"He also had to 'live' a perfect life in order to clothe us in a perfect life of righteousness."
Does this assume that He could have done anything but live a perfect life of righteousness? John 5 tells us: "I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does." So how could the Son have done anything less than live a perfect life of righteousness? He clothes us in His eternal righteousness.
Harry
Steve Fuchs <SteveF_MS@...> wrote:
I've enjoyed this discussion a great deal, but am not so deep into it that I can argue the texts.
However, something stands out to me in listening to both sides.
For man, if he sins (which all do), a life must be paid to serve God's Justice. Without it, justice is just an ideal, not a reality.
So, when a life is paid (animal or human), justice is being served. I'm not arguing that any old life fully serves that justice, simply that the process of serving justice is commencing, or at least being attempted, when a life is paid (so don't jump all over me, please).
If that's all that was needed, why couldn't any of us who are fathers say to God; "Lord, my child has sinned against you. Please take my life, and cast me from your presence as payment for my son's offense, so that he may be restored to you."
IGNORING the obvious argument for a moment, imagine that God accepted my free sacrifice for the sake of my son.
Imagine that God's justice was served.
Now ask yourselves; Would that act of sacrifice, that service of justice (if it was), also make my son righteous?
I'm betting all of us would use a similar argument to prove both false.
My sacrifice failed to serve God's justice because the life I'm sacrificing is not worthy...and it's not worthy, because I have been disobedient. Mine is not a perfect life for sacrifice.
Similarly, even if God did accept my sacrifice as worthy for justice's sake, it would in no way render my son righteous. Why? A life that was not lived entirely righteous cannot render anything else righteous. If I stain my shirt with blood, you cannot make me white as snow by giving me your shirt, because it has it's own stains which are the result of your own living. I'd be exchanging one set of unrighteous stains for another, and my son would be doomed regardless.
It seems to me (sorry John, I know you hate that phrase) Christ had to 'live' in order to 'die', so-as to serve justice. He also had to 'live' a perfect life in order to clothe us in a perfect life of righteousness. Otherwise he clothes us in something other than that which we destroyed. To attempt an analogy - we would be left with staining a robe, and he replacing it with a car. He wouldn't be replacing what we destroyed with the same object undefiled. He'd be replacing it with something entirely different, which Adam never had, and we are not called to keep.
I'm sure there are many ignorant assumptions made here, but....
In grace brothers,
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: malajaa@...
To: soundofgrace@...
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 7:56 AM
Subject: [soundofgrace] Fw: active obedience of Christ
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: malajaa@...
To: soundofgrace-subscribe@...
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 23:00:54 -0400
Subject: active obedience of Christ
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=--__JNP_000_3ac8.2453.1db5
Chad and Harry,
Thank you for this interesting discussion regarding the active obedience
of Christ. It has been stimulating to read through your comments. Some
questions and comments. Harry, I believe that you need to examine the
Scriptures which present "life" as a reward for obedience which Chad has
presented more carefully. We both agree with your conclusion that no one
from Adam achieves that righteousness/life, and is therefore saved by
their works. However those Scriptures are clear and irrefutable- life is
promised for obedience to the Law (Lev. 18:5, etc.). It does not
automatically follow that people, are saved by obeying the Law. Luther
saw this and was careful to point out the difference between the
indicative and imperative. That which is commanded is not the same as
that which is possessed as a reality.
Chad, you are assuming something that I have not (yet) accepted. That is
that Christ's substitutionary death and resurrection are not sufficient
to pay for the penalty of breaking God's Law. You assert that active
obedience is also necessary, since that is what God commanded. Is it
logically or Theologically or Scripturally necessary for God to require
the positive fulfillment of His Law in order to account us righteous?
Why is not the resurrected and living Christ sufficient. 1 Cor. 1:30
says that it is Christ who is "made unto us wisdom... and
righteousness..." I share Harry's desire for specific Scriptures
teaching this doctrine. I am familiar with Rom. 5 and find it
inconclusive, certainly not clearly establishing your view. If the
gospel is specifically that Christ died and rose again for our sins, then
to add his life of keeping the law seems to be adding to, and therefore
detracting from, those specific truths.
Seeking to understand His word,
Mike M.
--
Read the Sound of Grace pages at
http://www.soundofgrace.com
To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
To view our online archive go to our web page at
http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
--
Read the Sound of Grace pages at
http://www.soundofgrace.com
To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
To view our online archive go to our web page at
http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
--
Read the Sound of Grace pages at
http://www.soundofgrace.com
To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
To view our online archive go to our web page at
http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace