Not under law but under grace.

[Andre]

Christ's righteousness is imputed on those with faith, that's why only in faith can we obtain the perfect righteousness that God requires.

I do not believe that Paul ever makes the claim that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the believer. I know that this is what most people believe but I do not think the scriptures support it.

What the believer "gets" is the righteousness of the acquitted defendent not the righteousness of Christ. Remember, Christ is the judge in covenental lawcourt:

Romans 2:16

This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

2 Timothy 4:1

In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead,...

It simply does not make sense to say the righteousness of the judge - Jesus - gets ascribed to the acquitted defendent.

In the Hebrew lawcourt, I suggest the righteousness of the judge consists in the following:

1. He acts rightly - in accordance with law;
2. He show no partiality;
3. He protects the weak and the fatherless;
4. He punishes evil.

Can we be said to have acted in this way? Of course not. To suggest that the righteousness of Jesus gets imputed to us is to not to true to what goes in a Hebrew lawcourt - the defendent is "acquitted", he is not declared to have the righteousness of the judge.

 

[larryjf]

I do not believe that Paul ever makes the claim that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the believer. I know that this is what most people believe but I do not think the scriptures support it.

What the believer "gets" is the righteousness of the acquitted defendent not the righteousness of Christ. Remember, Christ is the judge in covenental lawcourt:

The problem with this idea is that it doesn't take into account the biblical precept of Federal Headship.
Adam was our Federal Head, and that's why his sin is imputed onto us.
Christ, as the 2nd Adam, is our Federal Head, and that's why His righteousness is imputed to us.

It simply does not make sense to say the righteousness of the judge - Jesus - gets ascribed to the acquitted defendent.

It was not as judge that He lived righteously for us.
Jn 3:17 clearly tells us that His incarnation was not to judge, but to save. He will judge when He returns.
So it is not Christ as judge, but Christ as our Federal Head that gains our righteousness in the same way that He takes our place on the cross.

In the Hebrew lawcourt, I suggest the righteousness of the judge consists in the following:

1. He acts rightly - in accordance with law;
2. He show no partiality;
3. He protects the weak and the fatherless;
4. He punishes evil.

Can we be said to have acted in this way? Of course not. To suggest that the righteousness of Jesus gets imputed to us is to not to true to what goes in a Hebrew lawcourt - the defendent is "acquitted", he is not declared to have the righteousness of the judge.

Of course it is not true to a Hebrew court...why would it be...we are speaking about the judgment of God. God also judges the heart...Hebrew courts don't do that. God also had Jesus take our punishment in our place...Hebrew courts don't do that.

 

[Andre]

The problem with this idea is that it doesn't take into account the biblical precept of Federal Headship.
Adam was our Federal Head, and that's why his sin is imputed onto us.
Christ, as the 2nd Adam, is our Federal Head, and that's why His righteousness is imputed to us.

Perhaps you can explain exactly what you mean here. My understanding of the Scriptures is that we inherit Adam's sin nature in a "genetic" sense - when Adam fell, creation was tainted and we are all born as sinners. You seem to be taking the position that God "judicially" ascribes or imputes the sin of Adam to us. Can you provide a scriptural defense of this?

While we're on the subject of imputation", consider this frin Romans 4 as rendered in the NKJV which explicitly renders the word "impute":

7 “ Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.

In this text we see that the man is blessed because sin has not been imputed or ascribed to him - the essence of the blessing is in this very thing. Does the text show that the man is blessed because Christ's own moral perfection has been ascribed to him? No it does not. The man is blessed, because sin was not ascribed to him - the man is declared to have the status of the acquitted defendent in the lawcourt, he is not declared to have the moral righteousness of some other person, such as Jesus.

What is your take on this text?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Larryjf: That we can't meet the righteous requirements of the Law are clear in Scripture...

Righteousness is not obtained through the Law, for none keep it...
... if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose. (Gal 2:21)

HP: The passages you point out in Galatians simply points out that once man has come under the condemnation of the law, one cannot by keeping the law make himself righteous. Once we sin we are sinners, and no amount of obedience can make up for one solitary sin. The passages you site in no way sates that it is impossible to meet the requirements of the law.

Adam met the requirements of the law by being obedient for a time. Jesus reiterated that if one desires to inherit eternal life they can do so by keeping the commandments. Just because none have it without ever failing atsome time does not set forth an impossibility. If I say that none have ever climbed a certain mountain, does that mean it is an impossibility to do so?

Listen to Christ speaking to the young ruler. “ Mt 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” Christ was not mentioning a lie or an impossibility to teach him a truth. The young ruler may or may not have been obedient up until that point, but we know that when Christ gave him a new commandment, he obviously refused and went his way. That very well may have been his first sin. Scripture does not tell us yea or nay.

Larryjf: And we only meet His standard in Christ, because Christ did meet His standard. Our holiness is Christ, not our works of the Law.
Our sanctification is different, that is where God does work through us to keep His moral Law.

HP: “Be YE holy” is the command to us. That is a command to ‘without force or coercion’ voluntarily choose to do the right and just thing. Certainly we do, as former sinners, have to rely upon Christ for the strength to live obedient lives. Our righteousness in rrelationship to sin that are past is indeed made pssible only through th eatonement. Just the same. our present righteousness, in relationship to our present actions, is just that, freely chosen intents and subsequent actions in agreement with love towards God and our fellow man. Again, since we were sinners, that is only made possible as Christ makes an atonement for our sins and our account is made pure from all sins that are past through the atoning work of Christ. Certainly, ‘as sinners,’ no righteousness was possible before coming to Christ for forgiveness of sins that were past. Just the same, the righteousness of believers in relationship to their present actions, is indeed the results of the formation of intents in line with love as we are empowered by the Holy Spirit to do so. “he that doeth rightousness is righteous even as He is righteous”

Our holiness is made possible through Christ, but it is not maintained without our voluntary obedience. We are commanded to be holy. That takes personal effort and intents formed voluntarily in line with love. God does not do it for us as believers. He purifies our hearts from sins that are past and supports and influences our wills but does not force or coerce us to obedience, righteousness, or holiness.

 

[Andre]

It was not as judge that He lived righteously for us.
Jn 3:17 clearly tells us that His incarnation was not to judge, but to save. He will judge when He returns.
So it is not Christ as judge, but Christ as our Federal Head that gains our righteousness in the same way that He takes our place on the cross.

I do not think you are being true to the lawcourt metaphor in which we talk about imputing one person's righteousness to the other. You can't have it both ways:

1. on the one hand, making use of the lawcourt metaphor to have Jesus' righteousness ascribed to the defendent in the dock and then having the defendent acquitted on that basis.

2. on the other hand, overlooking the problem created when Jesus, who clearly is the judge in the lawcourt, looks out and sees "himself" in the dock.

If one is going to use a lawcourt metaphor and talk about imputation in that context, one needs to honour the terms of that metaphor.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Larryjf: The problem with this idea is that it doesn't take into account the biblical precept of Federal Headship.

HP: There is no such theory represented by Scripture that I have read. Could you site a passage that supports such a view?

Larryjf: Adam was our Federal Head, and that's why his sin is imputed onto us.
Christ, as the 2nd Adam, is our Federal Head, and that's why His righteousness is imputed to us.

HP: Set forth one Scripture that states that Adam’s sin is imputed to us or that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us as you set forth imputed righteousness.

You make us all sinners without ever making a choice, and all righteous again by no choice of their own, and then try to tell us that God is just in condemning us to an eternal hell for failure to do that which is impossible for even God to do, overcome necessitated fate. You seemingly try and tell us God is just yet obviously only grants to some the abilities to inherit eternal life, forcing all others to be punished for a fate determined by God Himself. (That fate being determined by God obviously withholding from some the abilities needed to have faith or repent) Some justice that represents. You are doing nothing short of establishing the Calvinsistic notions of irresistable grace and limited atonement. What a blight such nonsense paints on a Holy and Just God!

 

[larryjf]

I do not think you are being true to the lawcourt metaphor in which we talk about imputing one person's righteousness to the other. You can't have it both ways:

1. on the one hand, making use of the lawcourt metaphor to have Jesus' righteousness ascribed to the defendent in the dock and then having the defendent acquitted on that basis.

2. on the other hand, overlooking the problem created when Jesus, who clearly is the judge in the lawcourt, looks out and sees "himself" in the dock.

If one is going to use a lawcourt metaphor and talk about imputation in that context, one needs to honour the terms of that metaphor.

I did not bring the up the metaphor...you did.

 

[larryjf]

HP: There is no such theory represented by Scripture that I have read. Could you site a passage that supports such a view?


HP: Set forth one Scripture that states that Adam’s sin is imputed to us or that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us as you set forth imputed righteousness.

Show one Scripture that says we inherit it genetically.

If it was passed on genetically, then how is all of creation affected instead of just man (rom 8:20-22)?

It is certainly scriptural that we suffer because of what Adam did for he was our Federal Head. From Rom 5...

“Through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin” (v. 12).
“By the one man’s offense many died” (v. 15).
“Through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation” (v. 18).
“By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners” (v. 19).

Also consider 1 cor 15:22,45.

You make us all sinners without ever making a choice, and all righteous again by no choice of their own, and then try to tell us that God is just in condemning us to an eternal hell for failure to do that which is impossible for even God to do, overcome necessitated fate. You seemingly try and tell us God is just yet obviously only grants to some the abilities to inherit eternal life, forcing all others to be punished for a fate determined by God Himself. (That fate being determined by God obviously withholding from some the abilities needed to have faith or repent) Some justice that represents. You are doing nothing short of establishing the Calvinsistic notions of irresistable grace and limited atonement. What a blight such nonsense paints on a Holy and Just God!

You are testifying falsley against me...I clearly said that we do freely choose.

Yes, God elects some to salvation and others he passes over and they go to Hell. I put this important decision in the hands of God, not man. I am very glad that it is not up to man who gets saved.

He doesn't withhold abilities as if the ability to be saved is inherant in us. None of us "deserve" to be saved. God shows mercy to whom He will...who are we to question that?

So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- (Rom 9:18-23)

God is holy and just...even if He were to send everybody to Hell. Arguing that sending sinners to Hell somehow shows God's injustice is absurd.

 

[Andre]

I did not bring the up the metaphor...you did.

You have to use this metaphor in order for your imputation notion to have a meaningful setting. Are you not embracing a theology where God sees "Jesus" when we, as defendant, stand before him in the lawcourt.

The concept of imputation requires a lawcourt setting - someone is being "set free" judicially when the judge sees the defendant as bearing the righteousness of Christ.

Are you claiming that your "imputation of Christ's righteousness" position has meaning in something other than a lawcourt setting? Please explain. As the kids say today "Good luck with that".

To repeat, Christ is clearly set as the judge - this is clear not least from Romans 2 and 2 Timothy 4. So one still has the problem: How is it sensible that Christ is both the judge and, by the very concept of imputation on your view, also the defendent in the dock?

How is it sensible to say that the acquitted defendent possesses the righteounsness of the judge?

 

[Andre]

Show one Scripture that says we inherit it genetically.

If it was passed on genetically, then how is all of creation affected instead of just man (rom 8:20-22)?

It is certainly scriptural that we suffer because of what Adam did for he was our Federal Head. From Rom 5...

“Through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin” (v. 12).
“By the one man’s offense many died” (v. 15).
“Through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation” (v. 18).
“By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners” (v. 19).

First, perhaps my use of the term "genetically" was not ideal. Adam fell and sin "physically infected" all of creation - man and the entire cosmos. Sin was woven into the very fabric of material reality.

These texts above are entirely consistent with such a position. While they may also work with your view - that Adam's sin is judicially imputed to us - such a view is not the only one that works with these texts. These texts work perfectly well with the idea that we inherit Adam's sin nature and are damaged by it. There is no necessity to take this material in an "imputation sense".

You still need to make a case that the imputation view is the only way to understand these texts. If I am "infected" with something and the result is death, this does not mean that I am "judicially imputed" with something.

Same thing with the 1 Corinthians 15 material. Those statements do not require an "imputation of guilt" construal. They work perfectly well with "inheritance of sin nature" view.

 

[Andre]

He doesn't withhold abilities as if the ability to be saved is inherant in us. None of us "deserve" to be saved. God shows mercy to whom He will...who are we to question that?

So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills. You will say to me then, "Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?" But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, "Why have you made me like this?" Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory-- (Rom 9:18-23)

God is holy and just...even if He were to send everybody to Hell. Arguing that sending sinners to Hell somehow shows God's injustice is absurd.

This text from Romans has nothing to do with the treatment of individual persons in respect to their ultimate salvation or loss. This text is about national Israel - about how God has the right to "elect" them to a terrible but important role in the purposes of God. Israel is the vessel fitted for destruction. Israel has been elected to "be the place where the sin of the world is accumulated" in order to then be dealt with by her faithful Messiah.

I am happy to provide a detailed and extensive defense for this reading of Romans 9, but perhaps that would take us off topic.

I will at least say this: Romans 9 and the first part (at least) of 10 are about Israel through and through. The entire covenant history is presented, from Abraham all the way to covenant renewal - 10:6 is an allusion to a well known covenant renewal pasage from Deuteronomy 30.

It hardly makes sense for Paul to insert a bit about how God elects this person and not that in respect to heaven and hell into a treatise that is clearly all about Israel and how God has remained faithful to his covenant even though Israel has borne this terrible (and yet necessary) burden of election.

God is the potter, Israel is the clay pot that God has the right to use for his redemptive purposes.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Quote:



HP: Set forth one Scripture that states that Adam’s sin is imputed to us or that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us as you set forth imputed righteousness.

Larryjf: Show one Scripture that says we inherit it genetically.

HP: Sin is a transgression of the law by a moral agent himself. It is not a contagion passed on by imputation or genetically. God says specifically that no man is held accountable for another’s sin and that every man is accountable for his own. Physical depravity, a consequence of sin that is the impetus for the proclivity for sin via the sensibilities, is indeed an inherited trait upon all humanity. Bear in mind that a proclivity to sin is an influence to sin but is not sin itself. For sin to take place the will must form an intent of selfishness free of coercion or force. Sin is voluntary selfishness, and by its very nature cannot be imputed or transmitted genetically.

Larryjf: It is certainly scriptural that we suffer because of what Adam did for he was our Federal Head. From Rom 5...

“Through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin” (v. 12).
“By the one man’s offense many died” (v. 15).
“Through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation” (v. 18).
“By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners” (v. 19).

Also consider 1 cor 15:22,45.

HP: Neither one of these state or imply that Adam is our federal head and that we have his sin imputed to us. Read the verses over yourself. Does it say that sin is passed upon all or death?
Yes, there is a tie between Adam and his sin and us and it again comes through warped physical sensibilities which influence the will in a formidable way.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavenly Pilgrim
You make us all sinners without ever making a choice, and all righteous again by no choice of their own, and then try to tell us that God is just in condemning us to an eternal hell for failure to do that which is impossible for even God to do, overcome necessitated fate. You seemingly try and tell us God is just yet obviously only grants to some the abilities to inherit eternal life, forcing all others to be punished for a fate determined by God Himself. (That fate being determined by God obviously withholding from some the abilities needed to have faith or repent) Some justice that represents. You are doing nothing short of establishing the Calvinsistic notions of irresistable grace and limited atonement. What a blight such nonsense paints on a Holy and Just God!

Larryfj: You are testifying falsley against me...I clearly said that we do freely choose.

HP: I do no such thing. You can say you believe we choose freely but your ‘choosing freely’ is a mere sophism with not an ounce of true freedom in it. If man is born a sinner, righteousness is impossible for him to accomplish as a sinner. You deny choice when you deny that righteousness is possible due to your insistence upon original sin or the imputation of sin via Adam. You paint man as morally corrupt from birth and as such choice is destroyed. Man can only sin and that continually due to the fact he is born a sinner, remember? No, I do not misrepresent your views in the least. You deny choice by your insistence upon being born with the imputed sin of your federal head.

If freedom exist at all, it must exist in the formation of intents either to selfishness or benevolence. When you make man a sinner prior to the first formed moral intent, via imputation or genetically, you have again denied any semblance of true choice. Lip service to choice in no way merits the notion of true choice.

If there is only one consequent for a given antecedent, no choice exists. If man is a sinner prior to his first choice due to imputation of sin from Adam, there is only one possible consequent possible, and that is to sin. No choice exists under the federal headship scheme. It is man a sinner by necessity. You simply need to accept the logical ends of your argument, and quit complaining when one draws attention to the denial of choice it genders, or develop another theory. I would encourage you to do the latter.

Larryjf: Yes, God elects some to salvation and others he passes over and they go to Hell. I put this important decision in the hands of God, not man. I am very glad that it is not up to man who gets saved.

HP: You are presenting salvation as the arbitrary selection of God. That is simply not the truth according to Scripture. God is no such respecter of persons.

If you got saved it was up to you to open your hearts door in repentance and faith, and if you did not there will be no one to blame but yourself. Yes, it is up to man to either accept or reject the gospel. Nothing could be clearer in Scripture.

Larryjf: He doesn't withhold abilities as if the ability to be saved is inherent in us. None of us "deserve" to be saved. God shows mercy to whom He will...who are we to question that?

HP: I am sorry Larry. I do not follow you in your first sentence as it is written. Man possesses every ability need to accept the salvation message inherently. All man needs to do is have the opportunity to hear and respond to its message and to be drawn by God. Scripture states that if Christ is lifted up, He WILL draw ALL men to Himself. Christ is indeed lifted up when the message of salvation is preached. God is faithful at the preaching of his Word to draw the hearers to Himself as he said he would. God does not need to give sinful man any special ability to respond to salvation. Man simply needs to use the God-enabled abilities man possess in a positive response involving repentance and faith to the message of hope.

Larryjf: God is holy and just...even if He were to send everybody to Hell. Arguing that sending sinners to Hell somehow shows God's injustice is absurd.

HP: I agree totally. I have not said anything different than that. What does make God’s justice absurd is if in fact man is born in such a state that sin is the only possibility. That means God punishes man for his necessitated state as a sinner by simply allowing such a victim of his circumstances to end up in eternal torment for doing that which they by God’s creation made them to be and withheld any remedy for. There could be no greater blight than this to paint upon God’s Just and Holy character.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Andre: This text from Romans has nothing to do with the treatment of individual persons in respect to their ultimate salvation or loss. This text is about national Israel

HP: I concur with your remarks. :thumbs:
This passage is not setting forth any such arbitrary notion concerning individual salvation. Such would make God indeed a respecter of persons which He is not.

 

[Nicholas25]

Sealed to the day of redemption

How do we who have not believed or been taught eternal security deal with this verse? Thanks.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Nicholas25: How do we who have not believed or been taught eternal security deal with this verse? Thanks.

HP: Which verse in specific?

 

[larryjf]

HP: I do no such thing. You can say you believe we choose freely but your ‘choosing freely’ is a mere sophism with not an ounce of true freedom in it. If man is born a sinner, righteousness is impossible for him to accomplish as a sinner. You deny choice when you deny that righteousness is possible...

Then according to your logic God does not have free choice since it is impossible for Him to choose sin.

I won't respond to many of the other posts directed at me because it would be quite repetitive at this point. I have already answered most of the difficulties that have been presented.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Larryjf: Then according to your logic God does not have free choice since it is impossible for Him to choose sin

.

HP: I would not say in an absolute sense that choice is impossible for God. How could he be Holy if in fact He is not a moral being? Moral beings have the ability of choice. They are not static rocks.

One thing is for certain, God will always choose the holy, just, pure, loving thing under every circumstance. He changeth not. He remains the same, yesterday today and forever. It is not that He could not, but that He will not act contrary to His nature.

 

[larryjf]

.

HP: I would not say in an absolute sense that choice is impossible for God. How could he be Holy if in fact He is not a moral being? Moral beings have the ability of choice. They are not static rocks.

One thing is for certain, God will always choose the holy, just, pure, loving thing under every circumstance. He changeth not. He remains the same, yesterday today and forever. It is not that He could not, but that He will not act contrary to His nature.

I thought you didn't like sophistry.
Now you are saying that God could...but never will.

If He is limited by His nature, why is it so difficult to believe that we are limited as well? Do we think ourselves greater than God when we give ourselves more freedom of choice than we give Him?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Larryjf: If He is limited by His nature, why is it so difficult to believe that we are limited as well? Do we think ourselves greater than God when we give ourselves more freedom of choice than we give Him?

HP: I am unaware that I grant more freedom to ourselves than I do to God. God is certainly as free as we are. He simply always chooses to do the right, just, holy, our, loving thing, where man has not.

There is more than a slight difference in our natures you know. God is infinitely perfect in every attribute He possess. He has never sinned and never will. How does that eliminate or detract from ‘choice?’ Was it not you that implied that the sinner, that always chooses sin and that continually, has a choice in doing so? Why would it be such a stretch for you to believe that our God, that always does the holy pure, just, and right thing has a choice and exercises it as well?

 

[BobRyan]

How do we who have not believed or been taught eternal security deal with this verse? Thanks.

What verse?

Eph 1?