He is righteous? or you are righteous because of conduct?
We're not righteous "because of" conduct. And conduct isn't just outward action.
We're righteous by imputation of character AND conduct. The inner conduct of the heart from which all outer conduct comes. Conduct comes from character, so any imputation of character comes with imputed conduct.
That's NOT doing. It's the means OF doing, establishing the imputed inner character and the imputed inner conduct as outward conduct in actions.
If we didn't have imputed conduct as righteousness, all we could bring forth in action would be from the old man as sin.
The problem is not understanding words for what they mean instead of assigning a concept to define words in arrears.
The way I see it is the only righteousness we have we put on (Christ), and that would be His righteousness...we have none of our own, in a sense it is a label...Christ's label.
Right. But it's not a label. It's His literal robe of flesh. His prosopon. By faith, our hypostasis is translated into His prosopon as our ontological reality of existence.
I'm not IN my old man any longer. I'm IN Christ. The old man is dead. Nothing from the old man is righteous, so righteousness MUST be imputed as character and conduct or anything I would ever do would be sin. My own self-determined standard of conduct.
Nobody knows what the words mean, so they have to compensate with concepts.
I appreciate the posiition MADs are taking in one sense. But it's the ditch on the other side of the road from Hypernomianism (Hyper-law).
MADs don't know the depth of meanings for most words that are vital for understanding. In that way, it's a salvation of their own selves, but that's not their intent at all. They're just trying to get others out of law and works, but they're not.
I certainly do not conduct myself as I should always but, what Christian that is not lying does, we will never hit the mark, the standard...never,
1Pet 4:1 indicates we can have sin cease us.
the answer is not behaving better because you cannot, if you could Christ would never have shed His blood.
Right. And that has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm talking about ontology, not methodology.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for...ie Christ.
ie.. being in the prosopon of Christ. Paul was in the prosopon of Christ. (2Cor 2:10) God accepts no man's prosopon. (Gal 2:6)
Heb. 11:1 ¶ Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
What's faith? And what's a hypostasis? English concepts can't trump Greek content.
It's all in there.
