David Miller wrote: >> To say that the righteousness that we manifest is >> somehow inferior to God's righteousness is to denigrate >> God's righteousness (if we proclaim that we cannot be >> righteous apart from God).
John wrote: > I will not address the "is to denigrate" thingy > except to say that it has absolutely nothing > to do with the discussion. I do not care if you > think I have disparaged God's righteousness, > David. Just talk shop and not judgment. > You are not my Nathan. I did not mean anything personal by my comment. My point was that if any righteousness we manifest comes from God, then if we describe it as substandard (not up to God's standard of righteousness), then we are actually denigrating God's righteousness because he is the source of that righteousness. Obviously, we should not be doing that. In practical terms, suppose we do a good deed and find a person beaten on the road. We dress his wounds and take him to an inn and pay for him to stay awhile until he recovers. We would all agree that this is a righteous act, and I assume that we would all agree that the source for this kind of love and righteous act comes from God. If we then begin to say, "yeah, but that good deed is nothing compared to Jesus Christ or to God," we would be denigrating God's righteousness if he is the source. Rather, our perspective should be that the person who does this righteous deed is righteous just as Jesus is righteous (1 John 3:7). Why? Because it is Christ within us who causes us to act this way. John wrote: > There is a big difference between the righteousness > of God and ours. Ultimately, God needs no help. > We do. That help comes from our partnership with > Him (Philip 2:12,13) and that is the point you make. Right. And when his righteousness begins to manifest itself through us, it is not an inferior kind of righteousness. It is HIS righteousness, so when we walk in it, we are just as righteous as Jesus is. This is a wonderful and marvelous thought that John teaches us in the NT. John wrote: > Your insistence that this (the Spirit's work in our lives) > is the only consideration is a denial of the spiritual > growth process. Spiritual growth BEGINS when we stop sinning. It does not end. John wrote: > There are a number of circumstances that keep > us "sinners" in the sight of God apart from the > righteousness that is credited to us apart from > our effort ! ! I don't find this statement Biblical, because we are the righteousness of God in Christ Jesus, and now Christ lives through us, so how is it possible to think that there are ANY circumstances that would keep us sinners in the sight of God? Maybe I am misunderstanding you. The latter part of your sentence above eludes my understanding. John wrote: > Because we continually fall short of His glory > (Ro 3:23), We have talked about this before. You are following a terrible translation here. Romans 3:23 says, "For all have sinned..." The word sinned here is aorist indicative active. It means past tense. It then continues, "and come short of the glory of God." The "come short" is present indicative middle, which means that we fall short in the present because of this past action of sin. The entire context is setting up how the glory of God is now manifested in us by the work of Christ. Before that can be explained and understood, we have to first acknowledge that because we have all sinned, we all fall short of God's glory and need this work of justification that is found in Christ. We cannot say that we continually fall short of his glory even after we are in Christ because that would be undermining the work of Christ. The very thing Christ did for us was to deal with this problem identified in Rom. 3:23. John wrote: > because there is no time we can say we are > without sin (I John1:8), Sin as a noun, meaning the sin principle of the flesh is with us as long as we are in this flesh, but this is not the same thing as saying that there is no time we can say that we do not continue to sin. While having a sin principle in our flesh (our physical bodies), we can walk in victory, in the Spirit, and not fulfill these temptations of the flesh. So while we are not without sin, we can, like Jesus Christ himself, walk holy and not commit sin. This, of course, only by the transforming work of Christ within us. John wrote: > because the flow of the blood of the Lamb is a continual > cleansing (I Jo 1:7) Yes, we are continually cleansed of all sin by the blood of the Lamb. John wrote: > -- in short, because spiritual growth is always a > driving aspiration in our lives, Yes it is, but spiritual growth cannot take place if we continue to sin. John wrote: > the spice that makes tomorrow something to look > forward to (because tommorrow I will be different > and different in a good way), we will be in need > of God's reckoning in our lives (faith reckoned as > righteousness). What is to be feared from this > theology? Good theology, as long as you don't surmise that you must always sin in order to keep growing spiritually. We all must continue to grow, but that growth is enhanced and enriched when we follow the Spirit and do not walk in the former ways of sin. David Miller wrote: >> 1 John 3:7 >> (7) Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth >> righteousness is righteous, EVEN AS HE IS RIGHTEOUS. John wrote: > There is a good rule, I think, in the development of > a contextual hermeneutic and it is this: "first things > first." A case in point? The opening verses of I Jo 2 > and I Jo 3 (you reference v 7) come after the comments > made in I Jo 1:7ff. I beleive that before John says a > couple of things that might be misunderstood, might > make one think he is talking about sinless perfection, > he writes chapter 1. And he writes chapter 2 and subsequent chapters to make sure that we don't mistakenly think that he is justifying a person continuing to sin. "My little children, these things I write unto you, that ye sin not" (1 John 2:1). I don't know what the term "sinless perfection" means to you, but as I have said many times, I do not espouse a doctrine called "sinless perfection." This is a moniker used by those who mock my teaching. John wrote: > A second point is this (and to those of you who are > lurking, I address this to you, as well) ; take your > Bible in hand and read chapters two and three. > As you do, keep this consideration in mind -- at > the center of all that God might require, there remains > two things that are clear: love God and love your fellow > man. And also keep in mind that when we love God and our fellow man, we are not sinning. To sin means that we do not love. John wrote: > When John writes of love being defined in terms > of commandment keeping (the claim of some > regarding I JO 2 and 3), you read and you decided > if he is speaking of a legal system or a Divine Harmonic > that reconciles our activity and God's. When you read > those two chapters, can you see these two expression > within the text? > Huh??? you say? OK, let's say it this wise: God loves > himself (the Father loves the Son, the Son loves the > Father) and God obviously loves us. We are asked > to love God and love others as we love OURSELVES. > See the parallel? Thus, the Divine Harmonic that brings > together (reconciles) our activity and God's. And such > is everywhere in chapters two and three. We are enjoined > to pursue holiness, David. I agree with that. But full > blown holiness is not possible apart from God's consideration > of faith for righteousness. Assuming that I understand what you have just said, I think we are in perfect agreement on this point. Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
