Hammster
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Site Supporter
- Apr 5, 2007
- 140,964
- 25,361
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Reformed
- Marital Status
- Married
But nowhere in the OP was self-righteousness claimed. That's your assumption, which would be incorrect. Remember, the OP states that the person is saved. The OP also never indicates that it's necessarily a good statement to make. It was simply, is it truthful or blasphemy.You do realise that your OP uses a personal pronoun "I am", by directly comparing on PAR the righteousness of the self to that of God.
No created being can make this comparison of righteousness with Deity.
In the OP a personal pronoun I am is declaring oneself as rigtheous on PAR with Deity.
If a claim like the OP is made by an individual, then it falls in the blasphemous category.
It is the same charge that the Pharisees charged Jesus with because they did not believe that he was God.
"We are not stoning you for any good work," they replied, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." (John 10:33)
Declaring yourself as rigtheous as what the OP implies and being considered righteous because of the righteousness of Deity Jesus Christ, are entirely two contrastly different matters.
The OP implies the righteousness of the self, whilst the other legalistically clears (justifies) the other party of any wrong doing because of the righteousness of another and by doing this, it therefore follows that the party being justified by another is openly being acknowlefged as unrighteous, otherwise why would another party be required on behalf of the unrighteous party to justify them in the first place. It therefore begs the question does it not?
Incorrect friend. Firstly, the OP implies by using a personal pronoun I am as rigtheous as Jesus, which does not match up with your statement above that "we still have no rigtheousness of our own".
It seems that you have changed the goal posts of the OP now.
So I would kindly like to ask you which one is it, the righteousness of the self or the righteousness of Deity?
Lastly, in Heaven the past does not come into play, the individual no longer needs another party to legally justify them and therefore it is at this point in eternity that the individual is acknowledged as rigtheous on their own.
In Heaven the Saint is acknowledged as righteous on their own and this is the "crown of rigtheousness" that Paul talks about in Timothy after he dies and he is judged to be found worthy to receive this honour of acknowledgememt.
No friend, NOW, we are acknowledged as unrighteous, hence why we are being justified or cleared of any wrong doing by the righteousness of another party. THEN, in Heaven, the individual themselves is acknowledged as righteous on their own.
In the temporal life the believer is acknowledged as unrighteous needing a saviour and in the eternal life the believer is acknowledged as righteous not requiring another parrty to justify and to save them.
After all I have elaborately explained above, the statement above becomes convoluted at best and truly deflects from the OP claim of self righteousness in the temporal life.
And I still contend that any righteousness we have is imputed. So if I'm in Christ, and He is in me, then there's no condemnation. If I'm seated with Christ, that would put my imputed righteousness, that given to me as a new creation, on par with Christ's.
So while the statement could rightfully be misunderstood, it is theologically correct.
Upvote
0