Featured Forensic Justification of sinners!

Then our disagreement is more of definition than substance. You have been saying that the issue is submission or rebellion against the law but I have been taking your meaning to be the Mosaic Law. I have been saying that it is not a moral issue based on the Law (thinking Mosaic Law) but an issue of covenant obedience (meaning obedient submission or willful rebellion against God's will).

Unless you are saying that Jesus came to obey the Ten Commandments so that God could attribute that to us then I believe we agree for the most part. I believe that Jesus submitting to God's will (entirely) not only fulfilled the Mosaic Law but also also God's law (moral, covenant, all revelation and will of God) as a whole.

 

Define "Law".

 

No, I am saying that the whole Law is fulfilled in loving your neighbor as yourself.

Jesus could have refrained from non-compliance with the Law by not becoming man. Jesus did not lay down his life in obedience to the Ten Commandments. Jesus lat down his life in submission to the Father. And yes, all Christ did was by faith, by submission to God (this is faith/belief).

We either submit to God's will in faith through the Spirit or we act in rebellion on our own accord. Jesus did the former, thereby fulfilling the Law.

I hope you see the difference. If we love God we will keep His commands. This does not mean that we keep his commandments in order to love Him.

 

Yes, Jesus had to experience death. This is not only important because Jesus became man, because Jesus needed to experience what man experiences, but also because it was the will of the Father and Jesus placed his faith (by the power of the Spirit) in the Father.

As a man Jesus did not seek his own will but by faith he subjected himself to the will of God. This was by the power of the Spirit. All of the Law (not only the Ten Commandments, not only all of the moral aspects of the Law, but all of the Law as a whole) was fulfilled in Christ. Not because Jesus sought to do the Law but because Jesus was submissive to God. Jesus did not go down the list thinking "don't steal, don't kill, don't commit adultry, etc.". Jesus loved God, was faithful to God, and obeyed God.

And then we have us. By faith in Christ we are justified. But we are also, if this faith is true, obedient. And we do not seek our will but Christ's will. And we are obedient even to death, even to bearing our crosses daily and dying to the flesh so as to live in Christ. And this is how we are considered to be justified - in Christ.

 

I believe the passage that says "if you love me you will obey my commands" and reject the heresy of man that we obey God's commands in order to love him.

How is that not clear? Do you also reject the idea that our obedience is a product of faith?

What I am saying is that Jesus lived the life of faith we should have lived. His eyes were on God, therefore he fulfilled all of the Law.

God is immutable. Jesus was not righteous because he perfectly obey the Ten Commandments. Jesus fulfilled the Law because he is righteous.

 

No, Scripture is clear that Jesus was tempted in all points as we are, but without sin. And it is also clear that Jesus did nothing of his own accord but submitted to the will of the Father through the spirit. In fact the Bible tells us this over and over again. I'm not exactly sure why you continue to argue against it.

The problem with the church today is that God rests to lightly upon her. We want something easy, something simple. We want a Christ who came to obey the Ten Commandments for us, and attribute that obedience on our account so we are free. We want easy believism. But instead the Bible gives us a Christ who as man submit to God. Scripture gives us a Christ that does not do his will but through the spirit does the will of God. and this Christ is obedient even to death, even the death of a cross. And easy believism reject this Christ in favor of a savior who merely comes and obeys the Ten Commandments because if the Christ of the Bible is true then the Christian faith demands something of us. If the Christ of the Bible is true that we are to take up our cross daily and follow him. Is scripture is true then in faith we are to deny our will, that is the will of the flesh, and follow Christ. We are to have the mind of Christ in us. And if this is true then faith is trust and submission to God through Christ. And we must die to the flesh in order to live in Christ.

And this is the problem people have with the truth that Christ work of salvation was one of submission to the Father through the Spirit, thereby fulfilling the Ten Commandments and the Law as a whole. It means they too must take up their crosses and follow him.

 

Not the Reformers. The traditional definition of Christ’s obedience is both active and passive obedience (the obedientia active and obedientia passive). This is not obeying the Ten Commandments in order that this be imputed to man. Instead the active obedience includes the life of Christ from his birth to his passion (especially Christ’s ministry where he acted sinlessly and in perfect obedience to the will of God). The passive obedience refers to Christ’s passion, which Jesus accepted passively and without resistance, again in submission to God’s will as he suffered the cross for the satisfaction of our sins. These two are not separated, but the distinctions are noted. Christ suffered the consequences of the Law and he fulfilled the requirements of perfect obedience to the Law throughout the course of his life and ministry. Upon this basis (Christ’s submission in obedience to God’s will, both actively and passively), believers are not only forgiven but they are regarded as righteous and heirs by virtue of their participation in the complete righteousness of Christ under the law of God.

Within Reformed Theology this topic has been debated, largely on exactly what is reckoned to the believer. To what extent is this attributed righteousness obedientia active and to what extend is it obedientia passive. Luther seems to have leaned towards passive obedience while Calvin seems to have leaned towards (if not specifically arrived at) active obedience. But even with Calvin (and it is debatable to what extent he moved from passive obedience) this was the active ministry of Christ (and obedience to God’s law) in the Son’s submission to the Father (what you are rejecting).

In other words, while your view is not traditionally the view of the Reformers or of Calvinists, I do understand how it could be viewed as a "hyper" or neo-Calvinistic view as it denies obedientia passive all together and restricts obedientia active to Christ's obedience to the Ten Commandments. On the other hand, your basis is not the faithful obedience of Christ to the Father but Jesus' obedience to the Ten Commandments, so I am not sure that it can even truly be considered a hyper view of Calvinism either.