As long as you say so, that’s all that matters. It’s good to know that Abraham didn’t “believe God” in chapters 12-14. He only started believing in chapter 15.
Why do so many oppose imputed righteousness?
- Thread starter Enoch111
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
God didn't promise anything to Abraham in chapters 12-14.
He may indeed have had a faith in the LORD before Genesis 15:6; but it became truly evident to the LORD when Abraham believed in His promises.
No. God's Word is 100% accurate and true. Not 'concepts' like old cobwebs in your head.
No. God did not lie. God declared Levi paid, even though Levi didn't really pay. Because you can't, (refuse), see the simple truth in that is why you want to force your law keeping righteousness onto believers.
There is no 'practical or imparted righteousness'. There is your righteousness as opposed to the righteousness of Christ. Your 'practical and imparted righteousness' is nothing but 'your righteousness'. Filthy rags. So where is the term 'practical righteousness' found in the Bible? Where is the term 'positional righteousness' found in the Bible? Where is the term imparted righteousness found in the Bible?
You told me in post #(214) that I should consider these things. But it is you who is tossing these terms around. Not me. I have showed you where 'imputed righteousness' is found. I have showed you where 'your empty righteousness by law' is found. I have showed you where 'your righteousness is as filthy rags' is found. Show me where 'imparted righteousness' is found? Show me where 'practical righteousness' is found? Don't give me a verse and interpret it to mean that. Show me where it speaks of imparted righteousness and practical righteousness.
Your theology is 'concepts' just like you already admitted. Concepts equals cobwebs in your head. Not Truth.
Stranger
If God said that Levi paid, but he didn't really pay, how is that not a lie?
There is.
Where is the term "Trinity" found in the Bible? But I say to you truly that the concept is there; just as the concept of imparted and practical righteousness is there (Matthew 5:6, Romans 5:19, 1 John 3:7). If you are too blind to see it then that is on you.
The concepts are there. Positional righteousness is synonymous to imputed righteousness; and I have given verses on imparted righteousness.
No you didn't. I was aware of where those are found; and I even showed someone else in this thread or another one where that concept is found.
I knew where all of these concepts were found before you tried to show me. You have a way to go in your apprehension of scriptural knowledge. Because you have only half the truth.
I can only again quote to you where I see them found in holy scripture. If you don't see what is written in those places the same way that I do, then either one of us doesn't have the Holy Spirit or else one of us is blind to the truth of what God's word is preaching.
Again, these concepts are found in Matthew 5:6, Matthew 5:19, and 1 John 3:7.
1Co 2:14, But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
2Co 4:3, But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
2Co 4:4, In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
Act 28:26, Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
Act 28:27, For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
Last edited:
It is not a lie because God declared Levi paid though he never really paid. When Levi was alive, did he pay tithes to Melchisedec? No. He did so only in the act of another, not his act. Until you grasp the difference you will remain in your conceptual world.
Note the reverse act of imputation. (Rom. 5:13) "...sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression...." Did the people here really sin? Yes, they did. But God does not impute their sins to them. But they died. Why would they die if God did not impute their sins to them? Only because God did impute Adam's sin to the whole human race.
You see? Of course not. Even if you yourself never personally sinned, you are a guilty sinner because of Adam's sin imputed to you. His act is declared as your act. Even though you were not there in the garden of Eden, God imputes that act of sin to you. You will die because of Adam's sin. Not your own personal sins. But you do sin, but your sins are not imputed to you as a believer. This is glorious news to the believer. Just as David said, (Rom. 4:6-8), "...Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." Even though you are guilty of your sins, God says, no, they are not imputed to you who are in Christ.
This is good news to all but the legalizer who wants his righteousness seen. Who glories in his 'not sinning'. This is why you must twist the doctrine of imputation in some sort of 'impartation' for you to act on in order for it to work. The doctrine of imputation is hated by the legalist's.
Yes, you deal with concepts. The Bible however deals with Truth. Imputation is a Biblical Truth. You dwell in a fog of concepts.
Stranger
Yes; for he was alive in Abraham's loins as a DNA cell.
No one here is denying imputed righteousness.
That's what you think.
Because the element of sin dwells in my mortal flesh; not because it is necessarily inevitable but that I will sin in the future. The element of sin can be rendered dead within us (Galatians 5:24, Romans 6:6, Romans 7:8) so that it has no say/authority over what we do/our behaviour.
Every man will die for his own sin. All of us have sinned and come short of the glory of God because we inherited a sin nature from Adam; and this means that we all sin because of the sin nature that we inherited. We do not die for Adam's sin; except in that we inherited the DNA of Adam which makes us sinners who sin; when we die for sins; it is for the sins that we have committed.
Jesus being the exception. He died for our sins when He had committed no sin. He had genes from Adam on Mary's side. Did He die for His inherited sin from Adam? Or did He die for our sins only? I believe that it is the latter.
I have sinned even in the recent past; but this does not mean that I do sin in the present moment; neither does it mean that I must inevitably sin in the future.
And again, no one here is denying imputed righteousness.
You are also accusing the Bible of twisting the truth. For it shows us plainly that righteousness is not only imputed and positional; but pracitcal and imparted (Romans 5:19, Matthew 5:6, 1 John 3:7). I'm sorry that you don't see that. The god of this world has blinded your mind to this particular truth of holy scripture.
The Trinity is a concept that is a truth found in the Bible. The word "Trinity" is found nowhere therein; but the concept of it is definitely there.
I don't disagree that imputation is biblical truth. So is impartation. I deal in concepts of truth.
It is the result of many years of meditating on the meaning of what is written in God's word (see Psalms chapter 1).
No, Levi was not alive. He was not yet born. And after he was born, he never paid tithes to Melchisedec. Levi paid them only because Abraham paid them. Your refusal to admit this is based on your legalism.
Yes, you are denying imputed righteousness. You must add your 'imparted righteousness' to it before you accept it. And, I addressed imputed sin, which you completely ignored. Why? Because it proves you completely wrong. So, go back and address it. God does not impute sins to you. But you sin. Doesn't matter. The only sin that you are dying for is Adams sin. See? Of course not. You are not a sinner because of your sins. It is because of Adams. You are not righteous because of your good works or righteousness. It is because of Christ's righteousness. That is imputation. Not your man pleasing 'impartation'.
As I said, you are guilty of sin because of Adam's sin, which is imputed to you. You don't have to sin to be guilty of the imputed sin of Adam. You are guilty. Does that hurt your righteous feelings? Does it take the glow off of your self-righteousness?
No, you reject the Scripture. That is the whole point of (Rom. 5:13-14). Sin was not imputed to those between Adam and Moses. Their own sins were not given to their account. Yet they died? Why? Only because Adams sin was imputed to them. They died only because of Adams sin, which God accounted them guilty of when He imputed it to them.
Yes, you are denying imputed righteousness. You always say this when the proof of imputed sin is set before you. God does not impute the believers sin to him. You do not like this. Why? Because you want to present yourself as 'righteous'. You don't want God to not impute sin to the believer because you believe you don't sin. You measure up. Your righteousness is glowing. You are faithful to your 'imparted righteousness'. (nauseous)
Oh, you have sinned. What a revelation that is. I am aghast. I guess you are a child of the devil. (1 John 3:8)
No, I am not accusing the Bible of twisting the truth. Just you. The Bible knows of imputed righteousness and your righteousness. One works. One is as filthy rags.
No, the doctrine of the Trinity is not a concept. It is Truth. Your doctrine of 'impartaion' of righteousness is a concept. Your doctrine of 'impartation' of righteousness is in contradiction with the 'imputation' of righteousness. A man pleasing doctrine.
No, you disagree with the imputation of righteousness, because, as I have said, you add to it to make it your righteousness. Your doctrine of 'impartation' is a man pleasing works oriented doctrine that pleases the flesh.
So many years yet still in the fog of concepts. You haven't even learned to understand the difference between concepts and truth. You admit you are full of concepts. Full of fog. Full of.....whatever.
Stranger
The Bible does not speak of imparted righteousness since the sin nature remains. Were righteousness to be also imparted (granted, bestowed, given), every believer would be sinlessly perfect (which would be ideal).
Imputed righteousness is the true Bible doctrine which accompanies justification (being declared to be righteous) by grace through faith. Abraham believed God and it was imputed/accounted/counted/reckoned for righteousness. That is the underlying truth.
However because of the indwelling Holy Spirit, Christians can grow in grace and be sanctified progressively. Ultimately all will be perfected and glorified.
Guess we'll have to wait until we get to heaven to find out. I believe he was in "Abraham's bosom" before he was born.
Nope: he didn't pay them according to you.
Am not!
Nope.
If I commit sin then I am a child of the devil (1 John 3:8). But if I am abiding in Christ then I sin not (1 John 3:6).
Am not!
Actually I love this. It means that I can sin all that I want to and still be saved. Whoopee! grace is my license for immorality!
Only when I am abiding in Christ. And I do want God to not impute sin to the believer. The Bible teaches that that is what He does. He justifies the ungodly (Romans 4:5). I just don't think that He leaves them in an ungodly state.
Pro 17:15, He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.
Pro 24:24, He that saith unto the wicked, Thou art righteous; him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him:
Because of these verses, I conclude that when the Lord justifies the ungodly person, He creates a new reality in which the person becomes righteous (Romans 4:17).
It is His righteousness; so if you barf at that, you are gagging at the righteousness of Christ.
You said it. Anytime I sin, I am not abiding in Christ and am of the devil in those moments. If the Lord raptured the church right then I would therefore be left behind. Scary; and something to think about.
It is a concept of the truth; a biblical concept:
Mat 5:6, Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
Rom 5:19, For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
1Jo 3:7, Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
It is not; on both counts. It does not please you as a man; because it means that the Lord is calling upon you to repent of your sins.
Do not!
;)It does indeed speak of it:
Mat 5:6, Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
Rom 5:19, For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
1Jo 3:7, Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
The term is not sinless perfection; but rather entire sanctification.
Sinless perfection would be in contradiction to 1 John 1:8 and is a misnomer applied to the doctrine of entire sanctification in order to present a straw man which is toppled easily by 1 John 1:8.
The reality (of entire sanctification) is that sin can be rendered dead within us (Galatians 5:24, Romans 6:6, Romans 7:8) so that it no longer has any authority over our behaviour or say in what we do. In entire sanctification, sin is not eradicated so that we can say that we are without sin. Rather, it is rendered dead within us so that we can be set free from the power of sin and walk in freedom and victory for the rest of our lives.
I could present a biblical case for sinless perfection also.
Last edited:
And that's not the same as imparted righteousness, where you are not only declared righteous (justified), but made righteous by God (perfected). That would be instantaneous, not progressive, which means that you would be sinlessly perfect the day you were saved. The RCC has been using the concept of imparted righteousness as infused righteousness.
"While this doctrine [imparted righteousness] is rooted in Scripture, it is somewhat problematic to call it "imparted righteousness," for that which is imparted is a righteous principle into man's nature, not righteousness per se. Care must be taken in using the term imparted righteousness because it is sometimes confused with and sometimes intentionally used to refer to the Roman Catholic doctrine of infused righteousness, which in Catholicism is the basis for justification." From Theopedia.
No; we are not sinlessly perfect the day we are saved: for sanctification is different from justification; and also there is no such thing as sinless perfection (except, perhaps, for when we get there): while there is such a thing as entire sanctification.
Entire sanctification may be an instantaneous thing as a first or second benefit of being saved (see 2 Corinthians 1:15); but most often it is simply the product of growing up into the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ. There is a height to be obtained; and once that height is obtained, no more growing can be done.
While even those who have reached that height will have as their attitude that they have not yet apprehended to that height (see Philippians 3:12-16 (kjv), esp. v. 15) and therefore they would continue to pray daily for the Lord to sanctify them wholly; so that each day when dirt comes onto their feet from walking in the world (to use a different analogy...John 13:1-17), Jesus then washes their feet and cleanses them continually from all sin (1 John 1:7).
There is a practical righteousness that we do (1 John 3:7); wherein we are made righteous (Romans 5:19) by faith and as a gift (Romans 5:17) even as He is righteous (1 John 3:7).
Last edited:
Guess we'll have to wait until we get to heaven to find out. I believe he was in "Abraham's bosom" before he was born.
Nope: he didn't pay them according to you.
Am not!
Nope.
If I commit sin then I am a child of the devil (1 John 3:8). But if I am abiding in Christ then I sin not (1 John 3:6).
Am not!
Actually I love this. It means that I can sin all that I want to and still be saved. Whoopee! grace is my license for immorality!
Only when I am abiding in Christ. And I do want God to not impute sin to the believer. The Bible teaches that that is what He does. He justifies the ungodly (Romans 4:5). I just don't think that He leaves them in an ungodly state.
Pro 17:15, He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the LORD.
Pro 24:24, He that saith unto the wicked, Thou art righteous; him shall the people curse, nations shall abhor him:
Because of these verses, I conclude that when the Lord justifies the ungodly person, He creates a new reality in which the person becomes righteous (Romans 4:17).
It is His righteousness; so if you barf at that, you are gagging at the righteousness of Christ.
You said it. Anytime I sin, I am not abiding in Christ and am of the devil in those moments. If the Lord raptured the church right then I would therefore be left behind. Scary; and something to think about.
It is a concept of the truth; a biblical concept:
Mat 5:6, Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.
Rom 5:19, For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
1Jo 3:7, Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
It is not; on both counts. It does not please you as a man; because it means that the Lord is calling upon you to repent of your sins.
Do not!
You mock and ignore the imputation of sin, and the blessedness of the man 'to whom the Lord will not impute sin'. Why? The Scripture is clear that God does not impute our sins to us. (Rom. 4:5-8) Your answers now are childish. No depth. yes, no, do not, do so etc. etc. They reflect your shallow doctrine.
I showed you how that the imputation of sin describes also the imputation of righteousness. God did not impute the sins of those from Adam to Moses to them. (Rom. 5:13-14) Yet they died. Why did they die? Because of Adams sin which was imputed to them. Think of all the sins committed during that time, that they really did, yet God did not impute them to them. They died only because of the sin that was imputed to them, which they really never did.
And so it is with the believer in Christ. We have Christ's righteousness imputed to us due to His One righteous act and our faith in Him. (Rom. 5:12-19) Think of all the good things Christians have done, or anyone has done. You can call them righteous acts or good works. But just like with the sins of those from Adam to Moses, they play no role in affecting imputation. Those all died due to Adam's sin only. The believers are righteous because of Christ's one act of obedience.
So, take the lolipop out of your mouth and explain (Rom. 5:13-14).
Stranger
Because they sinned. The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23) whether it is imputed to you or not.
Rom 2:12, For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Indeed; in the practical sense:
1Jo 3:7, Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
Scripture interprets scripture (1 Corinthians 2:13 (kjv)).
NO!! The teaching of (Romans 5:13-14) is clear. They died because of Adams sin imputed to them. You deny the Scripture to uphold your legalistic doctrine.
Again, take that lolipop out of your mouth and explain (Rom. 5:13-14). Your refusal to do say says all that needs to be said about your theology.
John was writing to false teachers that crept into the church. He was slashing hard and fast . He was not giving any sort of dissertation of the doctrine of imputation. Your use of John to discredit Paul is error on your part. John is like a shallow river rushing. Paul is the deep ocean. Only with Paul do you have understanding of the doctrine of imputation.
You like John because it feeds your legalism. But John would spew you out if you could talk to him. Your doctrine is shallow. You refuse to confront (Rom. 5:13-14). You simply want to put forth your legalism no matter what the Scripture says.
Stranger
First of all, Jesus said you will in no wise enter the kingdom unless you become as little children.
Secondly, I have explained Romans 5:13-14 by pointing to Romans 2:12. Scripture interprets scripture (1 Corinthians 2:13 (kjv)).
I do not believe that anything I have said discredits Paul; and neither do I believe that John discredits Paul; nor have I used John in attempt to discredit Paul.
You simply don't understand how Paul and John coincide (I am not talking about the Beatles).
John's writings are in fact, quite deep. But I agree that they are forceful, like a rushing river.
I have no legalism.
I have confronted it.
The preaching of holiness is not the same thing as legalism; while those who do not want to surrender their lives to the holiness of Christ may indeed accuse holiness preaching of being legalistic in order that they might keep their sin.
God is calling you to repent of something. I don't know what that something is; but I believe that the Holy Spirit has pinpointed it to your heart and mind.
You can choose to ignore the Holy Spirit if you want and you might even still be saved.
However, I would give you this warning:
Heb 3:12, Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God.
Heb 3:13, But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin.
I say to you verily that sin is deceitful and that if you continue to hold on to it you are in danger in the long run of hardening your heart and departing from the Lord because of an evil heart of unbelief.
Calling holiness preaching legalism is the #1 excuse that people give for disobeying the Lord in today's world.
However, Jesus said:
Luk 6:46, And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
Last edited:
Scripture does interpret Scripture. (Romans 5:13-14) was given as an explanation of (Rom. 5:12). You, however, interpret (Rom. 5:12), and then say that discounts (13-14).
(Rom. 5:12) " ...by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:" Some, as yourself, say this just means that Adam sinned so all men would now also be sinners. But Paul in (Rom. 13-14) is explaining exactly what he meant. And what he means is that all were declared guilty of sin due to Adams sin.
(Rom. 5:13-14) "For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's trangression...."
So, all those from Adam to Moses, God did not impute their sins to them. Correct?
So, why did they die?
Stranger
Last edited:
Oh, I caught it. You reject the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ. Sorry to hear it, but I often suspected.
Stranger
The verse that I had mentioned was Romans 2:12. In interpretation of Romans 5:13-14. Romans 2:12, Romans 5:13-14.
You appear to just want to find anything wrong with what I am saying (that is called nitpicking).
I do not reject the substitutionary death of Jesus Christ. I do not believe that the verse that I quoted rejects it either.
(I suppose that now, you are going to again tell me what I believe and don't believe).
What the verse is saying is that we do not die for Adam's sin; we die for our own (indeed, you did not catch it).
We inherit a sin nature from Adam, and that makes every last one of us sinners who sin. We come out of the womb speaking lies (Psalms 58:3).
We sin from the moment we come out of the womb because we inherited the sin DNA from Adam. But we do not die for Adam's sin; we die for our own sin.
The only sense in which we die for Adam's sin is in that because Adam sinned (in eating the fruit that transferred to him the sin DNA), we carry the sin DNA through heredity. And thus we ourselves cannot avoid the heredity of sin and the actions that develop from it. We die for our own actions; not for the sins of our father Adam.
Last edited:
Similar threads
