Here is the only ‘Creed’ Jesus laid down: “Love one another as I have loved you”. If we can get all denominations and non denominations to make that their creed then I will agree that creedal Christianity is da’ bomb. Till then, I’ll go with the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus Himself.
Hi Ran Ran,
Thanks for the reaction. I can understand how what Jesus said could sound undesireable to you. I certainly suck air on what he calls us to be, and must trust that His grace will enable whatever He requires.
But your objection (based on what what would be reassuring for us) to what I would "ask upon humanity "seems irrelevant to my point, since I doubt that my opinion ultimately matters. My point was precisely that what our Lord said is ‘required’ ("your righteousness must be… ") is what carries weight for believers, and is worthy of being understood, rather than dismissed because it’s not what we’d ask for.
As a Lutheran, we believe that is Christ using the Law to drive us to the cross. Just as the Holy Spirit convicts us of the GUILT of our sins to drive us to the cross.
Perfection is a fool’s quest and entirely eg0-centric. It makes for fine hypocrites but lousy Christians. I think the rest Christ was talking about is the rest from striving to be perfect. There’s perfection intrinsic in that rest.
Good clarification! Luther’s interpretation of the role of the law is a well-respected tradition, and I personally find that he has deep insight into our rest in Christ. He is certainly right that perfection is an ego-centric fool’s quest.
Still, I have no reason to be committed to Luther’s words. For I see no contextual evidence that Jesus Himself in teaching his requirements or referring to the law is thinking about the cross as an alternative, much less doesn’t really mean what he says is required is truly required. I have cited above numerous texts where he declares that salvation depends on keeping the law, as well as where the O.T. & the apostles like Paul repeatedly say that since this is how we will be evaluated on Judgment Day, their goal is also such obedience to the law of Christ. “Keeping God’s commands is what counts” (1 Cor. 7:19; Rom. 2:6-13).
Since the Bible declares that the explicit function of the grace of Christ’s cross and Spirit in our salvation is that “the righteous requirement of the law be fully met in us” (Rom. 8:4), it’s most compellingly plausible to me to see Jesus’ words about “our own necessary righteousness” as consistent with that whole pattern of Scripture.
Hi RevDrew!
The recommended papers sound fascinating, but all I see on the sharktacos site is moviemaking. What do I click on?
It has been fully met. He took my sins away - I believe that - that’s the ‘righteousness from God’ that Paul declared. I cling to that righteousness, not my own. The rest is subjective navel gazing as far as I am concerned - “Do I believe enough? Am I right enough? Do I love enough?”
Faith the size of mustard seed can move mountains? Great. Then my faith is great enough to move ME out of the way in worshiping my hero.
Placing our dependence on Christ rather than our own effort is a precious truth and proper basis of assurance. It’s neat that you zealously defend it. But are you saying that the perfect righteousness which Christ accomplished in a past transaction is a substititute for God’s work in actually taking away the sins “in” our own life and heart in the present?
Luther was a brilliant force, and that view of his is the overwhelmingly popular interpretation in my tradition as well. But I can’t imagine that Romans 8:4 is silently describing some such ‘trade,’ when the whole context as I’ve cited in numerous verses is that “righteousness” requires the Holy Spirit’s help within our own hearts, minds, and lives to produce an actual obedience to the spirit of God’s law.
If your complaint that Paul’s words can result in foolish “navel-gazing” means that you are criticizing examining whether we ourselves trust and obey in our lives, it appears that you then reject Paul and the rest of the apostles’ plain and frequent admonitions to do that very sort of thing. That leaves me in a pickle since my tradition holds that the apostolic witness is more binding for the church than any of the Reformers’ interpretations. “Sola Scriptura” (Luther)!
How would Paul’s exhortation to ‘Work out your salvation with fear and trembling’ fit here? (if I have quoted correctly).
‘God is not counting mans sins against them.’ Our sins are already taken away. The ‘work’ of God is to believe that work of Christ. If you go by sight - none of that looks true.
Your question makes no sense to me. The Holy Spirit convicts (but does not condemn) us of the guilt of our sins (but not our sins themselves - they are gone). Why? Because no matter what we do - the guilt remains until faith comes. A life driven by the Law and one clinging to the Cross will be quite different. Is the goal a striving for moral perfection* to nullify the cross (what religion doesn’t do that?) or faith and propagation of the Gospel?
*It can’t be attained here anyway. “If we say we are without sin…”
And let’s be clear here, I’m not addressing rewards for advancing his kingdom - but merit for salvation.
Jeff,
Yes,Philippians 2:12 fits well with my argument that the apostles call us to give attention to our lives! If I may be accurate that Paul never actually states that our “sins themselves are (automatically) gone,” but that he sees us as still in a spiritual battle where God’s Spirit cares about dealing with our love and sinful disobedience (in numerous texts that Ran Ran seem to leave unaddressed), then there’s every reason to think that He wants us to be convicted concerning e.g. our unforgiving sinfulness itself. Such potentially painful dealings make good sense of the trembling reverence before God advised in that Scripture text.
If they are not automatically gone, then we would not be automatically resurrected. There is no condemnation in God. None.
God is not counting men’s sin against them because the world’s sin are forgiven (taken away). Christ accomplished that and that cannot be taken away, reversed, or nullified.
Bob said: “But are you saying that the perfect righteousness which Christ accomplished in a past transaction is a substitute for God’s work in actually taking away the sins?”
I say: " I wouldn’t call it a substitute, but I would say that we are in covenant with God that was established through the Person and Work of our Lord. We don’t fall out of covenant every time we sin, but rather being in covenant with God enables us to see that we have sinned and then we can repent."
I know, you are speaking of another thing here with R-R. I would say that faith has an expression in moving towards God away from sin in our hearts (the Spirit convicts that we might repent), and can be manifest in inner attitudes as well as outward actions ( a whole person response). Faith is relational- we trust God and believe what He says.
Robert,
Thanks for the response. I think I actually resonate with all of your good observations, including this one. Still, I am curious whether you would see the kind of warning passages concerning apostasy that I’ve cited to R.R. as posing nothing crucial in the way of dangers for a person who is “in covenant with God”?
If the function of God’s covenantal work in us is so “we can repent,” is there the possibility of a series of choices to be so unrepentant that the nature of the relationship could be jeopardized (or do you see our saving relationship with God so settled in a one-time transaction, that no level of possible rebellion would matter, or perhaps that once we express a genuine faith, we are not able to be that unrepentant)? Apologies if the alternatives are obscure 
Thanks, Bob for your kind remarks. I wouldn’t say that the function of God’s covenantal work us is so “we can repent,” as if that were the only function of the covenantal work, just that it seems to be part of it.
As far as the warning passages, those are to be respected as being just that: warning passages. And they sound quite stern!
They warn of some terrible fate. I am not sure what that fate is and I do not wish to speak from experience at any time in the future!
Man has to yield to God for there to be “reconciliation”. God disciplines those He loves and discipline involves pain.
It seems that with free will, man can say no for as long as man wishes to!
Take care tonight , Bob
ro
Robert,
Thanks and agreed! Even enamored of universalism, I would make similar observations.
Blessings on you,
Bob
'Bob,
A bit off topic here, but did you weigh in on the radio debate yet?
Blessings,
R
While I sympathize that critiques of universalism often don’t seem to knowledgably do justice to the reality of universalism’s arguments, I really thought the debate was the kind of remarkably fair and gracious two-way discussion that I’d like to see more of. It seemed to me that Parry got a chance to at list briefly address a number of questions that often arise. What did you think?
No. God remains faithful - we depend on that. Nothing can jeopardize the removal and forgiveness of the world’s sins. In the end, every tongue will confess of the greatness of Christ’s sacrifice - which mutes your question.
Actually, I think your continuing argument is an example of the unrepentant nature of a relationship that puts you (and mankind) at the center of pleasing God and Christ on the periphery. You pay lip-service to Christ’s accomplishment - but do not allow it to effect your theology. He took away the sins of the world - can you repent of not believing that?
The fact of your sin and the fact of his accomplishment are two facts. Not a fact and promise.
The questions all seemed to be fired at Robin. Didn’t it seem that he was required to defend vs. the other fellow? He was outnumbered as well. He was remarkable humble and aware of his fallibility.