Therefore you're not able to assent to the fact that the righteousness that is imputed to us is real and to be understood in its proper sense. I think it’s a misfortune that such important terms and concepts pertaining to the things of God have devolved into having multiple meanings to where the proper meaning is obscured. For example, Ephesians 4:24 which you've sited: why may one not receive this in its proper sense, that the righteousness and holiness of the new man is actually "true"– being acceptable unto Him and formed after His righteousness as opposed to the old man that he mentions earlier – that having been formed after our own righteousness?
The question as to the meaning of the word "true" in Ephesians 4:24 is plain...
ἀλήθεια, ας f: the content of that which is true and thus in accordance with what actually happened—‘truth.’ (Louw Nida Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament)
I would argue that true righteousness and holiness does not have specks and swirls of sin and depravity mixed in with it. But your concept seems to be that the specks and swirls of sin that you have are cleaned up over time so that your deeds become more godly over time. There are no Scriptures that say the old man (i.e., the flesh) can be cleaned up over time and there are no Scriptures that say the new man (i.e., the spirit) can be corrupted by sin. On the contrary, Scripture consistently says things like, "For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh" (Php 3:3).
I think it’s important to remember that the words of the Lord mean real business and effect real change, without room for dissimulation.
This is true. I am trying to show you the real change that takes place in a person is internal, not external. After a person receives Christ into his heart, he loves God like he should, he loves his neighbors as he should, and he loves the things of God and hates sin as he should. He is burdened by the sins of his flesh and he longs for the day when he will be free of it. All the law's requirements for righghteousness are fullfilled in him, not just the ones I've mentioned here.
If carelessly spoken words can cause harm, how much better than, on the contrary, should our
carefully fashioned doctrines be at cultivating truth and righteousness in the earth?
(A generic example of the value/potential of words, not directed at you obviously.) Here are some points worth considering:
- If God sent Christ into the world because of sin, then surely the removal of sin is the most immediate justification of God's enterprise – from His perspective.
- Is it not more thankful to answer God's grace and forgiveness with works, than to thank Him that works are no longer required?
- How much better is the premise that man who glories in his righteousness and boasts in his sufficiency, brings glory to the Lord when he obeys and turns to a righteousness that now He teaches, than the premise that our works are incapable of glorifying God?
The carefully crafted doctrines you mention here are all based on the false premise that God is satisfied with incomplete compiance with His laws.
- God's enterprise is not justified when a person commits fewer sins. This POV ignores that sin comes from the heart and that all sin is lawlessness. A person is not better off today if he violates God's laws two times a week now instead of two times a day before.
- Works are not an answer to God's grace. You say works are no longer required, and that is true. Why is that so? Because, as it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them" (Deut 27:26). But by God's grace "Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us" (Ga 3:13). By God's grace we are not under the curse. But those who desire to be under the law do not properly understand the requirements of the law (Ga 3:1-12) or the consequences for placing himself under it (Ga 4:21-31).
- Boasing in oneself does not bring glory to God.
7 But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. 8 Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; 10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, 11 if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. (Php 3:7–11)
Now none of this is to say that we must be able to live up to all His standards and/or have any right to boast in the things He has called us to and enabled, rather, all that is being shown is that repentance and turning unto His righteousness (as opposed to ours) is the call and duty of the gospel; a righteousness acceptable unto God and perceivable unto man, and that this doesn't contradict any of the so-called doctrines of grace.
I have seen this many times before. This doctrine always needs an "out" because it is obvious to everyone that the righteousness it promotes is unobtainable. What is sad is that it is rare that the holders of this doctrine recognize and take personal responsibility for their own failures to live up to its requirements. And it is curious when they turn to Christ for forgiveness for those failures that they continue to see their rightness with God to be becuase of their good works instead of understanding their rightness with God is because God laid on Christ all their iniquities.
Sound doctrine and clarity on these issues is what I'm after. A lot of what you say sounds accurate at first glance, such as good works coming from Christ dwelling in us and us being in the Spirit and not the flesh, but than its clarity seems to be offset by the notion that the "new man" is a hypothetical concept, as with the guilt of the flesh not being attributed to us. But here we need more details.
Romans 8:10 provides the details... "And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness." The old man (i.e., the flesh) is dead becaus of its sin and the new man (i.e., the spirit) is alive because of His righteousness. Concerning the sinfulness of the flesh being forgiven, it is said, "There is therefore now no condemnation" (Ro 8:1).
I agree that in a sense the "new man" is hypothetical, in so far as we often fail to meet its ideal (true of many of the callings of God – whatever form they take), but to make it entirely and properly hypothetical is to eliminate the concept entirely; the new man is truly the change from the old man, but it remains hypothetical only to the one who has not yet made it true.
I am not saying it is "hypothetical". That is your interpretation of what I'm saying. Take this saying of Jesus... "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit" (Jn 3:6). Jesus is pointing to a reality, not to a hypothetical. When a person is procreated by his human parents, he becomes a human being. When God gives birth to a person, he becomes an offspring of God. That new creature that God created when He gave birth to it (i.e., the new man) is "spiritual", not "physical". And it is not "hypothetical". It is real, and he has "true righteousness and holiness" because he is born from out of God.
Likewise about the guilt of the flesh, I agree that temptations never cease and that temptations themselves aren't sins, but when temptation gives way to sin (or sin without temptation for that matter), then we agree the guilt of the flesh is attributed to us, even the new man, right?
Yes, we continue to be responsible for the sins of the flesh, but our sins are forgiven. Even the depravity of the flesh is forgiven. Our possession of His forgiveness is why we can say "there is therefore now no condemnation" as I said above. But the sins of the flesh are not attributable to the new man. The new man (the new creation) has true righteousness and holiness.
Perhaps I'm misinterpreting some of your statements but I guess I have warrant to interpret them in ways that are likely going to disagree with mine since you’ve taken an opposing view of mine position at large.
Concerning us having the indwelling of the Spirit, I certainly agree there’s an aspect to His operation that’s hidden from others from the outside, but surely there’s an outward aspect to His work as well. He works from the inside in a way that the inward necessarily affects the outward and it is by the outward that the quality of the inward is known; both are an inseparable part of humans anyways.
I agree with this. Galatains 5 explains a lot of it. The flesh has desires that are in adversarial opposition to those of the Spirit. When we walk in lock step with the flesh, we reap the fruit of the flesh. But when we walk in lock step with the Spirit, we reap the fruit of the Spirit. And the only way to deny the flesh what it wants and not reap its fruit is to walk in lock step with the Spirit. When a person walks in the Spirit and not in the flesh, there is nothing to boast about, but he can still enjoy the benefits that doing so produces.
When you say, “to turn those good works into righteousness is to totally misunderstand righteousness and where it comes from”, I do not believe I misunderstand it because I’ve said that our righteousness comes from the Lord. The difference is that I believe that the work of God is that which truly produces works in us (I say works instead of righteousness because works it typically understood in its proper sense). It is given from above through grace as a gift, it is received with faith (since we have it not), and it produces righteousness (at the very least begins to) – a righteousness which is from above, not below. Interestingly, don’t you believe this as well – that all our good comes from God? Is it only because I maintain that there is a way to measure our faith, even we ourselves (not just others for us and us for others), and that this measure can tell us the substance of our faith, even to the point of being in Him or without Him? I think it all may come down to this.
You could be right that our differences are semantic differences only. Now I'm thinking I should have read your whole post first before replying one line at a time. I do agree that our righteousness is found in Christ and His righteousness finds its way to the surface when we walk in lock step with Him. But looking at myself and my actions, not at others, I see that the righteousness that is displayed in my actions falls immeasurably short of His righteousness and the righteousness that I possess in Him. As a result, I do not see anything praisworthy in what I do. I am just grateful that He forgives me all my shortcommings and continues to call me upward.
But I would grant it that some of the Apostle Paul’s language may appear antagonistic to mine (although mainly from a shallow analysis) and I don’t have the time to go through all the relevant passages one by one. However, the pinnacle of them all is probably this simple rule: that we’re saved by grace through faith and not by works – where on may fairly counter me with mine same argument, “Why not receive works here in its proper sense also, thus including those works that are the Lords?” I reply that it is used in its proper sense, only that this is spoken of our works and not the Lord’s work in us. This fits well with the context of the salvation of the gentiles – of which Paul speaks – being saved from a life apart from God to a life now with Him, so that our works had nothing to do with effecting the salvation offered in Christ through the gospel. This also aligns well with him adding right after, “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them”, thus demonstrating that what was properly ours was rejected by Him so that what comes after is His and not ours – for if what was ours was accepted by Him than Christ would not suffer. On top of this, I’ll add that even the works that come after receiving His salvation are not grounds for being justified before Him (much less boasting), since they’re only His insofar as they are truly His – for there is much of our own in them.
I think I followed you here. I agree the passage you reference says our good works do not save us, otherwise we would have something of which to boast. And the good works that follow our salvation do not give us cause to boast either, because as you said, the credit for them belongs to Him. I would just add that Ephesians 2:10 ("For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works") highlights the fact that we are "His workmanship" and are "created in Christ Jesus". This points us to the new man who is "joined to the Lord" and is "one spirit with Him" (1 Cor 6:17). And He made us new creatures with a purpose to walk in lock step with Him as He leads, guides, directs, corrects, and comforts us from the depths of our own hearts.
But ultimately, I think it comes down to setting our priorities right, and that which comes first, first indeed. What can that be than but the righteousness of God and what else may compete in its league? How then can anything take its place or make it of no effect? What promise may get in the way of it and not rather bolster it? What does it mean to know the Lord without knowing what He’s like? And what is the lacking element in a world that’s unable to work good other than that knowledge that enables it to work good? And if that knowledge is given, is it really given if it is yet unable to work good? Therefore, though I hope I didn’t misrepresent Paul or any other sacred concept, the last concept I am willing to misrepresent is seeking first the righteousness of God, and this is the side I’m willing to err on if need be.
But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you (Mt 6:33).
This was my first "favorite" verse some some 50 years ago, lol. Maybe we're on a common trajectory after all.
