Imputed righteousness

[moonbeam]

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.

Of the "many various views" which "view" is the TRUTH...ie the CORRECT view...as opposed to the other INCORRECT views...that is the question...dont you think?

I have suggested you read wider on the matter.

I have in the past...and may do so again in the future (for the reason following)...the thing is ContraMundum once you know the truth of this particular doctrine, there is little point in studying the contrary views (the multiplicity of lies)...except to discover the sequence of events (misinterpretations of scripture) which lead to the theological derailment...which is the inevitable outcome.

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".

Does not the scripture say that we ARE taught by the Holy Spirit...that Jesus Christ is THE way...thats the "only path"....since when were there many paths?

It's easy to fall into the trap of believing that the only possible logical system is the one you favor.

The "logical system" the Holy Spirit has taught me through scripture....is the one I favour.

However, with experience, one will find that theology is bigger than Calvinism, or whatever ism it is you care to favour.

The TRUTH....is the TRUTH....and it is exceedingly exclusive (of the multiplicity of lies)

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

I had'nt noticed.

 

[ContraMundum]

Of the "many various views" which "view" is the TRUTH...ie the CORRECT view...as opposed to the other INCORRECT views...that is the question...dont you think?

Sure, but you and I disagree on the doctrine of eternal security.

I'm positive I'm right about it and that God's scriptures explicitly and undeniably and positively teach what I believe to be true.

You sound just as sure that your understanding is "the truth".

We simply disagree. That means you either have to live with the disagreement or find a way to stop the disagreement. I know an easy way to stop the disagreement between us- agree with me and there won't be any disagreement.

Does not the scripture say that we ARE taught by the Holy Spirit...that Jesus Christ is THE way...thats the "only path"....since when were there many paths?

Of course there is only one "path", and I am certain I am on it.

I do, however, by God's grace, have the maturity to understand that others can disagree with my understanding, and yet I can live graciously among them in fellowship. I am glad to accept things I cannot change.

 

[moonbeam]

Sure, but you and I disagree on the doctrine of eternal security.

The fact is your disagreement is with the author of scripture...the Spirit of Truth.

I'm positive I'm right about it and that God's scriptures explicitly and undeniably and positively teach what I believe to be true.

Annas and Caiaphas felt the same way after studying the scriptures.

You sound just as sure that your understanding is "the truth".

I know its the truth.

We simply disagree.

A very astute observation.

That means you either have to live with the disagreement or find a way to stop the disagreement.

Your the one who has to live with the disagreement...(that you have with the Spirit of Truth)...and your the one who has to stop that disagreement.

I know an easy way to stop the disagreement between us- agree with me and there won't be any disagreement.

Like I said earlier...your disagreement is with the Spirit of Truth...perhaps you should address your request to Him.

I do, however, by God's grace, have the maturity to understand that others can disagree with my understanding, and yet I can live graciously among them in fellowship. I am glad to accept things I cannot change.

As am I......I leave you with this thought...If we (personally) at a certain point in time no longer stand in our own righteousness (in fact our filth and retchedness)...but rather by the grace of God we stand in, and with, (personally) the righteousness of Christ, Himself...as the scripture says the "Lord our righteousness" ..... What makes you think that fault can be found with His righteousness, that would then leave me exposed to the wrath of God?...the very position I was in before He (the Father) gave me the protection of His Son's righteousness?

 

[ContraMundum]

The fact is your disagreement is with the author of scripture...the Spirit of Truth.
Annas and Caiaphas felt the same way after studying the scriptures.
I know its the truth.
A very astute observation.
Your the one who has to live with the disagreement...(that you have with the Spirit of Truth)...and your the one who has to stop that disagreement.
Like I said earlier...your disagreement is with the Spirit of Truth...perhaps you should address your request to Him.
As am I......I leave you with this thought...If we (personally) at a certain point in time no longer stand in our own righteousness (in fact our filth and retchedness)...but rather by the grace of God we stand in, and with, (personally) the righteousness of Christ, Himself...as the scripture says the "Lord our righteousness" ..... What makes you think that fault can be found with His righteousness, that would then leave me exposed to the wrath of God?...the very position I was in before He (the Father) gave me the protection of His Son's righteousness?

If there's one thing no one respects it's someone who thinks they're right but can't prove it.

Apart from the insulting tone of your post, which smacks of all kinds of less-than-desirable attitudes, you really need to argue with someone who will give you the time of day.

 

[moonbeam]

If there's one thing no one respects it's someone who thinks they're right but can't prove it.

Exactly....which is why i am having no difficulty understanding your reluctance to answer my question as posted....If we (personally) at a certain point in time no longer stand in our own righteousness (in fact our filth and retchedness)...but rather by the grace of God we stand in, and with, (personally) the righteousness of Christ, Himself...as the scripture says the "Lord our righteousness" ..... What makes you think that fault can be found with His righteousness, that would then leave me exposed to the wrath of God?...the very position I was in before He (the Father) gave me the protection of His Son's righteousness?

Apart from the insulting tone of your post, which smacks of all kinds of less-than-desirable attitudes, you really need to argue with someone who will give you the time of day.

Perhaps you should concern yourself with the log in your own eye...before commenting on the speck in mine....why don't you answer the question as posted above....that is if you have the time?

 

[cygnusx1]

once insults appear , or even perceived insults , there ends any meaningful dialogue .......

'bees are caught with honey never vinegar'


suppose I am right and I wish to convey a truth to help my fellow Christian along lifes hard path , will it benefit him or I , if I generate heat instead of light ?

Will it not rather sow seeds of disunity bitterness and even anger ....... which can only destroy the fruit of the Spirit .

on these issues men may never agree on earth , but there is far more likely-hood of agreement if there is mutual love and respect , which brings TRUST.

The hardest part is not knowing the truth but knowing how to share it

I believe that Christ's imputed Righteousness rules out any possibility of being found unrighteous in Him , but others think this justification can be lost through unrighteousness ........... which to me seems a contradiction but to others it seems true ..... let the Lord judge

God Bless Cygnus

 

[Ben johnson]

The just live by faith, yes. But God's righteousness is not transferred to us based upon faith. And the end of that passage has mention of imputed righteousness too.

Actually, yes it is; that passage from which you quote, Rom1:17 --- says, "The righteousness of God is revealed from BEGINNING faith to ENDING faith". This clearly conveys "abiding" (perseverance).

Righteousness is NOT "imputed" to us, in that WHILE we are sinning we are DECLARED righteous. The Christian walk really is CHARGED to BE righteous. "Be perfect, even as HE is perfect". Matt5:48

In 2Cor5:21, "God made Him who knew no sin to BE sin on our behalf, so that THROUGH Him we may become the righteousness of God."

So if "imputed" means "become", then I agree; but if "imputed" means "CONTINUE sinning but be CALLED righteous", then I must disagree in the strongest sense...

Salvation is "Christ in us"; with His person bodily indwelling our hearts, He brings righteousness into the believing heart. Cause and effect, not effect and cause...

 

[ContraMundum]

I believe that Christ's imputed Righteousness rules out any possibility of being found unrighteous in Him , but others think this justification can be lost through unrighteousness ........... which to me seems a contradiction but to others it seems true ..... let the Lord judge

Exactly...and that's the standard answer that moonie should expect. Not only should he expect that answer, but he should also respect that answer, because if he's done the research, he should know that no serious Christian takes on a position without due consideration of the scriptures. Thus, in my case, I believe careful scripture study taught me the position I now hold, and others disagree. It's up to God.

Really, at the end of the day, as long as we do not use imputed righteousness as an excuse to sin, and we pursue holiness, then we know we are in His hand.

 

[moonbeam]

Exactly...and that's the standard answer that moonie should expect.

The Who...were a great band...if you like that sort of thing...they had one of the meanest drummers ever...Moon the Loon I think was his nickname...i,m not sure if he is a member of that particular sect that goes by the name Moonies...but who knows.

Not only should he expect that answer, but he should also respect that answer,

I do...which I indicated by the phrase "As do I" in my response two posts back...This is a public forum for the purpose of engaging in debate with persons who are in agreement (theologicly) as well as those who are not in agreement...You ContraMundum have chosen not to answer my question (the thought I left you with)...hence we can not enter into meaningful debate...thats your call.

because if he's done the research, he should know that no serious Christian takes on a position without due consideration of the scriptures.

Your point is mute....every "serious Christian" who posts here has "due consideration of the scriptures"....every one is in complete agreement because of that fact...right?....wrong....The apostles all reasoned from the scriptures with those who knew the scriptures...Why was that?....because the apostles were right and their opponents were wrong.

Thus, in my case, I believe careful scripture study taught me the position I now hold, and others disagree.

Correct...and this is the very reason we have this forum...as a platform for debate...Isn't that the reason you enter into debate?...or are the thousands of posts you have submitted merely notes acknowledging to others that you agree with their position or understanding of scripture???

It's up to God.

Did you leave it up to God in your thousands of posts???.....God uses human instruments...does He not?...Why shouldn't you be one of them?...I'm sure the thoughts crossed your mind...I know its crossed mine.

Really, at the end of the day, as long as we do not use imputed righteousness as an excuse to sin, and we pursue holiness, then we know we are in His hand.

The thing is buddy...since when did we need an excuse to sin?.....seeing as you don't have the burden/handicap of useing imputed righteousness as an excuse to sin...do you now find in your experience that you don't sin???

 

[Ben johnson]

Really, at the end of the day, as long as we do not use imputed righteousness as an excuse to sin, and we pursue holiness, then we know we are in His hand.

In vain would we try to find an "exception" or "exclusion" from passages such as Eph5:5-6, Gal5:19-24, 1Cor6:9-11, or 1Jn3:7-10.

All those passages (and many more) assert "those who PRACTICE sin, ain't gonna git INTA Heaven"....

Salvation is far more than IMPUTED righteousness; it is a true HEART-change; we are DEAD to sin (JOINED to Christ in His crucifixion --- we are truly CRUCIFIED ALSO!). AND, we are UNITED with Him in resurrection.

The Cross ended what we were; we have taken His loving hand, and let Him lead us through the rolled-back-door of the now empty tomb. Back in that tomb --- lies the old man that we were. Jesus admonishes us over and over again, not to go BACK into that tomb and REVIVE that old sinful man.

 

[A Brother In Christ]

No one is righteous Here ...

All who have believed are righteous IN CHRIST who is seated in the heavenlies at the right hand of the Father

Where the Holy Spirit put us into ..1 cor 12:12-13

eph 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and seated us together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:


this is another example of grace....

 

[ContraMundum]

The Who...were a great band...if you like that sort of thing...they had one of the meanest drummers ever...Moon the Loon I think was his nickname...i,m not sure if he is a member of that particular sect that goes by the name Moonies...but who knows.

No, he wasn't a moonie.

You ContraMundum have chosen not to answer my question (the thought I left you with)...hence we can not enter into meaningful debate

My position was outlined far earlier in this thread, before you came in, that's why I haven't entered into further discussion on the matter, as I don't want to repeat myself over and over to every one who wants to chip in with their comments.

Your questions have very little to do with the topic, actually. They are hijacking the topic into a OSAS discussion, which is not of particular interest to me to discuss because it's been flogged to death here at CF- it's boring, not to mention I would never enter into a conversation with anyone who questions my sincerity or salvation without even knowing me.

 

[moonbeam]

No, he wasn't a moonie.

Ok...that clears that question up...he was certainly of the beam though.

My position was outlined far earlier in this thread, before you came in, that's why I haven't entered into further discussion on the matter, as I don't want to repeat myself over and over to every one who wants to chip in with their comments.

There is always a fine line between what may be called a reason and what may be called an excuse.

Your questions have very little to do with the topic, actually.

Not so...your question in your op was "imputed righteousness...scriptural or not"....where you looking for a yes or no answer???...did you find it surprising that such a question with its broad implications of which you are aware would lead to a discusion of that doctrine (preserving of the saints) which you deny???...were you surprised?...I would be surprised, if you were surprised.

They are hijacking the topic into a OSAS discussion, which is not of particular interest to me to discuss because it's been flogged to death here at CF- it's boring,

Really....than why have you asked a question that would inevitably lead to such a topic???....seeing as you know and understand that imputed righteousness is the foundation of the doctrine of the preserving of the saints...which you choose to reject?

not to mention I would never enter into a conversation with anyone who questions my sincerity or salvation without even knowing me.

How honest are you?...you know you questioned mine first...The bottom line for every poster here is ...If you can't stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.

 

[ContraMundum]

How honest are you?...you know you questioned mine first

Moonie...I never questioned your salvation, ever. Don't try to put words in my mouth.

Be careful.

 

[moonbeam]

Moonie...I never questioned your salvation, ever. Don't try to put words in my mouth.

Many things can be said...without being said (your post 111)...you have answered my question.

Be careful.

I care not a toss for your petty threats...The Lord is with me.

I bid you bon voyage sir...may the wind fill your sails and carry you speedily to your next port of call...were ever that may be.

I expect a parting salvo from you .... thats ok ... I am out of your range.

 

[Ben johnson]

We simply disagree. That means you either have to live with the disagreement or find a way to stop the disagreement. I know an easy way to stop the disagreement between us- agree with me and there won't be any disagreement.

I do, however, by God's grace, have the maturity to understand that others can disagree with my understanding, and yet I can live graciously among them in fellowship. I am glad to accept things I cannot change.

 

[cygnusx1]

Imputed Righteousness: The Evangelical Doctrine



by R.C. Sproul


At the heart of the controversy between Roman Catholic and Reformation theology is the nature of justification itself. It is a debate not merely about how or when or by what means a person is justified, but about the very meaning of justification itself.
Reformed theology insists that the biblical doctrine of justification is forensic in nature. What does this mean? In the popular jargon of religion, the word forensic is used infrequently. The word is not foreign, however, to ordinary language. It appears daily in the news media, particularly with reference to criminal investigations and trials. We hear of "forensic evidence" and "forensic medicine" as we listen to the reports of criminologists, coroners, and pathologists. Here the term forensic refers to the judicial system and judicial proceedings.
The term forensic is also used to describe events connected with public speaking. Schools hold forensic contests or events that feature formal debates or the delivery of speeches.
The link between these ordinary usages of forensic and its theological use is that justification has to do with a legal or judicial matter involving some type of declaration. We can reduce its meaning to the concept of legal declaration.
The doctrine of justification involves a legal matter of the highest order. Indeed it is the legal issue on which the sinner stands or falls: his status before the supreme tribunal of God.
When we are summoned to appear before the bar of God's judgment, we face a judgment based on perfect justice. The presiding Judge is himself perfectly just. He is also omniscient, fully aware of our every deed, thought, inclination, and word. Measured by the standard of his canon of righteousness, we face the psalmist's rhetorical question that hints at despair: "If you, LORD, should mark iniquities, ...who could stand?" (Psalm 130:3 NKJV).
The obvious answer to this query is supplied by the Apostle Paul: "There is none righteous, no, not one...." (Romans 3:10).
God commands us to be holy. Our moral obligation coram Deo (before the face of God) is to live perfect lives. One sin mars that obligation and leaves us naked, exposed before divine justice. Once a person sins at all, a perfect record is impossible. Even if we could live perfectly after that one sin, we would still fail to achieve perfection. Our sin may be forgiven, but forgiveness does not undo the sin. The consequences of the sin may be removed or ameliorated, but the sin itself is not undone.
The Bible speaks figuratively about the sin being washed, cleansed, healed, and blotted out. The sin, which is scarlet, may become white as snow, the crimson may become like wool, in God's sight. The sin may be cast into the sea of forgetfulness or purged with hyssop. But these images describe an expiation for sin and divine forgiveness or remission of our sin. Our record does not change, but our guilt does. Hence Paul declares, "Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin" (Romans 4:8 NKJV).
In our redemptive forgiveness God does not charge us with what we owe. He does not count our sins against us. If he did, no one (except Jesus) would ever escape his just wrath. No one but Christ would be able to stand before God's judgment.
Again, God in his grace may regenerate us, sanctify us, and even glorify us. He might make us perfect in the future. He really does change the elect and will eventually make the justified totally and completely righteous. But even the perfected saint in heaven was once a sinner and has a track record that, apart from the grace of justification, would send him to hell.
Thus, where temporal creatures are concerned, everyone who is once imperfect is always imperfect with respect to the whole scope of the person's individual history. This is what Thomas Aquinas meant when he asserted that justification is always of the impious (iustificatio impii). Righteous people have no need of justification, even as the healthy have no need of a physician.
Both Roman Catholic and Reformation theology are concerned with the justification of sinners. Both sides recognize that the great human dilemma is how unjust sinners can ever hope to survive a judgment before the court of an absolutely holy and absolutely just God.
If we define forensic justification as a legal declaration by which God declares a person just and we leave it at that, we would have no dispute between Rome and Evangelicalism. Though
Rome has an antipathy to the concept of forensic justification, this antipathy is directed against the Protestant view of it. In chapter 7 of the sixth session of the Council of Trent, Rome declared: "...not only are we reputed but we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure...."
Here Rome is jealous to distinguish between being reputed just and actually being just, yet it is still true that God calls the baptismally regenerated just. That is, for Rome justification is forensic in that justification involves God's legal declaration. A person is justified when God declares that person just. The reason or the ground of that declaration differs radically between Roman Catholic and Reformed theology. But both agree that a legal declaration by God is made.
Nor is it sufficient merely to say that Rome teaches that justification means "to make just," while Protestants teach that justification means "to declare just." For Rome God both makes just and declares just. For Protestants God both makes just and declares just -- but not in the same way. For Rome the declaration of justice follows the making inwardly just of the regenerate sinner. For the Reformation the declaration of justice follows the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the regenerated sinner.
R. C. Sproul is an author, chairman of Ligonier Ministries, and professor at the Orlando campus of Reformed Theological Seminary.

 

[ContraMundum]

Many things can be said...without being said (your post 111)...you have answered my question.

How you got the idea that somehow that post questions your salvation is beyond me. Weird moon, weird.

I bid you bon voyage sir

YAY!