A Question: Eternal Life, Kingdom of God, Saved?

[npetreley]

THAT'S my point!

He was crusified because He did that which He was ordained to do that the work of Atonement be fulfilled in Him.

BUT, ... actually you know - your right. He wouldn't have been killed preaching your gospel would He?
The pharasees, Sadusee's, Scribes and Lawyers would have blest the Lord for Christ coming and establishing their righteousness as the true example and not Christ righteousness being our all in all. They would be honored and exalted IF Jesus came preaching 'your' gospel of works and man made righteousness. But alas, they killed Him because He did not. He was contrary to their works based religion which had become so perverted that truth was no more about faith in God, but faith in man.

Very good point. ME is the Pharisee's idea of salvation in two respects:

1. Salvation is by works.
2. The "reward" is political power.

They would have loved this idea, because it was THEIR idea already. They were very self-righteous, like the ME folks. They loved their power and special status, and would have rejoiced at the idea of more of it.

 

[David Lamb]

No doubt they were self-righteous and righteous in the eyes of others. But, that does not contradict necessarily that they were righteous.

What does it mean to be rightous?

Luke 1:6 tells us that Zacharius and Elizabeth were righteous because they walked in the ordinances of the Lord.

Does that mean they were sinless?

By the same token, did the Scribes and Pharisees walk in the ordinances of the Lord?

Outwardly and in public, yes. But Jesus told them that by their traditions (i.e. adding to God's Word) they had "made the commandment of God of no effect". This was (as I'm sure you know) with regard to the practice known as Corban, and its effect on the fifth of the Ten Commandments. Matthew 15.5-6:

5 "But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is a gift to God" ––
6 ‘then he need not honor his father or mother.’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition.​

Their traditions stopped them having even having what Paul calls "the righteousnes which is of the law", let alone "the righteousness of faith." Romans 10.4-6:

4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
5 For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, "The man who does those things shall live by them."
6 But the righteousness of faith speaks in this way, "Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’" (that is, to bring Christ down from above)​

By the way, I haven't been able to find a translation that includes "because" in its rendering of Luke 1.6.

 

[Faith alone]

David,

Nice post. I agree that in the Greek there is no "because." But there is definitely a relationship between their being upright and walking in the Lords' commandments and regulations. The relationship is not spelled out though.

As I view it, it's basically an appositive statement, the 2nd phrase is saying the first phrase another way. We should not assume cause.

FA

 

[npetreley]

6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Nope, no "because" there.

 

[TCGreek]

David,

Nice post. I agree that in the Greek there is no "because." But there is definitely a relationship between their being upright and walking in the Lords' commandments and regulations. The relationship is not spelled out though.

As I view it, it's basically an appositive statement, the 2nd phrase is saying the first phrase another way. We should not assume cause.

FA

1. Good observation. Well, there're times when we must use the biblical languages.

2. After looking at the text of Luke 1:6, I can safely say that "walking" which is the word under consideration is a adverbial participle answering the question of How, which can either convey means or manner. There's nothing causal about this participle.

3. "Because" is not an option.

 

[Hope of Glory]

David,

Nice post. I agree that in the Greek there is no "because." But there is definitely a relationship between their being upright and walking in the Lords' commandments and regulations. The relationship is not spelled out though.

As I view it, it's basically an appositive statement, the 2nd phrase is saying the first phrase another way. We should not assume cause.

FA

Which is restating the purpose that I posted the passage. The second phrase identifies the first.

Is a person who ignores the ordinances of God behaving in a righteous manner?

 

[TCGreek]

Which is restating the purpose that I posted the passage. The second phrase identifies the first.

Is a person who ignores the ordinances of God behaving in a righteous manner?

What's at stake for you guys If you don't get others to buy into your doctrine of the Kingdom?

 

[Faith alone]

Which is restating the purpose that I posted the passage. The second phrase identifies the first.

Is a person who ignores the ordinances of God behaving in a righteous manner?

Agreed. But that does not mean that simply walking blamelessly in the comandments & ordinances makes us fully righteous. That is a gift - received by faith. God declares us to be righteous based upon faith.

Luke 1:6 They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking (living) blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.

Your question (I colored red above) is like asking, "Is a person who lies and is self-centered behaving in a righteous manner?" Of course not. But we cannot say that if we simply stop lying and thinking only about ourselves that we are then righteous. We cannot fully stop doing those things. Hence we must accept the righteousness imputed to us based on our faith alone. You are assuming that the inverse of a statement is always true, and neither the converse nor the inverse necessarily follow. The contrapositive, however, is always true.

If a person is not walking in the commandments and ordinances --> then they are not righteous.

Contrapositive: If they are righteous then they are walking in the commandments and ordinances of the Lord.

We also have to recognize that the expression "righteous" is used many times in scripture to speak of a degree of righteousness as compared to many. It does not mean absolutely righteous in their behavior. James 5:16 says that the prayer of a righteous man accomplishes much. 1 John 3:7 says that he who does what is right is righteous. That does not mean absolutely righteous. For we know that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God... far short.

Galatians 3:1-7 You foolish Galatians! Who has hypnotized you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was vividly portrayed as crucified? I only want to learn this from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? After beginning with the Spirit, are you now going to be made complete by the flesh? Did you suffer so much for nothing--if in fact it was for nothing? So then, does God supply you with the Spirit and work miracles among you by the works of the law or by hearing with faith? Just as Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness, so understand that those who have faith are Abraham's sons.


We are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.


Romans 4:1-5 What then can we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? If Abraham was justified by works, then he has something to brag about--but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him for righteousness. Now to the one who works, pay is not considered as a gift, but as something owed. But to the one who does not work, but believes on Him who declares righteous the ungodly, his faith is credited for righteousness.

Scripture is clear. "Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:20). We cannot do that as long as we live int his "body of death."

Thx,

FA

 

[Hope of Glory]

Agreed. But that does not mean that simply walking blamelessly in the comandments & ordinances makes us fully righteous. That is a gift - received by faith. God declares us to be righteous based upon faith.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

We are declared righteous forever and ever.

We are commanded to be righteous.

There is not contradiction.

 

[Faith alone]

The two are not mutually exclusive.

We are declared righteous forever and ever.

We are commanded to be righteous.

There is not contradiction.

No it is not. I agree. But we cannot be fully righteous. We cannot be without sin. Hence, no one at the time of Christ was righteous in that sense - except Christ Himself - that's our point. So salvation is only through Christ. The Pharisees were not saved except through faith. The object of their faith was different than ours is now since God has revealed more to us.

FA

 

[Hope of Glory]

But we cannot be fully righteous. We cannot be without sin.

Mind showing where I even implied that?

That's why we were given the law. The law is perfect, and it shows us that we are incapable of being completely righteous.

But, that doesn't mean that we're given free rein to do whatever we want, either.

 

[Faith alone]

Mind showing where I even implied that?

That's why we were given the law. The law is perfect, and it shows us that we are incapable of being completely righteous.

But, that doesn't mean that we're given free rein to do whatever we want, either.

Mind showing where i implied that? :jesus: HoG, I think we're misunderstanding one another. I understood you to be saying that the Pharisees were righteous, and were saved by their righteousness, not by their faith in God. If you agree with this, then we are not in conflict. But I did not think you did agree.

FA

 

[David Lamb]

Mind showing where i implied that? :jesus: HoG, I think we're misunderstanding one another. I understood you to be saying that the Pharisees were righteous, and were saved by their righteousness, not by their faith in God. If you agree with this, then we are not in conflict. But I did not think you did agree.

FA

I think I must have misunderstood something, "Faith alone". Do you really believe that the righteousness of the Pharisees actually saved them? Or are the words "thought they" missing between "Pharisees" and "they were" - should it read: "The Pharisees thought they were righteous"? If they were righteous enough to be saved by that righteousness, why did Nicodemus need to be born again, and why did Paul need to be converted?

However, It seems more likely that I have misunderstood your message.

 

[Faith alone]

I think I must have misunderstood something, "Faith alone". Do you really believe that the righteousness of the Pharisees actually saved them? Or are the words "thought they" missing between "Pharisees" and "they were" - should it read: "The Pharisees thought they were righteous"? If they were righteous enough to be saved by that righteousness, why did Nicodemus need to be born again, and why did Paul need to be converted?

However, It seems more likely that I have misunderstood your message.

David,

Huh? I guess we're all misunderstanding one another. :smilewinkgrin: What I said was what I understood HoG to believe. I have been arguing to show that we are saved by faith alone. Hence... my username. But I can see how what I said was confusing. I should have added, "If instead you agree with this (that we are saved by faith)..."

FA

 

[David Lamb]

David,

Huh? I guess we're all misunderstanding one another. :smilewinkgrin: What I said was what I understood HoG to believe. I have been arguing to show that we are saved by faith alone. Hence... my username. But I can see how what I said was confusing. I should have added, "If instead you agree with this (that we are saved by faith)..."

FA

Thanks for that - it made it much clearer for me. Yes, I thought your user name was chosen because you believe (as I do) that we are saved by faith. Thanks again. Sorry to have misunderstood first time

 

[Hope of Glory]

Actually, I think we are saved by grace through faith.

 

[David Lamb]

Actually, I think we are saved by grace through faith.

So do I, HoG. Apologies for the careless wording.

 

[Lacy Evans]

I think we're misunderstanding one another. I understood you to be saying that the Pharisees were righteous, and were saved by their righteousness, not by their faith in God. If you agree with this, then we are not in conflict. But I did not think you did agree.

FA

The Pharisees were by no means saved by their "righteousness". No one ever could be.

But I think when Jesus said, "except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." that it would be overly simplistic to simply say Christ was just telling the audience to get saved.

IMO, the audience that he was directing the comments to was already saved (The light of the world, The salt of the earth)

The verse preceeding the "righteousness of the Pharasees" verse speaks of rank in the Kingdom, gained by keeping commandments, etc.:

Matthew 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

For me, it would be an illogical jump to be teaching one verse about rank and reward, then abruptly switch to salvation. Also, if 20 is about salvation, the 19 must be also.

But 19 is all works. Therefore, I'm compelled to delegate this passage to the realm of reward, and not salvation.

I believe that Christ was speaking comparatively of the Pharasees' outward righteousness.

Matthew 23:23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.

Even in this scathing rebuke, there is a hint that they had gotten some things right. They had a relatively high degree of "outward righteousness." (Again, I agree they were lost and about to bust the bottom out of Hell unless they believed on Christ.) But ,outwardly, the things that they did have right were to be emulated, but with a right heart and an eye on the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith.

In other words, I think Christ was saying something like, "Christian, you will have to have some outward righteousness (Obedience, watchfulness, mercy, resistance of temptation, mortifying of the flesh, kindness, etc) to even get in, much less be first or last. If you don't even have as much outward righteousness as the unsaved pharasee, you need to get busy using the gifts I have given you."

 

[npetreley]

One or more ME advocates has already said that they believe the Pharisees were made righteous by their works. I'd look it up, but it's a real pain to do so when you have them on ignore.

But it's not at all surprising. ME folk are very close to being the Pharisees of our day.

 

[Faith alone]

Actually, I think we are saved by grace through faith.

:smilewinkgrin: I usually try to remember to say "by grace through faith" - based upon Ephesians 2:8-10, though Paul says "by faith" numerous times, so it is not really wrong to say "by faith."

FA