Featured FOUR REASONS PROFESSOR WRIGHT IS WRONG ON JUSTIFICATION

L

I was not implying such a thing. I said that you and I need not devolve into such foolishness. Yet here you are.

My point is that by speaking of Christ as becoming man I was not rejecting that He is also God. I was saying that Jesus met the covenantal requirement of man, as man. Jesus is the Word made flesh, God become man (completely man) and obedient to the Father even to death.

Given your objection, I will consent that it is probably fair to say that on the Cross God died. But since we are talking of a physical death as Jesus became a curse for us, I don’t think the comment specific enough to be useful. The Cross represents Jesus, as God’s Righteous One, laying down his life in obedience to the Father.

Now, if you have any questions of why I determine that the Righteousness of God is not based on a morality but instead holiness, and the righteousness of men based on that same holiness in terms of God "dwelling with man" (which is, BTW, the ultimate promise of the covenants), then please feel free to ask me. Otherwise, we disagree. I am not interested in arguing against you, or learning your view here (I already know your view, we've had this discussion before). I simply have no interest in being the target for you to express your position. That is neither dialogue or communication.

 

Your objection to my explanation of Jesus as the "last Adam" representing mankind in a covenant was that Jesus was not merely man. I know Jesus was not merely man. I am saying your statement seemed to be opposing my (and Scriptures) use of the term to deal with Christ's humanity. You seem unable to cope with Jesus being fully man by the simple fact you will not allow the truth to stand without the qualifier "Jesus was fully God". While both are true, you seem (I.e., your comments appear, to me, to in fact deny the humanity of Christ in terms of any application).

 

QUOTE="The Biblicist, post: 2285428, member: 11148"]In other words, I should be quiet and not respond to your position unless I have a question. So you are the teacher here and everyone must be students. So you get to express your position but I shouldn't respond and give in response what I believe is the correct view? That is your idea of a dialogue???[/QUOTE]
No, not at all. What I am saying is that we are not arguing or even discussing the disagreement between us. We have not really even defined where we depart.

What I am saying is that you have not taken the time to even begin to engage my position but have instead chosen to lecture me on yours.

Excellent. This is what I mean by discussing our disagreement.

I am, of course, willing to drop the term “moral” as this was my insistence all along (that “moral” needed to be dropped from “moral righteousness” in order for it to be biblical). But on the grounds of our discussion here, I cannot because it is exactly what I am arguing against (you are asking me to drop my argument in order to argue). I am saying that God’s righteousness is based not on his moral character but on his Word (it is not that God is moral, but that God is always faithful to act as he has revealed himself to man). It is God’s expressed faithfulness to his Word, his covenant, his promises freely given that forms his righteousness, not an obligatory sense of morality he is bound to follow. And the basis of our righteousness/unrighteousness is God’s righteousness (it is God’s faithfulness to his Word, not his moral character known through law…although this is obviously not excluded).

Throughout Scripture the term “righteousness” is used to describe God on the grounds of divine action within context of God’s own revealed character, and specifically within God’s promises with man. God’s “righteousness” is God’s faithfulness to His Word.

Psalm 119:137-139 Righteous are You, O LORD, And upright are Your judgments. You have commanded Your testimonies in righteousness And exceeding faithfulness. My zeal has consumed me, Because my adversaries have forgotten Your words.

Is God’s righteousness here is based on his Word, those promises given describing his actions, those covenantal “arrangements” revealing God’s own nature.

Psalm 145- The LORD is righteous in all His ways And kind in all His deeds.
The LORD is near to all who call upon Him, To all who call upon Him in truth.
He will fulfill the desire of those who fear Him; He will also hear their cry and will save them.
The LORD keeps all who love Him, But all the wicked He will destroy.

The Psalmist speaks of God’s righteousness, but he defines God’s righteousness in terms of faithfulness. God is faithful to those who fear him, God is faithful to destroy the wicked, God is faithful to save those who cry out to him. God’s righteousness here is not one of a moral nature, but of God’s faithfulness to his Word, to the promises he has made with man through his own revealed character (ultimately through Christ).

Isaiah 45- And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me. Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other. I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness And will not turn back, That to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance. They will say of Me, 'Only in the LORD are righteousness and strength.' Men will come to Him, And all who were angry at Him will be put to shame. "In the LORD all the offspring of Israel Will be justified and will glory."

Again, here we are not talking about a moral standard (even if it is “God’s moral standard”. Isaiah is dealing with God’s faithfulness, his righteousness, in accordance with his word (here, his covenant with Israel that all the offspring of Israel will be justified and will glory). This is not moral righteousness.

Isaiah 5 Therefore My people go into exile for their lack of knowledge; And their honorable men are famished, And their multitude is parched with thirst. Therefore Sheol has enlarged its throat and opened its mouth without measure; And Jerusalem's splendor, her multitude, her din of revelry and the jubilant within her, descend into it. So the common man will be humbled and the man of importance abased, The eyes of the proud also will be abased. But the LORD of hosts will be exalted in judgment, And the holy God will show Himself holy in righteousness. Then the lambs will graze as in their pasture, And strangers will eat in the waste places of the wealthy.

Isaiah is not declaring that God will be shown, ultimately, as morally right (God is morally right by default, this is implied because God is that standard). God will be shown to be faithful to all he has declared, to his word, to the revelation of himself to man. God is as God has revealed himself to be, and God’s Word will endure.

Daniel 9 As it is written in the law of Moses, all this calamity has come on us; yet we have not sought the favor of the LORD our God by turning from our iniquity and giving attention to Your truth. Therefore the LORD has kept the calamity in store and brought it on us; for the LORD our God is righteous with respect to all His deeds which He has done, but we have not obeyed His voice. And now, O Lord our God, who have brought Your people out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand and have made a name for Yourself, as it is this day—we have sinned, we have been wicked. O Lord, in accordance with all Your righteous acts, let now Your anger and Your wrath turn away from Your city Jerusalem

Daniel is not appealing to God’s sense of moral justice, but to God’s covenant, his promise, his Word, that if they turn from their iniquity he will turn his anger from them. Daniel is appealing to God’s promised grace, his mercy, not his morality.

2 Chronicles 12 Then Shemaiah the prophet came to Rehoboam…and he said to them, "Thus says the LORD, 'You have forsaken Me, so I also have forsaken you to Shishak.'" So the princes of Israel and the king humbled themselves and said, "The LORD is righteous." When the LORD saw that they humbled themselves, the word of the LORD came to Shemaiah, saying, "They have humbled themselves so I will not destroy them, but I will grant them some measure of deliverance, and My wrath shall not be poured out on Jerusalem by means of Shishak. But they will become his slaves so that they may learn the difference between My service and the service of the kingdoms of the countries.

Again, God’s righteousness is not a “moral righteousness”, but instead is based on God’s covenant given to Israel. God is faithful not only in wrath but also in mercy. God is faithful to act within the context of his own revelation, his own word, his own covenant with man.

In Scripture God’s righteousness is God’s faithfulness to his word. It is a covenantal righteousness and it is a covenantal righteousness that will determine the justness and justification of mankind. For Adam it was a covenant that God would dwell with him (God placing Adam in the Garden), but Adam's part was obedience. And this ended with man breaking the covenant and God promising a future redemption.

For Abraham it was a covenant that God would make him a people - God would once again dwell with man - Abraham's part was to believe. The Old Covenant was within this overarching promise. God gave Moses the Law, and this Law showed man his sinfulness (just like the law/command in the Garden showed Adam his propensity to sin...his "lusts" or desires that were not in accord with God's nature) by "making sin a transgression". This also came with "do's" and "don'ts", but the object was to "keep Israel" and to "teach Israel" (not to redeem Israel) until the New Covenant. And then we have the New Covenant, the inaugurating of the Kingdom. In all of this....ALL of this...God is faithful to the word he has given, and this faithfulness (not morality but God's own faithfulness) is righteousness. It is not based on God's moral law, or the Law, or anything except God's covenant with man which is embodied in Jesus Christ.

 

Let's not get silly here. Of course God's faithfulness is based in God being God. That is not what we are debating here. God's faithfulness, righteousness, justness, love, wrath,..... all are in accord with God's nature.

So the question is not whether or not this righteousness relates to God's nature as we both affirm this truth. The question is whether this is a moral righteousness or if it is a righteousness that carries a significance beyond moral conduct.

In Psalm 119, the Psalmist expresses a longing for God's Righteous word, for God's commands, for God's precepts, for God's statutes as this is God's loving kindness to show his people the "true way".

This righteousness is not a moral righteousness but a holy righteousness. In terms of men, it is being right with God as God has presented through his word, through his covenant.... a part of which is the Law...but it is so much more than moral righteousness.

The difference is what is credited to our account. If a moral righteousness, then God sees us as "law-keepers", and we have a works based Justification centered on the Law (with Christ as the "perfect Law-keepers"). If, however, Scripture is consistent and has God's covenant of redemption in mind, then God sees us as his children, as a covenant people justified by faith alone in and through the complete work of Christ.

 

Exactly! "Moral" is based on behavior.

I am saying this righteousness is not based on behavior.

 

Scripture teaches that behavior are manifestations of our heart. It also teaches that sin itself is birthed from our own lusts. You are wrong - the problem is not behavior but the heart behind that behavior. God is not a slave to a set of moral laws or rules. Those things point to God's nature. And this is why you teach a confused doctrine.

The Psalmist's often appeal to God's righteousness. They are not saying"God, you are a moral God, therefore you are not able to lie, so based on your moral inclination..." No. That is foolish. This n Psalm 119 the Psalmist says "God, you are faithful to your covenant. You said if we turn to you that you would deliver us, and we have, know you will deliver us." NOT because God is moral but be cause God is faithful.

Look, I could work with your interpretation because it is implied in mine. I think it far too shallow, but I certainly agree that behavior is involved in righteousness (at least in that we are not considered"immorally righteous"). To borrow from an illustration, you are more concerned with the effects of the wind than the source.

 

Yep. While we were sinners Christ died for us.

 

This is, IMHO, the larger problem with thinking in terms of a "moral righteousness". The Law did not exist for a very long time (sin was not a transgression as was Adam's sin). The Law dealt with behavior. But it really didn't. This is what Jesus taught the Jews. The Law says not to kill (behavior/moral). But Jesus says you break the law by hating your brother.

But is that really true? Not if we are justified by a moral righteousness it isn't. The problem transcends morality/behavior and goes straight to the ontological. To be made right under God's covenant we must be born again.