Colossians 2:14-16 - The Law That Was Against Us

[GerhardEbersoehn]

There are no <OT saints> -- never have been; There are only <NT saints> -- ever have been.

This is my last word on this thread.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Actually, in my view, I don’t consider the provisions of the law for the forgiveness of sins as provisions for justification. So no “temporary” justification either. For my understanding of what it means to be justified is to be declared righteous. That is, as though one has not committed any sin or wrong doing, or is excused or that what he did is in fact righteous and not sin. There is a difference between being forgiven and being justified. The law have provisions for forgiveness by the offering of a sacrifice for atonement, but does not have provisions for one to be declared righteous or to be justified.

You're making some pretty strange distinctions, and it makes defining words difficult. 1st of all, even as Christians, we are justified and are still considered to be "sinners." It's often said that "it's as if we never sinned," but I think that's just double talk. The frank truth is, we are sinners and we are regularly forgiven.

But you're right. Being forgiven and being righteous are two different things. Once we're forgiven we have to repent, or change our way of doing things. We have to go from sinners to saints, from being forgiven to being righteous.

So were people under the Law considered not just forgiven, but also righteous? Of course. Your distinction, therefore, has no relevance. They were temporarily justified under the Law.

Luke 10.29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

In this example, Jesus contrasts the one who justifies himself, and not doing right, doing things only by the externals of the Law, and the one who is justified by God for doing right. In this case, the man is not even under the Law, but does what the Law requires, and is thus justified by God.

In this case, false justification does not imply no justification under the Law is possible at all. Rather, false justification is outward observance of the Law, justifying one's self, without really doing what the Law requires.

Rom 2.13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.
Paul in Romans 3:20 says that the law is the knowledge of sin. His purpose in saying that is to make the Jews realize that they are guilty of sin as the Gentiles are. And that the law serves not to justify them, nor any flesh for that matter, but to make all flesh guilty before God, excusing no one.

I think, Paul said “In the sight of God”, simply to qualify the justification he is talking about in Rom.3:20. That he is not talking of being declared righteous in the sight of man.

Read the above. Justification for being righteous is indicated in Rom 2. And it is therefore assumed in Rom 3, as well. What we're talking about is a specific kind of justification--eternal justification, or Christian justification.

That the sin nature had to be dealt with by Jesus Christ is not the issue. The issue is the contention that because man had a sin nature, he is disqualified for eternal salvation.

In your view, when Christ hd not yet dealt with it, all men are disqualified for eternal salvation, and could only have temporary salvation. Now, when Christ had already dealt with it, that would mean that all men now are qualified for eternal salvation, is that right?

All men who give up their own non-faith ways to practice living in Christ exercise true repentance and are qualified for eternal life. True faith exercises the works of faith, which consist of both repentance and righteousness.

Repentance implies righteousness. Repentance unto righteousness existed under the Law, but did not achieve eternal life, due to the fact faith in Christ was not yet possible.

It was, nevertheless, genuine faith for repentance, and faith in the fact Christ *would* come. Those who genuinely believed he would come, and lived even in temporary righteousness would indeed achieve everlasting righteousness.

Further, in your view, Abraham only had temporary salvation, because his sin nature has not yet been dealt with by Christ at the time. But then Abraham died. When he died, was he still temporarily saved? What happened to his sin nature when he died? Dis he still have it with him even while his flesh or body of death is no more?

The presence of the Sin Nature, which denied men of faith eternal life did not deny them eternal life when Christ provided his atonement for sin. The presence of the Sin Nature alone does not prevent Man from obtaining eternal life forever, but only until Christ's atonement had been made. Until then, the Sin Nature stood as a reminder that it had not yet been fully atoned for.

<<<Christians are not disqualified from Salvation because we put our faith in the work of Christ's atonement for sin.>>>

Of course they are not. In fact they are already saved, aren’t they?

Yes. The Sin Nature does not prevent Christians from having eternal life, since Christ has already made his eternal atonement for sin.

<<<Abraham, and all those in the OT period, did *not* qualify for eternal life at that time. Their Sin Nature disqualified them inasmuch as God's grace did not yet legally cover their sins permanently.>>>

You said sin nature has to do with our flesh, our present bodies. When Abraham and the OT saints died, what happened with their sin nature?

The Sin Nature affects both the body and the spirit of Man. Once we die, God will eventually put off our Sin Nature completely, if not sooner at the resurrection, if we are genuine Christians. Those who die in their sins certainly retain their Sin Nature, which deprives them forevermore from eternal life.

But it isn't just because they have a Sin Nature, but also because they reject the legal basis by which that may be removed in the resurrection, and even overcome in our current lives. We sin, but we can overcome it in the present life.

And may I ask, do you take Sin Nature as sin, something to be forgiven as well and covered? Because it seems to me that you take it as sin.

Tong
R1779

The Sin Nature I take as a proneness to sin, and as a disease, disqualifying us from eternal life until we accept Christ as the legal basis for our Salvation. The Sin Nature is the condition we were given upon Man choosing to live a life independent of God.

This in effect created in us a new nature, disfigured and prone to doing things apart from God, and getting addicted to doing things not of God but for ourselves. Living a life independent of God's Spirit is a hybrid, double-minded life, which can only be undone by choosing to live in partnership with God today. It can't be perfect yet, but it is indeed a start.

 

[Randy Kluth]

There are no <OT saints> -- never have been; There are only <NT saints> -- ever have been.

This is my last word on this thread.

I hope that's true, if that's what you've been saying. It's wrong, in any case.

 

[BloodBought 1953]

Seeing you and I both claim the Bible as the foundation for faith and practice, I would expect you to be able to furnish me with some Bible texts which indicate God's removal of His holiness from the seventh day. After all, after 4000 years of a specific day being declared and stipulated as holy, sanctified, and an integral component of His holy law, I would imagine God didn't change all that without some say so in the transaction right? I mean, surely the change couldn't have come with the Apostles because that would have been too late. Jesus sealed the new covenant with His blood at Calvary... No changes to that covenant could be made after that time. So any change to the Sabbath had to be made prior to that time. So such change had to come from Jesus Himself. You said to me not long ago I should refer to the sermon on the mount. The law on steroids you said. Fair enough.
KJV Matthew 5:17-19
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

You want to love God, great, and so you should. But on whose terms? On whose authority do you rest in declaring the Sabbath no longer holy, sanctified, or worthy?? I would suggest Rome, and Rome alone. I know you have no love for Catholicism. Yet they correctly accept responsibility for the exaltation of Sunday sacredness, and the laying aside of the seventh day Sabbath, and the subsequent persecutions of Sabbath keepers over several centuries. Follow their lead if you wish. Because there's no substance in scripture for your opinion.

Paul’s conclusion, as is mine, is that it ain’t going to hurt anything if you hold a special place in your heart for the Sabbath....if you are doing it because you think God wants you to and you are trying to please him—- go for it....
Personally , I Choose to “Sabbath” EVERY day......I REST in the Finished Work Of The Cross....But That”s just me....lol.....

 

[CharismaticLady]

There is a strange belief on the part of many that the great God-written law of the Ten Commandments was actually a part of the ceremonial law of Moses which contained scores of specific regulations. They do not see the decalogue as being distinct and totally unique because of its divine authorship. Neither do they see the clear limitation which the Bible sets for this moral code by calling it the TEN Commandments.

It seems quite obvious that one would effectively do away with the “Ten Commandments” by mingling them with ninety or a hundred others and calling them “ordinances” instead of commandments. Such a radical effort has been made to dilute the force of the only words of the Bible which God wrote with His own hand. Furthermore, the claim has been advanced that since the Ten Commandments were a part of the mosaic law of ordinances which ended at the cross, we are no more obligated to obey the decalogue than we are to offer lambs in sacrifice.

Is there proof positive in the Scriptures that there was no such blending of the ceremonial and moral law into one? Can it be shown that the Ten Commandments were of a permanent, perpetual nature while the ceremonial law of statutes and ordinances came to an end when Jesus died? Indeed there is abundance of evidence to answer these questions with a resounding yes!

God made known this distinction to His servant Moses, and Moses explained it to the people at Mt. Horeb. “And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it” (Deuteronomy 4:13, 14).

Please notice how Moses clearly separated the Ten Commandments, which “he commanded you,” from the statutes which “he commanded me” to give the people. The big question now is whether those statutes and judgments, which Moses passed on to the people, were designated as a separate and distinct “law.”

God answers that important question in such a way that no doubt can remain. “Neither will I make the feet of Israel move any more out of the land which I gave their fathers; only if they will observe to do according to all that I have commanded them and according to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them” (2 Kings 21:8). Here we are assured that the statutes which Moses gave the people were called a “law.” Any child can discern that two different laws are being described. God speaks of the law “I commanded” and also the “law ... Moses commanded.” Unless this truth is understood properly, limitless confusion will result.

Hey Barn

What was done away with was the Old Covenant. I think you would agree that you don't keep the ceremonial laws, nor sacrifices, and that they were both fulfilled by Christ. Yes, or no?

 

[BarneyFife]

Hey Barn

What was done away with was the Old Covenant. I think you would agree that you don't keep the ceremonial laws, nor sacrifices, and that they were both fulfilled by Christ. Yes, or no?

Absolutely agreed, dear lady. However, I don't need to tell you that while the ritual observances of the old covenant are no longer required, there is still much to learn from the record of them, how they illustrate the intricacy of redemption as administered by Christ, and how Israel related to them.

 

[BarneyFife]

Paul’s conclusion, as is mine, is that it ain’t going to hurt anything if you hold a special place in your heart for the Sabbath....if you are doing it because you think God wants you to and you are trying to please him—- go for it....

Within the framework of this statement, would you say that any other of the ten commandments could be viably inserted where you have placed "the Sabbath?"

 

[CharismaticLady]

Absolutely agreed, dear lady. However, I don't need to tell you that while the ritual observances of the old covenant are no longer required, there is still much to learn from the record of them, how they illustrate the intricacy of redemption as administered by Christ, and how Israel related to them.

All creation does. Did you know that the Zodiac was not always demonic? It actually showed the story of Redemption from Virgo (Mary) to Leo (Jesus) the second coming.

The heavens declare the glory of God.

 

[BloodBought 1953]

"]Then turning into your real self, MEAN AND HAUGHTY[/QUOTE]

And don’t you FORGET it! I’m meaner than a Pit Bull on a Poodle.....lol.....if you knew me , personally ......you’d Love me to Death.....one of the biggest problems in my life is that everybody I meet wants to be my best friend....that’s a true story .....believe it or not.....

 

[BloodBought 1953]

Within the framework of this statement, would you say that any other of the ten commandments could be viably inserted where you have placed "the Sabbath?"

Take ANY Commandment.....take ALL of the Commandments—- I don’t care.....the wiser you are the more you will attempt to keep them —- God gave them to us for OUR OWN GOOD! With God's Holy Spirit in me I pay them little, if ANY heed.....the less concern I have for them , the better job I do at keeping them ( not that it matters for my Salvation ) ..... Christianity sure is strange, isn’t it?
Strive to be a good Commandment keeper.....God will Bless you for it and He will curse you if you choose to disobey them......do as you please with them—— Just don’t tell me it’s a Salvation Issue—- it ain’t.

 

[Brakelite]

Strive to be a good Commandment keeper.....God will Bless you for it and He will curse you if you choose to disobey them......do as you please with them—— Just don’t tell me it’s a Salvation Issue—- it ain’t.

Does it not seem strange to you that obedience in your mind is now optional, when disobedience cost the Son of God His life?

 

[BloodBought 1953]

In mine too. But no more, as I discovered long after, when I discovered the Father by the Spirit of Christ "convinced me of my sin" -- rebellion against God's Law of Love;

and of judgement -- convincing me that God The Spirit judges transgressors of His Law of Love, sinners like me;

and of Righteousness, the Good News of CHRIST MY RIGHTEOUSNESS -- no different than in the OT "in times past", "THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS" used to be Jesus Christ their Righteousness.

I sin every hour of every day...how ‘ bout you? All I do is thank God for His Grace and move on....what do I do with all of that Sin? I do the same thing with it that God does—- I put it on the Cross....
I can’t go to Hell for “ANY” reason, so I don’t worry about that stuff....as a Child Of God, I can’t get away with Anything, so I just have to accept any Chastisement that comes my way as God uses that to “Transform me into the Image Of His Son”.....
Some things seem to “ slip between the cracks”, God kinda let’s them slide.All Of that stuff is Covered by Grace .One would think that that would encourage Sinning....nope....it’s just the opposite.Knowing that I can do what I want to do and never be damned makes me want to behave....whoever woulda thunk it? Lol......God did.

 

[BloodBought 1953]

Once we're forgiven we have to repent, or change our way of doing things.

Religious ( Lost) People “ Change”....... Christians practice Faith and are Transformed.....understanding the difference is the difference between Heaven and Hell....

 

[BloodBought 1953]

Does it not seem strange to you that obedience in your mind is now optional, when disobedience cost the Son of God His life?

First part ....if Obedience is not Optional.....we are Robots.....God values Freedom .....He values it so much, he risked Sin entering the universe....and it did....I have them” option” to stick my hand in a fire—- I choose “ not” to......Once one is Saved.....Sinning has that appeal....we are “ New Creations” with “ New Hearts”...... remember ?
Practice Faith, Rest in the Gospel ( 1Cor15:1-4 ) and God will give you His Spirit...... Let that Spirit hang around long enough and Sin should lose its appeal.....
Second Part.....take it up with God.....HE was the One that loved us while we were “ yet His Enemies” ....HE was the One that said “ Without the shedding of Blood, there is no remission for sins......” God made the Rules....He knew what was going to happen all along before the World was even created

What you have done is to simply explain Reality.....Parts Of it are not pretty.....had there been a better way to do things , I’m sure God would have chosen it....I think the only thing worse than a Creation full of Sin where a complete Innocent had to die a dreadful death to set things straight could only be exceeded by a World full of Robots —- Sin would not exist there , but then neither would Faith and Love....the Two Things God values so much he risked it all AND paid it all in order to be Worshipped 24/7 for Eternity......It took s God of infinite Courage and Unfathomable Love to bring it about.... He gets Glorified Forever because He deserves it.....It works for me....

 

[Brakelite]

First part ....if Obedience is not Optional.....we are Robots.....God values Freedom .....He values it so much, he risked Sin entering the universe....and it did....I have them” option” to stick my hand in a fire—- I choose “ not” to......Once one is Saved.....Sinning has that appeal....we are “ New Creations” with “ New Hearts”...... remember ?
Practice Faith, Rest in the Gospel ( 1Cor15:1-4 ) and God will give you His Spirit...... Let that Spirit hang around long enough and Sin should lose its appeal.....
Second Part.....take it up with God.....HE was the One that loved us while we were “ yet His Enemies” ....HE was the One that said “ Without the shedding of Blood, there is no remission for sins......” God made the Rules....He knew what was going to happen all along before the World was even created

And despite all the above...

I sin every hour of every day.

????????

 

[CharismaticLady]

????????

Amen!

 

[Tong2020]

I was thinking about this earlier this morning. Like David, Nathan told him his sin was forgiven. So he wrote of the blessedness of the one to whom God did not impute sin.

The OT word that's frequently translated atone, atonement, appease, for instance,

Leviticus 4
28Or if his sin, which he hath sinned, come to his knowledge: then he shall bring his offering, a kid of the goats, a female without blemish, for his sin which he hath sinned. 29And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering. 30And the priest shall take of the blood thereof with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar. 31And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat is taken away from off the sacrifice of peace offerings; and the priest shall burn it upon the altar for a sweet savour unto the LORD; and the priest shall make an atonement for him, and it shall be forgiven him.

32And if he bring a lamb for a sin offering, he shall bring it a female without blemish. 33And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slay it for a sin offering in the place where they kill the burnt offering. 34And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar of burnt offering, and shall pour out all the blood thereof at the bottom of the altar: 35And he shall take away all the fat thereof, as the fat of the lamb is taken away from the sacrifice of the peace offerings; and the priest shall burn them upon the altar, according to the offerings made by fire unto the LORD: and the priest shall make an atonement for his sin that he hath committed, and it shall be forgiven him.

These are from the Hebrew 'kaphar', to cover. Strong's Hebrew: 3722. כָּפַר (kaphar) -- 104 Occurrences

While of Jesus, John the Baptist spoke,

Behold! The Lamb of God Who bears away the sin of the world!

With the removing of sin in Christ, justifying us judicially, God gives us rebirth, justifying us in nature.

Much love!

You will notice in the OT scriptures you quoted, it is about when a Jew or one under the OT covenant come to know of his sin, what he must do that he may be forgiven of it. It means that prior to that, he sinned a sin without knowing it, an unintentional sin, a sin of ignorance. Nevertheless, he sinned. The law provides for an atonement for such sins, which is done year after year by the priest for all Israel. But when one comes to the knowledge of the sin he had committed unintentionally or ignorantly, he must make a sin offering that his sin may be forgiven him. So, we see that there is difference really between atonement and forgiveness.

In my view, atonement is as the Hebrew word “kaphar” means to cover, appease, God. It is not forgiveness. The sacrifice of atonement is offered for unintentional sins and transgressions of the law He gave them to keep and follow committed, so that the wrath of God shall not come upon them. There is no forgiveness there, only a covering of their sins, at least while atonement is made. On the other hand, the sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin is provided by the law and the individual shall be forgiven of his sin by making a sin offering.

In my view, Jesus’ sacrifice and offering of his life, is not only the once and for all sacrifice and offering for atonement, but also for the forgiveness of sins, and I believe that such act Jesus demonstrates the love of Jesus for His neighbor and God, which is the fulfillment of the law, as He had said and taught. Of course, there are so many other things that the scriptures tells us of what the life and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ had accomplished, more than atonement and forgiveness of sins. Truly, it is much much a better sacrifice than any sacrifice was ever made and offered to God ~ perfect in every way, perfectly selfless, perfectly pleasing to God.

Tong
R1786

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
What in your view, the new covenant is better than the old covenant?

Oh wow. How long have you got? I tell you what. I'll start a new thread. "Why the New Covenant is better than the old". I'm a Seventh Day Adventist. So there should be plenty of ammunition for people here in such a thread to prove the cult status of my church right?

As you please, start the new thread. Thanks.

By the way, I don’t have guns, more so, pointed at you nor anyone else at this forum.

Tong
R1788

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
<<<Jesus is not denying that people believe in him. He is simply pointing out that believing in him doesn't count as proper faith if it does not also include faith in God.>>>

Yes, He is not denying anything there. He is telling them what it means when they believe in Him.

I think you have not addressed the argument.

You contend that Abraham could not have eternal life because of sin nature. And one of the reason you gave was that he died. And you contend that is the same for OT saints. Regarding the christians you contend they they have eternal life. So I argued, why then did they die, if you say the death of Abraham is proof that he have no eternal life? And also, do not the Christians also still have the sin nature or the sinful flesh?

Obviously, the difference is that Christ rose from the dead for NT saints, but not for OT saints. When OT saints died, it was evidence that they died under a curse without legal guarantee that they would rise from the dead. They were promised salvation, but it had not happened yet.

Death is evidence in both testaments that we've been cursed due to our sins. It's evidence that we all still have a Sin Nature in our lives. But Israel in the OT was given a system of worship that temporarily advocated for them, keeping them in covenant with God, while covering their sins on a case by case basis--they were not atoned for for all time.

But in the NT we have eternal atonement, and have received God's Spirit for all eternity. We don't have to repeatedly make sacrifices, going back to the curse every time we sin. It was a constant reminder that they had not yet been eternally pardoned when they had to repeatedly offer sacrifices for their sins.

But we have received the Spirit forever and are no longer required to seek atonement for our sins. It's finished. We still sin, we still die, but we will rise from the dead. The legal part has been done.

<<<Obviously, the difference is that Christ rose from the dead for NT saints, but not for OT saints.>>>

What are you really trying to say by that? Please expound.

<<<Death is evidence in both testaments that we've been cursed due to our sins.>>>

But are you not saying that when Christ had done his work on the cross, that the curse had been taken cared of? Then why do men still die, even the christians? And that brings you back to my argument:

You contend that Abraham could not have eternal life because of sin nature. And one of the reason you gave was that he died. And you contend that is the same for OT saints. Regarding the christians you contend they they have eternal life. So I argued, why then did they die, if you say the death of Abraham is proof that he have no eternal life? And also, do not the Christians also still have the sin nature or the sinful flesh?

<<<We still sin, we still die, but we will rise from the dead.>>>

So, your view is that Christians have eternal life now, but they still die. On the other hand you have Abraham and OT saints as not having eternal life, because they died. And perhaps your view is that, eternal life is suspended for Christians until they are resurrected and Abraham and the OT saints will have eternal only at the resurrection. Is that what is your view of eternal life?

Tong2020 said: ↑
Perhaps, but your take of it as such does not apply for all or is not how it is for all. I believe eternal life is not something that Christ purchased from the Father.

You are arguing over semantics. Things can be said in different ways, and has to mean what the speaker means. By saying "eternal life is purchased" I'm saying that eternal life has been legally provided for God's People. By saying "people were purchased for God" you're saying that they were "redeemed," which refers to a "purchase," resulting in their being given eternal life.

Very well then, if you say so, that is what you meant when you say “purchased eternal life” for the people, then it is.

Tong
R1789

 

[Tong2020]

Tong2020 said: ↑
As I said I do get your idea of abbreviation. However, I have reasons why I don’t subscribe to that idea of yours.

<<<To say "Abraham had righteousness imputed to him" sounds as though God did not see him as righteous.>>

From before the time that God imputed righteousness to Abraham (Gen.15:6), the righteousness of faith, the righteousness apart from works, what scriptures could you point to that is the basis for your saying that God viewed Abraham as righteous? And what righteousness is that?

The Scriptures indicate Abraham used his faith to obey God--not just believe in Him.

Heb 11.8 By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going.

I believe we need to not try to prove doctrines. Rather, we're trying to understand what the Scriptures *mean!*

That is righteousness of faith we have there in Hebrews 11:8. It’s not another righteousness. In fact, before God appeared to Abraham in Mesopotamia, before he dwelt in Haran, and said to him, ‘Get out of your country and from your relatives, and come to a land that I will show you, Abraham was said to belong to a family of idol worshippers. Do you think, Abraham was viewed by God as righteous then? I don’t think so. For how can one who worships idols be righteous in the sight of God?

Tong2020 said: ↑
Please cite some among the many Scriptures that say Israel, the nation, was righteous under the Law, and was viewed righteous, apart from the Law. Thanks.

Deut 6.25 And if we are careful to obey all this law before the Lord our God, as he has commanded us, that will be our righteousness.”

Psa 119.44 I will always obey your law, for ever and ever.

I am sorry but I do not find those scriptures as saying nor implying that Israel as a nation was viewed as righteous by God. Please give the best scriptures out of the many you say, that tells is that concerning Israel as a nation.

Tong2020 said: ↑
Innocence is different from righteousness. Nonetheless, I don’t think that Adam’s innocence as having been lost and viewed as a temporary innocence could be an argument to prove that there is such thing as temporary (imputed) righteousness or temporary justification by God of a person. I must emphasize, we are talking of the righteousness of faith imputed by God to a person like Abraham, a righteousness apart from works, and not some other righteousness.

Israel sometimes obeyed the Law and sometimes not. Some people obeyed even when the nation, as a whole, did not. At any rate, the nation's blessing for conforming to God's Law was temporary, as we can see from the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities. They had had a temporary righteousness and a temporary blessing.

Adam and Eve, we have to assume, were righteous, and not just "innocent," before the Fall. They regularly walked with God in the garden. Their righteousness was temporary, and their unmarred fellowship temporary as well.

<<<Israel sometimes obeyed the Law and sometimes not. >>>

That only shows that Israel was not righteous as per requirement of the law. If at all they could be said to have a righteousness for a time, it means they have, as a nation, perfectly observed and kept the law. Was there? I have not read any of that in scriptures.

I am sorry but I don’t subscribe to the idea pf assuming that Adam and Eve righteous and innocent before the fall. For being righteous necessitates having knowledge of good and evil and choosing to do what they know is righteous. Which I understand Adam and Eve doesn’t have until they ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Tong2020 said: ↑
Why no?

God prevented Adam and Eve from partaking of the Tree of Life. This did not mean they *could* have the fruit of this tree. It means the exact opposite, that God prevented them from partaking of the fruit of that tree!

The fact that they were prevented means if they were not, and they ate of the tree of life, they will live forever. That is clearly implied in Gen.3:22.

Tong2020 said: ↑
And your question there too indicates that you too believe that they could eat of the tree of life and live forever, since they were prevented.

You're just arguing over words. God stopped them so that they could not. If God's justice was inconsistent, yes they could have access to the tree. But God's justice is consistent, and thus He prevented them from accessing a tree of life apart from Christ. They could not just *take* eternal life from God. It had to be given to them by the means at God's disposal.

Not arguing over words. I am trying to show you what is clearly implied in the passage pertaining to Adam and Eve’s capacity to eat of the tree of life and live forever. If they didn’t have such capacity, there was really no need for God to take them out of Eden so they won’t have access to the tree and eat of it.

Tong
R1790