Imputed Righteousness???

[Mem]

Everyone was at the mall to see the magician. Well, we say that, but we mean that most people at the mall were there to see the magician.

The local radio station advertised a free magic show at the mall, upon which everyone in town headed to the mall.
The radio advertising a free magic show caused everyone to head to the mall. But not everyone literally. The advertisment caused all those who heard it and who headed to the mall, to head to the mall. And there were others at the mall who had no idea there would be a magician there.

I think everyone was at the mall.

Everyone witnessed Christ's righteousness, but only some believed it to be genuine and there were others that believed there must've been some sleight of hand involved. The former group's faith (because there's no way of proving a negative, that is that there was no sleight of hand) is imputed in the righteousness column (a credit) and the latter group's skepticism (though they cannot prove there was any sleight of hand) goes in the unrighteous column (a debit).

Death/mortality/a limited lifespan passing to all men caused all those who sinned out of a sense of mortality, to sin because of their sense of mortality. But not necessarily every single person who sinned, sinned for that reason. And not every single person necessarily sinned at all.

I'm not sure the fear of death doesn't put everyone in bondage at least at one time or another. I mean, it might be argued that a baby's cry stem from fear, of dying of hunger for example. How can we know that she isn't cursing the world in that state? And was or was it not actually fear that the serpent actually used to trip up Adam and Eve?

 

[Mem]

How can we know that she isn't cursing the world in that state?

... and, neither can we know whether she is actually crying out to God, of course.

 

[GWH]

What you see in your subjective thinking is to over ride what the Bible tells us?

You need to find a good teacher.
Then you may begin putting the pieces together for yourself...

Replace "you" with "we" and the judgmental attitude will be healed.

 

[studier]

7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.

8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

9 And I be found (καὶ εὑρεθῶ) in him (ἐν αὐτῷ), not having (μὴ ἔχων) mine own righteousness (ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην) , the [righteousness] out of law, τὴν ἐκ νόμου) i.e. the righteousness out of my faithfulness to the law; but rather (ἀλλὰ) the [righteousness that is] through Christ's faith/faithfulness (τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ), the righteousness out of God (τὴν ἐκ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην) based upon the faithfulness [of Christ] ( ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει):

I don't see this as inherently claiming that we receive Christ's own righteousness by receiving Christ's own faith. Let's assume Paul is saying "but rather the righteousness that is through Christ's faith."
Having hypothermia through a sudden unexpected severe temperature drop is not the same thing as hypothermia being a sudden unexpected severe temperature drop. A sudden unexpected severe temperature drop is a mechanism by which we can develop hypothermia.It is not our hypothermia per se.
Receiving an aneurism through a severe blow to the head is not he same as a severe aneurism being a severe blow to the head,. A severe blow to the head is a mechanism by which we can develop an aneurism. It is not my aneurism per se.
And having a righteousness that is "through Christ's faith" is not the same as having a righteousness that is "Christ's faith", which God has reckoned to us as righteousness. Christ's faith is a means by which we can develop righteousness. It is not our righteousness per se.

So, even if we grant that Paul means "Christ's faith" rather than "Christ's faithfulness", the text does not quite end up equating Christ's faith to our righteousness.

To me, the most coherent reading of the sense is -
9 And I be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, the [righteousness that is] out of [my faithfulness] to the law; but rather the [righteousness that is] through Christ's faithfulness [to God, to His promises and to men], the righteousness [that] God prescribed which rests upon the faithfulness [of Christ].

I was on my way back to reply to your input re: Rom5 and saw this. If I may jump in to see how far we could go in refining this via the language, or that my understanding of what you're saying can be refined:

3:7 But whatever [things] were being (imperf) to/for me gain/profit/advantageous (valuable), these things I have considered/regarded and now consider/regard (perf) through/because of the Christ (dia ton Xriston) loss/disadvantage (of no value/good for nothing)

• Through Christ - because of Christ - or translation of dia+acc ?? - I'll run with causal for now
• The Christ caused Paul to now regard all he was being before as essentially worthless - everything he had previously regarded as having value, Christ had caused him to now regard as of no value - as a loss

3:8 Additionally, indeed, I also consider/regard all things to be loss/of no value through/because of the surpassing value (dia to huperechon) [of] the knowledge (gnōsis) [of] Christ Jesus my Lord through/because of/for the sake of whom (dia hon) the all [things] I suffered loss and I consider/regard [as] dung (crudely - it's all crap), so (purpose/goal) I may gain Christ

• Translations of the dia clauses?
• Translation of gnōsis - does Paul want Jesus Christ's knowledge - or do we take gnōsis as a verbal noun and see Christ as an objective genitive, so Paul wants to know Jesus Christ?
• What does it mean to "gain Christ" (see 3:9)?
• Whatever all the answers, I find fascinating how the mindset needs to completely reset and refocus - what was valuable now needs to be seen as crap - so I can see what/who is far more valuable.

3:9 and/namely/meaning I may be found in/by (en) Him not having my righteousness, the [righteousness] from (ek) law, but [rather] the [righteousness] through (dia) {faith/faithfulness [of] Christ - or faith [in] Christ - or faith/doctrine/what is believed [from/about] Christ - or???} the from (ek) God righteousness based upon (epi) {the faith - or His faith - or His faithfulness - or His doctrine - or???}

• the opening kai can be continuing or ascensive so explaining Paul's desire to gain Christ = I want to be found in Christ having the righteousness from God through and based upon ___________________.

3:10 (begins with a genitive articular infinitive which according to Greek Beyond the Basics by Daniel Wallace can be - a. Purpose; b. Result; c. Contemporaneous Time (rare); d. Cause (rare); e. Direct Object (disputed); f. Apposition; g. Epexegetical) ____ to know Him and the power [of] His resurrection and the fellowship (sharing, participation, association, partnership) [of] His sufferings ____ being conformed to His death

• How to translate the articular infinitive?
• How to translate the nuance of the participle - ___ being conformed?

3:11 if somehow/perhaps I might come to/arrive at/reach the goal of the resurrection from dead [men].

Obviously, there's a lot going on here and IMO several things to workout in translation. It seems to me Paul wants to gain Christ, and he explains what that means (which we'd likely better understand through some accurate translation). Ultimately, he wants to know the power of Christ's resurrection, share in Christ's sufferings with a similar death and reach the goal of the resurrection. In this sense I think he wants to live a resurrection life in Christ now and reach the ultimate experience of the future resurrection (rewards, crowns, winning the race, etc...)

As for imputed righteousness, the righteousness he desires is certainly from God through Christ (with some specifics from translation re: pistis) and IMO imputation is yet to be determined and what it means was being discussed earlier by @NewLifeInChrist & @ChristRoseFromTheDead. @Pilgrimshope and others were also adding some things as I recall.

I think I also recall seeing you discuss here or elsewhere how righteousness is not left with an accredited or imputed sense apart from an experiential sense in the life of a Christian and IMO whatever Paul is saying about dikaiosunē here, he is including his living it out and being found with it (developed) as he pursues the goals he speaks of in 3:9-11.

 

[Jimbone]

Does anyone else find it strange that it's the same group of people that argue we can lose salvation, that salvation is not a gift of God but a result of our choice, and now that it's not Jesus righteousness we receive in order to be born again. These people seem it have a VERY low view of God and LOVE to take as much credit for the whole thing for themselves as they can possibly get away with. They cannot stand when others say "It's ALL God, God gets ALL glory". To me this is as big a red flag as can be waved around in someone's face in my opinion.

When you're on "men's" side of every single argument and it seems to make your skin crawl every time you hear "glory to God", then you may want to take a step back and start asking yourself and God some hard questions, because I honestly don't understand how anyone born again, born of the Spirit, can have as low a view of God and His awesome power to change our very nature for His glory, as this group does. To me this can only be because they don't know it, because they've not been gifted it yet, they trust in their choice and have not surrendered everything to Him. I don't believe you can KNOW the true power of our God and still think so highly of men in general, but more specifically think so highly of yourself. I CAN'T have as high a view of myself as this group argues for, not knowing the true debts of my sin and the true price paid so that I might be reconciled to a Holy and perfect God. I just can't, but apparently this group can stand tall and eye to eye with the Holy Creator of the universe, after all God couldn't do it without them right?

 

[studier]

Then again, some are simply working to see what the Text actually says - rightly dividing - accurately interpreting as the Scripture says, so we can see exactly what's said and where it speaks of God's work and where God makes men responsible for proper response to Him.

Some don't understand this because they're not well-versed. The reaction is to demonize those doing what we're instructed to do.

 

[GWH]

Then again, some are simply working to see what the Text actually says - rightly dividing - accurately interpreting as the Scripture says, so we can see exactly what's said and where it speaks of God's work and where God makes men responsible for proper response to Him.

Some don't understand this because they're not well-versed. The reaction is to demonize those doing what we're instructed to do.

Yes, "always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth" is the way Paul describes some (in 2TM 3:7).

 

[NewLifeInChrist]

Does anyone else find it strange that it's the same group of people that argue we can lose salvation, that salvation is not a gift of God but a result of our choice, and now that it's not Jesus righteousness we receive in order to be born again. These people seem it have a VERY low view of God and LOVE to take as much credit for the whole thing for themselves as they can possibly get away with. They cannot stand when others say "It's ALL God, God gets ALL glory". To me this is as big a red flag as can be waved around in someone's face in my opinion.

When you're on "men's" side of every single argument and it seems to make your skin crawl every time you hear "glory to God", then you may want to take a step back and start asking yourself and God some hard questions, because I honestly don't understand how anyone born again, born of the Spirit, can have as low a view of God and His awesome power to change our very nature for His glory, as this group does. To me this can only be because they don't know it, because they've not been gifted it yet, they trust in their choice and have not surrendered everything to Him. I don't believe you can KNOW the true power of our God and still think so highly of men in general, but more specifically think so highly of yourself. I CAN'T have as high a view of myself as this group argues for, not knowing the true debts of my sin and the true price paid so that I might be reconciled to a Holy and perfect God. I just can't, but apparently this group can stand tall and eye to eye with the Holy Creator of the universe, after all God couldn't do it without them right?

I believe the new man "was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness" (Eph 4:24). The verse has much to say about our new lives in Christ. Our new lives were "created" and are "new", meaning God used His power of creation to create something that didn't exist before. His creation of these new lives is "according to God", meaning in His likeness. The likeness to God that our new lives have is detailed to be "in true righteousness and holiness", meaning not only that the new man is righteous and holy, but that the new man is "truly" righteous and holy. The "true" is not superfulous, but it indicates that the new man's righteousness and holiness is the real thing, not just an imperfect copy of the original.

Our receiving of new life in Christ is by grace, not of works. It is a gift of God, not something we earned. It seems like we are on the same page up to this point. But it appears that you may put me in the category of "they have not been gifted it yet" if I believe the ability to trust the gospel is a human capability that all humans possess and their choice to believe in Christ is not a "work" (i.e., that believing in Jesus is not a work").

 

[studier]

Yes, "always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth" is the way Paul describes some (in 2TM 3:7).

Foolish women loaded up with sins?

 

[Mem]

Foolish women loaded up with sins?

Eh, did somebody call me...

I've come to equate, and have grown tired of, the bouquets of verse presented in either Calvinist or Armenian vases as an attempt to win over mine, or other's, affection.

I've also grown tired of the love that values the regard for facts above the truth. It seems the world would rather make argument that works to reduce human to animal status with no recourse for restoration apart from a miracle that, it clearly appears, some hold might not have already, and might not ever, really, occur.

Blessed are those who hunger for righteousness.

 

[studier]

Eh, did somebody call me...

Not me! Just clarifying the @GWH reference to a verse.

I've come to equate, and have grown tired of, the bouquets of verse presented in either Calvinist or Armenian vases as an attempt to win over mine, or other's, affection.

I've also grown tired of the love that values the regard for facts above the truth. It seems the world would rather make argument that works to reduce human to animal status with no recourse for restoration apart from a miracle that, it clearly appears, some hold might not have already, and might not ever, really, occur.

Blessed are those who hunger for righteousness.

Agreed, especially with the last sentence...

 

[Mem]

Not me! Just clarifying the @GWH reference to a verse.

Just to be clear, you were never suspect while I was acknowledging your propensity toward accuracy, along with my resemblance (or at least the perception as) of the referenced.

 

[studier]

Just to be clear, you were never suspect while I was acknowledging your propensity toward accuracy, along with my resemblance (or at least the perception as) of the referenced.

Thanks for the clarity. I did see you responding in a fun way. I highly doubt the resemblance of the referenced.

 

[Mem]

Thanks for the clarity. I did see you responding in a fun way. I highly doubt the resemblance of the referenced.

Thank you, so much, for that grace. It's beautiful!

 

[Jimbone]

I believe the new man "was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness" (Eph 4:24). The verse has much to say about our new lives in Christ. Our new lives were "created" and are "new", meaning God used His power of creation to create something that didn't exist before. His creation of these new lives is "according to God", meaning in His likeness. The likeness to God that our new lives have is detailed to be "in true righteousness and holiness", meaning not only that the new man is righteous and holy, but that the new man is "truly" righteous and holy. The "true" is not superfulous, but it indicates that the new man's righteousness and holiness is the real thing, not just an imperfect copy of the original.

Our receiving of new life in Christ is by grace, not of works. It is a gift of God, not something we earned. It seems like we are on the same page up to this point. But it appears that you may put me in the category of "they have not been gifted it yet" if I believe the ability to trust the gospel is a human capability that all humans possess and their choice to believe in Christ is not a "work" (i.e., that believing in Jesus is not a work").

I wasn't really diving into any of these things deeply, I was just noticing and talking about an overall trend. A view of God that lessens Him in every argument, a view that lifts up the deeds and works of men and gives them credit that in truth does not belong to them. I'm specifically talking about the CDSC here and the fact that every argument they make in every topic does this, lessens Gods glory to say that men have a claim to it. Lets take the big one, salvation. They teach this is a thing man can gain and walk away from at will. That the real cost of salvation is our choice. That God wants to save us but just can't, unless we make the right choice. Hogwash, Eph 2:8-9

8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Like you said salvation is a gift, and it's a gift in power that makes us actually new, our dead spirits are resurrected and reconciled to Him, so He can now live in us and guide us as we were created to be, which leads to my second "rub" with those I'm speaking of, which is teaching that we can lose salvation. The teaching that this gift of a resurrected Spirit given to us by God can be undone or "walked away from", is false. We can't be "unborn again", I do not believe that being born again is a cosmic probation that puts the full weight of salvation on the shoulders of the believer dependent on their obedience.

I agree with you and do not believe we are very far off from each other and feel we could find common ground on these issues, but they people I'm speaking of are not capable of this, they will not listen, they will not engage with what's actually said nor do they have any interest in common ground. Nope, the people I'm talking about will tell you what you believe and why you believe it, then no matter how clearly, calmly, and concisely you tell them that you do not believe the things they accuse you of, they still stuff the strawman up, label you, then burn him down in front of you, then celebrate how they just served God by destroying your heretical views.

It's insanity and is why I don't really respond to them anymore, and make the kind of comments you responded to. I'm the kind of guy that says to the man who goes to church, hears the gospel, see's the truth of "his way" and turns from it to repeat the prayer asking God to save him from himself and is born again right then and there, in power and in truth, and says this was 100% God and 0% man. That's what I believe is truth, but the ones I'm speaking of HATE this, they seem to loath the idea that we get no credit and deserve NO glory for our salvation and teach that we play a role in bringing it about, a.k.a- it's NOT all God. I just disagree whole heartedly.

 

[GWH]

Foolish women loaded up with sins?

Yes, but Paul showed respect for women elsewhere in his writings,
so again we must choose which Scripture should take precedence.
(I vote for GL 3:28 :^)

 

[NewLifeInChrist]

I'm specifically talking about the CDSC here and the fact that every argument they make in every topic does this, lessens Gods glory to say that men have a claim to it. Lets take the big one, salvation.

what is CDSC?

 

[studier]

Yes, but Paul showed respect for women elsewhere in his writings,
so again we must choose which Scripture should take precedence.
(I vote for GL 3:28 :^)

So, you're saying 2Tim3:6 says foolish women but is not about foolish women because of Gal3:28?

 

[NewLifeInChrist]

I do not believe that being born again is a cosmic probation that puts the full weight of salvation on the shoulders of the believer dependent on their obedience.

Nor do I believe that. It is actually a really bad beleif system.

 

[Magenta]

what is CDSC?

Possibly something to do with the Calvinism derangement syndrome, which many here have.