What we could not do, Jesus did for us!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
FOUR REASONS PROFESSOR WRIGHT IS WRONG ON JUSTIFICATION
- Thread starter The Biblicist
- Start date
- Status
Jesus did what? That's the question. Did Jesus merely obey the Law, or the moral parts, and that righteousness is counted as ours? Or is there something more? Is it really just about our behavior (as "moral" implies behavior) or Jesus' behavior?
Scripture teaches that the Law showed us our sinfulness (I suspect this was also God's purpose in putting Adam in the Garden where he would ultimately give in to temptation because of his own lusts). The Law was never intended to save.
To my understanding, Jesus kept the Law perfectly, andGod took that and credit ot towards my sin debt in order to have forever paid in full, but there is o me still a mystery, as this was not Just a perfect and moral man dieing for me in my stead, but God Himself!
The justification of God in Christ is moral and Lawkeeping, but also involvs a new nature in me, nd the Holy Spiri of promise being given as a result of the Cross!
Do you know where it is written that a man is accursed who hangs on a tree? Jesus was without sin, but nowhere is it said that his objective was to redeem man by perfectly keeping the Law. Jesus fulfilled the Law! God does not look upon men as "perfect Law-keepers".
God looks upon Jesus as ourlaw Kper, as he stans in our place, so we are alie inHim, just Adam tood for us before God, and were ead in Him... Calvinism here, and some here probably don't see it in same light, but this seems to be what Paul was getting at contrasting Adam and Jesus...
I don't see how Paul was getting at that by contrasting Adam and Jesus. What I believe Paul was getting at is far more substantial than God attributing to us Jesus' perfect moral behavior. I am not going to go into it here (because I said I wouldn't), but it is very interesting that this type of righteousness is as foreign to most of Church history as it is to Scripture.
Look at what Paul said. Those who followed Adam had sinned, but their sin was not a transgression like Adams until the Law. What else does Paul say? Apart from the Law death reigned...why? Because all have sinned. The issue is not a moral issue but more of an ontological issue. It is not our behavior that needs to be corrected but our hearts and spirits that need to be renewed. The problem with the version of Calvinism that you are speaking of is it is fragmented. Your idea of justification/righteousness does not fit into your idea of regeneration.
Justification cannot be attributed to God counting us as if we were perfect little Law-keepers because God's own righteousness (God's own faithfulness to His Word) already has you covered. If you turn to God then He will forgive you. No need to define the Cross based on the Law. God has made you a promise. He is faithful to keep it. And your faithfulness to that covenant, your part in being counted "righteous" or justified, is faith in Christ based on his work.
You don't read too careful, that is precisely what I said, it is the "heart" (tree) of God and from it originates (fruit) attitudes, words and actions which are all MORAL thus proving the MORAL nature of the heart as it is the heart that produces moral fruits (attitudes, words, actions).
I said God's righteousness is not the Law, but the Law is a manifestation of God's righteousness.
I said the "heart" is the true source of his holy nature, whereas the fruits of the tree are attitudes, WORDS and actions. Read more carefully.
No, the law is the REVEALED righteousness of God but the law is not God's righteousness. God IS righteous due to his MORAL nature which the LAW simply reveals but does not exhaust.
However, the fact that the tree (heart) produces MORAL attitudes, words and actions proves the heart of God is MORAL - righteous as well as it takes a moral source to produce moral values.
This is precisely what you are teaching! You said the Law or word is his righteousness whereas I am the one that denied that and said GOD's NATURE (heart) is righteous. Remember my words, "Let me say it this way. God is not the Law but God IS righteous. Your theory would demand God IS the Law because the Law IS righteous."
You need to ask a third party who is reading our dispute if you really want to know who is confused. You are contradicting your position left and right.
You simply are confused. "moral" equals either righteous or unrighteous values that express the heart. If the expressions (fruit - attitude, words, actions" have the moral value of righteousness then they come/originate from a righteous nature/heart (tree). The Psalmist appeal to God's NATURE which is RIGHTEOUS by moral standards. So your denial is simply foolish.
More foolishness! God is faithful BECAUSE he IS righteous by nature (heart) which righteousness is a MORAL value!
You talk about "shallow" your whole position is based upon defining the EFFECTS for the CAUSE. All your arguments REVERSE cause and effects. God is faithful BECAUSE God is righteous in heart and that is a MORAL value. God is faithful to his promises, covenants, word BECAUSE God is righteous in heart and that is a MORAL value.
This is foolishness! The HEART of God is seat/cause/origin/tree of his attitudes, words, and actions and they by their very nature are MORAL proving the HEART is MORAL. Fresh water (moral attitudes, words, actions) do not originate from salt water (non-moral heart).
Follow your logic through! God existed before the expressed law existed and therefore God is the source of the Law. God is the tree and the law is the fruit of the tree. God IS righteousness by nature and that is why his law is righteous by nature. Righteousness and unrighteousness are MORAL values.
This is totally absurd oxymoronic reasoning to the hilt!! It is GOD'S RIGHTEOUSNESS that justifies sinners. The LIFE of Christ is GOD'S RIGHTEOUSNESS or at least that is what Paul says (Rom. 3:21-22). To claim we are justified AS IF we our the ones keeping the law is a complete perversion of my position as it is not OUR works but HIS ACTUAL life that justifies us.
Last edited:
Here is the root fallacy behind your logic. He is not counting "us as if WE were perfect little Law-keepers" but he is counting CHRIST as perfect before the Law and it HIS righteousness that is being imputed to us." Our righteousness is wholly of Christ and Christ alone, minus plus nothing, minus plus no one else, NOT "we" not "US". HE IS OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.
I know what is being said (Y1 said that God looks on Jesus as our Law-keeper) . My point is that view of righteousness is based on the Law (regardless of who does the Law-keeping" it is still a works based righteousness based on the Law). It is an un-biblical and, relatively speaking, modern. You complain about what Reformed churches carried over from the Catholic church...take the log out of your eye, brother.
Last edited:
No, your entirely missing the point. It is not based on law keeping as the Law is simply the revelation of the righteous of God (Rom. 3:21-22) and that is what Christ provided for His people = God's own righteousness which EXCEEDS any written law or any keeping of any written law. The difference between the law and God's own righteousness is the like the difference between the light of moon and the light of the Sun. The moon reflects the light of the sun and the law reflects the light of God's righteousness. What is imputed to us is the SUN OF RIGHTEOUSNESS not the moon light.I know what is being said (Y1 said that God looks on Jesus as our Law-keeper) . My point is that view of righteousness is based on the Law (regardless of who does the Law-keeping" it is still a works based righteousness based on the Law). It is an un-biblical and, relatively speaking, modern. You complain about what Reformed churches carried over from the Catholic church...take the log out of your eye, brother.
I agree with much you say here (I agree that God's righteousness exceed any moral law, and I even agree that God's nature or character is reflected in the Law).
Given that the Law is given within God's covenant (Dt. 5), and given that the laws of God are not given apart from a covenantal understanding (Jer. 31), and given that the Law is only a reflection of God's nature but a knowledge of God's nature is not dependent on the Law (Rm. 1; Jer. 20) ...I think we agree so far... - why do you think that we are justified morally when the entire purpose of the Law pointed to the covenant and God's faithfulness to those covenantal promises?
It does not exceed in DIFFERENCE but IN GLORY (2 Cor. 3:7-18).
Like God, God's Law preceded any covenant and that can be demonstrated easily. For example, God charges Israel with violation of the Sabbath law BEFORE it was given in covenant. Thou shalt not murder, was Law long before covenant, etc.
That is equally as false as all the previous asssertions as they perfectly understood these laws long before the Sinai covenant or else God could not hold them chargable for violating them which he did.
We don't agree at all on any of the above wild assertions including this one. God is revealed through his word, especially the gospel as it is empowered by the Spirit as the creative word to reveal God in the heart (2 Cor. 4:6;Mt.16:17; Gal. 1:16).
The purpose of the law is to reveal the knowledge of sin rather than to point to any covenant. It it is the gospel that points to the everlasting covenant and brings the believer into a covenant relationship with God.
I believe the purpose for this discussion has been reached. I understand your view and you understand my view and I see no purpose for extending this discussion.
My point is that view of righteousness is based on the Law (regardless of who does the Law-keeping" it is still a works based righteousness based on the Law). It is an un-biblical and, relatively speaking, modern. You complain about what Reformed churches carried over from the Catholic church...take the log out of your eye, brother.
This is such a wild and irrational assertion it is almost unbelievable that any evangelical could even utter it. Your doctrine has a low view of the law but Paul said of the Law
Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good.- Rom. 7:12
He said as a believer "I delight in the law of God after the inward heart" - Rom. 7:22
He described new birth under the new covenant as the law being written not on stone upon the tables of the fleshly heart (2 Cor. 3:3-6)
He defined the sinful nature as "enmity against God and not subject to the law of God and neither indeed can be. So, they that are in the flesh cannot please God." - Rom. 8:7-8 - which implies that pleasing God would involve submission to the law and that the law's standard is right and holy.
When Jesus was asked by the lawyer and rich young ruler how they could inherit eternal life he pointed them to the law as God's standard of what it means to be "good" enough to achieve that goal (which none but God could be declared [not by acheiving it but by what and who He is by nature] "good" in the sight of the Law).
But your doctrine and attitude toward the law of God denigrates the law as something dispicable with regard to it as a DIVINE STANDARD that DECLARES "good" and "evil" or "righteous" and "unrighteous." To be justified before the Law by the righteousness of Christ is the DECLARATION by the Law that God's standard of right and wrong finds no fault in Him. It is that DECLARATION that is ours by substitutionary imputation through faith. Even if that were a "works based righteousness" it still is approved by the Law as something GOOD not something evil as you characterize it. It is something no sinner can acheive and so to compare it to sacramentalism whereby sinners achieve that goal through their own works is inexcusable as it is elevating "another gospel" to the same level as the righteousness of the law when in fact "another gospel" never achieves that level of "good" in God's sight as "another gospel" is based ALWAYS comes SHORT of that standard which manifests the glory of God because it is based upon the works of sinners being joined with the righteousness of Christ as the basis for justification before God (Mt. 7:21-23).
To be "justified" necessarily infers that some kind of STANDARD has been satisfied and that is the same standard that has been violated by all men - The Law of God. However, no sinner can by works be declared "justified" by a standard that requires no sin to be justified. The true gospel is that Christ as a substitute for sinners has satisfied both the just standard and its penalty in the place of sinners not merely by his own works but by WHO HE IS as RIGHTEOUSNESS INCARNATE BEFORE HE EVER SAID OR DID A THING. His works simply declared who He is by nature and the Law declared him to be without sin and would have made that declaration before he said or did a thing but his works demonstrated who he really was. It is that life of manifest righteousness the Law declares is good but does not make it good. That is WHAT justifies sinners before God - HIS OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS. This is my view, this is what the true gospel declares and anything contrary to that declaration is "another gospel."
Last edited:
I also agree that WHAT justifies sinners before God IS HIS OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS. And this is what the gospel declares.
What it does NOT declare is that this is a "moral righteousness", the term "moral" representing (as you rightly pointed out) "behavior". It has to do with God's faithfulness to God's Word and man being positioned "right" in accordance with God's Word. NOT the Law but the covenant within which all laws reside.
If you would take the time to read the passages indicated, I am sure that you will begin to understand my objection as more than "wild assertions". For example, a mere glance at Deut. 5 informs us that the Law is given under a specific covenant to Israel, and Paul informs us that it was to "keep" them until the New Covenant and to teach them of sin by making sin a "transgression". But to base righteousness on the Law is to diminish God's Word to mean "the Law"...or "moral laws"...or as relating to behavior alone.
And yes, the difference is God's glory. Which is why I object to reducing God's righteousness down to a moral righteousness based on the law, or behavior. Righteousness is based on God and His Word to man as a whole, culminating in the work of Jesus Christ (we are "righteous" if we are among the people of which Christ is the head").
You forget so quickly that "behavior" (moral values) is merely the expression of a MORAL source (heart) God's heart!
Again, you forget so quickly that God's faithfulness is not His righteousness but is righteous as the CONSEQUENCE of his moral righteous heart, again you are confusing cause with effects.
Can you say with me "God IS righteous but the law IS NOT God but the law simply reveals the righteous heart of God"????? Think about it, as your definition is making faithfulness to law to be God's righteousness when it is merely the product of His righteousness. His righteousness is HIS HEART and it is a MORAL heart as only a MORAL heart can produce MORAL fruit!
God's behavior is MORAL as MORAL has to do with values of right and wrong and God is RIGHTEOUS and that is a MORAL value and such moral values can only originate with a MORAL nature.
The Law simply reveals God's righteousness but cannot OBTAIN it or be obtained by it but it can DECLARE what comes short of it, and it can DECLARE what is righteous and it does declare Christ's life is without sin and it does declare we are without sin when HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS is imputed to us by faith.
I will agree that Christ's faithfulness to His Word as the covenant head of his people is what justifies as that is the good news of the gospel and imputed to us by faith as we are BORN into that covenant relationship - which is the "everlasting covenant" where man is merely the object rather than a participant of the covenant requirements.
The view on justification that I am speaking of here is what the Apostleaul referenced, as tht oneis the penal substutionary death of Christ, as he did atone/pay for my sin debt, s hekept the Law as equired by God in order to have eternal life!I know what is being said (Y1 said that God looks on Jesus as our Law-keeper) . My point is that view of righteousness is based on the Law (regardless of who does the Law-keeping" it is still a works based righteousness based on the Law). It is an un-biblical and, relatively speaking, modern. You complain about what Reformed churches carried over from the Catholic church...take the log out of your eye, brother.
How can Jesu sbe my sin bearer if e did not keep t Law of God perfectly, in my place? that allows God to stay Holy and just to have His wrath applied against my sin on His Son , an yet also free to forgive and grnt to me eternal lifein Christ now!
L know NT Wright dos not like tha way of salvation, but that is wat the scriptures teach....
The law of God is the legal basis in this MORAL UNIVERSE that declares God alone has the right to determine good from evil and thus declares him to be God and final judge over moral rational creation. The law of God must be satisfied or else God gives up his legal recognition as God.The Laws condemnation must be satisfied fully or God relinquishes the right to be recognized as God. The laws standard of righteousness must be satisfied or else God relinquishes the right to be recognized as God. The law is the JUDICIAL basis for Justice in this moral universe. That is why it is the LEGAL basis to judge the works of fallen man in the day of judgement (Rom. 2:6-16; Rev. 20:12-15). It's judicial administration by God VINDICATES His right to be recognized by God by his moral universe (Rev. 4-5).
Likewise, the righteous standard of the Law must also be vindicated or God reliquishes the right to be recognized as a righteous God. The covenant responsibility of Christ was to vindicate God's right to be recognized as God by his moral creation and that was primary as that vindicated the glory of God. Secondarily, the covenant responsibility of Christ was to justify a chosen people for the glory of God. That justification came by way of satisfying the just demands of God's law against that chosen people which ultimately vindicated the glory of God. By satisfying the right to condemn sinners by submitting to its penalty of sin in behalf of the elect as their substitute and by satisfying the standard demanded by the Law to be jusitified as "good" in God's sight in behalf of the elect as their substitute He vindicate the glory of God. His righteousness, which was the righteousness of God was not OBTAINED by obedience to the Law but DECLARED by obedience to the Law. It was not a righteousness PROVIDED by obedience to laws but righteousness SUPERIOR to any righteousness that could have been ATTAINED by law keeping.
Before the Son of God left heaven his glory, his righteousness already exceeded any righteousness that might be ATTAINED by law keeping. So he did not keep the law to ATTAIN righteousness but to MANIFEST He is righteous.
Likewise, the righteous standard of the Law must also be vindicated or God reliquishes the right to be recognized as a righteous God. The covenant responsibility of Christ was to vindicate God's right to be recognized as God by his moral creation and that was primary as that vindicated the glory of God. Secondarily, the covenant responsibility of Christ was to justify a chosen people for the glory of God. That justification came by way of satisfying the just demands of God's law against that chosen people which ultimately vindicated the glory of God. By satisfying the right to condemn sinners by submitting to its penalty of sin in behalf of the elect as their substitute and by satisfying the standard demanded by the Law to be jusitified as "good" in God's sight in behalf of the elect as their substitute He vindicate the glory of God. His righteousness, which was the righteousness of God was not OBTAINED by obedience to the Law but DECLARED by obedience to the Law. It was not a righteousness PROVIDED by obedience to laws but righteousness SUPERIOR to any righteousness that could have been ATTAINED by law keeping.
Before the Son of God left heaven his glory, his righteousness already exceeded any righteousness that might be ATTAINED by law keeping. So he did not keep the law to ATTAIN righteousness but to MANIFEST He is righteous.
No, you are wrong here. The Law teaches us about sin and through the Law comes accountability - NOT justification. The Law provides us with knowledge of sin, a realization that we are sinners. But God's righteousness is manifested APART from the Law (not through the Law, not based in the Law, and not a matter of moral behavior in accordance with the Law). Righteousness is God's faithfulness to forgive those who are "in Christ", who are now members of the New Covenant. The mark of righteousness is not moral behavior but faith in God through Christ.
- Status