Can You Be Righteous? [Archive] - Bibles, Wheels, and Brains Forum

CWH

09-10-2011, 04:57 PM

This thread is dedicated to those who doubt about being righteous or its importance. Can righteousness be achieved? A Big YES. If not why the Bible encourages us to seek righteousness...seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness? The earth is a farmland for God for righteous souls for the kingdom of heaven and this is evidenced in almost all of Jesus parables. But what is righteousness? From wiki:

http://www.2001translation.com/Righteousness.html

What is Righteousness?
The Greek word that we translate as righteous is dike (pronounced, dee-kay). And while the ancient Greek meaning was tendency, the use of this word in the Bible implies justice and conformance to established standards. Justice means doing the right thing; and conformance to established standards (in the Bible) refers to following the ways of God. So, the word righteous can also be translated as just, since righteousness is so closely tied to justice.
Here are a few conclusions about what the Bible says is righteousness, and the scriptures from which these conclusions have been drawn:

If you really want to be righteous, you can be – Matthew 5:6, 'Those who hunger and thirst for righteousness are blest because they will be satisfied.'
If you flaunt your righteousness, you won't receive a reward – Matthew 6:1 'Be careful not to do righteous things in front of men so they can see what you are doing. Otherwise, you won't have a reward with your Father in heaven.'
Righteousness involves living for God's Kingdom – Matthew 6:33, '[If you] put the Kingdom and righteousness in first place, then all these [other] things will be given to you.'
The things you do prove whether you are righteous – Matthew 11:19, 'Wisdom is proven righteous by the things it does.'
The things that you say prove whether you are righteous – Romans 3:4, 'Your words can prove you righteous, and you can win when you're being judged.'
Someone who deliberately misleads other people can never be found righteous – Matthew 12:36, 'I tell you that everything people say to mislead others, they will have to answer for on the Judgment Day.'
Immoral, unclean, and greedy people will not be found righteous – Ephesians 5:5, 'All those who are immoral, unclean, and greedy (which really amounts to being an idol worshiper) won't have any inheritance in the Kingdom of God and the Anointed One.'
To be counted righteous, you must treat other righteous people very well – Matthew 25:37-40, 'Then the righteous will ask, Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you as a stranger and take you in, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison, and come to you? And the king will say to them, I tell you the truth, when you did it for one of the least of these my brothers, you did it for me.'
Righteous people are at peace with others – James 3:18, 'The seeds of the fruit of righteousness are planted in peace by those who are making peace.'
You have to be an honest judge to be found righteous – John 7:24, 'Quit judging from the way things look on the surface; judge righteously!'
Righteousness involves standing up for right things, even if that invites persecution – Acts 4:19, 20, 'If it's righteous in God's eyes to listen to you instead of to God, judge for yourselves. But we can't stop talking about the things we've seen and heard.'
A righteous person has faith in God and His promises – Romans 3:28. 'We believe that a man is called righteous due to his faith, so he doesn't have to follow the Law.'
True righteousness requires more than just faith – James 2: 24, 'A man is called righteous by the things he does, not just by his faith.'
To be counted as righteous, you can't be immoral or continue in a sinful course – Romans 6:12-14 'As the result, don't allow sin to rule your mortal bodies and don't obey its desires. Nor should you offer your body parts as unrighteous weapons of sin. Rather, offer yourselves to God as someone who has been raised from the dead, and [offer] your body parts to God as weapons of righteousness. So, sin must not be your master, because you aren't under Law, but under [God's] loving kindness.'
Most people in the world aren't considered righteous – 1 Corinthians 6:1, 2, 'Would any of you who think you have been [wronged] by another dare to take it to court [to be tried by] unrighteous men, rather than by the Holy Ones?'
Although faith is required to prove ourselves righteous, speaking about what we believe is what saves us – Romans 10:10 'It is this belief in your heart that makes you righteous, but it's your mouth, when it confesses this, that brings salvation.'
If you aren't severely persecuted for being righteous, you won't be accepted in God's Kingdom – Matthew 5:10, 'Those who have been persecuted for doing what is right are blest, because the Kingdom of the Heavens belongs to them.'

God helps us to achieve Righteousness, Amen :pray:

joel

09-12-2011, 07:32 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

09-12-2011, 10:54 AM

Righteousness, the noun, is dikaiosune. The first part of the word is connected to dike, justice. The second part of the word, sun, is a "together" suffix, or a "joint" suffix which makes the word to mean, shared justice, or together justice.
God shares his justice, through Christ, with man. This is how man becomes righteous,......God grants it through faith in His blood.

Joel
Hi Joel,

It's good to see you. It's been a while.

I don't understand why you continue in your etymological analysis of words. Your method does not give any legitimate insight into the true meaning of the word. For example, I am not "standing under" anything when I say I "understand."

The meaning of the word "righteousness" in the Greek language has absolutely nothing to do with the idea of "sharing" let alone "sharing God's justice through Christ." The "sune" suffix is how the Greek language makes the substantive noun dikaiosune (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1343&t=KJV) (righteousness) from the the adjective dikaios (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1342&t=KJV) (righteous). We see the same pattern in English with the substantive noun "righteousness" being made by adding the suffix "ness" to the adjective "righteous." I'm sorry, I don't want to offend in any way at all, but your explanation is pure fantasy with no basis in the Greek language whatsoever. It has the appearance of knowledge but no substance. I think it would be really a good idea if we could talk about your method because you have been using it for years and it has led to many false conclusions about the what the Bible is really saying.

All the best,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

09-12-2011, 10:58 AM

CWH

09-12-2011, 11:45 AM

Hey there CWH,

How do you understand this verse?
Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

I have expected your response and my answer is at hand.

And how do you understand this verse? Matthew 5:48
Therefore be ye perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
We all know that no one is perfect except God, so how to be perfect? Does that mean we need not be perfect just because it is impossible to be perfect or we should at least try to be perfect. It is like trying to perfect a computer system, does that mean we should not try to perfect the system since no one can be perfect? Therefore, what Matthew 5:48 is saying is "try your best to be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect".

Therefore to answer your question:
Romans 3:10 As it is written, "There is none righteous, no, not one" means "There is none righteous, no, not one but at least try your best to be righteous". This is evidenced in the whole passages which seem to be exaggeration use of the words, "No one", "all" in many of the verses (in red):

Romans 9 What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin. 10 As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”

These verses invoke questionable thoughts:
Is it true that no one is righteous?
Is it true that no one understands?
Is it true that no one seeks God?
Is it true that no one does good?
Is it true that all have turned away and become worthless?

Well, we know from the many scriptures in the bible that these are not true and therefore these are just exaggerations that Paul used to stress his message which in this case is evidenced by his words, "For we have already [B]made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under the power of sin".

Lord, made us perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect, Amen. :pray:

Twospirits

09-12-2011, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by RAM
Hey there CWH,

How do you understand this verse?
Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

CWH, in reading the first two chapters of Romans, Paul was explaining that righteousness cannot come by way of the law (OC) because none could keep it. Thus Paul could say in Romans 3:10 'As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" Righteousness could only come by the Grace of God through Faith in and through Jesus Christ, ie the NC. This is explained in Rom. 3:21-26. Under the NC sinners are declared righteous because Christ has paid for our sins (verse 25). Therefore if anyone is in Christ he is declared righteous in the sight of God.

God bless---Twospirits

throwback

09-12-2011, 01:49 PM

I glean this from the following site: http://www.biblepages.web.surftown.se/eg08d.htm

'In a nutshell'.
This treatise contains an in-depth study on the subject of righteousness. But first, the whole matter expressed in a short and concise way, "in a nutshell".

Literally, the English word "righteousness" means right-wise-ness (right-ways-ness). (The noun "wise" means way, manner.) Another way of expressing this is that "righteous" is the same as just, and "righteousness" is the same as justice and justness.

Let us consider even an entry in a modern-day dictionary. In WordWeb dictionary, the primary definition for the adjective "righteous" is "characterized by or proceeding from accepted standards of morality or justice". That is in harmony with the meaning of the relevant Hebrew and Greek words in the Old and New Testaments.

Here are two bible-passages which neatly "summarise" the matter of righteousness, in just a few words:

Micah 6:8 I will shew thee, O man, what is good, and what the LORD requireth of thee: Namely, to do right, to have pleasure in loving-kindness, [A] to be lowly, and to walk with thy God (TRC, note sign added)

Matthew 22:36 Master, which is the chief rule in the law? [B] 37 And he said to him, Have love for the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the first and greatest rule. 39 And a second like it is this, Have love for your neighbour as for yourself. (BBE, note sign added)

[A] "Lovingkindness" – some bible-versions have "love goodness", some "love mercy", some "love kindness". Clearly, that part of Micah 6:8 refers to acts of love – acts of mercy, acts of goodness – just as Matthew 22:39 does. That is, good works – loving one's neighbour as oneself.

[B] "The Law", Matthew 22:36 – it is good to know that in the biblical context, the term "the Law" mostly refers to the Pentateuch (the five books of Moses). Point: The question which Jesus answered was not, "What is the main demand of the Old Covenant?" Instead, the question that Jesus gave an answer to was, "What is the most important precept in the Pentateuch?" Consequently, Jesus answered the man who had posed that question, by quoting from two passages in the Pentateuch, parts of Deuteronomy 6:5 and Leviticus 19:18.

As you perhaps can see, Micah 6:8 and Matthew 22:36-39 really say the same thing. But, even though those passages in a concise way cover the matter of righteousness, there is much more to it, of course. There are many other things that believers should know about being righteous and living righteously, and also, those two passages must be understood in a correct way. This treatise explains and clarifies the matter of righteousness, both in general terms as well as in detail. Of necessity, this study cannot be short; many different scriptures and words and matters must be considered.

In a way, this question regarding righteousness might be replaced by the question, "What does the Bible say about having good character?" But of course, there is a more to the matter of righteousness than just character.

A note: Some readers might find parts of this treatise a bit "technical", especially the appendix. If you want things really simple, in that case, read once again what was said above under the heading "In a nutshell", and after that skip on to the heading "Some very important things, not to be forgotten". That gives you at least some of the basics. But, since the matter of righteousness truly is important, please make sure to read even the other parts of this treatise.

joel

09-12-2011, 06:38 PM

Hi Joel,

It's good to see you. It's been a while.

I don't understand why you continue in your etymological analysis of words. Your method does not give any legitimate insight into the true meaning of the word. For example, I am not "standing under" anything when I say I "understand."

The meaning of the word "righteousness" in the Greek language has absolutely nothing to do with the idea of "sharing" let alone "sharing God's justice through Christ." The "sune" suffix is how the Greek language makes the substantive noun dikaiosune (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1343&t=KJV) (righteousness) from the the adjective dikaios (http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/Lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G1342&t=KJV) (righteous). We see the same pattern in English with the substantive noun "righteousness" being made by adding the suffix "ness" to the adjective "righteous." I'm sorry, I don't want to offend in any way at all, but your explanation is pure fantasy with no basis in the Greek language whatsoever. It has the appearance of knowledge but no substance. I think it would be really a good idea if we could talk about your method because you have been using it for years and it has led to many false conclusions about the what the Bible is really saying.

All the best,

Richard

So, Richard, you have never acknowledged, to my knowledge, that righteousness comes only from God on the basis of faith. It is given to man, from God, on the basis of faith. God is righteous of Himself. Man can only be righteous if God confers His righteousness upon man. Even though it may not conform to strict language interpretation, it still means exactly what I stated.
If you choose to refute it, then, state how righteousness is transferred to man if you can. I say, righteousness is shared......it is "jointly" true of both God and man only on the basis of God granting to man. If that is not "sharing", or conferring, then what is it?
To my knowledge you have never provided a suitable explanation of how man is "just/righteous" before God.

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough

09-12-2011, 07:28 PM

So, Richard, you have never acknowledged, to my knowledge, that righteousness comes only from God on the basis of faith. It is given to man, from God, on the basis of faith. God is righteous of Himself. Man can only be righteous if God confers His righteousness upon man. Even though it may not conform to strict language interpretation, it still means exactly what I stated.
If you choose to refute it, then, state how righteousness is transferred to man if you can. I say, righteousness is shared......it is "jointly" true of both God and man only on the basis of God granting to man. If that is not "sharing", or conferring, then what is it?
To my knowledge you have never provided a suitable explanation of how man is "just/righteous" before God.

Joel
Hey there Joel,

I think you forgot that the word "righteousness" existed in the Greek language before Christianity existed. What did it mean at that time? I think the answer is obvious. John knew exactly what it meant:
1 John 3:7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. ... 10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.
"Righteousness" is something that people DO. It is not something that can be given, imputed, or shared. It is a word that describes a person who acts righteously. This is the problem with Christianity in general. It adopted words that had normal meaning to people and then changed the meaning of the word to something that makes no sense at all. Righteous describes someone who does what is right. All cultures have a concept of righteousness, and it does not have anything to do with the ideas that you have expressed.

Can you explain the connection between "righteousness" as understood outside of any religious context, and your teaching about righteousness in a Christian context? The idea of "righteousness" existed before Christianity. What did it mean at that time?

All the best,

Richard

joel

09-13-2011, 03:17 AM

The idea of "righteousness" existed before Christianity. What did it mean at that time?

I suspect that it focused on "doing" the good thing, the right thing.

But, as a noun, righteousness was spoken of in Genesis, when Abram was brought into Canaan. God imputed righteousness to Abram on the basis of his faith in God's word.

If we do not see this, then, righteousness to us is based on our doing, not based on believing God.

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough

09-13-2011, 07:35 AM

I suspect that it focused on "doing" the good thing, the right thing.

But, as a noun, righteousness was spoken of in Genesis, when Abram was brought into Canaan. God imputed righteousness to Abram on the basis of his faith in God's word.

If we do not see this, then, righteousness to us is based on our doing, not based on believing God.

Joel
What does "righteous" mean if not "to do what's right?"

If the word has no meaning, then Christianity itself has no meaning.

So please, define the Christian meaning of the word "righteous." I know what it means in normal language, but you say that it means something different in Christianity. You say it is "based on believing God" but that's not a definition.

joel

09-13-2011, 08:38 AM

So please, define the Christian meaning of the word "righteous." I know what it means in normal language, but you say that it means something different in Christianity. You say it is "based on believing God" but that's not a definition.

From the perspective of what is written in the NT, especially from Paul in his letter to the Romans, righteousness is demonstrated in the revelation of what God has done in the life and sacrificial death of Christ.

Jesus demonstrated righteousness in His life, and, in believing into Him, a person is granted the righteousness of God.

Such a person will then demonstrate righteousness in his own life because of what has occurred within him as Christ, by His spirit, is declared to dwell within the heart of such a person who has been made righteous by God through faith in Christ's sacrificial life and resurrection.

Joel

Bob May

09-13-2011, 10:23 AM

What does "righteous" mean if not "to do what's right?"

If the word has no meaning, then Christianity itself has no meaning.

So please, define the Christian meaning of the word "righteous." I know what it means in normal language, but you say that it means something different in Christianity. You say it is "based on believing God" but that's not a definition.

Hi Richard, Joel and all,

Define Red to someone who has been blind from birth.

1 John 3:7 Little children, let no one deceive you. He who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous. ... 10 In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest: Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor is he who does not love his brother.

Two people can be apparently doing the same thing. But one is doing righteousness and the other not.

The Scripture says all our righteousness is as filthy rags.
Yet it says Abraham believed and it was counted to him as righteousness.

Mt 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

It is just as difficult to define the kingdom of God as it is to define righteousness.

God knows our limitations so he says Seek them, not define them.
our carnal nature wants to define everything before we will believe it.
God says we will not understand until we believe.
Because when we believe we enter into the Kingdom and the Righteousness of Abraham and all of the promises.

To define is to limit. Our carnal nature cannot understand unless we analyse and break something apart.

The things we begin to be able to understand once we believe are limitless.

Just some thoughts,
Bob

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

09-15-2011, 03:16 PM

You say it is "based on believing God" but that's not a definition.
It apparently was a definition to Abraham.

3For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness

Righteousness is a "State" or status of relationship and standing with God due to faith in his being, his involvement in man, and in his Good Character.

In Abrahams case; I think there were contextual and circumstantial parameters to what Abraham believed when the messanger told him "Through you will all nations of the earth be blessed".

The 'world' had been influenced by Nimrod and the counterfeit ritualistic religions that spawned from there. It would not be through Nimrod that the seed promised to Eve would come, but it would be through Abraham.

This idea is confirmed when it states that "I will make "my covenant" with thee. The promise of a seed through the woman to reverse/cancel the effects of the doubts and misleadings in the Garden.

This "my covenant" had previously been passed through Noah and an example of '8' being saved in the ark translates to the new ordinances in the new heavens/earth of the New Covenant [of the 8th day]. The 'new ordinances' are contrary to not only the law of Moses; but the conditional law of sin/separation from God from the Garden. The law of justification by faith is contrary to maintaining the conditional blessing and ultimatum of the two trees scenario.

Paul discourses on this a fair amount in Rom 3-5 where one point is 'where there is no law; there is no offense. 13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. As far as ones standing with God, there is no longer any conditional Garden law and NO CONDEMNATION whatsoever [Romans 8:1].

8But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
11And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
12Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Paul says in Rom 8:2 for the Spirit of the life of Christ has set me free from the law of sin/death. Not only set free, but adopted; loved and empowered as 'sons'. [Rom 5:10 above]

A similar concept is in John 1:12,13. And to all who believed on him he gave the right to become sons of the Creator, lifegiver, lawmaker; EVEN TO THOSE WHO BELIEVE ON HIS {GOOD} CHARACTER. as that character was now revealed in Christ.

"Thou art the Christ, the son of the [continually] LIVING God
"Blessed are thou Simon Bar Jonah, for heaven and earth has not revealed this to you, but 'my father' in heaven. and upon THIS ROCK [this revealing in confidence] is the body of Christ built, united and grown.

Did the Creator enter into the historical time-space continu-um...[marty Mcfly].and remain in His Spirit.... or do we need to again review the past in the future? [back to the future reversed] :)

Summary...repeating

Righteousness is a "State" or status of open relationship and standing with Creator/Father God due to faith in his being & existance and in his Good Character and the Goodness of his intent.

"Righteousness includes the blessing of forgiven sin.

3For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

The status of righteousness includes Peace with God and access to his grace.

Rom 5:1Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

2By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Richard Amiel McGough

09-15-2011, 05:12 PM

You say it is "based on believing God" but that's not a definition.
It apparently was a definition to Abraham.

3For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness

Righteousness is a "State" or status of relationship and standing with God due to faith in his being, his involvement in man, and in his Good Character.

That's not a definition at all. It is merely a statement that Abraham's action was right - he acted righteously. It does not define the word "righteous." That word already has a definition - it means "to do what's right."

It looks like we have some confusion about the definition of "definition." It's not for no reason that Voltaire said “If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.” We all know that the word "righteousness" has a meaning independent of Christian or Jewish theology because the word existed in human languages before those religions we invented. That is where we find the definition of the word. If it did not already have a definition, then we wouldn't have any idea what it means! But we know exactly what "righteousness" means. It describes something or someone who is "morally upright" and who "does the right thing" and so on and so forth. Everyone knows this, and this is why the word was used in that verse. That verse does not define the meaning of that word.

This is the craziness of Christianity. It has imported the word "righteous" with it's normal meaning so when people hear "righteousness" in the Bible they think its talking about "righteousness" but then there is a secret switch of the definition so now it doesn't mean "righteousness" at all but rather a "right standing with God" regardless of what one does. Thus we arrive at the central confusion of Christianity - righteous sinners.

By definition, a sinner is not righteous. Therefore we have a direct contradiction - an oxymoron - at the heart of the Christian doctrine: Since Christians sin as much as anybody (and many more so!) and yet they are declared "righteous" we have to the no option but to conclude that Christianity declares that the unrighteous are righteous! A is Not A. Up is Down. White is Black. Good is Evil. Our language has lost all meaning.

This seems to be a central characteristic of Christianity. We have One God who is composed of Three Persons and each are God but they are also different from each other. So God is the Father and the Father is not the Son and the Son is God so God is not God. and we have another logical contradiction. It's funny to watch Hanky Panky (The Bible Answer Man) try to evade this contradiction by saying the doctrine actually teaches there is One What and Three Whos and since a What is not a Who there is no contradiction. But that doesn't work because the Bible repeatedly refers to God as One Who. So the Trinity does indeed say that God is One Who and Three Whos, or it contradicts the Bible which says that God is One Who. Either way, the Trinity doctrine fails.

The 'world' had been influenced by Nimrod and the counterfeit ritualistic religions that spawned from there. It would not be through Nimrod that the seed promised to Eve would come, but it would be through Abraham.

Wow - you believe that Nimrod stuff? Have you been reading Hislop's "Two Babylons" again? :nono:

This idea is confirmed when it states that "I will make "my covenant" with thee. The promise of a seed through the woman to reverse/cancel the effects of the doubts and misleadings in the Garden.

This "my covenant" had previously been passed through Noah and an example of '8' being saved in the ark translates to the new ordinances in the new heavens/earth of the New Covenant [of the 8th day]. The 'new ordinances' are contrary to not only the law of Moses; but the conditional law of sin/separation from God from the Garden. The law of justification by faith is contrary to maintaining the conditional blessing and ultimatum of the two trees scenario.

I like your use of the symbolism of the Number 8 - it works very well. Peter connects Noah with Baptism and the Number 8, and this then connects with circumcision on the 8th day as a symbol of entrance into the covenant like Baptism, and all these idea were recognized by the early church who made octagonal baptismal fonts.

Paul discourses on this a fair amount in Rom 3-5 where one point is 'where there is no law; there is no offense. 13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. As far as ones standing with God, there is no longer any conditional Garden law and NO CONDEMNATION whatsoever [Romans 8:1].

I don't think that makes any sense. There's a lot of confusion in Paul about the Law and sin.

Summary...repeating

Righteousness is a "State" or status of open relationship and standing with Creator/Father God due to faith in his being & existance and in his Good Character and the Goodness of his intent.

"Righteousness includes the blessing of forgiven sin.

The status of righteousness includes Peace with God and access to his grace.
Why is it called "righteousness" if it has nothing to do with "righteousness" as defined in the dictionary? If the word is not actually defined, we could just as well call it "gobbledygook." Let's try that:

Gobbledygook is a "State" or status of open relationship and standing with Creator/Father God due to faith in his being & existance and in his Good Character and the Goodness of his intent.

Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for gobbledygook.

Voltaire is my hero for giving us the dictum: “If you wish to converse with me, define your terms.”

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

09-15-2011, 06:21 PM

That's not a definition at all. It is merely a statement that Abraham's action was right - he acted righteously. It does not define the word "righteous." That word already has a definition - it means "to do what's right."

How did Abraham "Act" in order to be declared righteous?
Paul says that he DID"NT ACT to obtain this righteousness but was declared righteous for his faith before any actions. "Abraham believed God and it was accredited to him as Righteousness".

Apparently "to do" what is right [to use your phrase] is to have faith in the Creator and in his coming incarnation and 'seed'.

Jesus confirmed this by declaring faith to be a WORK by saying: This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

John 6 (King James Version)
25And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?

26Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

27Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

28Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

29Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Righteous-ness IS a status with respect to ones relationship with God. Since it is God who makes the law with what is to be considered righteous, it is he who has the final say. Biblical words are defined by their use in the bible, not by secular or humanist dictionaries.

I would also challange you to present a dictionary definition of 'righteousness' that predates 1500 B.C. Even so, if one could be produced, they would be humanist and relative in origin, and not authoritative or with respect to an open and loving relationship with the Creator/Lover/lawmaker/judge.

Again; Paul deals with this in Romans 3-5. Paul is not making new doctrine specifically for the church, but expressing and clarifying doctrine of the Creator.

19Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

31Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.OF FAITH from vs 27.

And also:Rom 4:15
Because the [mosaic, conditional] law worketh wrath: for where no law is, [there is] no transgression. [Sin]

The law of God, the lawmaker is that He declares those to be Righteous and to be bestowed with the status of righteousness who work the work of God which is to believe on him whom he has sent. [Period] This is the law of faith [Rom 3:31] and justification and righteousness by faith.

This is what Paul means by saying God calls what is not [humans] as though they were. [righteous] It's in the same context of Romans 4.

This is where your oxymoron is defeated by the lawmaker.

vs 17. (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, [even] God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. The 'sinner' is justified and declared righteous in his very being solely by faith in the good character of the Creator of life. "Good deeds" which may not stem from a purified heart of faith in the creator may seems as Righteousness; but are not; while faith in God and in his love for mankind, and his coming to earth, is counted as righteousness and generates 'fruit' as well as good works.

The story of the Pharisee and the Publican comes to mind. The publican represents the natural human who is justified in his humanity by faith in the Creator without ever becoming 'religious' and better than others or justifying himself through his works or deeds.

Romans 10 has some good insights also. Unbelieving Israel was seeking righteousness through the deeds of the law, or works, or knowledge but missed the righteousness that is by faith.

Richard Amiel McGough

09-16-2011, 07:56 AM

Good morning ETD, :yo:

How did Abraham "Act" in order to be declared righteous?
Paul says that he DID"NT ACT to obtain this righteousness but was declared righteous for his faith before any actions. "Abraham believed God and it was accredited to him as Righteousness".

Anything a person does is an "act." I can think a thought, and it is an "act" of my mind. I can choose to believe the Bible despite the problems it has. That is an act of my mind. I can choose to disbelieve it, and that too is an act. If one is right and the other wrong, then the "act" of my belief When Abraham believed God, it was an "act" of his soul. If not, the he did not >>DO<< it! It was this action of believing God that God declared to be "righteous."

But there are different kinds of "acts." Paul was concerned with "works of the law" as contrasted with "works of faith." And you know that the Bible speaks of faith as a work since you quoted Christ's statement that the "work of God" is to believe on the son. It seems there is a lot of confusion around the meaning of the word "work" in the Bible.

Apparently "to do" what is right [to use your phrase] is to have faith in the Creator and in his coming incarnation and 'seed'.

No, that is not "apparent" at all. Of course it is righteous to believe God, but that does not mean that righteousness itself is defined as such. Every dog is a mammal, but not every mammal is a dog. It is righteous to give alms to the poor out of a pure heart regardless if you every heard of, let alone believed in, the God of Israel.

Jesus confirmed this by declaring faith to be a WORK by saying: This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Righteous-ness IS a status with respect to ones relationship with God. Since it is God who makes the law with what is to be considered righteous, it is he who has the final say. Biblical words are defined by their use in the bible, not by secular or humanist dictionaries.

I would also challange you to present a dictionary definition of 'righteousness' that predates 1500 B.C. Even so, if one could be produced, they would be humanist and relative in origin, and not authoritative or with respect to an open and loving relationship with the Creator/Lover/lawmaker/judge.

We know that the word "righteous" has a meaning apart from the Christan doctrine of imputed righteousness because the phrase "imputed righteousness" wouldn't have any meaning if "righteousness" itself was undefined.

We cannot even begin to discuss the theology of imputed righteousness if the word "righteousness" is undefined. That was my point.

The word "righteous" is DEFINED as "a person or action that is morally right." This is the definition used in the Bible (1 John 3:7) as well as all "secular" dictionaries. An undefined word has no meaning. We might as well be discussing "imputed gazzordfurkness" if the word is not defined.

That said, I think I can see the point you are trying to make. It seems that you want to define the word "righteous" as anything "approved by God." Thus a sinner who believes in Christ is "approved by God" and so declared to be "righteous." But isn't that arbitrary? What does "believing in God" have to do with the normal meaning of righteousness? There are plenty of people who "believe in God" but act unrighteously, so we are back to the oxymoron of "unrighteous righteousness." This touches the core of the "moral argument for God" which states that there could not be any moral right or wrong without a God to define the standard. I've always reject that argument because it made morality arbitrary. I recognize things as good or bad regardless of what God might say about them. Of course, the true God would recognize valid morals, but things are not moral merely because God says so. Otherwise, nothing is actually good or bad, it's all based on arbitrary pronouncements from God. This is the "command theory" of morality, and the question has been discussed since the time of Plato wrote the Euthyphro Dilemma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma) which basically asks "Is something good because God commanded it, or did God command it because it is good?".

Again; Paul deals with this in Romans 3-5. Paul is not making new doctrine specifically for the church, but expressing and clarifying doctrine of the Creator.

The law of God, the lawmaker is that He declares those to be Righteous and to be bestowed with the status of righteousness who work the work of God which is to believe on him whom he has sent. [Period] This is the law of faith [Rom 3:31] and justification and righteousness by faith.

This is what Paul means by saying God calls what is not [humans] as though they were. [righteous] It's in the same context of Romans 4.

This is where your oxymoron is defeated by the lawmaker.
The 'sinner' is justified and declared righteous in his very being solely by faith in the good character of the Creator of life. "Good deeds" which may not stem from a purified heart of faith in the creator may seems as Righteousness; but are not; while faith in God and in his love for mankind, and his coming to earth, is counted as righteousness and generates 'fruit' as well as good works.

Yes, yes, yes ... I understand the doctrine and its internal logic. But that doesn't mean I agree with it, or think that it is actually logically consistent. I'm questioning the validity of its logic. The fact that it causes a lot of confusion is evident from the fact that Paul had to fend off criticisms such as grace giving us a license to sin (Romans 6:1).

I think the root of the problem is that people are expected to be actually righteous (in the normal sense of the word) after being "declared righteous" by faith in God. The problem is that this doesn't actually work out in practice. Folks who profess faith in Christ are often the worst of sinners, and folks who reject Christ are often the more righteous (which is a natural consequence of their integrity which disallowed them from professing "faith" out of fear or a need to "fit in" with the sheep).

What is the fruit of the doctrine of justification put forth by Paul? Has it led to any real righteousness in the world, or has it led the rank hypocrisy of people declaring themselves to be righteous when in fact that are the opposite? Oooh my ... that's interesting. Folks who have been taught that reality can be created by mere words have been found to be hypocrites in practice? Is that a surprise? Is it possible that the fruits of this doctrine reveal its essential error?

The story of the Pharisee and the Publican comes to mind. The publican represents the natural human who is justified in his humanity by faith in the Creator without ever becoming 'religious' and better than others or justifying himself through his works or deeds.

Romans 10 has some good insights also. Unbelieving Israel was seeking righteousness through the deeds of the law, or works, or knowledge but missed the righteousness that is by faith.
Yes, that's how I understood things for many years.

But now I ask, why do we need to "justify" ourselves? It seems like Christianity is a "cure" for a non-existent disease. Sure, first century Jews might have been hung up about the Law and all, but what does that have to do with Gentiles who were never under the law? I know, I know, Romans 2:14 ... but in my mind, that only amplifies the problem. The whole theory of justification begins with a fiction of "original sin" in the Garden and the idea of a very angry and judgmental God who must be "propitiated" by a bloody sacrifice. Is there any reason any modern person would feel compelled to believe such a story? If not, then what happens to the doctrines of Christianity?

Great chatting!

Richard

joel

09-16-2011, 11:26 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

09-16-2011, 11:56 AM

If the garden narrative is a made-up story, and the sin of Adam is not true, and, therefore, none of his posterity is subject to sin and needing to be "saved" from it......then......righteousness as God views it is also a hoax, and all that He has to say about is of no value.

So, the first question is.......are you unjust? The answer is either.....yes.....or no.

If we say...."No". Then, all this talk of righteousness is hot air.

If we say....."Yes", then, if there is a God, there must be an answer.

Joel
The answer is not so simple. I paid my taxes last year, so I am not "unjust" with respect to that particular law. But if you mean "Are you morally imperfectly in any way at all?" then the answer is obviously "Yes."

This is a rather roundabout way to get at the real issue, so let's clarify things. It seems you are attempting to assert that our moral failings imply that we will have some sort of "problem" with God that must be "answered." Why is that? Why can't God simply forgive our sins just like we forgive each other every day? Are we greater than God?

joel

09-16-2011, 12:16 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

09-16-2011, 12:35 PM

I am inclined to be as succinct as possible in this matter.......we are "unjust" in spite of the just things we may do.

Realizing our condition, we must also realize that there is nothing we can do to change it.

Also, we must realize that God is just, and that He makes the unjust one just.

Once this is a settled conviction, it is appropriate to seek the "how" of God making just.

Joel
I do not believe that all people are "unjust." I am not doing anything "unjust" right now, and I have no prior "unjust" actions that I have not corrected as far as I know. How then can I be judged as unjust? What exactly do you mean when you say that everyone is unjust? Please spell it out precisely.

Richard Amiel McGough

09-16-2011, 01:08 PM

I am inclined to be as succinct as possible in this matter.......we are "unjust" in spite of the just things we may do.

Realizing our condition, we must also realize that there is nothing we can do to change it.

Also, we must realize that God is just, and that He makes the unjust one just.

Once this is a settled conviction, it is appropriate to seek the "how" of God making just.

Joel
I'm totally confused now. What do you mean when you say that "God is just?" If the word "just" has no definition, then how is it different than saying "God is smickdoofledorf!"

What exactly does "just" mean in the sentence "God is just."?

joel

09-16-2011, 01:25 PM

What exactly does "just" mean in the sentence "God is just."?

(without going into a lengthly debate on the definition of "good" and "evil") Everything God does, either good or evil, is right. Nothing God does is wrong. It is all right.

Everything God does, either good or evil, produces good.

That is how I see that God is just.

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough

09-16-2011, 02:27 PM

(without going into a lengthly debate on the definition of "good" and "evil") Everything God does, either good or evil, is right. Nothing God does is wrong. It is all right.

Everything God does, either good or evil, produces good.

That is how I see that God is just.

Joel
I'm sorry Joel, but that kind of language is semantically empty. If the words "right" and "good" have no meaning except in the sentence "All that God does is good and right" then that sentence gives me no information about God, good, or right. It would be like saying that "Everything I do is snrastnistic." Can you determine the meaning of the word "snrastnistic" from that sentence? Nope. You need to define the adjective or the adjective can't give any information about me because you don't know what it means.

When a person says that "All God does is right" they mean that there is a real meaning to the word "right" and that God's actions "match up" to it. If there is no meaning to "right" then it is meaningless to say that God's actions are "right" because no one has any idea what "right" means.

Do you really have no idea what right and wrong mean? :eek:

joel

09-16-2011, 02:51 PM

After all the words have gushed forth like a torrent and have overwhelmed my pea brain mind, I have discovered one thing..........I know almost nothing.

Right, wrong, good, evil...........whatever.

the little I know is.........I know Jesus and that is enough for me. All of God's wisdom, and knowledge is in Him. If I know Him, I know God, the Father.

Sorry......that may be too simple, and not explanation sufficient enough for a wise one such as you......as the commercial goes.... to me, it is priceless.

Joel

EndtimesDeut32/70AD

09-16-2011, 03:02 PM

Good morning ETD, :yo:
Anything a person does is an "act." I can think a thought, and it is an "act" of my mind. I can choose to believe the Bible despite the problems it has. That is an act of my mind. I can choose to disbelieve it, and that too is an act. If one is right and the other wrong, then the "act" of my belief When Abraham believed God, it was an "act" of his soul. If not, the he did not >>DO<< it! It was this action of believing God that God declared to be "righteous."

But there are different kinds of "acts." Paul was concerned with "works of the law" as contrasted with "works of faith." And you know that the Bible speaks of faith as a work since you quoted Christ's statement that the "work of God" is to believe on the son. It seems there is a lot of confusion around the meaning of the word "work" in the Bible.
I view some your interpretations and understandings as sometimes erroneous and then you being critical of those erroneous understandings. I see you more and more extracting and literalizing words from the intended meaning of the context, forming ideas and concepts of those words and then criticizing the concepts. Your not doing inductive study of the greater portion first; or perhaps not with the aid of the Good HS.

Secondly, Paul or the apostles are the interpreters of the truths that were already in the OT and now made clear through God's coming. The doctrine of justification by faith can't be attributed to Paul as the dispensationalist would present it. Paul is an interpreter and explainer of the doctines. It is the doctrine of the Creator.

For example. In Rom 3-5 I dont' know where Paul contrasts works of the deeds of the law with "WORKS" of faith. The work's is usually brought into the discussion by peoples extracting verses from James. But even in James, when you study what he is saying, he is calling "works" what is a response of faith.

A believer and knower of God's love for himself would do acts of love in a natural response to and guidance from that belief and security.

I can choose to believe the Bible despite the problems it has.
I believe the better concept would be to believe in the character attributes of the Goodness and Holiness of Creator God who as part of that Character and love would publish a written record of the progressive revelation of his nature, will, attributes, power and love as well as his desire to fellowship with and bless humanity on both an individual and associated level.

It was this action of believing God that God declared to be "righteous."
I think the wording is that the action of his mind in believing God was accounted to him as righteousness. It equaled a continual status of righteousness. It was a status of Abrahams standing. He had 'crossed over' from death to life.

The word "righteous" is DEFINED as "a person or action that is morally right." This is the definition used in the Bible (1 John 3:7) as well as all "secular" dictionaries.

Here above is a perfect example of trying to codify verses of Scripture into definition apart from the greater context. You refer to 1John 3:7 as a definition of righteous. Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
But in the greater context John is in unison with Paul in that the Righteousness of ones life with respect to access to God is due first to ones faith. You miss verses like:Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his [God's] seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. Thus the doing righteousness [spirit works] must come from a status of righteousness which conditions and parameters God establishes. And you would miss the context of first John 3:24...... And he that keepeth his commandments [of Love] dwelleth in him, and he [Jesus] in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. This goes back to John 14-16 and abiding in the Spirit.

And others;
And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him............. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. "Sin" is removed due to the cancellation of the law of sin/death...to those who believe and receive His Love and Person through faith. Rom 8:2.

In the context, John is encouraging them to put some actions on their Love just as God put actions on his love through His manifestation. Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.

That said, I think I can see the point you are trying to make. It seems that you want to define the word "righteous" as anything "approved by God." Thus a sinner who believes in Christ is "approved by God" and so declared to be "righteous." But isn't that arbitrary?

Righteous-ness is a status of ones standing in relationship with the living God not through the eyes and judgment of ones peers. And the rules for that righteousness and standing are declared by the creator of life, it is not arbitrary to the lawmaker and life-maker. It is the standard.

Lets make a quick and simplified analogy of a man [engineer] who designed a spaceship with all the love and intelligence that he could muster. It is designed to function well and fly freely in accordance with the desires of the maker as long as some rules are met. The first rule is to understand that this is a designed peice of equipment; not a haphazard collection of atoms falling out of the air. In such understanding and faith; the machine WILL work. If you think that the machine is built by the haphazard collection of molecules falling out of the air, you may not become an astronaut as you will not be able to operate the craft appropriately or respect its laws inherent with it designer. You will think that you will come to understand the operations of the craft better than it's builder and make and interpret your own rules for it's govornance.

What does "believing in God" have to do with the normal meaning of righteousness? There are plenty of people who "believe in God" but act unrighteously, so we are back to the oxymoron of "unrighteous righteousness."
That is partly answered in the intended meaning of 1 John 2 and 3. Belief in God's love through Christ should result in reciprocating actions of love. We 'love' [in action and deed] because he first loved us.

Acts that may be considered 'righteous' by peers do not equate being declared 'Righteous' by God. One's standing of being declared righteous and free as determined and established by God as coming through faith and the receiving of the Spirit, generates "righteous" acts.

The fact that it causes a lot of confusion is evident from the fact that Paul had to fend off criticisms such as grace giving us a license to sin (Romans 6:1).

If one reads Pauls teaching without the indwelling presence and freedom of the Spirit of Christ, one could come away with those opinions. This is where the accusation of reading, misunderstanding and misinterpreting someone else's letter comes in. Paul addresses 'bretheren' in the beginning of the book. Paul is writing edification, explanation and support of what their spirits already bore witness to. He is not writing anything contrary to the teaching and person of Christ and his indwelling and free-ing Spirit which they received.

Paul's teachings are subordinate and explanatory to Christs and the message of the Gospel [good news] of the Creator of Life. He is an explainer, not writing New "doctrine" for the dispensationalists idea of the church age. If anything has marred the life of an eternal relationship with the Creator, the body of Christ, society, humanity and the world, it is this dispensational idea that the church is a Pauline dispensation; that it is a temporary entity...thus religion; and that the jews frustrated the plan and kingdom of God by killing Christ.

Dan 9:24 and the ushering in of 'everlasting righteousness' comes into play here. But the 'everlasting righteousness' is individually applied.

I clipped the rest of your response for lack of time and partly due to run on ideas. Maybe get to them another time.

I do agree that some aspects of the "Religion" of Christianity are in error. Many of them are related to the dispensational/futurist influence. And I believe that the Romans forced a pre-mature [thus some erroneous] codification of the writings of the apostles into interpretations, statements, and doctrine BY THE ECF"S that was fuel that formed and spawned some aspects of a 'new' "religion" of Christianity and even the dispensational camp.

True Christianity is not so much as a religion as it is 'The Way" to individual [now unbreakable] friendship and fellowship with the Creator God and his good design. [The new garden] The fruit of which are Gal 5;22; loving God and neighbor and such things as taking care of orphans and widows in time of need.

The 'new' covenant is not a new conditional "religion" but a fulfillment of the seed promised to Eve to reverse and cancel the law of individual sin/death-separation from creator/lover God. Where the Spirit of the lord is; there is FREEDOM. It is "NEW" only in it's contrast with the mosaic covenant and it's principle elemental foundations were declared to be NOT LIKE the mosaic covenant but opposite from them. It is the everlasting covenant of individual love and Mercy [grace, adoption and blessing] promised from the Giver and Maker of Life himself.

In many 'christian' circles, one's 'approval' and 'righteousness' is attributed [by their peers] to assenting to all the right 'doctrines' rather than believing in, and receiving the love and Spirit of the Right Person; the Creator and lawmaker himself. The Spirit then guides to the right teachings. This was the method of the people of Israel, who as mentioned in Rom 10 sought righteousness by deeds of the law or by knowledge; such as having the right interpretations, doctrine and religious practice.

This could get run-on and is already getting repetitive and tedious. Though I consider some interaction on the BB's as an 'act of love'...forgive if I don't continue it or get back right away. With many words comes the fatigue of the hearers.

I'm actually in agreement with Joel in these concepts.

heb13-13

09-16-2011, 11:26 PM

I believe righteousness is the basic quality of God’s character and His character is to be formed in man.

For the righteous LORD loveth righteousness; his countenance doth behold the upright. Psalm 11:7

The formation of His righteousness does not come instantaneously. For this reason Jesus said, 'But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.' Matt 6:33

Those of the kingdom should experience a daily 'hunger and thirst for righteousness', (Matt 5:6).

The satisfying of this hunger comes as we receive this righteousness into our lives. Righteousness must become our life.
If we seek His kingdom we must seek His righteousness,for the foundation of God’s kingdom is righteousness.

I see the extension of God’s character through His authority. 'For the kingdom of God is righteousness… (Romans 14:17) You could say the scope of His righteousness is the scope of His authority. Or one could also say His authority establishes His righteousness. Righteousness involves the kingdom of God.

What is this righteousness that man is to seek? What is this righteousness that is the foundation of His kingdom and the basic nature of God? I see in the Scriptures that there are 3 revelations of righteousness. The first is found in creation, the second in the formation of a nation and the third in Jesus Christ the Son of God. In each of these a distinctive aspect of God’s righteousness is revealed.

First, let’s look at creation. God brought the world forth on a principle that established righteousness in everything He made. An order was established in the beginning, that has maintained life in exactly the same form as when created. God’s nature was revealed by what He made.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Rom 1:20

God brought forth everything on a principle of separation establishing an order in creation that preserved all He made. Separation is the first principle of righteousness. On the first day of creation God brought forth the light that separated darkness from darkness and it was the first day. On the second day, God separated the waters from the waters and the earth appeared. And on each succeeding day in all that He made, life was separated from life in all its forms. This is righteousness coming through order.

There is order in righteousness that maintains life. Because God is righteous, the sun comes up every morning, the earth maintains its orbit around the sun, the clouds water the earth and the earth blossoms. Because God is righteous, there are no monsters, no crossing over of life forms. Kind produces kind and all is good, just as it was when created. God set everything in its order, so life was established. This is righteousness.

Mixture is contrary to righteousness. In all creation mixture was not found except for a tree called 'the tree of knowledge of good and evil,' which became the place of man’s fall. Evil comes through mixture.Here one finds the first principle of evil. The incorporation of evil is sin. It is the nature of sin to break down order and cause disintegration. All kinds of disorder come until all the life support systems of one’s life are destroyed. The working of evil is always death.

It is mixture of good and evil that destroys righteousness. Evil can look good, but when evil comes in, it destroys all that righteousness has made. How many of God’s people are feeding upon mixture? The tree could be a book, a TV, a movie, a magazine, a philosophy or a relationship. The world today is full of mixture. It will excite the flesh but result in death for the soul.

Through mixture one loses the discernment of evil. In looking upon evil, one comes to accept evil; to experience evil, one loses the discernment of evil; and when discernment of evil is lost, evil has overcome. Not following the first principle of righteousness allows evil to enter. A prophet pronounced judgment upon a nation because they had lost discernment.
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Isa 5:20

God’s people must separate themselves from evil and draw the line between the clean and the unclean, between the holy and the profane. Fathers must teach their children to draw this line. The mixture of evil must be eliminated from the home and from the church. How much one allows the principle of separation to work in his life will determine how much God’s righteousness will work in his life.

Righteousness brings order and peace.

And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever. And my people shall dwell in a peaceable habitation, and in sure dwellings, and in quiet resting places;
Isa 32:17-18

Here is God’s call to righteousness.

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 2Co 6:14

And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 2Co 6:16

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you, 2Co 6:17

And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. 2Co 6:18

Much peace to us all,
Rick

joel

09-17-2011, 04:10 AM

Rick, that was priceless. Joel

heb13-13

09-17-2011, 08:12 AM

Thank you, Joel.

This question of righteousness and what it is, is a very good question. This is a good thread and needs to be discussed, because I think the church has given up on personal righteousness. Does God require men to be righteous or is it something that is impossible so we just say I am righteous because of Jesus Christ? We can't live half truths.

So, if Christ came to make men righteous, how does one experience righteousness as a work of the Spirit? Is this supposed to be an experiential reality in our lives or not?

Is there such a thing as the transformation of righteousness in a believer?

I believe there is because without righteousness the glory of God will not abide among men. It is not enough to be "declared righteous" and to say we are "justified", there must be real fruit. There must be some manifestation of the work of righteousness by the Spirit in a person. Otherwise, there is no reality of Christ in our lives and we just continue down the "happy" road of deception.

As the Church today is praying for revival the words of the prophet still speak with clear direction.

Isa 40:3 The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God

Isa 40:4 Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough places plain:

Isa 40:5 And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it.

True believing leads to the inworking (sanctification) and the outworking of our faith (true works authored by the Holy Spirit).

Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. John 15:14

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
Rom 8:14

Have a great day,
Rick

Richard Amiel McGough

09-17-2011, 01:33 PM

joel

09-17-2011, 02:32 PM

Therefore, the idea of "righteousness" itself has nothing to do with either "order" or "separation."

I think you are totally wrong on this point Richard.

Joel

Richard Amiel McGough

09-17-2011, 04:43 PM

Therefore, the idea of "righteousness" itself has nothing to do with either "order" or "separation."
I think you are totally wrong on this point Richard.

Joel
That's cool.

Is there a reason for the disagreement? Is there something I wrote that was not accurate?

joel

09-17-2011, 06:44 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

09-17-2011, 06:55 PM

Israel was to separate themselves from the idolatrous practices of the nations which inhabited the land. That was essential to their "righteousness".

Righteousness is keeping yourself from the idolatry of others.

Being separate from that which is iniquity is basic to doing what is right.

Joel
A person can separate himself from idolatry and still be unrighteous in other areas. Righteousness is "doing right" not merely "separating from wrong."

It looks like you did not understand what I wrote. Here it is again with the text you failed to understand in red:
Likewise, there is nothing about a "mixture" that is evil in and of itself. If you mix good things together, they don't become wicked because of being mixed, and if you separate one kind of evil from another, the evils do not become righteous. There is no connection between "righteousness" and "separation" except in the obvious sense that by definition the righteous must be separate from the unrighteous just as even numbers are separate from odd numbers. The idea of "separation" has nothing to do with the concept of an even or an odd number.

Therefore, the idea of "righteousness" itself has nothing to do with either "order" or "separation." It is defined as something like "the quality of moral goodness." It is essentially synonymous with words like "justice, goodness, morality" and so forth.
Therefore, it looks like your disagreement was a simple misunderstanding. To repeat, the idea of "separation" is implicit in any definition of anything. Even numbers are "separate" from odd numbers. White is "separate" from black. Righteousness is "separate" from unrighteousness. None of these concepts - "even number" or "white color" or "righteousness" - are related to "separation" in and of itself. The idea of "separation" is the definition of definition, that's all.

So now that we got that cleared up, is there anything I wrote that you think was incorrect?

heb13-13

09-17-2011, 08:44 PM

Hey there Mike, :yo:

I hope you don't get offended by my response. I very much appreciate your presence in our forum. But I think your ideas are quite fallacious, and I think it is best for me to just speak plainly. I could be wrong and welcome any correction you (or others) might want to offer.

Hi Richard,

I am not offended at all. On the contrary, maybe I did not explain myself sufficiently.

I was pretty sure you would disagree with me, but I did not think that in disagreeing with me you would completely miss my point. That surprised me and again, maybe I was not clear enough.

I am very happy to be here too and even though you think my ideas are fallacious, I hope you are not offended either. :thumb:

Now seriously, there are many problems with your explanation of "righteousness" in terms of "order" and "separation." Neither are essential to the idea righteousness. Hitler's regime was highly ordered, and demanded racial purity and separation from the "lesser races" like the "Jews" and "Negroes." It was an unrighteous regime based on order and separation.

Separation is only the first principle of righteousness; I did not say it was righteousness. It is definitely essential to righteousness, and conversely, it is essential to unrighteousness. So when you talk about Hitler that tells me that you missed my point entirely. When you define God's righteousness, just saying 1 or 2 words like moral purity or goodness, just won't doesn't do it.

And mixture does not have anything to do with unrighteousness.

Depends on what the mixture is.

The body of Christ is a mixture of Jew and Gentile, male and female, slave and free. It is a mixture taken from all "the peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations." And Christ himself is a "mixture" of God and Human. The Holy Spirit "mixes" with our own spirit when we commune with God. There is nothing whatsoever evil or unrighteous about the concept of "mixture" in and of itself.

Where did I talk about mixture "in and of itself"? Mixture in and of itself is nothing but a word, for you have not defined what the mixture is.

Here's the problem with your thesis. You secretly imported the idea of "righteous" with your idea of "God's order." So it was not the "order" itself that was "righteous" - you began with the idea of a "righteous order." There is nothing about "order" in and of itself that is "righteous." Some kinds of "order" are righteous, and some are unrighteous.

You just said "some kinds of order are righteous and some are unrighteous". And your previous sentence is like your sentence on mixture. You say, "there is nothing about "order in and of itself" that is righteous."

I agree. But I am not talking about "order in and of itself" am I? What the heck is "order in and of itself" or "mixture in and of itself" except WORDS.

I am talking about more than just the definitions of words.

Likewise, there is nothing about a "mixture" that is evil in and of itself. If you mix good things together, they don't become wicked because of being mixed, and if you separate one kind of evil from another, the evils do not become righteous.

Richard, puhlease...you are getting bogged down in minutiae.

There is no connection between "righteousness" and "separation" except in the obvious sense that by definition the righteous must be separate from the unrighteous just as even numbers are separate from odd numbers. The idea of "separation" has nothing to do with the concept of an even or an odd number.

Thank God you hit it! "There is no connection between "righteousness" and "separation" except in the obvious sense that by definition the righteous must be separate from the unrighteous."

Therefore, the idea of "righteousness" itself has nothing to do with either "order" or "separation."

That is wrong, Richard. When I was growing up I was taught that policemen and religious leaders were righteous men. I instantly thought that they kept themselves apart (separated) from any evil. That is what I thought about the "good guys" growing up. And that is what I thought about righteousness.

Separation has everything to do with righteousness. Darkness is dark because it is separate from light.

Separation IS the first principle of righteousness. I did not say it is righteousness. But righteousness involves separation. They go hand in hand and if we are to understand righteousness from God's point of view, Webster's dictionary won' be enough.

It is defined as something like "the quality of moral goodness." It is essentially synonymous with words like "justice, goodness, morality" and so forth.

All the best,

Richard

My explanation of righteousness in terms of order and separation is exactly what the Bible teaches. It is not helpful to the conversation when you create a strawman about racial purity.

To be sure, the second principle of righteousness is found in the formation of a nation but it had nothing to do with racial purity although it did have to do with separation. And yes, there is nothing wrong with mixture the way you put it, but you are redefining what I am saying. There is mixture that God hates, isn’t there? There is mixture that is wrong and is evil. All mixture is not good. Remember that I said, 'It is the mixture of good and evil that destroys righteousness'. Not what we or Hitler or anyone else think is good or evil, but what God says is good or evil. This kind of 'mixture' is contrary to righteousness and that is also why I said, 'the first principle of righteousness is found in Creation. God brought forth everything (that was RIGHT, RIGHTEOUS) on the principle of separation.' Remember, we are still talking about small building blocks here. We will see more in the formation of a nation. There is more to Righteousness than this principle of separation.

Yes, it is obvious that righteousness and separation go together.

Thanks for finally acknowledging it, I knew you understood what I was saying, however, it is not as obvious to many today as you might think.

Take the second principle of righteousness; it is found in the formation of a nation. God said to the descendants of Abraham,

'Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine: And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the
children of Israel. Exo 19:5-6

God desired to separate a people for Himself who would be formed by His righteousness. The condition for that formation would be obedience and keeping covenant with Him.

The Law as given to Moses became the instrument by which the people entered into covenant, and God’s authority was established over them. God’s authority establishes His righteousness. The principle of authority is as important for man today as it was for Moses and Israel. God has not changed, neither has man. The formation of righteousness comes under authority. This is the second principle of righteousness.

The Law was a revelation of God’s righteousness; in it one can see God’s character. We who are in the New Covenant tend to despise the First Covenant. In doing so we have lost the concept of righteousness. The New Covenant does not do away with the righteousness of the first. Grace does not set aside God’s righteousness. God’s people must not be lawless people, 'for sin is lawlessness' (1 John 3:4)

Lawlessness rejects authority and becomes a door for evil. Here is the second principle of evil. Lawlessness is contrary to righteousness.

So far we have:

1st principle of righteousness – Separation
1st principle of evil – Mixture

2nd principle of righteousness – Authority
2nd principle of evil – Lawlessness
So the Ten Commandments were given to this nation that God separated for Himself. The Ten Commandments are to establish a foundation of a righteousness for this nation. We can also say that Righteousness is the foundation for a stable society and lawlessness is the foundation for chaos and anarchy. Common sense, right? Without righteousness, no people can survive. Righteousness is the life of a nation and nations die just as people die.

The Scripture says, 'Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is disgrace to any people' (Proverbs 14:34).

Note the contrast between righteousness and lawlessness. A society disintegrates through lawlessness.

As order in the physical creation sustains it until this day, so God has established a moral order in society. The Law is that order. No society will endure without it.

Here are some other thoughts on this so you can see how they tie together and belong with each other.

Separation from God is unrighteousness - This separation is NOT GOOD.

Separating from evil and communion with God is righteousness - This separation is GOOD.

The principle of separation can work two ways. One to bring righteousness and the other to bring in unrighteousness through mixture.

Satan wanted to separate Adam and Eve unto himself and apart from God = unrighteousness

He used the mixture of lies to deceive Adam and Eve and separate them from God.

God wants to separate us from Satan back to Himself via the Truth = righteousness

In both cases, you see the principle of separation to bring one into righteousness or to bring one into unrighteousness.

I hope my extended reply clears up any misunderstandings.

Have a great day, tomorrow,

Mike, Rick, Fred, whatever...:winking0071:

Richard Amiel McGough

09-17-2011, 11:14 PM

Hi Richard,

I am not offended at all. On the contrary, maybe I did not explain myself sufficiently.

I was pretty sure you would disagree with me, but I did not think that in disagreeing with me you would completely miss my point. That surprised me and again, maybe I was not clear enough.

I am very happy to be here too and even though you think my ideas are fallacious, I hope you are not offended either. :thumb:

Hey there Rick, :yo:

Don't know where I got the "Mike." But Fred's a great name. You could be "Rickfred!" (the world already has enough Fredricks).

Anyway, don't worry about offending me my friend. I have no reason to be offended by anything anyone says because I'm not fighting for any particular idea. I'm just freely expressing myself, hoping to be learning, and coming to a better understanding of things. I very much appreciate your help. You have many well-formed concepts. The problem seems to be a misunderstanding about the topic, as explained next.

Now seriously, there are many problems with your explanation of "righteousness" in terms of "order" and "separation." Neither are essential to the idea righteousness. Hitler's regime was highly ordered, and demanded racial purity and separation from the "lesser races" like the "Jews" and "Negroes." It was an unrighteous regime based on order and separation.

Separation is only the first principle of righteousness; I did not say it was righteousness. It is definitely essential to righteousness, and conversely, it is essential to unrighteousness. So when you talk about Hitler that tells me that you missed my point entirely. When you define God's righteousness, just saying 1 or 2 words like moral purity or goodness, just won't doesn't do it.

I think the problem is with the words I highlighted red. I was talking about "what is righteousness" when you joined the conversation. I was responding to your post as if it were an explanation of "What is righteousness?". That's why I repeated the definition of "righteousness" when I said "It is defined as something like 'the quality of moral goodness.' It is essentially synonymous with words like 'justice, goodness, morality' and so forth."

The body of Christ is a mixture of Jew and Gentile, male and female, slave and free. It is a mixture taken from all "the peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations." And Christ himself is a "mixture" of God and Human. The Holy Spirit "mixes" with our own spirit when we commune with God. There is nothing whatsoever evil or unrighteous about the concept of "mixture" in and of itself.

Where did I talk about mixture "in and of itself"? Mixture in and of itself is nothing but a word, for you have not defined what the mixture is.

Again, I was speaking to the meaning of "righteousness" - what it is. That seems to be the source of the confusion. The idea is that righteousness is "moral goodness" - it's definition has nothing to do with the ideas of "separation" or "order." Those are ideas that relate to "how to implement righteousness in a person or society." That's a very different concept indeed, because it assumes that we know what we mean by the word "righteousness."

Here's the problem with your thesis. You secretly imported the idea of "righteous" with your idea of "God's order." So it was not the "order" itself that was "righteous" - you began with the idea of a "righteous order." There is nothing about "order" in and of itself that is "righteous." Some kinds of "order" are righteous, and some are unrighteous.

You just said "some kinds of order are righteous and some are unrighteous". And your previous sentence is like your sentence on mixture. You say, "there is nothing about "order in and of itself" that is righteous."

I agree. But I am not talking about "order in and of itself" am I? What the heck is "order in and of itself" or "mixture in and of itself" except WORDS.

I am talking about more than just the definitions of words.

I highlighted the source of confusion red. Again we see that I was talking about the meaning of "righteousness" - what it is - and you were assuming we all knew and agreed about the definition and so were talking about how to implement righteousness.

I was talking about the meaning of righteousness because it doesn't make any sense to "impute" righteous to a person if righteousness is understood in its ordinary sense as "moral goodness" - as "acting in accordance with what is right." That's what the topic was before you entered in, and so I read you post in light of the question "What is righteousness?".

Likewise, there is nothing about a "mixture" that is evil in and of itself. If you mix good things together, they don't become wicked because of being mixed, and if you separate one kind of evil from another, the evils do not become righteous.

Richard, puhlease...you are getting bogged down in minutiae.

I can see why you thought that, but it was not "minutiae" at all. We were simply talking about different things. I always had a bit of confusion around the meaning of "imputed righteousness" when I was a Christian, so I thought it would be interesting to look at it now from a fresh perspective. I really don't think it makes sense to "impute righteousness" since the word "righteous" means "to do what is right." Do you understand why this might cause confusion?

There is no connection between "righteousness" and "separation" except in the obvious sense that by definition the righteous must be separate from the unrighteous just as even numbers are separate from odd numbers. The idea of "separation" has nothing to do with the concept of an even or an odd number.

Thank God you hit it! "There is no connection between "righteousness" and "separation" except in the obvious sense that by definition the righteous must be separate from the unrighteous."

Yeah ... I "got it" after I sat there for a while wondering why anyone would think to define "righteousness" in terms of "separation." Now I understand you weren't trying to "define" righteousness at all, but were assuming we all knew what it was and talking rather about to implement it and encourage its growth.

Therefore, the idea of "righteousness" itself has nothing to do with either "order" or "separation."

That is wrong, Richard. When I was growing up I was taught that policemen and religious leaders were righteous men. I instantly thought that they kept themselves apart (separated) from any evil. That is what I thought about the "good guys" growing up. And that is what I thought about righteousness.

Separation has everything to do with righteousness. Darkness is dark because it is separate from light.

Separation IS the first principle of righteousness. I did not say it is righteousness. But righteousness involves separation. They go hand in hand and if we are to understand righteousness from God's point of view, Webster's dictionary won' be enough.

Well, the "first principle" of anything is to be separate from its negation! Let "A" represent anything, then the following statement is true for any A:

The first principle of A is to be separate from Not A.

It doesn't matter if A = Righteousness or A = Evil or A = Funny. But if you want to implement "A" in a person or society, then you need to convince people to separate themselves from "Not A."

My explanation of righteousness in terms of order and separation is exactly what the Bible teaches. It is not helpful to the conversation when you create a strawman about racial purity.

I don't think you gave an "explanation of righteousness." You gave an explanation of how to implement righteousness. I think your ideas would be good to discuss - they are obviously well thought out - but personally I'm more interested in clearing up the idea of "what is righteous" in relation to the doctrine of "imputed righteousness." Maybe I should start a thread with that specific topic to avoid confusion.

In any case,

Great chatting!

Richard

heb13-13

09-18-2011, 06:11 AM

Hey there Rick, :yo:

Don't know where I got the "Mike." But Fred's a great name. You could be "Rickfred!" (the world already has enough Fredricks).

I have always appreciated your humor. :D

I don't think you gave an "explanation of righteousness." You gave an explanation of how to implement righteousness. I think your ideas would be good to discuss - they are obviously well thought out - but personally I'm more interested in clearing up the idea of "what is righteous" in relation to the doctrine of "imputed righteousness." Maybe I should start a thread with that specific topic to avoid confusion.

In any case,

Great chatting!

Richard

Hi Richard,

I agree it is great to throw this back and forth. It is the only way that we can work things out.

Ok, let me come at it this way and see if this works.

You mentioned moral goodness. I would see your hand and raise you one to moral purity. How about that? Can we agree on that?

Now, to me, moral purity means free from any evil.

So, here is my one line definition of righteousness.

Righteousness = Complete separation from any evil, with absolutely no mixture at all.

Now, if you look at my definition the way I have written it, you can see that it does not include "implementation" anymore.

But, all that aside I see that you are after something else.

but personally I'm more interested in clearing up the idea of "what is righteous" in relation to the doctrine of "imputed righteousness."

I would be very happy to talk about that. :tea:

Thanks for your patience with me as I obviously missed your original intent.:sEm_ImSorry:

Yes, it is great chatting!
Rick

heb13-13

09-18-2011, 08:12 AM

Hey Richard,

I just wanted to say that I really tried to come up with a definition for righteousness without consulting any dictionaries or Greek/Hebrew. This is my definition from reading Genesis.

Best wishes,
Rick

Richard Amiel McGough

09-18-2011, 08:56 AM

Hi Richard,

I agree it is great to throw this back and forth. It is the only way that we can work things out.

Excellent! I love the process of refining our articulation so we agree more and more about almost everything so that the central point of disagreement can become extremely lucid and well-defined. This in itself will often lead to a resolution of the disagreement, and if not, a very clear understanding of what we must agree to disagree about, and why. It can be a very fruitful process.

Ok, let me come at it this way and see if this works.

You mentioned moral goodness. I would see your hand and raise you one to moral purity. How about that? Can we agree on that?

Now, to me, moral purity means free from any evil.

So, here is my one line definition of righteousness.

Righteousness = Complete separation from any evil, with absolutely no mixture at all.

Now, if you look at my definition the way I have written it, you can see that it does not include "implementation" anymore.

But, all that aside I see that you are after something else.

Well, I can see why might think that is a "definition" but in reality it only tells me that the terms "righteousness" and "evil" are antonyms. You merely shifted the burden so that now we must define evil. If I follow your lead and define evil as the "absence of righteousness" then we see that we have a mere tautology:
Righteousness = the absence of the absence of righteousness!
That's not particularly helpful, is it? :p

A definition of righteousness needs to tell me what it is, not merely what it is not, unless you really believe that the negation of its negation is all there is too it. Oddly enough, you have made evil the primary category - the thing with the "essential existence" - and righteousness a mere derivative as the "absence of evil." This is an inversion of the ancient Christian intuition that attempted to solve the Problem of Evil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil) by that saying that everything God created is good and evil is the absence of the original good. Here's a brief explanation from the wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil#Definition_of_evil_as_absence_of_g ood):
The fifth century theologian Augustine of Hippo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo) maintained that evil exists only as a privation (lack, absence) in that which is good and thus evil is not created by God. Evil is only privatio boni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatio_boni) or an absence of good such as in discord, injustice, and loss of life or of liberty.
Your definition does not work for me because I think righteousness involves a LOT more than mere "absence of evil." And for that matter, I don't think the "metaphysics of being" really applies to the ideas of "good" or "evil." I think those terms are conceptual opposites like Yin/Yang, Up/Down, White/Black etc. and neither has any independent existence or "beingness."

I would be very happy to talk about that. :tea:

Thanks for your patience with me as I obviously missed your original intent.:sEm_ImSorry:

Yes, it is great chatting!
Rick
And thank you for your patience with me! I am gong through a lot of changes (as you may have noticed) and sometimes my old "feisty fundamentalist" attitude breaks through unbidden. I'm sorry if I come across too strongly sometimes. I think it might be something to do with a habitual left-brain (logic/language) dominance over my much more social and intuitive right-brain. I'm reading books about the divided brain right now and they are extremely insightful.

Great chatting!

Bob May

09-18-2011, 09:23 AM

Richard Amiel McGough

09-18-2011, 11:01 AM

Hi all,

I believe "righteousness" is the condition that is the result of doing God's will.

Under the Old Covenant it was believed that this could be accomplished by following all of the detailed ordinances and ten commandments. The 314 or so laws in their entirety. This is the "work of our hands."

Under the New Covenant Jesus made it much more simple.

Joh 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
Joh 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

All the best,
Bob
Good morning Bob, :yo:

I agree that from a Christian perspective, a person who really "believed in Jesus" would inevitably do "good works" as a result of his faith. But that does not tell me anything about the nature of those "good works" like "what makes them good" as opposed to other works that are "evil."

The whole point of my question "What is righteousness" is to clarify an old confusion about "imputed righteousness" that I had when I was a Christian. The idea of "righteousness" is defined in the Bible and elsewhere as based on "doing what is right." This is the "ordinary meaning" that everyone has in the back of their heads when they begin discussing "imputed righteousness." But as soon as they start talking, they realize that it doesn't make any sense to "impute" something that is based on one's own actions, so a new definition of "righteousness" is invented to fit the theological paradigm. But the new definition contradicts the old, and confusion results.

Now this is nothing new. Christians have wrestled with the meaning of "imputed righteousness" for a long time. There is a big difference in the way that Protestants and Catholics interpret it, and I wonder if maybe they both aren't wrong. The translators were very inconsistent in the way they rendered "logizomai" (Strong's #3049) -

Romans 4:4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned (logizomai) of grace, but of debt.
Romans 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted (logizomai) for righteousness.
Romans 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth (logizomai) righteousness without works,
Romans 4:7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Romans 4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute (logizomai) sin.
Romans 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned (logizomai) to Abraham for righteousness.

In the space of six verses, the same Greek word is rendered reckoned, counted, imputed, impute, reckoned! No wonder there is so much confusion. And I think there is a fatal error in the Reformed doctrine of "imputed righteousness" that says it is a "foreign righteousness" - the "righteousness of Christ" that is "imputed" because that directly contradicts Paul's quote from Psalm 32 which says that "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not IMPUTE sin." Obviously, David was not talking about a "foreign sin" but his own sin, the product of his own actions. In other words, "impute" refers to something that David actually did, so likewise "imputed righteousness" should refer to something that the believer actually does. Thus, the whole idea of "imputed righteous" could be based on a faulty translation (coupled with a faulty Forensic Theory of the Atonement).

I suspect that most folks have never really looked into the history of this doctrine. It did not always exist. It was "rediscovered" (or invented?) by Luther and other Reformers fifteen hundred years after Christ.

Great chatting!

Richard

PS: I do believe you probably meant "613" as opposed to "314."

heb13-13

09-18-2011, 12:58 PM

Well, I can see why might think that is a "definition" but in reality it only tells me that the terms "righteousness" and "evil" are antonyms. You merely shifted the burden so that now we must define evil. If I follow your lead and define evil as the "absence of righteousness" then we see that we have a mere tautology:

Righteousness = the absence of the absence of righteousness!
That's not particularly helpful, is it? :p

Hi Richard,

I understand what you are saying. Very good points. This just buttresses my contention that it is a disservice to come up with a one or two line definition of the righteousness (of God). I am assuming that you are talking about the God kind of righteousness and not just "righteous acts" by men.

An act in and of itself :winking0071: can be righteous but that does not help us define God's righteousness.

Anyway, you want to talk about imputed righteousness in this thread. So, I better stop here.

I will be contemplating your question of imputation. :sCo_hmmthink:

Richard, would you please tell me the author of the right/left brain book if you don't mind. It sounds like the book that my wife was reading about and she forgot it's title and author. It would be very helpful to her if she could remember it. The review of it really spoke to her and she would like to get it.

Many thanks,
Rick

heb13-13

09-18-2011, 02:59 PM

This thread is dedicated to those who doubt about being righteous or its importance. Can righteousness be achieved?

God helps us to achieve Righteousness, Amen :pray:

Hi Richard,

I went back to read the original post and it was indeed what my thesis was moving towards. Namely, "Can One Be Righteous?"

I was attempting to lay a foundation to answer the question of this thread by CWH.

Has the question of this thread now changed to "What Is Righteousness?"

I would like to proceed in answering CWH's question, "Can You Be Righteous?"

Let me know how to proceed.

All the best,
Rick

P.S. Sorry, I'm a bit scatter-brained today or I would have brought this to your attention earlier.

CWH

09-18-2011, 03:30 PM

Hi Richard,

I went back to read the original post and it was indeed what my thesis was moving towards. Namely, "Can One Be Righteous?"

I was attempting to lay a foundation to answer the question of this thread by CWH.

Has the question of this thread now changed to "What Is Righteousness?"

I would like to proceed in answering CWH's question, "Can You Be Righteous?"

Let me know how to proceed.

All the best,
Rick

P.S. Sorry, I'm a bit scatter-brained today or I would have brought this to your attention earlier.

Hi Rick, you got it right. My main purpose of this thread is actually to discuss if Humans can be righteous. This is also to debate RAM's view that righteousness is humanly impossible. Perhaps RAM could change the title of this thread to "Can You Be Righteous?".

BTW, I am very impressed by your posts in this thread and you seems to project yourself as very knowledgeable in the topic on Righteousness :pray: :thumb: I do agree with you that Righteousness is a very important topic and it certainly has a bearing in our souls if we are to make ourselves eligible to enter into the kingdom of heaven. Almost every religion in the world seems to uphold Righteousness, and Righteousness (doing what is just, good and right) in almost every religion is taught as one of the main necessary requirement for one to enter into heaven.

God Blessings to you. Amen. :pray:

Richard Amiel McGough

09-18-2011, 04:13 PM

Hi Richard,

I understand what you are saying. Very good points. This just buttresses my contention that it is a disservice to come up with a one or two line definition of the righteousness (of God). I am assuming that you are talking about the God kind of righteousness and not just "righteous acts" by men.

An act in and of itself :winking0071: can be righteous but that does not help us define God's righteousness.

Anyway, you want to talk about imputed righteousness in this thread. So, I better stop here.

I will be contemplating your question of imputation. :sCo_hmmthink:

Richard, would you please tell me the author of the right/left brain book if you don't mind. It sounds like the book that my wife was reading about and she forgot it's title and author. It would be very helpful to her if she could remember it. The review of it really spoke to her and she would like to get it.

Many thanks,
Rick
Hey there rickFred, :yo:

You are right - it looks like I am the one who hi-jacked this thread. You were responding well to CWH's opening post. My bad! :o

I probably should start a thread devoted to the topic I want to discuss, and folks can jump in there if they feel like it.

I don't understand your distinction between "the God kind of righteousness" and any other kind of "righteousness." Granted, God's righteousness would be "perfect" I suppose, but not fundamentally "different" in any essential way. I mean, a perfect circle is still a circle by our normal definition. We would all be insane if we started talking about "God kind of circles" vs. "human circles."

Or maybe there are two meanings to righteousness? If so, can you tell me what defines the differences?

I still maintain that "righteousness" means "moral goodness" and is essentially synonymous with words like justice, goodness, and morality. All cultures, whether Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, or atheist have these words in their vocabularies. They are meaningful human words. The Bible is written using words that were already in use in the human cultures, and so were defined by how they were used in those cultures.

As for the books on the divided brain. The first one I read is called My Stroke of Insight by Jill Taylor. She was a brain scientist who had a major stroke in her left hemisphere. Her brain went "silent' and she experienced an overwhelming peace like nirvana and a sense of being at one with the universe. She regained her speech abilities, reading, and arithmetic over a period of 8 years. It's a very enjoyable and "insightful" read indeed.

I am now working on a second book - a thick 600 page, small print, heavily footnoted tome called The Master and His Emissary. This book reports on the results of scientific studies of the two hemispheres. It's a little challenging - he touches on everything under the sun - but it's a great read and very enlightening. I highly recommend both books.

Richard

heb13-13

09-18-2011, 04:27 PM

Hi Rick, you got it right. My main purpose of this thread is actually to discuss if Humans can be righteous. This is also to debate RAM's view that righteousness is humanly impossible. Perhaps RAM could change the title of this thread to "Can You Be Righteous?".

Hi CWH,

Thanks, I will take that as an affirmative that I should continue to address your question, "Can humans be righteous". My short answer is, YES, you can be righteous. I will continue to describe why I think this.

BTW, I am very impressed by your posts in this thread and you seems to project yourself as very knowledgeable in the topic on Righteousness :pray: :thumb: I do agree with you that Righteousness is a very important topic and it certainly has a bearing in our souls if we are to make ourselves eligible to enter into the kingdom of heaven. Almost every religion in the world seems to uphold Righteousness, and Righteousness (doing what is just, good and right) in almost every religion is taught as one of the main necessary requirement for one to enter into heaven.

And thanks for your vote of confidence but I am learning along with everyone else. I learn from everyone's posts, too.

Here are some parting scriptures before I come back again with my next post.

But as He which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in ALL manner of conversation; Because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy. 1Pe 1:15-16

The Holy Spirit moved on Peter to pen this command of holiness to the Church. He would not have done it if He did not intend to equip us to fulfill this command.

God Blessings to you. Amen. :pray:

Much peace and grace to you and everyone here,
Rick

Richard Amiel McGough

09-18-2011, 04:29 PM

Hi Rick, you got it right. My main purpose of this thread is actually to discuss if Humans can be righteous. This is also to debate RAM's view that righteousness is humanly impossible. Perhaps RAM could change the title of this thread to "Can You Be Righteous?".

Hey there CWH,

I will change the title - it would probably be a good idea so folks don't slip into my error of trying to define "what is righteousness" like the thread title says.

Now to clarify one point. I don't believe that people can't be righteous. If you recall, I merely quoted the Bible which says that there are "none righteous, no not one" to show you that your beliefs appear to contradict the Bible. I did not mean to imply that I agreed with the Bible on that point. But if I did believe the Bible, I would probably say that it is true, there are none righteous, all have sinned, and that's why everyone needs to be saved by Jesus. I am quite surprised to see you, as a Christian, denying this fundamental teaching of the faith. And I'm even more surprised that no one else in the forum has commented on your denial of this fundamental doctrine.

BTW, I am very impressed by your posts in this thread and you seems to project yourself as very knowledgeable in the topic on Righteousness :pray: :thumb: I do agree with you that Righteousness is a very important topic and it certainly has a bearing in our souls if we are to make ourselves eligible to enter into the kingdom of heaven. Almost every religion in the world seems to uphold Righteousness, and Righteousness (doing what is just, good and right) in almost every religion is taught as one of the main necessary requirement for one to enter into heaven.

God Blessings to you. Amen. :pray:
Again, I can't believe that no one is picking up on this. The Gospel does not teach people how to "make themselves eligible" - it teaches that people can do NOTHING to make themselves eligible. Otherwise, what's the need of the savior? It sounds like you are promoting the heresy of works righteousness.

Great chatting!

Richard

heb13-13

09-18-2011, 07:51 PM

Hey there rickFred, :yo:

You are right - it looks like I am the one who hi-jacked this thread. You were responding well to CWH's opening post. My bad! :o

Not a problem.

I probably should start a thread devoted to the topic I want to discuss, and folks can jump in there if they feel like it.

I don't understand your distinction between "the God kind of righteousness" and any other kind of "righteousness."

Actually, I said "I am assuming that you are talking about the God kind of righteousness and not just "righteous acts" by men."

There are no end to acts that men call righteous, that may not stand up to God's view of righteousness. Because, afterall, God looks on the heart and sees what is really going on.

Granted, God's righteousness would be "perfect" I suppose, but not fundamentally "different" in any essential way. I mean, a perfect circle is still a circle by our normal definition. We would all be insane if we started talking about "God kind of circles" vs. "human circles."

So, because God looks on the heart, our "human circles" may seem good and right and perfect, but they can never be the God kind of circles if the intentions of our heart are not acceptable in His sight. If we make "God circles", then that will please God. But how do we make God circles? That is what I hope to cover and with the help of everyone here, we may arrive at our destination.

Or maybe there are two meanings to righteousness? If so, can you tell me what defines the differences?

I think the difference has to do with our hearts.

Luk 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

I still maintain that "righteousness" means "moral goodness" and is essentially synonymous with words like justice, goodness, and morality.

Then we would have to find the definition of those words and they differ from culture to culture. That is one reason why I like using the KJV in this respect, because it won't say immorality, it will say fornication or adultery. And you cannot confuse what fornication is. In Papua New Guinea it is very moral to have many wives, but it is highly immoral to leave your tribe.

So, the definition of "moral goodness" and "justice", can differ from culture to culture. That is why I started with trying to show what is righteousness from God's point of view. His view is the only view that really counts.

All cultures, whether Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, or atheist have these words in their vocabularies.

And they could mean something different from culture to culture as I just illustrated.

They are meaningful human words.

No argument. However, they are meaningful to them. We may not derive the same meaning for a specific word as they do.

The Bible is written using words that were already in use in the human cultures, and so were defined by how they were used in those cultures.

As for the books on the divided brain. The first one I read is called My Stroke of Insight by Jill Taylor. She was a brain scientist who had a major stroke in her left hemisphere. Her brain went "silent' and she experienced an overwhelming peace like nirvana and a sense of being at one with the universe. She regained her speech abilities, reading, and arithmetic over a period of 8 years. It's a very enjoyable and "insightful" read indeed.

I am now working on a second book - a thick 600 page, small print, heavily footnoted tome called The Master and His Emissary. This book reports on the results of scientific studies of the two hemispheres. It's a little challenging - he touches on everything under the sun - but it's a great read and very enlightening. I highly recommend both books.

Thank you for the short synopsys on these books. I showed my wife and she may get the former one.

Richard

Thanks for the stimulating and thought provoking conversation,
Rick

heb13-13

09-18-2011, 08:25 PM

Hey there CWH,

I will change the title - it would probably be a good idea so folks don't slip into my error of trying to define "what is righteousness" like the thread title says.

Now to clarify one point. I don't believe that people can't be righteous. If you recall, I merely quoted the Bible which says that there are "none righteous, no not one" to show you that your beliefs appear to contradict the Bible. I did not mean to imply that I agreed with the Bible on that point. But if I did believe the Bible, I would probably say that it is true, there are none righteous, all have sinned, and that's why everyone needs to be saved by Jesus. I am quite surprised to see you, as a Christian, denying this fundamental teaching of the faith. And I'm even more surprised that no one else in the forum has commented on your denial of this fundamental doctrine.

It is true that we have all sinned and continue to sin.

John writing to Christians.
1Jn 1:10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

but then we have this:

1Jn 2:4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

We cannot say that we have not sinned yet, if we cannot say that we have not sinned, we are still supposed to be able to say that we know Him and keep His commandments. These two are not mutually exclusive.

There is no such thing as sinless perfection while living in this flesh, yet the attitude and motivation of your heart can still be Godward and pressing onto holiness and love. And when it is not, and you fall back, thank God He comes for you and leads you back. There is always some cost that we pay, though. Sin is a merciless taskmaster. But thank God, for His grace and mercy in the Person of Jesus Christ, otherwise we would all be stoned to death. But grace is not an excuse to continue in sin. God forbid. The Lord wants us to repent. He says, "I will heal their backsliding, I will love them freely: for mine anger is turned away from him. (Hosea 14:4)".

Too many think that they come back to God at anytime they choose, but they forget about the insidiousness of sin and how it hardens one's heart, slowly but surely without them being aware of it. (like the frog in the water). Indeed, they are not aware of the damage it is causing, because they have substituted walking with God and His presence by something else that makes them feel good as an individual and helps them to justify in their minds that they are ok in God's sight. But they are still the frog in the water and the water is getting hotter (their heart is getting harder).

Again, a message being written to Christians.
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.

Again, I can't believe that no one is picking up on this. The Gospel does not teach people how to "make themselves eligible" - it teaches that people can do NOTHING to make themselves eligible. Otherwise, what's the need of the savior? It sounds like you are promoting the heresy of works righteousness.

This medium of writing back and forth takes time. We could resolve things a lot faster if we were all in a living room. CWH's thought may not be complete so let's see what he has to say.

Great chatting!

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough

09-18-2011, 08:49 PM

I don't understand your distinction between "the God kind of righteousness" and any other kind of "righteousness."

Actually, I said "I am assuming that you are talking about the God kind of righteousness and not just "righteous acts" by men."

There are no end to acts that men call righteous, that may not stand up to God's view of righteousness. Because, afterall, God looks on the heart and sees what is really going on.

And which human is capable of judging according to "God's judgement" of righteousness? Look at history. How many abominable acts have been committed in the name of God and his "righteousness?" Are you saying that you are able to judge "God's righteousness?" If not, what good is it? No man knows it. All we have is our own judgments. That goes for every Christian as much as any man.

So I am utterly confused by how you could think that the Bible provides a guide to "God's righteousness" if it remains an absolute mystery to every human.

Granted, God's righteousness would be "perfect" I suppose, but not fundamentally "different" in any essential way. I mean, a perfect circle is still a circle by our normal definition. We would all be insane if we started talking about "God kind of circles" vs. "human circles."

So, because God looks on the heart, our "human circles" may seem good and right and perfect, but they can never be the God kind of circles if the intentions of our heart are not acceptable in His sight. If we make "God circles", then that will please God. But how do we make God circles? That is what I hope to cover and with the help of everyone here, we may arrive at our destination.

I am not under the illusion that any "human circles" are "perfect." And neither am I under the illusion that you or any human can reveal to me the "perfect circles" of God. What good then is your conception of "God's perfect righteousness" if no man can know it? Anything you say will be a "human conception" just like the circles - the concept of "God's perfect righteousness" is an abstraction that no human can really know.

And how are mere humans supposed to make "God circles?" Only God can do that.

Or maybe there are two meanings to righteousness? If so, can you tell me what defines the differences?

I think the difference has to do with our hearts.

Be that as it may, it is a useless idea for us since it will never help us sort out any of these questions.

I still maintain that "righteousness" means "moral goodness" and is essentially synonymous with words like justice, goodness, and morality.

Then we would have to find the definition of those words and they differ from culture to culture. That is one reason why I like using the KJV in this respect, because it won't say immorality, it will say fornication or adultery. And you cannot confuse what fornication is. In Papua New Guinea it is very moral to have many wives, but it is highly immoral to leave your tribe.

So, the definition of "moral goodness" and "justice", can differ from culture to culture. That is why I started with trying to show what is righteousness from God's point of view. His view is the only view that really counts.

Nothing you said had anything to do with "righteousness" as far as I could tell. Your ideas of "keeping separate from evil" depended entirely upon your personal cultural definition of evil. Catholics or Muslims could have said exactly the same words as you but come to entirely different conclusions because they began with different presuppositions.

But the real definition of morality is not as relative as you seem to think. The fact that there are people ignorant of morality does not mean there is no such thing as morality. The Golden Rule (which exists in most cultures) is the root of true morality. Every human with a properly functioning mind can understand it and see it is the root of all true morality. And there is no confusion about "God's view" vs. "the human view." The two views coincide in the Golden Rule.

You have yet to show how your personal human concept of "God" is supposed to fix the problem of the "relativity of morals."

All cultures, whether Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, or atheist have these words in their vocabularies.

And they could mean something different from culture to culture as I just illustrated.

No, the don't generally mean different things. Real morals are like smiles and frowns. Universal language.

I think it's quite ironic that you are arguing against a universal moral knowledge, since most Christian argue from an assumed universal moral law to prove that there must be a moral law giver, i.e. God. You also seem to be denying the arguments from the Bible that say God has revealed his moral law in all our hearts.

Thanks for the stimulating and thought provoking conversation,
Rick
And I thank you!

Richard

PS: What ever happened to that other thread where you were going to discuss the OT genocide? Have you found a reasonable response yet?

heb13-13

09-18-2011, 10:13 PM

Hey Richard,

I think we need to take a step back a bit. We are getting way ahead of things. I think a lot of these questions will be answered as we take things a step at a time.

PS: What ever happened to that other thread where you were going to discuss the OT genocide? Have you found a reasonable response yet?

As far as the genocide in the OT, to explain that, I would have to talk about a "superstition started by pagan cultures", which is Satan. This is what you said you and Rose believe about Satan, God's Enemy. My response would not be "reasonable" to you.

In deliberating about it, I thought this might be a more fruitful discussion than trying to explain what took place in the OT, when by your admission of Satan being a superstition, that would mean you do not believe in the Powers of Darkness at work behind nations and peoples which means that logically, you do not believe there is any such thing as spiritual warfare. I am glad you asked, because I had been remissed in not explaining to you why I was taking so long and it is just bad manners to ignore something that I said I would do. But, nevertheless, that is why I decided not to post on the "Genocide in the OT". At least not now. My fault, I'm sorry.

Anyway, Satan is part of it, but not all of it.

Back to the topic about "Can You Be Righteous?"

Many Christians say, "God only requires one to be righteous. His Son". The thought goes that since He is righteous, God does not require me to be righteous. This is a typical response coming from Christendom, today.

Does God require men to be righteous? Here many Christians would respond, "No". They take a view called positional holiness that can be expressed as follows: "Oh, yes, I am very unholy and I commit sin; I sin in thought, word and deed every day, but by virtue of my position in Christ, all Christ's perfect righteousness is accredited to me so that God does not even see my sin; He sees only Christ and since I have my position in Christ, I remain holy before God."

The logic is, because of my position in Christ, God does not see me, He sees only Christ. Since Christ is righteous, I am righteous.

In this view one see righteousness as a legal position in Christ rather than a life of righteousness. They would say you cannot be righteous, only reckoned righteous. Faith enters into a legalistic reckoning of all sins, past, present and future, as already remitted. A permanent justification encompasses all the future sins he may commit, and nothing he does will change his position in Christ. Faith has completed the work, he no longer is responsible to repent.

Also a certain gnosticism has entered the church that says the knowledge of it makes it so. In this view, righteousness is just a matter of knowledge. If you know it, then it is yours. Confess it, and it will be so. This accomodates the positional view of righteousness. But, does a confession of righteousness make one righteous?

Is faith a substitute for repentance?

In an attempt to establish a Biblical view, I will write again soon.

God bless you,
Rick

Richard Amiel McGough

09-18-2011, 10:41 PM

Hey Richard,

I think we need to take a step back a bit. We are getting way ahead of things. I think a lot of these questions will be answered as we take things a step at a time.

I'm good with that. I'll follow your lead and see where it goes.

As far as the genocide in the OT, to explain that, I would have to talk about a "superstition started by pagan cultures", which is Satan. This is what you said you and Rose believe about Satan, God's Enemy. My response would not be "reasonable" to you.

In deliberating about it, I thought this might be a more fruitful discussion than trying to explain what took place in the OT, when by your admission of Satan being a superstition, that would mean you do not believe in the Powers of Darkness at work behind nations and peoples which means that logically, you do not believe there is any such thing as spiritual warfare. I am glad you asked, because I had been remissed in not explaining to you why I was taking so long and it is just bad manners to ignore something that I said I would do. But, nevertheless, that is why I decided not to post on the "Genocide in the OT". At least not now. My fault, I'm sorry.

Anyway, Satan is part of it, but not all of it.

Well, it sounds like a lot of speculation is required to answer that question. And I really can't imagine any satisfactory answer that says God had to order his people to brutalize themselves as baby killers in a battle against Satan. If Satan is real, God could have dealt with him directly rather than making his people act in ways worse than any Satanist. I think there is a profound intellectual "disconnect" in all this kind of speculation. The reality is much too obvious. The God of the OT looks like a typical tribal war god of the Bronze age.

Back to the topic about "Can You Be Righteous?"

Many Christians say, "God only requires one to be righteous. His Son". The thought goes that since He is righteous, God does not require me to be righteous. This is a typical response coming from Christendom, today.

Does God require men to be righteous? Here many Christians would respond, "No". They take a view called positional holiness that can be expressed as follows: "Oh, yes, I am very unholy and I commit sin; I sin in thought, word and deed every day, but by virtue of my position in Christ, all Christ's perfect righteousness is accredited to me so that God does not even see my sin; He sees only Christ and since I have my position in Christ, I remain holy before God."

The logic is, because of my position in Christ, God does not see me, He sees only Christ. Since Christ is righteous, I am righteous.

In this view one see righteousness as a legal position in Christ rather than a life of righteousness. They would say you cannot be righteous, only reckoned righteous. Faith enters into a legalistic reckoning of all sins, past, present and future, as already remitted. A permanent justification encompasses all the future sins he may commit, and nothing he does will change his position in Christ. Faith has completed the work, he no longer is responsible to repent.

Also a certain gnosticism has entered the church that says the knowledge of it makes it so. In this view, righteousness is just a matter of knowledge. If you know it, then it is yours. Confess it, and it will be so. This accomodates the positional view of righteousness. But, does a confession of righteousness make one righteous?

Is faith a substitute for repentance?

In an attempt to establish a Biblical view, I will write again soon.

God bless you,
Rick
I find your rejection of the common "positional view" of righteousness fascinating. What kind of Christian are you? Do you belong to a church or denomination? What do you think about the fact that each Christian seems to have to make up their own version of the religion? That's what made me finally quit - I found that I believed things that most Christians rejected, and so rather than thinking "I'm right and they are wrong" I just concluded we were all wrong because the religion itself, or rather, the ten thousand versions of the religion, are all wrong.

This is the inevitable consequence of being a thoughtful Christian. The more you think about it, the more you will realize that 99% of Christians "got it wrong" and finally you realize that it is absurd to think that God cares about the religion one ultimately invents for one's self.

Great chatting, as always!

Richard

heb13-13

09-18-2011, 11:30 PM

Richard Amiel McGough

09-19-2011, 08:48 AM

I find your rejection of the common "positional view" of righteousness fascinating. What kind of Christian are you?

Hi my friend,

I will leave that up to you. You can tell me what kind I am as we move along in this thread and others. :)

Do you belong to a church or denomination?

Of course I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ, but not in the sense that you are asking. I left Institutional Christianity 30 years ago. I really never liked it when I was first introduced to it. Looked back once, for about a year or so to see if I was missing anything, and I wasn't. Actually, I was missing a lot...of bad stuff. Do I think I am better? No. I will share my journey with you by and by.

I have raised all 4 of my children (still raising them) out of Institutional Christianity and I am so glad I did. We have had a much happier and blessed life. Got to sleep in on many Sunday mornings. How blessed is that!! We meet in homes with friends that also left the religious system. We just did not find LIFE there. Great programs and choreography for sure, and spectacular orators, but not LIFE. Of course we have friends in the IC, but we choose not to be there. We would just get in trouble anyway and probably get run out of town. Most people don't take kindly to having their golden calves melted.

Well ... that's pretty much what I thought - you have rejected the "Institutional Church." So why do you use the book that they produced? What makes you think it is true? And why does any of it matter if 99% of all "believers" are so far off track that they'd run you out of town for exposing their rank idolatry? I don't understand what could convince you that you are right and nearly everyone else is wrong. Is there any objectively verifiable way to settle the issue, or is it all just the interpretation of words, words, and more words like medieval scholastic theology of angels dancing on the head of a needle?

To me, it all looks like the doctrines of Harold Camping. He still has followers who adamantly declare with absolute certainty that judgment day really did happen on May 21st just like Harold predicted, except it was "spiritual." They are still believers! Even after being smashed in the face with reality. This demonstrates that without a habit of scientific skepticism folks become completely lost in their own false belief systems. How do you protect yourself from the same fate?

What do you think about the fact that each Christian seems to have to make up their own version of the religion? Why make it up when it is in the Word of God for us. I hope to show you what I have found. That's what made me finally quit (Don't blame you one bit!) - I found that I believed things that most Christians rejected, and so rather than thinking "I'm right and they are wrong" I just concluded we were all wrong because the religion itself, or rather, the ten thousand versions of the religion, are all wrong.

You may conclude that I am the 10,001st version. Let's see. :winking0071:

Ha! That's funny because it's exactly what I said before I came to realize that I too was "making up" my own version of Christianity as I wrestled to understand the text. It will be very interesting to see how you solved some of those problems. But no matter how you did it, I know it's pretty unlikely that you have discovered the "one true interpretation" of the Bible, so how then do you differ from all the other faulty interpretations?

Have you considered that maybe the Bible really is from God, and that he designed it to make Biblical fundamentalism impossible? That's why he filled it with obvious errors, contradictions, logical absurdities, and moral abominations attributed to God. It was to make it impossible for any honest and intelligent person to assert that it is the "inerrant and infallible Word of God." In other words, the "highest view" of Scripture is to accept it as given, warts and all, and to not try to make up stuff to "explain it" and make it fit with our human theories about what the "Word of God" must look like.

This is the inevitable consequence of being a thoughtful Christian. The more you think about it, the more you will realize that 99% of Christians "got it wrong" and finally you realize that it is absurd to think that God cares about the religion one ultimately invents for one's self.

No, the inevitable consequence of being a thoughtful Christian is leaving the system, yeah, you got that one right, but not leaving Jesus Christ.

And how do you know that "Jesus Christ" is not part of the system?

Aren't you just splitting hairs? Why pick and choose which parts to believe and which to reject? A little leaven dude ... :p

Great chatting, as always!

It has been very nice, Richard. I think we are going to have a good time in this thread. Got a busy week ahead. Hope to write soon. Be well my friend.

Going to read some more of your wonderful book. :clap2:

Yes, I think we are going to have a very good time. You are very intelligent and thoughtful and a delight to talk with.

All the best my friend,

Richard

PS: I'm heading out for a road trip today, so my missives will be rather intermittent. But I expect I will find hotspots along the way and will find time to respond before the end of each day.

CWH

09-19-2011, 01:35 PM

Again, I can't believe that no one is picking up on this. The Gospel does not teach people how to "make themselves eligible" - it teaches that people can do NOTHING to make themselves eligible. Otherwise, what's the need of the savior? It sounds like you are promoting the heresy of works righteousness.

This medium of writing back and forth takes time. We could resolve things a lot faster if we were all in a living room. CWH's thought may not be complete so let's see what he has to say.

I have already answer that question in this thread. We all know that no one is perfect except God, then why does God still want us to be as perfect as Him?

Quote From CWH:And how do you understand this verse? Matthew 5:48
Therefore be ye perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
We all know that no one is perfect except God, so how to be perfect? Does that mean we need not be perfect just because it is impossible to be perfect or we should at least try to be perfect. It is like trying to perfect a computer system, does that mean we should not try to perfect the system since no one can be perfect? Therefore, what Matthew 5:48 is saying is "try your best to be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect".

Same with Righteousness, if righteousness is humanly impossible, why did Jesus asked us to strive for Righteousness? Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His Righteousness. It's like someone saying, "Reach for the stars" which we know is currently impossible but that does not mean that we should not try.

Seek Righteousness and perfection, Amen.:pray:

CWH

09-19-2011, 02:19 PM

I'm good with that. I'll follow your lead and see where it goes.

Well, it sounds like a lot of speculation is required to answer that question. And I really can't imagine any satisfactory answer that says God had to order his people to brutalize themselves as baby killers in a battle against Satan. If Satan is real, God could have dealt with him directly rather than making his people act in ways worse than any Satanist. I think there is a profound intellectual "disconnect" in all this kind of speculation. The reality is much too obvious. The God of the OT looks like a typical tribal war god of the Bronze age.

I find your rejection of the common "positional view" of righteousness fascinating. What kind of Christian are you? Do you belong to a church or denomination? What do you think about the fact that each Christian seems to have to make up their own version of the religion? That's what made me finally quit - I found that I believed things that most Christians rejected, and so rather than thinking "I'm right and they are wrong" I just concluded we were all wrong because the religion itself, or rather, the ten thousand versions of the religion, are all wrong.

This is the inevitable consequence of being a thoughtful Christian. The more you think about it, the more you will realize that 99% of Christians "got it wrong" and finally you realize that it is absurd to think that God cares about the religion one ultimately invents for one's self.

Great chatting, as always!

Richard

I have said umpteen times in this forum that the reason why there are so many Christian denominations is that God want us to know Him better. It's like a teacher who put in a question for discussion. The students may come up with many answers which is good for interactions and critical thinking but there will be only one correct answer which the teacher will reveal at an appointed time. As long as the students think along the line using the basic fundamentals that were taught, it doesn't matter if the students come out with many answers to the question. The important thing to the teacher is that the students apply the fundamentals that were taught. Same with the many Christian denominations whose differences are usually minor but as long as the fundamental that Jesus is the Son of God and whoever believes in Him will never die but have everlasting life, is perfectly ok to God. It is thus good to debate about the differences which may not come to a conclusion but it keeps us in the Christian faith and the relentless search working together in unison for the truthful answers. It also prevent us from the selfish pride that my own Christian denomination is the one and only truthful religion and all must abide by my religion. Such pride will only breed human arrogance, dominance and selfishness which are unchristian.

Lord make us know you better. Amen.:pray:

heb13-13

09-19-2011, 03:26 PM

Well ... that's pretty much what I thought - you have rejected the "Institutional Church." So why do you use the book that they produced? What makes you think it is true? And why does any of it matter if 99% of all "believers" are so far off track that they'd run you out of town for exposing their rank idolatry? I don't understand what could convince you that you are right and nearly everyone else is wrong. Is there any objectively verifiable way to settle the issue, or is it all just the interpretation of words, words, and more words like medieval scholastic theology of angels dancing on the head of a needle?

Richard, you remind me in some ways about myself. My wife tells me I ask her 3 questions before she gets to answer one of them. I hope you don't mind, but I am going to resist the temptation to answer all these peripheral questions so that I can stay on topic. Don't be offended. I get off track very easily and I just don't have one liners for you. Each of your questions could be a thread in themselves and we would never continue onto "CAN YOU BE RIGHTEOUS."

I will be around. Not going anywhere (Lord willing) and can get to these other questions and curiosities, later.

I will say, that I have many friends in many different denominations and we have good fellowship as long as the thrust is Jesus Christ. We all have to walk in the light that we think we have, right?

To me, it all looks like the doctrines of Harold Camping. He still has followers who adamantly declare with absolute certainty that judgment day really did happen on May 21st just like Harold predicted, except it was "spiritual." They are still believers! Even after being smashed in the face with reality. This demonstrates that without a habit of scientific skepticism folks become completely lost in their own false belief systems.

May the Lord wake him up so that he will repent publicly for what he so publicly did and is doing. Isn't October 21 the revised 2nd coming, now?

How do you protect yourself from the same fate?

I depend on the Lord to protect me. He has saved me from myself and others, many times. I never said that I am completely right. On the contrary, I have had to make many, many adjustments through the years as God progressively gives me more and more light. I sure I will make more adjustments in the future. It's a walk of faith and when you are walking, it takes a long time to get to your destination (especially if you have never been there). You learn along the way and much of our learning comes through wrong turns and failure. But God is faithful.

Ha! That's funny because it's exactly what I said before I came to realize that I too was "making up" my own version of Christianity as I wrestled to understand the text. It will be very interesting to see how you solved some of those problems. But no matter how you did it, I know it's pretty unlikely that you have discovered the "one true interpretation" of the Bible, so how then do you differ from all the other faulty interpretations?

I am not so concerned about making up my own version of Christianity as I am about making up my own version of Jesus. I just want to follow the right Jesus and not a Christ of my own making.

Have you considered that maybe the Bible really is from God, and that he designed it to make Biblical fundamentalism impossible? That's why he filled it with obvious errors, contradictions, logical absurdities, and moral abominations attributed to God. It was to make it impossible for any honest and intelligent person to assert that it is the "inerrant and infallible Word of God." In other words, the "highest view" of Scripture is to accept it as given, warts and all, and to not try to make up stuff to "explain it" and make it fit with our human theories about what the "Word of God" must look like.

After I finish explaining "Can You Be Righteous", you tell me if I am making it up, or if it is truly found in the Bible. But then, everything must be received by faith.

And how do you know that "Jesus Christ" is not part of the system?

If Jesus Christ is part of the System, then I am deceived and the Bible is a lie. Jesus Christ transcends man's systems. Man's systems may do a good job at keeping the whole truth out, but man cannot keep the Holy Spirit from working in people's lives and speaking to them.

We all have to constantly be on our guard that we do not create a system out of revelation that God gives us. We are so prone to do that. We find out something that "works" and we hold it up as the ANSWER to a successful Christian life. I even see it in House Churching. People are trying to turn it into a successful system of "How to House Church". They have such disdain for the IC but now they are repeating the same things, only in someone's living room. I don't have disdain for the IC, I just would rather eat blueberries than take prescription medicine.

We always have to keep our eyes on Jesus. If we don't come to God's Word with our whole heart, we will only have a religious experience, but if we come to God with a whole heart (as much as we know at the time), we will have a genuine experience with God.

Well, there you go, Richard. I said I would resist getting off track, and now my answers will only generate more questions. But, that is how relationships and conversations are, afterall, so I understand.

But, I understand my wife, too. :winking0071:

Aren't you just splitting hairs? Why pick and choose which parts to believe and which to reject? A little leaven dude ... :p

Yes, I think we are going to have a very good time. You are very intelligent and thoughtful and a delight to talk with.

All the best my friend,

Richard

PS: I'm heading out for a road trip today, so my missives will be rather intermittent. But I expect I will find hotspots along the way and will find time to respond before the end of each day.

Hope you are having a good trip. Talk to you later.
Rick

P.S. Sheep don't protect themselves. They can't. The only way they can protect themselves is by listening to the Shepherd's voice and staying close to Him. There is not even security in following other sheep.

Richard Amiel McGough

09-19-2011, 10:10 PM

Well ... that's pretty much what I thought - you have rejected the "Institutional Church." So why do you use the book that they produced? What makes you think it is true? And why does any of it matter if 99% of all "believers" are so far off track that they'd run you out of town for exposing their rank idolatry? I don't understand what could convince you that you are right and nearly everyone else is wrong. Is there any objectively verifiable way to settle the issue, or is it all just the interpretation of words, words, and more words like medieval scholastic theology of angels dancing on the head of a needle?

Richard, you remind me in some ways about myself. My wife tells me I ask her 3 questions before she gets to answer one of them. I hope you don't mind, but I am going to resist the temptation to answer all these peripheral questions so that I can stay on topic. Don't be offended. I get off track very easily and I just don't have one liners for you. Each of your questions could be a thread in themselves and we would never really go deep on "CAN YOU BE RIGHTEOUS."

I will be around. Not going anywhere (Lord willing) and can get to these other questions and curiosities, later.

I will say, that I have many friends in many different denominations and we have good fellowship as long as the thrust is Jesus Christ. We all have to walk in the light that we think we have, right?

I undderstand perfectly - it would be silly to respond to all my questions as if they were so many ping pong balls speeding your way. There's plenty of time, and I'm happy to follow your lead. But sometimes I'll shoot out a bunch of questions in a sort of "stream of consciousness" mode. If nothing else, it will help you understand where I'm coming from and what issues seem important to me.

And yes, I agree - we can do nothing beyond the light we think we have.

To me, it all looks like the doctrines of Harold Camping. He still has followers who adamantly declare with absolute certainty that judgment day really did happen on May 21st just like Harold predicted, except it was "spiritual." They are still believers! Even after being smashed in the face with reality. This demonstrates that without a habit of scientific skepticism folks become completely lost in their own false belief systems.

Yeah, Harold is a piece of work. May the Lord wake him up so that he will repent publicly for what he so publicly did and is doing. Isn't October 21 the revised 2nd coming, now?

The "end of the world" had been already scheduled for Oct 21 because that was exactly 5 months (Rev 9) after the Rapture on May 21, which also was the first day of the 153 days of the "Day of Judgment" that was going to begin with a "rolling earthquake" that would shake up the entire globe (to open the graves and cast out the remains to be shamed before God) one time-zone at a time. :hysterical:

And Harold's die hard followers are waiting for Oct 21 with perfect certainty that the entire universe will be annihilated on that day.

Ha! That's funny because it's exactly what I said before I came to realize that I too was "making up" my own version of Christianity as I wrestled to understand the text. It will be very interesting to see how you solved some of those problems. But no matter how you did it, I know it's pretty unlikely that you have discovered the "one true interpretation" of the Bible, so how then do you differ from all the other faulty interpretations?

I am not so concerned about making up my own version of Christianity as I am about making up my own version of Jesus. I just want to follow the right Jesus and not a Christ of my own making.

But are there any objective standards to discern between the "true Jesus" and all the imposters?

Have you considered that maybe the Bible really is from God, and that he designed it to make Biblical fundamentalism impossible? That's why he filled it with obvious errors, contradictions, logical absurdities, and moral abominations attributed to God. It was to make it impossible for any honest and intelligent person to assert that it is the "inerrant and infallible Word of God." In other words, the "highest view" of Scripture is to accept it as given, warts and all, and to not try to make up stuff to "explain it" and make it fit with our human theories about what the "Word of God" must look like.

After I finish explaining "Can You Be Righteous", you tell me if I am making it up, or if it is truly found in the Bible. But then, everything must be received by faith.

Will do! :thumb:

We all have to constantly be on our guard that we do not create a system out of revelation that God gives us. We are so prone to do that. We find out something that "works" and we hold it up as the ANSWER to a successful Christian life. I even see it in House Churching. People are trying to turn it into a successful system of "How to House Church". They have such disdain for the IC but now they are repeating the same things, only in someone's living room. I don't have disdain for the IC, I just would rather eat blueberries than take prescription medicine.

It's funny, but I only now just noticed that you and Harold have something in common - you both reject the institutional church! Of course, Harold went way overboard and said anyone going to church was damned, and that they would have to suffer more than anyone else during the 5 months of Judgment Day because they did not believe "God's message" about May 21st.

But don't worry - I'm just joking when I say you and he have something in common. I really don't think you are nuts like him.

Well, there you go, Richard. I said I would resist getting off track, and now my answers will only generate more questions. But, that is how relationships and conversations are, afterall, so I understand.

It's a great way to get to know each other. Thanks for taking time to follow those rabbit trails.

Hope you are having a good trip. Talk to you later.
Rick

Oh yes, I had a beautiful day. I stopped at Multnoma Falls in the Columbia Gorge and jogged to the top. Very invigorating. Rose is reading a book called "The Brain that Changes Itself" and she told me that exercise actually causes new neurons to grow. And stimulation and novelty have similar effects. So my neurons are doing great today. It's ten PM, I'm using the wifi at Sherris. Had a Sweet Montana Cherry Pie al la mode. And orange tea with honey and lemon. I'm feeling good. :sunny:

Talk more tomorrow.

Richard

heb13-13

09-20-2011, 08:00 AM

But sometimes I'll shoot out a bunch of questions in a sort of "stream of consciousness" mode. If nothing else, it will help you understand where I'm coming from and what issues seem important to me.

I get that, and yes, "the stream of consciousness has helped me. (sometimes it's a river). :-)

But are there any objective standards to discern between the "true Jesus" and all the imposters?

Hmmm, that would be a terrific thread. Off the top of my head, this comes to mind.

John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessedarethey that have not seen, and yet have believed.

John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:

John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have LIFE through his name.

Will do! :thumb:

It's funny, but I only now just noticed that you and Harold have something in common - you both reject the institutional church! Of course, Harold went way overboard and said anyone going to church was damned, and that they would have to suffer more than anyone else during the 5 months of Judgment Day because they did not believe "God's message" about May 21st.

Yeah, what is worse, rejecting a religious "structure" or sitting in it week after week and complaining about it? I'm no masochist. I talk to many people that are in the latter group. This structure by and large runs on mammon, the praise of men and Lording over brothers and sisters for the chief seats in the "synagogue." I don't reject my brothers and sisters in Christ. Whenever, you "touch" the mammon, you need to be ready for some big pushback. Likewise, with "position". Position gives them power and the mammon is their reward. But without the people they have neither. So, they continue to preach only a part of the Word to their "sheep", while withholding the parts of the Word that would expose them.

They have many methods for keeping them coming to "church". The Sabbath and the Law of Tithing for two. Also, "don't forsake the assembling of yourselves", and when things get "dicey", they whip out, "Touch not mine annointed". It is quite a system when you think about it, that has very little to do with Jesus Christ.

There is a religious (counterfeit) system from Adam and Eve all the way through Revelation. It runs parallel to the "way of life". Adam and Eve tried to "cover" themselves, Cain wanted a relationship with God on his terms, thinking that God was terribly unreasonable ad unfair. Leap forward to SAUL, a bigger picture of religious flesh and on and on it goes stopping briefly at Saul of Tarsus, Diotrephes who "loved to have the preeminence", and on to Revelation.

I choose the "way of life". That is what I am constantly looking for. I have learned a little bit about how to spot the counterfeit, but just when you think you have learned you realize, how deceptive our flesh (pride) and Satan are.

But don't worry - I'm just joking when I say you and he have something in common. I really don't think you are nuts like him.

I know.

It's a great way to get to know each other. Thanks for taking time to follow those rabbit trails.

Oh yes, I had a beautiful day. I stopped at Multnoma Falls in the Columbia Gorge and jogged to the top. Very invigorating. Rose is reading a book called "The Brain that Changes Itself" and she told me that exercise actually causes new neurons to grow. And stimulation and novelty have similar effects. So my neurons are doing great today. It's ten PM, I'm using the wifi at Sherris. Had a Sweet Montana Cherry Pie al la mode. And orange tea with honey and lemon. I'm feeling good. :sunny:

Sounds really great. I need to exercise more.

Talk more tomorrow.

Richard

heb13-13

09-21-2011, 04:20 PM

Gil

09-22-2011, 08:00 AM

Howdy CWH,

CWH > I have already answer that question in this thread. We all know that no one is perfect except God, then why does God still want us to be as perfect as Him?

Gil > He wants us to manifest that perfect love that he has through us. Only in perfect Love can perfect righteousness be found. Through the Law as given to the children of Israel , only unrighteousness could be achieved. It was to them a covenant of death.
We are given a New covenant of Life to be administered through Love.
Only the presence of the spirit of Jesus Christ within the presence of the Holy Spirit, is now perfect here in Earth. That's the catch. We are only to be found perfect in him. We take on his body ( as he was, when he, as an individual walked the earth.)
We take on his flesh, his crucifixion, his resurrection, his righteousness as our own as individuals in Christ.
We are in the process of being transformed. Our mind that is of our own spirit and soul.
As individual members of the BOC, "which are still in the flesh, but not of the flesh, but of the Spirit", are not, will not achieve perfection or righteousness that we can call our own while we are still within the flesh body that we now have. Think transformation.
Many see some things that Paul said backwards. Like , in Christ , "our old man dies daily". One should look at it as, " our new man grows daily", through our transformation.
Only after we depart this flesh body after its mortal existence is finished and it returns to the dust of the earth are we to , to be perfect in our completeness and take on a new exterior body as a covering. It is not a transfigured body as was Jesus Christ after his resurrection . His Transfigured body was a one time only occurrence.
We should be finding ourselves as growing in love for others and the Father and the Son. Growing in his perfect love, which also we will never achieve while in the flesh.
Gil
-----------------

CWH > Same with Righteousness, if righteousness is humanly impossible, why did Jesus asked us to strive for Righteousness? Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His Righteousness. It's like someone saying, "Reach for the stars" which we know is currently impossible but that does not mean that we should not try.

Seek Righteousness and perfection, Amen.

Gil > I'll say it again. We take on the righteousness of Jesus Christ as our own righteousness. It is through his righteousness , that we are becoming more righteous ourselves through our own transformation.

We are in a new age, the old age has passed.
In this age, the presence of the spirit of Jesus Christ is within the presence of the Spirit of his Father, LORD God.
The Holy Spirit is also of Twain made One Spirit.
It is called the Mind of Christ that is over the BOC , here within and upon this Earth.
Gil
------------------

CWH > I have said umpteen times in this forum that the reason why there are so many Christian denominations is that God want us to know Him better. It's like a teacher who put in a question for discussion. The students may come up with many answers which is good for interactions and critical thinking but there will be only one correct answer which the teacher will reveal at an appointed time. As long as the students think along the line using the basic fundamentals that were taught, it doesn't matter if the students come out with many answers to the question. The important thing to the teacher is that the students apply the fundamentals that were taught. Same with the many Christian denominations whose differences are usually minor but as long as the fundamental that Jesus is the Son of God and whoever believes in Him will never die but have everlasting life, is perfectly ok to God. It is thus good to debate about the differences which may not come to a conclusion but it keeps us in the Christian faith and the relentless search working together in unison for the truthful answers. It also prevent us from the selfish pride that my own Christian denomination is the one and only truthful religion and all must abide by my religion. Such pride will only breed human arrogance, dominance and selfishness which are unchristian.

Gil > Well said CWH. :thumb:
The question we all ask, is what does it all mean?.

As a Christian, the only criteria necessary to ensure eternal life is Faith
In what the Father and Son had accomplished at the cross.
Christianity revolves itself around the cross.
Without the Resurrection ,there is no Christianity.

Gil :pop2:

CWH

09-22-2011, 10:43 AM

Thanks Gil for your encouraging words. I have created a new thread for discussion on why there are so many Christian denominations. I agree that it is faith (with works; faith without good works is dead....James) that did the will of the Father in heaven that will ensure us a place in heaven. Important thing is that we must not view the numerous denominations as a sign of confusion and get frustrated by their minor differences and give up the faith. There is a purpose for the numerous denominations and there is a purpose why Jesus did not explain plainly to us but in symbolic speeches.

I do understand what you all are trying to say. It doesn't really answer the questions that if perfection and righteousness are based on God's grace, are we not to strive for such attributes? I standby my view that we should strive for perfection and righteousness in everything that we do so that the world will be a more perfect and righteous place. It helps us to build Godly characters in preparation for the kingdom of heaven. Such attributes show the "image" of God in us which is why Jesus said "Be perfect as God is perfect" when He knew that humans can never be as perfect as God.

May God bless us with His Grace. AMEN. :pray:

TheDivineWatermark

09-22-2011, 10:45 AM

A few verses for consideration:

"He is the Rock, His work is perfect: for all His ways are judgment:
a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is He."
- Deuteronomy 32:4

"... and there is no God else beside Me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside Me."
- Isaiah 45:21

"For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God."
- Romans 10:3

"For He hath made Him [Christ] to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God IN HIM."
- 2 Corinthians 5:21

Also, there is a distinction between "sinS" and "Sin":

Romans 1:1-Romans 5:11 ---> "sinS" ("sinS" we commit [or "sinS" of omission]) ---> can be "forgiven"

Romans 5:12-Romans 8:39 ---> "Sin" ("the [Adamic] Sin principle" [aka "the body of this death"] IN us) ---> never forgiven, it is "condemned"

Oh, and one more thing...

Jesus Christ was the only One to ever live a perfectly righteous life.

Therefore, we need His LIFE.

"... because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead."
- Acts 17:31NASB

Gil

09-22-2011, 03:53 PM

Howdy CWH,

Nice talking to you again.

CWH >
[ I do understand what you all are trying to say. ]

Gil > That's OK, personally I only know one other person who does. :winking0071:

CWH > [ It doesn't really answer the questions that if perfection and righteousness are based on God's grace, are we not to strive for such attributes? ]

Gil > No. To strive for something ( to me anyway) is the same as work.
Trying on your own to achieve perfection and righteousness.
In Christ during the transformation process that we are undergoing, our love (agape) increases without any effort on our own. It may be a slow undertaking or more quick, dependant on the individual. It is a work of the Holy Spirit ,not our own.

CWH > I standby my view that we should strive for perfection and righteousness in everything that we do so that the world will be a more perfect and righteous place. ]

Gil > Manifesting the love of the Father and the Son through us unto others is a part of being a Christian.
Ya know CWH, there are Christians that are departing this Earth daily and new Christians taking there place.
There are many more babies being born daily , that we do not know how they will turn out. We in Christ are to edify one another, and plant spiritual seeds within others that are not Christians. I don't see this world as being very much different in the future.

I know you are a futurist. I am not. I'm what I would call a Pauline Preterist.
I'll write up a short dialog on righteousness for you, even if you may not understand it.

Gil :pop2:

Richard Amiel McGough

09-22-2011, 06:47 PM

Hey Richard,

Hope your trip is going well.

I lived in the Bay Area in the 70's. Berkeley, Alameda, San Francisco and in Marin County. Beautiful place. Loved going to Santa Cruz, Half Moon Bay and fishing in the SF Bay with my Dad.

Btw, you may want to change the name of this thread to Can You Be Righteous instead of .....Righteousness. Just an oversight, I'm sure.

Be well,
Rick
Hey there Rick,

I fixed the thread title. I'm rarely near a hotspot so I've been slow responding the last couple days.

Yes, the Bay Area is wonderful. I love it. The trip is going very well. I broke free from the highway and took a "scenic byway" yesterday and stopped in the little town of Glendale OR. Met a guy named Justin in the Village Inn bar (only one in town as far as I could tell - population 855) and we hit it off so he invited me home for a pot roast dinner and a movie with his family. This is what I love about traveling. It reminds me that the world is filled with wonderful, generous, and loving people. And as I floated down the coastal highway all I saw was life living in harmony with itself, people playing in the surf, peace and joy is the general sense of things. This world feels like paradise. It reminds me of the fundamental goodness of people, life, and the world, and encourages me to commit myself again to Infinite Compassion.

Richard

heb13-13

09-22-2011, 09:35 PM

Hey there Rick,

I fixed the thread title. I'm rarely near a hotspot so I've been slow responding the last couple days.

Yes, the Bay Area is wonderful. I love it. The trip is going very well. I broke free from the highway and took a "scenic byway" yesterday and stopped in the little town of Glendale OR. Met a guy named Justin in the Village Inn bar (only one in town as far as I could tell - population 855) and we hit it off so he invited me home for a pot roast dinner and a movie with his family. This is what I love about traveling. It reminds me that the world is filled with wonderful, generous, and loving people.

That's cool, Richard. I have had many such experiences in my travels. Very memorable and heart-warming times they were.

Been very busy, but hope to write the next part of my thesis this weekend.

Take care,
Rick

And as I floated down the coastal highway all I saw was life living in harmony with itself, people playing in the surf, peace and joy is the general sense of things. This world feels like paradise. It reminds me of the fundamental goodness of people, life, and the world, and encourages me to commit myself again to Infinite Compassion.

Richard

alec cotton

09-24-2011, 07:24 AM

I was labouring under the delusion that you lot were mature. Now I read all this twaddle about can a man be righteous. Of course a man can be righteous. Righteousness means doing what is right. What is right can only be known ,if there is a standard . The only reliable standard is the law of God , which is condensed in the ten commandments. The ten represent the plan or outline . The rest of the Torah might be seen as the specifications or details. People have always been justified by faith. It has never been any different. Trouble is , that men so often got hold of the shitty end of the stick. They thought that they could pay for their sin and misdemeanour's with cash or goods ,or get on the good side of God by offering so-called sacrifices. People ate all the stuff that was sacrificed. All God got was the smell. Of course there were those who offered to impress their peers or to show off their wealth . Those people were breaking the law which states ' You must not take the name of Jehovah in vain'. They were not only breaking the law , they were trampling it. When an honest man offered a sacrifice , it was an outward demonstration of an inner feeling It was his faith which justified him , not the size of the offering. I have faith ( confidence) in God. When God says 'do this' , I try to do it to the best of my ability. When God says 'don't do that' I don't do it ( often). In such activity my faith is demonstrated. Now when I fail , as humans often do , then I ask for pardon which is freely given There is then no penalty. I am no longer under condemnation. I am justified. Righteousness is not the same as perfection . Perfection is demanded of the servant of God . That is an aim . Righteousness is a reality now. BUT!. One big but. On this forum I have often seen doubts cast on the veracity of the Bible and the efficacy of the law. No man can live without rules . Society cannot exist without laws. Can anybody suggest a better standard than the ten commandments?. What are your parameters?. By what standards do you live ?. Where are your boundaries .? By which standards do you set them?If in this life only , we have hope we are of all men most miserable. I choose to believe God . I choose to live by his written law. If I am wrong , then I have lived a life of hope and peace and have had the satisfaction of knowing that I have been able to contribute a little to the welfare of humanity. If I am right then my reward awaits me.
Alec

heb13-13

09-24-2011, 08:47 PM

Righteousness means doing what is right. What is right can only be known ,if there is a standard . The only reliable standard is the law of God , which is condensed in the ten commandments. The ten represent the plan or outline . The rest of the Torah might be seen as the specifications or details. People have always been justified by faith. It has never been any different.

Alec

Hello Richard,

I am going to continue with my dissertation on Righteousness. And hello to you Alec. Since you spoke up about the law, I will take a step back and talk about it a bit.

I said in my post which I have labeled, "Can You Be Righteous, Part II", that

The Law as given to Moses became the instrument by which the people entered into covenant, and God’s authority was established over them. God’s authority establishes His righteousness. The principle of authority is as important for man today as it was for Moses and Israel. God has not changed, neither has man. The formation of righteousness comes under authority. This is the second principle of righteousness.

The Law was a revelation of God’s righteousness...
read more if you like: http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=34653#post34653

So, let's look at God's righteousness and character as revealed in the 10 commandments.

You will see later how pertinent this is to how you can be righteous, when we get to Jesus.

First commandment, "I am the Lord thy God....thou shalt have no other gods before Me" (Exodus 20:2,3). A moral society is built upon one Supreme Authority; otherwise, man becomes his own authority, and everything becomes relative and changing. The lawless live by the rule, "Man is the measure of all things." Within himself, man's perspective is so limited that he loses sight of the righteousness of God. God's righteousness begins with Himself. He is righteous, andthose who accept His authority are formed by His righteousness.

Second commandment, "Thou shalt not make...graven images" (v.4-5). Literally it says one must not make images to worship, but looking from the positive side, God is saying one should worship Him only. When authority is accepted, the spirit of gratefulness will bring forth worship. The element that is missing with the lawless is gratefulness. The lawless live by the rule, "I am the center of my world." Many parents wonder why their children show no appreciation for all the years given to them; the truth is, indulgence does not create gratefulness. Gratefulness as well as the spirit of worship are formed under authority.

Third commandment,"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain" (v.7) The importance of reverence and the fear of God is focused in His Name.Authority establishes reverence. Honor, respect and godly fear are a part of this. Here is where wisdom and understanding begins, for "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding" (Proverbs 9:10). In lawlessness there is no fear of the Lord. Wisdom and understanding are lost. The lawless live by the rule, "Eat, drink and be merry."

Fourth commandment, "Keep the Sabbath holy" (v.8) There was a day to be kept apart unto the Lord. Here is order that separates the holy from the profane, the clean from the unclean; an order that brings one into rest. To know His holiness man must separate himself to God, laying aside his interests, pleasures and ambitions. He must stop and consider the ways of God. Man will not come to know God's holiness if he does not accept His authority. The lawless man lives by the rule, "All things exist for my pleasure."

Fifth commandment, "Honor your father and mother" (v.12). Under authority the attitude of the righteous is formed; in disobedience the attitude of the lawless is formed. Righteousness formed in children through obedience is the formation of character. Character is formed under authority through discipline, correction, instruction, responsibility and accountability. But the lawless live by the rule, "Freedom of expression releases the full potential of the child. Do not withhold or limit them, keep them happy and entertained, just love them and every worthwhile virtue will come forth." What comes forth is a generation of self-willed, indulgent, and ungrateful children that do not have the fear of God.

In these first five commandments, one can see in the Law the righteousness of God revealed. God has not changed and neither has His standard changed. What does God require? God will not accept a lawless people. His covenant is formed with those who come under His authority and obey His word; they walk in covenant with God. On the contrary, the lawless indulge their flesh and walk after their own pleasures. They walk the way of rebellion.

The Law was not only a revelation of God's righteousness, but also the instrument to bind the people to Him in covenant. One cannot say that He loves God and not keep His commandments. God's people must not be a lawless people.

I was very well acquainted with lawlessness as mentioned in these first 5 commandments.

Anymore writing will make too long of a post. I will cover the last 5 commandments, next.

Peace to all,
Rick

Charisma

09-25-2011, 02:41 AM

heb13-13

09-27-2011, 09:44 PM

Hi Rick,

I'm enjoying your presentation on Righteousness. I've never heard things put quite that way, but coming from a rather laissez-faire Christian background, where it was 'modern' to not force 'religion' upon one's children, I identify with the discovery that 'the law is ... for the lawless' (1 Tim 1:9).

Also, upon your thoughts about God's righteousness in creation, they remind me of the opening of a dramatic hymn which declares -

'Thou, whose almighty word
Chaos and darkness heard
And took their flight ...' John Marriott

Not to be nitpicky (or distract from your next post,) I would add, I'm not sure that darkness brooded over by the Holy Spirit, equals 'chaos'. :) That may have been poetic licence. But, we understand that God is able to create life where there is or was a void, and bring order where there is chaos.

What you said about 'separation' in an earlier post, introduced to me a new way of considering difference, and I sense truth, there.

Hi Charisma,

Your observation about separation sheds further light on "separation." "Difference" is a very descriptive and meaningful word for how we learn good and bad from an early age and how God teaches us righteousness and unrighteousness. God uses simple learning "tools". Of course all difference is not about good and bad, but God does use difference to highlight good and bad. We also learn from experience, although God does not desire us to experience every evil to know something is evil. That is not the desired way and Adam would belatedly agree. We are to believe and trust God in what He says. We are to experience good and blessing from obedience and trusting not bad and curses from disobedience and unbelief.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: (he knew this by partaking of evil not by believing God's word)...

God is patient and will use everyday life to draw pictures for us so that we see (understand) the "difference", eventually. He knows best how to teach each one of us. Some of us are predominantly auditory learners, some are visual while others are kinesthetic. I was mostly visual as a yound lad and He painted just the right pictures of "difference" for me so that I could "understand" just enough to know about Him and to come to Him.

In short, this is the difference that God laid before me.

See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;
Deu 30:15

He set it before me over a period of 10 years and when I "saw it", then I was able to make a decision and to choose. And by the time I saw it, I had almost destroyed myself. It was still a battle to choose but at least I knew the difference, now. There is definitely a tug of war for our souls by unseen forces.

Thanks for your contribution.

Rick

heb13-13

10-01-2011, 01:27 PM

Ok, let’s finish the 10 commandments.

Sixth commandment, "Thou shalt not kill…" (Exodus 20:13). Authority was given to protect life. The initial purpose of human government was to bring judgment upon the murderer. “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed” (Genesis 9:6). Righteousness protects life. On the other hand with the lawless there is violence, and human life becomes dispensable. The lawless live by the rule, "Do away with anything or anyone that affects MY happiness. "

Seventh commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery…" (v.14). God’s authority limits the sexual activity of man to one woman, and this must be kept sacred in a covenant relationship. There is righteousness in covenant relationships. Sexual immorality not only fragments the person but also destroys the very foundation of society. The lawless are covenant breakers. They live by the rule, “Personal happiness is more important than covenant relationships.”

Eighth commandment,"Thou shalt not steal…" (v.15) Under authority come discipline and a work ethic. There is righteousness in work. Without a work ethic, socialism and welfare destroy the human initiative as well as human worth. The lawless live by the rule, "What’s yours is mine and I can take it.”

Ninth commandment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" (v.16). Righteousness is established through personal integrity. Truth within becomes the foundation for righteousness. When truth is lost, righteousness is lost. Men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness come under the wrath of God. The lawless man lives by the rule, "The end justifies the means."

Tenth commandment, "Thou shalt not covet…" (v.17). Authority restrains covetousness. Peace and contentment are the products of righteousness.Where there is no restraint covetousness will destroy a nation through greed and materialism.The lawless live by the rule, "Life consists in what a man possesses.” And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever (Isa 32:17).

One can see in the law, the righteousness of God revealed. God has not changed and His standard has not changed. He does not accept a lawless people and His covenant is formed with those who come under His authority and obey His Word. Those who do so are formed by His righteousness.

Now that we are finished with the 10 commandments, let’s take a look at the 10 commandments of the Lawless. We ask the question, “Can You Be Righteous”, but we can also ask the question, “Can You Be Lawless (or Unrighteous)?”

The Ten Commandments of the Lawless

1. Man is the measure of all things.
2. Man is the center of his world.
3. Man should eat, drink and be merry.
4. All things exist for man’s pleasure
5. Freedom of expression releases the full potential of every man.
6. Do away with anything or anyone that affects your happiness
7. Personal happiness is more important than covenant relationships.”
8. What’s belongs to others, belongs to you and you can take it.
9. The end justifies the means.
10. Life consists in what a man possesses.

All the best,
Rick

Next: Jesus Christ, the full expression of God's Righteousness for the sinner.
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. 2Co 5:21

CWH

10-02-2011, 07:55 AM

Hi Rick,

Thanks for your excellent post.:thumb: But I have 2 commandments that have been bugging me (note: not that I have committed them):

Sixth commandment, "Thou shalt not kill…". What do you think of killings and murders conducted in wars by soldiers? How about killing of animals for food and sport? How about euthanasia? How about capital punishments? How about killings in self-defense?

Seventh commandment, "Thou shalt not commit adultery…" What do you think of adultery committed out of looking with lust at women? What do you think of adultery as stated by Jesus if a man married a divorced unfaithful woman or divorced his wife and marry another woman? How about one night stand with a married woman? How about sex with a married prostitute?

I would like to make amendments to your ten commandments of the Lawless. I feel that the Lawless not only do not believe in God but their actions are always selfish with I, Me, My first.

The Ten Commandments of the Lawless

1. Man is the measure of all things. I am God Myself, there is no God.
2. Man is the center of his world. I worship myself; I am a man of my own destiny.
3. Man should eat, drink and be merry. I do what I like without fear of authorities or what God's punishments.
4. All things exist for man’s pleasure; There is nothing holy or godly.
5. Freedom of expression releases the full potential of every man. My parents give birth to me so that I will live and enjoy life for myself. No need to honor them as afterall they will soon die and be gone forever.
6. Do away with anything or anyone that affects your happiness. To kill is to win; my survival is based on winning over people by getting rid of them; survival of the fittest.
7. Personal happiness is more important than covenant relationships.” My pleasure comes first; If he can have her, so can I.
8. What’s belongs to others, belongs to you and you can take it. If he can have them, so can I.
9. The end justifies the means. Save myself and for my own gains first and don't bother about others.
10. Life consists in what a man possesses. Nothing is better than having riches and possession for my self, I will get them by all means.

2 Commandments of Jesus in which the ten commandments are based:

1. Love God with all your heart and soul
2. Love your neighbor as yourself

The 2 commandments of the Lawless are:
1. Love Myself with all my heart and soul. There is no God.
2. Love Myself. I love my own, there is no neighbor.

Many God Blessings to you. Amen.:pray:

Rose

10-02-2011, 08:40 AM

I would like to make amendments to your ten commandments of the Lawless. I feel that the Lawless not only do not believe in God but their actions are always selfish with I, Me, My first.

The Ten Commandments of the Lawless

1. Man is the measure of all things. I am God Myself, there is no God.
2. Man is the center of his world. I worship myself; I am a man of my own destiny.
3. Man should eat, drink and be merry. I do what I like without fear of authorities or what God's punishments.
4. All things exist for man’s pleasure; There is nothing holy or godly.
5. Freedom of expression releases the full potential of every man. My parents give birth to me so that I will live and enjoy life for myself. No need to honor them as afterall they will soon die and be gone forever.
6. Do away with anything or anyone that affects your happiness. To kill is to win; my survival is based on winning over people by getting rid of them; survival of the fittest.
7. Personal happiness is more important than covenant relationships.' My pleasure comes first; If he can have her, so can I.
8. What’s belongs to others, belongs to you and you can take it. If he can have them, so can I.
9. The end justifies the means. Save myself and for my own gains first and don't bother about others.
10. Life consists in what a man possesses. Nothing is better than having riches and possession for my self, I will get them by all means.

2 Commandments of Jesus in which the ten commandments are based:

1. Love God with all your heart and soul
2. Love your neighbor as yourself

The 2 commandments of the Lawless are:
1. Love Myself with all my heart and soul. There is no God.
2. Love Myself. I love my own, there is no neighbor.

Many God Blessings to you. Amen.:pray:

Hi Cheow,

I would like to comment on a couple things you said. First, when you spoke of Lawless people being selfish and only thinking of themselves...well, if people weren't selfish in the manner of thinking of themselves first, nobody else would (including God).

If I am sick and in need of a doctors care do I take care of myself or just sit and ask God to heal me? If I am hungry and need food, do I get a job and earn money to buy food for myself, or do I just sit and ask God to provide it for me?

The second point you mentioned "loving your neighbor as yourself" can only be accomplished if one first loves their-self. How can a person who has no self love possibly love anyone else...including God?

All the Best,
Rose

CWH

10-02-2011, 10:17 AM

Hi Cheow,

I would like to comment on a couple things you said. First, when you spoke of Lawless people being selfish and only thinking of themselves...well, if people weren't selfish in the manner of thinking of themselves first, nobody else would (including God).

If I am sick and in need of a doctors care do I take care of myself or just sit and ask God to heal me? If I am hungry and need food, do I get a job and earn money to buy food for myself, or do I just sit and ask God to provide it for me?

The second point you mentioned "loving your neighbor as yourself" can only be accomplished if one first loves their-self. How can a person who has no self love possibly love anyone else...including God?

All the Best,
Rose

I think you got the message wrong. When I say the lawless is selfish, I mean it comes with greed, uncaring for others.

That's why Jesus gave us 2 commandments:
1. Love God with all your heart and soul
2. Love your neighbor as yourself

Jesus 2 commandments can be summarize in this way:
Love God as you would love yourself as much as you would love others.

It's fine to think for yourself first but you must have God and others at heart also, not greed and inconsideration.

If I am sick and in need of a doctors care do I take care of myself or just sit and ask God to heal me? If I am hungry and need food, do I get a job and earn money to buy food for myself, or do I just sit and ask God to provide it for me?
If you are sick, question yourself why you are sick, have you taken good care of yourself lately? Was this a way in which God told you to rest and take care of your health? Have my health infect/affect others?
Question yourself why are you hungry? No money and no job?... why? Lazy to be trained and find a job or lazy to find food (fish, animals, plants)? Who provided food (fish, animals, plants) in the first place?...and you blame God for not giving to you? Do others really need the food, money more than me?...should I share with them so that next time they would share with me also?

The second point you mentioned "loving your neighbor as yourself" can only be accomplished if one first loves their-self. How can a person who has no self love possibly love anyone else...including God?
I think the question we should ask ourselves is, what is our goal in life? To be rich and successful in this temporary world or to be rich and successful eternally in the next world to come. If your goal is to be rich and successful eternally in the next world, then we must love God with our heart and soul as yourself in order to get into heaven to achieve these.

The following passage gives a clearer picture of how to love God with all your heart and souls and to love your neighbor as yourself:

Matthew 19: 16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”

18 “Which ones?” he inquired.

Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[c] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]”

20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

I believe if you obey God's commandments and "follow Him" you would have love God with all your heart and soul. And if you gave to the poor and follow Him in his preaching and unselfish service towards saving the soul's of sinners and others, you would have love your neighbor as yourself.

May the Forgiveness and Grace of God be with everyone of you. Amen.

Richard Amiel McGough

10-02-2011, 11:27 AM

I would like to make amendments to your ten commandments of the Lawless. I feel that the Lawless not only do not believe in God but their actions are always selfish with I, Me, My first.

The Ten Commandments of the Lawless

Wow ... you sure have a warped view of humanity! Most people are naturally good. They are nothing like the way you describe.

1. Man is the measure of all things. I am God Myself, there is no God.

I don't think that will work ... it is self-defeating because it is logically incoherent. It says:

I am X.
There is no X.
Therefore, I don't eXist."

But seriously, religious skeptics don't go around saying "I am God" (unless they are just yanking your chain). If a non-religious person wanted a list of commandments, the first would probably be either the Golden Rule or "Think for yourself!" depending on which priorities (Morality or Knowledge) are being emphasized. Personally, I think we should always start with "Think for yourself!" since the rest follow from that. If you don't think for yourself, you will just be a brainwashed robot that can be used for all kinds of evil by your "leader."

Your idea that "God" is the measure of all things makes no sense because God has chosen to behave as if he does not exist so no one can see him or know what he really thinks about anything. Muslims think the Koran is God's Word and every variety of Christian disagrees with every other about the meaning of the Bible. Humans have made countless gods
in our own image. Indeed, humans wrote the Bible, and even if God wrote it, only humans can interpret it, and they always disagree! You seem to be ignoring these fundamental truths.

2. Man is the center of his world. I worship myself; I am a man of my own destiny.

By nature, every person is the "center of his world." You have no choice on this. The entire world that you perceive around you is centered on you. This is true for every person.

But the idea that people who are not Christian would think to "worship" themselves is utterly absurd.

3. Man should eat, drink and be merry. I do what I like without fear of authorities or what God's punishments.

"God's punishments?" What are you talking about? Can you show me one single "punishment" that was unequivocally executed by God in the last century? This is the problem with your thinking - you say things that sound "meainingful" but actually have no meaning at all.

I do good and avoid evil not because of rewards I hope for a punishments I fear. I do those things because they are the right things to do. Your idea that you only do good and avoid evil because of selfish rewards or selfish fears shows that it is folks like you, rather than the unbelievers, who are really the "selfish" people. Why don't you do good for good's sake?

4. All things exist for man’s pleasure; There is nothing holy or godly.

The Bible says that "all things exist for God's pleasure." Why is it good if God does it but bad if people do it? This is a very common confusion in Christianity. God does all sorts of things that would be bad if people did them.

5. Freedom of expression releases the full potential of every man. My parents give birth to me so that I will live and enjoy life for myself. No need to honor them as afterall they will soon die and be gone forever.

Where do you get this crap? People don't think like that!

6. Do away with anything or anyone that affects your happiness. To kill is to win; my survival is based on winning over people by getting rid of them; survival of the fittest.

Wow ... that's some warped thinking!

Charisma

10-02-2011, 01:35 PM

heb13-13

10-02-2011, 05:40 PM

Hi Rick,

I liked your ten commandments with their reflection on the lawless. Also, the connection you make between righteousness and authority. Interesting.

The only way I've 'seen' that before now, is in the context of God's great humility. At least, we think of it as His humility, because it challenges the pride which characterises the Adamic nature, but actually, God is like that all the time, and presumably Adam was like God before the Fall.

In this, Christ as both Son and Servant was totally obedient to His Father's bidding, right down to the words He spoke. This is our example. If we can follow Christ's example of being submitted to our heavenly Father's authority, our righteousness will shine as the noonday.

Bingo!! Excellent! That is exactly right! That is what God is trying to teach us. We must cooperate with the Holy Spirit, surrender the lawlessness in our hearts each step of the way as He reveals it to us and thus, harmonizing our wills with His will, we are conformed to the image of Christ from the inside out. This is a choice that is left up to us.

Another choice that is left up to us is the alternative. We harmonize our wills with the god of this world. The flesh nature is actually the nature of Satan, the god of this world.

Flesh nature and nature of Satan

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

We will either be conformed to Jesus Christ or we will be conformed to the god of this world. And he hides behind many, many names in this world.
There are no two other choices. Isn't that amazing. You cannot find a third choice. It is either Satan or Jesus.

You are either for Him (Jesus) or against Him. If you are for Him, you will follow Him whithersoever He goeth (He takes you), come under His authority, walk in His righteousness and become like Him.

Or, you follow Satan (even though you don't think so), choosing to be lawless, not coming under God's authority, and walking in unrighteousness you become like Satan. And by the way, Satan can put on a pretty good face, too. Satan is faux god, faux good works, faux righteousness. He is just soooo faux. :winking0071:

Hi CWH,

I liked your adjustments to the ten commandments for the lawless. Is there scripture to back up what you wrote?

Hi Richard,

While you believe that man is naturally good, it's not possible for you to understand the point of Christ's mission on earth. When you begin to see things the way God sees them, the Bible will begin to make sense for you. I know from experience that this is true - both from resisting His word, and submitting to it.

Do you remember in Sodom when God made the door disappear and the people kept searching for it and searching for it until they were weary? I've been somewhere similar (definitely different!) - groping along the wall purely because I WOULD NOT go through the open door. It's very tiresome on the human side, but God is endlessly patient, :) I discovered.

So true. That is a great analogy! I know that wall very well.

Blessings to all.

Richard Amiel McGough

10-02-2011, 07:39 PM

Hi Richard,

While you believe that man is naturally good, it's not possible for you to understand the point of Christ's mission on earth. When you begin to see things the way God sees them, the Bible will begin to make sense for you. I know from experience that this is true - both from resisting His word, and submitting to it.

Do you remember in Sodom when God made the door disappear and the people kept searching for it and searching for it until they were weary? I've been somewhere similar (definitely different!) - groping along the wall purely because I WOULD NOT go through the open door. It's very tiresome on the human side, but God is endlessly patient, :) I discovered.

Hi Charisma,

I agree that Christianity is fundamentally inconsistent with the idea that humans are "naturally good." So if people are "naturally good" then Christianity is false. But then again, I arrive at the same conclusion if I assume we are desperately wicked because that would mean that we are all self-deceived and absolutely untrustworthy liars. Therefore, I cannot trust any human religion or book passed down by humans like the Bible, and I cannot trust any person that claims anything about God. We are all corrupt liars. No one can be trusted. No book passed down through corrupt human hands can be trusted. Therefore, Christianity is false if people are "desperately wicked" and it is false if people are "naturally good."

I guess that pretty much settles the issue.

All the best,

Richard

heb13-13

10-02-2011, 10:15 PM

Hi Charisma,

I agree that Christianity is fundamentally inconsistent with the idea that humans are "naturally good." So if people are "naturally good" then Christianity is false. But then again, I arrive at the same conclusion if I assume we are desperately wicked because that would mean that we are all self-deceived and absolutely untrustworthy liars. Therefore, I cannot trust any human religion or book passed down by humans like the Bible, and I cannot trust any person that claims anything about God. We are all corrupt liars. No one can be trusted. No book passed down through corrupt human hands can be trusted. Therefore, Christianity is false if people are "desperately wicked" and it is false if people are "naturally good."

I guess that pretty much settles the issue.

All the best,

Richard

Hi Richard,

It seems that something is missing in the equation here. The mystery of Godliness is how God by His Holy Spirit can make man His dwelling place and transform his heart.

Jeremiah 17:9 is a text for the condition of an unbeliever's heart. I hope you are not of the Calvinist persuasion where this text is not only their proof text for their "T" in Tulip (Total Depravity), but also their text for the ongoing life of the Christian.

Richard, have you been vexed by Calvinism? I have seen it harm the faith of many.

Without the indwelling Holy Spirit and His transforming work in our hearts we can never hope to change anything about the nature of our hearts.

Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil. Jer 13:23

The wickedness and deceit in an unbeliever's heart is incurable by his own devices.

Let me give you a few more verses that describe the unbeliever.

All the imagination of the thoughts of his heart are continually evil (Gen. 6:5), even from youth (Gen. 8: 21).

All that man thinks, says, and does - even his many kindnesses, morality, and religion if not wrought in God by the Holy Spirit - are all dead works, evil deeds, and fruit unto death

The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Psa 14:2-3

The way of the wicked is as darkness: they know not at what they stumble. Pro 4:19

Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save. Isa 45:20

But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. Isa 64:6

And here are more: (Mat. 7:18; John 3:19-20; Rom. 1:20-32; 3:9-18; 7:5; 8:5-8; 10:2-3; 1Co.2:14; 2Co. 4:3-4; Eph. 4:18; Col. 1:21).

I would never say that these verses describe a Believer in Jesus Christ.

Richard, I sympathize with you. I always hear people proclaiming Jeremiah 17:9 for Believers. I hear it and I see it in print, It seems to be the majority view. It is seen as humility to say that one's own heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. This is is a trojan horse from the Enemy to destroy one's faith. It is what is known as a doctrine of demons carried along by seducing spirits.

Let's see what God says about the heart of the Believer:

And I will also give you a new heart, and I will put a new spirit within you. And I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give to you a heart of flesh. And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you shall keep My judgments and do [them] (Ezek. 36:26-27).

That deceitful and incurable heart is that stony heart that is taken away and is replaced by a heart of flesh! The Holy Spirit gives His people a NEW HEART and causes them to walk in obedience!

And not only is the heart new, EVERYTHING is new. The regenerated person is a NEW CREATION: So that if anyone [is] in Christ, [he] is a new creation; the old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new (2Co. 5:17).

The old things include the old heart. It is GONE. The Holy Spirit makes a person anew! There is a GREAT CHANGE that has taken place! To say that the heart of a believer remains deceitful and incurably wicked is to deny the transforming work of the Holy Spirit!

Does the Christian still sin? He most certainly does. This will take some explanation and it is an entirely different subject than what I am covering here. But, which do you believe? Has God worked a great change in you by making you a new creation with a new heart, or is your heart still vile and deceitful? If you believe your heart is vile and deceitful, it probably is or maybe you have been robbed of the great truths of the Bible about the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit and being a "New Creation" in Christ. These are not just some words that get recited in a Sunday School class. These are eternal truths that speak of a reality that is far more real than anything you can see with your naked eyes.

Much peace to you,
Rick

Richard Amiel McGough

10-02-2011, 10:34 PM

Hi Richard,

It seems that something is missing in the equation here. The mystery of Godliness is how God by His Holy Spirit can make man His dwelling place and transform his heart.

Jeremiah 17:9 is a text for the condition of an unbeliever's heart. I hope you are not of the Calvinist persuasion where this text is not only their proof text for their "T" in Tulip (Total Depravity), but also their text for the ongoing life of the Christian.

Richard, have you been vexed by Calvinism? I have seen it harm the faith of many.

I'm sorry, but why should I trust your interpretation of the Bible? By your own admission, your heart, and the heart of all humans who produced and preserved the Bible, are desperately wicked. Surely I would be a fool to trust anyone who is desperately wicked.

But as for "Calvinism" - I'm glad you brought that up because Protestantism was largely Calvinistic. Your rejection of that version of Christianity is heresy to many other Christians. Like Charles Spugeon, for example. This demonstrates the problem with your explanation of "Righteousness" in terms of "God's Authority." There is no way for anyone to know anything about "God's Authority" as such because all we have are humans like you and various versions of the Bible (Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Protestant, etc.) that must be interpreted according to contradictory systems like Calvinism, Arminianism, Catholocism, Lutheranism, or whateverism. Do you see the problem? Your entire explanation of "How to be Righteous" depends upon your assumption that your interpretations are "God's Interpretations." In other words, you are the final authority. This is the fundamental problem with religion. It's why there are so many denominations. The Catholics say The Pope and the Magisterium are the "Final Authority." You and many Protestants with whom you disagree each claim that the "Bible" is the "Final Authority" when in fact what you really mean is that it is your interpretation of the Bible that is the Final Authority. There's no way out of this trap. Sorry.

Without the indwelling Holy Spirit and His transforming work in our hearts we can never hope to change anything about the nature of our hearts.

Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil. Jer 13:23

The wickedness and deceit in an unbeliever's heart is incurable by his own devices.

That's exactly what the Calvinists teach.

The world is filled with Christian teachers who believe they have the Spirit, but whom you would see as false teachers and deceivers. So how do you know that you are not one them? You admit that your heart was as wicked as theirs before you were saved. So how is it that you know you are saved, and not just another false teacher suffering under the delusions of his own corrupt heart? I hope you realize this is not a "trick question." It is a real problem caused by the fundamental Christian assumption that we all have wicked hearts and deceived minds. If we start off in such a bad condition, and we see others claiming to be Christian who are not, then what confidence can we have that we are not still deceived?

Let me give you a few more verses that describe the unbeliever.

All the imagination of the thoughts of his heart are continually evil (Gen. 6:5), even from youth (Gen. 8: 21).

All that man thinks, says, and does - even his many kindnesses, morality, and religion if not wrought in God by the Holy Spirit - are all dead works, evil deeds, and fruit unto death

The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God. They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Psa 14:2-3

The way of the wicked is as darkness: they know not at what they stumble. Pro 4:19

Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save. Isa 45:20

But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. Isa 64:6

And here are more:(Mat. 7:18; John 3:19-20; Rom. 1:20-32; 3:9-18; 7:5; 8:5-8; 10:2-3; 1Co.2:14; 2Co. 4:3-4; Eph. 4:18; Col. 1:21).

I would never say that these verses describe a Believer in Jesus Christ.

Richard, I sympathize with you. I always hear people proclaiming Jeremiah 17:9 for Believers. I hear it and I see it in print, It seems to be the majority view. It is seen as humility to say that one's own heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked. This is is a trojan horse from the Enemy to destroy one's faith. It is what is known as a doctrine of demons carried along by seducing spirits.

Ah ... I see the confusion. You thought I was applying Jer 17:9 to True Believers (TM). That was not my point. My point is that if you start in a totally corrupted state, then you could still be in that state and your religion could be a self-deception (just as it is with those dirty rotten Calvinists who destroyed the faith of so many!).

Let's see what God says about the heart of the Believer:

And I will also give you a new heart, and I will put a new spirit within you. And I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give to you a heart of flesh. And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you shall keep My judgments and do [them] (Ezek. 36:26-27).

That deceitful and incurable heart is that stony heart that is taken away and is replaced by a heart of flesh! The Holy Spirit gives His people a NEW HEART and causes them to walk in obedience!

Of course, of course - I know all that. But where have you actually seen it? Have you ever looked at the history of the church? Christians give no evidence of being any different than anyone else - and indeed, there are many exceedingly fine people who are not Christian.

And not only is the heart new, EVERYTHING is new. The regenerated person is a NEW CREATION: So that if anyone [is] in Christ, [he] is a new creation; the old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new (2Co. 5:17).

The old things include the old heart. It is GONE. The Holy Spirit makes a person anew! There is a GREAT CHANGE that has taken place! To say that the heart of a believer remains deceitful and incurably wicked is to deny the transforming work of the Holy Spirit!

Does the Christian still sin? He most certainly does. This will take some explanation and it is an entirely different subject than what I am covering here. But, which do you believe? Has God worked a great change in you by making you a new creation with a new heart, or is your heart still vile and deceitful? If you believe your heart is vile and deceitful, it probably is or maybe you have been robbed of the great truths of the Bible about the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit and being a "New Creation" in Christ. These are not just some words that get recited in a Sunday School class. These are eternal truths that speak of a reality that is far more real than anything you can see with your naked eyes.

Much peace to you,
Rick
The text in red contradicts the idea of a "new creation."

There is much to discuss. I very much appreciate your efforts.

Much peace to you too, my friend.

Richard

CWH

10-03-2011, 08:17 AM

Hi Rick,

I liked your ten commandments with their reflection on the lawless. Also, the connection you make between righteousness and authority. Interesting.

The only way I've 'seen' that before now, is in the context of God's great humility. At least, we think of it as His humility, because it challenges the pride which characterises the Adamic nature, but actually, God is like that all the time, and presumably Adam was like God before the Fall.

In this, Christ as both Son and Servant was totally obedient to His Father's bidding, right down to the words He spoke. This is our example. If we can follow Christ's example of being submitted to our heavenly Father's authority, our righteousness will shine as the noonday.

Hi CWH,

I liked your adjustments to the ten commandments for the lawless. Is there scripture to back up what you wrote?

Hi Richard,

While you believe that man is naturally good, it's not possible for you to understand the point of Christ's mission on earth. When you begin to see things the way God sees them, the Bible will begin to make sense for you. I know from experience that this is true - both from resisting His word, and submitting to it.

Do you remember in Sodom when God made the door disappear and the people kept searching for it and searching for it until they were weary? I've been somewhere similar (definitely different!) - groping along the wall purely because I WOULD NOT go through the open door. It's very tiresome on the human side, but God is endlessly patient, :) I discovered.

Blessings to all.

Thanks Charisma for your kind comment. I based my amendments of Rick's ten commandments of the lawless using the perception of a lawless godless man whose intentions are always selfish and greedy. Of course, this is just my own perception which some people unfortunately take it too personally. If Jesus 2 commandments are to love God and love those in need then the lawless man is one who do not love God with all the heart and soul nor care/love for others; he only loves and cares for himself. The lawless man is one who sin by breaking the law. What law? The law of Jesus 2 commandments which are based on the ten commandments:

1 John 3:4
Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.:

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'
1. Man is the measure of all things. I am God Myself, there is no God.

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'
2. Man is the center of his world. I worship myself; I am a man of my own destiny.

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'
3. Man should eat, drink and be merry. I do what I like without fear of authorities or what God's punishments.

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'
4. All things exist for man’s pleasure; There is nothing holy or godly.

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'
5. Freedom of expression releases the full potential of every man. My parents give birth to me so that I will live and enjoy life for myself. No need to honor them as afterall they will soon die and be gone forever.

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'
6. Do away with anything or anyone that affects your happiness. To kill is to win; my survival is based on winning over people by getting rid of them; survival of the fittest.

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'
7. Personal happiness is more important than covenant relationships.' My pleasure comes first; If he can have her, so can I

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'
8. What’s belongs to others, belongs to you and you can take it. If he can have them, so can I.

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'
9. The end justifies the means. Save myself and for my own gains first and don't bother about others.

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'
10. Life consists in what a man possesses. Nothing is better than having riches and possession for my self, I will get them by all means

God Blessings and Grace to all. Amen. :pray:

Richard Amiel McGough

10-03-2011, 04:02 PM

heb13-13

10-03-2011, 06:48 PM

Given that CWH has been making a ridiculous parody of the Ten Commandments of the "Lawless" I think it might be a good idea to make the Ten Commandments that all healthy and good humans would agree to.

The Universal Ten Commandments (Version 1.0)

1) Love First! The Golden Rule. Love everyone (including yourself).

2) Think for yourself! Use your brain. Do not make up stupid ideas that mimic reality but are actually delusional.

Is the unseen, spiritual world, not reality?
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Rom 1:20

While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal. 2Co 4:18

3) Speak good and edifying words to others. Lift each other up.

4) Take time to stop and smell the roses.

5) Honor all people.

6) Do no violence unless necessary to stop more violence or injustice.

End justifies the means. Catholics and Muslims believe and practice this. What is moral about violence? Why did Jesus not allow his disciples to fight back? Why didn't the Apostles recruit a militia to protect their homes and wives and fight back? Why does God tell us to to good to them that persecute us and leave vengeance to Him?

7) Be faithful to your spouse ... and friends, and everyone.

8) Don't steal shit from other people.

9) Speak truth. Don't lie (except when needed to achieve a higher good).
End justifies the means. Catholics and Muslims believe and practice this. I don't ascribe to subterfuge. What is moral about this?

10) Don't waste your life or corrupt your heart wishing for what other people got. Be happy. Don't worry.

So there you go. Morality is intrinsic to human beings. All normal and healthy people know what's right and wrong. We don't need a book to tell us these things. And we certainly don't want to go around imitating a God who orders the mass murder of little children or who tortures people forever for failing to "love" him.

Richard, are you daring God to a showdown? High noon in front of the saloon? It certainly appears that way. Do you think He will accept your challenge by telling Him that you are more righteous than He and accusing Him of being a bloodthirsty, immoral warmonger?

At least He died for His enemies (you and I). You would use violence to stop more violence and call it moral. While we were yet sinners, (His enemies), He died for us. He sacrificed His life to stop more violence. He has brought peace between many enemies and while we were His enemy. True peace. But His appearance on earth has also revealed the hearts of men that would seek to use Him and prosper personally. He is the Great Revealer of hearts in many ways.

Instead of lying to achieve His higher good, He boldy and courageously spoke the truth not trying to protect His own skin or evade pain and ridicule. Higher good achieved by lying is an oxymoron if I ever heard one.

I hope you are not disappointed but God is God and won't play that game with you. Does that frustrate you? Of course if you don't even believe He exists then you are just shaking your fists at hot air everyday. What kind of existence is that? No matter what you do or say you will not budge the Lord one bit. If your mission in life is to checkmate God, you will end up sadly disappointed. You might expose a few charlatan's here and there and checkmate some believers in the faith, but so what. Is that what you want your life to count for? Do you even believe in God anymore or life after death? If not, then yes, I can see why you would do whatever makes you happy in this life, because you think it is all you will ever get.

Re-read the first part of your 10th commandment.

Good night to you,
Rick

Richard Amiel McGough

10-03-2011, 08:26 PM

Richard, are you daring God to a showdown? High noon in front of the saloon? It certainly appears that way. Do you think He will accept your challenge by telling Him that you are more righteous than He and accusing Him of being a bloodthirsty, immoral warmonger?

At least He died for His enemies (you and I). You would use violence to stop more violence and call it moral. While we were yet sinners, (His enemies), He died for us. He sacrificed His life to stop more violence. He has brought peace between many enemies and while we were His enemy. True peace. But His appearance on earth has also revealed the hearts of men that would seek to use Him and prosper personally. He is the Great Revealer of hearts in many ways.

Instead of lying to achieve His higher good, He boldy and courageously spoke the truth not trying to protect His own skin or evade pain and ridicule. Higher good achieved by lying is an oxymoron if I ever heard one.

I hope you are not disappointed but God is God and won't play that game with you. Does that frustrate you? Of course if you don't even believe He exists then you are just shaking your fists at hot air everyday. What kind of existence is that? No matter what you do or say you will not budge the Lord one bit. If your mission in life is to checkmate God, you will end up sadly disappointed. You might expose a few charlatan's here and there and checkmate some believers in the faith, but so what. Is that what you want your life to count for? Do you even believe in God anymore or life after death? If not, then yes, I can see why you would do whatever makes you happy in this life, because you think it is all you will ever get.

Re-read the first part of your 10th commandment.

Good night to you,
Rick
1) No - I'm certainly not "daring God to a showdown." That would be foolish in the extreme since we all know he wouldn't show up! :lmbo:

As I presume you know by now, I don't believe that kind of "God" exists. I'm not an atheist, but neither do I believe that there is an omniscient God who goes about "doing things" like any other bit player in the cosmic drama. There are huge problems with that idea. For example, if God is omniscient, then he never had an opportunity to make any choices at all because he already knew what he would choose. This means he is absolutely nothing like any "person" - he's more like an abstract principle, something that just "is" like the Pythagorean theorem. Such a "God" seems completely incapable of things like "love" (remember the primary Christian argument that love requires choice?). It seems most likely that the correct concept of God is something along the lines of "Ground of Being" or "Cosmic Mind."

2) If the word "righteous" is to have any meaning, then commanding the murder of innocent children is not part of it. You have had to invent outrageously speculative and improbable theories to justify God's actions in the Bible. I just call them for what they are - unrighteous. And there is no righteousness in the concept of eternal hell. And the very concept of substitutionary atonement is itself a violation of righteousness which most Christain apologists implicitly admit when they say that there must be a hell or Hitler would never pay for his sin. What they forget is that no believer has to pay for their sins, so why doesn't that strike them as "unrighteous?" The answer is simple - the Christian doctrines are logically incoherent and Christians are poor thinkers. William Lane Craig is one of the most famous and celebrated Christian apologists in the world right now! Look at the absurdity of his "logic." And then there is the "Bible Answer Man" (Hanky Panky) who says that the Canaanites deserved to be destroyed because they were so wicked that they were killing their own children. Therefore, God ordered His People to do it for them! Is that insane or what? And on it goes. I've been reading Christian apologists for years and I have concluded that the religion of Christianity is logically indefensible on many if not most points.

3) Don't blame me for calling God a warmonger. The Bible says "The Lord is a man of war." And how many people did he kill? How many children did he order to be slaughtered? How many virgins were kept after killing the Midianites? THIRTY-TWO THOUSAND VIRGIN SEX SLAVES? Now that's some pretty serious "war booty" if you know what what I mean. Why did God act like a "war monger" if he didn't want to look like one?

4) You say that "At least He died for His enemies (you and I)." That's not exactly true. He died for some of his enemies. The lucky ones I guess. The rest he reserved for an everlasting barbeque of unending bloody horror. To them, God is the Devil incarnate. Have you ever considered what it would be like to be one of the damned? Do that for thirty seconds and you will reject the doctrine or go insane or you will discover that you have no human heart. You cannot be human and believe in hell. It is an unthinkablely evil doctrine.

5) You said "You would use violence to stop more violence and call it moral." Absolutely! Or what, you are going to watch some gang of madmen raping you mother and sisters and then slowing murdering them and you're just gonna stand there and let them do it? You call the "righteousness?"

And besides, what was the flood if not violence? And what was the murder of the Canaanites and the Midianites and the Amalekites if not more VIOLENCE VIOLENCE and more VIOLENCE commanded by the Lord God Almighty? Now I'm totally confused. You seem to be saying that violence is just fine if executed or commanded by God (our source of Moral Absolutes?), but its a horrible crime if used by humans to protect the innocent from violent evil people? Your ideas seem entirely incoherent.

6) "He sacrificed His life to stop more violence." Oh really? Well, it didn't work that way, did it? First there was massive violence on the first Christians, and then they became the killers and murdered folks for not following Christ. And then God's gonna wrap up the whole mess by another huge orgy of violence called the "Marriage Supper of the Lamb" -
Revelation 19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; 18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great. 19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. 20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. 21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.
Oh yeah - God really solved the "problem of violence" when he had Christ crucified, didn't he? I'm sorry, but your answers seem to me to be completely inconsistent.

7) " Higher good achieved by lying is an oxymoron if I ever heard one. " Wow - so if you had ten Jews hidden in the attic and the Nazis knocked on your door, you'd "tell the truth" and condemn the Jews to the death camps? You think that's moral?

8) "I hope you are not disappointed but God is God and won't play that game with you." Dang! I've had the same trouble scheduling a debate with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny too. I've had to settle with their representatives, like you. But seriously, I'm glad you are giving it a shot.

9) "if you don't even believe He exists then you are just shaking your fists at hot air everyday." I'm not "shaking my fists" at anyone. I'm just having a discussion with people about what we believe and don't believe. There are no other "entities" like "God" involved - at least not in any way that anyone could point to.

10) "No matter what you do or say you will not budge the Lord one bit. " What makes you think I am trying to "budge" a God that I don't believe exists? That makes no sense at all. All I'm trying to do is to have a serious conversation with you and others about the nature of Reality, God, and Everything.

11) "If your mission in life is to checkmate God, you will end up sadly disappointed." Again, "God" has not yet shown up to participate in this conversation, so your suggestion that I am trying to "checkmate God" makes no sense at all. I am trying to reason with fellow human beings, like you.

12) "You might expose a few charlatan's here and there and checkmate some believers in the faith, but so what. Is that what you want your life to count for?" A "few" charlatans? Ha! I've exposed the entire faculty of Liberty University (the largest "Christian" university in the country) as well as the entire leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention (there are three kinds of liars - Liars, Damned Liars, and Southern Baptists), as well as the primary Christian apologists like Hanky Panky and Bill Craig, not to mention the twisted apologist Norm Geisler who fully supports the ten years of document lies by blatant lying freak and Ergun Caner (former president of Liberty Theological Seminary) who pretended to be a Turkish Jihadist when in fact he grew up in Ohio. The list goes on and on - the entire body is sick from head to toe. Utterly totally insanely sick and perverted and corrupted. That is the "Christianity" that I have "exposed" without even trying. I merely opened my eyes. And I haven't even mentioned the hundreds of thousands of mindless fools who flocked to Todd Bentley's healing carnival where he said God told him to kick an old lady in the face with his biker boot to impart the "healing power of God." And of course he was fully supported by the huge TBN network, and let's not forget Harold Camping who received 80 MILLIONS DOLLARS in five years form his deluded end-times believers who believed his raving insanity about the rapture on May 21 - which he says happened "Spiritually" ... :doh:

You just don't get it Rick. I've pulled the covers off this thing called "Christianity" and nothing but maggots are squirming before my eyes! And for all that, I have only touched the hem of the garment of the abomination of "Christianity."

I really glad you pressed these points. It caused me to upchuck all the poison I ingested during my years of trying to be a "Christian." That's what Ergun Caner did for me. His outrageous lies, which also revealed the total and absolute corruption of major fundamentalist Christian organizations like Liberty U and the Southern Baptists and famous apologists like Norm Giesler and John Ankerberg. I documented it in a blog post last year called:

Ergun Emetico Caner - The Ipecac of God (Nuclear, Weaponized) (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2010/05/22/ergun-caner-emitic-ipecac/)

Thanks for helping me to vent. It's very healing.

Richard

heb13-13

10-03-2011, 10:26 PM

1) No - I'm certainly not "daring God to a showdown." That would be foolish in the extreme since we all know he wouldn't show up! :lmbo:

As I presume you know by now, I don't believe that kind of "God" exists. I'm not an atheist, but neither do I believe that there is an omniscient God who goes about "doing things" like any other bit player in the cosmic drama. There are huge problems with that idea. For example, if God is omniscient, then he never had an opportunity to make any choices at all because he already knew what he would choose. This means he is absolutely nothing like any "person" - he's more like an abstract principle, something that just "is" like the Pythagorean theorem. Such a "God" seems completely incapable of things like "love" (remember the primary Christian argument that love requires choice?). It seems most likely that the correct concept of God is something along the lines of "Ground of Being" or "Cosmic Mind."

2) If the word "righteous" is to have any meaning, then commanding the murder of innocent children is not part of it. You have had to invent outrageously speculative and improbable theories to justify God's actions in the Bible. I just call them for what they are - unrighteous. And there is no righteousness in the concept of eternal hell. And the very concept of substitutionary atonement is itself a violation of righteousness which most Christain apologists implicitly admit when they say that there must be a hell or Hitler would never pay for his sin. What they forget is that no believer has to pay for their sins, so why doesn't that strike them as "unrighteous?" The answer is simple - the Christian doctrines are logically incoherent and Christians are poor thinkers. William Lane Craig is one of the most famous and celebrated Christian apologists in the world right now! Look at the absurdity of his "logic." And then there is the "Bible Answer Man" (Hanky Panky) who says that the Canaanites deserved to be destroyed because they were so wicked that they were killing their own children. Therefore, God ordered His People to do it for them! Is that insane or what? And on it goes. I've been reading Christian apologists for years and I have concluded that the religion of Christianity is logically indefensible on many if not most points.

3) Don't blame me for calling God a warmonger. The Bible says "The Lord is a man of war." And how many people did he kill? How many children did he order to be slaughtered? How many virgins were kept after killing the Midianites? THIRTY-TWO THOUSAND VIRGIN SEX SLAVES? Now that's some pretty serious "war booty" if you know what what I mean. Why did God act like a "war monger" if he didn't want to look like one?

4) You say that "At least He died for His enemies (you and I)." That's not exactly true. He died for some of his enemies. The lucky ones I guess. The rest he reserved for an everlasting barbeque of unending bloody horror. To them, God is the Devil incarnate. Have you ever considered what it would be like to be one of the damned? Do that for thirty seconds and you will reject the doctrine or go insane or you will discover that you have no human heart. You cannot be human and believe in hell. It is an unthinkablely evil doctrine.

5) You said "You would use violence to stop more violence and call it moral." Absolutely! Or what, you are going to watch some gang of madmen raping you mother and sisters and then slowing murdering them and you're just gonna stand there and let them do it? You call the "righteousness?"

And besides, what was the flood if not violence? And what was the murder of the Canaanites and the Midianites and the Amalekites if not more VIOLENCE VIOLENCE and more VIOLENCE commanded by the Lord God Almighty? Now I'm totally confused. You seem to be saying that violence is just fine if executed or commanded by God (our source of Moral Absolutes?), but its a horrible crime if used by humans to protect the innocent from violent evil people? Your ideas seem entirely incoherent.

6) "He sacrificed His life to stop more violence." Oh really? Well, it didn't work that way, did it? First there was massive violence on the first Christians, and then they became the killers and murdered folks for not following Christ. And then God's gonna wrap up the whole mess by another huge orgy of violence called the "Marriage Supper of the Lamb" -

Revelation 19:17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God; 18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great. 19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army. 20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone. 21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.
Oh yeah - God really solved the "problem of violence" when he had Christ crucified, didn't he? I'm sorry, but your answers seem to me to be completely inconsistent.

7) " Higher good achieved by lying is an oxymoron if I ever heard one. " Wow - so if you had ten Jews hidden in the attic and the Nazis knocked on your door, you'd "tell the truth" and condemn the Jews to the death camps? You think that's moral?

8) "I hope you are not disappointed but God is God and won't play that game with you." Dang! I've had the same trouble scheduling a debate with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny too. I've had to settle with their representatives, like you. But seriously, I'm glad you are giving it a shot.

9) "if you don't even believe He exists then you are just shaking your fists at hot air everyday." I'm not "shaking my fists" at anyone. I'm just having a discussion with people about what we believe and don't believe. There are no other "entities" like "God" involved - at least not in any way that anyone could point to.

10) "No matter what you do or say you will not budge the Lord one bit. " What makes you think I am trying to "budge" a God that I don't believe exists? That makes no sense at all. All I'm trying to do is to have a serious conversation with you and others about the nature of Reality, God, and Everything.

11) "If your mission in life is to checkmate God, you will end up sadly disappointed." Again, "God" has not yet shown up to participate in this conversation, so your suggestion that I am trying to "checkmate God" makes no sense at all. I am trying to reason with fellow human beings, like you.

12) "You might expose a few charlatan's here and there and checkmate some believers in the faith, but so what. Is that what you want your life to count for?" A "few" charlatans? Ha! I've exposed the entire faculty of Liberty University (the largest "Christian" university in the country) as well as the entire leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention (there are three kinds of liars - Liars, Damned Liars, and Southern Baptists), as well as the primary Christian apologists like Hanky Panky and Bill Craig, not to mention the twisted apologist Norm Geisler who fully supports the ten years of document lies by blatant lying freak and Ergun Caner (former president of Liberty Theological Seminary) who pretended to be a Turkish Jihadist when in fact he grew up in Ohio. The list goes on and on - the entire body is sick from head to toe. Utterly totally insanely sick and perverted and corrupted. That is the "Christianity" that I have "exposed" without even trying. I merely opened my eyes. And I haven't even mentioned the hundreds of thousands of mindless fools who flocked to Todd Bentley's healing carnival where he said God told him to kick an old lady in the face with his biker boot to impart the "healing power of God." And of course he was fully supported by the huge TBN network, and let's not forget Harold Camping who received 80 MILLIONS DOLLARS in five years form his deluded end-times believers who believed his raving insanity about the rapture on May 21 - which he says happened "Spiritually" ... :doh:

You just don't get it Rick. I've pulled the covers off this thing called "Christianity" and nothing but maggots are squirming before my eyes! And for all that, I have only touched the hem of the garment of the abomination of "Christianity."

I really glad you pressed these points. It caused me to upchuck all the poison I ingested during my years of trying to be a "Christian." That's what Ergun Caner did for me. His outrageous lies, which also revealed the total and absolute corruption of major fundamentalist Christian organizations like Liberty U and the Southern Baptists and famous apologists like Norm Giesler and John Ankerberg. I documented it in a blog post last year called:

Ergun Emetico Caner - The Ipecac of God (Nuclear, Weaponized) (http://www.biblewheel.com/blog/index.php/2010/05/22/ergun-caner-emitic-ipecac/)

Thanks for helping me to vent. It's very healing.

Richard

Richard,

There is no way I could have enjoyed that as much as you but you did have me laughing a bit. And, yes I might change my answer on your "lying" commandment. If I was hiding Jews, I would hope to God that I would not "give them up." I don't know how I would lie but it is best not to try to premeditate hypotheticals. I know that I just would not want to give up anyone that I am voluntarily hiding. I have never been tortured so I don't have any experience in that area that I can talk authoritatively about.

I do have to say that you have some very good questions and I think any serious Believer should not just dismiss you. I am not going to do that.

If some thugs broke into my house and were going to harm my wife and children, I would do my best to make them wish they never came to my door. Again, I don't have any experience in that area so I don't know exactly what I would do, but I know I would protect.

I am glad that you have exposed many charlatans. I have too because I don't like seeing people being taken advantage of. I did read that whole piece on Ergun. I have read many things. I read your entire debate with the Catholics on the Catholic forum. Glad you saved it. I really enjoyed that. They did admit defeat and that you were right by virtue of deleting the thread. Something they never do. :clap2:

I also read most of your debate on some skeptics forum which I have somehow lost the link. I really enjoyed that one. :lol:

So, I have been reading here and there through the years.

It is late and I won't try to write anything in response just yet. I did tell you early on that there are some things I don't have an answer for (who does have all the answers), and other things are my thoughts, wondering out loud such as the Amalekites, not necessarily "Thus saith the Lord".

Just because I respond to you does not mean I am justifying God. Please don't think that all my answers are justifications for Him. That would be foolish and prideful of me. I think asking why is ok and the conversation is ok, too. Maybe we can find some of these answers.

The state of Christianity is sad. I find fellowship here and there. It is not abundant, but I am grateful to have 4-5 friends locally that are only interested in pursuing the Lord Jesus and they have a lot of fruit in their lives, too. I am also blessed to know some people long distance who won't bow the knee to Baal.

I have walked alone, many times, too and it is very, very difficult. I truly sympathize with others who are unable to find true fellowship. It really is scarce. It's not hard to find religious people, but it is difficult to find those who only want to follow Jesus and know Jesus. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks and if you listen to someone for about 15-30 minutes you can usually detect what has their heart. A lot of people I meet talk more about this Pastor or that Pastor or this Teacher or that Teacher.

Me and my friends are not perfect. Some of us came out of cults and none of us have walked perfect before the Lord. All of us have been taken advantage of by "spiritual men." Through it all we have learned a bit here and there. We are just a rag tag band of men. One thing we all have in common is that we have all been touched by Him, to the point where we know it is all about Him and not about us in any way, shape or form.

Jeremiah 9 resonates with me. Here is how it starts, and the whole chapter is worth reading.

Jer 9:1 Oh that my head were waters, and mine eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people!

Jer 9:2 Oh that I had in the wilderness a lodging place of wayfaring men; that I might leave my people, and go from them! for they be all adulterers, an assembly of treacherous men.

Life is a constant search for the truth and a laying hold of Jesus Christ.

I apologize if any of my words offended you as a personal attack. I assure you I am not here to do that.

I will look at this post again sometime tomorrow but not sure I can or will address everything. Somethings I just can't and I don't feel like I have to blow smoke at ya

Take care,
Rick

Richard Amiel McGough

10-03-2011, 11:17 PM

Richard,

There is no way I could have enjoyed that as much as you but you did have me laughing a bit. And, yes I might change my answer on your "lying" commandment. If I was hiding Jews, I would hope to God that I would not "give them up." I don't know how I would lie but it is best not to try to premeditate hypotheticals. I know that I just would not want to give up anyone that I am voluntarily hiding. I have never been tortured so I don't have any experience in that area that I can talk authoritatively about.

I do have to say that you have some very good questions and I think any serious Believer should not just dismiss you. I am not going to do that.

If some thugs broke into my house and were going to harm my wife and children, I would do my best to make them wish they never came to my door. Again, I don't have any experience in that area so I don't know exactly what I would do, but I know I would protect.

I am glad that you have exposed many charlatans. I have too because I don't like seeing people being taken advantage of. I did read that whole piece on Ergun. I have read many things. I read your entire debate with the Catholics on the Catholic forum. Glad you saved it. I really enjoyed that. They did admit defeat and that you were right by virtue of deleting the thread. Something they never do. :clap2:

I also read most of your debate on some skeptics forum which I have somehow lost the link. I really enjoyed that one. :lol:

So, I have been reading here and there through the years.

It is late and I won't try to write anything in response just yet. I did tell you early on that there are some things I don't have an answer for (who does have all the answers), and other things are my thoughts, wondering out loud such as the Amalekites, not necessarily "Thus saith the Lord".

Just because I respond to you does not mean I am justifying God. Please don't think that all my answers are justifications for Him. That would be foolish and prideful of me. I think asking why is ok and the conversation is ok, too. Maybe we can find some of these answers.

The state of Christianity is sad. I find fellowship here and there. It is not abundant, but I am grateful to have 4-5 friends locally that are only interested in pursuing the Lord Jesus and they have a lot of fruit in their lives, too. I am also blessed to know some people long distance who won't bow the knee to Baal.

I have walked alone, many times, too and it is very, very difficult. I truly sympathize with others who are unable to find true fellowship. It really is scarce. It's not hard to find religious people, but it is difficult to find those who only want to follow Jesus and know Jesus. Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks and if you listen to someone for about 15-30 minutes you can usually detect what has their heart. A lot of people I meet talk more about this Pastor or that Pastor or this Teacher or that Teacher.

Me and my friends are not perfect. Some of us came out of cults and none of us have walked perfect before the Lord. All of us have been taken advantage of by "spiritual men." Through it all we have learned a bit here and there. We are just a rag tag band of men. One thing we all have in common is that we have all been touched by Him, to the point where we know it is all about Him and not about us in any way, shape or form.

Jeremiah 9 resonates with me. Here is how it starts, and the whole chapter is worth reading.

Jer 9:1 Oh that my head were waters, and mine eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people!

Jer 9:2 Oh that I had in the wilderness a lodging place of wayfaring men; that I might leave my people, and go from them! for they be all adulterers, an assembly of treacherous men.

Life is a constant search for the truth and a laying hold of Jesus Christ.

I apologize if any of my words offended you as a personal attack. I assure you I am not here to do that.

I will look at this post again sometime tomorrow but not sure I can or will address everything. Somethings I just can't and I don't feel like I have to blow smoke at ya

Take care,
Rick
Hey there Rick,

I can't thank you enough for your thoughtful, understanding, and compassionate response. I was a little worried that you my be a little disturbed by my strong statements. You are a real "mensch" -

Also, don't worry about offending me in any way. You haven't come close to crossing that line. You pretty much have to deliberately offend me, and then do it again on purpose, before I'll even notice it. You are a very intelligent and thoughtful person, so I have no worries about things like that.

Well, it's late. I just wanted to quickly acknowledge that I really appreciate the quality of your response. I'll answer more in the morning.

Good night.

Richard

heb13-13

10-03-2011, 11:45 PM

Hey there Rick,

I can't thank you enough for your thoughtful, understanding, and compassionate response. I was a little worried that you my be a little disturbed by my strong statements. You are a real "mensch" -

Also, don't worry about offending me in any way. You haven't come close to crossing that line. You pretty much have to deliberately offend me, and then do it again on purpose, before I'll even notice it. You are a very intelligent and thoughtful person, so I have no worries about things like that.

Well, it's late. I just wanted to quickly acknowledge that I really appreciate the quality of your response. I'll answer more in the morning.

Good night.

Richard

Thanks a bunch, Richard. Sleep well.

heb13-13

10-05-2011, 09:25 PM

Ok, we took a little detour but that’s fine. I take detours all the time when I am driving around. I’m just very inquisitive by nature. I do eventually get back on the main road and that is what I am going to do now. We’re going back on the main road to look at the third principle of righteousness.

First a refresher if you missed anything.

First Principle of Righteousness (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=34637#post34637)

The Second Principle of Righteousness is found in the creation of a nation. (http://biblewheel.com/forum/showthread.php?p=34653#post34653)

The Third Principle of Righteousness
As we come into the New Testament we see that righteousness is not confined to law and authority. It also becomes the basis of relationship. In relationship to God, we see that righteousness brings forth reconciliation. If righteousness did not bring forth reconciliation then what good is it? God did not hide behind his authority and His power. He left His throne and came down to the sinner. A righteous God came to unrighteous man. He did not come with the law in His hands, rather He came “full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). Grace and truth brought righteousness to the sinner.

The third principle of righteousness is found in reconciliation operating through grace and truth.

“For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” (John 1:17).

Here is a familiar question and topic for debate down through the centuries. Do grace and truth do away with the righteousness of the Law? No, God’s righteousness remains the same. He now brings it a different way to the sinner. Even though the Law was righteous, it could not make the unrighteous man righteous. Only grace and truth can do that!

Jesus Christ was the full expression of God’s righteousness for the sinner.

“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). Grace is the lovingkindness of the Lord to the unrighteous. We must not mistake the response of mercy on God’s part to mean that He is setting aside righteousness. This is the mistake of the present day church.

Grace is the disposition of the Lord that makes it possible for the unrighteous to be righteous.
This does not come by God merely wiping the slate clean through forgiveness. Grace is more than pity. Grace comes through the Cross which deals with all of man’s unrighteousness. It was grace that brought the Son of God into the world. Grace laid upon Him the sin of every man. Grace offers the remission of sin to every sinner.

Grace cannot work apart from truth. Truth is the revelation of righteousness that breaks the delusion of sin and penetrates the deception of pride, revealing the hypocrisy of the heart. Truth working in the heart will bring repentance and through repentance, truth prepares the heart to receive God’s grace. Truth brings the sinner to face himself as unrighteous.

So, we see then that grace and truth work together to establish righteousness.

When grace is separated from truth, self-indulgence comes into Christians. When truth is separated from grace, legalism comes into the church. God has joined grace and truth together in Christ. God wants neither indulgent Christians nor legalists. The righteousness of God comes through grace and truth.

In Christ “mercy and truth are met together, righteousness and peace have kissed each other. Truth shall spring out of the earth and righteousness shall look down from heaven” (Psalm 85:10-11).

When grace and truth came together in Christ, righteousness came to man. When righteousness was brought forth on earth, the peace of reconciliation was released in heaven. Every sinner who allows truth to spring up in him, will receive “the gift of righteousness,” which is the remission of his sins (Romans 5:17).

Jesus Christ became the instrument of reconciliation. “For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven. And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled” (Col 1:19-21).

It is through reconciliation that the full revelation of God’s righteousness is brought forth. This takes man beyond legalism, rituals and religious traditions; through reconciliation man is brought to the heart of God.

In the third principle of righteousness, we discover that righteousness is love and forgiveness working through reconciliation. On the other hand, evil is hatred and unforgiveness working through alienation. It is here that evil prevails over men, even Christians. Without the spirit of reconciliation working towards others, there is no righteousness. Bitterness and hatred are
contrary to righteousness.

For this reason the New Covenant speaks much about hatred and love. “If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: But he that hateth his brother is in darkness (1 John 4:20, 2:11).

Hatred working through alienation destroys righteousness in one’s life.

Only by walking in reconciliation can one experience the FULL WORK OF RIGHTEOUSNESS.

Forgiveness is the key to maintaining the spirit of reconciliation. By forgiving, we permit God’s grace to flow into us and by releasing others, one releases himself. Here is the key to healing and restoration. When the spirit of reconciliation begins to flow out to others, one experiences the “rivers of living water” flowing through him (John 7:38). Here is life!! And here is our
perfection and righteousness, that we love all men.

Let’s make some observations. First, each revelation of righteousness incorporates the preceding one. The principle of separation found in creation was incorporated by the Law to make a people for God.

The principles of separation and authority are incorporated in Christ to bring forth disciples. The new does not do away with the righteousness of the old, rather it adds to it a new dimension of God’s righteousness through reconciliation.

Second, grace follows the Law. There would be no place for grace if the Law had not first established God’s righteousness. Even with children, we do not give grace until first authority has been accepted; otherwise, obedience will be missing altogether. Again, this the error of the church today? Many have thought they must despise righteousness in order to preach grace.
Consequently, the message of grace is ignored. Is it not the object of grace to bring righteousness where righteousness does not exist? The focus of preaching MUST come back to righteousness.

The Purpose of Grace

“For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works” (Titus 2:11-14).

Preview of what's next before we go off the main road again :
Today, the emphasis is put on forgiveness instead of righteousness. Is there more than forgiveness? Is there freedom from sin? Or do we just slap the bumper sticker on our car "Christians aren't perfect just forgiven." What this is saying is, "I'm a sinner just like you, but I'm forgiven and you are not." Then we do whatever we want and every night before we go to sleep, we just ask the Lord to forgive us." That my friends is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

May the Lord help us to come under His authority, receive His truth, operate in the spirit of reconciliation and increasingly walk in righteousness.

That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world; (2Co 3:18)

But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord. (2Co 3:18)

Rick