A Knowing-Hope!

[fhansen]

Actually, it is you who are wrong.
First, you did not address Jesus' excoriation of traditions/practices.
And secondly, Paul is talking about his teachings, not traditional practices, which there had not yet been enough time to even establish.

Look it up. The word in 2 Thess 2:15 is translated as teachings but more often as traditions, whether oral or written.
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle." NKJV
Jesus didn't oppose all traditions, only traditions of men that contradict God's Word (whether oral or written). So, for example, traditions that help inform us as to God's will include things that Protestants divide over, going by Scripture alone, but which the ancient churches do not happen to divide over becazue they've always and everywhere held to these understandings. Such as infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, justification, to name a few.

Which is precisely the problem, because it is experience of the fallen nature, not of God, and must be judged by what is written.
Human experience has nothing to do with divine truth, only what is written does.

It's the experience of knowing Christ that we're talking about here dear. What the early chruch received and held to whether or not it was heard and simply practiced by humans, or written down by human authors.

Same old saw. . .the word of God written is unknowable, except by the heirarchial intelligentsia.
1) It is regrettable that you have such a low view of the word of God written.

Your comment is nonsensical. I have a high view of God's revelation in whatever form we received it. And the really ironic part is that anyone who's reduced knowing the Chrisitan faith to strictly biblical exegesis has turned it into not much more than an intellectual exercise.

2) It is likewise regrettable that you do not agree with the NT's view of Scripture as useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16), which means it is knowable to the believer himself and he is to study it for himself.

You just need to reread my respsonse to that claim, with open eyes next time. Truth is a good thing.

Infallibility of the pope, purgatory, praying for the deceased, praying to the deceased, veneration of relics, indulgences, etc. are not found in the NT.

Neither is the word Trinity. A huge part of the Christian world doubted the deity of Jesus at one time-some still do going by Scripture alone.

 

[fhansen]

That's your own remark above (post #14) that you are denying below.

I'll clarify. The only time that a person is considered, declared, counted, reckoned to be righteous is if and when that righteouness stems from God, not himself.

No, the faith of the new birth into eternal life explains why a believer's behavior changes.

Well, you aren't explaing how that works. Could it be that with the new birth he begins to behave righteously because he's been made right?

Too much human reasoning, and not enough Biblical teaching.

We employ human reasoning everytime we read-God gave us that faculty for an, um, reason. He's not an irrational Being Himself. Some use it better, others not so well.

It is not our own righteousness, as Abraham's righteousness was not his own righteousness but was an imputed/credited righteousness.

No, you just repeated the same eror, presuming that Abraham's righteousness was only credited to him. No human righteousness is his own-neither is our existence or ability to live, move, and have our being for that matter. The difference is that, in the moral sphere, God left man in the hands of his own counsel; we don't even have to acknowledge God's existence, let alone His law, the wisdom behind the moral prescriptions He created man to live by. And while man is allowed to live and move and have his being either way, man must acknowledge and turn to God in order to have any genuine righteouenss. It all comes from God, and yet it's ours as well. Abraham's faith and his actions were both gifts of grace, and yet they were gifts he acted upon. There's no doubt that man is forgiven of sin at justifaction. He's also cleansed and made a new creation, made righteous not merely forgiven of unrighteouness-he has no righteouness apart from God. The reason that the righteousness is foreign is only because it comes from God, not because its solely imputed. It's a real righteouness, which is the reason why the law and the prophets are said to testify to it (Rom 3:21), because they reflect it. Again, if you correctly understand the following you'll better understand the faith:
"...not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith." Phil 3:9

None of which changes the fact that Jesus said those who deny and reject him are condemned
(John 3:18, John 3:36), which you keep trying to skirt.

I've skirted nothing-you just brought up a straw man. Love comes by union with God which in turn comes by faith. Love is man's righteousness. Not the love of the tax collectors and pagans for their own-we all have that kind of love without grace, apart from God IOW.

 

[fhansen]

CONTRARE! . . .

Evidently you aren't reading the Scriptures posted, or you are not understanding what you read. . .helps me understand your need for "tradition" to interpret Scripture for you, and it's not doing a very good job.

Paul's conclusion in Romans 3:9-10: "Are we (Jews) any better (than Gentiles in the sight of God)? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin (condemned to eternal damnation). As it is written: 'There is no one righteous, not even one.' "

indeed does more than "indicate" what makes a person righteous and worthy of salvation.
His conclusion to the entire passage (1:18-3:20):
"Therefore, no one will be declared righteous in God's sight" (Romans 3:20)
shows that all mankind is condemned because of unrighteousness,

and to which he shows God alone as their only hope in Romans 3:21:
"But now a righteousness from God, apart from (works of) the law, has been made known,"
ending the passage (3:20) where he began in 1:18--the wickedness of all mankind, and God as their only hope (3:21):

17) "For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last (from faith to faith), just as it is written: 'The righteous will live by faith.'
18) The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,"

and he goes on from there to demonstrate the unrighteousness of the Gentiles (Romans 1:18-32), and then the unrighteousness of the Jews (Romans 2:1-3:8), summarizing in the unrighteousness of all mankind (Romans 3:9-20).

So in Romans 1:18-3:20 rightly understood, Paul doesn't "indicate," rather he specifically demonstrates the unrighteousness of all mankind which condemns all mankind to eternal damnation, and thereby leaving God alone as their only hope.

So you're saying that God cannot make a person righteous? Once a person enters fellowship with God, now reconciled with Him, then he, indeed, receives the righteousness that comes from God. And, to the extent that he continues to walk in and express that righteouness, by remaining in Him, he'd be declared righteous. In fact, there's no other reason that a person would be declared righteouess. So then, it makes sense, and all ties together; it's all reasonable:
"God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life." Rom 2:6-7

"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom 2:13

"But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." Rom 3:21-24

"But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Rom 6:22-23

"And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." Rom 8:3-4

"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live." Rom 8:12-13

One must open their eyes and not be tempted to read through the lens of Reformed traditions/teachings of men.

"Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous." 1 John 3:7

"This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister." 1 John 1:10

"We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death." 1 John 3:14

 

[Clare73]

Look it up. The word in 2 Thess 2:15 is translated as teachings but more often as traditions, whether oral or written.
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle." NKJV

One more time. . .

And since the word refers to "oral and written," good exegesis translates the word here as teachings rather than practices, and
since anything Paul gave orally will be in agreement with everything he wrote, his writings are complete in themselves.

esus didn't oppose all traditions, only traditions of men that contradict God's Word (whether oral or written). So, for example, traditions that help inform us as to God's will include things that Protestants divide over, going by Scripture alone, but which the ancient churches do not happen to divide over becazue they've always and everywhere held to these understandings. Such as infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, justification, to name a few.

Yes, protestants divide with you over the authority of the pope, purgatory, praying for the deceased, praying to the deceased, veneration of relics, indulgences, etc.

It's the experience of knowing Christ that we're talking about here dear. What the early chruch received and held to whether or not it was heard and simply practiced by humans, or written down by human authors.

Your comment is nonsensical. I have a high view of God's revelation in whatever form we received it. And the really ironic part is that anyone who's reduced knowing the Chrisitan faith to strictly biblical exegesis has turned it into not much more than an intellectual exercise.
You just need to reread my respsonse to that claim, with open eyes next time. Truth is a good thing.
Neither is the word Trinity. A huge part of the Christian world doubted the deity of Jesus at one time-some still do going by Scripture alone.

 

[Clare73]

I'll clarify. The only time that a person is considered, declared, counted, reckoned to be righteous is if and when that righteouness stems from God, not himself.

Justification is from God, wherein he declares, pronounces us, because of faith in Jesus Christ, "not guilty" and in right standing (righteous) with his justice, imputing the righteousness of Jesus Christ to us (Romans 5:18-19) by faith, as the righteousness of God (Romans 1:17) was imputed to Abraham by faith (Romans 4:3).
Abraham is the model for righteousness in the NT, just as the sacrifices were the model for Jesus' sacrifice in the NT.

Well, you aren't explaing how that works. Could it be that with the new birth he begins to behave righteously because he's been made right?

New birth, faith, salvation, justification, imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ are pretty much all one event.

We employ human reasoning everytime we read-God gave us that faculty for an, um, reason. He's not an irrational Being Himself. Some use it better, others not so well.
No, you just repeated the same eror, presuning that Abraham's righteousness was only credited to him.

So that is what you are not understanding/believing!

What part of Genesis 15:6 and Romans 4:3 do you not understand?
"Abraham believed the LORD, and he imputed/credited (Heb: chashab) it to him as righteousness." (Genesis 15:6)
"Abraham believed God and it was imputed/credited (Gr: logizomai) to him as righteousness." (Romans 4:3)

Can we stop going round and round this same old bush because you do not believe the word of God written in Genesis 15:6 and Romans 4:3?

No human righteousness his own-neither is our existence or ability to live, move, and have our being for that matter. The difference is that, in the moral sphere, God left man in the hands of his own counsel; we don't even have to acknowledge God's existence, let alone His law, the wisdom behind the moral prescriptions He created man to live by. And while man is allowed to live and move and have his being either way, man must acknowledge and turn to God in order to have any genuine righteouenss. It all comes from God, and yet it's ours as well. Abraham's faith and his actions were both gifts of grace, and yet they were gifts he acted upon. There's no doubt that man is forgiven of sin at justifaction. He's also cleansed and made a new creation, made righteous not merely forgiven of unrighteouness-he has no righteouness apart from God. The reason that the righteousness is foreign is only because it comes from God, not because its solely imputed. It's a real righteouness, which is the reason why the law and the prophets are said to testify to it (Rom 3:21), because they reflect it. Again, if you correctly understand the following you'll better understand the faith:

"...not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith." Phil 3:9

Precisely. . .the righteousness from God (Romans 1:17) that was imputed to Abraham (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3) and the righteousness of Jesus Christ which is likewise imputed to us (Romans 5:18-19) in justification are on the basis of faith, and not effort. (Romans 4:5, 3:22, 28).

I've skirted nothing-you just brought up a straw man. Love comes by union with God which in turn comes by faith. Love is man's righteousness. Not the love of the tax collectors and pagans for their own-we all have that kind of love without grace, apart from God IOW.

 

[Clare73]

So you're saying that God cannot make a person righteous?

You get to review what I stated to see if that is what I said.

And in your three responses here, you have not addressed/interacted with any of Paul's "written traditions" (epistles) to which we are to "stand fast," presented in post #20.

Once a person enters fellowship with God, now reconciled with Him, then he, indeed, receives the righteousness that comes from God. And, to the extent that he continues to walk in and express that righteouness, by remaining in Him, he'd be declared righteous.

You're trying to make righteousness depend on man's effort (works).
"However. . .to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked (who do not do good works), his faith is credited/imputed as righteousness." (Romans 4:5)

A righteousness from God apart from the law (good works) has been made known." (Romans 1:21)

"This righteousness comes from God through faith in Jesus Christ." (Romans 1:22)

One is declared "not guilty" in justification by faith and the righteousness of jesus Christ is imputed to him (Romans 5:18-19) by that same faith, just as Abraham, our NT model for righteosuness, was justified and righteousness imputed to him by faith, and not because of his effort.

In fact, there's no other reason that a person would be declared righteouess. So then, it makes sense, and all ties together; it's all reasonable:

And there you have it. . .

You have just demonstrated the main problem with human reason as your authority for God's truth:
it has put you in disagreement with Paul's "written traditions" in Romans 4:5, 1:21, 22 (above) as you stated below (post #13), and which "traditions" in Romans you fail to address.

The word in 2 Thess 2:15 is translated as teachings but more often as traditions, whether oral or written.
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle." NKJV

And so we've come full circle (as did Paul in Romans 1:18-3:20), ending where we began (as did Paul in his ending in Romans 3:20-21 where he began in Romans 1:17-18; i.e., the unrighteousness and condemnation/Romans 5:18 of all mankind, and God as the only hope).

"God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life." Rom 2:6-7

"For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." Rom 2:13

"But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." Rom 3:21-24

"But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Rom 6:22-23

"And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." Rom 8:3-4

"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live." Rom 8:12-13

One must open their eyes and not be tempted to read through the lens of Reformed traditions/teachings of men.

"Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous." 1 John 3:7

"This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister." 1 John 1:10

"We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other. Anyone who does not love remains in death." 1 John 3:14

 

[Mark Quayle]

"...not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith." Phil 3:9

Precisely. . .the righteousness from God (Romans 1:17) that was imputed to Abraham (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3) and the righteousness of Jesus Christ which is likewise imputed to us (Romans 5:18-19) in justification are on the basis of faith, and not effort. (Romans 4:5, 3:22, 28).

Amen that! fhansen's own quote says so! In fact, from a view of the cause-effect relationship between faith, imputation, and justification it can be seen here that the source of Faith itself is God, not man. I will not say that salvific faith, (and as a result, the imputation of righteousness), does not cause man's effort —of course it does!— but it is not the result of anything man can do.

The purity of the Gospel of GRACE, which is the work of God from first to last, is at stake here! By this same Gospel of Grace, by the faith that comes from God himself to those of us he saves present day, Abraham was also justified by his faith —the faith that comes from God himself.

 

[fhansen]

You get to review what I stated to see if that is what I said.

I know what you say-that righteousness is strictly imputed to man to justify him; leaving him now a snow-cover dung heap since man has no righteousness-his "righteousness" are filthy rags. And that once justified/born again he's forever saved but God nonethless then begins to make him right or just in real, personal terms, to sanctify him which leads to eternal life according Rom 6:21, not leaving him a snow-covered dung-heap after all I guess it could be said. Clear as mud.

And since the word refers to "oral and written," good exegesis translates the word here as teachings rather than practices, and
since anything Paul gave orally will be in agreement with everything he wrote, his writings are complete in themselves.

You're not even trying to understand. But go ahead and dictate how the scholars should translate the bible. And either "teachings" or "traditions" work-they were instructed-and told to hold fast to those instructions. And practices, such as baptism, are simply the result of their beliefs. And to say that Paul's writings are exhaustive is naive; he simply wrote to address specific needs at hand; the bible was never meant to serve as a catechsim although many seem to desparately need it to be such.

Yes, protestants divide with you over the authority of the pope, purgatory, praying for the deceased, praying to the deceased, veneration of relics, indulgences, etc.

Yes, and with each other over "infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, justification, to name a few."

You're trying to make righteousness depend on man's effort (works).

How does being given righteousness by God equate to making righteousness depend on man? The only thing that depends on us is the will to live in that righteouness now received, to pick up our cross daily and follow.

You have just demonstrated the main problem with human reason as your authority for God's truth:
it is in disagreement with God's word written in Romans 4:5, 1:21, 22 (above).

I quoted Scripture-which you probably didn't even bother to read. If you had you'd begin to see a pattern and understand the problem with your theology-and understand God's will better. Either way all of Scripture must be taken into account and reconciled: the challenging parts along with the ones we like. And, just so you know, its OK for the faith to be reasonable. IMO, however, your approach is pretty much hyper-rational, and a bit sterile or wooden, by focusing in on isolated verses and overlooking the rest.

 

[fhansen]

Amen that! fhansen's own quote says so! In fact, from a view of the cause-effect relationship between faith, imputation, and justification it can be seen here that the source of Faith itself is God, not man. I will not say that salvific faith, (and as a result, the imputation of righteousness), does not cause man's effort —of course it does!— but it is not the result of anything man can do.

The purity of the Gospel of GRACE, which is the work of God from first to last, is at stake here! By this same Gospel of Grace, by the faith that comes from God himself to those of us he saves present day, Abraham was also justified by his faith —the faith that comes from God himself.

So how does the imputation of righteouness cause man to begin to behave righteously? Other than that everything you said simply repeats what I've already maintained consistently: righteousness comes from God, alone.

 

[Mark Quayle]

How does being given righteousness by God equate to making righteousness depend on man? The only thing that depends on us is the will to live in that righteouness now received, to pick up our cross daily and follow.

We MUST choose, will, do. BUT.....

It is GOD who works in us both to will and to do according to his good pleasure. Like with salvation, if it depends on the strength of our will, and the integrity of our hearts, it will not happen.

Monergism does not deny that man also expends effort; it only denies that man's effort adds to God's to produce a result greater than God's effort alone. It fits (mathematically, in fact) perfectly with Christ's statement: "Apart from me you can do NOTHING."

 

[Mark Quayle]

So how does the imputation of righteouness cause man to begin to behave righteously? Other than that everything you said simply repeats what I've already maintained consistently: righteousness comes from God, alone.

As is obvious, that Regeneration necessarily results in so many things: salvific faith, imputed righteousness and justification, repentance, obedience, etc etc. —it is hard to separate them. If born-again, the others necessarily happen. It is usually hard to say just when the regeneration happened. For some it is obvious, for others, even those who had a very obvious 'awakening', the regeneration may have occurred even years earlier, and God has been gently, but inexorably, working on their heart and mind the whole time. The determining factor is God's election and predestination of those upon whom he shows mercy.

So, while technically, you might say that the imputation of righteousness does not cause man to begin to behave righteously, the same thing (Salvific Faith) by which righteousness is imputed to us causes us to pursue Christ, compels obedience, and directs our growth in Christ. "...it is God who works in you both to will and to do according to his good pleasure."

You are right that righteousness comes from God alone. Not just imputed, but subsequent righteous behavior (obedience and sanctification). "Apart from me you can do nothing."

 

[Clare73]

I know what you say-that righteousness is strictly imputed to man to justify him; leaving him now a snow-cover dung heap since man has no righteousness-his "righteousness" are filthy rags. And that once justified/born again he's forever saved but God nonethless then begins to make him right or just in real, personal terms, to sanctify him which leads to eternal life according Rom 6:21, not leaving him a snow-covered dung-heap after all I guess it could be said. Clear as mud.
You're not even trying to understand. But go ahead and dictate how the scholars should translate the bible. And either "teachings" or "traditions" work-they were instructed-and told to hold fast to those instructions. And practices, such as baptism, are simply the result of their beliefs. And to say that Paul's writings are exhaustive is naive; he simply wrote to address specific needs at hand; the bible was never meant to serve as a catechsim although many seem to desparately need it to be such.

Yes, and with each other over "infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, justification, to name a few."

Apples and oranges. . .

None of these views are presented as authorized in Protestantism, while the non-Scriptural views of infallibility of the pope, purgatory, praying for the deceased, praying to the deceased, veneration of relics, indulgences, etc. are authorized in your system.

Your system doesn't prevent error as it claims, rather it authorizes error and then blames Protestantism for not doing the same thing.

How does being given righteousness by God equate to making righteousness depend on man? The only thing that depends on us is the will to live in that righteouness now received, to pick up our cross daily and follow.
I quoted Scripture-which you probably didn't even bother to read. If you had you'd begin to see a pattern and understand the problem with your theology-and understand God's will better. Either way all of Scripture must be taken into account and reconciled: the challenging parts along with the ones we like. And, just so you know, its OK for the faith to be reasonable.

IMO, however, your approach is pretty much hyper-rational, and a bit sterile or wooden, by focusing in on isolated verses and overlooking the rest.

Sorry you feel that the "written traditions "of Paul (2 Thessalonians 2:15) presented in post #20, to which we are "to stand fast and hold," are sterile and wooden. . .still failing to address them.

 

[fhansen]

Apples and oranges. . .

They'e not apples and oranges-all involve doctrines that Scripture cannot serve to rule definitively on-which is why we end up with a bunch of maverick private intrepreters who don't agree on many essentials, let alone more peripheral matters. Protestantism cannot authorize anything. They could never call a universal council which would decide on basic tenants that now separate them, IOW.

 

[Clare73]

Apples and oranges. . .
None of these views are presented as authorized in Protestantism, while the non-Scriptural views of infallibility of the pope, purgatory, praying for the deceased, praying to the deceased, veneration of relics, indulgences, etc. are authorized in your system.

Your system doesn't prevent error as it claims, rather it authorizes error
and then blames Protestantism for not doing the same thing.

They'e not apples and oranges-all involve doctrines that Scripture cannot serve to rule definitively on-which is why we end up with a bunch of maverick private intrepreters who don't agree on many essentials, let alone more peripheral matters. Protestantism cannot authorize anything. They could never call a universal council which would decide on basic tenants that now separate them, IOW.

One system authorizes error, the other does not. . .that's apples and oranges.

 

[fhansen]

Sorry you feel that the "written traditions "of Paul (2 Thessalonians 2:15) presented in post #20, to which we are "to stand fast and hold," are sterile and wooden. . .still failing to address them.

And as already stated, Pauls' writings in Rom 1-3 are plain enough. They don't need to be reinterpreted as meaning to say what they don't really say. And they all align perfectly with the rest of his sentiments in Romans and elsewhere. And with Jesus, and John, and James, et al. Man must live righteousnesly in order to gain eternal life-not merely believe- even if the basis of it all is faith. And this is a daily choice-yes, we can turn back away from God, we can fail to "put to death the deeds of the flesh". But it does no good for man to do so if he's under the law-because there's no true righteouness in that: those are mere external actions. Jesus wants us changed on the inside first of all. Then our righteouness easily surpasses anyone who's merely under the law. Only God can make that change. So that we'll live by the Spirit, under grace, now with Him instead of apart from Him.

Humans are like plants that God cultivates-and yet the plants have a say in whether or not they'll allow themselves to blossom into the flowers they were intended to be. Our own pride is our main obstacle-and it can rear its ugly head at any time.

 

[fhansen]

One system authorizes error, the other does not. . .that's apples and oranges.

That's just your personal opinion. So Protestantism authorizes nothing whereas Catholicism authorizes truth. And nowhere is this more evident than in the case of justification, as the tradition-holding churches in both the east and west all affirm by their agreement on that teaching.

 

[Clare73]

The non-Scriptural views of infallibility of the pope, purgatory, praying for the deceased, praying to the deceased, veneration of relics, indulgences, etc. are authorized in your system.

That's just your personal opinion.

Don't let evidence get in your way.

 

[fhansen]

New birth, faith, salvation, justification, imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ are pretty much all one event.

So, while technically, you might say that the imputation of righteousness does not cause man to begin to behave righteously, the same thing (Salvific Faith) by which righteousness is imputed to us causes us to pursue Christ, compels obedience, and directs our growth in Christ. "...it is God who works in you both to will and to do according to his good pleasure."

So it’s sort of a robotic response to being justified? Or is something changed (as opposed to an imputed change) in us that causes us to behave righteously? Or how/why would “Salvific Faith” by which righteousness is imputed to us make that difference?

You are right that righteousness comes from God alone. Not just imputed, but subsequent righteous behavior (obedience and sanctification). "Apart from me you can do nothing."

So I guess my question would be, which is it? Does having righteousness imputed to us even do anyone any good, except to understand it to simply mean forgiveness and remission of sins-to be “declared not guilty”? Or is righteousness somehow also given, rather than solely imputed?

I think it’s best first of all to recognize that, for the early churches, the righteousness that man receives at justification is not merely imputed by God, but personal righteouness, or the seeds of it, often identified as faith (more of it), hope, and love, are sown. Transforming us into His own image is the goal, from the beginning. And that this righteousness can never occur in man apart from God; it flows from that very union with Him; it’s intrinsic to it. And it’s held that justification and sanctification need not be separated, which is why a person should begin to behave more righteously from conversion on even though, yes, many of us are more stubborn than others –and some may even fail to remain in God, separating themselves from Him all over again in my understanding.

Now the doctrine of imputed righteousness introduces a kind of confusion or question that’s often voiced on this forum and elsewhere. If one is justified, made just, by imputation, then is there any way for a person to lose this state, since there’s really nothing for the person to lose to begin with; is there no degree of sin/unrighteousness that could separate us from God again, if no sin is- ever?- counted against him? Some say yes, some say no, but in any case most say that all will continue to sin but aren’t sure what to think about a supposed believer who’s obviously sinning in a grave matter-with the kind of sins that Scripture gives examples of as being capable of keeping us from entering heaven. Where might we draw the line? Do we say that at some point the person loses their salvation, because they’ve compromised their justified state, or do we fall back to the position that they were never saved to begin with? Do we argue that “true believers” are guaranteed to overcome sin, or at least overcome it “sufficiently” at any rate? Do good works always accompany faith-or should that even matter? Do we say, as some, that even the most heinous of sins cannot separate us from Christ as long as we believe. This seems to be most consistent with the doctrine of Sola Fide, IMO, if we’re going to be true to its basic position. Either way, if I’m only imputed to be righteous, then why would I begin to act any differently than I did before?

Now, if God begins sanctifying me after justifying me, for whatever reason, then at least we acknowledge that I can be made holy, that God can put His law in my mind and write in on my heart. But if we still fail to acknowledge that this holiness is necessary, as an obligation, in order to see God (Heb 12:14), in order to gain eternal life (Rom 6:21), that we must put to death the deeds of the flesh (Rom 8:13), and obey the commandments (Matt 19, Rom 2:13), and do good works (Rom 2:7)- or if we believe that this sanctity is simply guaranteed to us, that our wills are in no wise involved in any meaningful way such that we could compromise our justice, and therefore our salvation, as if we will persevere and cannot sin, at least sufficiently to destroy our relationship with God all over again, then we’re only looking at a little slice of the whole pie, ignoring significant parts of Scripture, and our gospel ends up stifled, confused, and done violence to IMO.

Rom 5:19:
“For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.”

Through the disobedience of one man the many were made sinners, not imputed to be sinners, but made sinners-and through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. Jesus takes away and overcomes sin in us, replacing it with righteousness, or else nothing has been changed. But just as in Eden, God does not violate man’s will. He draws, it, informs it; we cannot move towards Him apart from his grace, but the pattern from Eden through Revelation is that God wants man to choose good over evil, to choose obedience, to choose to love, to the extent he can, with the help of knowledge and grace, without having his “disposition” simply changed which would render the entire enterprise absurd-He may as well have just done that with Adam to begin with if He wants it to be all about Him. But He wants us to make it all about Him, in our lives. Then our justice/righteousness begins to flourish.

 

[Clare73]

So it’s sort of a robotic response to being justified? Or is something changed (as opposed to an imputed change) in us that causes us to behave righteously? Or how/why would “Salvific Faith” by which righteousness is imputed to us make that difference?
So I guess my question would be, which is it? Does having righteousness imputed to us even do anyone any good, except to understand it to simply mean forgiveness and remission of sins-to be “declared not guilty”? Or is righteousness somehow also given, rather than solely imputed?

The "good it does" is make us acceptable to the perfectly pure holiness of God's presence which even the slightest sin/unrighteousness would defile, only the righteousness of Jesus Christ being acceptable, thereby admitting us into fellowship with God by its being imputed to us (Romans 5:18-19) in justification by faith (as it was imputed to Abraham by faith--Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3, and he became a friend of God, admitted into God's presence), because even after a life of holiness, we still are not righteous enough to keep from defiling the perfectly pure holiness of God's presence in his fellowship with us.

No small thing, that. . .being admitted into fellowship with God because of the righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to us (Romans 5:18-19), which keeps us from defiling his pure and holy presence so that he can fellowship with us.

I think it’s best first of all to recognize that, for the early churches, the righteousness that man receives at justification is not merely imputed by God, but personal righteouness, or the seeds of it, often identified as faith (more of it), hope, and love, are sown. Transforming us into His own image is the goal, from the beginning. And that this righteousness can never occur in man apart from God; it flows from that very union with Him; it’s intrinsic to it. And it’s held that justification and sanctification need not be separated, which is why a person should begin to behave more righteously from conversion on even though, yes, many of us are more stubborn than others –and some may even fail to remain in God, separating themselves from Him all over again in my understanding.

Now the doctrine of imputed righteousness introduces a kind of confusion or question that’s often voiced on this forum and elsewhere. If one is justified, made just, by imputation, then is there any way for a person to lose this state, since there’s really nothing for the person to lose to begin with; is there no degree of sin/unrighteousness that could separate us from God again, if no sin is- ever?- counted against him? Some say yes, some say no, but in any case most say that all will continue to sin but aren’t sure what to think about a supposed believer who’s obviously sinning in a grave matter-with the kind of sins that Scripture gives examples of as being capable of keeping us from entering heaven. Where might we draw the line? Do we say that at some point the person loses their salvation, because they’ve compromised their justified state, or do we fall back to the position that they were never saved to begin with? Do we argue that “true believers” are guaranteed to overcome sin, or at least overcome it “sufficiently” at any rate? Do good works always accompany faith-or should that even matter? Do we say, as some, that even the most heinous of sins cannot separate us from Christ as long as we believe. This seems to be most consistent with the doctrine of Sola Fide, IMO, if we’re going to be true to its basic position. Either way, if I’m only imputed to be righteous, then why would I begin to act any differently than I did before?

Now, if God begins sanctifying me after justifying me, for whatever reason, then at least we acknowledge that I can be made holy, that God can put His law in my mind and write in on my heart. But if we still fail to acknowledge that this holiness is necessary, as an obligation, in order to see God (Heb 12:14), in order to gain eternal life (Rom 6:21), that we must put to death the deeds of the flesh (Rom 8:13), and obey the commandments (Matt 19, Rom 2:13), and do good works (Rom 2:7)- or if we believe that this sanctity is simply guaranteed to us, that our wills are in no wise involved in any meaningful way such that we could compromise our justice, and therefore our salvation, as if we will persevere and cannot sin, at least sufficiently to destroy our relationship with God all over again, then we’re only looking at a little slice of the whole pie, ignoring significant parts of Scripture, and our gospel ends up stifled, confused, and done violence to IMO.

Rom 5:19:
“For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.”

Through the disobedience of one man the many were made sinners, not imputed to be sinners, but made sinners-and through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. Jesus takes away and overcomes sin in us, replacing it with righteousness, or else nothing has been changed. But just as in Eden, God does not violate man’s will. He draws, it, informs it; we cannot move towards Him apart from his grace, but the pattern from Eden through Revelation is that God wants man to choose good over evil, to choose obedience, to choose to love, to the extent he can, with the help of knowledge and grace, without having his “disposition” simply changed which would render the entire enterprise absurd-He may as well have just done that with Adam to begin with if He wants it to be all about Him. But He wants us to make it all about Him, in our lives. Then our justice/righteousness begins to flourish.

 

[fhansen]

The "good it does" is make us acceptable to the perfectly pure holiness of God's presence which even the slightest sin/unrighteousness would defile, only the righteousness of Jesus Christ being acceptable, thereby admitting us into fellowship with God by its being imputed to us (Romans 5:18-19) in justification by faith (as it was imputed to Abraham by faith--Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:3, and he became a friend of God, admitted into God's presence), because even after a life of holiness, we still are not righteous enough to keep from defiling the perfectly pure holiness of God's presence in his fellowship with us.

No small thing, that. . .being admitted into fellowship with God because of the righteousness of Jesus Christ imputed to us (Romans 5:18-19), which keeps us from defiling his pure and holy presence so that he can fellowship with us.

There's nothing wrong with the doctrine of "imputed righteousness" if by it we mean to emphasize that man has no righteousness on his own, apart from God, and that he cannot possibly be saved apart from Him. That is solid Church teaching, laid down at council and in catechisms, etc. But if it means that man is free from the obligation to be personally righteouess, and live accordingly in order to be saved, then that docrine only serves to obfuscate the gosepl.