Does God Accept Imperfect Obedience?

[faroukfarouk]

Lately, the sheer number of posts which explicitly and implicitly state that Jesus saves only those who keep the law has been astounding. Most of those claiming such don't claim moral perfection, but quite frankly, I would have less of a problem with them if they did, because there is no such animal as imperfect obedience.

Does God accept "imperfect obedience"?

Does Christ save only those who obey the law?

God accepts in the Beloved One all those who truly love and trust the One Who was 'obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross' (Philippians 2).

 

[jimmyjimmy]

God accepts in the Beloved One all those who truly love and trust the One Who was 'obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross' (Philippians 2).

I agree, but what if they have tattoos? (j/k)

 

[ladodgers6]

Hello,

I completely agree that we are justified by faith and not by works, and the fact that you've been trying to argue for that position leads me to believe that I have not been communicating clearly, for which I apologize. There is a world of difference between saying that we are required to obey God's laws and saying that we are required to obey God's laws in order to become justified, and I have been arguing the former and have never suggested the latter. God had may reasons for giving His Law, but providing the means of becoming justified was never one of them, so the one and only way that there has ever been to become justified is by grace through faith. According to Jeremiah 6:16-19 and Matthew 11:28-30, the Law is the good way where we will find rest for our souls, so perverting the Law into something that we need to obey perfectly in order to become justified robs our souls of the rest that it was intended to give. God has always wanted a relationship with His people based on faith and love, and His Law is His instructions for how to grow in that relationship, and we have received grace in order to bring about the obedience to these instructions that faith requires (Romans 1:6).

I am glad to see that you believe that we are justified by faith apart from works. No need to apologize, its me, I am not a smart person, it takes it me some time to grasp thing, due to my limited intelligence.

But where I disagree with you, is that God does demand Perfect obedience, without a single blemish or spot of sin. We have to be sinless. That why is we are in this plight.

The first Adam breached God's Law Covenant with One Sin. Which bought with it sanctions of condemnation and death. I do not see anything in your posts of how serious sin is and our condition before a Holy God really is. God sent His only Son to rescue us from this plight.

Christ said to be Perfect as your Heavenly Father is Perfect. To be a Holy People, because the Lord your God is Holy.

I completely agree that Christ set us free from the curse of the Law, however, as I stated, Christ did not set us free from the Law. God's Law is holy, righteous, and good, so we should not even desire to be free from something that has those attributes and God had no reason to free us from having to obey His commands. The curse of the Law is Lawlessness or practicing disobedience to the Law and Jesus gave himself to set us free from sin or from practicing disobedience to the Law so that we could be free to live for God and enjoy the blessing of the Law by practicing obedience to it. When you conflate obedience to God's holy, righteous, and good instructions for how to walk in His ways with being a curse, you are in practice acting as though Paul had said that God's Law is sin in spite of you telling me that you believe that the Law is not sin. Furthermore, it is expressing an extremely negative opinion about God. It is calling God a liar when He said that His commands were for His children's own good to bless them, and essentially saying that He can't be trust to give good laws and that He is actually an unloving father who gave His Law in order to curse all of His children who couldn't not perfectly obey it.

Not so fast here Soyeong, I never implied or even implicitly suggested that we do away with the Law. I have been saying that the Law requires Perfect Obedience. Just to get it straight, you are the one who said it does not require Perfect Obedience.

So I will attempt to clarify what the Reformed position teaches. Sinner or Believer, the Law requires Perfect flawless, sinless, spotless Obedience in the person's whole life; from the cradle to the grave. We are under the curse of the Law, because of One Trespass of the One Man. The sinful corruption, condemnation, and death, are the results of that One Act of disobedience.

The Last Adam came into time & history in the flesh, born of a virgin, under the Law. To do His Father's will. Which is to save His people from their sins, condemnation, and death. By fulfilling the broken Covenant of works (Law), to live a sinless, spotless, flawless life in the flesh, to condemned sin in the flesh for us! This Last Adam took our place on the Cross and received the full wrath of God upon His head for us! So that we can become the righteousness of God!

Galatians 3:10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”[d] 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit[e] through faith.

The phrase "works of the law" has no definitive article in the Greek, so it literally translates as "works of law", which means that is does not refer to a definitive set of laws, such as the Law of Moses, but rather Paul used it as a catch-all phrase to refer to the large body of Jewish oral laws, rulings, fences, and traditions the existed during the 1st century, which the Pharisees were teaching were needed to be obeyed order to become saved. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that faith is one of the weightier matters of the Law and obedience to it is straightforwardly about placing our faith in God to guide us in how to rightly live, while man-made works of law are not of faith. By relying on their own traditions, they were failing to live by faith in God, and thus were under a curse for failing to do everything in the Book of the Law, which is of faith.

I agree that it could be speaking of the whole spectrum of Laws. But Paul was also specific, because in Galatians 3:12But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.”

Paul says here in verse 12, that the Law is not of Faith! The Law requires "DOING/OBEDIENCE". The Law requires everything to be done, perfectly!

He references to Lev. 18:5 as well, 5Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord. Again doing is required to be obey perfectly!

In Romans 10:5Moses writes this about the righteousness that is by the law: “The person who does these things will live by them.” Again doing is required to receive righteousness through the Law. Notice here especially what Law is Paul talking about. The Mosaic Law!

And finally Christ and the Rich Young Ruler. 18And a ruler asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” Read what Christ tell Him. 20You know the commandments: ‘Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.’” Christ gives the Mosaic to be Perfectly obeyed; flawless!

The Law instructs us how to do what holy, but no amount of doing what is holy will making us holy, but rather we are required to follow God's instructions for how to do what is holy because God has made us holy. In 1 Peter 1:13-16, we are told to do what is holy for God is holy, which is a reference to Leviticus, so following those instructions is about acting in accordance with the holiness of our God. The Law itself contains instructions for what to do when it is not kept perfectly, which would have been completely unnecessary if the Law was given to provide the means of becoming justified through perfect obedience. Trying to become justified by obeying the Law completely missed the whole point of it and nowhere in the Bible does it talk about what we will obtain through our own effort if we are perfectly obedience, but rather obedience to God has always been about growing in a relationship with Him. Perfection should be our goal because we love God and have faith in Him to guide us in how to rightly live, so when we fail the consequence is that we need to repent and turn back to God. It is only when we stop repenting that we come under the curse of the Law.

I agree with some of what you wrote. Since we are condemned Law Breakers in the first Adam. Doesn't mean God has to lower His standard of Holiness to let us in. The Law still needs to be fulfilled with Perfect Holiness & Righteousness. It has to be flawless, spotless without a single blemish of sin. That's why God sent the Last to fulfill the broken Law with Perfect Obedience of His Son for us.

The Law instructions us how to reflect God's attributes: holiness, righteousness, goodness, justice, mercy, faith, love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, and self-control, and Christ did not come to free us from reflecting God's attributes to the world, but to teach us how to reflect them by word and by example, and to free us from the Lawlessness of sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. Either our faith requires us to obey God's Law or it does not, but it is consistent for you to say that through faith in Christ we are set free from needing to obey God's Law and that our faith requires us to obey God's Law (Romans 3:31). When you remove the condemnation from the Mosaic Law, you are left with the blessing of living in obedience to it. Christ did not come to end the blessing of the Law, but rather the goal of the Law is a relationship with Christ for everyone who has faith (Romans 10:4).

You speak of sanctification of the believer, like that is the ground of our justification. That the transformation of the believer is what counts in the end for Justification? Only Christ's Obedience can meet the requirements of the Law, which is imputed the ungodly through Faith. And this is the only place the sinner can stand bold, and can build piety toward God.

The Law makes us conscious of sin, so being required to refrain from sin means that we are required to obey the Law. Again, God said that what He commanded was not too difficult (Deuteronomy 30:11-14) and if you believe God, then your faith also says that it is not difficult (Romans 10:5-10), so the position that we can't fulfills the Law's requirements directly contradicts God and our faith.

Romans 7:13 Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.

Paul said that God's Law was good and that what was good did not bring death to him.

Why did the Israelites get punished from God? Was it because of their faithfulness to God?

Matthew 11:5 the blind receive their sight and the lame walk, lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised up, and the poor have good news preached to them.

Luke 4:18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed,

Luke 4:43 but he said to them, “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns as well; for I was sent for this purpose.”

Luke 8:1 Soon afterward he went on through cities and villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. And the twelve were with him,

Christ was preaching the good news while he was still alive, and it precisely was to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, and we can't grow in holiness apart from repentance. Christ's death and resurrection are a certainly how Jesus would accomplish our reconciliation, but that was not yet included in the good news that he was proclaiming at the start of his ministry.

Resting as it does on the Covenant of Redemption, the Covenant of Grace is in its basis unconditional, inviolable, and irrevocable. Even repentance and faith are gifts of this royal grant, not conditions that human beings fulfill in order to receive Grace. However, the gifts of this Union include not only election, but also calling, redemption, justification, sanctification, and glorification. In the transition from election to calling, we also move from the Covenant of Redemption to he Covenant of Grace. Absolute and unconditional in its basis, the New Covenant nevertheless promised the restoration of genuine obedience. On the basis of a forgiveness to which we have contributed nothing but sin and resistance, we are given a new heart that begins already to yield its "Amen" both to God's promise and command in Christ. (Michael Horton, Covenant and Salvation).

I have never suggested that justification is based on works. In Romans 2:13 says that it is not hearers of the Law who will be justified, but the doers, which notably again does not say that we are justified by being doers of the Law. Rather, the same faith by which we are justified also requires our obedience, so the doers of the Law are the ones who will be justified because they are the ones who have faith in God to guide them in how to rightly live.

See here you are all over the place. You say that our justification is not based on works, then you end by saying that its the doers of the Law who are the ones who will be justified? Paul is driving home a point here. That since we all are sinners, no one is righteous or good, its impossible for us to be justified by being doers of the Law. This is meant to strip us of our filthy rags, and drives us to the only place we can be saved; namely Christ Jesus the Savior of the ungodly!

In Romans 9:30-Romans 10:10, the reason why Israel failed to obtain righteous not because they did what God commanded them to and God gave them faulty instructions, but rather the reason was that they pursued the Law as though righteousness were by works instead of pursuing the Law as though righteousness were by faith. They were zealous for God, but they zeal was not based upon knowledge because they misunderstood that the goal of obedience to the Law is a relationship with Christ for righteousness for everyone who has faith, and instead thought that the goal of obedience to the Law was to establish their own righteousness. It has always been a fundamental misunderstanding of the Law that it is about trying to become justified and Paul spent a lot of time making the point that the Law is not about trying to become justified and that we are justified by faith apart from the Law, yet many people today are still making that error, only they have compounded their error by concluding that their faith does away with their need to obey the Law, whereas Paul concluding that our faith does not do away with the Law, but rather our faith requires us to obey it (Romans 3:27-31). It does not follow that because we shouldn't obey the Law in order to establish our own righteousness that therefore we shouldn't obey the Law.

The Gospel was a stumbling block for them, that's why they did not listen and wanted to establish their own righteousness or works, that they thought they could earn through Obedience!

I did not say that we could be justified through the Law, but rather that fulfilling the Law refers to obeying it in the way that it should be obeyed. If you say that your faith upholds the Law, then stop contradicting yourself by also saying that Christ did away with it. Again, Titus 2:14 does not say that Christ gave himself to free us from the Law, but to free us from all Lawlessness, so we have been set free from living in disobedience to the Law and are now free to live in obedience to it. Jesus set us free from sin so that we might obey the Law and meet is righteous requirement (Romans 8:3-4).

It seems I confused you, and for that I apologize. I never said or implied that Christ did away with the Law. We uphold the Law because the Law is Holy, Righteous, and good. It exposes our sins, and kills us because of sin. The law drives us to what saves us; Christ Jesus. Once we are released from the curse of the Law, by the One Act of Righteousness by the One Man. We can live to God. Not until then.


[QUOTE[
I did not say that we don't have to be holy, but we do not become people who only do what is holy the moment we accept Christ, but rather God makes us holy, so we therefore must be trained by grace through faith to do what is holy in accordance with God's holiness. Christ did not become our righteousness so that we would hide it under a bushel, but so that we would let it shine. He has become our righteousness, therefore we are required to reflect his righteousness to the world through following God's commands for how to do what is righteous and through following Christ's example of obedience to those commands.[/QUOTE] What commands do we need to follow to become righteous? Just curious.

The Bible does not use "grace" and "mercy" interchangeably, but rather they are distinct concepts. Nowhere does the Bible say that we are saved by mercy, though God does save us because us His mercy.

I beg to differ.

Titus 3:5he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,

 

[ladodgers6]

The Bible does not use "grace" and "mercy" interchangeably, but rather they are distinct concepts. Nowhere does the Bible say that we are saved by mercy, though God does save us because us His mercy.

I beg to differ.

Mercy synonym:

synonyms
leniency · clemency · compassion · grace · pity · charity · forgiveness · forbearance · quarter · humanity · soft-heartedness · tenderheartedness · kindness · sympathy · liberality ·

 

[ladodgers6]

Just wanted to share this with you.

Justification and Ecumenism
by Michael Horton

“Once we relocate justification, moving it from the discussion of how people become Christians to the discussion of how we know that someone is a Christian, we have a powerful incentive to work together across denominational barriers.”
—N.T. Wright, “New Perspectives on Paul,” in Justification in Perspective, p. 261

One of the great connections that N.T. Wright emphasizes in his work is the one between soteriology (how we are saved) and ecclesiology (the church: who are the true people of God?). He properly (and repeatedly) reminds us that Paul saw these questions as inseparable. Interestingly, so did the Protestant Reformers, as historians have often obser ved. As on so many points, however, Wright distorts the Reformation positions and almost never footnotes his sweeping allegations. For example, in his latest book, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (IVP, 2009), Wright once more complains that the Reformers simply did not read Paul with his own concerns in mind, such as God’s plan “to unite all things in [Christ], things in heaven and things on earth” (Eph. 1:10), with the two peoples (Jew and Gentile) becoming one family in Christ in fulfillment of the promise to Abraham (p. 43).

A cursory reading of Calvin’s Ephesians commentary tells a different story. Nevertheless, Wright states confidently: “And, as I have argued before and hope to show here once more, many of the supposedly ordinary readings within the Western Protestant traditions have simply not paid attention to what Paul actually wrote” (p. 50). The Reformation tradition simply doesn’t see any “organic connection between justification by faith on the one hand and the inclusion of the Gentiles within God’s people on the other” (p. 53).

In this, as in his earlier works, Wright practically never offers a single footnote for his manifold assertions concerning Reformation exegesis. However, he hangs much on the slender thread of several quotes from Alister McGrath’s expansive yet controversial study of the history of the doctrine of justification, Iustitia Dei. Assuming discontinuity more than refinement, McGrath argues (as approvingly cited by Wright, p. 80), “The ‘doctrine of justification’ has come to bear a meaning within dogmatic theolog y which is quite independent of its Pauline origins” (Iustitia Dei, pp.2–3).

According to Wright (and McGrath), justification “has regularly been made to do duty for the entire picture of God’s reconciling action toward the human race, covering everything from God’s free love and grace, through the sending of the son to die and rise again for sinners, through the preaching of the gospel, the work of the Spirit, the arousal of faith in human hearts and minds, the development of Christian character and conduct, the assurance of ultimate salvation, and the safe passage through final judgment to that destination” (Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision, p. 86).

This is simply not true. The main point of the Reformation was to stress the distinction between justification and the other gifts of salvation. It was Rome’s confusion of justification and sanctification that the Reformers challenged.

For all of his concern about ecclesiology in Paul, Wright does not seem as concerned about the actual positions that Protestant churches have held. In this murkiness, he is able to put forward his own view as a “third way” beyond the impasse of Rome and the Reformation. As it turns out, his alternative surrenders the doctrine of justification as the imputation of Christ’s active and passive obedience in favor of a concept of justification as the anticipation of a final justification based on “an entire life lived” — ours, that is.

At the heart of historical criticisms of the Reformation view has been the charge that it does not have any place for human activity. New Perspective trailblazers E .P. Sanders and James D.G. Dunn approach Paul from an Arminian perspective (the latter having once been a Calvinist). N.T. Wright claims to avoid such debates (as do Sanders and Dunn), but everyone interprets Scripture from a particular theological perspective. Wright also has a clear agenda to get Christians to transform the world by “living the gospel” (complete with a very specific political prescription). He writes concerning justification: “If Christians could only get this right,” says Wright, “they would find that not only would they be believing the gospel, they would be practicing it; and that is the best basis for proclaiming it” (What Saint Paul Really Said, p. 159). Faith and holiness belong together, Wright properly insists, but the only way to keep them together, he seems to suggest, is to make them the same thing. “Indeed, very often the word ‘faith’ itself could properly be translated as ‘faithfulness,’ which makes the point just as well” (p. 160).

Far from being suspicious, we should welcome any ecumenical consensus that emerges out of the clear biblical testimony to God’s justification of the ungodly by imputing their sins to Christ and Christ’s righteousness to them through faith alone. However, the consensus that seems to be emerging in our day, as in other eras, seems to find its core sympathy in a more synergistic (Arminian and Roman Catholic) framework.