For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. ~ Romans 1:18-20
Now, for an example of what suppressing the truth in unrighteousness looks like, watch this video.
Advertisements
My comment here is irrelevant but just a question. A while ago we spoke about the issue of the merit of Christ. I said that I thought the whole idea of Christ adding merit to his already perfect righteousness, where one act of obedience on monday adds a couple more units of merit that he didn’t have on sunday sounded a bit unbiblical. You said that you agreed and that the uncreated eternal righteousness of Christ was “worked out” in a human nature. I thought that was great and I agree with you. Other people I have questioned have said very different things.
Robert Shaw commenting on Chap 11 of the confession said,
“The righteousness of Jesus Christ is the sole ground of a sinner’s justification before God. It is not his essential righteousness as God that we intend, for that is incommunicable; but his mediatory or surety-righteousness, which, according to our Confession, consists of his “obedience and satisfaction.”
Wes White said replied to my concern,
“If you are asking whether the essential righteousness of the Son of God is imputed to us or the righteousness that the divine Son of God wrought in His human nature on earth, then I would certainly say the latter.”
Just curious as to what you would say about that.
LOL, yes, it has virtually nothing to do with this video.
Instead of me adding another off topic post to this thread, let me do a little leg work and I’ll actually make a post about it. I have Shaw’s book so let me look at all that he says. Just on the surface, it may be a semantic difference — a distinction b/t the two natures is being asserted, but I want to read him in context. Also, if you could post a link to the discussion on WW’s blog, that would be appreciated as well.