wrong; but with respect to my relationship with my neighbor, I have returned to a right relationship with him.

The word the Greeks used to express this idea is "dikaios". Though I deserved to be punished and my neighbor derserves redress for what I did, my neighbor is free to declare me "dikaios" (in a right relation to) him. With respect to a moral standard, I was "a-dikaios" (unrighteous) to hit my neighbor, but with repect to my wish to be at peace with my neighbor and his wish to forgive me, I am "dikaios" (in a right relationship with) my neighbor.

When Paul says that Abraham was "justified" by faith, he means Abraham became "dikaios" with God in the sense that God declared that Abraham and he were in a "right relationship" with each other. Paul isn't saying that Abraham was "in the right" with respect to a moral standard. And he isn't saying that God put on Jesus glasses so that when he looked Abraham's way, he actually saw Jesus instead. He is simply saying that Abraham's faith became the bases on which God was willing to accept Abraham as having a right relation to him.

In God's form of justice, sin doesn't automatically require punitive action. It isn't as if the fabric of the universe will be irreparably damaged if God lets a sin go unpunished. In his universe, God is free to accept a person on his own terms and to declare that person, "in the right" with respect to his relationship with that person without inflicting punishment on them.

I suggest that if you were brought before a Roman court for rebellion (which is the charge against us), it would not be dealt with as though it was a civil court (which is what you are describing). You would be found guilty or innocent. The only way to be justified would be by being seen as righteous.

Paul make that quite clear in Romans 3.10-20.

You really cannot take Roman civil law courts and then suggest that God is bound by Roman civil law. If you want to compare them you must do it on the basis of Roman criminal law. And God is not bound by that either.

As someone else has pointed out we are dealing with ancient covenant law, and under ancient covenant law all depended on obedience to the covenant. To disobey the covenant was to be guilty of transgression. And that meant punishment for breach of covenant which was death. The only way to escape that penalty was to be demonstrated as righteous. That is why (nothing to do with Calvin and Luther) unless we can be clothed in Christ's righteousness we will be found to be covenant breakers and condemned. As Moses says God will by no means clear the guilty.

There is actually no other form of justice. Roman civil courts did not dispense justice they acted as arbitrators. Justice requires punishment or vindication. And God is just.

That is why if God is to be just and the justifier of those who believe in Jesus it must be by imputed rightousness. There is no other way. The ungodly have to be 'accounted righteous'.

ananias
Sep 24th 2008, 07:53 PM
I suggest that if you were brought before a Roman court for rebellion (which is the charge against us), it would not be dealt with as though it was a civil court (which is what you are describing). You would be found guilty or innocent. The only way to be justified would be by being seen as righteous.

Paul make that quite clear in Romans 3.10-20.

You really cannot take Roman civil law courts and then suggest that God is bound by Roman civil law. If you want to compare them you must do it on the basis of Roman criminal law. And God is not bound by that either.

As someone else has pointed out we are dealing with ancient covenant law, and under ancient covenant law all depended on obedience to the covenant. To disobey the covenant was to be guilty of transgression. And that meant punishment for breach of covenant which was death. The only way to escape that penalty was to be demonstrated as righteous. That is why (nothing to do with Calvin and Luther) unless we can be clothed in Christ's righteousness we will be found to be covenant breakers and condemned. As Moses says God will by no means clear the guilty.

There is actually no other form of justice. Roman civil courts did not dispense justice they acted as arbitrators. Justice requires punishment or vindication. And God is just.

That is why if God is to be just and the justifier of those who believe in Jesus it must be by imputed rightousness. There is no other way. The ungodly have to be 'accounted righteous'.

I agree with what Petepet has said here. Jesus died for all sin - not just some sins.

ananias

petepet
Sep 24th 2008, 07:55 PM
I agree. History and cultural context matter, even if this makes work for us. I think that ignoring the cultural context from which the Scriptures spring has lead us to error with respect to such issues as the "immortality of the soul". I submit that the belief in the immortality of the soul never was a Hebrew belief and we (in the west) only believe it because "we read the Hebrew scriptures through Platonic lenses". But that's another debate.

I think that BroRog's argument here is another reason why we can take Paul seriously in Romans 2 when he speaks of ultimate justification by "good works". We do not need to be perfect to meet the Romans 2 standard.

What a strange statement. Of course we hve to be perfect to meet the Romans 2 standard. It demands righteousness, either our own or another's.

On a related note, and I am not sure whether you will agree here, I think that a common error we make (especially in the Reformed tradition?) is to see the forensic metaphor as primary. I am convinced by arguments that Paul's primary framework for explaining the righteous of God is covenantal.

So, for Paul, being "justified" is primarily not a declaration of one's lawcourt status, it is primarily the declaration that a person is a true member of the covenant (the Abrahamic covenant). Same thing (maybe) with "righteousness".

Covenant was more strict than you make it. The whole point of covenant was that breach of it resulted in death. That is why there had to the death of substitutes in the sin offerings. That is why there had to be propitiation. Being justified was a dcelaration of having been FULLY OBEDIENT to the covenant. Nothing less would do. It is thus very little different from forensic justification.

drew
Sep 24th 2008, 08:17 PM
Covenant was more strict than you make it. The whole point of covenant was that breach of it resulted in death. That is why there had to the death of substitutes in the sin offerings. That is why there had to be propitiation. Being justified was a dcelaration of having been FULLY OBEDIENT to the covenant. Nothing less would do. It is thus very little different from forensic justification.
I do not presently have the time to fully address your post. However, I will trot out my old friend, Romans 2:6-13:

God "will give to each person according to what he has done."[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%202;&version=31;#fen-NIV-27954a)] 7To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11For God does not show favoritism.
12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.

Paul is explaining the grounds or basis for final justification. If we think that "perfect sinlessness" is required, then nobody is going to "make it".

And I suspect that many of you will "Exactly, Paul, in Romans 2, is giving us an account of how we could be justified by "good works", but elsewhere he tells us that this is impossible."

But the fatal flaw of that position is that is effectively boils down to a claim that Paul is wrong in his assertions of the 2:6-13 block. But Paul never says anywhere in the vicinity of Romans 2 anything at all of the form "I am now going to tell you how you would be justified if you could be justified".

Paul means what he says. And we have to take Romans 2:6-13 as factual. Accordingly, there is indeed a way for us to get "to heaven" without "being perfect".

keck553
Sep 24th 2008, 08:34 PM
Not to stir the pot..but

Luk 1:5 In the days of Herod the king of Judea, there was a certain priest named Zacharias, of the daily course of Abijah. And his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.
Luk 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking blameless in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord.

Now, which justified them? Their faith that was counted as righteousness or their blameless obedience to Torah?

Can anyone answer this with Scripture and not opinion?

ananias
Sep 24th 2008, 09:33 PM
Not to stir the pot..but

Luk 1:5 In the days of Herod the king of Judea, there was a certain priest named Zacharias, of the daily course of Abijah. And his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.
Luk 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking blameless in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord.

Now, which justified them? Their faith that was counted as righteousness or their blameless obedience to Torah?

Can anyone answer this with Scripture and not opinion?

"as it is written: "There is none righteous, no not one;" (Rom.3:10).

"What then? Do we excel? No, in no way; for we have before charged both Jews and Greeks all with being under sin," (Rom 3:9)

"for all have sinned and come short of the glory of God," (Rom.3: 23).

Emanate
Sep 24th 2008, 11:51 PM
Not to stir the pot..but

Luk 1:5 In the days of Herod the king of Judea, there was a certain priest named Zacharias, of the daily course of Abijah. And his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.
Luk 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking blameless in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord.

Now, which justified them? Their faith that was counted as righteousness or their blameless obedience to Torah?

Can anyone answer this with Scripture and not opinion?


come on, you know the asnwer.

watchinginawe
Sep 25th 2008, 12:18 AM
Not to stir the pot..but

Luk 1:5 In the days of Herod the king of Judea, there was a certain priest named Zacharias, of the daily course of Abijah. And his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.
Luk 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking blameless in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord.

Now, which justified them? Their faith that was counted as righteousness or their blameless obedience to Torah?

Can anyone answer this with Scripture and not opinion?A good question with regard to this thread and I agree about letting scripture answer. I will offer Paul's words on the matter:

Philippians 3:6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.

8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

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

10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;

11 If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.

God Bless!

Atwood
Apr 28th 2014, 03:41 PM
Adam and Eve's provision in the garden of Eden was God's provision of grace for mankind.

Gen.3: 15 speaks about the beginning of the dispensation of grace:

"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He will bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel." (Gen. 3:15).

This promise was fulfilled by the Lord Jesus Christ:

"For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Mat.26: 28).

God's grace and God's judgment was manifested by God's shutting of the door of the ark - sealing grace for the redeemed family within, and judgment for all the families outside.

God's grace was manifested through the birth of Isaac, and again when through the intercession of Moses, God relented of the destruction of all Israel. And God's grace was manifested through Cyrus of Persia's edict to release the captive Jews and by Artaxerxes Longimanus's later edict to reconstruct the walls of Jerusalem - the beginning of the 70 "weeks" of Daniel's 70 "weeks" prophecy.

The Dispensation of Law, said Paul, was temporary - and Paul said that the Law was ADDED:

"Why then the Law? It was added because of transgressions, until the Seed should come to those to whom it had been promised, being ordained through angels in the Mediator's hand." (Gal.3: 19).

What was the Law added to? And when did "the Dispensation of grace" REALLY begin?

ananias

"Dispensation" implies some group of temporary rules for limited persons and time period. Grace is an attribute of God, which IMHO motivated the creation of man, so it could be displayed. So GRACE is not a dispensation as such, unless the creation of man and man's history is manifests that dispensation.

However, the term may be used for a period of time in which God is particularly more gracious than in some other era. As in the law came by Moses, grace . . . by Jesus Christ. Some may call the Church Age (yet future in Mat 16) the Age of Grace or Dispensation of Grace on the grounds that the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, followed by our incorporation into the Body of Christ, and being indwelled by the Spirit permanently -- the Dispensation of Grace as compared to the Law, which stimulated sin (when the Law came sin revived) and condemned.

I, myself, don't call the Church Age the Age of Grace or Dispensation of Grace to avoid the inference that grace began with the Church. Indeed, the Scofield Reference Bible has an act of grace at the start of every dispensation (at least after the fall), in a cyclical view of history (Grace, Responsibility, Failure, Judgment repeating over and over).

John 8:32
May 1st 2014, 07:19 PM
So when Paul says the Law was ADDED, what does he mean? To what was the Law added? The Law could surely not be added to grace? Grace is grace and the Law is the Law.

ananias

The Law that was added was the Law of sacrifices...

Deu 5:22 These words the LORD spake unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice: and he added no more. And he wrote them in two tables of stone, and delivered them unto me.

Jer 7:22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
Jer 7:23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.
Jer 7:24 But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward.

The Law of Sacrifices was a teacher to show the coming perfect Sacrifice...

Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Gal 3:23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Gal 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Gal 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

Before Christ, the Sacrifices foreshadowed Him...

Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
Heb 10:2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.
Heb 10:3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.
Heb 10:4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.
Heb 10:5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
Heb 10:6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.
Heb 10:7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Heb 10:8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;
Heb 10:9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Heb 10:10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

Notice how many times Sacrifices are mentioned or alluded to in this chapter? This is the Law that was added.

The Ten Commandments were around at the time of Adam and Eve...

Gen 4:7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Paul shows us that the Law had to be around then...

Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.

Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Yet we see sin mentioned in Gen 4. So what was added? The Law of Sacrifices. What was it added to? The Old Covenant. Is it still in effect today. Yes. Hebrews 10 shows that what changed was the Sacrifice. The Law changed but was not done away, sin still requires blood (Heb 9:22), Christ shed His to be the perfect sacrifice.

LandShark
May 1st 2014, 08:24 PM
The dispensation of Grace began when God had to kill an animal (as a substitute for the wages of sin) to cover Adam and Eve with it's skin.

You could even take a step back and say "when man was formed from the dust of the earth." We did nothing to earn creation, He certainly didn't NEED to create us, but did. One could argue that act is grace. Peace!

percho
May 2nd 2014, 03:36 PM
My thoughts.

For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, Titus 2:11 Appeared, point in time into future, grace relative to salvation.
Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered. 1 Peter 3:7 Grace of life there has to be eternal life for they are heirs and had it been temporal life that they already had. Therefore the grace of God is relative to, eternal life.

At what point in time was eternal salvation authored by the grace of God?

And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec. Hebrews 5:9,10
Christ glorified not himself to be made high priest. When was he made high priest? When was he made perfect? When did God, his Father answer his prayer and give him glory?
1 Peter 3:21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. Heb 5:5,6 Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.Col. 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. Gal. 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;

The dispensation of the grace of God begin, when God the Father Raised Jesus his Son from the dead making him perfect.

Fenris
May 2nd 2014, 03:41 PM
I have another question. When did the biblical laws cease to be in effect?

percho
May 2nd 2014, 04:00 PM
I have another question. When did the biblical laws cease to be in effect?

Never and never will.

Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good. Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; (the law, added by me) that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. Romans 7:12,13

Showing us that we need the grace of God, found in the resurrected from the dead Christ, for life. When that life is applied to our mortal bodies and we have been conformed to the image of the Son of God Rom 8:29 the firstborn from the dead Col 1:18 and he is then the firstborn among many brethren Rom 8:29 we will sin no more 1 John 3:9 because the laws will be in us Heb 8:10.

We will have inherited the same glory that Jesus the Christ inherited.

dan p
Jul 21st 2017, 10:18 PM
Adam and Eve's provision in the garden of Eden was God's provision of grace for mankind.

Gen.3: 15 speaks about the beginning of the dispensation of grace:

"And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He will bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel." (Gen. 3:15).

This promise was fulfilled by the Lord Jesus Christ:

"For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." (Mat.26: 28).

God's grace and God's judgment was manifested by God's shutting of the door of the ark - sealing grace for the redeemed family within, and judgment for all the families outside.

God's grace was manifested through the birth of Isaac, and again when through the intercession of Moses, God relented of the destruction of all Israel. And God's grace was manifested through Cyrus of Persia's edict to release the captive Jews and by Artaxerxes Longimanus's later edict to reconstruct the walls of Jerusalem - the beginning of the 70 "weeks" of Daniel's 70 "weeks" prophecy.

The Dispensation of Law, said Paul, was temporary - and Paul said that the Law was ADDED:

"Why then the Law? It was added because of transgressions, until the Seed should come to those to whom it had been promised, being ordained through angels in the Mediator's hand." (Gal.3: 19).

What was the Law added to? And when did "the Dispensation of grace" REALLY begin?

ananias



Hi and the DISPENSATION of Grace began with the salvation of the FIRST / PROTO man saved by Grace in Acts 9:6 !!

OIKONOMIA is a Greek compound word , OIKOS wjich means HOUSE and NOMOS which means LAW and than means HOUSE RULE !!

See Rom 16:25 and 26 and Col 1 :25 and 26 !!~

dan p

randyk
Jul 23rd 2017, 05:13 AM
Hi and the DISPENSATION of Grace began with the salvation of the FIRST / PROTO man saved by Grace in Acts 9:6 !!

OIKONOMIA is a Greek compound word , OIKOS wjich means HOUSE and NOMOS which means LAW and than means HOUSE RULE !!

See Rom 16:25 and 26 and Col 1 :25 and 26 !!~

dan p

I think there is a little semantics problems going on here, although I haven't read much of this thread. I'm just responding to the recent post, and the general idea of *when* Grace began. So Grace began, of course, at the beginning, and continued in the Law. Forgiveness was *huge* under the Law. And of course Grace was also *huge* in the NT.

But this is just grace itself, which means a kind of unmerited kindness shown us by God. There is also what's called the "dispensation of Grace," which is none other than the initiation of the NT era. It certainly did have a different arrangement, with different laws, and a different outcome.

The NT dispensation has Jesus' laws, as opposed to 613 laws of Moses. It has *eternal grace,* and not just temporary forgiveness such as was under the Law. And it began with the death of Jesus, ending the temple, priesthood, and sacrifices.

So the dispensation of Grace had a beginning point at Christ's death and resurrection. His death put to an end the legal system of Moses. It ended the temple, the priesthood, and the sacrifices. But it did not end the spirituality of God, nor the morality required of man. Jesus restored this by Grace of a different kind. It was eternal Grace because it eternally forgave those who came under this new contract between God and man. And it did not rely on the flawed record of sinful men, but rather, on the sinless record of Christ.

And so the era of NT Grace is different than just simple divine Grace, which has always been around--even under the Law. But NT Grace is different from the Law in that it does not depend on the 613 commandments of the Law, and does not rely on the flawed record of mankind. Resting on the flawless record of Christ it represents eternal forgiveness, based on the perfect spirituality of Christ, which is given to his followers based on their willingness to receive it and live by it. The new commandments of Christ, therefore, do not require following the Law of Moses, but rather, the spirituality of Christ as exemplified in his human life.

Even though Christ ministered in Israel before his death the eternal Grace he was to initiate had not yet begun. He had to die, to bring a complete end to the covenant of Law in order to initiate a new covenant that would be good for all sin, including for the sin of pagan Gentiles.

Daniel567
Jul 23rd 2017, 05:53 AM
The dispensation of Grace began when God had to kill an animal (as a substitute for the wages of sin) to cover Adam and Eve with it's skin.
What if we were to take that further back even BEFORE the foundation of the world, to see that God had already provided Himself a Lamb who would be the sinless Son of God?

18 (https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-Peter-1-18/) Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God. (1 Peter 1:18-21)

So you could say that there is no such thing as a "dispensation" of grace, since grace was eternal in the Godhead. However, there is a dispensation of the Church, or the Church Age, during which the Gospel of th Grace of God is to be preached in all the world and to every creature.

HenCris01
Jun 17th 2018, 03:08 AM
The dispensation of the grace of God, began with the salvation of the Apostle Paul (Ephesians chapter 3). Prior to the cross, we must remember that Israel lived under law of Moses. We must make a distinction between grace as a principle of God and grace as an economy under which the whole world is living. The grace of God is found throughout every dispensation but we are living in a time of grace and grace alone plus nothing else. Read 1 Tim 1v16.

HenCris01
Jun 17th 2018, 03:42 AM
Adam and Eve, never lived under the law. The law was not given until Mt. Sinai (Exodus 19). We have to rightly divide the Scriptures so that the plans and purposes of God fall into their proper dispensational order. Everything in the Bible is for my learning but not everything is for my obedience. I sometimes hear Christians say foolishly that they follow the whole Bible and my question to them is, " How exactly do you do that"?. Because God makes it impossible for you to do so.
For example, "Do you shed the blood of bulls and goats, and offer it up to God as a sacrifice for your sins"?.

episkopos
Jun 17th 2018, 09:26 AM
Pentecost..................

keck553
Jun 17th 2018, 09:54 PM
When God sacrificed a lamb to cover Adam and Eve.