Sin, Sin, Sin, Sin, Sin, Sin, Sin, Sin
Originally published on July 28, 2015
Got sin? You do if you are a Protestant, and you have a lot of it. The “T” in TULIP doesn’t stand for total depravity for no good reason, no pun intended. The only good thing is focusing on the bad thing: your nasty, wicked self.
Sin is a really big deal in Protestantism because we get ourselves into heaven by dwelling on the fact that we are “sinners.” If we can do any good work, if ALL of our works are NOT filthy rags—that’s not living by “faith alone” for our justification. Supposedly, if we think we can do anything good, that’s not living by faith alone in what Jesus has accomplished for us, but rather living in the “confidence of the flesh.”
The foundation of Protestant soteriology is the idea that “Christians” live under the possibility of condemnation and should fear accordingly. Christians remain under the condemnation of the law and remain covered by professing that they can do no good work. By continually returning to the same gospel that saved us for forgiveness of works, both good and bad, the righteousness of Jesus continues to be imputed to us. Hence, “We have no righteousness of our own in salvation or the Christian life.”
In contrast, the emphasis of our Christian lives should be LOVE. We still sin, but it is not sin unto condemnation, but rather sin against our Father as a family matter. We may receive chastisement, but we are in no danger of condemnation. Not so with the Protestant gospel: the “Christian” remains under eternal condemnation and is only covered through faith alone by returning to the same gospel that saved us. This is why Protestantism has always been weak in the area of discipleship. This is why there is an obsession with making saved people rather than disciples. And by the way, the only place we can find continued forgiveness for “sin that removes us from grace” (Calvin/Luther) is under the “authority” of the local church. Go figure.
Even in Baptist churches, pastors bemoan the fact that “10% of the congregants do 90% of the work.” Well, duh, I am surprised that even 10% are doing anything as the focus is keeping oneself saved by focusing on how inept we are.
More and more in counseling, I am telling people to stop focusing so much on sin. Clearly, especially in the Protestant contemporary biblical counseling movement, the specific instruction is to “find the sin beneath the sin” as a means of growing your salvation as if salvation grows to begin with. If our focus is sin- searching as a means of spiritual wellbeing, and good works tempt us to think we did something good (again, Luther/Calvin), what in the world will be the results? Well, look around for yourself—it’s called “the church.”
A focus on sin will not prevent sin or promote love. If there is something to be gained by finding sin, it will be far from us to fight against it. Why would we cut off our supply of blessings by making the cross smaller? It becomes a supply and demand issue.
The Bible endorses a focus on love, not sin-searching. We are to look for ways to love God and others, not ways to find the “sin beneath the sin” or some endeavor to “peel back the layers of sin.” No doubt, there is a CONTROL conspiracy involved with this supposed method of sanctification as well. Stripping people of an accurate evaluation of self is a very efficient way of controlling them. Being worthy enough to hold others accountable for their own good will not get you into heaven—only returning daily to the same gospel that saved you for a fresh set of downs to get into the salvation end zone.
And what will eventually happen to any marriage if the constant focus is your spouse’s sin? No wonder then that the present-day biblical counseling movement (mostly sponsored by Reformed churches) is overflowing with marriage counseling cases. Week in, and week out, teaching will knock down any notions that either spouse can do any work that is not “filthy rags.” And, the only real sin is not knowing that everything you do is sin; if you don’t know that, you may find yourself in so-called church discipline. We do know this: those who will not accept this premise are deemed “unteachable.”
We have not been given a spirit of fear under the law of sin and death and its condemnation. We, instead, have been given the Holy Spirit and boldness to love God and others without any fear of condemnation.
We are to be enslaved to love—not to a fear of condemnation.
paul
Jewish Lives Matter: The Coming Millennial Kingdom; Part 4
Part 4: Abraham and the Family Affair
God put two trees in the midst of Eden, “The tree of life was in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” This series will not speculate on why God presented this choice or in some people’s assessment an actual temptation, but the backdrop was the rebellion of Lucifer.
Something else should also be noted moving forward: the creation account and subsequent deception in the garden raises a host of interpretive questions that remain unanswered by organized religion. For instance, after the deception, God prevented Adam and Eve from eating from the other tree in the midst of the garden that they were previously allowed to eat from, “The tree of life” lest they “take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” The tree of the knowledge of good and evil brought forth death while eating from the other tree would have brought forth eternal life. It seems strange indeed that Adam and Eve could have reversed their mortality by merely eating from the other tree. The only way these challenging questions will be answered is by diligent and free collective study of God’s people apart from agenda-driven orthodoxy.
True Christianity is fundamentally individualist resulting in the collective good, not the other way around. This will be explored in the future parts of this series; ie., the difference between an organized body and institutions. The collective and free actions of individuals lead to the collective good, not the dictation of “good” determined by an elite few. Stated another way: the individual has direct access to God; there is not an epistemological pecking order.
All in all, most religion has always been predicated on philosophy proffering the idea that God has appointed knowers over those who cannot know reality. And by the way, the knowers usually find their credibility in the idea that no one can know; so, the knowers are the knowers because they know that they cannot know. This series will address that construct in detail.
But for now, we will explore what God did in response to the deception, and what the Jews have to do with that. As stated before, the two trees represent a backdrop of epic conflict between God and the rebellion of angels led by Lucifer. This epic conflict is good versus evil, and life versus death. We are safe in regard to that assessment via the very descriptions of the trees and the stated result of eating from them. But God’s initial response, among many other things, marks one of His modes of operation: whatever His detractors do, He responds by upping the ante so-to-speak. God’s enemies cannot strike without God making something better of it. In this way God mocks evil; the evil actions of God’s enemies results in the previous good being made very good.
Adam and Eve were created beings, but after they were deceived, God responded by making them His very family. He created mankind as living beings that would have a family structure for organizing and increasing their state of happiness, but in response to the deception He elected their means of reconciliation (salvation) by making them His very own family. Mankind was elevated from created beings to His literal children.
Religion strongly emphasizes the forgiveness of sin, but in reality forgiveness is a by-product of becoming part of God’s family. Mankind is reconciled to God by becoming family.
The Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”
Aside from a myriad of discussions and interpretive questions that could be discussed about this passage and many others in the Bible, it is clear that there would be “enmity” (hatred) between two posterities: The “offspring” (many other translations use “seed”) of the serpent and the offspring of the woman. Much of the Bible’s historical documentation reports this enmity between God’s offspring and the serpent’s offspring. In fact, the enmity begins with the first siblings of human history, Cain and Able:
1John 3:12 – We should not be like Cain, who was of the evil one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous.
All are born into the world with indwelling sin and are thereby children or offspring of the one who executed the deception in the garden. People become God’s offspring; ie., “righteous” when they believe God and what he says resulting in a “walk” with Him. Different creatures walk differently—they walk according to their nature. Ducks waddle and kangaroos hop because of how they are created.
From the beginning, starting with Adam and Eve, people were reborn into the family of God resulting in becoming God’s literal children. The Bible refers to this as being “righteous.” Don’t confuse this Old Testament new birth with the New Testament “baptism of the Spirit” which makes Jew and Gentile one body with Christ. This is “the promise” which will be further developed as we move forward.
Religious scholars are fond of constantly referring to Genesis 15:6,
Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness (NIV).
This verse, on its face, seems to indicate a mere declaration that Abram was righteous by noting the word “credited.” The Hebrew word translated “credited” can mean that, but it can also mean “to fabricate” or create. At any rate, Old Testament believers were in fact recreated as righteous beings who were credited as such and acted as such. They were righteous as a matter of their state of being. How do we know this? Christ said their very life blood was righteous:
Matthew 23:34 – Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, 35 so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 36 Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
These were not only deemed righteous; their very life blood was righteous. That’s because they were, in fact, righteous. This new birth comes via another seed in the Bible; God’s word. Faith comes by hearing the word of God and believing it;
Romans 10:17 – So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God (KJV).
Matthew 13:18 – “Hear then the parable of the sower: 19 When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what has been sown in his heart. This is what was sown along the path. 20 As for what was sown on rocky ground, this is the one who hears the word and immediately receives it with joy, 21 yet he has no root in himself, but endures for a while, and when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately he falls away.[b] 22 As for what was sown among thorns, this is the one who hears the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. 23 As for what was sown on good soil, this is the one who hears the word and understands it. He indeed bears fruit and yields, in one case a hundredfold, in another sixty, and in another thirty.”
Matthew 4:4 – Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.
Galatians 3:2 – Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?
1Peter 1:22 – Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:
Abraham believed God and was made righteous. As we will see, he is a key person in God’s elected plan to reconcile mankind to Himself by making those who believe His very family. God the Father, His only Son, and the executor of the righteous offspring—the Holy Spirit. Abraham is a key figure in God’s grand plan involving a righteous royal family and its kingdom that will make all things one as opposed to sin’s major objective to divide.
And a last point before we move on: God’s word is a seed that gives us new birth, but for those born again, it is also the milk by which we grow. According to 1Peter 2:2, that must be “pure” milk. This is a call to the individual born of God to ascertain what is pure truth and not pure truth. We are not to take other people’s word for it and thereby be tossed about like the waves in regard to every wind of doctrine.
paul
Government Is Not a Business
In the interest of full disclosure, I do not believe Donald Trump would be a good President.
With that being said, that does not mean I will vote for Hillary. I believe it goes without saying that Hillary Clinton should at most be doing time in prison or at the very least be disqualified as a presidential candidate. However…
In the interest of full disclosure, I believe Trump is just as dangerous as Hillary.
In fact, he may be even more so. At least with Hillary we know what we’re getting. But my own observations have led me to conclude that Trump is a pretender; someone who presents himself to be something he’s not. The Trojan Horse comes to mind (and history shows us just how well that worked out for Troy).
Nevertheless, I know that there are plenty of people who consider themselves “conservatives” who think that Trump is the answer to our nation’s woes. My aim here is not to convince those people otherwise (although by the end of this article you might be). One factor that people often point to with regard to Trump is this notion that he is a successful businessman. The merits of such a statement are subject to speculation, especially when one considers Trump’s four bankruptcies, his pending litigation with regard to Trump University, his failed business ventures like Trump Steaks, and the fact that he refuses to open his tax records for public scrutiny. But the topic I would like for you to consider is the question of, does being a successful businessman mean you will be a successful President? Or asked another way, should you run a government like you run a business? (Please notice I said “should” and not “can”)
As a small business owner, I am often amazed by the assumptions most people have when it comes to private business. Probably the greatest fallacy that people have is this idea that a business, any business, exists for the sole purpose of providing them (the consumer) with something they need or want. While this is ultimately an end result of business, it is only a secondary purpose at best.
You must first understand that a business is an independent entity. It exists for the sole purpose of providing for the needs and desires of the OWNER, who is also an independent entity. The reason most people don’t get this is because most of us have been conditioned to think that selfishness is evil. But that is not the case. Believe it or not, the Bible even presents selfishness in a positive manner.
“… Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” ~ Matthew 22:39
“For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.” ~ Galatians 5:14
“For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it…” ~ Ephesians 5:29
You will notice that the Bible doesn’t tell us to love ourselves LESS than others. It tells us to love others AS MUCH AS we love ourselves. Loving oneself is intrinsic to who we are as individuals. It is not evil to love oneself. It is in fact a necessary part of survival and self-preservation. We are wired in such a way to instinctively seek out those things that will help further our own existence. Ayn Rand called this the “virtue of selfishness”.
In the quest for furthering one’s existence, some people will discover that they are particularly adept at some skill and will then use that skill to produce those things they need to sustain life; farming, building, making clothes, etc. Those who are especially adept discover that they end up with a surplus of production. Rather than letting the surplus go to waste, they seek out others who may have a surplus of their own production – something they the deem necessary for their own existence – and enter into a fair exchange with another individual, value for value. Trade is nothing more than two individuals, each with a surplus of production, entering into a fair exchange of value. And thus, a business enterprise is born.
So you see, any individual engaging in a business venture is doing so in order to meet his own perceived needs. Therefore, those things produced by a business are a product of the business owner; the individual. A business therefore is a representation of the individual; his “self”. It belongs to him because he produced it. And so, because it belongs to him, it is up to the business owner and him alone to decide how to dispose of it, according to that which will best help him to further his means of sustaining his own existence.
A mutual exchange of value for value is the key to every inter-personal relationship throughout the course of our lives. And it is up to each individual to determine what constitutes “fair and equitable”, and if one party does not consider the exchange to be fair, then he is under no obligation to engage in it.
This mutual exchange extends to employees. When the means of production have become too overwhelming for the business owner to handle by himself, rather than reduce production, he may deem it desirable to hire a labor force to expedite production. This brings up another false assumption that people have about business – that businesses exist to create jobs. My response to this is a resounding NO! Businesses are not in the business of producing jobs, they are in the business of production for the benefit of the business owner alone! But when labor becomes necessary to the success of the owner in achieving his ends, he determines wages based on what he decides to be the value of the TASK, NOT the value of the worker. A potential worker can then decide if he wishes to engage in such an exchange (his labor for agreed-upon wages). But it is important to note that neither party compels the other to engage in an exchange that is not deemed mutually beneficial by both.
Because the business owner is motivated by moral self-interest, any power he has is self-appointed. In other words, he can take whatever steps necessary to achieve his ends, which is rooted in furthering his own existence. The only restraint to his power is another self-actualizing individual. His power ends where another begins. His power cannot violate another individual from furthering his existence. One “self” cannot violate another “self”.
From a certain aspect, the individual/business is much like a tyrant. He makes the rules to benefit himself. He has the liberty to dispose of his resources as he sees fit because he is the owner of them (yes, even labor because remember that labor has been “purchased” in exchanged for something of value that has been mutually agreed upon) because he produced them. They are a representation of “self”. He is free to take whatever action he thinks is necessary to achieve his ends of furthering his ability to exist. But such tyranny and pragmatism is tempered by the morality of mutual exchange of value.
These same characteristics apply even if the business is a corporation. While a corporation is in reality a “collective” that consists of a CEO, board of directors, and shareholders, it is technically considered to be a individual entity, much like a “body” is made up of individual “parts” that function as a whole. Therefore, the same truisms that apply to an individual business owner also hold true for a corporation.
But a government (and for argument’s sake, let us assume the U.S. federal government as prescribed by the Constitution) is not a business. A government does not exist for the benefit of itself. A government exists to secure and preserve the RIGHTS of the individual. The “Founding Fathers” understood this when they penned these words in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men…”
If there can be said to be any moral justification for government, it is here. We acknowledge that the rights of the individual are endowed to them by virtue of them being individual “self”. That “self” has the right to seek out those things which further its own existence. That government is practical in helping to ensure that such rights are not violated.
So first and foremost, government is not a business because government is not a “self”. If anything, it is a collective appointed by many “selfs” for the express benefit of those “selfs”. Said another way, government is not self-actualizing and it does not exist to serve its own interest, it exists for the express purpose of serving another.
And this brings us to another point, that government only exists by consent. It cannot wield any power without that power first being loaned to it by the consent of those of whom it is to govern. A business needs no consent to exist or wield power any more than an individual needs consent to exercise his power to live. Without consent, however, ANY government is immoral because it presumes to usurp for itself that which does not belong to it.
A third point to consider is that government produces nothing. Let me say that again. Government is a producer of nothing! For government to be a producer it would have to have something of value to offer as a representation “self”, and we have already established that government is not a “self”. And since it is not a “self” and produces nothing, it has nothing to offer in an exchange of value. Unless of course it first confiscates what someone else has produced. Before government can “give” you anything it must first take it from someone else, most often by force. This is the definition of theft.
For these very reasons, by definition and by the proper and moral usage of government, government MUST NOT be run like a business. Any government that attempts to run as such ultimately ends up tyrannical and becomes destructive of the rights of the individual.
Therefore, since government is not a business, the notion that someone would make a good president because he was a good businessman should not even be offered for consideration. I would submit that our federal government has been already been operating like a business (granted, a poorly run business) for far too long. It has been operating for the benefit of itself and those in its collective body instead of operating for the purpose of securing individual rights. Government does not need a different CEO, it needs to operate within the constraints placed upon it by consent of the governed as enumerated by the Constitution.
Is Donald Trump a good businessman? Perhaps. How does he function as a businessman? He spends other people’s money (investors) and then goes bankrupt leaving those investors out to dry. He engages in business ventures that lure in consumers with bait-and-switch tactics. He oversteps the bounds of law in order to achieve his own desired benefit for his business at the expense of others. He uses power, money, and influence to coerce others to do what he wants. Could not the same be said of Hillary? Trump claims he is not a politician, but haven’t politicians engaged in these very same behaviors for decades?
In the end, the argument doesn’t come down to Hillary vs. Trump or whether or not you think Trump is a good businessman or whether or not you think he’s a politician. The argument is first and foremost about the proper role and use of government. The argument is about finding a leader who will be willing to operate under constraint.
Andy
Jewish Lives Matter: The Coming Millennial Kingdom; Part 3
Click here for part 1
Click here for part 2
Click here for part 4
Part 3: Whatever Happened to Goodness?
In the first two parts, mankind is put in a very poor light because of indwelling sin. Man is pictured as enslaved to control-lust. This lends credence to Dominion Theology which is a lie. So, it is time to balance the first two parts with biblical information.
First, Dominion Theology has been the way of the world and the primary applied politic from the very beginning of time. It is the elitist philosopher class ruling over the great unwashed masses for the collective good. In all cases, the knowers are appointed by God to, according to one well-known evangelical, “save God’s people from ignorance.” And if they are to save God’s people from ignorance, how much more the rest of the world?
Remember, this necessarily requires the idea that God has established His kingdom on earth as a prerequisite to utopia. The command in the Bible to have dominion over the earth supposedly includes other men, so; argumentation over who really understands God fosters plenty of wars in and of itself aside from the other numerous issues that evolve from the basic premise. Research history for yourself; the original question, “Has God really said?” fueled innumerable religious wars and will continue to do so. Though Americanism greatly disrupted historical business-as-usual, the book of Revelation tells us that mankind will return to the pagan-state (prior to the 4th century) / church-state (post 4th century) construct with a vengeance.
Whether secular or religious, it is a theology of dominion because it separates knowledge from the common man and makes truth property of the state. Truth is always found in some higher power that appoints select classes of people to rule over others on the higher power’s behalf whether that is God, gods, Mother Nature, or “The Force.”
That’s the politic: the marriage of faith and force. The politic comes from sin which desires to enslave all things and indwells mankind prompting him to do the same. But does that mean mankind is totally depraved and in need of knowers to manage his misery? No, actually, according to the Bible, mankind is good enough to have an internal conflict with sin. Romans 2 states,
14 For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them 16 on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
People in general are conflictive. They have indwelling sin and indwelling law. The latter makes the individual capable and in many instances a force for good. This is what the founders of Americanism hit upon for the first time in human history as opposed to the common total depravity construct. The Protestant claim that total inability is unique to Protestantism…is absurd.
Total depravity and deterministic caste have always been the business-as-usual politic of human history. Communism replaced the church-state void created by the American Revolution. Communism is merely an irreligious version of total depravity requiring an elite class of knowers to manage mankind’s misery. This may all be interpreted through the individualism versus collectivism question. What is the role of government? To maximize the individual’s internal work of God’s law, or manage his totally depraved misery?
Note in the aforecited Romans text that those who have never been exposed to the Bible will be judged by their internal law created in every person. The internal law of God executed by one’s conscience is part of the whole idea of being created in God’s image. Internal sin causes one to sin against God and others resulting in the conscience accusing them, or excusing them when they do well.
This ability to do well is what the founders of Americanism emphasized; i.e., individualism. Collectivism limits well-doing to the dictation of a small elitist class of people who rule over the masses. Of course, according to what they deem as being good according to their assessment of mankind in general. You do the math; it never ends well.
However, the founders of Americanism were primarily concerned with government’s relationship to the individual and contrary to popular belief, not the biblical gospel. As a foundation moving forward, we may say that the primary goal of the gospel (the good news of God’s kingdom) is not to be judged by any law, but rather to be guided by it.
If one is judged by the law, either God’s Bible or the internal law or both, it is impossible to distinguish between love and escape—love or self-preservation—restraint only to prevent judgement. However, if one cannot be judged by either law, if judgment is vanquished, if the law’s ability to condemn is eradicated, every upholding of the law must be grounded in the motive of love. With condemnation vanquished, the only possible motive still standing is love.
This is what the gospel does. It eliminates judgement and infuses the individual with a love for God’s law. And this is the difference between two kingdoms: the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of darkness; their citizens. The former is called such because it is located in heaven and not on earth. It is yet future.
What is the state of being in regard to the citizens of each kingdom, and how does it apply to real life? And what do the Jews have to do with it? Because we are still laying the foundation the former will be further developed in the next part while the latter will be developed as we move forward.
How are the citizens of the kingdom of heaven removed from judgment and infused with a love for God’s law? How can their only motive be love, and why do they at times fall short of love?
paul
Dear Reformed Brother, Was Jesus Righteous Before He Kept the Law?
Time and time again, this ministry has demonstrated that the reformed standard for justification is perfect law-keeping rather than the new birth. Here is a summary of the salient premises (what reformed theology must assume to be true to arrive at their conclusion). It goes something like this:
- Man is totally depraved.
- Because man is totally depraved, no one can keep the law perfectly.
- Because no one can keep the law perfectly, we need someone to keep the law on our behalf.
- Jesus is the only one who ever kept the law perfectly.
- Because Jesus kept the law perfectly, we must depend on Jesus to keep the law for us.
- God “declares” us righteous because Jesus’ obedience is imputed to us.
- When God looks at us He doesn’t “see” our sin, He only sees Christ (covering/atonement)
There might be a few more details one could add in there, but the conclusion is this:
The standard for righteousness is perfect law-keeping.
The list of problems with this line of reasoning is extensive, not the least of which is the fact that the Bible says righteousness is apart from the law. But when we keep thinking about the ramifications of the above assumptions, the conclusions are obvious. In this construct, a believer is only declared righteous as long as he keeps living by “faith alone”. So if at any time he ceases to live by “faith alone” he puts his justification at risk. This means he is never really “righteous” until he gets to the end of his life. And even then, his righteousness depends on the degree to which he lived by “faith alone”. In other words, no believer can ever really “know” if he is really righteous until all the facts come in. There would have to be sufficient “proof” that reveals that his justification is authentic.
But I want to camp on a notion that I doubt very few have ever stopped to consider. If the basis of righteousness is perfect law-keeping, then how is Jesus righteous? Would not He too be required to live a perfect life? Of course the protestant response to this is a resounding, yes. They openly declare that it was by His perfect law-keeping that Jesus was righteous. That is one of the assumptions listed above. But now consider this. How could a claim be made for Jesus’ righteousness until He had demonstrated perfect law-keeping His entire life? It is impossible to claim that Jesus was righteous before he ever demonstrated one good work. Ironically, the same standard that the reformed use for believers MUST also apply to the One who makes justification possible according to their theology. And this just will not work because it makes Jesus’ own righteousness suspect (which the reformed conveniently do not allow for). You cannot reason something after-the-fact!
The Reformed gospel makes Jesus’ righteousness a function of works and not intrinsic to His nature. Jesus was not really righteous UNTIL He had demonstrated perfect law-keeping. Furthermore, such a conclusion of His righteousness could not have been realized UNTIL the end of His life.
Jesus is righteous by virtue of the fact that He is God’s Son. He has His own righteous nature because He was born of God, God’s offspring. He was not righteous because of His perfect law-keeping. It was intrinsic to who He is.
I can go to the NFL’s web store and order a jersey of my favorite football player, maybe Peyton Manning. When I receive that jersey in the mail I can now say I have Peyton Manning’s jersey, or I have the jersey of Peyton Manning. Does that mean that I have Peyton Manning’s ACTUAL jersey that he ACTUALLY wore when he played in games? Of course not. But it is still a jersey. It is similar (identical, like in kind) to Peyton Manning’s in every way with one exception; this one belongs to me.
Our righteousness is this way. Does this mean that we have the ACTUAL righteousness that Christ had? Only in the sense that it is IDENTICAL to it, the exception being is that the righteousness we have actually belongs to us! Why is that? Because it was given to us the moment we were born again. It is not a covering. It is intrinsic to the nature of our being as a child of God.
Whether reformed/protestants want to admit it or not, the fact remains that their construct of righteousness is works-based justification. It might not be “us” doing the works, but works are works no matter who does them. Not only is it works-based, it is progressive, meaning it must be performed throughout one’s life. This is why there is NO DIFFERENCE whatsoever between Catholicism and Protestantism. They both believe in a works-based progressive justification. Protestants have simply taken the “work” away from us and given it to Christ. And in the process, they have made Christ’s own righteousness predicated on works.
Andy
Addendum:
If you still have any doubts about the logical conclusions to which one must come when law is the standard for righteousness, consider what R.C. Sproul is on record stating. Just about the entire authentic protestant/reformed camp threw Tullian Tchividjian under the bus because his preaching wasn’t “nuanced” enough for thier taste. Frankly I am incredulous that they haven’t done the same with Sproul considering this quote. Talk about lacking nuance!
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment