John Smithson wrote:
>On a good day, we are nothin like
>Him, right? Nothing.
>... I am sorry, but if we do thus and so,
>how close to Being Like God (Be ye
>perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect)
>are we?
If you are talking about us when we were outside of the covenant of Christ
and without the Holy Spirit, then I would agree with your words.
No I am not.
However,
if you are talking about us when we are inside Christ and he is living
through us by the power of the Holy Spirit, then our righteousness is
exactly like God's righteousness. There is no difference because it is not
OUR righteousness, but HIS righteousness. To say that the righteousness
that we manifest is somehow inferior to God's righteousness is to denigrate
God's righteousness (if we proclaim that we cannot be righteous apart from
God).
I will not address the "is to denigrate" thingy except to say that it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion. I do not care if you think I have disparaged God's righteousness, David. Just talk shop and not judgment. You are not my Nathan.
There is a big difference between the righteousness of God and ours. Ultimately, God needs no help. We do. That help comes from our partnership with Him (Philip 2:12,13) and that is the point you make. Your insistence that this (the Spirit's work in our lives) is the only consideration is a denial of the spiritual growth process. There are a number of circumstances that keep us "sinners" in the sight of God apart from the righteousness that is credited to us apart from our effort ! ! Because we continually fall short of His glory (Ro 3:23), because there is no time we can say we are without sin (I John1:8), because the flow of the blood of the Lamb is a continual cleansing (I Jo 1:7) -- in short, because spiritual growth is always a driving aspiration in our lives, the spice that makes tomorrow something to look forward to (because tommorrow I will be different and different in a good way), we will be in need of God's reckoning in our lives (faith reckoned as righteousness). What is to be feared from this theology?
I have shared the following passage before with you numerous times, but it
seems to need to be repeated yet again.
1 John 3:7
(7) Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is
righteous, EVEN AS HE IS RIGHTEOUS.
There is a good rule, I think, in the development of a contextual hermeneutic and it is this: "first things first." A case in point? The opening verses of I Jo 2 and I Jo 3 (you reference v 7) come after the comments made in I Jo 1:7ff. I beleive that before John says a couple of things that might be misunderstood, might make one think he is talking about sinless perfection, he writes chapter 1.
A second point is this (and to those of you who are lurking, I address this to you, as well) ; take your Bible in hand and read chapters two and three. As you do, keep this consideration in mind -- at the center of all that God might require, there remains two things that are clear: love God and love your fellow man. When John writes of love being defined in terms of commandment keeping (the claim of some regarding I JO 2 and 3), you read and you decided if he is speaking of a legal system or a Divine Harmonic that reconciles our activity and God's. When you read those two chapters, can you see these two _expression_ within the text?
Huh??? you say? OK, let's say it this wise: God loves himself (the Father loves the Son, the Son loves the Father) and God obviously loves us. We are asked to love God and love others as we love OURSELVES. See the parallel? Thus, the Divine Harmonic that brings together (reconciles) our activity and God's. And such is everywhere in chapters two and three. We are enjoined to pursue holiness, David. I agree with that. But full blown holiness is not possible apart from God's consideration of faith for righteousness.
