The Moral Law

[Clare73]

Actually, my brother holds to the more traditional Protestant view. However, he initially pointed out to me that this is debatable, that the view I hold is *not* heretical, but rather, held as a recognized theological perspective.

Salvation by works is also a "recognized theological perspective."
A "recognized theological perspective" plus $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee.

A silk purse cannot be made out of a sow's ear.

I just talked with him about it last Sunday, and he actually seems more amenable to my view now, though in a non-committal way. He seemed to agree with some of the major ideas underlying my view, that righteousness is certainly more than merely imputed, but more, imparted, as well.
The way you phrase the argument above illustrates that you don't even understand my argument. No wonder you disagree with it!

1) Justification does provide us with an "actual righteousness." If it doesn't then we can't be sanctified.

That justification/righteousness, by definition, is forensic, positional, not actual.
Justification, by definition, is positional--removing our guilt/condemnation/separation from God so that we are now in a position to become actually righteous through obedience in the Holy Spirit which leads to righteousess, leading to holiness. (Ro 6:16, 19, 22).

That is simply not accepting the Biblical meaning of justification (dikaiosis), preferring one's own personal meaning instead.

 

[RandyPNW]

Salvation by works is also a "recognized theological perspective."
A "recognized theological perspective" plus $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee.

I had my coffee already today, and it was free. Obviously, my point was that my "recognized theological perspective" fits within the "doctrinally orthodox" category--not the "heretical" category.

Furthermore, my theological position here is *not* "Salvation by Works." That is your mis-characterization of it, which is to be expected when someone doesn't get their own theology embraced by all. One must characterize any other view, orthodox or not, as "of the Devil."

Don't start your day on a bad note. Start by making melody in your heart to the Lord.

May I put things in the most concise form I can? Salvation is the perfect Life that Jesus made available to us in order that we may live that life out, battling our carnal tendencies, and triumphing by making that Life the way we want to live all the time. Jesus "sanctified" his life on earth simply by living out his life in perfect form, not capitulating to, nor catering to, evil in this world.

Jesus then died and made his own life, which was spiritual, available to his followers. His life was spiritual because he was God. And so, He communicated his own sanctified life to us for our Salvation and for our own Sanctification. By taking that Life and putting it into effect through our own choices, to fight carnality and to process his love, we sanctify ourselves, as well.

None of this has a thing to do with "Salvation by Works," and it is a tad insulting for you to characterize my beliefs in this way. You either don't understand the finer elements of what I'm saying, or you simply wish to write them off in a impatient spirit. I'll try to think the best of you....

 

[RandyPNW]

Justification is Jesus making his Spiritual Life, in all of its holiness, available to his people via his atoning sacrifice of himself. And its design was to give this Life to us as an eternal endowment, as well as to enable us to exhibit the virtuous traits of this Life, and in so doing overcome our carnal inclinations and tendencies.

None of this is Salvation by Works. Justification is designed to enable us to do the Works of Christ, which were prepared for us before the world began. They are the works that existed in God Himself before He created Man to do them, in His image and after His likeness.

The works we do are done as beings created by God to operate in partnership with His Spirit so that what we produce originates from God and takes place by our free choice to operate through Him. None of this is "Independent Human Work," since it is always done by the revelation of God's Word and accomplished in conjunction with and by inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

What is necessary for us to operate this way, as fallen human beings, is Grace, which took place in history at the Cross, and which takes place by the Spirit of Grace, given to us by Christ. What this means is that even in our imperfection we are choosing to live by the perfection of Christ's Life, and as such it enables us to benefit from this as if we ourselves qualified for it. This is called by some "imputation of Christ's righteous record to us."

Christ's Life has a perfect quality by which it qualifies for Eternity. We receive that perfect Life and seem to qualify for Eternity, as well, though we don't really qualify for it by anything other than by receiving it as a free gift.

Another way of putting it is that we are able, by God's Grace, to exhibit Christ's love, which in itself is perfect. The love we exhibit is really Christ in all of his perfection. And yet, we do not exhibit this perfect love in a perfect way--we remain imperfect and unqualified by our own imperfections. We truly do show God's love, but we do so imperfectly.

This is called "imputation" because in giving us a life that qualifies for Eternity we don't really deserve it. Its *worth* is what is being imputed to is. The worth resides in the Gift, and not in us.

The only thing required of us is that we choose to receive it, as well as choose to live by it. If we don't actually intend to live by it, we're not really receiving it, except as a transient Gift.

So as much as the gift of Life qualifies for Eternity, we only qualify for it by Receiving it and by Living by it. To choose to live by it is a choice to regularly live by that Life as a way of overcoming our own carnal tendencies. It is not a Works system, but rather, a Choice system in which we opt for Christ's perfect Life over our own flawed life.

We qualify for this Salvation is by choosing to receive it and live by it as a *final choice* for God's Life over our own carnal, or independent, life. We don't have to do so perfectly, but we *must* choose it, or be disqualified from the very Life of Christ that alone is qualified for Eternal Life on behalf of Man.

 

[Clare73]

Obviously, my point was that my "recognized theological perspective" fits within the "doctrinally orthodox" category--not the "heretical" category.

Works as necessary for salvation is orthodoxy in many areas.
The measure is Biblical category vs. heretical category.

May I put things in the most concise form I can? Salvation is the perfect Life that Jesus made available to us in order that we may live that life out, battling our carnal tendencies, and triumphing by making that Life the way we want to live all the time. Jesus "sanctified" his life on earth simply by living out his life in perfect form, not capitulating to, nor catering to, evil in this world.

"Sanctify"means "to set apart". . .from sin. . .and to God.

 

[timothyu]

Christ's Life has a perfect quality by which it qualifies for Eternity. We receive that perfect Life and seem to qualify for Eternity, as well, though we don't really qualify for it by anything other than by receiving it as a free gift.

All we received was a chance at a second life previously unavailable as death was the only option. With repentance came another way to take advantage of that open door given as a gift to only those switching allegiances.

 

[RandyPNW]

Works as necessary for salvation is orthodoxy in many areas.

Can you tell me what "areas" those are? An example of Salvation by Works is Pelagianism. It is viewed universally as heretical. The Catholic view of Faith + Works is not the same thing as Justification by Works.

Another example of Salvation by Works would be the Judaizing teachings of the Ebionites, an early Jewish sect claiming to be Christian and advocating for a mixture of Christianity and the Law of Moses. Paul strongly rejected any connection of the Law to the Gospel but freely promoted the idea of Good Works in Christian practice.

In the Protestant Reformation, Luther was stridently for Salvation by Faith alone, though his definition of "Faith" seems lacking, and he denied the book of James was inspired in its reference to "Works." Luther's friend and more scholarly associate Melanchthon had a better view of the role of "Freedom" in the life of the Christian, which was not so bound to the more "passive" definition of Faith Luther held to.

"Sanctify"means "to set apart". . .from sin. . .and to God.

Once again, I have a dictionary and I know theology. You add nothing to my knowledge of these things. On the other hand, you seem to be unwilling to learn yourself.

 

[RandyPNW]

All we received was a chance at a second life previously unavailable as death was the only option. With repentance came another way to take advantage of that open door given as a gift to only those switching allegiances.

I like it--you said it simply, and inferred something incredibly profound!
The thing I can't get over, and Paul couldn't get over, was the fact we received something able to achieve Eternity on its own merits, even though we could not achieve it strictly on our own merits. However, by receiving it as a free gift we were able to obtain the merits belonging to that thing. We were able to obtain Eternity ourselves, though we didn't ourselves deserve it. And we were able to do the one thing that was required of us, which was to receive it by faith.

And faith is the important word here, because it is often defined in a strictly passive way, as if we didn't even have to receive it, as if God only did it on His own initiative. Or it is defined as not needing any Good Works at all, as if Faith did not include the Works of Christ prepared from before the foundation of the world for Mankind.

But here we are, getting our "2nd Chance," and able to not only choose to receive it but to also show our ultimate allegiance to it. The big difference, in my view, between God's initiative and our works, is that God reached out to us 1st.

So everything we do to receive Faith and to act on Faith comes via Divine revelation. As such, we do not act independently, and we do not Save Ourselves. On the contrary, we cooperate with the word of God in a partnership that God planned when He 1st created us.

So profound and yet so simple. He loved us !st.

 

[timothyu]

and we do not Save Ourselves.

Yet man continues to try and extend life. Problem is they are focused on the flesh which is a waste of time.

 

[Clare73]

Can you tell me what "areas" those are? An example of Salvation by Works is Pelagianism. It is viewed universally as heretical. The Catholic view of Faith + Works is not the same thing as Justification by Works.

If works is added to faith for salvation (Eph 2:8-9) or added to faith for justification (Ro 3:28), it is heretical.

Another example of Salvation by Works would be the Judaizing teachings of the Ebionites, an early Jewish sect claiming to be Christian and advocating for a mixture of Christianity and the Law of Moses. Paul strongly rejected any connection of the Law to the Gospel but freely promoted the idea of Good Works in Christian practice.
In the Protestant Reformation, Luther was stridently for Salvation by Faith alone, though his definition of "Faith" seems lacking, and he denied the book of James was inspired in its reference to "Works." Luther's friend and more scholarly associate Melanchthon had a better view of the role of "Freedom" in the life of the Christian, which was not so bound to the more "passive" definition of Faith Luther held to.

Once again, I have a dictionary and I know theology. You add nothing to my knowledge of these things. On the other hand, you seem to be unwilling to learn yourself.

I take my understanding of the language from the dictionary of the language itself, and I take my doctrine from the NT, not from theology.

My theology is the result of the meaning of Scripture, in its context and in the light of all the NT, the meaning of Scripture is not the result of my theology.

 

[RandyPNW]

If works is added to faith for salvation (Eph 2:8-9) or added to faith for justification (Ro 3:28), it is heretical.

I agree. But when one says "Faith + Works" it does not always refer to Works added to Faith *for Justification.* As I said, true Faith involves both our acceptance of it and our willingness to do Good Works through it. James makes that perfectly clear in James 2.

I take my understanding of the language from the dictionary of the language itself, and I take my doctrine from the NT, not from theology.

Theology is the overall structure of how you view the Bible. Every view of the Bible has a structure to it. Theology is not an evil perversion of the Bible--it is how we organize our thoughts along the lines of biblical thinking.

My theology is the result of the meaning of Scripture, in its context and in the light of all the NT, the meaning of Scripture is not the result of my theology.

Yes, that's how all of us should do it. We do not predetermine the meaning of the Bible by our affiliation with or association with a particular theological system. The basic doctrines come from the Bible, and they become the litmus test for every point a theological system may claim is true.

 

[timothyu]

it is how we organize our thoughts along the lines of biblical thinking.

Which may or may not be used to build worldly empires using God rather than following His will so that He may use us.

 

[RandyPNW]

Which may or may not be used to build worldly empires using God rather than following His will so that He may use us.

Theology, like anything else, can become an "idol." However, its use in history involves the issues addressed at the time in which it is created. It often deals with pressing issues in that historical moment, though later on, it seems it did not anticipate what it would look like years later in a different historical moment.

And so, theologies do change, quite often. But that doesn't mean they didn't have value at the time. The only theology that hasn't changed is the theology of the Apostles. And that's because they spent notable time with Jesus, who likely ensured that they would be faithful to his doctrines and beliefs.

 

[timothyu]

The only theology that hasn't changed is the theology of the Apostles

Yes it is still there in scripture but few have been interested in giving up their self interests as recorded and expected.

 

[Clare73]

I agree. But when one says "Faith + Works" it does not always refer to Works added to Faith *for Justification.*

We were talking about the areas where faith + works is heresy.
Those areas are salvation and justification.

I agree. But when one says "Faith + Works" it does not always refer to Works added to Faith *for Justification.* As I said, true Faith involves both our acceptance of it and our willingness to do Good Works through it. James makes that perfectly clear in James 2.
Theology is the overall structure of how you view the Bible.

Not for me.
The Bible is how I view theology.

Every view of the Bible

I don't have "a view" of the Bible, other than it is the word of God.

has a structure to it. Theology is not an evil perversion of the Bible--it is how we organize our thoughts along the lines of biblical thinking."

My "structure" is what it states in the light of its context and the NT.

Yes, that's how all of us should do it. We do not predetermine the meaning of the Bible by our affiliation with or association with a particular theological system. The basic doctrines come from the Bible, and they become the litmus test for every point a theological system may claim is true.

And some don't view Scripture in terms of theological systems, but in terms of itself, only to later learn that a name has been affixed to that view.

 

[RandyPNW]

We were talking about the areas where faith + works is heresy.
Those areas are salvation and justification.

Not for me.
The Bible is how I view theology.

I don't have "a view" of the Bible, other than it is the word of God.

My "structure" is what it states in the light of its context and the NT.

And some don't view Scripture in terms of theological systems, but in terms of itself, only to later learn that a name has been affixed to that view.

So you think that your thoughts, being based only on the Bible, are "truth?" You don't have any conceptions about the Bible, but you only think "truth?"

For a short time I was in a Christian cult where they insisted that we all "pray read." We quoted the Scripture passages aloud and read them over and over, and were told not to think, but to just read and repeat as if by osmosis it enters into our soul. It was thought that the mind and thinking gets in the way of hearing the pure word of God.

We were given brains to reason--not to bypass critical faculties. We are fallible and have to check how we're thinking, and whether we're reasoning correctly.

Theology is a tool that allows us to organize and remember. It is not evil. The Law itself was a structure created by God for Israel. It was not evil.

Do you believe that what you think is the "pure Bible" is, without error, the "pure Bible," and that any other views of the Bible, contradicting your own views, are *not* the "pure Bible?" Do you believe that all theological systems are corrupt because they are "theological systems?"

I personally find it useful for highly studied theologians to try to systematize biblical teaching so as to better communicate it to their readers and students. As long as they remain humble and open to correction, I think doing theology can be a very useful tool for conveying the Gospel and all of the truths associated with it.

 

[timothyu]

Would any of this theology have been a problem if people had not tried to create a religion out of a simple goods news that God would return to take authority away from man over fellow man and in the meantime we were to emulate this Kingdom by caring for others as we would be expected to be cared for in times of need? Why complicate it? I can only assume so that yet another opportunity arose for man to lord it over fellow man and create yet another government built in man's image.

 

[Clare73]

So you think that your thoughts, being based only on the Bible, are "truth?" You don't have any conceptions about the Bible, but you only think "truth?"

Such paraphrasing reveals a lot about one's thinking.

My conceptions are from the Bible, not about the Bible.
My conceptions can be not only demonstrated from the Bible, but those are also the only conceptions I must and will accept.
That rules out denial of the imputation of Adam's sin/guilt to all mankind in Paul's exacting contrasting parallelisms of Ro 5:18-19.

For a short time I was in a Christian cult where they insisted that we all "pray read." We quoted the Scripture passages aloud and read them over and over, and were told not to think, but to just read and repeat as if by osmosis it enters into our soul. It was thought that the mind and thinking gets in the way of hearing the pure word of God.
We were given brains to reason--not to bypass critical faculties. We are fallible and have to check how we're thinking, and whether we're reasoning correctly.

That's what the whole Bible is for.
If what one thinks in their Christian doctrine agrees with all of the NT, understood in its context, then one is thinking correctly.
However, that test is not being met where the imputation of Adam's sin to all mankind in Ro 5:18-19 is being denied.

Theology is a tool that allows us to organize and remember. It is not evil. The Law itself was a structure created by God for Israel. It was not evil.

Why would one think it is evil?
However, understanding Scripture according to one's theology (as is being done with the Scripture of Ro 5:18-19), rather than understanding one's theology according to Scripture, can lead to evil,
as in the case of a theology of justification, where Christ's own and complete actual righteousess is said to be imparted to the believer, which thereby removes any necessity for that personal sanctification which leads to righteousness, leading to holiness (Ro 6:16, 19 22).
That is deadly for the Christian.

I personally find it useful for highly studied theologians to try to systematize biblical teaching so as to better communicate it to their readers and students. As long as they remain humble and open to correction, I think doing theology can be a very useful tool for conveying the Gospel and all of the truths associated with it.

As long as one doesn't get the cart before the horse, as is being done here, where theology goes before Scripture, instead of Scripture going before theology.

 

[RandyPNW]

Would any of this theology have been a problem if people had not tried to create a religion out of a simple goods news that God would return to take authority away from man over fellow man and in the meantime we were to emulate this Kingdom by caring for others as we would be expected to be cared for in times of need? Why complicate it? I can only assume so that yet another opportunity arose for man to lord it over fellow man and create yet another government built in man's image.

Just say no to all the killing. It's bad to murder. Simple truth, and yet society complicates it--a place where lawyers get wealthy and big corporations use people like cattle.

Sin complicates things. Pride, envy, rage--they're hard to explain. There's an interesting verse in the Bible where it was said about Jesus, "They hated me without cause." I guess there's no sense trying to understand hate for God and hate for fellow Man?

 

[Clare73]

Would any of this theology have been a problem if people had not tried to create a religion out of a simple goods news that God would return to take authority away from man over fellow man and in the meantime we were to emulate this Kingdom by caring for others as we would be expected to be cared for in times of need? Why complicate it? I can only assume so that yet another opportunity arose for man to lord it over fellow man and create yet another government built in man's image.

It's regrettable indeed that anyone would find the necessity of belief in and trust on the atoning work (blood, Ro 3:25) and person of Jesus Christ for the remission of one's sin, which remission is salvation from God's wrath (Ro 5:9) at judgment, to be a complication of the simple good news of the gospel, when according to the NT, that is the good news of the gospel!

Amazing. . .

 

[timothyu]

where Christ's own and complete actual righteousess is said to be imparted to the believer

When Adam and Eve put their will before the will of God and became self aware, God said they had become gods like Us. The being evolved into something new that could not be reversed. What Jesus imparted upon the believer is not a reversal of that event but a reminder of who we are and how to properly see ourselves. Rather than misuse the knowledge for evil through self determination, we were to simply reject that concept and let God call the shots. How many of mankind is willing to give up control of self and others?? Not many. Unfortunately self interest is what makes the world built in our own image go round. No wonder God calls us knowledgeable but backwards.