Why do so many oppose imputed righteousness?

[justbyfaith]

One can also go further with 1 John 3:7 by comparing it to 1 John 3:3 and 1 John 2:6.

1Jo 3:7, Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

1Jo 3:3, And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

1Jo 2:6, He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

Now you can try to explain away these verses as you attempted to do with the others; however, I would warn you that in doing so you would be hardening your heart against the truth of God's word; and pitting scripture against scripture (if you could even find scripture that would go against the verses I have posted above).

 

[justbyfaith]

1 John 2:6,

1Jo 2:6, He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.

can further be understood by looking at 1 John 2:17, 1 John 2:27, and 1 John 3:6.

1Jo 2:17, And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

1Jo 2:27, But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

1Jo 3:6, Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

 

[Stranger]

#148:


I think I must have missed this post of yours; because I am in agreement with it: unless in context of the other posts before it it is saying something different than what I now think of it as saying.

Although, at second look, I think that if people are not really righteous in heaven, but it is only God looking at them through rose-colored glasses there also, then that would mean that there is sin in heaven; and if that be the case, there is suffering in heaven: because I consider that the only cause of suffering is sin.

#171:


Since the above post is by me, I do not see how it is that you think that it is going to support your pov.

Sorry, there was a little confusion. You are saying that I cherry-picked out of your statement what I wanted to respond to. Yes, that it true; because I agreed with everything else (as far as I remember).

You contradict yourself once again. You think you missed the post. Then admit you cherry picked out of the post. And yet you howl about how I refuse to address (1 John 3:7).

Rest assured we do not agree. Why say, 'unless the context says something different'? Do you not remember the context. Can you not read the context?

And where have I indicated that (1 John 3:7) is speaking merely of imputed righteousness?

The confusion is yours. (Concepts does that) Post #(171) is there to show you that you didn't miss it. You ignored it, picking just two sentences from it. You need confusion to mask your legalism.

Stranger

 

[justbyfaith]

You contradict yourself once again. You think you missed the post. Then admit you cherry picked out of the post. And yet you howl about how I refuse to address (1 John 3:7).

Sorry, I posted the quotes from the post #'s you mentioned and was going to answer them. Then I looked at what I had written more closely and edited my post accordingly. I tend not to delete work that I have already spoken.

Rest assured we do not agree. Why say, 'unless the context says something different'? Do you not remember the context. Can you not read the context?

It has been quite a few days since the posts in question were made; and as a general rule, I don't normally go back and re-read entire threads. So in my current knowledge, I became aware only of the posts that you referred to and not their contexts.

And where have I indicated that (1 John 3:7) is speaking merely of imputed righteousness?

So you are saying that it also speaks of imparted righteousness? Then rest assured that we are not at disagreement.

 

[Stranger]

Sorry, I posted the quotes from the post #'s you mentioned and was going to answer them. Then I looked at what I had written more closely and edited my post accordingly. I tend not to delete work that I have already spoken.



It has been quite a few days since the posts in question were made; and as a general rule, I don't normally go back and re-read entire threads. So in my current knowledge, I became aware only of the posts that you referred to and not their contexts.



So you are saying that it also speaks of imparted righteousness? Then rest assured that we are not at disagreement.

No, you tend to contradict yourself, and don't know it till it is presented to you.

No wonder then you contradict yourself.

Where did I indicate that (1 John 3:7) is just imputed righteousness. It is your statement. I am calling you on it. Can't you answer it. If you are wrong in saying it, just tell me. If not, show me where I said it.

We are most certainly in disagreement. In every way.

Stranger

 

[justbyfaith]

Where did I indicate that (1 John 3:7) is just imputed righteousness. It is your statement. I am calling you on it. Can't you answer it. If you are wrong in saying it, just tell me. If not, show me where I said it.

I have never said that 1 John 3:7 is speaking of only imputed righteousness; I have always said that it teaches that righteousness is also imparted.

I ask you: do you agree that righteousness is imparted/practical; and not only imputed/positional?

We are most certainly in disagreement. In every way.

Then I suppose that we will have to agree to disagree; because I know that my belief is biblical.

 

[justbyfaith]

@Stranger, I consider you hostile.

 

[Stranger]

I have never said that 1 John 3:7 is speaking of only imputed righteousness; I have always said that it teaches that righteousness is also imparted.

Are you that obtuse? Just read my question. "Where did I indicate (1 John 3:7) is just imputed righeousness?" That is your claim. You have repeated it several times. See post #(393, 390, 384) for starters.

So, as I said, show me where I said that. I know you can't because I didn't say that, so you have to play stupid. Go ahead, it fits you well.

@Stranger, I consider you hostile.

As you should.

Stranger

 

[justbyfaith]

So, as I said, show me where I said that. I know you can't because I didn't say that, so you have to play stupid. Go ahead, it fits you well.

Why don't you just come right out and say what you believe about it.

It seems to me that you have disagreed with my contention that righteousness is imparted also;

So that to me implies that you believe that righteousness is imputed only.

But I will let you now declare what you really believe about the matter; because you appear to be speaking through both sides of your mouth.

@Stranger, I consider you hostile.

As you should.

I consider that I am commanded to love you; and this is what I will do; for His love has been shed abroad in my heart through the Holy Ghost who is given unto me.

Jesus did say (or maybe it was the apostle John, or perhaps both) to marvel not if the world hateth me.

The fact that you are hostile to me over the sound doctrine that I preach does indicate to me where you stand.

 

[Stranger]

Why don't you just come right out and say what you believe about it.

It seems to me that you have disagreed with my contention that righteousness is imparted also;

So that to me implies that you believe that righteousness is imputed only.

But I will let you now declare what you really believe about the matter; because you appear to be speaking through both sides of your mouth.

I consider that I am commanded to love you; and this is what I will do; for His love has been shed abroad in my heart through the Holy Ghost who is given unto me.

Jesus did say (or maybe it was the apostle John, or perhaps both) to marvel not if the world hateth me.

The fact that you are hostile to me over the sound doctrine that I preach does indicate to me where you stand.

I have said several times what I believe about (1 John 3:7). I haven't yet addressed it as destroying your use of it to teach your legalistic doctrine of impartation. Just as I did with your other two pillars, (Rom. 5:19) and (Matt. 5;6). Your response to (1 John 3:7) pillar crumbling will be just as your response to the other two. You will deny, deny, say you don't believe it. You will lie about it as you did with the Mosaic Law and the Sermon on the Mount, creating some new form of doctrine that blessings are not part of law.

You have done the same with (1 John 3:7) already in making a new doctrine of impartation. You will say not impartation only but imputation. But then you have already denied imputation concerning Levi and Melchisedec and the imputation of Adam's sin. You will just jump back and forth depending how the argument goes all the while holding only to your legalistic doctrine of impartation.

Because you can not see the distinction between imputed righteousness, and your righteousness, you make them one and the same in 'imparted' righteousness. The imputed righteousness of Christ, you say, is imparted to you, making it yours to walk in and maintain. So that imputed righteousness is nothing more now than your righteousness.

Because I disagree with your lie of imparted righteousness, and you can't tell the difference between imputed righteousness and your righteousness, you have said that I hold (1 John 3:7) to be imputed righteousness only. But I have never said that. So, you have been caught in a lie. Or, I should say another lie as I consider what you have said about the Sermon on the Mount a lie, and what you have said about the Mosaic Law is a lie. I doubt you ever believed such a thing until I forced you to have to decide.

Because I caught you in your lie, instead of owning up to it, you tried to twist what I said in your question in #(406). Which didn't work either. But I'm sure you will say that was just a mistake on your part.

So, now you say, because I disagree with your doctrine of imparted righteousness, it 'implies' that righteousness is imputed only. Which is not what you said before. Before you accused me of saying (1 John 3:7) was imputed righteousness only. And, disagreeing with your 'imparted' righteousness doesn't suggest that I believe (3:7) is imputed only. And I have never said anything to imply it.

Don't worry, I will get to destroying your champion pillar of (1 John 3:7) which you use to support your false doctrine of 'impartation'.

Stranger

 

[justbyfaith]

The imputed righteousness of Christ, you say, is imparted to you, making it yours to walk in and maintain.

No; I do not maintain it: but the Holy Spirit maintains it as I cooperate with Him.

Psa 16:5, The LORD is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup: thou maintainest my lot.

1Pe 1:5, Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

1Jo 5:18, We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

Because I disagree with your lie of imparted righteousness, and you can't tell the difference between imputed righteousness and your righteousness, you have said that I hold (1 John 3:7) to be imputed righteousness only. But I have never said that. So, you have been caught in a lie.

Imparted righteousness is the truth of holy scripture, see Matthew 5:6, Romans 5:19, 1 John 3:7. You have not succeeded at refuting these verses; and if you did, you would be the first one ever to succeed at refuting holy scripture.

Now you say that you do not hold to imputed righteousness only. So I am curious as to how you think this does not translate into your agreeing with me concerning the doctrine of imparted righteousness?

As I said before, you appear to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Either righteousness is imputed only or else imparted righteousness is also the reality. I am curious as to the explanation in your mind as to how there can be a middle ground. I am also asking you to explain this to me.

So, now you say, because I disagree with your doctrine of imparted righteousness, it 'implies' that righteousness is imputed only. Which is not what you said before. Before you accused me of saying (1 John 3:7) was imputed righteousness only. And, disagreeing with your 'imparted' righteousness doesn't suggest that I believe (3:7) is imputed only. And I have never said anything to imply it.

It is still what I said before. Just come right out and say what you believe: is righteousness imputed only or is it also imparted? Which one is it? If there is a middle ground, I am curious as to your explanation as to how it can be.

Don't worry, I will get to destroying your champion pillar of (1 John 3:7) which you use to support your false doctrine of 'impartation'.

Get to it. Destroy it if you can. Personally, I think that you are going to have to deny the plain meaning of the verse in order to do it; you are going to have to cut 1 John 3:7 out of your Bible with scissors. I'm certain that you will find a reason within the context to justify your being able to do so (as you did with Matthew 5:6). But Revelation 22:19 still stands:

Rev 22:19, And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

 

[justbyfaith]

Just as I did with your other two pillars, (Rom. 5:19) and (Matt. 5;6).

Again, these are not pillars; but strikes of the sword against your false doctrine that righteousness is imputed only (that it is not also imparted to the believer).

You may even be able to block the first two blows with your own sword or shield; but the third blow will do double damage and may even succeed at destroying the thing that you use to block it with (or to knock it out of your hand); while you may even succeed at blocking the third blow with whatever you use to block it with.

Now these strikes of the sword are not intended to hurt you; but to destroy the strongholds of the enemy that are in the current day helping you to excuse yourself concerning the unrighteous life that your doctrine allows you to live.

For it is written,

2Co 10:3, For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh:
2Co 10:4, (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds; )
2Co 10:5, Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
2Co 10:6, And having in a readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled.

 

[Stranger]

No; I do not maintain it: but the Holy Spirit maintains it as I cooperate with Him.

Psa 16:5, The LORD is the portion of mine inheritance and of my cup: thou maintainest my lot.

1Pe 1:5, Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

1Jo 5:18, We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.



Imparted righteousness is the truth of holy scripture, see Matthew 5:6, Romans 5:19, 1 John 3:7. You have not succeeded at refuting these verses; and if you did, you would be the first one ever to succeed at refuting holy scripture.

Now you say that you do not hold to imputed righteousness only. So I am curious as to how you think this does not translate into your agreeing with me concerning the doctrine of imparted righteousness?

As I said before, you appear to be speaking out of both sides of your mouth. Either righteousness is imputed only or else imparted righteousness is also the reality. I am curious as to the explanation in your mind as to how there can be a middle ground. I am also asking you to explain this to me.



It is still what I said before. Just come right out and say what you believe: is righteousness imputed only or is it also imparted? Which one is it? If there is a middle ground, I am curious as to your explanation as to how it can be.



Get to it. Destroy it if you can. Personally, I think that you are going to have to deny the plain meaning of the verse in order to do it; you are going to have to cut 1 John 3:7 out of your Bible with scissors. I'm certain that you will find a reason within the context to justify your being able to do so (as you did with Matthew 5:6). But Revelation 22:19 still stands:

Rev 22:19, And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

I have never said that (1 John 3:7) is imputed righteousness only. Again, show me where I said it. You can't.

I have come right out and said what your 'imparted righteousness' is. Again, you don't pay attention or are just so obtuse as to not be able to comprehend.

Don't worry, I will get to it. Do you mean you ignore 'context'? Of course you do. Do you mean context helped explain (Rom. 5:19) and (Matt. 5:6)? Of course you did. And it does. Not only do you lie but you admit ignoring the context of a verse. Foolish.

Stranger

 

[justbyfaith]

I have never said that (1 John 3:7) is imputed righteousness only. Again, show me where I said it. You can't.

I have asked you on not a few occasions what you believe on the matter; and you refuse to answer. If 1 John 3:7 is not imputed righteousness only, then imparted righteousness is involved, which you deny. Therefore I conclude that it is your belief that righteousness is only imputed; contrary to 1 John 3:7. For if it is not imputed only, then it is imparted also. But you deny that it is imparted; which tells me that you believe that it is imputed only.

I have come right out and said what your 'imparted righteousness' is. Again, you don't pay attention or are just so obtuse as to not be able to comprehend.

So, do you want to explain how it is that you think that there is some kind of middle ground here? Either righteousness is imputed only; or else it is also imparted. As far as I'm concerned, it is one or the other. Therefore in denying that righteousness is imparted, you are saying that it is imputed only. Unless there is middle ground somewhere. I am waiting for you to explain to me what you think the middle ground is here.

Don't worry, I will get to it. Do you mean you ignore 'context'? Of course you do. Do you mean context helped explain (Rom. 5:19) and (Matt. 5:6)? Of course you did. And it does. Not only do you lie but you admit ignoring the context of a verse. Foolish.

I do not ignore context; but neither do I utilize context to nullify the plain meaning of what scripture teaches in any singular verse (i.e. Matthew 5:6).

You are in attack mode.

I would ask you whether you think that that is the nature of a sheep or a wolf.

Mat 7:15, Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Mat 7:16, Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

State what my lie was. Because if it can be backed up properly with scripture, then it is no lie.

 

[justbyfaith]

I want to make it clear that in my own mind and heart I do not deny imputed righteousness; I merely believe that the fact that it is imputed is the opening of the door to it also being imparted.

 

[Stranger]

I have asked you on not a few occasions what you believe on the matter; and you refuse to answer. If 1 John 3:7 is not imputed righteousness only, then imparted righteousness is involved, which you deny. Therefore I conclude that it is your belief that righteousness is only imputed; contrary to 1 John 3:7. For if it is not imputed only, then it is imparted also. But you deny that it is imparted; which tells me that you believe that it is imputed only.



So, do you want to explain how it is that you think that there is some kind of middle ground here? Either righteousness is imputed only; or else it is also imparted. As far as I'm concerned, it is one or the other. Therefore in denying that righteousness is imparted, you are saying that it is imputed only. Unless there is middle ground somewhere. I am waiting for you to explain to me what you think the middle ground is here.



I do not ignore context; but neither do I utilize context to nullify the plain meaning of what scripture teaches in any singular verse (i.e. Matthew 5:6).

You are in attack mode.

I would ask you whether you think that that is the nature of a sheep or a wolf.

Mat 7:15, Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Mat 7:16, Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

State what my lie was. Because if it can be backed up properly with scripture, then it is no lie.

Which one? Your whole doctrine of 'impartation' is a lie. Herein is another lie. I have addressed (1 John 3:7) before. See again #(148). I have addressed it and your false doctrine of 'impartation'. You lied several times due to your repetitive posts. I showed you already. Must I show you again. See #(408). I have never said (1 John 3:7) was imputed righteousness only. I even explained it in (148).

Your claim of me saying there is 'middle ground' is another contortion of yours, just like with 'impartation'. I have never said or indicated any middle ground. I have said there is the 'imputed righteousness' of Christ to us. I have said there is our righteousness. The two are not the same.

Sometimes my righteousness here reflects that which God declares me to be. Sometimes it does not. But whether it does or not, it does not altar the imputed righteousness of Christ. Because that is Christ's and not mine to affect. Christ's imputed righteousness to me is what I am declared to be. Not what I am. Your denial of 'imputation' has caused you to create your doctrine of 'impartation'.

I have given several examples to you. All of which you reject. That of Levi paying tithes to Abraham. (Heb. 7:9-10) That of the two goats in (Lev. 16). That of God's statement to Israel through the prophet Balaam. (Num. 23:21)

Yes, you ignore context, and you create new doctrines to defend your false doctrine of impartation. Just as you did in saying blessings under the Law are not law. What nonsense. What extremes you go to maintain your lie of impartation.

Stranger

 

[justbyfaith]

You lied several times due to your repetitive posts.

satan is the accuser of the brethren.

I have never said (1 John 3:7) was imputed righteousness only.

Then you agree that righteousness is also imparted.

Your claim of me saying there is 'middle ground' is another contortion of yours, just like with 'impartation'. I have never said or indicated any middle ground. I have said there is the 'imputed righteousness' of Christ to us. I have said there is our righteousness. The two are not the same.

Our righteousness is as filthy rags. But the righteousness of faith (Philippians 3:9), the righteousness of saints, is fine linen, clean and white (Revelation 19:8).

This is imparted righteousness according to 1 John 3:7; and is also a righteousness that is on the same level as Christ's righteousness.

The reader would do well to begin daily reading the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) and the Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:20-49) and to be obedient to Jesus' moral precepts in these Sermons.

Not that such obedience will save them; but that such obedience will stand as a foundation so that when the storms of life come, the house that they are building will stand.

Also, if there is no middle ground, then your contention that righteousness is not imparted means that your belief is that righteousness is imputed only. Because if righteousness is imparted, then it is not imputed only. But if it is not imparted, then it is imputed only. There is no middle ground; you yourself have said it. Therefore your contention that righteousness is not imparted translates into only one thing: that you believe that righteousness is imputed only; something that you have been denying up to this point.

Now who is the real liar?

 

[Stranger]

satan is the accuser of the brethren.



Then you agree that righteousness is also imparted.



Our righteousness is as filthy rags. But the righteousness of faith (Philippians 3:9), the righteousness of saints, is fine linen, clean and white (Revelation 19:8).

This is imparted righteousness according to 1 John 3:7; and is also a righteousness that is on the same level as Christ's righteousness.

The reader would do well to begin daily reading the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) and the Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:20-49) and to be obedient to Jesus' moral precepts in these Sermons.

Not that such obedience will save them; but that such obedience will stand as a foundation so that when the storms of life come, the house that they are building will stand.

Also, if there is no middle ground, then your contention that righteousness is not imparted means that your belief is that righteousness is imputed only. Because if righteousness is imparted, then it is not imputed only. But if it is not imparted, then it is imputed only. There is no middle ground; you yourself have said it. Therefore your contention that righteousness is not imparted translates into only one thing: that you believe that righteousness is imputed only; something that you have been denying up to this point.

Now who is the real liar?

No, there is no imparted righteousness. I have been clear. It is a made up doctrine by you.

Yes, your righteousness is as filthy rags. Something you say but do not believe.

What I have said is that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. And, we have a walk whereby we can reflect that righteousness, but it is not ours in our possession to do with or to take away from. In other words, Christ's righteousness is not imparted to us. God declares us righteous when we are not righteous.

You are still the liar. My comments concerning one of your lies has to do with what you said about (1 John 3:7). You stated, again, that I said it speaks only to imputed righteousness. Yet you cannot show me where I have ever said or implied it. So now you are doing this song and dance about how you come to the conclusion that I believe 'righteousness is imputed only'. This is totally different then your claim that I said '(1 John 3:7) speaks only to imputed righteousness.

Stranger

 

[Stranger]

Concerning (1 John 3:7)

Understand that first of all, (1 John) is written to believers to show us the basis for maintaining our fellowship with God. It shows the affects of sin upon the believer in that regard. There is loss of fellowship with God, and Christ and believers. (1 John 1:3). There is loss of a joy of our salvation. (1:4). There is the loss of experiencing the love of God. (2:5) There is the loss of our assurance that we are in Christ. (2:5) There is the loss of confidence towards God and the dread of shame at His Second coming (3:21) (3:28) Because this is such a loss, the believer must have a way to deal with his sin.

Now, the legalist loves (1 John). He can go to (3:9), "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin" He can take it and run forever declaring if you sin then you are not born of God. He can do even better than that. (3:8) " He that committh sin is of the devil" This must mean that they don't sin. And if you sinned, well you see who you are. There is no relief from the legalist. If you sin you are a child of the devil. That is all there is to it.

But we know that (1 John 1:8) also says, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. And (1:10) says, "If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

Such contrasting statements require that we do not just take one of these verses and run with it. We know that all these verses are the Word of God, and so we must find out why such a contrast, and how can both be true. If ones doctrine does not allow for both being true, then I would be careful about using them upon another believer. And you will find these contrasts throughout (1 John).

continued later: See (423)

Stranger

 

[justbyfaith]

But we know that (1 John 1:8) also says, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. And (1:10) says, "If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

1 John 1:8 tells us that all of us have the element of sin dwelling in our mortal flesh; and that therefore none of us can say that we are without sin. Sin is not eradicated from us the moment we get born again. It remains within us.

That being said, we must understand that sin as an element can be rendered dead (Galatians 5:24, Romans 6:6, Romans 7:8) so that it no longer has any authority or say over our behaviour or what we do.

Thus there is no contradiction between 1 John 1:8 and 1 John 3:5-9; we can take the latter verses literally; for it is even written by the apostle Paul,

2Co 3:12, Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:

As for 1 John 1:10, it should be clear that we have all sinned in times past; which does not preclude that we must of necessity sin in the present or in the future.