Daiquiri:

^
My two cents worth

Justification - Just-as-if-havent-sinned . . .

Righteousness - Nike. Doing the Right thing, at Right time and still be Right with God. Impossible, hence the Righteousness of God in Christ

Salvation - Salvaged from eternal damnation through the redeeming power of the blood of Jesus

PS: Death the product of sin?

Thanks for the above. I just browsed through some of your other posts, great posts.

5solas:

They are two types of righteousness-the righteousness we have of ourselves (this is inherent) and that we receive of God, for Christ's sake(this is imputed). On believing in Jesus the latter is imputed to the believer and God regards him as righteous. The whole point of the whole Bible is that we cannot be right with God (justified before Him) by doing what the law requires; it made grace,Christ's coming,death, burial,resurrection necessary.It made righeousness by imputation necessary.Read Philippians 3:3-9, see how Paul denounces the righteousness gotten by the law and esteem it and all things about /of himself as dung . And to this end ' that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having my own righteousness,which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:'vs 9. Know this , the righteousness of God by faith is OF GOD and is the RIGHTEOUSNESS IMPUTED , while that which comes from keeping the law (from works) is of SELF and is in truth SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS.
I hope I have done some clarification.

Sir, you've done nothing but repeat everything that you've been saying since . . .

There is only one righteousness:  Tsedeq, which is doing the will of God.  
I want to address that Phillipians passage on 2 levels.

On the first level I want to point out that it seems you don't really fully understand what paul is saying and the full scope of it.  
And on the second level I want to take issues with what Paul has said.

First:  You should have kept reading the passage through beyond verse 9 to see that you cannot really use Paul in this passage to defend your Calvinist position.  Let me quote what Paul continues to say.

     12Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but[b] I press on[/b] so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. 13Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, 14[b]I press on toward the goal[/b] for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

Paul does not at any point say that he has been made righteous and so therefore need not do any more in order to "attain the prize of the upward call of God".  It is the Calvinists that say this.  Yet Paul never said this.  So accepting Christ's righteousness that was 'imputed' to him did not mean that he had 'obtained it' or 'become perfect'.  There is still a lot of striving on his part, or as he put it he 'presses on toward the goal'.  

So you see Paul does not actually say anything here to support your position.

On the Second level,  Paul is actually on his favourite bone of contention, namely his issues with circumcision.  That is where the whole impetus of this passage is coming from.  In fact most of the time when Paul is stressing about the law it is because of this circumcision matter.  I even have a feeling that Paul wouldn't be so scathing about the Law as a whole if Circumcision wasn't a part of the law.  However in order to dismiss circumcision he finds himself in the tight corner of having to dismiss the entire Law as a whole.  Yet having to argue that we much yet uphold the law regardless of whether or not he has dismissed it.  

Yet of course, everything argument that Paul levels at circumcision could equally be levelled at baptism.  Yet there is no christian that will agree that it is possible to be a christian without being baptised.  It is all very messy.  

I can't help but scoff a little when Paul claims that as to righteousness of the Law he was blameless.  How true do you think that claim was?  Perhaps he was just saying that as a rhetorical devise in his letter and he didn't mean it as an actual fact.  


And one final thing.  You have to be very careful of a lot of the books that are out there talking authoritatively (but without actual authority) on christianity.  The greater part of them are written by Charlatans who haven't really properly studied the bible and don't actually even know the meanings of the terms that they find in the bible (either in the original greek/hebrew or in the translations into english).

hi sola, great reply. am a believer in once saved, always saved which is contrary to armianism. another thing is i see mix up of the following-righteousness by d law and righteosness by faith which is a gift. i dont work for a GIFT, i simply accept it as i believe its given in good faith.

@PastorAIO
You want to take issues with what Paul said? Very surprising.
Paul was a keeper of the law and in this passage one can understand his persecution of Christ's disciples - he thought they were making void the law through their teaching of GRACE and so when he persecuted them, he thought he was doing God service. It was only after his conversion that he realised that the teaching of grace does nor invalidate the law (commandments) but rather upholds Rom3:31. Faith is the spring from which all GOOD WORKS flow.

unphilaz:

hi sola, great reply. am a believer in once saved, always saved which is contrary to armianism. another thing is i see mix up of the following-righteousness by d law and righteosness by faith which is a gift. i dont work for a GIFT, i simply accept it as i believe its given in good faith.

Thanks, I am glad to know.
I agree with you, that's why I have tried to distinguish the two ways of being righteous .

i will look forward to those books and i believe issues of grace and righteousness that is not clear, by d grace of Yahweh will receive clarity.

please kindly share more you have discovered about this gift of righteous

Pastor AIO:


You will hold onto to your understanding of Salvation TILL DEATH.

Let me ask you.  Who Dies?  From the beginning was death not the product of Sin. 

If indeed you are considered Righteous by God, in spite of all your Sins, then why do you still Die?  If you die then what exactly is it that you've been saved from.  What does Salvation mean to you, cos I get the sense that you are only blowing that word like hot air from your mouth but it doesn't actually mean anything to you.

Are the Wages of Sin not Death?

Did God not promise that the Soul that Sins shall Die?  Only the Righteous shall live. So how are you going to be Righteous in God's eyes and yet Die?

^
[img]http://3.bp..com/_TvqdEdklDTM/TD3XS2rsKyI/AAAAAAAAAXo/Oe2f5XP7JZ0/s320/whocamefirst.gif[/img]

Waited for you to show your hand . . .

"but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." Gen 2:17

Causality Dilemma? Are you sure death is a product of Sin

But rather a product in its own right, that serves its own purpose

Is money the product of work too?

What came first? Death or Sin? Pre Eden or Adam that is.

5solas:

@PastorAIO
You want to take issues with what Paul said? Very surprising.
Paul was a keeper of the law and in this passage one can understand his persecution of Christ's disciples - he thought they were making void the law through their teaching of GRACE and so when he persecuted them, he thought he was doing God service. It was only after his conversion that he realised that the teaching of grace does nor invalidate the law (commandments) but rather upholds Rom3:31. Faith is the spring from which all GOOD WORKS flow.

I was a bit apprehensive about adding that part of my post cos I felt that you would jump on it and it would become a red herring.  And it seems that that is exactly what has happened.  You will not address anything else I said though it is more in line with the topic of our discussion. 

No wahala.  If Paul was persecuting christians because of their teachings of Grace (which included annulling circumcision) then please explain to me why after he had converted he still ended up arguing with Christians in Jerusalem (especially James) over this matter of circumcision and keeping the law.
I put it to you that the early christians did not teach annulment of the law and that is why they found it so shocking when Paul started preaching that circumcision wasn't necessary.   I say that you are making things up now.  Paul did not persecute christians for 'making void the law' as you put it. 


What do you have to say about these verses which continue on from the verses you quoted:

12Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. 13Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, 14I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

Daiquiri:

^
[img]http://3.bp..com/_TvqdEdklDTM/TD3XS2rsKyI/AAAAAAAAAXo/Oe2f5XP7JZ0/s320/whocamefirst.gif[/img]

Waited for you to show your hand . . .

"but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." Gen 2:17

Causality Dilemma? Are you sure death is a product of Sin

But rather a product in its own right, that serves its own purpose

Is money the product of work too?

What came first? Death or Sin? Pre Eden or Adam that is.

I don't really understand what you are saying here, but I'll try to answer your questions as best I can.

Are you sure death is a product of Sin

Yes I am sure.

But rather a product in its own right, that serves its own purpose

A product must have something that is producing it, ba?

Is money the product of work too?

I would say that wages were the product of work. Or should be, unless your boss wants to cheat you. What has money got to do with this discussion.

What came first? Death or Sin? Pre Eden or Adam that is.

I say Sin came first. I don't know about Pre-Eden or Adam even. What do you mean there?

unphilaz:

please kindly share more you have discovered about this gift of righteous

Symposium discussion wan start.

Pastor AIO:

I don't really understand what you are saying here, but I'll try to answer your questions as best I can.

Yes I am sure.
A product must have something that is producing it, ba?
I would say that wages were the product of work. Or should be, unless your boss wants to cheat you. What has money got to do with this discussion.
I say Sin came first. I don't know about Pre-Eden or Adam even. What do you mean there?

^

. . . Ba?

Its Monday morning. Eko holds no prisoners on Mondays. Dont fall for my hand. Dont dull

Was mimicking your wages of sin is death and your conclusion that death is the product of sin

So with your line of thought, wages of labour is money but money is a form of remuneration

and not neccessarily a product of labour and death is not a product of sin

"but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." Gen 2:17

From the above verse, does it look like sin existed before death? Why the guarantee there.

Death was produced (i.e. a product) created for a reason or purpose

Death is a preempted product

Daiquiri:

^

. . . Ba?

Its Monday morning. Eko holds no prisoners on Mondays. Dont fall for my hand. Dont dull

Was mimicking your wages of sin is death and your conclusion that death is the product of sin

So with your line of thought, wages of labour is money but money is a form of remuneration

and not neccessarily a product of labour and death is not a product of sin

"but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." Gen 2:17

From the above verse, does it look like sin existed before death? Why the guarantee there.

Death was produced (i.e. a product) created for a reason or purpose

Death is a preempted product

olboy, put it in chinese, it seems I'll have a better chance of understanding you then.



Or better still, forget it. It is not that pertinent to the thread. Unless you want to start another thread on the topic.

Pastor AIO:

olboy, put it in chinese, it seems I'll have a better chance of understanding you then.

Or better still, forget it. It is not that pertinent to the thread. Unless you want to start another thread on the topic.

Pram tantrum, throwing away the toy in a fit?

Necessity is the mother of invention, I believe death was created inanticipation of sin

This is as Chinese as you will get it.

Long enough to cover your assertion that death is a product of sin but short enough to keep things interesting . . .

Just like a skirt

Daiquiri:


Long enough to cover your assertion that death is a product of sin but short enough to keep things interesting . . .

Just like a skirt

For the skirt line, I will indulge you. But abeg let's talk about Righteousness and whether there is any striving or effort on the part of the christian towards salvation.

Or do you think that it is a formula that you utter with your mouth and straight away you are righteous regardless of whether you go on sinning or not.

Pastor AIO:



For the skirt line, I will indulge you. But abeg let's talk about Righteousness and whether there is any striving or effort on the part of the christian towards salvation.

Or do you think that it is a formula that you utter with your mouth and straight away you are righteous regardless of whether you go on sinning or not.

Daiquiri:


^
My two cents worth

Righteousness - Nike. Doing the Right thing, at Right time and still be Right with God. Impossible, hence the Righteousness of God in Christ

Recalling my earlier post, Righteousness is next to impossible if not impossible hence the Righteousness of God in Christ

No, not a formula because genuineness of the confession, genuineness of the faith, genuineness of the act etc from the onset (i.e. in the first place) matters

Regardless of whether you go on sinning or not (i.e. when one trips up) one can come boldly to the throne of Grace obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need

To cut the mustard, it is the Righteousness of God in Christ that makes one righteous.

Daiquiri:

Recalling my earlier post, Righteousness is next to impossible if not impossible hence the Righteousness of God in Christ

So do you think that a christian ought to strive towards righteousness, or should he just give up knowing that it is 'impossible'.

Pastor AIO:


So do you think that a christian ought to strive towards righteousness, or should he just give up knowing that it is 'impossible'.

^
Strive?. You made me chuckle.

Do birds strive to fly?

Why should "christians" strive?

Its work-in-progress and all about Grace

11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men
12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
Titus 2:11 - 12

PS  King's or Latvian Gambit, hmm, am wondering which is yours.

@Daiquiri
The problem comes when you then deem yourself Righteous simply because you say so. Or that you see yourself as such.
Do Christians strive to be righteous? or do they just go calling themselves righteous?
Grace means you don't try to rub into people faces that your are "graceful" there in no grace in that.
It is usually and attribute others give you. which you gracefully deny, but if you go about claiming that you have it, then you don't

"but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." Gen 2:17
This is actually a lie by omissions.
"but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil"
- first Adam.Eve did not know Good/Evil or whether eating from the tree was bad, they did not know that obeying God was good or not.
"for when you eat of it you will surely die"
They did not surely die, in fact it hard to establish whether they had lived long enough to tell the difference.
Did God explain to concept of death adequately?
Did they surely die, or did they live on earth for many years and died much later, (in all honesty Satan said the truth here)
Do you then think it fair to punish people when you have let so much room for misunderstanding?
and why put the tree there in the first place? why?

Pastor AIO:

I was a bit apprehensive about adding that part of my post cos I felt that you would jump on it and it would become a red herring.  And it seems that that is exactly what has happened.  You will not address anything else I said though it is more in line with the topic of our discussion.  

No wahala.  If Paul was persecuting christians because of their teachings of Grace (which included annulling circumcision) then please explain to me why after he had converted he still ended up arguing with Christians in Jerusalem (especially James) over this matter of circumcision and keeping the law.
I put it to you that the early christians did not teach annulment of the law and that is why they found it so shocking when Paul started preaching that circumcision wasn't necessary.   I say that you are making things up now.  Paul did not persecute christians for 'making void the law' as you put it.  


What do you have to say about these verses which continue on from the verses you quoted:

12Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on so that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. 13Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, 14I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.

You are complaining of red herrings? When you caught at my expression TILL DEATH, what did you think you were doing? From the context alone, was PHYSICAL death not  clearly implied?
He didn't argue with them, rather he was given a hand of fellowship and told to 'remember the poor' which he was very much disposed to (Gal.2:9 and 10).

5solas:

You are complaining of red herrings? When you caught at my expression TILL DEATH, what did you think you were doing?

Trust me, I totally regret it now.

Daiquiri:

^
Strive?. You made me chuckle.

Do birds strive to fly?

Why should "christians" strive?

Its work-in-progress and all about Grace

11 For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men
12 Teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
Titus 2:11 - 12

PS  King's or Latvian Gambit, hmm, am wondering which is yours.

Surely birds fly quite naturally, as it is their inclination. So I take it that Righteousness now comes as easily to you as flight comes to a bird.

It probably comes a lot easier because even the flying bird still makes a decision when it wants to fly and which direction it is going to fly in. But you, thanks to the grace of God, effortless resist lust, anger, and all other such sinful deeds that would make you unacceptable to God. I'm envious.

5solas:

Thanks for the above. I just browsed through some of your other posts, great posts.

I hear you but you the man! Sorry reply is a bit late

zataxs:

@Daiquiri
The problem comes when you then deem yourself Righteous simply because you say so. Or that you see yourself as such.
Do Christians strive to be righteous? or do they just go calling themselves righteous?

Most just go around calling themselves righteous even as they hurtle at an accelerating pace down the slippery slope to perdition.  While I don't think that these Calvinist teachings are to blame, they are certainly supportive of the delusion.

Pastor AIO:

Surely birds fly quite naturally, as it is their inclination. So I take it that Righteousness now comes as easily to you as flight comes to a bird.

It probably comes a lot easier because even the flying bird still makes a decision when it wants to fly and which direction it is going to fly in. But you, thanks to the grace of God, effortless resist lust, anger, and all other such sinful deeds that would make you unacceptable to God. I'm envious.

^
Cynicism  and melodrama doesnt suit you

No doubt birds practice in the nest

Have you ever watched young birds learning to fly?

Flying from one branch to another until success is achieved?

"Christians" too go through processing

but hey hear this out

I remember back in the day of when caught up in "company politics"

My boss call me in to the office and said "Dont worry, I've got your back. If anyone bothers you, they'll have me to answer to . . . "

It was a relief. It made me bold and walk tall - I might not have being right but I had my boss' back; the "righteousness" of my boss

It is the Righteousness of Christ, notice the choice of word there (i.e. not the Righteousness of Jesus)

Dont ignore the earlier quote "We are work-in-progress" (i.e. like as in the road works sign?)

God is a God of another chance,  chances all over again.

If you dont "effortless resist lust, anger, and all other such sinful deeds that would make you unacceptable to God"  then confess your sins, God is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (i.e.  1 John 1:9)

It is a goal-directed learning (i.e. the goal is the Righteousness of Christ - Doing the Right thing, at Right time and still be on God's Right hand side)

PS: PastorAIO & zataxs. Please examine what I call righteousness

Mr Daiquiri, as long as you are saying that it is a process and that you are growing then you are alright with me. The end goal being to become righteous, that is fine.

But if you are saying that you are already righteous in spite of all your wicked deeds, because of some magic formula and that you can continue to sin because you can easily pray for forgiveness and abracadabra all your sins are washed away, then you and me will have problems.

Jesus said if you forgive other people their sins then God will forgive you your sins, but if you do not forgive others then you too will not be forgiven.

Ezekiel says that if you turn from your sins then God will forgive you your past sins. Jesus too said repent.

If anyone says that forgiveness is unconditional then they are a liar. You have to turn away from your sins, and you have to forgive others too.

Pastor AIO:

Mr Daiquiri, as long as you are saying that it is a process and that you are growing then you are alright with me. The end goal being to become righteous, that is fine.

But if you are saying that you are already righteous in spite of all your wicked deeds, because of some magic formula and that you can continue to sin because you can easily pray for forgiveness and abracadabra all your sins are washed away, then you and me will have problems.

Jesus said if you forgive other people their sins then God will forgive you your sins, but if you do not forgive others then you too will not be forgiven.

Ezekiel says that if you turn from your sins then God will forgive you your past sins. Jesus too said repent.

If anyone says that forgiveness is unconditional then they are a liar. You have to turn away from your sins, and you have to forgive others too.

^
You made me chuckle, a couple of times all over, again.

I am not righteous but have the Righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ

and I do not "continue to sin because you can easily pray for forgiveness and abracadabra all your sins are washed away"

Of course, because of flesh, not fully under subjection (i.e. lust etc as you earlier succintly put it) shìt happens but I can be reassured that when the shìt hits the proverbial fan, I can boldly approach the throne of Grace with confidence for forgiveness (i.e. to obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need)

You have a lot of facts (e.g. Jesus said; Ezekiel says and if anyone says that forgiveness is unconditional) up there however with facts and reality, these at times, can be cheese and chalk

Dear friends,

When as a sinner you come to the throne of grace to obtain mercy for your sins, God forgives and the (undeserved) righteousness of God is imputed unto you. There and then, the burden of sin is lifted off you shoulder and mercy, grace and righteousness of God is given in return.

Notwithstanding, that does not give you and automatic passport to heaven! Jesus and the entire bible never for once thaught that when you're saved, you're forever saved irrespective of whether u go back to ur vomit or not. Now take for exampel: Judas Iscariot, he was saved but he later fell for the devil and his salvation was taken from him. What about Ananias and his wife Acts 5:5-10, they were born-again but they lost that rightness with God when they backslided. What about Demas, he was a confirmed born-again child of God in Colosians 4:14; but in 2Tim4:9, he forsook the way of the Lord, having loved the presence world.

If a christian is saved once and for all, then, there wont be need for us to "flee all youthful lusts" there wont be need for Jesus to tell us to "fast and pray so you dont fall into temptation" there wont be need for Paul to tell us to "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling".

When you're saved, Christ gives you the power to go and sin no more. But, you must deligently use that grace and run from every appearance of evil. Remember, it is only those who endures to the end that will be saved and faith without WORK is dead!

Dont be the five foolish virgins

Daiquiri:

Recalling my earlier post, Righteousness is next to impossible if not impossible hence the Righteousness of God in Christ

No, not a formula because genuineness of the confession, genuineness of the faith, genuineness of the act etc from the onset (i.e. in the first place) matters

Regardless of whether you go on sinning or not (i.e. when one trips up) one can come boldly to the throne of Grace obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need

To cut the mustard, it is the Righteousness of God in Christ that makes one righteous.

Very sound post.

Daiquiri:

I hear you but you the man! Sorry reply is a bit late

It is alright. I am enjoying your posts.

@PastorAIO
Still on righteousness,don't you just love this passage:
[Quote]  Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and NOT by the WORKS OF THE LAW: for by the WORKS OF THE LAW shall no flesh be justified.
I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if RIGHTEOUSNESS come by LAW, then Christ is dead in vain Gal.2:16,21.
[/Quote]
If the righteousness that result in salvation  comes from keeping the law/commandments, doing good works, then Christ is dead in vain.
Anytime we see righteousness being used we must find out if it is the one of self or that imputed, it helps in the understanding of passages. A very wise Nairalander once said, 'context is king' !

@Unphilaz
So as I was saying, Arminianism is from the PIT. I read articles upon articles on Calvinism and Arminianism and found out one day how Arminianism started and was quite surprised that it came after Calvinism. I had been thinking that Calvinism was an improvement on the revelation we had as christians. Before  the year about 1580, nothing was known about Arminianism, there was no talk of the possibility of lose of salvation. In the early years of this century Martin Luther carried out his crusade against the Roman Catholic Church insisting that salvation comes so free that no amount of endearvouring nor preparation nor good deeds was necessary to get it. He was opposed by the RCC who were,are and will forever be the most ardent enemies of the doctrine of GRACE and of free justification.With the success of the reformation, the RCC launched a counter-reformation, it was aimed at eroding the gains of the reformation. It was about this time that Arminianism was spawned and not a few proptestants believed its origin to be from the RCC. It is named after Jacobus Arminius who professed to subscribe to protestant teachings, however he was found to be unorthodox in his views on grace. He was a professor at Leiden in Holland and secretly taught his students doctrines that were more in accordance to the RCC's doctrine than protestant with the results that the students when on holidays would question their own doctrine. Reformed believers were alarmed at this development and asked Arminius to state were he deferred in his believes from them, he would use all the tricks in the book to elude them and die some years later without making his views known. In about 1610 his followers came out with a document they called the REMONSTRANT in which they stated five points in which they disagreed with the established church. These events were happening in Holland.
The five points are:
1.That man was not totally depraved
2.That election was conditional on forseen merit
3.That Christ death was for all men and not just for the elects
4. That grace was resistible
5.That it should be considered if it was not possible for a believer to lose salvation.
The reformed church called for an international synod to consider these points and after due delibration lasting days, Arminianism was UNANIMOUSLY REJECTED.
Its adherent would however spread their false doctrine 'underground' according to one of their own.
The Canons of Dordt (the synod was held at Dordt)was formulated to check the false doctrines of the Arminians.
Is it not a wonder that what is being taught as 'gospel' today is what the established protestant church rejected?
No less a minister than the Rev. Augustus M. Toplady (author of the hymn,'Rock of Ages)asserted that Arminianism was the RCC's creation and he asserts that in England all Archbishops before Archbishop Laud were Calvinistic (reformed) in their theology and that Laud was the first deviation and when he died amongst his papers was a letter in which the writer jubilated over the Arminianism they had planted in the protestant churches and what fruit it was bearing.Google the  article, 'Arminianism:The Road To Rome'.
More later,please.
I sincerely hope I have not bored you.