We are saved from WHAT?

[dseusy]

Paidion wrote:
What you need to try to establish, if I understand your point of view correctly, is that righteousness is unnecessary, that one can live as wicked, self-serving life full of hate and rebellion and still be "saved" through the blood of Christ.

Righteousness is completely necessary but what I am trying to communicate is that the flesh cannot attain it. You and I disagree about the interpretation of Romans 7, so this may not be helpful, but someone who is full of rebellion isn't doing that which he doesn't want to do when he sins. The one who is doing what he doesn't want to do when he sins has a repentant heart and upholds the law.

Consider the man on the cross... he led a sinful life with no opportunity to fulfill the path of righteousness, yet because of his faith he went to be with Jesus. Abraham was justified by faith and received the covenant before obeying the law. We receive the Spirit before we do "righteous" deeds.

I kind of like your James and George example... that God cares about actual righteousness and not positional righteousness sounds good. However, I used to feel this way and tried to establish my actual righteousness. What I discovered is that I need positional righteousness because my actual righteous wasn't actually righteous. Positional righteousness is Christ's and is the only actual righteousness. I get to partake through faith so I am actually righteous.

Paidion wrote:
You indicated that my quote of Romans 2;:6-10 is speaking to those under the law. Paul doesn't say that . He says that God will render to EVERYONE according to his works! Not only to those under the law, but to those under the New Covenant:

For He will render to everyone according to his works.

You are right... Paul doesn't say that. Doesn't mean it isn't true, though. He states it elsewhere, and Jesus states what the works are which God requires... to believe in the One whom God sent. If you are doing that you will be rendered according to that work, but all other dead works will die with the flesh. Romans 4:8


I really appreciate your last paragraph. After this I think we are more on the same page than we both realize.

[dseusy]

Jeremiah wrote,

brother your posts seem a little patronizing.

I apologize. This is not my intention. I am not trying to insinuate that you are not yet in Christ- I can't see anyone's heart... God's in charge of that.

Jeremiah wrote,

shall we conclude you trust in your own sufficiency to be a doer of the word? why then do you think we trust in ours?

From some of the posts it seems as though rather than Jesus coming as a Savior, you and Paidion communicate that Jesus comes as a way shower and enabler to establish our righteousness... which, consequentially, saves us from hell. It sounds very LDS, where, we are saved after all we can do. Am I off?

[jeremiah]

good morning doug,

yeah man, that's why i didn't and don't see the dichotomy you see. i don't understand righteousness to be used (in the scriptures) in the way you defined it. complete moral perfection may be how the culture sometimes uses that word. but without even reading the whole of the new testament, or the old, a close circumspect study of paul's letter to the romans would demonstrate his flexible use of the word. all i mean is it seems to go too far in saying that if the supposed theological bias of translators was clear than all would be well and clear. i hear what you're saying, i just don't think it's that big of a deal. i think all people need is to know that δικαιοσυνη is used with a similar elasticity as πνευμα is at times, and that by taking a rigorous and honest look at the context of how paul and the other writers use righteous/just would do the job just fine. provided of course we come to the scriptures to be taught by them, and not to simply hear an echo of our own mind or what we heard they mean.

grace and peace brother...

[dwilkins]

good morning doug,

yeah man, that's why i didn't and don't see the dichotomy you see. i don't understand righteousness to be used (in the scriptures) in the way you defined it. complete moral perfection may be how the culture sometimes uses that word. but without even reading the whole of the new testament, or the old, a close circumspect study of paul's letter to the romans would demonstrate his flexible use of the word. all i mean is it seems to go too far in saying that if the supposed theological bias of translators was clear than all would be well and clear. i hear what you're saying, i just don't think it's that big of a deal. i think all people need is to know that δικαιοσυνη is used with a similar elasticity as πνευμα is at times, and that by taking a rigorous and honest look at the context of how paul and the other writers use righteous/just would do the job just fine. provided of course we come to the scriptures to be taught by them, and not to simply hear an echo of our own mind or what we heard they mean.

grace and peace brother...

Your posts would be easier to read if you capitalized words like everyone else.

It seems to me that your understanding of righteousness is a result of circular reasoning in the definition. You say that Paul has a pretty loose understanding of righteousness because of the context of the passages. But, I think what you are actually seeing is the difference between the two optional translations of dikaiosune available. Why don't you try translating some of the instances as righteousness and others as justification and see if that doesn't result in a proper use of the two words? Words mean things.

Doug

[Paidion]

You seem to be saying that no one can be righteous. How then can you receive eternal life?

That is exactly what I am saying. With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.

John who wrote 1 John, believed that it was not only possible to be righteous, but that if you aren't righteous, you are not a child of God:

No one who abides in him keeps on sinning; no one who keeps on sinning has either seen him or known him. Little children, let no one deceive you. Whoever practices righteousness is righteous, as He is righteous. Whoever makes a practice of sinning is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil. No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God’s seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God. By this it is evident who are the children of God, and who are the children of the devil: whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is the one who does not love his brother. (1 John 3:6-10 ESV)

John said that whoever practises righteousness IS righteous, not to let anyone deceive me on this point. So I won't. It's a matter of "practising righteousness" and not "practising sinning." Contrary to the Protestant and Fundamentalist "gospel", one doesn't go to hell because one has committed a single sin (or many sins) in the past. One goes to hell because one's nature if sin-sick, self-serving, and rebellious against God. Such a person must be changed, regenerated.The old self-serving person must be destroyed, and the new loving person who serves Christ and his fellow man must come forth. If it takes hell to do it, so be it!

As George MacDonald put it:
Not for any or all of his sins that are past shall a man be condemned; not for the worst of them does he need to fear remaining unforgiven. The sin in which he dwells, the sin of which he will not come out. That sin is the sole ruin of a man. His present live sins, those sins pervading his thoughts and ruling his conduct; the sins he keeps doing, and will not give up; the sins he is called to abandon, but to which he clings instead, the same sins which are the cause of his misery, though he may not know it --- these are the sins for which he is even now condemned.

Ecclesiastes 7:20

Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.

No one in this forum is arguing against this, nor is anyone of us saying that he/she has never sinned. So to argue that everyone has sinned is attacking a strawman. What you need to try to establish, if I understand your point of view correctly, is that righteousness is unnecessary, that one can live as wicked, self-serving life full of hate and rebellion and still be "saved" through the blood of Christ. Do you really believe the following scenario is a probability on judgment day? Two very evil people, James and George appear before the LORD on that day. Both have raped and torture and murdered. Neither has ever has a revolutionary change in his behaviour. The LORD consults his books. He announces, "James, I see that on February 17, 1990, you accepted Christ as your personal Saviour. Welcome to Heaven! Enter into the joys of the LORD! George, I see that you never did accept Christ. To hell with you! Off to eternal torment." It would be a most serious mistake to think that God cares about whether or not you "accepted Christ" thereby become "positionally righteous." God is not concerned about "positional righteousness"; He is concerned about actual righteousness.

You indicated that my quote of Romans 2;:6-10 is speaking to those under the law. Paul doesn't say that . He says that God will render to EVERYONE according to his works! Not only to those under the law, but to those under the New Covenant:

For He will render to everyone according to his works.

To those who by perseverance in well-doing seek for glory and honour and immortality,
He will give eternal life, but for those who are self-seeking and are not persuaded by the truth,
but are persuaded by unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.

Affliction and anguish for every person who does evil, but glory and honour and well-being for
every one who does good to the Jew and also the Greek, for God shows no partiality. (Romans 2:6-10)

Romans 3:20-24
"Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus"

The word translated "justified" is simply the verbal form of the noun translated as "righteousness." Sometimes this verb ought to be translated as "made righteous" or (if we need a single word) "righteousified".
So by keeping or attempting to keep the law, no one can be righteous—actually righteous. This REAL righteousness comes only through Christ. This is exactly why Christ died.

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. (1 Peter 2:24 ESV)

So yes, all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. But we can be made righteous through the enabling grace made available through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.

Paul wrote to Titus about this enabling grace:

For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all people, training us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and to live sensible, righteous, and devout lives in the present age, expecting the blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of the great God and of our Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good works. Declare these things; encourage and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you. Titus 2:11-15

So the grace of God TRAINS us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and to live sensible, righteous, and devout lives in the present age. There is a NECESSITY for a change of life style! He said Christ gave Himself to redeem us from what? FROM ALL LAWLESSNESS! To PURIFY for Himself a people who are ZEALOUS FOR GOOD WORKS! This way of life is not optional; it is a requirement for each and everyone.
Jesus said, "Unless you forsake all and follow me, you CANNOT be my disciple." He didn't say that we would be a poor disciple, or a non-functional disciple. He said we couldn't be His disciple AT ALL!

You didn't answer my question, "Do you adhere to all of God's law?"

What do you mean by "God's law"? Are you referring to the Mosaic code? If so, then I unequivocally answer, "NO!"
If by "God's law" you mean the law of Christ as He taught it in Matthew 5, 6, and 7, then I reply that it is my intention to do so. Of course I have not done so perfectly throughout my life, and I have committed serious sin in an earlier part of my life. If I keep on the narrow path (or difficult path), I trust I will be pleasing to God. Being righteous is not tantamount to being perfect (or complete).

...He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ. (Philippians 1:6)

[Paidion]

Homer, what do you mean by "justified"? Are you using it in the fundamentalist way as meaning "just as if I'd never sinned," that is to be counted as righteous, whether you are or not?
As I pointed out in my last post, the word often means "made righteous."

Also, the word ἁμαρτια, the word translated as "sin" more than any other word, came to mean any type of wrongdoing. True, it originally meant "missing the mark" but it no longer had that meaning during the days in which the New Testament was written.

[jeremiah]

Hello Doug,

I think it remains to be seen who (if either of us) is begging any questions here. Yes, I agree that words mean things.

You say that Paul has a pretty loose understanding of righteousness because of the context of the passages.

I said no such thing. Loose is what I might have said if I thought Paul never securely fastens down what he means, or if I thought he leaves himself room as he might in sarcasm or a pun. What I said was, "flexible use" and "elasticity" of use. What I meant was, as in not rigid, but able to bend and be seen from another angle without it's constitution being disturbed or damaged.

It seems to me that your understanding of righteousness is a result of circular reasoning in the definition....

Who's or which definition are you referring to here?

Grace and peace to you Doug...

[dwilkins]

I gave you two distinct definitions for righteousness and justification. I think it would help if you gave me the two distinct definitions that you prefer.

Doug

[jeremiah]

Good morning Dseusy,

From some of the posts it seems as though rather than Jesus coming as a Savior, you and Paidion communicate that Jesus comes as a way shower and enabler to establish our righteousness... which, consequentially, saves us from hell. It sounds very LDS, where, we are saved after all we can do. Am I off?

Whether what I'm saying sounds like LDS teaching I don't know, since orthodoxy is measured by a nose count in the minds of too many of God's people I'm not at all worried about sounding like them. Jesus, among other things of course, is indeed the guide of this way just as he is indeed the one through whom we are established. Your words seem to suggest that maybe I think he is only externally these things, as if I think we look to his example and study to copy how he did it, and that's sufficient for the child of God. If this is so, let me assure you that is not at all the case. His spirit dwelling in me is what makes me alive to even want to get up and walk the narrow path, the eternal breath of God quickens what was once dead in the condemnation first proclaimed and delivered to Adam and Eve.

If God is the source of our resurrection from that death (and of the resurrection to come), and remains the source all the way through this new life as we are his workmanship, then I could never long entertain a silly idea such as "after all I can do." Nevertheless, our minds and wills are cooperating with God who is working in us, being exercised by patient continuance in and through which God begins the work of showing his new creature how to function properly within the creature's families, and also within his own mind. It is after the inward man that all this is reckoned (I take the inward man to be the same as the new man, the new creature in Christ), I as a new creature in this new work that God is engaged in, am taught by his grace and given understanding of how my ways produce death but his life. It is this eternal life from God that now is, in which we partake in by his spirit that fills the new creature's lungs so to speak. And with this same breath the new creature is able to cry out, "Father," growing in God''s grace and thereby learning to walk; becoming evermore aware of the hope and longing of the eternal life that is to come. So the spirit of Jesus does indeed establish us.

Grace and peace Dseusy.

[jeremiah]

Dseusy,

Sorry man, I forgot to mention something. I think it is a big mistake to paint this as whether Jesus came as a saviour, or the other things. I think it is all of them and much more.