Featured FOUR REASONS PROFESSOR WRIGHT IS WRONG ON JUSTIFICATION

It is a moral righteousness but not a legalistic righteousness as no fallen human can produce it. It is a "moral" righteousness because God's nature is a "moral" nature as evidenced in that he "cannot lie" and lying is a moral issue; as evidenced in his creatures which are moral creatures, as evidenced in his "image" which is a moral image (Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10):

And that you put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:

What is "greater" is God's moral holiness (Mt. 5:20; 48). It exceeds the best of men (Mt.5:20) because it equals the best of God (Mt.5:48). It is God's own personal moral righteousness that our new man is imparted and it is God's own personal righteousness manifested in the life of Christ that is imputed to us by faith. It is the only possible righteousness that can vindicate us from the condemnation of the Law. It cannot be produced in or through us as it is perfect, and so it must be given or imputed as fallen man cannot produce it because they have already "come short" of its standard - an entire life of sinless moral perfection.

Rom. 3: 21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ to all and on all them that believe:

Rom. 10:3 For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God.

 

No one would dispute that,but God's moral nature (holiness) is what requires judgment and justification of sinners not his attributes of immutability, omnscience, omnipresence, eternity, or his divine essence as spirit, etc.

Yes, but the human nature does not extend beyond the consequences of immorality. All other aspects of humanity have been contaminated and condemned because of immorality. You are trying to disconnect cause from effects or deny the cause for the effects.

Reconciliation goes no further than the extent of the consequences of immorality. That which is morally perfect needs no reconciliation nor does any other aspect of its nature in addition to its moral nature.

You are confusing the problem (sin = immorality= unrighteousness) with the extent or consequences of the problem otherwise called "total" depravity (total - human nature).

Now you are confusing the legal grounds for reconciliation with the means used to reconcile the damages of sin.

 

I don't know if I understand the point you are making? Could you clarify why you are making these points?

 

If that is so, then we were not condemned by any legal basis either! However, if we were condemned according to a legal basis then we must be justified by the same legal basis. Indeed, the very term "justified" is a legal term or a legal court action according to a legal standard.

You are making assertions that have no proof, no evidence, no nothing to support them.

 

When Jesus was asked what to do in order to inherit eternal life by both the lawyer and the rich young ruler he pointed them to the law. When Jesus defined sin he did so by use of the law. Jesus made the law both the standard for condemnation and the standard for righteousness - that is an indisputable fact.

Another indisputable fact, is that when Christ defined "works" in connection with the nature of man, starting with the heart of man (intents, thoughts/decisions) and then proceeding to the actions of man he defined it by the law (Mt. 15). However, the holiness of God is best expressed not by a written code but by the expressed life of Christ. It is the life of Christ that provides God's holiness which the law attempts to reveal in written form (Rom. 3:21-22). Therefore, the written law of God has its basis in the holiness of God and it reveals the righteousness of God.

When Paul described the holiness recreated in the heart of men by the new birth, he did so in law terms as he described the new creation as the law not written upon stones but upon the human heart (2 Cor. 3:3) as the expression of the new covenant. When God described the new birth in the Old Testament it was a "new" heart and a "new" Spirit that expressed obedience to his commandments, his law.

God's is called "just" and the "judge" of all the earth and in his only theocratic government on earth that just and judge character is expressed by the law as the standard of what is just and unjust. The weakness of the law is not found in itself as Paul says it is just holy and good but is found in our fallen nature. Our new nature is said to "delight in the law of God" (Rom. 7:22).

When God judges fallen man on the last day the scriptures clearly state that the law will be the standard for that judgment (Rom. 2:11-14) but as it is expressed in the life of Christ (Rom. 2:16). "works" are defined as good or evil, which is the same as "moral" or "immoral" by the law on that day which finds its fullest and best expression in the NATURE OF GOD or HIS HOLINESS.

So your view and Wrights view of "justified" and "justification" is complete nonsense.

 

Let us stop using the term "moral" until we define it. I define "moral" and "immoral" as values that define right and wrong attitudes and behavior between rational beings. God's own holy nature is the absolute standard that defines moral versus immoral and that absolute standard has been revealed to us by His law by which he will judge the "works" (attitude and actions) of all men in the last day. This Law has been best expressed in the ten commandments prior to Christ, but is now best expressed in the life (attitude and actions) of the Person of Jesus Christ.

"Moral" refers to right values whereas "immoral" refers to wrong values in God's kingdom and God has explicitly given the law to define those values in His kingdom as the law gives written expression to those values found in the "holy" nature of God.

"Covenant" refers to an agreement made between two or more parties where each party has certain defined responsibilities to carry out and if one or more parties fail to carry out their assigned responsibilites then the covenant is violated by that party.

God made no "covenant" with Adam and Eve in the Garden.Instead God sovereignly enacted a law without consent or agreement or advice or input of any kind from Adam or Eve. In essence, God established Himself as final lawgiver, final judge and jury over man and this is what was challenged by Satan and usurped by Adam and Eve by violating of that sovereign enacted law. The violation of that law was in essence the complete overthrow of the rule of God over his own kingdom and thus rejection of God's Laws and God's Person as final lawgiver. That singular violation of divine law was to install man as God or final lawgiver over his own life and is best summed up in the modern cliche "I will do what I will, when I want, where I want and how I want and nobody will rule over me for I am the captain of my own destiny the god of my own life."

Therefore, in the greatest sense of the term it was a "MORAL" revolution against God as it repudiated God's standard of right and wrong in the most absolute sense.

Again, "moral" and "immoral" are values that define right and wrong attitudes and behavior among rational beings and God's nature is the absolute standard for determining "right" and "wrong" attitudes and behavior but since God is invisible He has established as the standard to determine "moral" and "immoral" or "right" and "wrong" attitudes and actions His law/commandments/revealed will in written form first summarized and symbolized in the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" and then further summarized in the ten commandments which is the moral basis for the civil and ceremonial laws established in Israel and the covenant between God and Israel. It is latter reduced to two great commandments, and then further reduced to one word "love." God IS love, God IS holy, God IS righteous and thus the law is merely the expression of God's nature but best visibly expressed in the life lived by Christ.

So, "thou shalt not lie" is equally a moral value as "thou shalt not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" because both are expressions of God's will which is rooted in his holy nature as all of his commandments originate from the ultimate moral standard which is His own holy nature.

"I am holy be ye therefore holy" is the sum and total of all covenants made by God. All covenants therefore are based upon MORAL VALUES and the absolute standard that determines what is "holy" and what is not "holy" is God's own holy nature which he reveals in THE LAW and then in the LIFE or attitudes and actions of Jesus Christ.

In essence, what you are implying is that Christ failed to keep the law but violated the law by the cross and thus was judged as a sinner under the law. If Christ had failed the law prior to the cross then he would have died like any other sinner. However, it is the morally sinless life of Christ that made him fit to BE MADE SIN FOR US BY THE CROSS. Hence, your implication,whether you realize it or not is a repudiation of the substitutionary atonement of Christ for our sins.

 

Your response is a result of confusing things that differ. The Law was NEVER about meriting favor or obtaining eternal life, but it was ALWAYS about defining God's standard of good and evil. Justification is God as Judge delcaring that standard has not been violated. Condemnation is God as Judge declaring that standard has been violated.

One sin brings condemnation but only a sinless life from birth to death brings justification and since all have sinned, and therefore all have been condemned, this required the incarnation of a human being who from birth to death who lived without sin as a SUBSTITUTE for sinners in order to be justified before God.

 

With regard to "covenant" salvation it is an unconditional covenant between the Persons of the Trinune Godhead with the Person and work of Jesus Christ as the substitutionary basis for justification of sinners.

There would be no need for justification of sinners if they were not "condemned." It is a divine standard that condemned them which the Bible clearly and undisputably defines as God's Law. If they could be justified from that condemned condition simply by doing away with the divine standard that condemned them then there would be no need for Jesus or a Savior. God is not the author of confusion, if the law is his JUST standard for condemnation then the same standard must be satisfied in order to justify them from that condemnation or else God is the author of confusion.

That standard cannot be satisfied by our life with or without spiritual union with God as condemnation is the result of merely breaking one point and that occurs both before and after regeneration. Hence, that requires a substutionary life completely without sin or there is no reconciliation of sinners with God - meaning with God's holy standard.So any "covenant" righteousness must satisfy the same divine standard and must be individualized or it is meaningless.

 

The Bible says God IS righteous! Is his righteousness definable or undefinable? If it is undefinable it means nothing to us. If it is definable, then there must be a standard of definition. Paul says that before the incarnation of Christ, that definition was the Law of God as interpreted by the prophets. At the incarnation the law of God became incarnate as the ultimate standard for the written law was the very holy nature of God which for the first time in history could be seen, touched and heard (1 Jn. 1:1-2).

Imparted righteousness and/or infused righteousness (union) does not justify our own lives in God's sight as our own lives are still filled with sin. Hence, neither imparted or infused righteousness can remove our own life out from under the condemnation of the Law of God.

Eventually, imparted righteousness will provide a sinless person AFTER THIS LIFE but not during this life. Infused righteousness does not remove sin from our daily life.

The ONLY possible life that the law or nature of God can declare righteous rather than declare condemned is an absolute sinless life and the ONLY possible way we can obtain that sinless and thus justified life is by imputation through faith in the substitutionary life and death of Christ - there is no other way.