Tag Archives: law

The Faithless: God is non-God

When Scripture declares it’s impossible for God to lie (Hebrews 6:18), it’s not slapping a limitation on Him like some cosmic speed limit; rather, it’s positively affirming that He is truth incarnate, the Logic through whom all reality logically follows (John 1:1). This Logos isn’t some vague ideal—it’s the very Law of Non-Contradiction in divine personhood. The law of non-contradiction is simply naming a constant motion of God’s mind or describing how the premises in God’s system-of-thinking is always arranged in, and then giving a name to that constant motion or ordering. Because this motion is so constant in His own Mind, if we don’t follow that motion, then we stop thinking; we stop ceasing being a mind. Meaning God doesn’t affirm and deny the same thing simultaneously, to do otherwise is to be non-God. Because God is the law of noncontradiction, it means He is not anti-logic. Or to say it another way, because God is God, He is not non-God.

Also, His power isn’t a separate toolbox He dips into when the mood strikes; no, His choices and His omnipotence, are the same thing; they are perfect oneness. What He decrees isn’t a casual suggestion that might fizzle out—it’s as eternally binding and real as His own existence. That’s why in Romans 9:17, Paul personifies Scripture as directly confronting Pharaoh, when it was God who did so; thus scripture is regarded as God Himself. In Galatians 3:8, Scripture “foresaw” and “announced” the gospel to Abraham, when it was God who told those things. Frankly, to treat God’s word as anything less is like trying to separate the heat from the fire—you end up with neither.

Now, tether this to the prayer of faith for healing, and the necessity becomes glaringly obvious, almost comically so if it weren’t so profound. If God’s nature is necessary—meaning He must be truthful, logical, and all-powerful without contradiction—then His fulfillment of faith-filled prayers is equally non-negotiable. James 5:15 doesn’t hedge with “might” or “if it aligns with some mysterious plan”; it boldly states the prayer of faith will heal the sick, period. This flows straight from God’s self-sworn oath to Abraham, expanded in the New Covenant through Christ’s atonement, where Jesus bore our infirmities so we wouldn’t have to (Isaiah 53:4-5). To suggest otherwise—that God could promise healing on demand of faith but then withhold it—would make Him a cosmic bait-and-switch artist, violating His own non-contradictory nature. It would be the same as saying God is also non-God.  It’s the kind of theology that leaves folks limping along in unbelief, blaming “God’s will” when the real culprit is their own hesitation to grab hold of His word. But for those who get it, this necessity isn’t a burden; it’s liberation, turning every prayer into a direct line to the God who isn’t non-God.

Answered prayers aren’t some optional perk in the Christian life, like an extra scoop of ice cream on your sundae. No, they’re woven into the very fabric of who God is—His unchangeable nature, His unbreakable promises, and His absolute sovereignty. If God is truth, if He’s the Logos who spoke creation into being, then His word isn’t just reliable; it’s as necessary as His existence is necessary. Deny that, and you’re not just doubting prayer—you’re tinkering with the nature and existence of God Himself. And trust me, that’s a fool’s errand, like trying to outwit gravity while jumping off a cliff.

Take Luke 13:16, where Jesus heals a woman bent over for 18 years. He doesn’t frame it as a nice gesture or a sign to wow the crowd. Instead, He declares it “necessary” because she’s a daughter of Abraham. Necessary? That’s a strong word. It’s the kind of language you use for gravity pulling you down or the sun rising in the east. Why? Because God swore by Himself to Abraham—a promise of blessings that includes healing, prosperity, and miracles, as Galatians 3 spells out. God doesn’t make casual vows; He stakes His own name on them. Hebrews 6:13-18 drives this home: God swore by Himself since there’s no one greater, and it’s “impossible for God to lie.” His resolve is unchangeable, sealed with an oath. So, when Jesus heals her, it’s not optional—it’s God being faithful to His word, which is as integral to Him as His power, logic, infinity, immutability or eternity.

Now, picture this: God, the ultimate sovereign, predestines everything down to the last atom’s twitch. Yet, in His wisdom, He ties answered prayers to faith, making them a direct outflow of His nature. It’s not that our faith twists God’s arm. He relates to us on our level, so that faith unlocks what He’s already decreed. Jesus says in Mark 11:24, “Whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.” That’s not hyperbole—it’s the blueprint. If God’s nature is truth, then His promises aren’t pie-in-the-sky wishes; they’re ironclad necessities. Deny answered prayers on demand of faith, and you’re saying God is also non-God, or affirming a square is a circle.

This ties into the broader theology of God’s sovereignty, which isn’t some cold, fatalistic machine but a personal, intellectual decree from a God who’s “really, really intelligent.” In Systematic Theology, we see that God’s decrees aren’t arbitrary; they’re the logic of His causality, flowing from His attributes like immutability and love. He hates sickness as much as sin because both stem from the Fall, and He’s sworn to crush them under the New Covenant. Jesus bore our infirmities (Isaiah 53:4-5, as Matthew 8:17 applies it), so healing isn’t a maybe—it’s a must when faith aligns with His promise. Cessationists might squirm here, arguing miracles were just to confirm the message, but that’s like saying the sun only shines to wake you up in the morning. No, miracles are part of Abraham’s blessing, ongoing and necessary because God’s oath doesn’t expire. To say God’s promise has expired is to say God has expired. God say God doesn’t heal on the demand of faith, because that has expired is to say God has expired. As Paul notes in Galatians 3, we’re grafted in, so the Spirit and miracles are our inheritance. To say otherwise is to call God, non-God.

Consider the flip side: unbelief blocks miracles, as Jesus “could not” do many in His hometown (Mark 6:5-6). Not “would not”—could not. Why? Because the way God sovereignly decides to relations to us in on the relative level; and on this level faith is how we relate back to Him. Thus, faith is “how” His power flows to us. It’s not limiting God; it’s honoring how He set up the system. If answered prayers weren’t necessary, Jesus wouldn’t have rebuked the disciples for their lack. In John 14:12-14, He promises believers will do greater works, asking anything in His name. It’s the necessity of God shining through us. Deny it, and you’re left with a gutted gospel—forgiveness without power, like a car without an engine. Amusing in theory, but useless on the road.

Hebrews reinforces this: God wants to show the “unchangeableness of His resolve” through answered prayers, giving us “powerful encouragement” (6:17-18). It’s not about us earning it; it’s about God being God. His nature demands He fulfill what He swore—blessings for the heirs, including healing on faith’s demand. James 5:15 echoes: the prayer of faith will heal the sick. Will, not might. That’s necessity baked in. If God is immutable, then His yes is yes (Matthew 5:37). To waffle on this is to embrace superstition, like those who twist “God’s will” into fatalism: “Pray, but whatever happens will sovereignly happens.”. That’s not sovereignty; that’s Eastern mysticism disguised as a Christian drag queen. God’s sovereignty is the same as His choices and the same as Him being the law of non-contradiction; thus His sovereign decrees are specific—like healing for faith—and delivers, without being contradictive.

In the end, answered prayers are as necessary as God’s nature is necessary. As a daughter or son of Abraham through Christ, claim it. God swore by Himself—He is true, He is the law of non-contradiction. So pray boldly, believe fiercely, and watch reality bend to His word. It’s not magic; it’s reality bowing faith. And if that sounds too good, remember: God’s goodness, is bigger than our doubts and it is bigger than reality.

The Logic of Necessity: God’s Oaths and Our Faith

Diving deeper, let’s unpack the logic. God’s promise to Abraham isn’t a vague nod; it’s a deductive powerhouse. Premise: God swears by Himself to bless Abraham’s seed (Genesis 22:16-18). Premise: We’re that seed through faith in Christ (Galatians 3:29). Conclusion: Blessings, including miracles and the Spirit, are ours. Hebrews 6 seals it: two unchangeable things—His promise and oath—make it impossible for God to deceive. Impossible. That’s the law of non-contradiction at work: God can’t be true and false simultaneously.

So, when Jesus says it’s “necessary” to heal Abraham’s daughter, He’s applying this logic. Satan’s bondage? Unacceptable under the oath. Faith releases it because God’s nature necessitates fulfillment. The faithless try to dodge—”that was then. Paul’s Galatians argument hammers it: miracles aren’t apostolic perks; they’re Abrahamic promises, post-cross. To sideline them is to sideline God’s integrity, immutability, eternality, infinity, sovereignty and logic.

Frankly, too many theologians play word games, diluting “necessary” to “maybe if God’s in the mood.” But Scripture’s frank: God’s mood is His word. He wants us healed, prosperous, empowered—more than we do. Remember the bible’s maximum, “All things are possible for people with faith.” Why? Because God’s nature makes it so. Deny answered prayers, and you’re denying the God who swore them into being.

Practical Punch: Living the Necessity

How do we live this? Start with confession: affirm God’s oaths as your reality. Psalm 103:2-3—He forgives all sins, heals all diseases. Not some; all. Pray with that necessity in mind. If doubt creeps, cry like the father in Mark 9: “Help my unbelief!” Jesus honored that—necessity met honesty with miracle.

In ethics, this means obedience: faith isn’t optional; it’s commanded. Resist Satan (James 4:7), heal the sick (Matthew 10:8). It’s not showboating; it’s aligning with God’s unchangeable resolve.

Ultimately, answered prayers glorify God, by affirming God is God.  They’re necessary because He is. The faithless unanswered prayer doctrine affirm God is non-God.

The Scientific Process

After my own studies and discussions with Grok xAI, I’ll outline a step-by-step breakdown of modern science. Some still believe science is rational, deductive, and logical. We’ll dissect the process and reveal it’s anti-logical from start to finish, despite using modus tollens.

Karl Popper exposed the anti-logical nature of scientific experimentation, particularly the nonsense of affirming the consequent. To counter induction’s irrationality and this fallacy, Popper proposed scientists use modus tollens to invalidate hypotheses. Modus tollens is a valid deductive form. Yet, if you lack upfront truth, affirming the consequent is the only way to positively affirm a claim, if the logic is to correctly correspond to your actions. Popper aimed to minimize this by favoring deduction. The catch? At best, modus tollens can say something is wrong—it can’t confirm truth. Today, top scientists recognize induction and science’s irrationality, leaning into falsification for better experiments.

If we admit science offers no truth, only pragmatic usefulness, then adding modus tollens at the end enhances practical outcomes. We support this. As noted, science fulfils God’s command to dominate the world for practical benefits—a blessing He ordained. But that’s all science is. Even when its utility seems impressive, its statements about reality are false.

Since the scientific process is rooted in inductive and observational fallacies, it’s irrational and anti-logic. Slapping modus tollens on the end doesn’t erase this irrationality; it just improves pragmatic results. It’s right to acknowledge science’s baked-in anti-logic and compensate with deduction—if we clarify this is for usefulness, not knowledge.

Before detailing the process, let’s define falsification. Grok xAI (2024) put it this way:
“The origin of falsification, per Popper, is rooted in the idea that a hypothesis must be scientific if an experiment or observation could prove it false. This was a direct jab at the inductivists and verificationists of his time. Popper’s philosophy was like saying, ‘Science isn’t about piling up evidence for your theory; it’s about daring it to fail.’”
This is accurate but needs unpacking to avoid confusion. Popper critiqued scientific experimentation (i.e., “verification”) that relied wholly on affirming the consequent to link hypotheses to reality.”

Grok calls it a “jab at inductivists,” which can mislead. Even with modus tollens, science remains overwhelmingly inductive. Though Popper shifted “verification” to the “pre-hypothesis” stage rather than the endpoint, falsification swims in a sea of inductive reasoning and observation. Grok was correct that “Popper would have it… it must be possible to conceive of an experiment or observation that could prove it false.” Popper’s falsification operates within “inductive observation” and “inductive experiment.”

Thus, despite jabbing inductivists, Popper’s method still employs induction. Science isn’t one thing—it’s a process. I once heard a scientist claim, “Science is only deductive because it’s only about falsification, specifically modus tollens.” This misrepresents Popper’s approach, which integrates induction and observation. When I asked Grok (2024), it responded, “Absolutely not! Popper argued a theory must be falsifiable, aligning with modus tollens’ deductive logic to disprove it. But induction isn’t sidelined:

  • Initial Phase: Science starts with observation and inductive reasoning to form hypotheses.
  • Ongoing Nature: As hypotheses are tested, scientists refine them with new observations and inductive leaps, keeping induction central.”
    Since falsification uses induction, it’s inherently irrational, violating the laws of identity and contradiction. It’s a systematic affirmation of false premises in unsound arguments, pretending to deny something.

Calling “science deductive” is false. I wouldn’t even say it’s inductive and deductive—its “deduction” is unsound. I wouldn’t label an unsound argument deductive unless we’re pretending in a fantasy world. Generously, we could call science heavily inductive with some deduction tacked on.

This matters for Christians. The Bible uses only sound arguments, rejects induction’s anti-logic, and shows our observations can be wrong. It dismisses empirical observation and induction for knowledge. Thus, falsification isn’t a biblical standard and can’t yield knowledge. Some fools hybridize this irrational human method with the Bible’s rational approach, claiming falsification aids understanding Scripture and truth. This is blasphemy—melding the irrational with God’s rational system defames His mind as irrational or endorsing irrationality. Similarly, fake presuppositionalists claim the Bible ratifies observation and empiricism for knowledge—nonsense.

Another reason to reject falsification: its maxim—“something must be provably wrong to have credibility”—is false. The law of contradiction (LoC) isn’t falsifiable; denying it requires using it. Self-authenticating truths, like the LoC, render falsification inapplicable. At best, falsification fits inductive observations. The Bible, as shown in epistemology, is self-authenticating—unfalsifiable. It can’t be proven wrong because any attempt presupposes it; Scripture declares itself true and all else false. We don’t use falsification to read the Bible or find truth. If it’s such a great rule for Christians, why doesn’t its maxim apply to Scripture?

Note the maxim says “for credibility,” not “to prove true.” Falsification is negative—it can’t produce positive claims without violating logic. Since the Bible rejects observation, empiricism, and induction for knowledge, and falsification uses them, Christians don’t employ it for knowledge. Even using modus tollens—directly, in reductio ad absurdum, or falsification—is only negative, offering no positive truth. When someone says, “I don’t see God healing today,” it’s wrong not because of falsification but because Scripture rejects inductive observation outright.

There’s nothing wrong with modus tollens to show something is false—Scripture uses this deduction. St. Augustine and Paul (1 Corinthians 15) did too, free of empiricism or observation assumptions. But if someone uses empiricism as a standard, showing documented healings should convince them if they’re consistent. We can use modus tollens to refute them with their own flawed epistemology. The catch? Induction’s conclusions don’t logically follow premises, so they can reject evidence due to its inherent uncertainty. Even a deductive argument using observation—ours or theirs—becomes unsound, leaving conclusions skeptical. Induction offers no logical binding to accept any conclusion—you can dismiss or embrace as you please.

As a Christian, the Bible says God heals, and on faith’s demand, He will (John 15: Jesus predestined us to ask and receive). I expect healings. My observations are private knowledge—and if I applied these with deductions from Scripture “for myself,” then my self-knowledge is what the bible asserts. But shifting private to public knowledge violates logic’s laws. Scripture alone is our starting point for knowledge about healing. Anyone using inductive observations to argue miracle healing is a fool, rejecting the Bible as the sole epistemic foundation.[1] Such debates aren’t about healing but epistemology—Scripture’s deductive logic versus induction’s fallacy. Tell them they’ve abandoned Christian doctrine on knowledge and logic; if they don’t repent, boycott and excommunicate them.

The Scientific Process

Observation and Hypothesis Formation (Inductive Step)

Note: “Scientific experimentation (affirming the consequent)” has been pushed back to “hypothesis formation.”
Scientists observe phenomena in nature or data, noticing that when event A occurs, phenomenon B follows. This resembles affirming the consequent: “If A, then B; B happens, so A caused it.”

  • Example 1: (A) Rain occurs, (B) my yard gets wet. (B) I see my yard wet, so I hypothesize (A) it rained.
  • Example 2: (A) Bacteria add chemical X to solution H, (B) it turns red. (B) I see it red, so I hypothesize (A) bacteria added X.

Formulating the Hypothesis (Setting Up for Modus Ponens)

Initially, scientists observe B (a fallacy) to check their idea. If testing’s possible, they run preliminary affirming-the-consequent experiments for merit. Then, they frame hypotheses as modus ponens: “If A, then B; A, thus B.” They pretend a necessary connection exists to apply modus tollens later—not to affirm the consequent but to predict outcomes. They say, “If hypothesis (A) is true, under these conditions, we’ll see (B).”
In layman’s terms, this is logical voodoo, a void, or superstition.
Two ways this bait-and-switch happens:

  1. Vincent Cheung’s Example (A Gang of Pandas):
    1. “If (A) is a cause, then (B) is a result. B happens, thus A caused it.”
    1. Restated as modus ponens with B and A flipped, using a false conclusion to build an argument.
  2. Direct Pretence: Pretending inductive “If A, then B” is real or pretend it’s a necessary connection. This is like misstating a math problem to reflect reality. If I buy 4 apples at $1 each, calling it calculus is delusional if it doesn’t match reality. Scientists engage reality via affirming the consequent due to observation—they can’t avoid it. Restating it as modus ponens is delusional because it doesn’t mirror their actual interaction with phenomena.

Experimental Design (Testing via Modus Ponens)

Scientists design experiments controlling A to see if B follows, mimicking modus ponens:

  • If hypothesis A is true, under specific conditions, B occurs (If A, then B).
  • They ensure A is present.
  • They check if B happens (A leads to B).
    This isn’t just to affirm the hypothesis (a fallacy) but to test predictions under control. Yet, problems still abound:
  • The setup stems from a fallacy—using a false conclusion from observation and affirming the consequent to fake a connection. This restated logic doesn’t reflect their real-world engagement; it’s fabricated.
  • They only pretend it’s modus ponens—in name only. Some admit the connection is merely sufficient, making falsification tentative, not necessary, contradicting the very definition of logical inference.
  • Controlled tests can’t rule out infinite unknowns (e.g., heat affecting results unbeknownst to a scientist ignorant of it).
    Vincent Cheung notes, “The idea is simple. To know that any experiment is “constructed properly” the scientist’s knowledge must be “bigger” than the experiment. But if his knowledge is already “bigger” than the experiment, then he hardly needs to perform the experiment to gain knowledge that is limited by the experiment. The only way to be sure that one has identified and controlled all variables that may affect the experiment is to possess omniscience. The conclusion is that only God can tell us about the universe.”[2]

Falsification Attempts (Modus Tollens)

Here’s the shift:

  • If B doesn’t occur when A is present: “If A, then B; not B, therefore not A” (hypothesis falsified).
    Scientists aim to confirm hypotheses (affirming the consequent), but better ones seek disproof. Misaligned results falsify, and this leads to rethinking and refinement.
    Yet observation and affirming-the-consequent thinking build the argument for falsification. Induction underpins science’s foundation and definition. The “deductive” arguments are unsound—born from false conclusions, misrepresenting reality. It’s deduction by pretence. Before falsification, the hypothesis’s necessary connection is unknown. Falsification deems it wrong, which says little.
    The experimental connection has two interpretations:
  • If honest (connection is sufficient or a guess), falsification is uncertain, not necessary—violating deduction’s essence.
  • If claiming necessity, it’s pretence, falsifying only a pretend reality, breaching contradiction and identity laws.
  • Finally, saying “laws are formulated by falsification” is a non-sequitur. Negative propositions can’t yield positives without adding information—violating logic. Laws from falsification can only say “this isn’t that.” Positive laws from falsification defy logic; negative isn’t positive.

The point is that observation and affirming the consequent thinking and testing is involved in formulating the argument that will be tested by falsification. Thus, induction is both the foundation of science and therefore involved in the definition of science. The so-called deductive arguments are unsound, because they are created by false conclusions and the logic does not reflect their interaction with reality. It is deduction only by pretending. Before falsification is used, it is not known if the major premise of the syllogism (hypothesis) has a necessary connection. Falsification says this unsound argument is wrong. which is not really saying that much.

The connection in their experiment can be taken in two ways. If they are honest and admit the connection, at the very best is sufficient or a guess, then if falsification is used, the falsification is only a guess, but not a necessary falsification. This violates the very definition of deduction, which is necessary. If they insist the falsification is necessary, then they violate the laws of contradiction and identity. If they want to insist their connection in their experiment is necessary, then it is only by pretending. Thus, if they use falsification, it is only falsifying a pretend reality.

Lastly, there is the part where scientists say, “laws… are formulated by falsification.” This is false. It is a non-sequitur fallacy. Remember our rules for category syllogisms? We talked about distribution of terms but also the quality and quantity of a syllogism. If the propositions of an argument are negative, you cannot get a positive out of it. The same here.  Falsification can only say, this is wrong, but to then turn around and say we have a law that says, “this is this,” is to add more information than what the argument says. Laws, formulated by falsification can only say at best, “this is not that.” Every positive law stated by scientists using falsification is a violation of the laws of logic. To say negative is a positive is anti-logic.  

[1] This is different from starting with the truth given by scripture, and then present your healing as “testimony” that agrees with the truth. You are saying the bible is the proof, and my testimony agrees with the truth, not the other way around.

[2] Vincent Cheung. A Gang of Pandas. Sermonettes Vol.1.

Justification Without and by the Law

(This is from the 1st rough draft from my systematic theology book, and so likely to have some future changes)

Justification like healing is overengineered in the gospel, not because God did not know what He was doing and went too far, but He did this for our sakes. He did this to assure us of our benefits in Christ; He did this to help our faith. The reason God swore by Himself, when He did not need to, was done for our benefit so that we “would have strong encouragement to take hold of the hope set before us.” (Heb 10:18)

Isaiah 53:4-5 says that Jesus carried our sickness away from us as a substitute. The word for carried is the Levitical word for the escape goat on the day of atonement in Leviticus 16. The sins of the people were transferred off the people onto the goat and then the goat carried the sins with it outside the camp. This is the word used in Isaiah 53 for Jesus carrying off our sicknesses. Then in the next verse it says that by Jesus’ stripes we are healed. This is again substitution. Thus, here are 2 different ways in which our sicknesses were removed from us in the atonement.

However, there is a 3rd way. In Galatians 3 Paul tells us that Jesus became a curse for us in our place so that in substitutionary exchange we receive the blessing of Abrham. The curses of the law, as stated in Deut. 28, includes all sicknesses. And so we have 3 different ways that Jesus removed sickness off of us, in the atonement, so that we are healed and healthy. 

This is like Jesus and the feeding of the 4 and 5 thousand. Why was there so many extra baskets left over? God is an extravagant giver. Paul says in Ephesians that He answers our prayers exceedingly, abundantly and beyond all that we ask and think. This is how God is. God overengineered our healing in the atonement excessively and beyond what was needed, to help our faith to be absolute and unwavering. With 3 ways to ask for healing based on the atonement, even if one way seemed iffy, there are still 2 others for your faith to grab on to, allowing you to receive healing by faith.  This is healing on the demand of faith that our sicknesses were already removed from us in Jesus’ atonement. This is by faith in a promise, not a “gift.”

As a side note, this is why Churches and pastors who do not heal the sick and who teach against healing on the demand of faith, are false teachers. With this one heresy they trample the blood of Jesus 3 times. There is no excuse for not teaching and being regular practitioners of healing.

There is also a 4th way that healing is in the atonement that is the “gift of healing,” that comes from gifts of the Spirit, when one is empowered by the baptism of the Spirit. Peter in Acts two says this outpouring of power was a promise of Father given to the Son when He sat at His right hand. Thus, it is tied into the gospel of Jesus. The bible gives this aspect the least amount of time and attention. Most of the attention the bible gives for healing, is faith in a simple promise or understanding in God’s word.

The same is with justification, or God declaring us righteous. God overengineered our justification so that there is no way for any Elect to not know how righteous they are in Christ.

There are 2 main ways we are justified by God. One is separate from the Law of Moses and the other is by the Law.  The way the reformation teaches this doctrine is distorted by the context of their fight with the Catholic church. It is understandable why they focus on certain aspects and not others in such a context, but it is not how the bible teaches the topic. It is not as if a basic statement of “we are justified by faith alone in Christ alone,” is wrong. There is no way to disagree with such a statement as it is.  However, the bible’s teaching on this doctrine is much bigger than a simple statement; for example, in a similar way that “healing by the gift of healing,” is true as far as it goes, but the bible has much more to say about healing and faith and the atonement than a “gift of healing.”

The bible introduces justification, or God declaring someone righteous in His sight, with Abrham. We read this in Genesis and Paul refers to this in Romans 4. God promises only good things to Abraham. This is an understatement. God promises the world, life, riches, fame, glory, supernatural health, military victories and unending children, with God showing the children the same favors. There is nothing about sin or forgiveness. God promises all good things. Abraham says he believes God will do it. And then at this, God declares Abraham righteous in His sight.

The important part of this is that there is no law. The law came 400 years later, as a temporary teaching aid (a temporary contract), to show how sinful we were. The big idea is that Abraham was declared righteous, separate from the law. And this is exactly what Paul says in Romans 3. “But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed… David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works,” (Romans 3:21, 4:6 NKJV).  One verse mentions “separate from the law, then the other says “apart by works.” Both are true.  Then in chapter 4, mentions again that it is not through the Law. “(13)For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.” Thus, God declares people righteous separate from the Law. It is not merely apart from our works, but apart from the law, we are declared righteous.  “Apart from works,” we do not earn forgiveness by works we do. “Apart from the Law,” means God gave His righteousness to our account that is not related to the Law of Moses. This is how Abraham received righteousness and this is how we receive it.  

However, we are also declared righteous by the Law in another way. What is this way? It is by being forgiven of our sins. The Law contained both sins of omission and commission. We are commanded to avoid things like theft, but we are also commanded to love God and love our neighbors.  Thus, when we are forgiven for breaking the laws of the Law, we are forgiven for not having loving God above all things. Some speak of being forgiven as only being made neutral before God, or only at point 0. We have 0 bad works, but also 0 good works. But this is misleading. If you are a human and lived, your record, in regard to the law, is never neutral or at 0. If your record is at 0, then it would be the equivalent to saying you never lived. Furthermore, this could only be true if the Law only had sins of commission and not omission.  To be forgiven for not having loved God and our neighbor, is at the same time declared that we have loved God and our neighbors, otherwise we are still law breakers. The “blood” on the Day of Atonement, (which is part of the Law), provided Atonement/ forgiveness (covering over sin) and not 611 positive acts of a foreign righteousness added to the Israelites; accounts.  When Ephesians says, “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace, (1:7 NKJV), it means to be declared righteous by the Law at the same time. If the law declares you innocent then it declares you as doing good things.

However, the Law was a temporary Contract (Gal. 3:19-25) to get us ready for the gospel of Abrahams’ blessing, given to us in Jesus’ atonement. This is why we read in Colossians 2:14 about the law (or record against us) as being nailed to the cross. The Law was nailed to the cross (as being finished), because it was 400 years after Abraham, as a temporary measure; therefore it had a expiration date.  In Jesus we are forgiven of all our lawbreaking, and by this not only is the Law just neutral toward us, but it has declared us righteous. Because the Law is an extension of God, by it declaring us righteous, God declares us righteous.

By the “blood” of Jesus we are forgiven. By the blood of Jesus the Law is fulfilled by us, by us being forgiven. Jesus’ blood forgives us and by this the laws of omission are positive, and by this the law declares us righteous. This is what Romans 5:9 means when it says “justified by His blood.” The blood justifies us when we are forgiven by His blood. You cannot be forgiven, in relation to the Law, without being declared righteous at the same time by the Law.  This being justified by the blood and forgiveness is different from being justified “separate (3:21;4:6)” from the law. In both cases we are justified without our works. Jesus’ work of atonement forgives us, apart from anything we do. Likewise when we are justified apart from the Law, it is also without any we do. Both types of justification are worked by Jesus and freely given without works that we have done.

There is still the issue of 2 Corinthians 5:21, where Paul speaks of an “exchange” for our sin for “God’s righteousness.” Since all benefits we have are from Jesus in the gospel, then this righteousness must refer to Jesus and in particular to His righteous acts as a man. Jesus became one of us, for many reasons, and this appears to be one of those reasons; to have a human category exchange of sins for righteousness.  

Some teach this credited righteousness is the specific acts of Jesus credited to our accounts, in relation to the Law. Indeed, Jesus was born as a man under the law and came to fulfill the law in obedience as a man. Was this only for His sole benefit when the context is about being one of us to save us and bless us? That would be more than strange.  Since the Law already declares us righteous, by simply being forgiven, then in this aspect it is not necessary for Jesus’ righteous acts, line by line, to be credited us in relation to the Law.  However the more important parts involve two things. One, we are declared righteous “apart from the law.” The second is that 2 Corinthians 5:21 says we are given/credited with “God’s righteousness.” If the Law is only for humans and human righteousness, then how, according to the Law, is “God’s” righteous given to us? If the Law is God’s commands given to humans, not God, then how can the Law that only deals in human sins and human righteousness declare someone with “God’s” righteousness? The point is that it does not.  Yes, God can do whatever He wants, but God does not lie or break promises. God is free to arbitrarily hold a tree accountable for not bearing figs, but it is not based on previous commands given to man. God is still rational and truthful.

Jesus was a human, and as a human obeyed the Law perfectly. This was because our sins were done as humans. He became one of us, to be a final and perfect “escape goat” and “atonement in blood” for us. But regarding His obedience under that Law, it was also done as human. But we are told we are credited with “God’s righteousness,” not merely a human obedience to the Law.

The Law, in the Day of Atonement, allowed for “atonement,” or forgiveness. This is why the blood of bulls and goats cannot truly provide forgiveness, because they were animals not human. Jesus as a human, provided a human atonement, in the category of human forgiveness. This forgiveness is at the same time a justification.  Since the Law does not have the category to declare person with God’s righteousness, there needs to be another way. There is a different justification, that came first with Abraham. And this justification includes, not merely a human righteousness, but God’s.  

What exactly is “God’s righteousness?” Jesus was human but He also was God. He was the God-man. His mind, even though restricted, was still God’s mind.  Thus everything He did still had a God-ness attached to it. So there can be a case made that Jesus’ life obedience was also God’s righteousness. It will be mentioned later, but at least some of Jesus actions were directly tied us being declared righteous. However, since this is separate from the Law, God is free to arbitrarily credit any aspect of His righteousness to us.   

One thing to mention is that not all contrasts in the gospel are a one-to-one ratio. Take for example Romans 5. Paul says Adam’s death is credited to us, but in Christ His righteousness is credited to us. If it was one to one, it would be death and life, or sin for righteousness.  Thus, the contrast is not a perfect one to one.  Second, part of what God does is arbitrary. God does and saves and blesses how He wants, in the specific way He likes the most. And so, our sins were credited to Him in relation to the Law, but we were credited with God’s righteousness separate from the Law.

 “…the gracious gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ…. so that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord,” (Romans 5:17, 21 NKJV).

This passage in Romans 5 is not about the Law. It is about us being declared righteous that is separate from the law (3:21). In Adam we were credited with death apart from the Law. Abraham, (and his children) were given righteousness apart from the Law. Then the temporary Law came in to show how sinful we were. Christ’ blood fulfills the Law and forgives us. But His righteousness is credited to us like it was with Abraham, apart from the Law.

On this passage you can at the very least say the righteousness of Jesus given to us includes His righteous behavior in face of His unjust treatment (5:16) of men in His atonement. Some traditions say that Jesus’ righteous acts, every action and thought He did, was credited it our account. This is interesting, but difficult to prove by a strict deduction/application of scripture. As just stated from Romans 5 we can say at the very least Jesus righteous act in facing the atonement is credited to us. However, I have not see a good argument from scripture alone that deduces every act of Jesus was credited to us. With just one act of Jesus credited to us, apart from the law, we can say we have the righteousness of God. Maybe it does include it all, but I will need a valid deduction from scripture to say that it does, not because some person or tradition says it. Some say we need to have all His actions credited to us because we need every part of our record replaced with one of His corresponding righteous acts. The bible does not say this. Also, this is impossible. Not impossible because God lacks power, but a category error impossibility. Jesus was not a father or mother, or a husband or a wife. Therefore, Jesus did not love child, or spouse with righteous acts of a parent or spouse. Thus, anyone who was a parent or spouse cannot have Jesus’ righteous acts of a parent or spouse added to their account. Therefore, no matter what position you take, all must affirm there are some righteous acts of Jesus not credited to our accounts. Thus, I cannot be accused of limiting Jesus imputed righteousness when all must affirm some level of it. The important part is simple, with least one righteous act from Jesus credited to our account, apart from the law, have the righteousness of God.

It is not relevant if it means more, if the point is to say Jesus’ righteousness is credited to us separate from the law, as our sins were credited to Him in relation to the Law. That is, even if Jesus righteousness was done to fulfill the Law as a man, it is credited to us separate from the Law. Since Jesus was still God when He did this, it is not only done by a human, but with a soul of a God, and so in this sense, it is a God type of righteousness. This credited righteousness that is called the “righteousness of God,” qualifies us to reign in life, just as Jesus reigns in life. Romans 4:25 says “who was delivered up because of our offenses, and was raised because of our justification.” This “for our offenses,” is our forgiveness by the standard of the Law, by His blood that at the same time justifies us. The second part of the verse, “raised for our justification,” is the crediting of God’s righteousness to our account, that is separate from that law.

This second type of justification has the potential to include all sorts of God’s righteousness credited to us, and not merely Jesus’ direct fulfillment of a particular law of Moses. Because this crediting is not directly connected to the law, it means God is able to credit any sort of God’s righteousness to us as He so desires. If this was only by the Law, then you would have to find a specific instance of Jesus that obeyed that law and then credited to Oshea’s record of the Mosaic law. The point made before, is that it does include specific acts of Jesus obeying God, but that it also has no limits to what it can include. By making it only about the law, with “human righteousness,” it has been made too small, to what has been credited to us in Jesus.  But the scriptures clearly say it is “separate from the law” we that are made “God’s righteousness,” and so what can potentially be credited to us apart from that Law is without limit. What God can credit to us, in this application, is not limited by the categories of the Law. Potentially (not saying the scripture teach this) if God wanted to credit us with Jesus’ righteousness, done as God, before the incarnation, then it could be possible, because it is not restricted by the Law. Also, in one sense Jesus’ actions in the atonement are about loving God and man (the Law), but some of these actions are directly about Jesus loving the Father to do this before the incarnation and then fulfilled on earth. Both acts of obedience, theoretically, could be credited to us apart from the Law. These actions are God’s righteousness. In a short summary, Jesus Christ was deposited to our account by grace. This is the value we now have.

Because this credited righteousness, separate from the law, makes us reign in life as Jesus does, I believe this is likely connected to the other doctrine of “adoption as sons.” To be forgiven and declared righteous by the Law would absolutely give you many privileges by God, but to rule over life itself like Jesus, is something different. This works well with Abraham being declared righteous apart from the Law, who was a “friend” of God, and God was like a father to Abrham. It is speculating, but I believe this second type of credited righteousness is related to the doctrine of being children of God, while the first aspect is not.

This brings us back to Abraham. God promise had nothing to do with the law or sin. It had everything to do with God promising extraordinary abundance, fame, health and blessings. God declared Abraham righteous in His sight because Abraham believed God would do all the good things He promised. Abraham was made God’s righteousness separate from the law. This is why in Jesus we also are made God’s righteousness separate from the law. We are Abraham’s children and so we are made righteous in the same way. By believing all the good things given to us in Jesus, including the blessing of Abraham, God declares us righteous apart from the Law.

However, because the Law, albeit temporary, was given, then it must be dealt with. The law exposed sin. And thus, this must be dealt with. Romans 3 deals with this.

“But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, 26 to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus,” (Romans 3:21-26)

Justification started with Abraham and it did not have to do with forgiveness but a positive statement of righteousness. By righteousness I mean thoughts and actions that value God above all things (John 5:30). And in Abraham’s context it is believing God will do what He said. In the law, this is technically done by obeying all laws of commission and omission. We often think of forgiveness first, but the scripture starts off with a positive declaration of righteous acts freely credited to an account. In this way justification (being declared righteous in God’s sight) is a positive, with forgiveness assumed or presupposed.

With the Law, to be forgiven is to be declared righteous. However, (this does have a small amount of complexity here) for Abraham to be declared righteous, is to be forgiven at the same time, because you cannot be both righteous and unrighteous at the same time. Even one act of lawbreaking or devaluing of God is at the same time negating a “righteous record.” James says if you break one law from the Law, then you break them all. The same with innate knowledge apart from the Law. If you have one mistake it is no longer a righteous record. Because God’s standard is perfection, then you cannot have a righteous record without it being perfect, and this is true for the Law and without the Law.  And so, to be credited with God’s righteousness is to also be blameless.

Looking at justification from the Law, it is looking at this is from a standpoint of being born into time, within a history of these things already at play. Looking justification from Abraham’s view is seeing it from the larger picture of God’s decrees (logical order, not historical) and original intentions. Because God’s original decrees and intentions were for us to be sons of God in Jesus, being highly loved, then of course it would include being blameless.

With Abraham God imputes righteousness to a person’s account while they still have unrighteous acts, so that both are present (this was part of the dilemma of Romans 3:21-26, from man’s perspective. From God’s part, He looked like He was not following His own rules about sin and punishment.) Abraham’s record appeared to have both righteousness and unrighteousness. However, because a “perfect or blameless record” is part of being righteous, then when God declared Abraham righteous, it includes God dealing with the imperfections of Abraham’s record. Because we are children of Abraham, we had the same issue. However, because justification included forgiveness, forgiveness was finally dealt with at the cross. When speaking of being declared righteous by God, blamelessness is assumed. The two are woven together as a packaged deal.

The application of knowing how righteous you are is for the ethics section; however, as Hebrews chapter 10:1-2 says, if you are forgiven by God, then you should have no more consciousness of your sin. You are to forget and dismiss them the same way God has. You are not replay your sins in your mind. Rather, what should be on a permanent replay in your mind is how righteous you are. Jesus has made “you” righteous, and this should constantly be in your thoughts day and night.  A person who does not see themselves righteous now, by constantly thinking how righteous they are, is a person who does not believe they are saved. If you are sin conscience it means you believe you are sinful and disregard Jesus’ substitution as ineffective.  Faith is a mental assent in the mind. The proof you have faith in Jesus’ atonement is your mind is constantly conscience how righteous and awesome you are in Christ.

The proofs for how righteous you are, are obvious, such as a sound mind, and effective prayers (James 5).

Also, Vincent Cheung shows us a great summary for this saying,

“When you feel so “right,” nothing can stand in your way. When you are so “right,” you cannot conceive of any reason why God would not answer your prayers for success and miracles. You cannot conceive of any reason why a sickness or demon would not depart when you command it to go. You have the “right-ness” of God. This is how God feels about himself, and he wants to share this feeling with you, through Jesus Christ. This is the power of the righteousness of God. It has been untapped for almost two thousand years. As much as the Reformation harped about justification by faith, it had no idea what it is. It did not get anywhere close to what the righteousness of God could mean to Christians, and to the world. God’s righteousness is a thing of horror to Satan, but he is not nervous when it remains only a formal principle in Christian theology, rather than a vital power and a superhuman righteous feeling and confidence in every single believer. The prayer of a righteous man is effective indeed, but it is futile if no one actually feels righteous, or if this righteousness is only a theological principle and not a supernatural reality in man. What do we have in Christ? What Satan says about me is irrelevant, because I am God-centered, and I think about how righteous God is in me. This is the only basis on which I live. When Satan pokes at me with his little wrinkly finger, I slam his head off with the fist of God. Then I clobber his face into the ground over and over again like a madman until he is only a puddle of goo. This is the righteousness that we have in Christ Jesus.”[1]

[1] Vincent Cheung. The Christian and the Self. From the ebook “Contract.” 2020. Pg. 34.