Back to the Garden...or not.

[Arial]

Yes, I believe all of the redeemed will stand only in the 'imputed righteousness' of Christ.

To which I counter that is how we stand in this age, before Christ returns. And by stand I mean both our position before God as justified, and our perseverance to the end because we can no longer be condemned. When Christ returns all the wicked unbelievers, Satan, the source of all evil, and all his own spiritual (real but invisible) army are destroyed; gone; wiped out of existence in any place but the lake of fire. Impotent. And we who are in Christ, both those who are resurrected having already died, and those who remain alive at his coming, are changed. No longer able to die and no longer corrupt or corruptible. We got there by the imputed righteousness of Christ. But then we are truly righteous, otherwise God would not dwell with us as he does in Rev 21 and as he did in Eden.

Consider the finality of the other two imputations. 1.) Adam's sin imputed to the human race. That is true forever. 2.) The human race's sin imputed to Christ. We certainly don't want that to change. And it won't, it is forever. 3.) Christ's righteousness imputed to the believers. Why should that be temporary?

What Christ accomplishes on the cross is not only the forgiveness of our personal sins but also the imputed sin of Adam. That is why we are said as believers, to be in Christ. The "in Christ" is the opposite of what it is to be "in Adam." God takes his children out of Adam through the work of Christ, and places us in the Son. That is why his righteousness is imputed to us, to keep us in him while we await his return. It is a right now, not yet situation. All those who are elected to be in Christ must be gathered first.

In other words, the imputed righteousness of Christ to us is a 'faith based righteousness'. (Philippians 3:9) "...the righteousness which is of God by faith." Once there I suppose 'faith' is no longer a factor. But that which faith has secured here doesn't seem to change. Our salvation, eternal life, etc. etc. So, why would our imputed righteousness change?

Because he is making us truly righteous. The imputed righteousness carries us to that state of being truly righteous. Truly righteous will never sin again, nor can it, because there is no sin at that point. It changes because we are changed, (1 Cor 15).

When you say 'actually righteous' are you saying, our righteousness will no longer be imputed, but will be God's righteousness? Our righteousness will no longer be a faith based righteousness, but it will be our righteousness?

Yes, though to say "it will be our righteousness" can be taken in different ways. We will be actually righteous---that is, sin will no longer be a part of us in our nature or in our actions, or anywhere else. We won't be in Adam anymore and we still are, in our flesh, right now. We still live in the fallen world, We are still fallen. We still have the same enemies----the world, the flesh, and the devil. We are kept for Christ, sealed in him by the Holy Spirit indwelling us, through imputed righteousness, through faith. So it is not our righteousness at the consummation, in the sense that we obtained to it on our own. It comes from the person and work of Christ. But it is real righteousness.

(2 Cor. 5:21) "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." That is imputed righteousness. 'In Him'.

It is imputed now. That is, counted as though it is our own in the eyes of God. It gives us access to him and reconciles us to him, but this age is not the end of the story. It is the age we must travel through and we can only do so safely beneath the shadow of his wings, as his children and members of his household, to the promised land which is described in Rev 21, without being condemned to face his judgement and wrath. We were given to Jesus and his imputed righteousness is what keeps us in him until he returns.

 

[Josheb]

That's a good and relevant point, but seems to me pretty temporally described. But maybe I read this wrong.

Maybe I am misreading the posts.

The fact that might be the case for either of us is part of the problem to be solved. All either of us have is the text on our electronic devices. We have no clue what was intended unless that is stated. None of us are mind readers. It is incumbent upon each of us to post well. It's also incumbent upon us to forbear with kindness and patience those who don't handle language well because when the occasion to clarify a seeming contradiction or correct a real contradiction then asking and relying upon that to happen in goodwill is the call of every Christian here.

The matter of imputation was intended to be understood as a temporary condition, then a simple statement to that effect is all that is needed. I will then correct my understanding and post accordingly.

When we are there, I'd say, what we called here, "imputation", is there our very status and being, IN CHRIST. His very body. His Righteousness. We are enveloped, absorbed, swallowed up in his righteousness.

Well.... I do not want to take this conversation too far afield of the op. A survey of the New Testament's use of "righteousness," as it applies to the saints, is one of the classic already/not-yet. Scripture speaks of us being righteous, and the righteous practicing righteousness. It also plainly states no one is righteous but God. It also describes, as I believe I posted, a future righteousness that is our own, not one merely imputed to us. Imputed righteousness is fundamentally different than ontological righteousness and the goal, according to Jesus, is to be righteous as our Father in heaven is righteous. That's not merely a statement about conduct. Acting righteous and being righteous are not the same.

As you seem to me to be saying, it is no longer (in Heaven) a matter of need for imputation, because there, sin is no longer an issue to be resolved. Yet the fact of Christ's righteousness (which here must be imputed to us) there becomes our very definition and existence. I think this is what John 17 is talking about. We are become that, which we are not altogether here, nor were A&E in their innocence before the fall, altogether In Him.

Yes. I do not make distinctions between heaven and earth on the other side of resurrection that some make so, again, I don't want to take this conversation you and I are now having too far afield from the op. In the beginning (Gen. 1:1) there is an implied separation between the heavens and the earth that is further articulated throughout the scriptures. When the New Jerusalem comes to earth, however, the implication is that separation no longer exists. Earth becomes a part of the heavens, and both are restored to a pristine state where sin and curse are gone and no longer possible. Again, I reiterate my intent not to go far afield of the op, but it is worth mentioning this is a very real problem for Dispensationalism. Revelation 22:10-11 is the second coming and that defines this op a great deal because the work of God making man is then complete. The saints are made righteous, incorruptible and immortal, like Jesus resurrected and ascended. In addition, Jesus was there in the garden as the tree of life. I haven't read much if any reference to that fact. It's important because the incompleteness/completeness of Adam and Eve (and, by extension, all their progeny) is inescapably tied to that fact.

 

[makesends]

I'm okay with that being the case. A simple statement to that effect would go a long way. A winking emoji when first posted would have prevented any misunderstanding.

Me too!

The angels and devils are in the details .

Adam and Eve were made good; good, unashamed, and sinless.* That goodness necessitates them also being good morally and, therefore, "good moral agents," as you put it. However, as I just posted, 1 Corinthians 15 tells us we humans were "sown" corruptible. We were not made already corrupted. We were made without any corruption existing at the time of our creation. EVerything was good and there was no sin in the world. However, God, in His wisdom and might made us able to be corrupted, corruptible, or perishable.

• Not -corrupt (sinless)
• Corruptible
• Corrupt
• Incorruptible

Those are the options. God made A&E the first and second. A&E then became the third. One day those in Christ will become the fourth. When put in the context of the opening post, what God began in Eden at Genesis 1:27 will be completed or finished with the resurrection when the saints will be made incorruptible and immortal.


Once this is understood then the problem of sin has an entirely different meaning AND the problem to be solved (from the human perspective) turns out to have very little, if anything, to do with sin! The "problem" to be solved is the corruptibility. At Genesis 3:6-7 that problem was added to. Humans were then both corruptible and corrupted. Now there are two problems, not one. The first problem is ontological. A fundamental change in the human constitution needs to happen. Sinfulness defines corruption. Sin does not define corruptibility. Adam and Eve were made sinless, but they are also made corruptible. It is, therefore, possible to be sinless and corruptible, but it is not possible to be sinless and corrupt. Those two conditions are mutually exclusive of one another. Humanity (or at least the saintly portion of it) needs to be changed from corruptible to incorruptible (which is what Jesus is). If we're incorruptible then there is absolutely no possibility that we would/could/might ever be corrupt. Until that day when we are made incorruptible, we humanity remains both corruptible and corrupt.


And, if I understand the op correctly, then I think that is what @Lees is attempting to say with this op.








* Gen. 1:31, Gen. 2:25; Rom. 5:12 = good, unashamed, and sinless.
.

There is something often lost in these (and related) discussions, about God's way of viewing things that modern man usually misses, I think. We admit to the truth of individuality, and God's dealing with the individual and his particularity which is logically necessarily part of his dealing and purposes within the larger themes. Those insisting on self-determinism will claim only the larger themes, (and certain individual themes, neglecting the logical implications about God's particular purposes for absolutely all fact).

But God created more than just individuals, though the humanity he created is comprised of individuals. That is, he sees humanity as what he had in mind from the beginning, for his dwelling place --the Body of Christ. (To me that has implications into just what the individual reprobate are worth to him. I'm pretty sure the only goodness, virtue or value we consider endemic to them, is not intrinsic in them, but is, rather, what God is doing to them for his own purposes --but that's another subject). We whom he created and transformed to be the members of the Body of Christ are a unit comprised of individuals, but a unit, nonetheless --even a living being, in some sense-- the humanity that he had in mind from the beginning. 'Sin removed' parallels 'the reprobate gone', poetically enough.

Our discussions usually revolve around the individual, and not the nation, not the whole Body of Christ. But God doesn't think with our modern point-of-view. Admittedly, every individual 'cell' of the Bride of Christ is infinitely precious to him, but the Bride of Christ is what he had in mind when he created.

 

[Josheb]

There is something often lost in these (and related) discussions, about God's way of viewing things that modern man usually misses, I think. We admit to the truth of individuality, and God's dealing with the individual and his particularity which is logically necessarily part of his dealing and purposes within the larger themes. Those insisting on self-determinism will claim only the larger themes, (and certain individual themes, neglecting the logical implications about God's particular purposes for absolutely all fact).

But God created more than just individuals, though the humanity he created is comprised of individuals. That is, he sees humanity as what he had in mind from the beginning, for his dwelling place --the Body of Christ. (To me that has implications into just what the individual reprobate are worth to him. I'm pretty sure the only goodness, virtue or value we consider endemic to them, is not intrinsic in them, but is, rather, what God is doing to them for his own purposes --but that's another subject). We whom he created and transformed to be the members of the Body of Christ are a unit comprised of individuals, but a unit, nonetheless --even a living being, in some sense-- the humanity that he had in mind from the beginning. 'Sin removed' parallels 'the reprobate gone', poetically enough.

Our discussions usually revolve around the individual, and not the nation, not the whole Body of Christ. But God doesn't think with our modern point-of-view. Admittedly, every individual 'cell' of the Bride of Christ is infinitely precious to him, but the Bride of Christ is what he had in mind when he created.

I agree.

The op is 100% correct saying the humans God made in six days were incomplete. The op is 100% incorrect stating fall of man was necessary to elevate man far beyond what he was in the Garden. Correctly understood, the fall is irrelevant. God's plan for humanity was going to happen, going to be finished, whether sin ever happened or not. God's plan was some encompassing that it easily accommodated the occurrence of sin without any need for any adjustments on God's part. Man changed. God did not. Jesus was always going to come into the world, whether or not sin ever existed. He and he alone is the only way to the Father, and he is and always has been the resurrection, and he is the resurrection and the life whether sin ever exists or not. From the beginning it was appointed for humans to die once and then face judgment. These are not changes to the original plan. They are the original plan.

There's a certain irony to all of this because we're definitely not going back to the garden, but the garden is coming to us.


Revelation 21:22-22:5
I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb. The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it. In the daytime (for there will be no night there) its gates will never be closed; and they will bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it; and nothing unclean, and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life. Then he showed me a river of the water of life, clear as crystal, coming from the throne of God and of the Lamb, in the middle of its street. On either side of the river was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit every month; and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. There will no longer be any curse; and the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his bondservants will serve him; they will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. And there will no longer be any night; and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever.


Pretty cool

 

[Arial]

I don't believe God put His arch enemy, Satan, in the garden. Satan is still a free moral, spiritual agent. God allowed Satan to enter the garden.

Put/allowed is just a matter of semantics. But as an aside, "free moral agent" must be defined as to what you mean by "free". Otherwise the fact that God allowed Satan to enter the garden and Satan can only do what God allows him to do and "free" are contradictory.

God allowed Satan to be in the garden in the form of the serpent because God's purpose intended that he would be there. Therefore, it also be said that he put him there. Did he ask permission to be there? The Bible is silent on them matter. My speculation is that he probably did and for the purpose in Satan's mind that he could win this war that was about to ensue when Adam fell and sin and corruption entered the creation. Gen 3:15 is a declaration of war by God on Satan and the evil that is a part of him. But like I said, that is just a guess based on what happened over the course of history and the history of redemption, and the end result.

The question is why God would create this universe and allow Satan to engage with it. I believe the answer is in the message of Job.

Job 1:1 There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job, and that man was blameless and upright, one who feared God and turned away from evil.

That is a case of presuming that "blameless and upright" here is saying that there was no sin in Job and that he had never sinned. But the Bible tells us that is not the case of any man. "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." The standard to which we are to be needs to be raised. God's goodness is the standard of sinlessness. So what it says above is Job's manner of living and conducting his affairs. He is what we would call a "good man".

Satan was allowed to test Job:

It was God who was testing Job. Satan was just providing the tests. It was God who brought Job to Satan's attention in the first place.

Satan then takes Job's property and children. The rest of Job is a very detailed story of Job's reaction and handling of all that Satan was allowed to inflict upon him. In the end, Job remained faithful. He abided (abode?) with God.

Job 42:10 And the LORD restored the fortunes of Job, when he had prayed for his friends. And the LORD gave Job twice as much as he had before.

You left out the most important part, which was not the restoring of Job's wealth. The important part began in Job 38-41 when God speaks to Job directly, revealing the magnitude of who He is, and Jobs reaction 42:1-6 Then Job answered the Lord and said: "I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. 'Who is this that hides counsel without knowledge?' Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. 'Hear, and I will speak; I will question you and you make it known to me.'

I had heard of you by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees you; there fore I despise myself, and repent in dust and ashes."

Take heed to the words of God to Job, and to Job's reaction to hearing it.

The story of Job is in a very real sense the story of all of us. We begin blameless and upright. At some point we are hit with the attempts of Satan to distract us from God. If we remain true to God throughout our trials and temptations we will, in the end, be restored to our final reward in the kingdom of so much more than anything we have or might have in the here and now. The story of Job is contained wholly withing the timeframe of life in this earthly realm. I believe it is symbolic of our spiritual lives encompassing both the timeframe of life in this earthly realm and in the reward of the future life to come.

I heartily disagree with the theology and doctrine contained in the above. It misses the point of Job 38-41:1-6 altogether. Job's friends didn't get it either, even though they said many things that were true about God. They spoke without knowledge and did not repent of it.

I believe the whole purpose of God creating this universe including the spiritual being, man, seeking those who willingly of their own free will choose to honor, obey and love God as Job did, in spite of Satan's attempts to thwart him. To those, not only will God reward them with eternal life, He will reward them in the here and now with His direct assistance through the Holy Spirit in helping them hold fast through the trials and temptations by Satan.

Man is not a spiritual being. He is flesh and blood formed out of the dust and Eve of bone. The post content is also arrived at through what I consider to be incompatible with sound doctrine, but this is not the place to derail this thread to. In addition it is rewards based and reward motivated.

I believe the picture is our redemption. It is the Jobs of mankind who love God. It is those that he, foreknowing them, predestines, calls, justifies, and glorifies (Rom 8:38-30).

If one just looks for application of scriptures before determining or ever determining their meaning, there is a danger of lots of false assumptions and even unsound doctrines being derived from doing that. Job is not a picture of anything. It is an historical account in which God declares who he is; evidence of humans determining what he is doing only by what they can see (Job's friends); deciding what he is doing within the limits of their own view of what he will do and always does do (Jobs friends); the anguish of man in the midst of suffering, questioning why it seems the God he loves and honors is silent in the midst of that suffering (Job); and does so without rejecting God in his anger (Job); and recognizes his own arrogance and presumption and how small was his knowledge of God in that arrogance and presumption, when God gives him a chewing or so to speak, and falling on his face in shame before the Almighty, Holy, God. (Job)

 

[JIM]

Put/allowed is just a matter of semantics.

No @Arial, it is not just a matter of semantics. What God does or causes is significantly different from what God allows.

But as an aside, "free moral agent" must be defined as to what you mean by "free". Otherwise the fact that God allowed Satan to enter the garden and Satan can only do what God allows him to do and "free" are contradictory.

Free moral agent is one who is free to choose to obey God or not.

God allowed Satan to be in the garden in the form of the serpent because God's purpose intended that he would be there.

God knew Satan would be there.

Therefore, it also be said that he put him there.

Not true at all.



A critical issue in the message of Job relative to all of this is Job 1:10. God did not and had not put a hedge around Job. Job was a free moral agent and demonstrated that throughout the entire book.

 

[Arial]

I am not saying that Adam and Eve were openly declaring they were in their own righteousness. I am saying that because God created them sinless, their own righteousness is what they were in. But, this is the beginning of what God wanted, which is to have them as righteous as God.

I know what you are saying. But let me ask this: How are they in their own righteousness if it is God who created them righteous?

I still say, they were created as righteous as God, but capable of becoming unrighteous---which is what they did. They were created in his image and likeness. They just weren't created AS God, but AS a creature.

For example: Did God give the Law to Moses and Israel? Yes He did. Did that Law require sacrifices for sin to be brought before God? Yes it did. But note what David said in his penitence toward God concerning his sin of adultry and murder.

(Ps. 51:1-2) "Have mercy upon me, O God, according to thy loving kindness...Wash me throughly from mine iniquity, and clense me from my sin."

(Ps. 51:4-6) "Against thee, thee only, have I sinned, and done this evil in thy sight....Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom."

(Ps. 51:16-17) "For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burn't-offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit: a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not despise."

In other words, David is saying, God has required the animal sacrifice for sin, but that is not really what God is after. The animal sacrificial system was a means to an end. Not the end. And David, because he had a heart after God, (1 Sam. 13:14) (Acts 13:22), knew God, and knew what God really wanted. Quite an understanding seeing David was still under Law. And God had mercy on David as he should have died for his sin.

That is all post fall, not pre fall. The animal sacrificial system was temporary until Christ had come and served a purpose for when he would come. It is a part of the history of redemption. I never said it was the end, implied it was the end, or believe that it was the end. But it no way that I can see, has anything to do do with how Adam and Eve were created or their righteousness at creation. What they fell from, and all of us along with them, was that righteousness. Hince it is called a "fall". Hence it is what Christ comes to undo, and does undo.W

I disagree. In the New Heaven and New Earth, we will be righteous only in the declared righteousness that results from being in Christ. (Philippians 3:9) "And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith."

Well, I am not going to repeat what I have already said a number of times in a number of different ways.

This is why I say, the day we are born-again, we are just as righteous as we will ever be for all eternity.

In which case, logicall, Jesus would not have taken us out of Adam and in the restored creation with God dwelling with us, we would still be in Adam. Which would mean that we are still sinners in Adam, even if we are counted as righteous. And a sinful nature is sinful. How do you interpret 1 Cor 15?

 

[Arial]

A critical issue in the message of Job relative to all of this is Job 1:10. God did not and had not put a hedge around Job. Job was a free moral agent and demonstrated that throughout the entire book.

Job 1:9-12 Then Satan answered the Lord and said, "Does Job fear God for no reason? Have you not put a hedge around him and his house and all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land. But stretch out your hand and touch all that he has, and he will curse you to your face." And the Lord said to Satan, "Behold, all that he has is in your hand. Only against him do not stretch out your hand." So Satan went out from the presence of the Lord.

Are you implying that Satan lied to God's face when he said God had put a hedge around Job blessing and protecting all that God gave him? Do we see God denying that what Satan said was true?

No, the really sad thing is that here, and in other places in Scripture (as when demons know exactly who Jesus is) we see that Satan knows God far better than a great many born again believers do. He knows no one has anything good unless God gives it and all that they have comes from him. He knew that God is truly sovereign over his creation, not just theoretically sovereign. or in name only.

And Satan or his activity is not mentioned again after chapter 1, so no there is no demonstration of what you call a "free moral agent" regarding him throughout the book of Job. Satan has moral agency but it is not free. He cannot choose what is good. He can only choose what is evil because he is evil.

 

[Josheb]

I don't believe God put His arch enemy, Satan, in the garden. Satan is still a free moral, spiritual agent. God allowed Satan to enter the garden.

Yikes!

If God is almighty, then He has no enemies beyond what He permits. If Satan has sinned then he is not free, morally or otherwise. Rejecting God put Satan in the garden because He allowed Satan to enter it is hairsplitting and it defies the fact Adam and Eve were in charge of, and had authority and power over, all the creatures in the garden.

 

[Lees]

True, but, as I think you would agree with the point, there it is not anymore imputed to us as though to separate entities, but IS us.

This I say in keeping with the "already but not yet" theme, but also with the absolute glorification/transformation into complete unity with the Son of God and with each other. The quality of it, we already have, but not to the degree we will there.

No, I would not agree, if I understand you correctly. When we are there in eternity, in Heaven, we will still be in the imputed righteousness of Christ.

As I have said several times, throughout all eternity we stand in the imputed righteousness of Christ.

To be 'in Him' is to be clothed in that imputed righteosness.

Lees

 

[Lees]

To which I counter that is how we stand in this age, before Christ returns. And by stand I mean both our position before God as justified, and our perseverance to the end because we can no longer be condemned. When Christ returns all the wicked unbelievers, Satan, the source of all evil, and all his own spiritual (real but invisible) army are destroyed; gone; wiped out of existence in any place but the lake of fire. Impotent. And we who are in Christ, both those who are resurrected having already died, and those who remain alive at his coming, are changed. No longer able to die and no longer corrupt or corruptible. We got there by the imputed righteousness of Christ. But then we are truly righteous, otherwise God would not dwell with us as he does in Rev 21 and as he did in Eden.

What Christ accomplishes on the cross is not only the forgiveness of our personal sins but also the imputed sin of Adam. That is why we are said as believers, to be in Christ. The "in Christ" is the opposite of what it is to be "in Adam." God takes his children out of Adam through the work of Christ, and places us in the Son. That is why his righteousness is imputed to us, to keep us in him while we await his return. It is a right now, not yet situation. All those who are elected to be in Christ must be gathered first.

Because he is making us truly righteous. The imputed righteousness carries us to that state of being truly righteous. Truly righteous will never sin again, nor can it, because there is no sin at that point. It changes because we are changed, (1 Cor 15).

Yes, though to say "it will be our righteousness" can be taken in different ways. We will be actually righteous---that is, sin will no longer be a part of us in our nature or in our actions, or anywhere else. We won't be in Adam anymore and we still are, in our flesh, right now. We still live in the fallen world, We are still fallen. We still have the same enemies----the world, the flesh, and the devil. We are kept for Christ, sealed in him by the Holy Spirit indwelling us, through imputed righteousness, through faith. So it is not our righteousness at the consummation, in the sense that we obtained to it on our own. It comes from the person and work of Christ. But it is real righteousness.

It is imputed now. That is, counted as though it is our own in the eyes of God. It gives us access to him and reconciles us to him, but this age is not the end of the story. It is the age we must travel through and we can only do so safely beneath the shadow of his wings, as his children and members of his household, to the promised land which is described in Rev 21, without being condemned to face his judgement and wrath. We were given to Jesus and his imputed righteousness is what keeps us in him until he returns.

I disagree. It is how we stand in this age and for all eternity. We are and will always be truly righteouss only by imputed righteousness. Let me ask you, do you think we as believers in Heaven will still be under the blood? Or do we know longer need it?

So, you're saying 'in Christ' is temporary also. If so, I disagree.

He has made us righteous by imputation. You say the truly righteous will never sin again because there is no sin, so why bother changing imputed righteousness to our own righteousness? My question is: what is so offensive to you about always and forever being declared righteous by faith? To be under the imputed righteousness of Christ? I personally want it no other way.

Well, Adam and Eve were actually righteous also. Only it was their righteousnes. They were without sin. With God and in fellowship with Him. Our contrast is with the righteousness of man and the righteousness of God. Man's good things, good deeds. But if we didn't obtain that rightousness on our own, it must be imputed righteousness.

But Jesus righteousness no longer keeps us when we get to Heaven?

Lees

 

[Lees]

I know what you are saying. But let me ask this: How are they in their own righteousness if it is God who created them righteous?

I still say, they were created as righteous as God, but capable of becoming unrighteous---which is what they did. They were created in his image and likeness. They just weren't created AS God, but AS a creature.

That is all post fall, not pre fall. The animal sacrificial system was temporary until Christ had come and served a purpose for when he would come. It is a part of the history of redemption. I never said it was the end, implied it was the end, or believe that it was the end. But it no way that I can see, has anything to do do with how Adam and Eve were created or their righteousness at creation. What they fell from, and all of us along with them, was that righteousness. Hince it is called a "fall". Hence it is what Christ comes to undo, and does undo.W

Well, I am not going to repeat what I have already said a number of times in a number of different ways.


In which case, logicall, Jesus would not have taken us out of Adam and in the restored creation with God dwelling with us, we would still be in Adam. Which would mean that we are still sinners in Adam, even if we are counted as righteous. And a sinful nature is sinful. How do you interpret 1 Cor 15?

God created Adam and Eve sinless. Their actions, being sinless , would demonstrate their righteousness.

And I disagree that they were as righteous as God. If they were righteous as God, and still sinned against God, what good is the imputation of Christ's righteousness going to do for anyone?

Well, it may be post-fall, but it reveals a principle with God. God ordered sacrifices. David said that is not what you really want. God created man sinless in the Garden, but that was not what He really wanted.

I understand. I find myself repeating also.

I don't follow your last statement.

Lees

 

[Mr GLee]

I disagree. It is how we stand in this age and for all eternity. We are and will always be truly righteouss only by imputed righteousness. Let me ask you, do you think we as believers in Heaven will still be under the blood? Or do we know longer need it?

So, you're saying 'in Christ' is temporary also. If so, I disagree.

He has made us righteous by imputation. You say the truly righteous will never sin again because there is no sin, so why bother changing imputed righteousness to our own righteousness? My question is: what is so offensive to you about always and forever being declared righteous by faith? To be under the imputed righteousness of Christ? I personally want it no other way.

Well, Adam and Eve were actually righteous also. Only it was their righteousnes. They were without sin. With God and in fellowship with Him. Our contrast is with the righteousness of man and the righteousness of God. Man's good things, good deeds. But if we didn't obtain that rightousness on our own, it must be imputed righteousness.

But Jesus righteousness no longer keeps us when we get to Heaven?

Lees

Righteousness is something that can be proven. It was tested in the garden under the "letter of the law" thou shall not "death". . . the corruptible body returning to dust and temporal spirit returns back to the Father of all spirit life. (Ecclesiastes 12:7)

Mankind will always fall short of his glory. Its called sinning . .we can sin less yoked with him.

He the righteous one proved he was the sinless one by doing the will of the Father empowered by that will destroying death sentence.( Thou shall not)

 

[makesends]

Maybe I am misreading the posts.

The fact that might be the case for either of us is part of the problem to be solved. All either of us have is the text on our electronic devices. We have no clue what was intended unless that is stated. None of us are mind readers. It is incumbent upon each of us to post well. It's also incumbent upon us to forbear with kindness and patience those who don't handle language well because when the occasion to clarify a seeming contradiction or correct a real contradiction then asking and relying upon that to happen in goodwill is the call of every Christian here.

The matter of imputation was intended to be understood as a temporary condition, then a simple statement to that effect is all that is needed. I will then correct my understanding and post accordingly.

Well.... I do not want to take this conversation too far afield of the op. A survey of the New Testament's use of "righteousness," as it applies to the saints, is one of the classic already/not-yet. Scripture speaks of us being righteous, and the righteous practicing righteousness. It also plainly states no one is righteous but God. It also describes, as I believe I posted, a future righteousness that is our own, not one merely imputed to us. Imputed righteousness is fundamentally different than ontological righteousness and the goal, according to Jesus, is to be righteous as our Father in heaven is righteous. That's not merely a statement about conduct. Acting righteous and being righteous are not the same.

Yes. I do not make distinctions between heaven and earth on the other side of resurrection that some make so, again, I don't want to take this conversation you and I are now having too far afield from the op. In the beginning (Gen. 1:1) there is an implied separation between the heavens and the earth that is further articulated throughout the scriptures. When the New Jerusalem comes to earth, however, the implication is that separation no longer exists. Earth becomes a part of the heavens, and both are restored to a pristine state where sin and curse are gone and no longer possible. Again, I reiterate my intent not to go far afield of the op, but it is worth mentioning this is a very real problem for Dispensationalism. Revelation 22:10-11 is the second coming and that defines this op a great deal because the work of God making man is then complete. The saints are made righteous, incorruptible and immortal, like Jesus resurrected and ascended. In addition, Jesus was there in the garden as the tree of life. I haven't read much if any reference to that fact. It's important because the incompleteness/completeness of Adam and Eve (and, by extension, all their progeny) is inescapably tied to that fact.

Thank you. Very good.

No, I would not agree, if I understand you correctly. When we are there in eternity, in Heaven, we will still be in the imputed righteousness of Christ.

As I have said several times, throughout all eternity we stand in the imputed righteousness of Christ.

To be 'in Him' is to be clothed in that imputed righteosness.

Lees

Just guessing here, but it seems we are messing around with words at this point.

 

[Arial]

I disagree. It is how we stand in this age and for all eternity. We are and will always be truly righteouss only by imputed righteousness. Let me ask you, do you think we as believers in Heaven will still be under the blood? Or do we know longer need it?

What do you mean by "under the blood"? We were purchased by his blood and to him we belong. And you keep saying in heaven and when we get to heaven. Heaven is where the believer is when he dies---with Christ. Earth is our home. God created it for us to be our home. Gen 1 and 2. All creation is being restored by Jesus and when it is, only those who are his will dwell on it. The resurrected and changed. And those living when he returns are changed. Maybe you address that later, but I have brought it up three times and so far it has not been addressed.

You will have to explain what you mean by "under the blood" in order for me to answer your question.

So, you're saying 'in Christ' is temporary also. If so, I disagree.

No, that is not what I am saying. You seem to think I am saying that we become so righteous in our own right that we are independent of God. That wasn't the case in Eden with Adam and Eve and it has never been the case, and never will be the case.

He has made us righteous by imputation. You say the truly righteous will never sin again because there is no sin, so why bother changing imputed righteousness to our own righteousness?

When I say we are made righteous, truly righteous, I mean we will no longer sin, be tempted to sin, or have sin in us. We cannot be actually perfectly righteous while in this corrupted flesh, and while we dwell with our enemies, the world, the flesh, and the devil on all sides, and still having the same unchanged nature. That is why it takes the imputed righteousness of Christ, through his person and work as our substitute, paying our debt, to take us out of the hands of God's enemies and keep us out of his hands, until the consummation. I get tired of saying the same things over and over and never having them heard,and the same arguments and the same questions posed in response, as though I had said nothing. So I won't be doing it much longer.

My question is: what is so offensive to you about always and forever being declared righteous by faith? To be under the imputed righteousness of Christ? I personally want it no other way.

It is not that I find it offensive. It is that I find it to be scripturally unsound. Scripture tells me that an even greater promise awaits us through this imputation. Just as the sacrifices cleansed no conscience but made temporary meeting with God possible, and a covenant relationship with him. while awaiting the better promise to come---Jesus ---one sacrifice for all, one High Priest in heaven mediating the new and better covenant. The new and better promise for us is no more sin and a creation restored to perfection after the Destruction our sin wrecked upon it. The lion lies down with the lamb. The bear eats grass like the ox and a little child leads them. There is no sorrow, no weeping, no sickness, no death, (Is 11) in all the earth. And best of all, God is with us, he is our God, and we are his people. Because ALL are righteous. A new heaven and a new earth coming down from above----together. Heaven----the abode of God----on earth.

Well, Adam and Eve were actually righteous also. Only it was their righteousnes. They were without sin. With God and in fellowship with Him. Our contrast is with the righteousness of man and the righteousness of God. Man's good things, good deeds. But if we didn't obtain that rightousness on our own, it must be imputed righteousness.

They were righteous because God made them righteous. They became unrighteous when they sinned. It is unrighteousness that God is dealing with through Christ---not righteousness. It is absurd to think that is what he is dealing with.

But Jesus righteousness no longer keeps us when we get to Heaven?

Well, he keeps us. Who else? What are you saying?

 

[Arial]

To be 'in Him' is to be clothed in that imputed righteosness.

To be In him is to be united to him in faith.

 

[Lees]

What do you mean by "under the blood"? We were purchased by his blood and to him we belong. And you keep saying in heaven and when we get to heaven. Heaven is where the believer is when he dies---with Christ. Earth is our home. God created it for us to be our home. Gen 1 and 2. All creation is being restored by Jesus and when it is, only those who are his will dwell on it. The resurrected and changed. And those living when he returns are changed. Maybe you address that later, but I have brought it up three times and so far it has not been addressed.

You will have to explain what you mean by "under the blood" in order for me to answer your question.

No, that is not what I am saying. You seem to think I am saying that we become so righteous in our own right that we are independent of God. That wasn't the case in Eden with Adam and Eve and it has never been the case, and never will be the case.

When I say we are made righteous, truly righteous, I mean we will no longer sin, be tempted to sin, or have sin in us. We cannot be actually perfectly righteous while in this corrupted flesh, and while we dwell with our enemies, the world, the flesh, and the devil on all sides, and still having the same unchanged nature. That is why it takes the imputed righteousness of Christ, through his person and work as our substitute, paying our debt, to take us out of the hands of God's enemies and keep us out of his hands, until the consummation. I get tired of saying the same things over and over and never having them heard,and the same arguments and the same questions posed in response, as though I had said nothing. So I won't be doing it much longer.

It is not that I find it offensive. It is that I find it to be scripturally unsound. Scripture tells me that an even greater promise awaits us through this imputation. Just as the sacrifices cleansed no conscience but made temporary meeting with God possible, and a covenant relationship with him. while awaiting the better promise to come---Jesus ---one sacrifice for all, one High Priest in heaven mediating the new and better covenant. The new and better promise for us is no more sin and a creation restored to perfection after the Destruction our sin wrecked upon it. The lion lies down with the lamb. The bear eats grass like the ox and a little child leads them. There is no sorrow, no weeping, no sickness, no death, (Is 11) in all the earth. And best of all, God is with us, he is our God, and we are his people. Because ALL are righteous. A new heaven and a new earth coming down from above----together. Heaven----the abode of God----on earth.

They were righteous because God made them righteous. They became unrighteous when they sinned. It is unrighteousness that God is dealing with through Christ---not righteousness. It is absurd to think that is what he is dealing with.

Well, he keeps us. Who else? What are you saying?

I mean, will the blood of Christ still be necessary for us in Heaven? In Heaven, are we still under the blood forever? Or was that just to get us to Heaven? In other words, are you saying, when we get to Heaven, the blood of Christ has done it's job and we are no longer in need of it to keep us in Heaven. (Heb. 9:14) "...by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.."

Concerning what you have said about all things being restored, I did read it. But to me the 'imputed righteousness' of Christ to the believer, is necessary for that restoration. But the restoration of these things I don't see as temporal, but eternal. Forever. The sacrifice of Christ was accomplished on earth but affected things eternal. (Heb. 9:12-14) I don't see how the restoration changes anything of what I have said.


Well, if you reject the 'imputed righteousness' of Christ to the believer by declaration, forever, and have the believer secure in his maintaining of his own righteousness, isn't that a form of independence from God? You might say no, because the believers righteousness is now the righteousness of God. But, it leaves the believer in charge of that righteousness, becaue it is no longer imputed. Adam and eve were not under the imputed righteusness of God.

When you say 'until the consumation' that is a problem with me. How can anything brought about in Christ's role in God's plan of salvation, be considered 'until'? (Heb. 10:14) "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." If I understand you correctly you seem to be saying all these things accomplished by Christ, were to get us there. But once we are there we can be trusted to be on our own in pleasing God. And because of that, 'imputed rightousness' is no longer necessary as we will be as righteous as God.

Well, if all are righteous in that blessed state you describe, if that righteouness was the imputed righteousness of Christ, how would that change anything?

I don't believe it is absurd. God made Adam and Eve sinless, not righteous as God is righteous. Thus they were under their own righteousness. And they failed. Man's righteousness even in a sinless state, comes up short. (Rom. 4:2) "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God." In other words, if Abraham did everything right, he can glory in it, but not before God. His righteous works are rejected. (Rom. 4:3) "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." (imputed unto him for righteousness) So we are contrasting man's righteousness with God's righteousness.

You said Jesus righteousness keeps us in Him until His return. So I asked, 'but Jesus righteousness no longer keeps us when we get to Heaven? I am saying He keeps us because we are in His righteousness by imputation, forever.

To be In him is to be united to him in faith.

That faith is what imputes Christ's righteousness to us. (Philippians 3:9) "And be found in him, not having my own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Crist, the righteousness which is of God by faith."

In other words, the procurring of the righteousness of God to the believer, is by faith...only. And it is synonymous with being 'in Him'. (2 Cor. 5:21) "...that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

Lees

 

[Mr GLee]

To be In him is to be united to him in faith.

Yes, two working as one

Christ's power working in and with us. . The one source of all Christian powerful. . . born again faith. . He gives us little power (faith) enough to do his will . Faith is unseen power .

Peter when the work load became to heavy (forgive 7 times 70" . Peter prayed increase the powerful faith that worked in him . The Father did pour out his faithfulness . . His eternal Spirit on Jesus the Son of man as our Holy father does with all born again sons of God

Satan . .I am from Missouri what you see is what you get.. . faithless non not little

The pagan foundation "out of sight out of mind. God calls them fools. . no living God working in their hard hearts Taking away the invisible power (faith) not of us of Christ .

The faithful "let there be" Creator

 

[Arial]

I mean, will the blood of Christ still be necessary for us in Heaven? In Heaven, are we still under the blood forever? Or was that just to get us to Heaven? In other words, are you saying, when we get to Heaven, the blood of Christ has done it's job and we are no longer in need of it to keep us in Heaven. (Heb. 9:14) "...by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.."

The blood of Christ was shed on earth, on the cross, so yes, it is just as he said, "It is finished." "Finished" meaning the work necessary for redemption was complete. And it isn't only when we get to heaven that his shed blood has done its job----it has done its job on earth for those he shed it to purchase. Notice the words in the scripture you quote: "by his own blood he entered once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us." It is Christ's work on earth, the work he came to do, for the specific purpose of making redemption possible.

"Under the blood" is an expression I have only heard used in Charismatic circles, when I was in that circle. It became a catch phrase with the Copeland click in the 80's. I have no idea if it still is. But even then they were using it for the here and now and what they were using it for was to put it bluntly, as meaning if they say the right words in faith they can get whatever they want in the way of earthly things because God has to obey them.

So I don't know what you are thinking when you say it. I do not think it is the above. And there is no way I can know what is in your mind when you say it unless you define it with something other than the expression itself. The blood isn't necessary in heaven because it was shed on earth to achieve the purpose of redemption. And it was shed by Jesus.

 

[Arial]

Concerning what you have said about all things being restored, I did read it. But to me the 'imputed righteousness' of Christ to the believer, is necessary for that restoration.

Of course it is. And for all the reasons I have said. What is the purpose of that in the earthly realm that I have said a number of times?

But the restoration of these things I don't see as temporal, but eternal. Forever.

So do I. I have neither said nor implied otherwise. You are obviously taking it that way and I cannot untangle why. Other than your premise from the first paragraph of the OP seems "wonky" to me. And a premise that is off gets farther and farther off as doctrines are developed from the wrong premise. Even to the point that communication of ideas becomes a never ending forest of impossibility. The wrong premise imo, in this case would be that God could not create a human who was as righteous as he is without that person also being self righteous. That he could only create a person who was righteous apart from him. And so he set out to establish a means of imputed righteousness instead of actual righteousness. Personally, I can't fathom the reasoning and have never once in over forty years heard it.

The sacrifice of Christ was accomplished on earth but affected things eternal. (Heb. 9:12-14) I don't see how the restoration changes anything of what I have said.

@makesends I am struggling with the difference between affect and effect here, even after I do a Google search to refresh my former teaching. So I call on you. I am tempted to say that the eternal cannot be affected. And neither can it be effected.

But back to post:The restoration changes what you have said because the premise you are working from is incorrect. Now, maybe it is just a matter of talking sideways of each other, but if we can only be in eternity dwelling with God if we have imputed righteousness instead of actual righteousness, even after the work that Christ did, then the redeem and changed have not been changed and would still be subject to falling into sin--- just as we are right now. It is that imputed righteousness that prevents present re-condemnation.