Imputed righteousness

[ContraMundum]

The text means exactly what it says...the language is clear and explicit .. God (in the person of Jesus Christ the 2nd person of the Godhead) our (yours and mine, being members of the Body of Christ) righteousness (encompassing in its entirity all that pertains to Holiness and right action from Gods perspective or mans) ... God our righteousness ... to summerize... the recognition and acknowledgement that we have, nore can have, no righteousness of our own except that righteousness which is Christs own (His personal righteousness) ... which by the Fathers grace has been made our own (ours personally) by our union with Christ.

..and the way we understand that is that His righteousness is imputed to us.

Right? Otherwise, He couldn't be our righteousness.

 

[moonbeam]

..and the way we understand that is that His righteousness is imputed to us.

Right? Otherwise, He couldn't be our righteousness.

Right on bro ... His righteousness is "made" our own ... this is by imputation (forensic)... in the same way that Christ was "made" to be sin for us ... we are seated with/in Christ NOW at the Fathers right hand and He (the Father) will make all our (Christs/our) enemies a footstool for our feet... So shall it be.

 

[cygnusx1]

..and the way we understand that is that His righteousness is imputed to us.

Right? Otherwise, He couldn't be our righteousness.

but if HE is our Righteousness , then we cannot be condemned !

(yes i am running this logically through)

 

[ContraMundum]

but if HE is our Righteousness , then we cannot be condemned !

(yes i am running this logically through)

..unless we forsake him by our deeds or apostasy.

 

[moonbeam]

..unless we forsake him by our deeds or apostasy.

If Christs personal righteousness which IS imputed to us upon the indwelling of His Spirit can't secure the inheritence which He Himself suffered and shed His blood for, in obedience to the Fathers will.....Of what use is it?
Would we not be better of standing in our own righteousness rather than His ? ... (seeing as you present the possibility that His might fail under certain conditions?)

 

[cygnusx1]

If Christs personal righteousness which IS imputed to us upon the indwelling of His Spirit can't secure the inheritence which He Himself suffered and shed His blood for, in obedience to the Fathers will.....Of what use is it?
Would we not be better of standing in our own righteousness rather than His ? ... (seeing as you present the possibility that His might fail under certain conditions?)

the truth is we are saved by anothers perfect Righteousness , not our own , then the GROUND for our salvation and thanksgiving has shifted from us to Christ our Saviour .
No longer does the Lord look at your good works (or bad ones) and decide your eternity on that which you do ......

Apostates can never belong to those who are Justified ........... for all who are justified are also Glorified . No exceptions.

Rom 8:30Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.


That is why Paul inspired by the Holy Spirit says

Romans 8:1 (NIV)

Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

 

[moonbeam]

Apostates can never belong to those who are Justified ........... for all who are justified are also Glorified . No exceptions.

Rom 8:30Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Romans 8:1 (NIV)Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

AMEN BROTHER SO SHALL IT BE ... It appears ContraMundum is in a bit of a connundrum.

 

[ContraMundum]

Oh well, I just follow the Bible, guys.

I'm not in a conundrum at all. I'm sure you understand that one doesn't have to believe in unconditional security to be a Christian.

I believe it is quite clear from the context of the scriptures those who believe in unconditional security quote that those scriptures of blessed assurance only apply when one is IN CHRIST. All security for salvation is conditional upon one being in Christ. Christ is our security of salvation.

Obviously, the Romans 8:30 etc scriptures are predicated on being in Christ, as well as behaving as a Christian by leading the Spirit-led and filled life "For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live." (8:13). Likewise, we must share in His sufferings that we may be glorified (v.17). So, the "golden chain" must be understood within the context of the previous verses.

Somehow, I don't think I'm the one in the cunnundrum, eh moon?

 

[ContraMundum]

If Christs personal righteousness which IS imputed to us upon the indwelling of His Spirit can't secure the inheritence which He Himself suffered and shed His blood for, in obedience to the Fathers will.....Of what use is it?
Would we not be better of standing in our own righteousness rather than His ? ... (seeing as you present the possibility that His might fail under certain conditions?)

That's a fairly fictional portrayal of conditional security. Christ's salvation never fails, ever. But, we must be in Christ to benefit from it. Without holiness no one will see the Lord. There is no security in sin.

This guy is very pushy and extravagant in his presentation of the "other point of view" so, if you dare, check him out, because he has some good points: http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/cat1c.htm

 

[moonbeam]

That's a fairly fictional portrayal of conditional security. Christ's salvation never fails, ever. But, we must be in Christ to benefit from it. Without holiness no one will see the Lord. There is no security in sin.

This guy is very pushy and extravagant in his presentation of the "other point of view" so, if you dare, check him out, because he has some good points: http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/cat1c.htm

I have spent many many hours reading Dan Connors thoughts in the past, as well as others, and have fellowshiped with congregations that to a large extent hold to that view.... FROM THE FIRST MOMMENT THAT THE LORD JESUS CHRIST OPENED MY EYES AND EARS TO THE TRUTH AND GAVE ME THAT LIFE THAT IS HIS .. I HAVE KNOWN THAT HIS LOVE FOR ME AND MINE FOR HIM WILL NEVER DIE OR BE BROKEN OR BE DIMINISHED ... so you see Dan Conners view HAS NEVER BEEN MY VIEW .... I have always made that fact clear to any and all who call upon the name of the LORD.... The teaching that the Lord is unable to save to the uttermost those that call upon His name is to me the most repugnent of all .... Dan Conner speaks with great force, but so does every mullah in Bagdad ... Answer your own question....What does the text God our righteousness mean ?

 

[ContraMundum]

I have spent many many hours reading Dan Connors thoughts in the past, as well as others, and have fellowshiped with congregations that to a large extent hold to that view.... FROM THE FIRST MOMMENT THAT THE LORD JESUS CHRIST OPENED MY EYES AND EARS TO THE TRUTH AND GAVE ME THAT LIFE THAT IS HIS .. I HAVE KNOWN THAT HIS LOVE FOR ME AND MINE FOR HIM WILL NEVER DIE OR BE BROKEN OR BE DIMINISHED ... so you see Dan Conners view HAS NEVER BEEN MY VIEW .... I have always made that fact clear to any and all who call upon the name of the LORD.... The teaching that the Lord is unable to save to the uttermost those that call upon His name is to me the most repugnent of all .... Dan Conner speaks with great force, but so does every mullah in Bagdad ... Answer your own question....What does the text God our righteousness mean ?

Well, I must admit I like your appeal to emotion and experience. While it's not typically Calvinist, it is your experience and you should embrace it.

But I prefer the scriptures.

I agree with you on what God our Righteousness means. No debate there at all.

Ever read Shank's "Life in the Son"?

 

[moonbeam]

Well, I must admit I like your appeal to emotion and experience. While it's not typically Calvinist, it is your experience and you should embrace it.

If there is no passion in your experience and life with the Lord than I contend you have no relationship with Him .... Does not the scripture say that the Spirit testifies to our spirit that we ARE the children of God ... Why than your surprise at my testimony?

But I prefer the scriptures.

Than expound fully on the text God our righteousness with its implications.

I agree with you on what God our Righteousness means. No debate there at all.

I recall your response to cygnus1 (with whom I concur on this doctrine) beginning with the word 'unless' ... clearly there is some point of divergence in our understanding of exactly what is meant by the scripture God our righteousness .... because I can assure you that there is no caveat ... no 'unless'...in my understanding of the full implications of this text; for it speaks directly to the fundamental reason for the full confidence of every child of God that they will certainly, without question, attain the eternal life and inheritence that the Lord Jesus Christ has prepared and purchased with His blood for them.

Ever read Shank's "Life in the Son"?

No ... and following your recomendation... I can assure you I won't

 

[Edial]

Your are right that maybe it would be best that we do not contrinue our discussion. Please forgive me for anything I have written that was un-Christian.

May God bless.

ContraMundum, this is a good post by PaulAckermann.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Iosias]

...scriptural or not?

Yes it is Scriptural

 

[BrandonGray]

Without christ we cannot be righteous

 

[nobdysfool]

Without Christ we cannot be righteous

Correct. Our source of righteousness is Christ, not ourselves. God imputes righteousness to us on the basis of Christ's work, and our union with Him, by faith. The righteousness we possess as Christians is a foreign righteousness, it is not our own. All that we have, and all that we are as Christians is by our union with Christ, in His Death, Burial and Resurrection.

 

[Edial]

Correct. Our source of righteousness is Christ, not ourselves. God imputes righteousness to us on the basis of Christ's work, and our union with Him, by faith. The righteousness we possess as Christians is a foreign righteousness, it is not our own. All that we have, and all that we are as Christians is by our union with Christ, in His Death, Burial and Resurrection.

Although I still resemble the image of God (after so many years of humanity ), it is definitely clear that my own righteousness would get me nowhere.

I cannot even give a word of advice without the help of Holy Spirit.

Achieving perfection took a ridiculous concept among some denominatoins, since they try to be "like God"; where Matthew 5:48 is misinterpreted mercilessly.

Following the regulations and the "law" entraps countless, countless people into self-righteousness.

And some go too deep into the matters of God or satan and develop trains of thoughts that are debatable and Scripturally refutable and non-productive for the sanctification of others.

Legalism flourishes, and with that harshness.
Harshness is a result of legalism, which is self-righteousness.

Without the righteousness of Christ, what is left is self-righteousness, and that we must avoid.

Thanks,
Ed

 

[ContraMundum]

If there is no passion in your experience and life with the Lord than I contend you have no relationship with Him .... Does not the scripture say that the Spirit testifies to our spirit that we ARE the children of God ... Why than your surprise at my testimony?

*sigh*

I hope you're not going to waste my time and tell me I'm not saved. Please don't, and yes, I have plenty of passion about the Lord. Don't jump to conclusions, you'll soon look the fool.

I recall your response to cygnus1 (with whom I concur on this doctrine) beginning with the word 'unless' ... clearly there is some point of divergence in our understanding of exactly what is meant by the scripture God our righteousness .... because I can assure you that there is no caveat ... no 'unless'...in my understanding of the full implications of this text; for it speaks directly to the fundamental reason for the full confidence of every child of God that they will certainly, without question, attain the eternal life and inheritence that the Lord Jesus Christ has prepared and purchased with His blood for them.

Well, I never said any contrary thing I concur with Cygnus about imputed righteousness too. We do not agree on unconditional security.

What's your point?

I think you've completely mis-read everything I've said. Perhaps you're looking for an opponent? Perhaps you're trying to change the topic of the thread?

No ... and following your recomendation... I can assure you I won't

Minds are like parachutes, in order to work they must be opened. You should read things that challenge your world-view. Don't be afraid.

The smiley you put here looks rather disengenuous.

 

[moonbeam]

*sigh*
I hope you're not going to waste my time and tell me I'm not saved. Please don't, and yes, I have plenty of passion about the Lord. Don't jump to conclusions, you'll soon look the fool.

What ever you say.

Well, I never said any contrary thing I concur with Cygnus about imputed righteousness too. We do not agree on unconditional security.

You do not concur with Cygnus or myself about imputed righteousness....the fact that you do not accept unconditional security (preserving of the saints) makes that obvious...to us if not yourself.

What's your point?

Thats the point... (see above)

I think you've completely mis-read everything I've said. Perhaps you're looking for an opponent?

Perhaps not.

Perhaps you're trying to change the topic of the thread?

Into what?

Minds are like parachutes, in order to work they must be opened. You should read things that challenge your world-view. Don't be afraid.

The Lord is with me.....why should I be afraid?

The smiley you put here looks rather disengenuous.

I have of late signed of all my responses that way...as a goodwill gesture.

 

[ContraMundum]

You do not concur with Cygnus or myself about imputed righteousness....the fact that you do not accept unconditional security (preserving of the saints) makes that obvious...to us if not yourself.

Moon,

Classical Protestant Orthodoxy has always reconciled imputed righteousness with many various views of security. This is well known, and needs no apologetic here from me.

I have suggested you read wider on the matter. One temptation of reading a narrow selection of positions is that the more one reads from one school, the more that one school seems to be the "only path". It's easy to fall into the trap of believing that the only possible logical system is the one you favor. However, with experience, one will find that theology is bigger than Calvinism, or whatever ism it is you care to favour.

BTW- If you wish to start a thread on OSAS there's ample opportunity both here and at GT.