Why the Resurrection?

Well, I can show you "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe", but I can't make you see it.

 

That would be the righteousness of God, not Christ, and it is by faith of Christ, not by his law keeping.

 

I thought that I was making the point you make:

I wrote: Jesus Christ through His death on the cross paid the penalty, made atonement, for our sins and paid the ransom price for our redemption.

I then wrote: The resurrection proves that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that His death on the cross was indeed redemptive. The resurrection puts God’s stamp of approve on the work of Jesus Christ.

However, had the resurrection not occurred the promise of Jesus Christ and prophecy of His resurrection would not have been fulfilled and we would have no evidence that the death of Jesus Christ was redemptive. Therefore, without the resurrection the cross is just another tragedy in a world full of tragedies and we are still in our sins and are of all people most miserable and deluded. The Apostle Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15:14; And if Christ be not risen then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

 

Whatever, do not be dismayed at dean's double talk. He has bought into the classic error that it is your faith that is counted for righteousness. In other words, it isn't Christ's righteousness that justifies, but your faith.

However, the Scriptures make it clear that faith is merely the means that appropriates righteousness. Faith isn't righteousness.

Consider the following:

God made him who knew no sin (Christ), to be sin for us, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him (Christ).

Dean would like us to believe there is a distinction between the righteousness of God and of Christ. He is an advocate of the New Perspective, which really isn't new.

Hey dean, peddle your new perspective elsewhere. This is a christian website.

 

What double talk? To say that the righteousness of God by faith of Jesus Christ is just that! To say that there is nothing in that verse to teach an imputation of the law keeping of Christ? Well, there isn't!

Evidently Paul bought into that 'classic error' also:

"But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness."

It's called 'justification by faith,' and it is made available through the gospel.

Romans 4:3:

"For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness."

Absolutely! amen! Through the death and resurrection of Christ we can be crucified to the flesh and made dead to sin: the condemning law can be satisfied, and we can be raised up to sit in heavenly places, in fellowship with the Father. In Christ we are made the righteousness of GOD (not of Christ). Not, 'he was made sin that we might be the righteousness of Christ before God.' - that is what you would have written, but Paul in his wisdom, under the inspiration of the Spirit himself, would have no such thing. You would do well to take heed to his words.

Sorry to see you employ the argument of a monarchist, denying any distinction between the Father and the Son, in order to prop up an insecure philosophical system. Paul says that the righteousness is that of God, and is by the faith of Christ - you wish to apply the word 'God' here only to Christ in his law-keeping. You thus exlude the possibility that it could be the righteousness of the Father, by faith of Christ, as is the plain meaning and sense of the verse - as though 'God' must mean 'Christ' in his keeping of the law.

Actually I never heard of the NP until you mentioned it. I have read many classical theologians who reject the legal nonsense you purport, without the least hint in scripture, but never a NP proponent.

I have nothing to peddle but the truth. You have nothing from scripture to peddle, and must run to the opinions and traditions of men.

 

I'm not dismayed, except that I wish Dean were relying on Christ's righteousness rather than on Dean's faith.

 

That is just it whatever. He doesn't even understand what I am saying. I have said nothing about vicarious law-keeping. In fact, I disagree with that idea. Christ's righteousness was superior to the law.

 

We are talking about how we are made righteous, not what we are trusting in ( the object of faith). The fact remains, scripture is silent regarding any imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer....but that omission does not seem to bother the two of you - you will still keep on believing a man-made teaching.

 

I thought the topic for discussion was the Resurrection, not imputed righteousness. Am I wrong?

 

No, you're not wrong, but what fun is it to stay on topic?

I'm afraid I started it by saying that without the resurrection there is no imputed righteousness. Sorry, I'm still new here and I didn't realize I would be pushing someone's button.