Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Righteousness of the law vs. Righteousness of(by) faith.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    179

    Righteousness of the law vs. Righteousness of(by) faith.

    There are many scriptures that speak about righteousness by the law and righteousness which comes by faith. Here are just a few of many:

    Verse list:
    Rom 2:26 KJVTherefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
    Rom 3:21 KJVBut now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
    Rom 4:13 KJVFor the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
    Rom 9:31-32 KJVBut Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
    Rom 10:4-5 KJVFor Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
    Gal 2:21 KJVI do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
    Gal 3:21 KJVIs the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
    Phi 3:9 KJVAnd 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:

    *[[Rom 8:3]] KJV* For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
    *[[Rom 8:4]] KJV* That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

    These last two verses have a couple points that I would like to see discussed. They are:

    1. Condemnation of sin in the flesh, and,
    2. Righteousness of the law.

    Concerning point #1.

    Prior to the coming of Christ. Was there no condemnation of "sin in the flesh"?

    Concerning point #2.

    It also pertains to before Christ came. The words "might be fulfilled" also implies a change has come about because of the 1st advent. Here is the crux puff the matter. If Paul is equating "righteousness of the law" with the righteousness that comes by faith, then that seems to imply that BEFORE CHRIST CAME, there was no justification by faith. That position should be deemed untenable. Why? Because this would contradict scriptures that says that Abraham was "justified by faith". The words justification and righteousness have the same root word. My point is that the words "might be fulfilled" imply something that is, even today, yet future. So what does Paul mean by this future "righteousness of the law" ?

    Blessings
    The PuP

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,769

    Re: Righteousness of the law vs. Righteousness of(by) faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesachpup View Post
    There are many scriptures that speak about righteousness by the law and righteousness which comes by faith. Here are just a few of many:

    Verse list:
    Rom 2:26 KJVTherefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
    Rom 3:21 KJVBut now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
    Rom 4:13 KJVFor the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
    Rom 9:31-32 KJVBut Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
    Rom 10:4-5 KJVFor Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
    Gal 2:21 KJVI do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
    Gal 3:21 KJVIs the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
    Phi 3:9 KJVAnd 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:

    *[[Rom 8:3]] KJV* For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
    *[[Rom 8:4]] KJV* That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

    These last two verses have a couple points that I would like to see discussed. They are:

    1. Condemnation of sin in the flesh, and,
    2. Righteousness of the law.

    Concerning point #1.

    Prior to the coming of Christ. Was there no condemnation of "sin in the flesh"?
    Of course there was! (Good questions, BTW!) The very fact that human flesh was spoiled by sin was regularly condemned by the Law. The fact that offerings had to go up morning and evening indicated that the flesh was continually polluted, and required that God look graciously upon His people.

    But it was important to show that as much as God required priestly duties under the Law, they were only tolerated under a temporal system of atonement. As such, what the priests did was acceptable only on a temporary basis, until something beyond imperfect priests could be used to eternally atone for men.

    Heb 7.26 Such a high priest truly meets our need—one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens. 27 Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself. 28 For the law appoints as high priests men in all their weakness; but the oath, which came after the law, appointed the Son, who has been made perfect forever.

    The priests under the Law condemned not just sin in Israel, and not just sin in themselves, but they condemned sin in all of humanity! As such, these priests could only win temporary redemption for Israel, until final atonement had been made by Christ.

    When Christ came, he likewise condemned all human sin. And yet he also had the power to completely redeem men from their sin nature, by promising them a new immortal nature--a nature free of all sin.

    So Jesus not only condemned sin in sinful men, but he also revealed himself as the way out of all this condemnation. In forgiving Man for all time he enabled men to participate in his spirit, and so obtain the hope of eternal life.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesachpup
    Concerning point #2.

    It also pertains to before Christ came. The words "might be fulfilled" also implies a change has come about because of the 1st advent. Here is the crux puff the matter. If Paul is equating "righteousness of the law" with the righteousness that comes by faith, then that seems to imply that BEFORE CHRIST CAME, there was no justification by faith. That position should be deemed untenable. Why? Because this would contradict scriptures that says that Abraham was "justified by faith". The words justification and righteousness have the same root word. My point is that the words "might be fulfilled" imply something that is, even today, yet future. So what does Paul mean by this future "righteousness of the law" ?

    The "fulfillment" of the righteousness of the Law is different than the "practice" of the righteousness of the Law under the Old Covenant. The practice of the righteousness of the Law justified Israel on a temporary basis, that is, until the fulfillment of this righteousness became apparent in the life of Christ. The justification, therefore, in the OT was there, but only in a preliminary way, ie until it had become fulfilled in the coming of Christ.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesachpup
    Blessings
    The PuP

  3. #3

    Re: Righteousness of the law vs. Righteousness of(by) faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesachpup View Post
    *[[Rom 8:3]] KJV* For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
    *[[Rom 8:4]] KJV* That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

    These last two verses have a couple points that I would like to see discussed. They are:

    1. Condemnation of sin in the flesh, and,
    2. Righteousness of the law.

    Concerning point #1.

    Prior to the coming of Christ. Was there no condemnation of "sin in the flesh"?

    Concerning point #2.

    It also pertains to before Christ came. The words "might be fulfilled" also implies a change has come about because of the 1st advent. Here is the crux puff the matter. If Paul is equating "righteousness of the law" with the righteousness that comes by faith, then that seems to imply that BEFORE CHRIST CAME, there was no justification by faith. That position should be deemed untenable. Why? Because this would contradict scriptures that says that Abraham was "justified by faith". The words justification and righteousness have the same root word. My point is that the words "might be fulfilled" imply something that is, even today, yet future. So what does Paul mean by this future "righteousness of the law" ?

    Blessings
    The PuP
    1. I think sin being condemned in the flesh refers to sin losing its power over us when we die to sin with Christ.
    2. I think Romans Chapters 7-8 is showing us how living by the Holy Spirit enables us to live righteously more successfully than trying to keep the law by our own efforts.

    Here are some of my thoughts on Romans 8:1-4
    - No condemnation for those in Christ Jesus (Similar to Romans 5:18 and 8:34)
    - Walking according to the Spirit is an alternative to walking according to our natural condition (the flesh)
    - Even the law cannot produce righteousness because the flesh is weak
    - God condemned (made powerless) sin in the flesh through Jesus Christ
    - We can fulfill righteous deeds of the law (G1345 – righteous deed; G1343 - righteousness)

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    179

    Re: Righteousness of the law vs. Righteousness of(by) faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesachpup View Post
    There are many scriptures that speak about righteousness by the law and righteousness which comes by faith. Here are just a few of many:

    Verse list:
    Rom 2:26 KJVTherefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?
    Rom 3:21 KJVBut now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
    Rom 4:13 KJVFor the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
    Rom 9:31-32 KJVBut Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they stumbled at that stumblingstone;
    Rom 10:4-5 KJVFor Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.
    Gal 2:21 KJVI do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
    Gal 3:21 KJVIs the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
    Phi 3:9 KJVAnd 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:

    *[[Rom 8:3]] KJV* For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
    *[[Rom 8:4]] KJV* That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

    These last two verses have a couple points that I would like to see discussed. They are:

    1. Condemnation of sin in the flesh, and,
    2. Righteousness of the law.

    Concerning point #1.

    Prior to the coming of Christ. Was there no condemnation of "sin in the flesh"?

    Concerning point #2.

    It also pertains to before Christ came. The words "might be fulfilled" also implies a change has come about because of the 1st advent. Here is the crux puff the matter. If Paul is equating "righteousness of the law" with the righteousness that comes by faith, then that seems to imply that BEFORE CHRIST CAME, there was no justification by faith. That position should be deemed untenable. Why? Because this would contradict scriptures that says that Abraham was "justified by faith". The words justification and righteousness have the same root word. My point is that the words "might be fulfilled" imply something that is, even today, yet future. So what does Paul mean by this future "righteousness of the law" ?

    Blessings
    The PuP
    To the point about condemnation of sin, let me start with the following scriptures:

    *[[Act 17:30]] KJV* And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: [31] Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

    Prior to the 1st advent, no man had or even could keep the whole law without sinning. And because of that, God could not rightly judge every sin as being worthy of death. God had to overlook(wink at) some sins. In essence, sinful behavior, in this life of the flesh, would be justifiably exempt from judgment. It didn't mean that a man could approach God as a sinner, even if he was only guilty of one sin. Remember that one must keep the whole law and not break even one commandment, to be justified by the law before God. The following misunderstood scriptures illustrates this point:

    *[[Eph 2:14]] KJV* 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:

    Here we see that Christ broke down the barrier that separates us FROM GOD THE FATHER. The mistake that is made in understanding those verses is to replace "broke down" with REMOVED. Paul's point is that Christ made access to God (the Father) accessible by all, Jews and Gentiles alike. With even only one sin (sin begins in the heart), no ma'am can approach unto God and his holiness:

    *[[1Ti 6:16]] KJV* Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

    The sinless life of Christ brought condemnation for every sin. Actually Christ condemns all TRANSGRESSIONS, because sin is the transgression of the law. The law, in codified form, defines sin and thereby it is labeled as transgression, the breaking of God's laws. And necause Christ fulfilled the law WITHOUT SINNING, he thereby brought condemnation to every transgression of the law [SIN!].

    This brings me to the next point. Christ came to fulfill the law, and NOT DESTROY it. Far too many people think that the law has been fulfilled and done away with.

    *[[Gal 3:22]] KJV* But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

    Christ fulfilled the righteousness found in the law, so that same righteousness "might be fulfilled in us". I made the point in my first post in this thread to say that this is a future element to the salvation and redemption process. Paul says this of those of us who CURRENTLY walk by faith and are led by the spirit. All of creation waits in expectation for the redemption that is found in Christ. We, namely wait for the redemption of our bodies, which will be brought to us at the appearing of Christ and his kingdom, 2Tim 4:1.

    Christ is the mediator of the new covenant FOR, the redemption of transgressions under the 1st covenant:

    *[[Luk 22:18]] KJV* For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come...
    *[[1Co 11:25]] KJV* After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me...
    *[[Luk 22:20]] KJV* Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

    These verses illustrate that just as BOTH the min him of God AND. The New Covenant were initiated at the first advent, both ALSO will be implemented at the return and appearing of Jesus.

    *[[Heb 9:28]] KJV* So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

    Blessings
    The PuP

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    11,825

    Re: Righteousness of the law vs. Righteousness of(by) faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesachpup View Post
    My point is that the words "might be fulfilled" imply something that is, even today, yet future. So what does Paul mean by this future "righteousness of the law" ?
    As other translations say...."may be fulfilled", so it's not something in the future but something accomplished walking the spirit of the law.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    11,825

    Re: Righteousness of the law vs. Righteousness of(by) faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    The "fulfillment" of the righteousness of the Law is different than the "practice" of the righteousness of the Law under the Old Covenant. The practice of the righteousness of the Law justified Israel on a temporary basis, that is, until the fulfillment of this righteousness became apparent in the life of Christ. The justification, therefore, in the OT was there, but only in a preliminary way, ie until it had become fulfilled in the coming of Christ.
    Just as Abraham was counted righteous, an individual believing God and walking the spirit of the law would be as well, no? Abraham wasn't justified in a preliminary way. Why would the someone living the spirit of the law because of their faith?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    5,443

    Re: Righteousness of the law vs. Righteousness of(by) faith.

    I have another view of the import of these verses. The full context of your verses is Romans 7:10 - 8:10. Even a cursory reading of this section of scripture will show that the issue is a walk that ends in LIFE and one that ends in DEATH. The objection is, "how could God give us something that "was ordained to life" (7:10), but that ended in death?" Is God the author of death?

    So, in Chapter 7 Paul builds a case that shows that the Law, "... is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." (7.12) and that is MAN, in particular, his FLESH, that is the culprit. He ends Chapter 7 by reaching the conclusion that we possess "a body of death" (7:24), and personifies sin by saying that it "dwells" in our bodies" (7:18). What the Law did was CONFIRM SIN IN OUR FLESH. And if the Law, which should have brought LIFE, CONFIRMS sin, what means does God have of "CONDEMNING" it? The means is to bring forth a man, who in every aspect was the same as the sinners, BUT WHO DID NOT SIN. Our Lord Jesus, among other things, is "SENT" for THREE things
    1. He is sent "in the likeness of sin". What does this mean? Adam sinned and passed on sin (singular - the sin-nature) to all men after him. Mary was one these people from Adam. So our Lord Jesus gets the SAME flesh as sinful Adam. But is it polluted like Mary's flesh? NO! The male part was the Holy Spirit. So our Lord Jesus does not have the sin-nature, which is inherited by the male part (Rom.5:12), but in every other aspect, he has the weakness of Mary. So he is NOT "sinful flesh" BUT "in the LIKENESS of sinful flesh". This sin (singular) the reason that He forced John to baptize Him. He showed by this Baptism that the flesh of Mary - from Adam - was doomed. It is the "old creation" and has no future in God's plan (1st Cor.15:50-51). So John reports that Jesus is the Lamb for the "SIN" (singular) of the world (Jn.1:29).
    2. He is sent "for sin". Being a Man in every respect by His birth to Mary, Jesus is eligible to be a Substitute for men. But if He has one little sin He is disqualified. But His birth from the Holy Spirit ensures that He is without sin and fully qualified to take man's part in God's wrath and justice. So He came FOR SIN to be put away.
    3. He "condemned sin in the flesh". He showed that the Law WAS spiritual, WAS just, and WAS unto LIFE, and that it WAS possible that man could live under the Law and it be LIFE to him. The opposers would condemn the LAW as only capable of causing death. But Jesus, a normal Man, kept the Law and so CONDEMNED not the Law as others would have, but condemned the sinful flesh. If God was ONLY a God of JUSTICE, He would have, by the Man Jesus, shown beyond doubt, that death was the fault of man and his sinful flesh. God, the Giver of the Law, which ultimately brought dead, would have been VINDICATED. All would have seen that it was not the Law that caused this awful fate of man, but man's sinful flesh. But God is also a God of love and mercy, so He sets forth a proposal. He desires, but not order's His Son Jesus to die in place of the rest of men. If He had "commanded" Jesus to do it, it would have been the height of INJUSTICE. He asks instead that Jesus VOLUNTEERS. Why do I add this? Because if the Father had not asked His Son to volunteer, JESUS WOULD HAVE LIVED FOREVER. He (i) did not posses the "death-causing-nature" of Adam, and (ii) He kept the Law in all its aspects - a Law "ORDAINED TO LIFE". The only way to legally kill Jesus after this impressive performance was if He took the sin and sins of OTHER upon Himself (2nd Cor.5:21).

    I will proceed with verse 4 when any objections to the above are dealt with as it is a foundation for an understanding of verse 4.

    Below, I leave the full context for reference.


    Romans 7:10 to 8:10;
    10 "And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
    11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
    12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
    13 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; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
    14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
    15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
    16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
    17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
    18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
    19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
    20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
    21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
    22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
    23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
    24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
    25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

    1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
    2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
    3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
    4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
    5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
    6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
    7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
    8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
    9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
    10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness."

  8. #8

    Re: Righteousness of the law vs. Righteousness of(by) faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesachpup View Post
    To the point about condemnation of sin, let me start with the following scriptures:

    *[[Act 17:30]] KJV* And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: [31] Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

    Prior to the 1st advent, no man had or even could keep the whole law without sinning. And because of that, God could not rightly judge every sin as being worthy of death. God had to overlook(wink at) some sins. In essence, sinful behavior, in this life of the flesh, would be justifiably exempt from judgment.
    God could judge every sin as being worthy of death, even before the 1st advent.

    Ezekiel 18:4 KJV Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins, he shall die.

    God is just when judging people even if people are born sinners.

    Psalm 51:4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest. 5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

    God "winked" at the ignorance of men, in that He did not yet completely destroy the world. These same people will be judged on the day of judgment, and held accountable for their sins.

    It didn't mean that a man could approach God as a sinner, even if he was only guilty of one sin. Remember that one must keep the whole law and not break even one commandment, to be justified by the law before God.
    Agreed.

    The following misunderstood scriptures illustrates this point:

    *[[Eph 2:14]] KJV* 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:

    Here we see that Christ broke down the barrier that separates us FROM GOD THE FATHER. The mistake that is made in understanding those verses is to replace "broke down" with REMOVED. Paul's point is that Christ made access to God (the Father) accessible by all, Jews and Gentiles alike. With even only one sin (sin begins in the heart), no ma'am can approach unto God and his holiness:

    *[[1Ti 6:16]] KJV* Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.
    I disagree that "us" at the end of Eph. 2:14 refers to Christians and God the Father. It refers to "both" in Eph. 2:14, "twain" in Eph. 2:15, and "both" in Eph. 2:16. In Eph. 2:15, the two are made into one new man. This is referring to the joining of the Israelite believers and Gentile believers becoming one church. In Eph. 2:16, "both" are reconciled to God. Therefore, "both" does not include God Himself. So the "middle wall of partition between us" in Eph. 2:14 is referring to the partition between Israelites and Gentiles, not between God and the Christians.

    Ephesians 2:12 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:


    The sinless life of Christ brought condemnation for every sin. Actually Christ condemns all TRANSGRESSIONS, because sin is the transgression of the law. The law, in codified form, defines sin and thereby it is labeled as transgression, the breaking of God's laws. And necause Christ fulfilled the law WITHOUT SINNING, he thereby brought condemnation to every transgression of the law [SIN!].
    Condemnation came because of Adam's disobedience, not because of Jesus' obedience.

    Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

    This brings me to the next point. Christ came to fulfill the law, and NOT DESTROY it. Far too many people think that the law has been fulfilled and done away with.

    *[[Gal 3:22]] KJV* But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

    Christ fulfilled the righteousness found in the law, so that same righteousness "might be fulfilled in us". I made the point in my first post in this thread to say that this is a future element to the salvation and redemption process. Paul says this of those of us who CURRENTLY walk by faith and are led by the spirit. All of creation waits in expectation for the redemption that is found in Christ. We, namely wait for the redemption of our bodies, which will be brought to us at the appearing of Christ and his kingdom, 2Tim 4:1.

    Christ is the mediator of the new covenant FOR, the redemption of transgressions under the 1st covenant:

    *[[Luk 22:18]] KJV* For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come...
    *[[1Co 11:25]] KJV* After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me...
    *[[Luk 22:20]] KJV* Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

    These verses illustrate that just as BOTH the min him of God AND. The New Covenant were initiated at the first advent, both ALSO will be implemented at the return and appearing of Jesus.

    *[[Heb 9:28]] KJV* So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

    Blessings
    The PuP
    Can you clarify your statement below? It looks like there is a typo and I can't understand what you are trying to say.

    These verses illustrate that just as BOTH the min him of God AND. The New Covenant were initiated at the first advent, both ALSO will be implemented at the return and appearing of Jesus.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,769

    Re: Righteousness of the law vs. Righteousness of(by) faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb View Post
    Just as Abraham was counted righteous, an individual believing God and walking the spirit of the law would be as well, no? Abraham wasn't justified in a preliminary way. Why would the someone living the spirit of the law because of their faith?
    Abraham was counted righteous by his faith, and was justified by his faith. This faith did not exclude righteous deeds, or spiritual works. When Paul created a dichotomy between faith and works he was separating out form faith the works of men who have not had their sins atoned for.

    Abraham could not atone for his own sins. No matter what works he did, those works could not atone for his sins. What he could do, however, is do works through his faith. In this way he obtained atonement *from God!*

    So I don't see faith and righteous works being separated in Abraham, which is often what we do in the church. We think that Abraham's faith excluded works, and thus establish a "justification by faith alone" that excludes the necessity to be righteous.

    But I don't agree with this. I know these things because I was raised and confirmed a Lutheran. We were all taught about this supposed separation between faith and works. Not even Luther completely eliminated the need to do good works from his notion of "faith," and he was the origin of the "faith alone" doctrine! He begins our catechism with the notion that we must keep the 10 Commandments!

    So I would say, in answer to your questions, that both Abraham and those who walk by the spirit of the Law are counted righteous by their faith, and also by their righteous deeds. Faith is, after all, inclusive of the production of the deeds of faith, which is righteousness! James argued that if a man says he has faith, this will come out in the form of works. God justifies those who do the *works of faith,* and not faith empty of good works!

    Abraham was justified by both his faith and the works of faith. He obeyed God in the matter of giving up his son, Isaac. He followed God--he didn't just believe there was a God! And so, faith is much more than belief--it is a way of life in which we interact with God, sometimes doing what God lets us do, and sometimes doing what God demands we do. But at all times we walk in His Spirit!

    These things justify us. But when we talk about Justification we're often talking about Christ's justification of us at the cross, where final atonement was made for our sins. That atonement wasn't made in the time of Abraham. And it wasn't made in the time of the Law, before Jesus came. Rather, this atonement alone brought *eternal Justification.*

    So I think the justification Abraham received was, in fact, *preliminary.* It was a temporary reprieve until final atonement could be made at the cross. But the justification, nevertheless, was real enough at the time. God *accepted* Abraham at that time!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,769

    Re: Righteousness of the law vs. Righteousness of(by) faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb View Post
    Just as Abraham was counted righteous, an individual believing God and walking the spirit of the law would be as well, no? Abraham wasn't justified in a preliminary way. Why would the someone living the spirit of the law because of their faith?
    Abraham was counted righteous by his faith, and was justified by his faith. This faith did not exclude righteous deeds, or spiritual works. When Paul created a dichotomy between faith and works he was separating out form faith the works of men who have not had their sins atoned for.

    Abraham could not atone for his own sins. No matter what works he did, those works could not atone for his sins. What he could do, however, is do works through his faith. In this way he obtained atonement *from God!*

    So I don't see faith and righteous works being separated in Abraham, which is often what we do in the church. We think that Abraham's faith excluded works, and thus establish a "justification by faith alone" that excludes the necessity to be righteous.

    But I don't agree with this. I know these things because I was raised and confirmed a Lutheran. We were all taught about this supposed separation between faith and works. Not even Luther completely eliminated the need to do good works from his notion of "faith," and he was the origin of the "faith alone" doctrine! He begins our catechism with the notion that we must keep the 10 Commandments!

    So I would say, in answer to your questions, that both Abraham and those who walk by the spirit of the Law are counted righteous by their faith, and also by their righteous deeds. Faith is, after all, inclusive of the production of the deeds of faith, which is righteousness! James argued that if a man says he has faith, this will come out in the form of works. God justifies those who do the *works of faith,* and not faith empty of good works!

    Abraham was justified by both his faith and the works of faith. He obeyed God in the matter of giving up his son, Isaac. He followed God--he didn't just believe there was a God! And so, faith is much more than belief--it is a way of life in which we interact with God, sometimes doing what God lets us do, and sometimes doing what God demands we do. But at all times we walk in His Spirit!

    These things justify us. But when we talk about Justification we're often talking about Christ's justification of us at the cross, where final atonement was made for our sins. That atonement wasn't made in the time of Abraham. And it wasn't made in the time of the Law, before Jesus came. Rather, this atonement alone brought *eternal Justification.*

    So I think the justification Abraham received was, in fact, *preliminary.* It was a temporary reprieve until final atonement could be made at the cross. But the justification, nevertheless, was real enough at the time. God *accepted* Abraham at that time!

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    11,825

    Re: Righteousness of the law vs. Righteousness of(by) faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by randyk View Post
    Abraham was counted righteous by his faith, and was justified by his faith. This faith did not exclude righteous deeds, or spiritual works. When Paul created a dichotomy between faith and works he was separating out form faith the works of men who have not had their sins atoned for.

    Abraham could not atone for his own sins. No matter what works he did, those works could not atone for his sins. What he could do, however, is do works through his faith. In this way he obtained atonement *from God!*

    So I don't see faith and righteous works being separated in Abraham, which is often what we do in the church. We think that Abraham's faith excluded works, and thus establish a "justification by faith alone" that excludes the necessity to be righteous.

    But I don't agree with this. I know these things because I was raised and confirmed a Lutheran. We were all taught about this supposed separation between faith and works. Not even Luther completely eliminated the need to do good works from his notion of "faith," and he was the origin of the "faith alone" doctrine! He begins our catechism with the notion that we must keep the 10 Commandments!

    So I would say, in answer to your questions, that both Abraham and those who walk by the spirit of the Law are counted righteous by their faith, and also by their righteous deeds. Faith is, after all, inclusive of the production of the deeds of faith, which is righteousness! James argued that if a man says he has faith, this will come out in the form of works. God justifies those who do the *works of faith,* and not faith empty of good works!

    Abraham was justified by both his faith and the works of faith. He obeyed God in the matter of giving up his son, Isaac. He followed God--he didn't just believe there was a God! And so, faith is much more than belief--it is a way of life in which we interact with God, sometimes doing what God lets us do, and sometimes doing what God demands we do. But at all times we walk in His Spirit!

    These things justify us. But when we talk about Justification we're often talking about Christ's justification of us at the cross, where final atonement was made for our sins. That atonement wasn't made in the time of Abraham. And it wasn't made in the time of the Law, before Jesus came. Rather, this atonement alone brought *eternal Justification.*

    So I think the justification Abraham received was, in fact, *preliminary.* It was a temporary reprieve until final atonement could be made at the cross. But the justification, nevertheless, was real enough at the time. God *accepted* Abraham at that time!
    I wasn't implying Paul's dichotomy, just the opposite. Faith w/o works is no faith at all, and faith comes first. They either died justified or not. There's nothing preliminary about it.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Location
    Pacific NW, USA
    Posts
    9,769

    Re: Righteousness of the law vs. Righteousness of(by) faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by Noeb View Post
    I wasn't implying Paul's dichotomy, just the opposite. Faith w/o works is no faith at all, and faith comes first. They either died justified or not. There's nothing preliminary about it.
    Exactly. Sorry bout that!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    179

    Re: Righteousness of the law vs. Righteousness of(by) faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by greenonions View Post
    God could judge every sin as being worthy of death, even before the 1st advent.

    Ezekiel 18:4 KJV Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins, he shall die.

    God is just when judging people even if people are born sinners.

    Psalm 51:4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest. 5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

    God "winked" at the ignorance of men, in that He did not yet completely destroy the world. These same people will be judged on the day of judgment, and held accountable for their sins.



    Agreed.



    I disagree that "us" at the end of Eph. 2:14 refers to Christians and God the Father. It refers to "both" in Eph. 2:14, "twain" in Eph. 2:15, and "both" in Eph. 2:16. In Eph. 2:15, the two are made into one new man. This is referring to the joining of the Israelite believers and Gentile believers becoming one church. In Eph. 2:16, "both" are reconciled to God. Therefore, "both" does not include God Himself. So the "middle wall of partition between us" in Eph. 2:14 is referring to the partition between Israelites and Gentiles, not between God and the Christians.

    Ephesians 2:12 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:




    Condemnation came because of Adam's disobedience, not because of Jesus' obedience.

    Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.



    Can you clarify your statement below? It looks like there is a typo and I can't understand what you are trying to say.
    Last question first. I tried to edit (unsuccessfully). Out should have said this:

    These verses illustrate that just as BOTH the KINGDOM of God AND the New Covenant were initiated at the first advent, both ALSO will be implemented at the return and appearing of Jesus.*

    *[[Luk 22:18]] KJV* For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

    *[[Luk 22:20]] KJV* Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

    Those who fail to grasp the idea that the New Covenant was initiated at the cross but will not be implemented until the future, fail to make the connection between the covenant and the kingdom. The main thrust of the NC is the giving of the land promised to Abraham's descendents as an eternal inheritance.

    *[[Gen 17:8]] KJV* And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

    *[[Heb 11:9]] KJV* By faith he sojourned IN THE LAND OF PROMISE, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:

    I guess those that fail to see the FUTURE implementation of the already initiated New Covenant, must also fail to see the likewise FUTURE implementation of the kingdom too.

    The list of those testifying to the future inheriting off the kingdom includes Jesus, Paul, James and Peter.

    *[[Luk 22:18]] KJV* For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

    *[[2Ti 4:1]] KJV* I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

    *[[1Co 15:50]] KJV* Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

    *[[2Ti 4:1]] KJV* I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

    *[[2Pe 1:11]] KJV* For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

    *[[Jas 2:5]] KJV* Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?

    Concerning a couple of your other points:

    1.Both, twain, etc, do indeed refer to Jews and Gentiles having fellowship with the body of Christ, aka the church; but Gentile is used to refer to everyone who is not a Jew. In essence, the access of Jews AND Gentiles unto God the Father, thereby makes access to God for everybody. The Jews, were the sole recipients of the law. The inability of the Jew (or for that matter anybody) to be justified by the keeping of the commandments, not only kept them from appearing/ fellowshipping with God the Father, but it was the barrier for all mankind. Now, Jews & Gentiles alike will one day fellowship in God's presence because Christ fulfilled all of the law. The spirit of grace involves the law of liberty (by faith) because we wait in expectation of the redemption of our bodies, i.e., none of us are without sin while dwelling in these mortal bodies. Christ fulfilled the law "in the likeness of sinful flesh" so that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us.

    2. The word imputed means to be counted or reckoned, in the sense of being put on our accounts standing with God. With that, Paul says that sin is not imputed/ COUNTED where there is no law. The witness of the Holy Ghost within us, is the testimonial witness of the law-fulfilling life of Christ. Prior to the advent of the sinless life of Christ, the witness of the Holy Ghost lacked the testimony of his sinless life, because it hadn't happened yet. The testimony of his sinless life in the likeness of sinful flesh, forever brought condemnation to all manner of sin in the flesh as defined by the transgressions under the law.

    Blessings
    The PuP

    Quote Originally Posted by greenonions View Post
    God could judge every sin as being worthy of death, even before the 1st advent.

    Ezekiel 18:4 KJV Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul who sins, he shall die.

    God is just when judging people even if people are born sinners.

    Psalm 51:4 Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight: that thou mightest be justified when thou speakest, and be clear when thou judgest. 5 Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

    God "winked" at the ignorance of men, in that He did not yet completely destroy the world. These same people will be judged on the day of judgment, and held accountable for their sins.



    Agreed.



    I disagree that "us" at the end of Eph. 2:14 refers to Christians and God the Father. It refers to "both" in Eph. 2:14, "twain" in Eph. 2:15, and "both" in Eph. 2:16. In Eph. 2:15, the two are made into one new man. This is referring to the joining of the Israelite believers and Gentile believers becoming one church. In Eph. 2:16, "both" are reconciled to God. Therefore, "both" does not include God Himself. So the "middle wall of partition between us" in Eph. 2:14 is referring to the partition between Israelites and Gentiles, not between God and the Christians.

    Ephesians 2:12 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:




    Condemnation came because of Adam's disobedience, not because of Jesus' obedience.

    Romans 5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.



    Can you clarify your statement below? It looks like there is a typo and I can't understand what you are trying to say.
    Last question first. I tried to edit (unsuccessfully). Out should have said this:

    These verses illustrate that just as BOTH the KINGDOM of God AND the New Covenant were initiated at the first advent, both ALSO will be implemented at the return and appearing of Jesus.*

    *[[Luk 22:18]] KJV* For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

    *[[Luk 22:20]] KJV* Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

    Those who fail to grasp the idea that the New Covenant was initiated at the cross but will not be implemented until the future, fail to make the connection between the covenant and the kingdom. The main thrust of the NC is the giving of the land promised to Abraham's descendents as an eternal inheritance.

    *[[Gen 17:8]] KJV* And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

    *[[Heb 11:9]] KJV* By faith he sojourned IN THE LAND OF PROMISE, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:

    I guess those that fail to see the FUTURE implementation of the already initiated New Covenant, must also fail to see the likewise FUTURE implementation of the kingdom too.

    The list of those testifying to the future inheriting off the kingdom includes Jesus, Paul, James and Peter.

    *[[Luk 22:18]] KJV* For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

    *[[2Ti 4:1]] KJV* I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

    *[[1Co 15:50]] KJV* Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

    *[[2Ti 4:1]] KJV* I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

    *[[2Pe 1:11]] KJV* For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

    *[[Jas 2:5]] KJV* Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?

    Concerning a couple of your other points:

    1.Both, twain, etc, do indeed refer to Jews and Gentiles having fellowship with the body of Christ, aka the church; but Gentile is used to refer to everyone who is not a Jew. In essence, the access of Jews AND Gentiles unto God the Father, thereby makes access to God for everybody. The Jews, were the sole recipients of the law. The inability of the Jew (or for that matter anybody) to be justified by the keeping of the commandments, not only kept them from appearing/ fellowshipping with God the Father, but it was the barrier for all mankind. Now, Jews & Gentiles alike will one day fellowship in God's presence because Christ fulfilled all of the law. The spirit of grace involves the law of liberty (by faith) because we wait in expectation of the redemption of our bodies, i.e., none of us are without sin while dwelling in these mortal bodies. Christ fulfilled the law "in the likeness of sinful flesh" so that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us.

    2. The word imputed means to be counted or reckoned, in the sense of being put on our accounts standing with God. With that, Paul says that sin is not imputed/ COUNTED where there is no law. The witness of the Holy Ghost within us, is the testimonial witness of the law-fulfilling life of Christ. Prior to the advent of the sinless life of Christ, the witness of the Holy Ghost lacked the testimony of his sinless life, because it hadn't happened yet. The testimony of his sinless life in the likeness of sinful flesh, forever brought condemnation to all manner of sin in the flesh as defined by the transgressions under the law.

    Blessings
    The PuP

  14. #14

    Re: Righteousness of the law vs. Righteousness of(by) faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pesachpup View Post
    Last question first. I tried to edit (unsuccessfully). Out should have said this:

    These verses illustrate that just as BOTH the KINGDOM of God AND the New Covenant were initiated at the first advent, both ALSO will be implemented at the return and appearing of Jesus.*

    *[[Luk 22:18]] KJV* For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

    *[[Luk 22:20]] KJV* Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.

    Those who fail to grasp the idea that the New Covenant was initiated at the cross but will not be implemented until the future, fail to make the connection between the covenant and the kingdom. The main thrust of the NC is the giving of the land promised to Abraham's descendents as an eternal inheritance.

    *[[Gen 17:8]] KJV* And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

    *[[Heb 11:9]] KJV* By faith he sojourned IN THE LAND OF PROMISE, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:

    I guess those that fail to see the FUTURE implementation of the already initiated New Covenant, must also fail to see the likewise FUTURE implementation of the kingdom too.

    The list of those testifying to the future inheriting off the kingdom includes Jesus, Paul, James and Peter.

    *[[Luk 22:18]] KJV* For I say unto you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine, until the kingdom of God shall come.

    *[[2Ti 4:1]] KJV* I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

    *[[1Co 15:50]] KJV* Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

    *[[2Ti 4:1]] KJV* I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

    *[[2Pe 1:11]] KJV* For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

    *[[Jas 2:5]] KJV* Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
    Yes, the kingdom of God and the New Covenant were initiated at the cross, but are manifest in their full glory at Jesus' second coming.

    Concerning a couple of your other points:

    1.Both, twain, etc, do indeed refer to Jews and Gentiles having fellowship with the body of Christ, aka the church; but Gentile is used to refer to everyone who is not a Jew. In essence, the access of Jews AND Gentiles unto God the Father, thereby makes access to God for everybody. The Jews, were the sole recipients of the law. The inability of the Jew (or for that matter anybody) to be justified by the keeping of the commandments, not only kept them from appearing/ fellowshipping with God the Father, but it was the barrier for all mankind. Now, Jews & Gentiles alike will one day fellowship in God's presence because Christ fulfilled all of the law. The spirit of grace involves the law of liberty (by faith) because we wait in expectation of the redemption of our bodies, i.e., none of us are without sin while dwelling in these mortal bodies. Christ fulfilled the law "in the likeness of sinful flesh" so that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us.
    Sounds good.

    2. The word imputed means to be counted or reckoned, in the sense of being put on our accounts standing with God. With that, Paul says that sin is not imputed/ COUNTED where there is no law. The witness of the Holy Ghost within us, is the testimonial witness of the law-fulfilling life of Christ. Prior to the advent of the sinless life of Christ, the witness of the Holy Ghost lacked the testimony of his sinless life, because it hadn't happened yet. The testimony of his sinless life in the likeness of sinful flesh, forever brought condemnation to all manner of sin in the flesh as defined by the transgressions under the law.
    I agree with what you are saying about "imputed". I think the Law by itself was sufficient to condemn, but Jesus' example really shines the light in our eyes, so that we can see how far we fall short.

    Blessings
    The PuP
    God Bless!

    Anyone notice if "Post Quick Reply" results in the contents being duplicated? I'm hoping that "Go Advanced" solves this.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    11,825

    Re: Righteousness of the law vs. Righteousness of(by) faith.

    Yes, Go Advanced solves it.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Sin is much more fun than doing righteousness
    By rom826 in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: Jun 6th 2015, 07:05 PM
  2. The Righteousness of God
    By episkopos in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 130
    Last Post: Jul 24th 2013, 03:04 PM
  3. Replies: 49
    Last Post: Jun 11th 2010, 05:46 PM
  4. Righteousness of faith
    By Gift of God in forum Bible Chat
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: Jul 15th 2008, 10:18 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •