FOUR REASONS PROFESSOR WRIGHT IS WRONG ON JUSTIFICATION

[The Biblicist]

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....."

Yes, no one disputes the Old covenant is connected with Law and that covenant was to define sin and reveal the righteousness of God.

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 3:21repudiates 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.

 

[The Biblicist]

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.

You are parsing words to escape the obvious as the Old Covenant was couched in that very language, do this and live and Jesus affirmed that it so:

Lu 10:28 And he said to him, You have answered right: this do, and you shall live.

The ONLY problem is not the Law with regard to this but with FALLEN NATURE! Therefore, the law was not given for life because the weakness was in the fallen flesh. Without that weakness there would be NO NEED FOR THE LAW as there would be no sin.

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).

Oh come on you know there is no truth to this statement! The command was not given to "show Adam his sinfulness" as he had no sin when placed in the garden!

And God's Righteousness is spelled out when he promises redemption, pointing to the covenant he will make with Abraham.

God's righteousness is revealed in and by the law before it was ever revealed more fully in the Person of Christ.

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 3:21repudiates 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.

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.

I guess either you did not read my last response to this question or don't understand it:

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]

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 3:21repudiates 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.

 

[JonC]

You are parsing words to escape the obvious as the Old Covenant was couched in that very language, do this and live and Jesus affirmed that it so:

Lu 10:28 And he said to him, You have answered right: this do, and you shall live.

The ONLY problem is not the Law with regard to this but with FALLEN NATURE! Therefore, the law was not given for life because the weakness was in the fallen flesh. Without that weakness there would be NO NEED FOR THE LAW as there would be no sin.





Oh come on you know there is no truth to this statement! The command was not given to "show Adam his sinfulness" as he had no sin when placed in the garden!





God's righteousness is revealed in and by the law before it was ever revealed more fully in the Person of Christ.

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 3:21repudiates 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.



I guess either you did not read my last response to this question or don't understand it:

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.

What verse says that when Adam sinned it was not out of his own lusts? Were they not naked before the Fall? What passage says Adam's nature was changed, other than his eyes being opened to know good and evil?

My contention, to clarify, is that we are righteous in Christ through faith because this is the part of man in God's covenant of redemption. It was for Abraham to believe. God works this faith in us, through Christ as our Head. The Father sent the Son, who was obedient even to death. This is not moral obedience or obedience through moral obligation. This is obedience through faith (on Christ's part) through the Spirit in the Father. And this is what is what justifies us, not a moral righteousness with the Law in view. Christ, not the Law.

 

[The Biblicist]

What verse says that when Adam sinned it was not out of his own lusts?

You have been proven wrong by the words of Christ and so you simply ignore his words that contradict your conclusion about doing the law and living! This seems to be your pattern in this discussion - ignore the evidence that condemns your position and just reassert and continue!!!

When was this ever a matter of dispute? "lusts' simply means "desires" of the mind or heart and merely having lusts or desires is not evidence of sin, except when those desires are joined with intent to violate Gods revealed will/law. Sin is conceived when desire is joined with intent to transgress the law of God.

Were they not naked before the Fall?

Being naked is not sin! Being naked is not proof of a fall or a sinful nature! Trying to hide their nakedness was proof of the fall as their sin made them feel exposed before God - that was conscience at work due to sin.

What passage says Adam's nature was changed, other than his eyes being opened to know good and evil?

Genesis 2:17 says that in the day he ate he would die and death begins with spiritual death or separation spiritually from God. Being spiritually separated from God is to be separated from the source of life (spiritual death) light (spiritual darkness) holiness (depravity) and love (enmity) and that is the fallen nature of man (Eph. 4:18; Rom. 8:7).

My contention, to clarify, is that we are righteous in Christ through faith because this is the part of man in God's covenant of redemption.

Like I said, desire joined with intent that is contrary to God's Word/will/law is sin and your contention is sin. Man has NO COVENANT OBLIGATION but is the recipient of the everlasting covenant. Faith is the covenant obligation of the Holy Spirit to create within the elect by the work of regeneration, it is a gift and work of God and is of grace and no man is born with it or has it by nature (Jn. 6:40).

It was for Abraham to believe.

Paul makes it clear at the beginning and at the close of his passage on justification by faith that the nature of faith he is describing is always "IN" Christ AS REVEALED IN THE GOSPEL (Rom. 3:24-26; 4:22-25).

God works this faith in us, through Christ as our Head.

Actually this is the covenant responsibility of the Holy Spirit and it is CREATED in the heart (2 Cor. 4:6) as the preached gospel is transformed into the creative word of God that speaks the "substance" and "hope" of salvation into the heart of man (1 Thes. 1:4-5) which is the REVELATION of God in the person of Jesus Christ as revealed in the gospel - that is eternal life (Jn. 17:3). Salvation is in essence the REVELATION of Christ in the heart (Mt. 16:17; Gal. 1:16).

The Father sent the Son, who was obedient even to death. This is not moral obedience or obedience through moral obligation.

It was a moral obligation in the sense of a covenant obligation as his part of the covenant responsibilities. He would have been morally wrong to disobey that covenant obligation. His life was obedience to the law as the scriptures explicitly state he was "born under the law" and the term "under" conveys moral obligation to observe the law just as any other man. Do you deny man has a moral obligation to obey God's Law/word/will????? However, his obedience DID NOT OBTAIN OR ATTAIN HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS BUT SIMPLY DEMONSTRATED/DECLARED HE IS RIGHTEOUS (UNLIKE SINNERS).

This is obedience through faith (on Christ's part) through the Spirit in the Father. And this is what is what justifies us, not a moral righteousness with the Law in view. Christ, not the Law.

No! His obedience "under the law" satisfied God's wrath against fallen man and his death satisfied the condemnation of the law against sinful man and it is this satisfaction of the law that justifies us as this is the meaning of "FOR OUR" sins. If he failed to satisfy the full demands of the Law then God has relinguished his right to be recognized as God by his creation.

 

[Yeshua1]

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....."

The New Covenant is made by the death of the Lord jesus, due to hi shed blood and death on the Cross for our sins, so why not agree it the reformers on this truth?

 

[Yeshua1]

What verse says that when Adam sinned it was not out of his own lusts? Were they not naked before the Fall? What passage says Adam's nature was changed, other than his eyes being opened to know good and evil?

My contention, to clarify, is that we are righteous in Christ through faith because this is the part of man in God's covenant of redemption. It was for Abraham to believe. God works this faith in us, through Christ as our Head. The Father sent the Son, who was obedient even to death. This is not moral obedience or obedience through moral obligation. This is obedience through faith (on Christ's part) through the Spirit in the Father. And this is what is what justifies us, not a moral righteousness with the Law in view. Christ, not the Law.

The basis of myright standin with God now is not due to fait in Jesus, but th Death of Jesu, as faith acceses now that grae from calvary... Again, God demanded someone to die to pay/atone for my sins, so it was eiter Jesus or myself!

 

[JonC]

The New Covenant is made by the death of the Lord jesus, due to hi shed blood and death on the Cross for our sins, so why not agree it the reformers on this truth?

I am going to warn you ONE time. DO NOT falsely accuse me or anyone else of denying the Cross or the blood Christ shed for us. No one is denying the Cross. I think that you are throwing smoke because it is dawning on you that the position you are holding is more tradition than it is Scripture. This is why you cannot find one single passage that supports your statement that justification means God imputes Christ's perfect Law-keeping on us and instead choose to accuse me of denying other passages and doctrines.

 

[Yeshua1]

I am going to warn you ONE time. DO NOT falsely accuse me or anyone else of denying the Cross or the blood Christ shed for us. No one is denying the Cross. I think that you are throwing smoke because it is dawning on you that the position you are holding is more tradition than it is Scripture. This is why you cannot find one single passage that supports your statement that justification means God imputes Christ's perfect Law-keeping on us and instead choose to accuse me of denying other passages and doctrines.

I was NOT accusing you Jon, or any other person here of denying that, I was just asking what view is differen tbetween you and me since we both agree on those truths in that post?

 

[percho]

The first man is of the earth, earthy: 1 /Cor 15:47


And the LORD God formed man ofthe dust of the ground, Gen 2:7


But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: Gen 2:17


But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. James 1:14,15


The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. 1 Cor 15:56


But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: Gen 2:17


Adam - For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. Romans 7:14


Why did God send his Son in the flesh?


Rom 8:3 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:


The righteousness of God is relative to the redemption of the body.


1 Cor 15:49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.


It is the manner by which God determined before the foundation of the world to destroy the devil, Satan and his works.


1 John 3:8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Heb 2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;


Manifested in the flesh. God through woman, taken from man, made of the dust of the ground, Sent his Son.

Gal 4:4,5 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.


1 Timothy 3:16King James Version (KJV)
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.


Acts 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

We law we are under and the law Christ was born under was given to Adam.

NO?

 

[JonC]

I was NOT accusing you Jon, or any other person here of denying that, I was just asking what view is differen tbetween you and me since we both agree on those truths in that post?

I apologize for my mind misunderstanding.

I believe that the Father offered his Son as a guilt offering - that Jesus himself, who knew no sin, became sin (probably here, "a sin offering", but he also became accurse for us as under the Law "cursed is one who hangs on a tree'") for us. Jesus is the propitiation for the sin of mankind - the Atoning Sacrifice that turns away or appeases the wrath due man.

Where we disagree is that I do not believe our justification is God imputing Jesus' perfect obedience to the Law to us. Jesus did eternally more than merely keeping the Law (technically, Jesus was willingly cursed under the Law ... an important point Paul makes).

 

[The Biblicist]

(technically, Jesus was willingly cursed under the Law ... an important point Paul makes).

I find this statement utterly amazing! When you "become sin" you are under the curse of the law and he willing became sin for us - it is called penal substitution.

 

[JonC]

I find this statement utterly amazing! When you "become sin" you are under the curse of the law and he willing became sin for us - it is called penal substitution.

Yes, it is amazing. Scripture says Jesus because a curse for us, for cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree. And this is called "substitution". The "penal" part (which I also affirmed already in "propitiation") is more nuanced.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning

This thread will be closed sometime after 2 am Pacific.

 

[JonC]

The replies here are one reason I suggested we discuss this apart from arguing for or against N.T. Wright’s view. I believe that there are just too many presuppositions that originate from tradition rather than Scripture in some of the opinions expressed here. And when pressed, the answer is diversion.

If righteousness is indeed a moral righteousness, and if it is God attributing to man Jesus’ perfect observance of the Law (instead of the Son’s perfect obedience to the Father by the Spirit....by faith as a man) then it seems that one would be able to conjure up enough clear Scripture to defend that type of moral righteousness. But time after time and thread after thread it is always the same. “Well….Scripture does not exactly spell this out….this essentially important doctrine that your entire soteriological view hinges upon is really something we should infer from Scripture.

Where in Scripture does it say that Adam’s nature “fell” to be something it was once not? Innocence was lost, his eyes were opened, but where but tradition do we get that Adam’s sin came from anything but giving in to temptation because of his own lusts, and this giving birth to sin? Where do we get that Adam did not have a human nature with human desires of the flesh (as Christ experienced)? In RCC doctrine, that is where.

Where do we get the scheme that we are in a court room and God is a Judge who cannot truly forgive man but instead must get his pound of flesh from somewhere? Where do we get the idea that divine forgiveness is in truth anthropomorphic for “divine accounting”? The RCC (and the refining of the “penal system” of Aquinas), that’s where. Where do we get the idea that God is incapable of forgiving man even one single sin because it would diminish his justice, so something must be paid in terms of a sin for a good deed? Again, the RCC.

When you are ready, start a thread and let’s honestly look at Scripture alongside these traditions that you carry into your theories. Let’s look at your definition of “Penal Substitution”, your idea that Jesus paid a specific amount for each act you committed against the Mosaic Law. Let’s look at the justness of such an idea and how/when it originated (this time we won’t exclude the development of your theories). Let’s look at the sacrificial system, and humanity, and Scripture….and let’s compare this to your moral court system.

I think that this may be interesting, and perhaps we both can learn more of the other. As it is, your position is soaked in tradition and assumption, so it is impossible to pick it up with “moral” vs biblical righteousness.

 

[The Biblicist]

If righteousness is indeed a moral righteousness, and if it is God attributing to man Jesus’ perfect observance of the Law (instead of the Son’s perfect obedience to the Father by the Spirit....by faith as a man)

Why the dichotomy? Man is obeying the Father by obeying the Law but the Son isn't obeying the Father by obeying the Law as a man????

then it seems that one would be able to conjure up enough clear Scripture to defend that type of moral righteousness. But time after time and thread after thread it is always the same. “Well….Scripture does not exactly spell this out….this essentially important doctrine that your entire soteriological view hinges upon is really something we should infer from Scripture.

What? It is your position that is bankrupt of scripture not mine! You have to EXPLAIN AWAY scriptures and I don't. For example Romans 3:21-22. For example:

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 3:21repudiates 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.

I have given you scripture after scripture to support every statement above. What have you done in reply? IGNORE THEM and reassert your nonsense! I have given Christ's own analogies of the relationship of the heart to attitudes,words and deeds (tree and its fruit) proving that the cause is the heart not the attitudes, words and actions contrary to your position that "faithfulness" to the word is God's righteousness. I have demonstrated that pure water does not originate from salt spring and thus moral attitudes,words and actions must originate from a MORAL heart. I have repeatedly proven that God's heart must be MORAL by the above quotation which you have never been able to respond to. Your view is wholly bankrupt of scripture. You have nothing but traditions to support your view.

Where in Scripture does it say that Adam’s nature “fell” to be something it was once not? Innocence was lost, his eyes were opened, but where but tradition do we get that Adam’s sin came from anything but giving in to temptation because of his own lusts, and this giving birth to sin? Where do we get that Adam did not have a human nature with human desires of the flesh (as Christ experienced)? In RCC doctrine, that is where.

Pathetic and pitiful! I have placed the evidence before you and you simply ignore it and then reassert this absolute nonsense!

Genesis 2:17 says that in the day he ate he would die and death begins with spiritual death or separation spiritually from God (Eph.2:1). Being spiritually separated from God is to be separated from the source of life (spiritual death) light (spiritual darkness) holiness (depravity) and love (enmity) and that is the fallen nature of man (Eph. 4:18; Rom. 8:7).

"lusts' simply means "desires" of the mind or heart and merely having lusts or desires is not evidence of sin, except when those desires are joined with intent to violate Gods revealed will/law. Sin is conceived when desire is joined with intent to transgress the law of God.

Being naked is not sin! Being naked is not proof of a fall or a sinful nature! Trying to hide their nakedness was proof of the fall as their sin made them feel exposed before God - that was conscience at work due to sin.

Where do we get the scheme that we are in a court room and God is a Judge who cannot truly forgive man but instead must get his pound of flesh from somewhere?

We get it from God's own descriptions of final judgement, works based, the law as the standard (Rom. 2:6-11; Rev. 20:12-15; 2 Cor.10:5). We get it from FORENSIC terminology used in Scripture. We get it from the law court system established by God in Israel.

Where do we get the idea that divine forgiveness is in truth anthropomorphic for “divine accounting”? The RCC (and the refining of the “penal system” of Aquinas), that’s where. Where do we get the idea that God is incapable of forgiving man even one single sin because it would diminish his justice, so something must be paid in terms of a sin for a good deed? Again, the RCC.

We get it from the very words chosen and used in Scripture in Romans 3-4.We get it from the fact that the term "works" as used in Romans 4:1-5 cannot possibly be defined as you and Wright define it because it is not only PRE-covenant use and must mean MORAL attitudes and actions but it is used BEFORE any law covenant and OUTSIDE of any covenant. Therefore it must be a MORAL righteousness that is imputed, not imparted, not infused, not based upon anything other than the moral righteousness demanded by a moral law given by a moral God.

When you are ready, start a thread and let’s honestly look at Scripture alongside these traditions that you carry into your theories. Let’s look at your definition of “Penal Substitution”, your idea that Jesus paid a specific amount for each act you committed against the Mosaic Law. Let’s look at the justness of such an idea and how/when it originated (this time we won’t exclude the development of your theories). Let’s look at the sacrificial system, and humanity, and Scripture….and let’s compare this to your moral court system.

What you claim that I am saying is your perversion of my position and a complete perversion of Scripture. First, your perversion omits that Jesus was God who shed His blood (Acts20:28) which gives it infinite positive as well as infinite negative value when it comes to substitutionary satisfaction of both the standard and penalty of the Law. Have you forgotten that the penalty is "according to your works" but your position ignores that value while only the penal substutionary position deals with that justly???

I think that this may be interesting, and perhaps we both can learn more of the other. As it is, your position is soaked in tradition and assumption, so it is impossible to pick it up with “moral” vs biblical righteousness.

The truth is you must pervert not only my position but scripture to even defend your view and you do it wonderfully. I leave the following quotation for you to ponder again as you have never been able to respond to it:

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 3:21repudiates 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.

You have called my view scriptureless, a tradition, Roman Catholicism, but none of which I have ever appealed unto, quoted, or used. Then you have the audacity to infer that Jesus is a sinner by law definition because he willingly went to the cross. That is sacrilegious to the hilt. Theologically your view is bankrupt of any true gospel of Christ.Your view is not the gospel of scriptures but is as Wright's view another gospel (and no, I will not detract that or apologize for saying it).

 

[Yeshua1]

The replies here are one reason I suggested we discuss this apart from arguing for or against N.T. Wright’s view. I believe that there are just too many presuppositions that originate from tradition rather than Scripture in some of the opinions expressed here. And when pressed, the answer is diversion.

If righteousness is indeed a moral righteousness, and if it is God attributing to man Jesus’ perfect observance of the Law (instead of the Son’s perfect obedience to the Father by the Spirit....by faith as a man) then it seems that one would be able to conjure up enough clear Scripture to defend that type of moral righteousness. But time after time and thread after thread it is always the same. “Well….Scripture does not exactly spell this out….this essentially important doctrine that your entire soteriological view hinges upon is really something we should infer from Scripture.

Where in Scripture does it say that Adam’s nature “fell” to be something it was once not? Innocence was lost, his eyes were opened, but where but tradition do we get that Adam’s sin came from anything but giving in to temptation because of his own lusts, and this giving birth to sin? Where do we get that Adam did not have a human nature with human desires of the flesh (as Christ experienced)? In RCC doctrine, that is where.

Where do we get the scheme that we are in a court room and God is a Judge who cannot truly forgive man but instead must get his pound of flesh from somewhere? Where do we get the idea that divine forgiveness is in truth anthropomorphic for “divine accounting”? The RCC (and the refining of the “penal system” of Aquinas), that’s where. Where do we get the idea that God is incapable of forgiving man even one single sin because it would diminish his justice, so something must be paid in terms of a sin for a good deed? Again, the RCC.

When you are ready, start a thread and let’s honestly look at Scripture alongside these traditions that you carry into your theories. Let’s look at your definition of “Penal Substitution”, your idea that Jesus paid a specific amount for each act you committed against the Mosaic Law. Let’s look at the justness of such an idea and how/when it originated (this time we won’t exclude the development of your theories). Let’s look at the sacrificial system, and humanity, and Scripture….and let’s compare this to your moral court system.

I think that this may be interesting, and perhaps we both can learn more of the other. As it is, your position is soaked in tradition and assumption, so it is impossible to pick it up with “moral” vs biblical righteousness.

Would yu agree tat the wrath of God against all sins had to b poured upon someone, some agent has to py the dealth penalty for commiting sin against God, andth person can only be either jesus or myself?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning

This thread will be closed sometime after 2 am Pacific.