What is interesting is looking at what Luther and Calvin thought of imputed righteousness.
For me the issue is simple. Christ is our righteous example, through whom we are washed clean,
purified and redeemed so we can walk righteously. It appears both Calvin and Luther could not
accept a righteous walk was possible so have varying theories as to how righteousness is imputed
to us.
My issue is simple, if faith is all that differentiates between sinner and saint, how can God tell
whether the words are real or just window dressing? Surely the whole value of faith is its
effect on ones life, or else it is all vanity, a show for the stage, to appear one thing while being
another, the hypocracy of the self-righteous and powerful, who appear one way and behave
another.
Interestingly the mystical union with Christ and the righteousness this implies is used by some
to imply that is how imputation works, like an infusion. It appears RCC follow a sacramental
infusion concept which over time brings the believer to a righteous walk.
It is something that there appears to be no true camp, but lots of shades of grey, lol
For me the issue is simple. Christ is our righteous example, through whom we are washed clean,
purified and redeemed so we can walk righteously. It appears both Calvin and Luther could not
accept a righteous walk was possible so have varying theories as to how righteousness is imputed
to us.
My issue is simple, if faith is all that differentiates between sinner and saint, how can God tell
whether the words are real or just window dressing? Surely the whole value of faith is its
effect on ones life, or else it is all vanity, a show for the stage, to appear one thing while being
another, the hypocracy of the self-righteous and powerful, who appear one way and behave
another.
Interestingly the mystical union with Christ and the righteousness this implies is used by some
to imply that is how imputation works, like an infusion. It appears RCC follow a sacramental
infusion concept which over time brings the believer to a righteous walk.
It is something that there appears to be no true camp, but lots of shades of grey, lol
First, they say there's no more repentance after acceptance of Christ, then outta the other side of their mouth they say they repent all the time.
They say there's no conviction after acceptance, then talk about it like we can't do without it.
This is purposely done to give them an edge, & to keep the reader confused about what they really believe. They don't want them to know.
They also say they're immediately made perfect, then say they're going on to perfection.
Since they claim there's no conviction & repentance afterward, They have no leg to stand on to explain spiritual growth, since it requires both.
Since they can't explain it, they will pass over it to accuse & blame, a tactic of their wickedness.