I suppose then, that we would disagree on the meaning of the Sermon on the Mount. I would say the reason Jesus does not speak of imputed justification is that He was not talking about salvation in the Sermon. He was talking about righteous living, which we are to seek, and is as you said, possible through God inside us. Even in 5:20, this is a description of the new nature, not a "to do" list.
I actually like the idea of Christ's righteousness being thrown over me like a coat. In my sinful nature I am very cold. :) In order for me to cooperate in righteousness I must add at least an element of my own, do you agree? I would say there is no righteousness in me to add. None. I can't cooperate if I don't bring anything to the table. I see this whole "view" as being meek and humble, and poor in spirit. This is part of what attracts me to it.
Could you imagine God and Luther's idea of man co-existing forever? It is incomprehensible. God is not some foolish old dolt who doesn't recognize the smell of our stinking selves (spiritually) underneath the "cloak" of Christ... I never did understand that mental picture.
I'm not directly familiar with Luther's quote, but I think I get the drift. I believe God knows "who" we are in our sin, and He is not ashamed of what He made. We are just not fit to exist with Him in heaven for all time. (God created lots of things that will not exist with Him heaven.) Christ fixes this problem for us, we did not have the means. God knows our "smell", but does not count it against us because of what Christ did. It is as if God ignores our "smell". Do we not all sometimes ignore glaring faults in those we love? The cloak of Christ's blood trumps the smell and in God's eyes it is wiped away.
Of course, the other way to look at it is that we really don't "smell" so bad at all, since we have a new nature in righteousness. Yes, there are remnants that stink, but the core of our new being is holy. Christ's work caused this to happen. In either case, the result is the same. We are unworthy, Christ loved us and did what we could never do. Here we would disagree on the cooperation issue. I know you have said that cooperation is enabled by God, but the whole freewill idea means the decision comes from us. Is man glorified in his cooperation?
Thank you for your further comments on purgatory.
God bless.
Ah, I think our terms are getting confused again. "Being saved" has different meanings to us, correct? To you, it is that first turning to Christ, during Baptism/sinner's prayer. To me, that is secondary - being saved is a life-long process that doesn't end until we achieve heaven. Thus, when I see the Sermon, from my vantage, it DOES talk about salvation.
Note Matt 5:20 again, looking at it from my point of view on salvation: "For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed [the righteousness] of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven."
Throughout the Sermon, Jesus tells us what sort of loving actions should proceed from us (while abiding in Christ) for us to see eternal life. Again, we don't see salvation as a done deed because of our Baptism. Scripture clearly tells us we can fall away into our former lifestyles. Peter says "return to the vomit"...
I actually like the idea of Christ's righteousness being thrown over me like a coat.
I understand it is an interesting commentary, but I disagree with it being anywhere in Scriptures. I often wonder "what would be the point of sanctification?" IF this was true? WHY bother trying to become holy, if we are already 'saved' and Christ throws His blanket of righteousness over us? It doesn't matter, in that sense, how I act, then, since I can't lose my salvation, and heaven is guaranteed. I think Paul is misunderstood when he tries to explain how men cannot earn salvation but still must continue to do good deeds. Peter said that Paul can be difficult to understand...
I believe God knows "who" we are in our sin, and He is not ashamed of what He made.
As you know, God didn't make us this way. Thus, we must fully become a new creation. Yes, our "initial salvation" has begun the process, but we still battle the flesh. We are not completed creation products yet. Until that time, how can we co-exist with Holiness itself?
Christ fixes this problem for us, we did not have the means.
True. We are born without sanctifying grace, necessary to enter heaven. Thus, we absolutely need Him.
It is as if God ignores our "smell".
Again, I have a hard time with that. That is like saying God ignores sin. I think what Christ did opens the gates of heaven to us. We now have the chance to enter eternal life. But God doesn't save us without us. We, too, must make some sort of effort to cooperate with His grace and not refuse them. God continues to give us grace, and we find ourselves slowly becoming more like Him. I don't see why He would stop this process at different stages for people before they enter into heaven. It would make the whole idea of sanctification a joke. Again, if Christ covers my sins, then why worry about sin? Does it matter whether I avoid sin or not? I don't get that from Christ in the Gospels.
Of course, the other way to look at it is that we really don't "smell" so bad at all, since we have a new nature in righteousness. Yes, there are remnants that stink, but the core of our new being is holy. Christ's work caused this to happen. In either case, the result is the same. We are unworthy, Christ loved us and did what we could never do. Here we would disagree on the cooperation issue. I know you have said that cooperation is enabled by God, but the whole freewill idea means the decision comes from us. Is man glorified in his cooperation?
Well, this makes more sense. Of course, we are unworthy, in whatever scenario you look at it! However, God, LOVE, WANTS to share of Himself with us. He knows us, inside and out. He knows HOW we will be happiest. And this will happen when we are REALLY free from sin, not just "imputed" free. Being imputed with righteousness doesn't MAKE me righteous. I STILL have unhealthy desires, they are just not CALLED sin. But there they are, just the same. Sin is sin. It is unhealthy for us not because of its legal status that it leaves us in, but because it REALLY IS unhealthy for us. Take lust. If I have lust, my actual relationship with my wife will suffer. Just because I don't call it lust, or because God says it is no longer sin, does that take away that inner wound within me that effects my relationship? No. Sin is more than a legal accounting. It is something that hurts us, whether we admit it or whether it is called sin or righteousness, or whatever. That is why I disagree with the idea of imputed righteousness.
Regards