We did communion wrong today.

Where Fellowship and Camaraderie lives: that place where the CPS membership values fun and good fellowship as the cement of the community
User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 17811
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: We did communion wrong today.

Post by wosbald » Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:24 am

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:37 am
wosbald wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:06 am
I'm not only going by the soteriology followed by Reformed/Calvinistic theologians. I'm going by what Jester said earlier in this thread:
Jester wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:34 pm
God demands perfection and Christ imputed it to us on the cross.
God demands perfection and this court-docket of legal perfection (a spotless record) which is accomplished by Jesus is transferred (imputed) to our ledger.


But now, you are saying that Jesus didn't have to accomplish anything? Because God doesn't demand anything? He doesn't demand "perfection"?
I touched more on the law in my "Fourth thing" that was edited in just after I wrote my first three things. In that you'll see that I said Jesus fulfills the law. And he is also the Lord of the law. I didn't say Jesus didn't have to accomplish anything. I said he didn't accomplish friendship with God because he is the Son of God.

Here's the other thing. Jesus didn't derive his righteousness by way of the Law. That righteousness which is imputed to us wasn't a righteousness that was filled, little by little, as Jesus chucked good work after good work into the righteousness bucket until it reached the tippy-top. Righteousness is not gained through the law. The Law was given that sin might increase. The purpose of the Law was to reveal our sin. So I ask, in what way did the Law reveal the sin of Jesus? It didn't because he is the fulfiller and the lord of it. …
This seems to echo what I'd said above. Jesus never broke the Law, and so this spotless record of perfect law-keeping is imputed to our account. Jesus had to do that which Adam failed to do: Keep the Law (i.e. not break it) and, thus, restore friendship with God.

How is this "never breaking the Law" not to be conceived as deriving "righteousness by way of the Law"? How is this not to be conceived as "accomplishing friendship" by not breaking the Law?




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
Del
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Posts: 35486
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: We did communion wrong today.

Post by Del » Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:43 am

Skip wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:14 am
Del wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:12 am
Skip wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:07 am
gaining_age wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:41 am
Skip wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:35 am
Image

BTW, kudos to all for keeping this the calmest and most logical P v. C discussion we've had here. Del came close on a couple posts, but Wos, Jester, Tuttle? Well. Done. You.
+1. Good theology discussion going on worth reading here.
Del: You're wrong. How can you not see that you're wrong!?
Wos: You know I think you're wrong, but I'm trying to understand why you think the way you do.

Del, take notes.
You don't want to know what I'm thinking as I sharpen this pencil.
Remember, I've received death threats on this board, so bring it on.

(And I pray for you and - I hope - you for me, so we've got that going for us...)
Wos & tuttle & jester can talk to each other about "imputed" stuff... that's right in their wheelhouse.

I still hope to make it down to KC this fall. I'd love to each barbecue from the PBC and talk about whatever seems fun.

I've been listening to an Evangelical talk station (finally found one). Everything they say is true, as far as it goes. Just so much missing. One pastor shared a wonderful reflection on the Wedding at Cana -- and yet he managed to avoid mentioning Mary entirely! It was amazing.

And so he missed the perfect Christian's wisest advice as she answered the Holy Spirit's prompting that the time had indeed come:
John 2:5 wrote:His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.”
This should be every Christian's response to the Gospel. And not because we expect to "earn" our salvation by doing good works.
It's because Jesus also tells us that we will not see heaven if we do not do our works of charity.
"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you." - Eph 4

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 11917
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: We did communion wrong today.

Post by tuttle » Wed Oct 11, 2017 1:40 pm

wosbald wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:24 am
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:37 am
wosbald wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:06 am
I'm not only going by the soteriology followed by Reformed/Calvinistic theologians. I'm going by what Jester said earlier in this thread:
Jester wrote:
Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:34 pm
God demands perfection and Christ imputed it to us on the cross.
God demands perfection and this court-docket of legal perfection (a spotless record) which is accomplished by Jesus is transferred (imputed) to our ledger.


But now, you are saying that Jesus didn't have to accomplish anything? Because God doesn't demand anything? He doesn't demand "perfection"?
I touched more on the law in my "Fourth thing" that was edited in just after I wrote my first three things. In that you'll see that I said Jesus fulfills the law. And he is also the Lord of the law. I didn't say Jesus didn't have to accomplish anything. I said he didn't accomplish friendship with God because he is the Son of God.

Here's the other thing. Jesus didn't derive his righteousness by way of the Law. That righteousness which is imputed to us wasn't a righteousness that was filled, little by little, as Jesus chucked good work after good work into the righteousness bucket until it reached the tippy-top. Righteousness is not gained through the law. The Law was given that sin might increase. The purpose of the Law was to reveal our sin. So I ask, in what way did the Law reveal the sin of Jesus? It didn't because he is the fulfiller and the lord of it. …
This seems to echo what I'd said above. Jesus never broke the Law, and so this spotless record of perfect law-keeping is imputed to our account. Jesus had to do that which Adam failed to do: Keep the Law (i.e. not break it) and, thus, restore friendship with God.

How is this "never breaking the Law" not to be conceived as deriving "righteousness by way of the Law"? How is this not to be conceived as "accomplishing friendship" by not breaking the Law?
Jesus never broke the Law. Yes.
And so this spotless record of perfect law-keeping is imputed to our account. No

Why? Because righteousness is not gained through the law. Paul again, "But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe."

Note where the righteousness of God, that is given through faith, comes from; apart from the law.

It is true that where Adam failed, Jesus succeeded. But even Scripture tells us that there is a difference between Adam's sin and defiance of the divine command which brought condemnation to mankind and the gift of righteousness of Christ:

"Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!"

So, "never breaking the law", is not the key that turns the engine. Christ is the fulfillment and lord of the Law. He is greater than the angels, greater than Moses, the giver of the Law: "Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses, just as the builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself."

I think I may now have an inkling of why you keep bringing up Christ "accomplishing friendship". I was saying that Christ did not need to become friends with God because he was God's Son. I think now (correct me if I'm wrong) that you were looking at it as an imputation, as in Christ accomplished our friendship between us and God. If that's the case I may need to go back and re-read what we've wrote. Christ, by his death and resurrection, certainly has bridged that gap. But again, not by way of keeping the law. But through his death and resurrection.
"You're my kind of stupid" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

The Reformation Drinking Song

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 17811
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: We did communion wrong today.

Post by wosbald » Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:29 pm

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 1:40 pm
wosbald wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:24 am
This seems to echo what I'd said above. Jesus never broke the Law, and so this spotless record of perfect law-keeping is imputed to our account. Jesus had to do that which Adam failed to do: Keep the Law (i.e. not break it) and, thus, restore friendship with God.

How is this "never breaking the Law" not to be conceived as deriving "righteousness by way of the Law"? How is this not to be conceived as "accomplishing friendship" by not breaking the Law?
Jesus never broke the Law. Yes.
And so this spotless record of perfect law-keeping is imputed to our account. No.

[…]

It is true that where Adam failed, Jesus succeeded. But even Scripture tells us that there is a difference between Adam's sin and defiance of the divine command which brought condemnation to mankind and the gift of righteousness of Christ:

[…]

So, "never breaking the law", is not the key that turns the engine. Christ is the fulfillment and lord of the Law. He is greater than the angels, greater than Moses, the giver of the Law: "Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses, just as the builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself." …
This certainly seems to put you at odds with the bulk (if not all) of the Reformed tradition, as I'm sure a little digging would reveal. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, of course, as it would seem to move you more toward a Catholic stance. Because what motive could there there for maintaining imputation, if not an extrinsic, legal righteousness?

At any rate, there is also the issue of the imputation of Christ's "active obedience", which goes along with the passive obedience of "not breaking the Law". I left this aside for convenience's sake, not only because the topic wasn't broached, but also because it doesn't seem to substantially alter the issue at hand. It seems to me that in both the cases of active and passive obedience, there operates a legal conception of a "spotless record" imputed to our account and which would not seem to get one out of the bind of Jesus' salvation coming through the Law.




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
Sir Moose
President Jar-Jar Binks fan club: "Meesa tink he da best!" - Perpetually in Trouble
President Jar-Jar Binks fan club: "Meesa tink he da best!" - Perpetually in Trouble
Posts: 2412
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2015 1:17 am
Location: NW Washington
Contact:

Re: We did communion wrong today.

Post by Sir Moose » Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:01 pm

wosbald wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:29 pm
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 1:40 pm
wosbald wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:24 am
This seems to echo what I'd said above. Jesus never broke the Law, and so this spotless record of perfect law-keeping is imputed to our account. Jesus had to do that which Adam failed to do: Keep the Law (i.e. not break it) and, thus, restore friendship with God.

How is this "never breaking the Law" not to be conceived as deriving "righteousness by way of the Law"? How is this not to be conceived as "accomplishing friendship" by not breaking the Law?
Jesus never broke the Law. Yes.
And so this spotless record of perfect law-keeping is imputed to our account. No.

[…]

It is true that where Adam failed, Jesus succeeded. But even Scripture tells us that there is a difference between Adam's sin and defiance of the divine command which brought condemnation to mankind and the gift of righteousness of Christ:

[…]

So, "never breaking the law", is not the key that turns the engine. Christ is the fulfillment and lord of the Law. He is greater than the angels, greater than Moses, the giver of the Law: "Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses, just as the builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself." …
This certainly seems to put you at odds with the bulk (if not all) of the Reformed tradition, as I'm sure a little digging would reveal. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, of course, as it would seem to move you more toward a Catholic stance. Because what motive could there there for maintaining imputation, if not an extrinsic, legal righteousness?

At any rate, there is also the issue of the imputation of Christ's "active obedience", which goes along with the passive obedience of "not breaking the Law". I left this aside for convenience's sake, not only because the topic wasn't broached, but also because it doesn't seem to substantially alter the issue at hand. It seems to me that in both the cases of active and passive obedience, there operates a legal conception of a "spotless record" imputed to our account and which would not seem to get one out of the bind of Jesus' salvation coming through the Law.
Maybe if I phrase it differently, it'll clarify things.

The law does not create righteousness. You might argue that it reveals righteousness, but the fact of the matter is that what the law really reveals in sinfulness. The law does not add--it subtracts.

Jesus started perfectly righteous. He perfectly obeyed the law. He remained perfectly righteous.
Adam started perfectly innocent. He did not perfectly obey the law. He did not remain innocent.
The rest of mankind starts guilty (guilt that has been imputed from Adam). We do not perfectly obey the law, thereby making us personally guilty (rather than merely by imputation). At this point, we either die in our sins or Jesus imputes his righteousness to us. It's not Jesus' law-keeping that is imputed to us. It's his righteousness that has been demonstrated in his law-keeping that is imputed to us.
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 11917
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: We did communion wrong today.

Post by tuttle » Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:34 am

wosbald wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:29 pm
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 1:40 pm
wosbald wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:24 am
This seems to echo what I'd said above. Jesus never broke the Law, and so this spotless record of perfect law-keeping is imputed to our account. Jesus had to do that which Adam failed to do: Keep the Law (i.e. not break it) and, thus, restore friendship with God.

How is this "never breaking the Law" not to be conceived as deriving "righteousness by way of the Law"? How is this not to be conceived as "accomplishing friendship" by not breaking the Law?
Jesus never broke the Law. Yes.
And so this spotless record of perfect law-keeping is imputed to our account. No.

[…]

It is true that where Adam failed, Jesus succeeded. But even Scripture tells us that there is a difference between Adam's sin and defiance of the divine command which brought condemnation to mankind and the gift of righteousness of Christ:

[…]

So, "never breaking the law", is not the key that turns the engine. Christ is the fulfillment and lord of the Law. He is greater than the angels, greater than Moses, the giver of the Law: "Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses, just as the builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself." …
This certainly seems to put you at odds with the bulk (if not all) of the Reformed tradition, as I'm sure a little digging would reveal.
I think it might put me at odds with what you think of the Reformed tradition. That said, your questions here are actually really helpful in allowing what normally might be said (or thought of) in a sloppy way, or stated in-house with certain base assumptions left unsaid, to be cleaned up a bit. Nothing that I'm saying, insofar as I can tell, goes against Reformed theology.

That said, the Reformed tradition, with it's various snippetly named doctrines (ie. sola this, sola that, T.U.L.I.P, etc) does leave open the unintended consequence of confusion (as we've seen in the plethora of Sola Scriptura threads) for both proponents and opponents.
wosbald wrote:I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, of course, as it would seem to move you more toward a Catholic stance. Because what motive could there there for maintaining imputation, if not an extrinsic, legal righteousness?

At any rate, there is also the issue of the imputation of Christ's "active obedience", which goes along with the passive obedience of "not breaking the Law". I left this aside for convenience's sake, not only because the topic wasn't broached, but also because it doesn't seem to substantially alter the issue at hand. It seems to me that in both the cases of active and passive obedience, there operates a legal conception of a "spotless record" imputed to our account and which would not seem to get one out of the bind of Jesus' salvation coming through the Law.
Sir Moose wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:01 pm
It's not Jesus' law-keeping that is imputed to us. It's his righteousness that has been demonstrated in his law-keeping that is imputed to us.
great summation
"You're my kind of stupid" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

The Reformation Drinking Song

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 17811
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: We did communion wrong today.

Post by wosbald » Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:39 am

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:34 am
I think it might put me at odds with what you think of the Reformed tradition. That said, your questions here are actually really helpful in allowing what normally might be said (or thought of) in a sloppy way, or stated in-house with certain base assumptions left unsaid, to be cleaned up a bit. Nothing that I'm saying, insofar as I can tell, goes against Reformed theology.

That said, the Reformed tradition, with it's various snippetly named doctrines (ie. sola this, sola that, T.U.L.I.P, etc) does leave open the unintended consequence of confusion (as we've seen in the plethora of Sola Scriptura threads) for both proponents and opponents.
Sir Moose wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:01 pm
It's not Jesus' law-keeping that is imputed to us. It's his righteousness that has been demonstrated in his law-keeping that is imputed to us.
great summation
That summation sounds eerily like "Inherent Righteousness" (at which point, one seemingly wouldn't need to take a stand upon the extrinsic, legal framework of imputation).

But yes, by all means, do yer digging. The Reformed world is big, and I certainly know very little of it.

But in light of your earlier contention …
tuttle wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 1:40 pm
Jesus never broke the Law. Yes.
And so this spotless record of perfect law-keeping is imputed to our account. No
… lemme leave you, just as an appetizer-for-thought, with this snippet from the "Monergism" site:

An Introduction to the Gospel: A Covenant Theology Primer [NOTE: Ellipses in brackets are mine]
[…] What is the Righteousness of Christ?
Let’s look at a couple of important passages that give us a clue.

[…]

Let’s take a moment to draw out the critical truths which this passage [2 Cor 5:21] makes clear:

1) Jesus was absolutely sinless. Or to put it another way, Jesus was perfectly obedient to the law.

[…]

2) God made the sinless one “to be sin”. […] All of our sin was charged to Jesus Christ … who paid our penalty in full … all of our debts being cancelled.

[…]

3) That we might become the righteousness of God
What does he mean by “becoming the righteousness of God?” Many assume this means the righteousness which God requires of us. That in order to be received by God we must perfectly keep his holy law. This would be correct since God will damn those who do not come before him with perfect righteousness. God does require this perfect righteousness from us, but, in the gospel this is also the righteousness which He provides to us in Christ. Thanks be to God; for none of us would have the least glimmer of hope if we had to provide it ourselves. That is, God credits to us the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ. The good news of the gospel is that Jesus perfectly lived out and fulfilled the requirements for that righteousness. Then God takes that righteousness and credits it to us which we receive from Christ through faith.

[…]

Thus in 2 Cor 5:21 it means that God takes our sin and charges it to Christ and takes Christ’s perfect righteousness and credits it to us. […] The result of both of these is called justification. Just as if you had always obeyed, you are credited with the perfect righteousness of Christ. And just as if you had bore the penalty of your sin on the cross, Christ is credited with your sin. […]




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 11917
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: We did communion wrong today.

Post by tuttle » Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:27 am

wosbald wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:39 am
tuttle wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 1:40 pm
Jesus never broke the Law. Yes.
And so this spotless record of perfect law-keeping is imputed to our account. No
… lemme leave you, just as an appetizer-for-thought, with this snippet from the "Monergism" site:

An Introduction to the Gospel: A Covenant Theology Primer [NOTE: Ellipses in brackets are mine]
[…] What is the Righteousness of Christ?
Let’s look at a couple of important passages that give us a clue.

[…]

Let’s take a moment to draw out the critical truths which this passage [2 Cor 5:21] makes clear:

1) Jesus was absolutely sinless. Or to put it another way, Jesus was perfectly obedient to the law.

[…]

2) God made the sinless one “to be sin”. […] All of our sin was charged to Jesus Christ … who paid our penalty in full … all of our debts being cancelled.

[…]

3) That we might become the righteousness of God
What does he mean by “becoming the righteousness of God?” Many assume this means the righteousness which God requires of us. That in order to be received by God we must perfectly keep his holy law. This would be correct since God will damn those who do not come before him with perfect righteousness. God does require this perfect righteousness from us, but, in the gospel this is also the righteousness which He provides to us in Christ. Thanks be to God; for none of us would have the least glimmer of hope if we had to provide it ourselves. That is, God credits to us the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ. The good news of the gospel is that Jesus perfectly lived out and fulfilled the requirements for that righteousness. Then God takes that righteousness and credits it to us which we receive from Christ through faith.

[…]

Thus in 2 Cor 5:21 it means that God takes our sin and charges it to Christ and takes Christ’s perfect righteousness and credits it to us. […] The result of both of these is called justification. Just as if you had always obeyed, you are credited with the perfect righteousness of Christ. And just as if you had bore the penalty of your sin on the cross, Christ is credited with your sin. […]
I still think you are tripping up on the aspect that Jesus's sinlessness is a result of obeying the law. He did obey the law, because he was sinless.

I am sure I didn't help things by breaking up your sentence when I responded. Let me try to shut a gate that I didn't mean for anyone to wander down:

Your original sentence: Jesus never broke the Law, and so this spotless record of perfect law-keeping is imputed to our account
My answer: Jesus never broke the Law. Yes.
And so this spotless record of perfect law-keeping is imputed to our account. No

I see now that breaking up the sentence makes it look like I'm saying his spotless record was not imputed to our account. When I said "No" it was in reference to the "and so", meaning his perfect law keeping was not imputed to our account because he never broke the law. In other words, in the context of our discussion, his righteousness was not gained from never breaking the law, and it was not gained from always obeying the law. Our accounts are credited with his righteousness, and as Moose said, his perfect law keeping is evidence of his perfect righteousness. It is the proof in the pudding, the vindication that he is both the fulfiller and the lord of the law. The righteousness that we receive by faith from Christ is not the result of an achievement unlocked because Christ mastered the game.

It's a weird way of looking at it, I grant you that. But it is very much the biblical way of looking at it. I would venture to say that most Reformed theologians speak the way they do because they've never encountered an argument like this. They have all of this packed in already as an assumption, like the hidden code in a program, it's there but we aren't seeing it. But perhaps, since you are raising the question, it is an assumption that shouldn't be made. I'm actually glad you brought it up, even though I thought it was a strange question at first. Thinking about it outside of jargon has helped me see it better. And if it leans more toward Roman Catholic thought, it doesn't surprise me in the least, and while I'm sure there are still hard differences, it makes me glad that we at least are (seemingly) touching upon the same thing, even if from different sides.
"You're my kind of stupid" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

The Reformation Drinking Song

User avatar
Del
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Posts: 35486
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: We did communion wrong today.

Post by Del » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:23 am

Sir Moose wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:01 pm
wosbald wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 2:29 pm
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 1:40 pm
wosbald wrote:
Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:24 am
This seems to echo what I'd said above. Jesus never broke the Law, and so this spotless record of perfect law-keeping is imputed to our account. Jesus had to do that which Adam failed to do: Keep the Law (i.e. not break it) and, thus, restore friendship with God.

How is this "never breaking the Law" not to be conceived as deriving "righteousness by way of the Law"? How is this not to be conceived as "accomplishing friendship" by not breaking the Law?
Jesus never broke the Law. Yes.
And so this spotless record of perfect law-keeping is imputed to our account. No.

[…]

It is true that where Adam failed, Jesus succeeded. But even Scripture tells us that there is a difference between Adam's sin and defiance of the divine command which brought condemnation to mankind and the gift of righteousness of Christ:

[…]

So, "never breaking the law", is not the key that turns the engine. Christ is the fulfillment and lord of the Law. He is greater than the angels, greater than Moses, the giver of the Law: "Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses, just as the builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself." …
This certainly seems to put you at odds with the bulk (if not all) of the Reformed tradition, as I'm sure a little digging would reveal. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, of course, as it would seem to move you more toward a Catholic stance. Because what motive could there there for maintaining imputation, if not an extrinsic, legal righteousness?

At any rate, there is also the issue of the imputation of Christ's "active obedience", which goes along with the passive obedience of "not breaking the Law". I left this aside for convenience's sake, not only because the topic wasn't broached, but also because it doesn't seem to substantially alter the issue at hand. It seems to me that in both the cases of active and passive obedience, there operates a legal conception of a "spotless record" imputed to our account and which would not seem to get one out of the bind of Jesus' salvation coming through the Law.
Maybe if I phrase it differently, it'll clarify things.

The law does not create righteousness. You might argue that it reveals righteousness, but the fact of the matter is that what the law really reveals in sinfulness. The law does not add--it subtracts.

Jesus started perfectly righteous. He perfectly obeyed the law. He remained perfectly righteous.
Adam started perfectly innocent. He did not perfectly obey the law. He did not remain innocent.
The rest of mankind starts guilty (guilt that has been imputed from Adam). We do not perfectly obey the law, thereby making us personally guilty (rather than merely by imputation). At this point, we either die in our sins or Jesus imputes his righteousness to us. It's not Jesus' law-keeping that is imputed to us. It's his righteousness that has been demonstrated in his law-keeping that is imputed to us.
That's a bad starting point. I can now see how Calvin got off track.

I keep saying: Salvation is not specifically about righteousness (justification). Remember the key definition: Salvation = relationship with God. We are made for God, and we cannot be happy until we are resting in God.

Adam & Eve enjoyed an intimate relationship with God. Our first parents spoiled that. They lost their face-to-face relationship with God.

There is a key principle in philosophy: You cannot give something that you do not have. Adam & Eve lost humanity's relationship with God. They no longer had this to pass down to their children. We call this "original sin" and "Adam's guilt," but it what it really means is that we had to wait until God was ready to re-introduce Himself to us.

God did this in steps: First the call of Abraham, then the call of Moses. And finally, God took on our own human nature, and fully restored humanity into relationship with God with the Incarnation. But then Jesus did an astounding thing, giving us His own Flesh and Blood to be our food! So we can partake of God's nature, in a relationship that is even more intimate than the face-to-face friendship that Adam & Eve enjoyed.

There are still the matters of free will and sin, requiring individual repentance and restoration. The divine brilliance of the New Covenant is that each person now has the invitation to receive Christ. We are no longer universally separated from God, as it was after the sin of Adam. Now each and all of us have an opportunity to rest in Christ.

Coming back to justification: Somehow, Christ's incarnation, sacrifice, and establishment of His Church accomplished our justification. He granted us the right (righteousness) to stand before God in just judgment. He made us citizens of God's Kingdom, with righteous access to God's judgment, justice, and mercy.

Calvin stepped off of this path with his first premise. He decided that Christ's Church was wrong, and he attempted to reason using Guilt Alone (Total depravity). That's how he came up with a different gospel.
"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you." - Eph 4

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 11917
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: We did communion wrong today.

Post by tuttle » Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:34 am

Del wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:23 am
Calvin stepped off of this path with his first premise. He decided that Christ's Church was wrong, and he attempted to reason using Guilt Alone (Total depravity). That's how he came up with a different gospel.
Could you please expand on this (preferably without resorting to ad homineming Calvin in the process)?
"You're my kind of stupid" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

The Reformation Drinking Song

User avatar
Del
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Hacked by Kellyanne Conway
Posts: 35486
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: We did communion wrong today.

Post by Del » Thu Oct 12, 2017 12:28 pm

tuttle wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:34 am
Del wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 11:23 am
Calvin stepped off of this path with his first premise. He decided that Christ's Church was wrong, and he attempted to reason using Guilt Alone (Total depravity). That's how he came up with a different gospel.
Could you please expand on this (preferably without resorting to ad homineming Calvin in the process)?
I tried to do that above.

Are we using the same definition for "Righteousness/Justification"?

When I speak of righteousness, I mean "having the right to stand before God and seek God's judgment, justice, and mercy."
We only have this right when we have a relationship with God, as citizens of His Kingdom.

When Adam & Eve lost our relationship with God; we had to wait for God to restore us to His relationship. We had no access to know Him until Abraham, no access to His justice until Moses and the Law, and no access to His mercy until Jesus Christ. Over history, God spent the time teaching us how to repent, which is our necessary work to enter into His mercy. Thus, the missionary message of both John and Jesus was "Repent!"

Thus, as I see it, it was not really a matter of "inherited guilt" as the lawyer Calvin saw it. Guilty or not, we had no right to a trial!

I realize that this is not fundamentally Scriptural. It is a couple of building blocks stacked together on top of Paul's writing. Nothing new, just deeper understanding as Christians lived centuries with the Scripture and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

You may mean something entirely different when you speak of justification/righteousness, and perhaps we would have no disagreements once I understand your meaning.
"Utter frogshit from start to finish." - Onyx

"Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you." - Eph 4

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 17811
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: We did communion wrong today.

Post by wosbald » Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:33 pm

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:27 am
I see now that breaking up the sentence makes it look like I'm saying his spotless record was not imputed to our account. When I said "No" it was in reference to the "and so", meaning his perfect law keeping was not imputed to our account because he never broke the law. In other words, in the context of our discussion, his righteousness was not gained from never breaking the law, and it was not gained from always obeying the law. Our accounts are credited with his righteousness, and as Moose said, his perfect law keeping is evidence of his perfect righteousness. It is the proof in the pudding, the vindication that he is both the fulfiller and the lord of the law. The righteousness that we receive by faith from Christ is not the result of an achievement unlocked because Christ mastered the game.
I'm finding this conversation very engaging and encouraging, but I'm also finding certain dissonances with what I've cursorially encountered in Reformed sources. For example, here is John Piper quoting and riffing on Hodge [NOTE: Bolding added]:
[…] There is a great deal that can be said about this verse [2 Cor 5:21] but, when all is said and done, perhaps Charles Hodge has summed up its import best:
There is probably no passage in the Scriptures in which the doctrine of justification is more concisely or clearly stated than [this]. Our sins were imputed to Christ, and his righteousness is imputed to us. […]
[…]

Today, this precious doctrine that Christ's perfect keeping of the law is imputed to those who have faith in him is under attack in unexpected places. […]
Here, the bolded passages seem to indicate Piper claiming a strict identity between 1) Christ's righteousness and 2) Christ's perfect keeping of the law.

But what I see you doing — and correct me if I'm wrong — is drawing a distinction between the two, even to the point of suggesting that this distinction is an implicit commonplace. But I've neither seen this distinction advanced in any of the more mainstream Reformed sources, nor have I ever seen conceptual space cleared so as to accommodate it in an implicit manner. Rather, I've only seen the strict identity made increasingly firm and explicit.




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

User avatar
tuttle
Brother of the Briar
Brother of the Briar
Posts: 11917
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Middle-west
Contact:

Re: We did communion wrong today.

Post by tuttle » Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:31 am

wosbald wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 3:33 pm
+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:27 am
I see now that breaking up the sentence makes it look like I'm saying his spotless record was not imputed to our account. When I said "No" it was in reference to the "and so", meaning his perfect law keeping was not imputed to our account because he never broke the law. In other words, in the context of our discussion, his righteousness was not gained from never breaking the law, and it was not gained from always obeying the law. Our accounts are credited with his righteousness, and as Moose said, his perfect law keeping is evidence of his perfect righteousness. It is the proof in the pudding, the vindication that he is both the fulfiller and the lord of the law. The righteousness that we receive by faith from Christ is not the result of an achievement unlocked because Christ mastered the game.
I'm finding this conversation very engaging and encouraging, but I'm also finding certain dissonances with what I've cursorially encountered in Reformed sources. For example, here is John Piper quoting and riffing on Hodge [NOTE: Bolding added]:
[…] There is a great deal that can be said about this verse [2 Cor 5:21] but, when all is said and done, perhaps Charles Hodge has summed up its import best:
There is probably no passage in the Scriptures in which the doctrine of justification is more concisely or clearly stated than [this]. Our sins were imputed to Christ, and his righteousness is imputed to us. […]
[…]

Today, this precious doctrine that Christ's perfect keeping of the law is imputed to those who have faith in him is under attack in unexpected places. […]
Here, the bolded passages seem to indicate Piper claiming a strict identity between 1) Christ's righteousness and 2) Christ's perfect keeping of the law.

But what I see you doing — and correct me if I'm wrong — is drawing a distinction between the two, even to the point of suggesting that this distinction is an implicit commonplace. But I've neither seen this distinction advanced in any of the more mainstream Reformed sources, nor have I ever seen conceptual space cleared so as to accommodate it in an implicit manner. Rather, I've only seen the strict identity made increasingly firm and explicit.
Just so we are clear (I think we are but I want to avoid any unintended muddledness) I agree with Hodge and Piper's statements. That Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, and that Christ's perfect keeping of the law is imputed to us. I don't necessarily disagree with your evaluation of Piper's claim indicating a strict identity between Christ's righteousness and his perfect law-keeping. He very well could be intending that link. But, because I know Piper would agree that righteousness doesn't come from the law, I would give him the benefit of the doubt and say this linkage might be unintentionally saying what it's not.

Credit to you, I've not seen this type of distinction directly advanced either (to be clear, the distinction I'm drawing is that Christ did not derive his righteousness via the law and yet his passive/active obedience of the law is still credited to us), but to be fair, I really don't think that such a question has been pondered in mainstream Reformation theology. I've got to think that somewhere in 500 years of history it's been tangled with before. I still think that the distinction is underlying, hidden behind the statements...but again, credit to you, the more I think about this, the more it seems to be a rather glaring hole in thinking that hasn't been adequately addressed (again, as far as you and I can tell). And even more points to you, it would not surprise me in the least to find Reformed theologians/pastors throwing cold water on the distinction I'm making. The longer one dwells within a particular house the more likely it is he'll find the cracks and rotting boards. That is to say, I've seen my fair share of Reformed Christians who more or less have reverted to the law (or a part of the law), and it wouldn't surprise me to hear them advocate that Christ gained his righteousness from the law. And, shoot, as this discussion progresses, I don't even know if I want to be the voice of Reformed theology in this. I feel like Reformed theology has helped me here, but if the majority of Reformed believers differ with me on this (and I don't imagine they do...but if they do), well then, I guess we'll just have to differ on that specific point.

This has been a very encouraging discussion for me.
"You're my kind of stupid" -Mal Reynolds

"Better to die cheerfully with the aid of a little tobacco, than to live disagreeably and remorseful without." -CS Lewis

The Reformation Drinking Song

User avatar
wosbald
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Crux' Cleveland Correspondent
Posts: 17811
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 6:00 pm
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Contact:

Re: We did communion wrong today.

Post by wosbald » Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:49 pm

+JMJ+
tuttle wrote:
Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:31 am
This has been a very encouraging discussion for me.
+1




"In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph." - Our Lady of Fatima

Post Reply