FOUR REASONS PROFESSOR WRIGHT IS WRONG ON JUSTIFICATION

[JonC]

The view on justification that I am speaking of here is what the Apostleaul referenced,...
How can Jesu sbe my sin bearer if e did not keep t Law of God perfectly, in my place? that allows God to stay Holy and just to have His wrath applied against my sin on His Son , an yet also free to forgive and grnt to me eternal lifein Christ now! L know NT Wright dos not like tha way of salvation, but that is wat the scriptures teach....

Provide the verses that you are reference which state that imputed righteousness is God attributing to the believer Christ's work of obeying the Law.

 

[Yeshua1]

Provide the verses that you are reference which state that imputed righteousness is God attributing to the believer Christ's work of obeying the Law.

What else could God be using then to apply towards method that someone ele kept the Law?
Are you saying that ho the reformers like calvin and Luther were wrong in viewoing pauline justification?

 

[The Biblicist]

No, you are wrong here. The Law teaches us about sin and through the Law comes accountability - NOT justification.

The law cannot teach us about sin without at the very same time teaching us about righteousness. Don't put words in my mouth which I never said. I never said the law "justifies" sinners and the righteous don't need justification. The Law defines good and evil. God is the one who justifies us (not the law) and He justifies us on the basis of Christ's satisfaction of the law. The law must be satisfied or else God relinquishes the right to be recognized as God.

But God's righteousness is manifested APART from the Law (not through the Law, not based in the Law, and not a matter of moral behavior in accordance with the Law).

Wrong! Romans 3:21 demands the righteousness of God is revealed THROUGH and BY the Law and the prophets but in addition to that, it is revealed APART from the law in the Person of Christ.

But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

Not the words above. "but NOW" is the righteousness of God manifest without the law referring to the incarnation (v. 22). However, before the "now" the righteousnes of God was manifest by the law.

Righteousness is God's faithfulness to forgive those who are "in Christ", who are now members of the New Covenant. The mark of righteousness is not moral behavior but faith in God through Christ.

God is faithful to forgive us based on the righteousness and death provided by Christ, which was the covenant obligation of the second Person of the Godhead. The term "righteousness" is a MORAL term especially when connected to "faithfulness" as "faithful" refers to ACTIONS of moral value that are either "righteous" or "unrighteous."

The crux of your view is your failure to understand that a fig tree brings forth figs not walnuts and only a MORAL heart can produce MORAL values of right (righteousness) and wrong (unrighteousness). God's heart is a MORAL heart as "righteousness" is a MORAL value. Righteousness of heart is not ATTAINED by righteous works (thoughts, words, deeds) but is what produces righteous thoughts, words and deeds. God IS righteous because His heart IS righteous and therefore faithfulness is the product of a righteous heart and is the manifestation of righteous thoughts, words and deeds.

You have a cart before horse mentality when it comes to this subject. You think that if someone actually does the works of the law that makes them righteous when all it does it demonstrate they are righteous. Christ performed the law in our stead but his performance did not MAKE him righteous nor did it ATTAIN righteousness before God but it DEMONSTRATED he IS righteous and the standard of the law declared it to be such but NEVER OBTAINED IT.

 

[The Biblicist]

Provide the verses that you are reference which state that imputed righteousness is God attributing to the believer Christ's work of obeying the Law.

Your request demonstrates you still don't understand my position. The imputed righteousness of Christ is not attained or obtained by the works of the law. He IS righteous before he left heaven. He IS righteous as a babe in the womb. He IS righteous before he uttered a word or made an action. He IS righteous BY VIRTUE OF HIS MORAL NATURE. The Law simply VERIFIED and DECLARED what he IS by nature. It is that righteousness ALREADY ATTAINED BY NATURE which SATISFIED the laws demands AGAINST US that God justified us through imputation by faith.

 

[The Biblicist]

I deleted some words that simply vented my frustration. Sorry about that. I will try to do better.

 

[Yeshua1]

The law cannot teach us about sin without at the very same time teaching us about righteousness. Don't put words in my mouth which I never said. I never said the law "justifies" sinners and the righteous don't need justification. The Law defines good and evil. God is the one who justifies us (not the law) and He justifies us on the basis of Christ's satisfaction of the law. The law must be satisfied or else God relinquishes the right to be recognized as God.





Wrong! Romans 3:21 demands the righteousness of God is revealed THROUGH and BY the Law and the prophets but in addition to that, it is revealed APART from the law in the Person of Christ.

But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

Not the words above. "but NOW" is the righteousness of God manifest without the law referring to the incarnation (v. 22). However, before the "now" the righteousnes of God was manifest by the law.





God is faithful to forgive us based on the righteousness and death provided by Christ, which was the covenant obligation of the second Person of the Godhead. The term "righteousness" is a MORAL term especially when connected to "faithfulness" as "faithful" refers to ACTIONS of moral value that are either "righteous" or "unrighteous."

The crux of your view is your failure to understand that a fig tree brings forth figs not walnuts and only a MORAL heart can produce MORAL values of right (righteousness) and wrong (unrighteousness). God's heart is a MORAL heart as "righteousness" is a MORAL value. Righteousness of heart is not ATTAINED by righteous works (thoughts, words, deeds) but is what produces righteous thoughts, words and deeds. God IS righteous because His heart IS righteous and therefore faithfulness is the product of a righteous heart and is the manifestation of righteous thoughts, words and deeds.

You have a cart before horse mentality when it comes to this subject. You think that if someone actually does the works of the law that makes them righteous when all it does it demonstrate they are righteous. Christ performed the law in our stead but his performance did not MAKE him righteous nor did it ATTAIN righteousness before God but it DEMONSTRATED he IS righteous and the standard of the law declared it to be such but NEVER OBTAINED IT.

s Jon C channeling NT Wright view pointson justification then?

 

[JonC]

The law cannot teach us about sin without at the very same time teaching us about righteousness. Don't put words in my mouth which I never said. I never said the law "justifies" sinners and the righteous don't need justification. The Law defines good and evil. God is the one who justifies us (not the law) and He justifies us on the basis of Christ's satisfaction of the law. The law must be satisfied or else God relinquishes the right to be recognized as God.





Wrong! Romans 3:21 demands the righteousness of God is revealed THROUGH and BY the Law and the prophets but in addition to that, it is revealed APART from the law in the Person of Christ.

But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

Not the words above. "but NOW" is the righteousness of God manifest without the law referring to the incarnation (v. 22). However, before the "now" the righteousnes of God was manifest by the law.





Pathetically false!!!!!!! A false gospel completely! God is faithful to forgive us based on the righteousness and death provided by Christ, which was the covenant obligation of the second Person of the Godhead. The term "righteousness" is a MORAL term especially when connected to "faithfulness" as "faithful" refers to ACTIONS of moral value that are either "righteous" or "unrighteous."

Your view is oxymoronic, irrational, unbiblical and false altogether. The crux of your view is your failure to understand that a fig tree brings forth figs not walnuts and only a MORAL heart can produce MORAL values of right (righteousness) and wrong (unrighteousness). God's heart is a MORAL heart as "righteousness" is a MORAL value. Righteousness of heart is not ATTAINED by righteous works (thoughts, words, deeds) but is what produces righteous thoughts, words and deeds. God IS righteous because His heart IS righteous and therefore faithfulness is the product of a righteous heart and is the manifestation of righteous thoughts, words and deeds.

You have a cart before horse mentality when it comes to this subject. You think that if someone actually does the works of the law that makes them righteous when all it does it demonstrate they are righteous. Christ performed the law in our stead but his performance did not MAKE him righteous nor did it ATTAIN righteousness before God but it DEMONSTRATED he IS righteous and the standard of the law declared it to be such but NEVER OBTAINED IT.

The Law reveals the heart of man, not God. Christ reveals God. Just as the Pharisee (and the Catholic) you are looking to the Law when you should be looking to the Cross for justification. I think perhaps tradition is clouding your eisegisus here.

 

[JonC]

s Jon C channeling NT Wright view pointson justification then?

No. NT Wright continues from this position but it doesn't begin with him

Did you ever find that passage to support your claim that for over 15 centuries the Church had it wrong?

 

[The Biblicist]

s Jon C channeling NT Wright view pointson justification then?

It seems that Jon is attempting to confine the law within a covenant framework where it serves not as a judicial standard that must be satisfied in order for sinners to be justified before God and was satisfied completely by Christ in behalf of His people for justification but rather is to be understood as a revelation of God as a faithful covenant keeping God to forgive and save all who are under the covenant head of Christ.

 

[The Biblicist]

The Law reveals the heart of man, not God. Christ reveals God. Just as the Pharisee (and the Catholic) you are looking to the Law when you should be looking to the Cross for justification. I think perhaps tradition is clouding your eisegisus here.

Is God holy? Is the law holy? Is God righteous? Is the law righteous? Is God good? is the law good? Is God just? Is the law just? Is God spiritual? Is the law spiritual? Should we delight in God? Should we delight in the Law of God? Why? Because the law reveals the righteousness of God. Romans 3:21 repudiates your claims just as Romans 7:12 repudiates them. The law does indeed reveal the rightoeusness of God as the law can be summarized in one word "LOVE" and is God LOVE?

Now, is "holy" a moral value? Is "righteousness" a moral value? Is "good" a moral value? Is "just" a moral value? Is "love" a moral value? If so, then God's righteousness is a Moral righteousness and if that righteousness is a revelation of HIS HEART then his heart is a MORAL HEART.

 

[Yeshua1]

No. NT Wright continues from this position but it doesn't begin with him

Did you ever find that passage to support your claim that for over 15 centuries the Church had it wrong?

he denies penal substution atonement, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

No. NT Wright continues from this position but it doesn't begin with him

Did you ever find that passage to support your claim that for over 15 centuries the Church had it wrong?

Isaiah 53 has substitionary atonement all over it, and both paul and Peter picked that up!

 

[Yeshua1]

It seems that Jon is attempting to confine the law within a covenant framework where it serves not as a judicial standard that must be satisfied in order for sinners to be justified before God and was satisfied completely by Christ in behalf of His people for justification but rather is to be understood as a revelation of God as a faithful covenant keeping God to forgive and save all who are under the covenant head of Christ.

is that not how NT wrigh sees this, s esus death was for a new faithful community, that he did for sake of covenant community, but not as a substitionary death?

 

[JonC]

What else could God be using then to apply towards method that someone ele kept the Law?
Are you saying that ho the reformers like calvin and Luther were wrong in viewoing pauline justification?

Salvation was NEVER about man keeping the Law. That was not the purpose of the Law. The Law existed to show man his sin, for accountability. God's righteousness is APART from the Law, not based on it.

Your belief is not biblical (which accounts for your inability to find a passage supporting your view). Really, it is not Calvinism either but a version of doctrine thrice removed.

 

[JonC]

Isaiah 53 has substitionary atonement all over it, and both paul and Peter picked that up!

I never said Christ's death was not substitutionary. I said it was not based on the Law.

Isiah 53 is about Christ bearing our sins, but the scene is the tabernacle, not the courthouse. Show me where our salvation is based on Jesus perfectly obeying the Law and that perfect obedience being transferred to us in such a way that God looks us as perfect Law-keepers.

 

[Yeshua1]

Salvation was NEVER about man keeping the Law. That was not the purpose of the Law. The Law existed to show man his sin, for accountability. God's righteousness is APART from the Law, not based on it.

Your belief is not biblical (which accounts for your inability to find a passage supporting your view). Really, it is not Calvinism either but a version of doctrine thrice removed.

God gave to Adam a Covenant of Works, when he fell, there was the Covenant of Grace now applying towards all mankind, and God still needed to have someone die in the stead of the sinnr, to be heir sin bearer in order to be able to offer thm eternal life, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

I never said Christ's death was not substitutionary. I said it was not based on the Law.

Isiah 53 is about Christ bearing our sins, but the scene is the tabernacle, not the courthouse. Show me where our salvation is based on Jesus perfectly obeying the Law and that perfect obedience being transferred to us in such a way that God looks us as perfect Law-keepers.

God imputes the grace of the Cross unto us now, thru faith alone, as the soul that sins must die,and Jesus tasted/paid my sin debt by dieing in my place and taking the wrath of God for me, correct?

 

[JonC]

God gave to Adam a Covenant of Works, when he fell, there was the Covenant of Grace now applying towards all mankind, and God still needed to have someone die in the stead of the sinnr, to be heir sin bearer in order to be able to offer thm eternal life, correct?

No, not correct. There never has been a covenant of works in terms of "do these works and you will be saved" purposed for salvation. It has always been about God and not man. Adam was put in the Garden and given the command to show Adam his sinfulness (Adam's eyes were opened as he sinned, but sin comes from his own lusts). And God's Righteousness is spelled out when he promises redemption, pointing to the covenant he will make with Abraham.

What you are forgetting us that God is immutable.

Is there a verse that states Jesus' perfect Law keeping us our righteousness imputed? If so, provide it (and don't say it is implied....This is too important a doctrine to rely on what you think may be implied against what is actually stated).

Please state your prooftext.

 

[JonC]

God imputes the grace of the Cross unto us now, thru faith alone, as the soul that sins must die,and Jesus tasted/paid my sin debt by dieing in my place and taking the wrath of God for me, correct?

If you are a human being, and I am assuming you are, then yes.

 

[JonC]

It seems that Jon is attempting to confine the law within a covenant framework .

Deuteronomy 5 Then Moses summoned all Israel and said to them: "Hear, O Israel, the statutes and the ordinances which I am speaking today in your hearing, that you may learn them and observe them carefully. "The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. The LORD did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, with all those of us alive here today. The LORD spoke to you face to face at the mountain from the midst of the fire, while I was standing between the LORD and you at that time, to declare to you the word of the LORD; for you were afraid because of the fire and did not go up the mountain. He said, 'I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth....."