"The Righteousness of the Law" (part 1)

[Netchaplain]

Concerning man, the purpose of the Law was two-fold: manifest guilt (Rom 3:20, 21; Gal 3:10) and direct one to the sin solution (Gal 5:24, 25)! -NC

Romans 8:4: “That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us.” By the righteousness of the law, is not meant the righteousness of the ceremonial law, though that was fulfilled by Christ; but of the moral law, which requires holiness of nature, righteousness of life, and death in case of disobedience; active righteousness, or obedience to the precepts of the law, is designed here. This is what the law requires; obedience to the commands of it is properly righteousness; and by Christ's obedience to it we are made righteous, and this gives the title to eternal life: now this is said to be "fulfilled in us"; this is not fulfilled by us in our own persons, nor can it be; could it, where would be the weakness of the law? man might then be justified by it, and so the grace of God, and the righteousness of Christ, must be set aside: there never was any mere man that could fulfil it; for obedience to it must not only be performed perfectly, but with intenseness of mind and spirit; a man must be sinless in thought, word, and deed; and this would be to put man upon a level with Adam in a state of innocence, and the angels in heaven: nor is this to be understood of any righteousness inherent in man.

“Internal holiness is never called the righteousness of the law; and could it be thought to be righteousness, it can never be reckoned the whole righteousness of the law: and though it is a fruit of Christ's death, it is the work of the Spirit, and is neither the whole, nor any part of our producing justification: but this is to be understood of the righteousness of the law fulfilled by Christ, and imputed to us; Christ has fulfilled the whole righteousness of the law, all the requirements of it; this he has done in the room and stead of his people; and is imputed to them, by virtue of a federal union between him and them, he being the head, and they his members; and the law being fulfilled by him, it is reckoned all one as it was fulfilled in, or if by them; and hence they are personally, perfectly, and legally justified; and this is the end of Christ's being sent, of sin being laid on him, and condemned in him. The descriptive character of the persons, who appear to be interested in this blessing, is the same with that in Romans 8:1.” —John Gill

“The Righteousness of the Law”​

What more perplexes a godly person than the very thought of God changing His mind (which He never needs to do—NC)? What difficulty greater than the notion that He could, as it were, unsay or undo what He had previously laid sown? Plus, I think there ought to be great delicacy in dealing with souls where we find there is a godly jealousy as to this, even though it may be ignorance, and not without prejudice. But still it was the evident fact, that what God set up for a specific purpose in Israel (the Law—NC) never fully reflected His own mind (nor was it intended so, he wanted to reveal all His mind through Christ and Paul—NC). Eternal truth, breaking through the clouds and shadows of Judaism, shone out in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, and is now verified in experience as well as faith by the Spirit’s work in believers.

In a word, it was never the purpose of God to reveal Himself and bring out all His mind in connection with the Jews (because He knew most would not accept Christ—NC), but with the Church. Christianity and not Judaism is the expression of the Father’s heart and mind. The Lord Jesus Himself, properly speaking, is “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1:15); and Christianity is the practical present result. It is the application of the life, mind and affections of the Lord Jesus to the heart and walk of those who are brought to the Father; and this, founded on His work and correspondent to His place in heaven by the Spirit sent down.

All through the Jewish system, as well as before it, there were souls waiting for the “Seed,” the Messiah (Gal 3:16); and the only persons that ever honored God in the Jewish system were those who, by faith, were above the system. Those alone walked blameless (but not sinless—NC) in the various ordinances of the law who looked for the Messiah. It was this expectation, given by the Spirit of God, which lifted them above the earthly thoughts, the groveling desires, and the selfish nature. It raised them above themselves, if one may say so, as well as above their fellows—those only honored God even in the outward ordinances of Israel.

It is the same principle now as ever, but in a spiritual way; because nothing is more certain than that the righteousness of the eternal law of God (the whole will of God revealed—NC) is fulfilled in the saint of God, the Christian. But how is it fulfilled? Never by endeavoring to keep the law; it cannot be fulfilled in that way. In point of fact, as we know, the very men that were thus “zealous for the law” (Act 21:20) themselves were the greatest and bitterest enemies of the Lord Jesus. We know it was fleshly pride as to the law which blinded them into the delusion that even our blessed Lord Himself did not sufficiently honor it. We easily gather that Paul was taxed with the same reproach. Stephen too was stoned to death because of this fertile and fatal practice.

So that we may lay it down as a fixed point, that the men who put the ordinances, or the outward regulations of God, in the place of God and the Lord Jesus Himself, are men that never keep it (Mat 15:9); even as Stephen told the Jews that they received the law by the disposition of angels (Act 7:53), and had not kept it. These were the men whose voices were the loudest about it to those who really honored God in the law as well as in the faith of the Messiah. Take every believer—I do not say on every occasion; for there is, sad to say, the danger of our old nature working, and that nature neither believes in the Lord Jesus, but is a lawless, Christ-denying thing; the flesh is enmity against God Himself, and that nature working its own way always dishonors God.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Concerning man, the purpose of the Law was two-fold: manifest guilt (Rom 3:20, 21; Gal 3:10) and direct one to the sin solution (Gal 5:24, 25)! -NC

Romans 8:4: “That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us.” By the righteousness of the law, is not meant the righteousness of the ceremonial law, though that was fulfilled by Christ; but of the moral law, which requires holiness of nature, righteousness of life, and death in case of disobedience; active righteousness, or obedience to the precepts of the law, is designed here. This is what the law requires; obedience to the commands of it is properly righteousness; and by Christ's obedience to it we are made righteous, and this gives the title to eternal life: now this is said to be "fulfilled in us"; this is not fulfilled by us in our own persons, nor can it be; could it, where would be the weakness of the law? man might then be justified by it, and so the grace of God, and the righteousness of Christ, must be set aside: there never was any mere man that could fulfil it; for obedience to it must not only be performed perfectly, but with intenseness of mind and spirit; a man must be sinless in thought, word, and deed; and this would be to put man upon a level with Adam in a state of innocence, and the angels in heaven: nor is this to be understood of any righteousness inherent in man.

I actually think Paul meant to imply that righteousness is to be fulfilled in us by our doing what Christ commands us to do, which is to live in the image of God, which is in his own image. While it's true that we can never say we've earned the right to display this righteousness on our own, apart from the redemption of Christ, it is equally true that we can in fact through Christ display the righteousness that he himself displayed when he gave us his Spirit.

We were always called to walk in the image of God, and that command has never been withdrawn from Man. However, we lost the capacity to remain in God's presence forever, which was the very purpose of our being given to walk in God's image. We were given righteousness so that we could remain in God's holy presence forever. Breaking that bond through disobedience disqualified us from remaining forever in God's presence.

Israel was given a reprieve, as well as hope, through the Law. Its ceremonies were designed to show how God bypassed judgment to remain in fellowship with Israel, giving them righteousness with forgiveness. However, it was insufficient to grant them eternal life through this righteousness because they still had a Sin Nature and no means of obtaining a resurrection to immortality.

Christ had to fulfill the final means of forgiveness so as to obtain for us that resurrection to immortality. And it remained, through Christ, that Man should live in righteousness, sanctioned by grace, so that we can remain in God's presence forever.

This is why we read in 1 John...

2.3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.

 

[Gottservant]

It should not come as a surprise that people want to obey the Law, that's the Law. (selah)

 

[Randy Kluth]

It should not come as a surprise that people want to obey the Law, that's the Law. (selah)

Some people want to obey the Law, intuitively, out of their sinful nature. They would justify themselves while remaining in control of their own will and lives.

But those in ancient Israel, who were under the covenant of Law, were called upon by God to observe the Law out of faith in God's power, trusting that He provides them with virtue in the heart, and forgives them by His own initiative.

Those who followed the Law in faith never intended to obtain justification apart from the gift and redemption of God. They simply understood that righteousness is what is required of them if they wished to continue in fellowship with a holy God.

Their recognition of the need for divine redemption, even under the Law, indicated that they had faith in God, who provided them with the grace to obey and the forgiveness to continue in obedience. Faith recognizes that both righteousness and justification come from God, and not by anything we can initiate apart from God. It is His word of command that enables us to obey that command.

 

[Netchaplain]

I actually think Paul meant to imply that righteousness is to be fulfilled in us by our doing what Christ commands us to do,

Righteousness could not come from man by the Law, for it's purpose was only to show how righteousness comes only from Christ, who kept it perfectly with a holy and sinless nature. If we did not still possess the old man, we would have our own righteousness, but God wanted us to first have His Son's righteousness, then in the next life our own, without the old man!

We were always called to walk in the image of God, and that command has never been withdrawn from Man. However, we lost the capacity to remain in God's presence forever, which was the very purpose of our being given to walk in God's image. We were given righteousness so that we could remain in God's holy presence forever. Breaking that bond through disobedience disqualified us from remaining forever in God's presence.

The only righteousness anyone can have is Christ's--through faith in His expiation for our sins. His righteousness is "imputed" to the believer, and that's good enough for God's forgiveness. There is no other righteousness other than His.

Israel was given a reprieve, as well as hope, through the Law.

It wasn't through the Law that the Jew believing in God was forgiven, but through believing in the sin sacrifices (Num 15:24-28), just as we believed in Christ's sacrifice. The Law was only to condemn, and is why it was a curse to be under the Law (Gal 2:16). But believing in God, following the Decalogue, and faith in the sin sacrifices established forgiveness and acceptance with God. It was a works system, unlike the grace system.

Its ceremonies were designed to show how God bypassed judgment to remain in fellowship with Israel, giving them righteousness with forgiveness. However, it was insufficient to grant them eternal life

Jewish believers in God (Jn 14:1) were forgiven via "antitype" (something that is foreshadowed in a type); we by literal example of Christ!

Appreciate your replies Brother!

 

[Behold]

he being the head, and they his members; and the law being fulfilled by him, it is reckoned all one as it was fulfilled in, or if by them; and hence they are personally, perfectly, and legally justified;

Exactly.

The born again are "not under the Law, but under Grace"

"Christ is the END OF THE LAW... for Righteousness, to/for everyone who believes".

 

[Randy Kluth]

Righteousness could not come from man by the Law, for it's purpose was only to show how righteousness comes only from Christ, who kept it perfectly with a holy and sinless nature. If we did not still possess the old man, we would have our own righteousness, but God wanted us to first have His Son's righteousness, then in the next life our own, without the old man!

We regularly seem to have this semantical problem. Does the Law only condemn or does it also provide righteousness? Well, I don't think there can be any question that its purpose was to provide both righteousness and forgiveness, as well as to condemn Man in his Sin Nature. No matter how much he obeyed the Law he could not remove the guilt of his Sin Nature. The Law could not remove the condemnation associated with our Sin Guilt.

All we have to do is read the Law, or consult Psalm 119, to know how the OT saints viewed the Law. It was a means of obeying God and producing righteousness. With that I think we can all be agreed.

But if we wish to justify Paul's statement that the Law condemned all men, or if we wish to justify the Reformers in saying that we cannot be justified by our own righteousness, we must always stipulate that all human righteousness, including the obedience of the Law, was itself condemned by the Law as inadequate. And that is all I wished to say.

The only righteousness anyone can have is Christ's--through faith in His expiation for our sins. His righteousness is "imputed" to the believer, and that's good enough for God's forgiveness. There is no other righteousness other than His.

Absolutely. Forgiveness is a matter of having Christ's innocence imputed to us when we put our faith and obedience in him. It is absurd to say we put our faith in Christ and yet reject obedience to him. And so, it is our choice to obey, but his record to be imputed to us that saves us.

All righteousness stems from obedience to God's Word, and that Word is Christ, and always was Christ--well before Christ came into the world as a man. It is God's Word that we confess we wish to obey and that Word in our heart that enables us to obey its commands. The virtue belongs to God and to Christ.

Even Israel in the OT era was enabled, by God's Word, to obey the Law. It was the faith that justified, and not perfection under the Law. The Law always showed the flawed nature of Man, which was regularly disqualified from an eternal relationship with the holy God.

It wasn't through the Law that the Jew believing in God was forgiven, but through believing in the sin sacrifices (Num 15:24-28), just as we believed in Christ's sacrifice. The Law was only to condemn, and is why it was a curse to be under the Law (Gal 2:16). But believing in God, following the Decalogue, and faith in the sin sacrifices established forgiveness and acceptance with God. It was a works system, unlike the grace system.

It is a contradiction to say that the Jew was not forgiven through the Law and then to declare that his forgiveness came by trusting in the Sin Sacrifices, which obviously were part of the Law. I think you are saying something similar to what I'm saying, that the Law, as a covenant, could not remove guilt, but that believing in what the Sacrifices represented, the death of Christ for Sin, would eventually result in Eternal Salvation?

My own way of saying it is once again: the Law was a covenant that could only lead to temporary forgiveness. Faith in God's Word, even through the Law, brought genuine righteousness, marking the OT believers as "saints." However, they had to wait until Christ died for their sins to obtain Eternal Fellowship with God.

Jewish believers in God (Jn 14:1) were forgiven via "antitype" (something that is foreshadowed in a type); we by literal example of Christ!

Appreciate your replies Brother!

Thank you. It's an interesting subject.

 

[Behold]

Well, I don't think there can be any question that its purpose was to provide both righteousness and forgiveness,

Typical NT denying Theology, you are teaching, again.

Would you care to name your denomination, as they are teaching you this anti-NT that you are teaching or your commentaries are.. so, in both cases, you need to get away them.

Listen,

Had there been a law that could give Righteousness, then Christ didn't have to Die on the Cross.

The Law can not give righteousness, it can only DEMAND IT, and we have none as "all have sinned"..
So, we go to the Cross, (the purpose of the Law is to send you there).. so that GOD can give you His "imputed righteousness", that is the "Gift of Righteousness", that is the "Gift of Salvation".

New International Version
Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law.

New Living Translation
Is there a conflict, then, between God’s law and God’s promises? Absolutely not! If the law could give us new life, we could be made right with God by obeying it.

English Standard Version
Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law.

Berean Standard Bible
Is the law, then, opposed to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come from the law.

Berean Literal Bible
Is the Law therefore contrary to the promises of God? Never may it be! For if a law had been given being able to impart life, then righteousness indeed would have emerged from out of the Law.

 

[Netchaplain]

We regularly seem to have this semantical problem. Does the Law only condemn or does it also provide righteousness?

The Law directs to righteousness (Gal 3:24) but does not reveal it and does not work righteousness (Gal 3:10, 11). The only righteousness via the Law was from Christ, and only He could fulfill the Law, it requiring sinlessness! Only Christ could be justified by the Law, but man could not (v 11).

The only righteousness is Christ's, which is imputed to those with faith, as righteousness requires faith:

Gal 3:12 "And the law is not of faith,.... The Arabic version adds, "but of man"; which as it is an addition to the text, so it contains false doctrine; for though the law is not of faith, yet not of man, but of God; the law does not consist of faith in Christ, nor does it require it, and that a man should live by it upon his righteousness; it is the Gospel that reveals the righteousness of Christ, and directs and encourages men to believe in him and be saved; nor does the law take any notice of a man's faith; nor has it anything to do with a man as a believer, but as a doer, in the point of justification" (John Gill).

It is a contradiction to say that the Jew was not forgiven through the Law and then to declare that his forgiveness came by trusting in the Sin Sacrifices, which obviously were part of the Law.

Man could obey the Law but not the way God required (being sinless), which resulted in the need for Christ obedience imputed to us. This answers to required having faith in the sacrifice (which I already stated in #5, third reply, last sentence).

 

[Randy Kluth]

Typical NT denying Theology, you are teaching, again.

Reformers and Catholics have been battling over what is NT Theology for centuries! Even Reformers battled Reformers over the same issue. I'm conforming my beliefs not to a particular group, but to what I see Paul teaching in the New Testament. I think formulas can be repeated so many times that the meaning is lost. I wish to conform to Paul's language, as much as possible, to convey both a good formula and a proper understanding. You wish to assign "evil motives" to me, but that just shows the poverty of your own spirituality.

Would you care to name your denomination, as they are teaching you this anti-NT that you are teaching or your commentaries are.. so, in both cases, you need to get away them.

I was raised a Lutheran from birth, and converted to Pentecostalism in my late teens. I never was able to embrace Pentecostal theology, but I was attracted to its spiritual experience, namely the Holy Spirit and His empowerment.

Listen,

Had there been a law that could give Righteousness, then Christ didn't have to Die on the Cross.

On the contrary, the Bible teaches that the Law did provide righteousness. Paul is easy to misunderstand. When he abbreviates an idea like "the Law could never bring righteousness," what he is actually saying is that the Law could not bring "lasting righteousness," or the kind of righteousness that leads to Eternal Life.

There is no mistaking that there was a righteousness under the Law, and you should admit it. That righteousness, however, could not attain to Eternal Life because our Sin Nature disqualifies all men from entering paradise with God. Only after Christ died for our sins, and we embraced his redemption, could we obtain a righteousness that attains to Eternal Life.

None of this has a thing to do with whether human virtue comes exclusively from Christ. As the word of God Christ does represent the source of all righteousness, OT and NT. I'm just distinguishing between righteousness in the OT and in the NT. One was disqualified from Eternal Life. The other attained to it by the grace of Christ.

The Law can not give righteousness, it can only DEMAND IT, and we have none as "all have sinned"..

You are just trying to conform to the formulas you were taught, along with your understanding of Pauline theology. What I've said is not only true--it is provable. But some people are so proud and so arrogant that they cannot be taught otherwise, if they think they need to defend *traditions!*

Defending solid formulas and traditions is a good thing. But it isn't a good thing if the formula has lost its original understanding, which is what I think you're using.

So, we go to the Cross, (the purpose of the Law is to send you there).. so that GOD can give you His "imputed righteousness", that is the "Gift of Righteousness", that is the "Gift of Salvation".

What is "imputed to us" is the record of Christ's sinlessness. Without that we cannot get through the "pearly gates." Any sin--and we're full of sins--can disqualify us from heaven. Just one sin of Adam and the whole human race was lost! Even worse, their descendants obtained, through that act of sin, an inheritance of a Sin Nature. That makes us doubly disqualified from heaven, or paradise.

So we have Christ's sinlessness imputed to us, which in other words means that Christ has forgiven our sins and cancelled our Sin Debt. We agree on that brother. Why you cannot agree that the Law provided a temporary form of righteousness I cannot fathom unless you're just too proud to receive anything other than what comes out of your own mind and thoughts?

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.”

Rom 3.21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.

The real problem is when people pursue the Law as their righteousness *apart from God's internal word.* They are trying to establish their own righteousness, as apart from Christ. They are doing things of their own accord, and following rules and traditions by the carnal man, not thinking that the word of Christ sanctions their efforts by faith in him.

Obviously, this form of "righteousness by the Law" is condemned. And I think this is the semantical confusion we're experiencing. I've attempted to show you the difference between righteousness by faith and righteousness by self-effort many times by using this passage, which shows the necessity of "righteousness by faith," which is not just imputed as error-free, but also demanded as something we must assent to and choose to do....

1 John 2.3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.

This "righteousness" is both imputed and the product of our own willful choice to participate in the word of Christ. It is this cooperation between our will and God's word that brings virtue to our righteousness. And it is Christ's atonement that enables this righteousness to become acceptable for eternity.

 

[Behold]

Reformers and Catholics have been battling over what is NT Theology for centuries!

So anyway, and again...

You posted that the Law is able to give righteousness, and that is Theological Deception.

Only God can give Righteousness, and Christ is the only "WAY" there.

John 14:6

 

[Randy Kluth]

So anyway, and again...

You posted that the Law is able to give righteousness, and that is Theological Deception.

Only God can give Righteousness, and Christ is the only "WAY" there.

John 14:6

This seems like a theological game to me, although you may in fact be serious about it. There is a lot of confusion over what we can actually do, as men and women, to be righteous. Some say that we can do *nothing* to be righteous, that Christ must somehow, mysteriously, do righteousness in and through us, without our will being anything more than a conduit of "belief."

The Law, as I already showed you, gave Israel a temporary righteousness--a band aid, if you will. The Law was beautiful, good, and holy, and most definitely brought righteousness to Israel when they obeyed it. It did not give Eternal Life but it was a temporary measure to keep Israel in good standing with God.

Faking keeping the Law is an entirely different matter and is often confused with doing the Law properly. Paul talked about Jews who followed the Law insincerely, who observed the Law externally. This was not the same thing as doing the Law properly.

Those who did the Law properly were righteous, and those who mishandled the Law, who merely followed the requirements of the Law ritualistically, or "religiously," were not righteous under the Law. We should not confuse these two concepts.

I think those who wish to deny we can be righteous or do righteousness are merely trying to establish what Paul said, that those who followed the Law externally could not be justified by the Law. And quite frankly, you seem unable to separate the general sense of "justification" with the more technical application of the word "justification." You may be afraid to say that we can do anything that justifies us as righteous? But this is just the more general use of the word "justify."

But I'm not going to keep posting it. 1 John 2 clearly says that we must *do something!* We must *be righteous.* So clearly, we can *do righteousness.* Where Luther and other Protestants get all confused is when they try to reconcile our justification through Christ with James, who said we must *do righteousness.* They don't realize that "doing righteousness" is *not* self-atonement. It is the choice to embrace Christ's atonement, which by necessity leads to repentance of our own ways to live by the ways of Christ.

One thing that is perfectly clear to me, and that is it is Antinomianism to say that the only thing we can do is "believe Jesus died for me." This also can be purely external, or a "religious formula." What makes it real is when we *do* things to prove that we truly do believe in Jesus. Our faith is validated when we do what that faith actually implies, which is that our ways are bad and Christ's ways are good. Validation also is *not* the application of the technical meaning of "justification!"

The connection between "believing" and "doing" is the crux of the matter here. But I assure you, my use of the word "doing" does not mean Christians ever do a thing to self-justify. We are only in the general sense "justifying our choice to follow Christ" when we follow that faith up by engaging in the reality of what that means.

If we truly believe Christ died for our sins, we will stop sinning and follow the one who enables us to live in righteousness. Yes, Christ is the only source of righteousness in this world. And unless we embrace him as atoner of our sin, and follow that up by proving we mean it, our righteousness can never attain to Eternal Life. And yes, the righteous, by virtue of who they are and what they do, actually do attain to Eternal Life!

Rev 21.7 Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. 8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”
...27 Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

Those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life are those who have embraced Christ as the basis of eternal righteousness, as opposed to a strictly temporary righteousness or an occasional righteousness propped up by external observances. If we truly love Christ we will show that we love him. That's all that qualifies us for Eternal Life.

 

[Behold]

If we truly love Christ we will show that we love him. That's all that qualifies us for Eternal Life.

Wrong again, Randy.

Its not our "Love" and "trying to be like Jesus" and all your SELF EFFORT, that "qualifies" you, or me, or anyone for "Eternal Life"

Only The CROSS OF CHRIST, is God's qualification, as its the only SALVATiON He offers, you, me, or anyone.

John 14:6

Get that revelation, @Randy Kluth

We don't QUALIFY............for God's acceptance. = Not EVER.

And that is why GOD became a Man, @Randy Kluth .

He came here, Virgin born to QUALIFY the world : John 3:16.

So, once you understand this, if you ever do, you'll stop writing (cut and paste) redundant posts that explain how you are trying to self qualify by LAW, Deeds, and your silly self righteous effort.......in place of the only Qualifier, that God accepts, = and that is HIMSELF, on the Cross, as our "Gift of Salvation".

 

[Randy Kluth]

Wrong again, Randy.

Its not our "Love" and "trying to be like Jesus" and all your SELF EFFORT, that "qualifies" you, or me, or anyone for "Eternal Life"

Only The CROSS OF CHRIST, is God's qualification, as its the only SALVATiON He offers, you, me, or anyone.

Quite simply, you choose to be judgmental and to characterize biblical statements as "self-effort." Paul and John both state, quite clearly, that we are to *do righteousness* as Christians. To call this "self-effort" is not only wrong, but it is also dangerous. To teach "belief in Christ" without any need to validate that belief in actual deeds is unbiblical and a form of antinomianism.

So, once you understand this, if you ever do, you'll stop writing (cut and paste) redundant posts that explain how you are trying to self qualify by LAW, Deeds, and your silly self righteous effort.......in place of the only Qualifier, that God accepts, = and that is HIMSELF, on the Cross, as our "Gift of Salvation".

Actually, you are trying to be justified by "belief" without morality. That is spiritually bankrupt. True belief must show credibility to be real. True trust in Christ puts on Christ like clothing.

Col 3.12 Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.

You call this "redundant" and "self-effort" when it is simply what Paul wrote. Again, 1 John 2 makes it crystal clear that belief must be associated with *doing righteousness.* Otherwise, it is belief empty of all substance.

Is it any surprise that your teaching has never been able to explain the following?...

1 John 2.1 My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2 He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.
3 We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. 4 Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person. 5 But if anyone obeys his word, love for God is truly made complete in them. This is how we know we are in him: 6 Whoever claims to live in him must live as Jesus did.

 

[Behold]

Quite simply, you choose to be judgmental and to characterize biblical statements as "self-effort." Paul and John both state, quite clearly, that we are


Actually, you are trying to be justified by "belief" without morality.

Not True, again.

Im not trying to be justified except by what God offers as His justification.

John 14:6

Welcome to the Cross of Christ...... @Randy Kluth .

It seems that both you and EPISKIPOS, can never just agree that Jesus saves, and you dont help that out.

There is coming a day, when you are going to find out that the Cross of Christ is what God accepts, to accept you, and your silly self effort justification , that is your idea of "Christ + My Self effort", is not only rejected by God, but abhorred.

You dont know this yet, but, the day is coming that you are going to find out that Salvation is not the Randy Kluth, "contract" whereby Randy Kluth, offers his self effort, to God, because He believes that God needs it.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Not True, again.

Im not trying to be justified except by what God offers as His justification.

Yes, you are absolutely unable to distinguish between the technical use of "justification" from the general use of the term! When Paul speaks, in context, of atoning justification he is speaking of the fact that nobody but Christ could work out our Salvation. But in other instances, Paul argues that Christians prove their faith by works. And James makes it unmistakable by declaring that Abraham proved his faith by works. (James 2.21) That is a completely different kind of use of "justification."

But you are completely unable to get this because *you are judgmental!* You wish to conflate the 2 uses simply to condemn me as advocating for "self-effort," which in your vocabulary means that we do things without Christ. I have *never* said that our works are to be without Christ.

In fact, our initial repentance from Sin comes from hearing the Gospel of Christ. And so, the word of Christ comes to us and convicts us that our own ways don't work, that we need him as the basis of our justification. And so, both believing in him and proving that belief by walking with him indicates that we are repenting of our own ways and committing to walk with him, to live by his word, to live in Christ. What we do comes exclusively from him, if we wish to validate our faith at all.

So far I have zero confidence that you can accept this because *you are judgmental.* And you're proud, unable to learn from others or to at least respect their views, particularly when they are Bible-based. You ignore the biblical passages I give you and resort to bringing insults--that is, you're calling my views of these passages "self-effort."

None of these passages indicate "self-effort," so why do you accuse *me* of advocating for that? It's because *you're judgmental and malicious.* If not, prove otherwise.

John 14:6

Welcome to the Cross of Christ...... @Randy Kluth .

It seems that both you and EPISKIPOS, can never just agree that Jesus saves, and you dont help that out.

Please quote me where I say Jesus doesn't save! You're on the verge of slander, which may be why you rely on "belief in Jesus" instead of *living in Jesus.*

If you wish to properly represent the "Cross of Christ" you must live in Christ!

 

[Behold]

That's a malicious lie. Please quote me where I say Jesus doesn't save!

The devil is more clever then that, Randy.

He does not ever say that Jesus does not save...
What he does, is he attaches the LAW, and Commandments, and water...., and Self effort, and "morality".... to the Grace of God, and says..."its all that", that saves you. (Pick a few).

Here is how YOU do it.... as YOU define Salvation, which is God giving us Righteousness, "without the Law" or "works".

@Randy Kluth stated..

"""""Well, I don't think there can be any question that its purpose was = to provide both RIGHTEOUSNESS and forgiveness""""


So, the LAW was never created to produce, or give, or suggest that IT can create, cause, or impute Righteousness.

Also, you again have defined that God's Salvation, is somehow connected to Your MORALITY...

And in fact, God's Salvation is not connected to your behavior, or your idea of morality.

Here is God's Salvation, apart from your self righteousness, your morality, or your odd thology.

A.) CHRIST on The Cross.


Understand?

That's it.

John 14:6

Welcome to : Salvation.

ITS a "GIFT"

 

[Randy Kluth]

The devil is more clever then that, Randy.

He does not ever say that Jesus does not save...
What he does, is he attaches the LAW, and Commandments, and water...., and Self effort, and "morality".... to the Grace of God, and says..."its all that", that saves you. (Pick a few).

Here is how YOU do it.... as YOU define Salvation, which is God giving us Righteousness, "without the Law" or "works".

@Randy Kluth stated..

"""""Well, I don't think there can be any question that its purpose was = to provide both RIGHTEOUSNESS and forgiveness""""


So, the LAW was never created to produce, or give, or suggest that IT can create, cause, or impute Righteousness.

Also, you again have defined that God's Salvation, is somehow connected to Your MORALITY...

And in fact, God's Salvation is not connected to your behavior, or your idea of morality.

Here is God's Salvation, apart from your self righteousness, your morality, or your odd thology.

A.) CHRIST on The Cross.


Understand?

That's it.

John 14:6

Welcome to : Salvation.

ITS a "GIFT"

Some people have a "root of bitterness" and just like to argue. Some people try to be the leader and try to get people to follow them. I hope that's not you?

I've explained this pretty well, and you don't seem interested. I have not taught "Self-Effort," and yet you continue to accuse me of that.

I've showed you the difference between righteousness under the Law and righteousness in Christ, and have showed you that proper observance under either system does *not* indicate "Self-Effort."

Paul argued that even with Israel's works under the Law they could not obtain eternal atonement. That is *not* the same thing as saying they lived under a system of "Self-Effort!" God would never have given Israel a spiritually-bankrupt system!

In reality, both systems, OT and NT, have relied upon Faith to be genuine. On the other hand, the Scriptures speak a lot about those who under the Law observed the Law insincerely and artificially. Their faith was not validated by their works. What I've told you is that we should not confuse these issues, but you apparently insist on doing just that?

Once again, we are talking about two very different kinds of "justification," both of which are biblical. Paul emphasized "Justification" in the sense of Christ's Atonement, and in that sense denies that any man can Self-Justify. Elsewhere, the Scriptures have emphasized the "doing" part of our Christianity which "validates" our decision for Christ. We do not work our own Atonement, but we do make a choice to live for Christ.

"Doing" the Gospel is not "Self-Effort." Rather, it is deferring to Christ as the proper path of righteousness. Repentance is giving up our own carnal ways to follow the spirituality of Christ. You call this "Self-Effort?"

You apparently eliminate the human will as a part of the formula of making a decision for Christ? You seem to invalidate the use of the human will in any partnership with Christ, claiming that any role we play is "Self-Effort?"

And so, for you Salvation completely eliminates our role as human beings, indicating that Christ has not really saved us at all. We are just zombie robots carrying out the will of God without any participation in that at all, without any choice at all, without any active will in choosing to obey Christ?

This is a familiar argument for me, which is characteristic of Gnostics, who never really believed that man can change apart from his "knowledge." We simply receive knowledge, but our human nature never changes. For you, it is just "Christ in us," but never *us!*

But true Christianity enables man to change, to act in a redeemed way. We are able to "put on" Christ, to obey him, to live in him, to choose to walk in the light. Our humanity died to sin, but is alive in Christ. The Spirt gives life to our mortal bodies, and to our *wills!*

If you wish to even be spiritual in this conversation you cannot hide behind "Christ's Justification." You have to validate your "Belief" with actual deeds. You have to "put on" Christ, or your so-called "Belief" is empty and void of real substance.

 

[Behold]

Some people have a "root of bitterness" and just like to argue.

And some Roses found growing in the winter are the same color as the snow.

Some people try to be the leader and try to get people to follow them.

I tend to Lead, that's true.

I am not interested in "followers".

God gives me students.

"Doing" the Gospel is not "Self-Effort."

The Gospel is that the Virgin born Christ died on the Cross for your sin, and rose again.

You are "doing that", @Randy Kluth

Really?

So, once again your own Quotes show your unfortunate and bizarre Theology.
And they'll do the same in the future.
How can they not.

 

[L.A.M.B.]

Provoking thoughts of discussion until the naysaying begins........