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.tuttle wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:37 amI 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.wosbald wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 10:06 amI'm not only going by the soteriology followed by Reformed/Calvinistic theologians. I'm going by what Jester said earlier in this thread:
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"?
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. …
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?