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
Yes, exactly. That's what I meant when I said that we would disagree. :)
Me: "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.
Ps. 32:1 : "1 Blessed is he whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered."
Ps. 85:2 : "2 You forgave the iniquity of your people and covered all their sins. Selah "
Ps. 91:4 : "He will cover you with his feathers, and under his wings you will find refuge; his faithfulness will be your shield and rampart."
Rom. 4:7 : "Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered."
I often wonder "what would be the point of sanctification?" IF this [Christ covering our sins] 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.
While it is true that we see sanctification as a completely separate thing from salvation, it is nonetheless very important to us. We see sanctification as a first fruit of salvation, through God's grace and faith. God promises us in scripture that good works WILL flow from a truly regenerated heart. If the salvation was genuine, this must happen, and for the right reasons. It's definitional, and evidences a true salvation.
Besides being naturally incident to salvation, sanctification is also very beneficial to us for our lives here on earth. Becoming more Christ-like is good for us even in a practical sense. God commands it anyway, which is certainly a good enough reason, but we also see how much better off we will be by following Christ in our walk throughout this life. There is tremendous value in sanctification. I would SERIOUSLY counsel anyone who said "Well, I signed up for John 3:16 so I'm in. Now I can do what I want." To me, this would be prima facie evidence that there was no true salvation experience.
Me: 'It is as if God ignores our "smell".'
Again, I have a hard time with that. That is like saying God ignores sin.
All I mean is that God's forgiveness is completed through Christ. God does not hold our past against us in salvation because Christ already paid the penalty for us. "It is finished".
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.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but who says that God stops giving grace once salvation is achieved? At that point, lifelong continuous grace is guaranteed. We spend the lifelong process of sanctification completely within God's ongoing grace.
As a saved person I "worry" about sin because I know that my Lord hates it, and hates what I do when I do it. My Spirit-led, regenerated heart tells me to avoid sin. Of course I still blow it, but I can tell you that my conscience is 100 times more acute than it was when I was lost.
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. ... 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.
Yes, sin is sin, and I still call it sin, whether I am saved or not. Who is it that would not call this sin? In an understandable sense, being "imputed" righteousness does not make one righteous in FACT, but it does make one righteous in God's eyes and judgment. Isn't this the only chance we have if the wages of sin is death?
Anyone who does not call his own lust, "lust" is simply further sinning. As far as I am aware, God never changes the status of what is and what is not sin, so there is no change in what He thinks of this example based on the salvation status of the subject. Indeed, sin is a world more than legal accounting.