Principles of Position, Lesson 4

Alright, so let's see. I need... How do you feel about volunteering, Roy? Sure. Yeah. Alright, we got Roy and Laban. I just walked in here. That was your mistake. Alright, if you two guys don't mind coming on up. Here we go. So the very first question says, define the term justification. So you can go ahead and have a stand right here. And Lavin, you'll be just next to him over here. You guys take a couple steps forward. Yeah, both of you. A couple steps. OK. One step back. No, I'm just kidding. You're good.

Okay, so this is an illustration that I've used a number of times through different scenarios, both with kids, older folks, and different scenarios, and it's one of those illustrations that I felt like would be good given this very first question that we've got here, define the term justification. I'm going to go through a little bit of the biblical story and help you visually maybe grasp on to what happens when justification is applied to a believer. So what we've got here is, and I think seemingly, I think we should all visually recognize that Roy is going to play the role of God. And Lavin is going to play the role of man here. Alright, alright. So, I've got a little bit of a walkthrough here and hang tight and then we'll get to your answer of the question right after we're done.

So, how was it in the very beginning? What was man's state? Was he sinful? No. Innocent. Innocent. Good call. So, Lavin, go ahead and turn around. I'll give you the role of innocence. Alright. Feels good. So man knew nothing of evil at the point that he was created. So we're in the garden. Yep.

So did man know good then? Did man know good and evil? He only knew innocence. He was perfect as God was perfect. Yeah, so it wasn't like a separation of good and evil? Not yet. And that's what that tree was, remember? So we've got man's role of being innocent as he was created in the beginning, and there was a perfection that was equal to God, and God allowed him to live in his presence. So remember that he only experienced God's goodness, and in that point in time, God was a friend to man.

So we've got the friend cloak here. So go ahead and stay turned around for me guys so they can see who you are. Yeah, that's okay. They like to twist and turn. So this was the situation when? Before the fall. That's right. So you guys go ahead and move together. We've got a friendship. Both man and God. We're close. They walk together. The Creator of the universe would literally come and walk with man in the cool of the garden. Remember that? And they had fellowship here. There was a communication and it was all based on fellowship.

And this is the way that God intended things to be when He created man. But then man did what? He chose a path that introduced the knowledge of good and evil. So instead of staying friends with God and maintaining that fellowship, man removed himself from that relationship, took off his innocence, and put on the cloak of sin. And now there's separation in the relationship. Is this making sense so far? Let me ask you a question. Is this position or condition? Both. You don't get to answer. Both. Why is it both? Why is it both?

Because he acquired us in nature. And did that affect him positionally? Yes. And how did it affect him conditionally? All conditionally. He acted different. He thought he was different. And what did he do? Fellowship was broken and how did he conditionally show his sin? He tried to hide it, didn't he? That's what we saw him do.

He ran from God. So a man turned his back on God and experimented with that forbidden knowledge. And man is no longer identified with That's not his identity as God. His identity is with... Yeah, he's not identified in a position of innocence and friendship with God. He's now in a position of separation and his fellowship is broken. Yes. And he's an enemy of God. And he's an enemy of God. We could also write enemy on the back of that cloak. And fearful. Is man identified with Satan or no? He is identified with the sin nature which has its root in Satan.

Okay. So what happened to say, was he surprised? Mike, we're quick. I think if you define sin as missing the mark, then it's easier to understand that layman or man missed the mark. Because he did a bunch of bad stuff, it's just that the separation is now there because he can't measure up to what God originally intended for him to be. Does that make sense? Sin is missing the mark. So we have a holy righteous God who had a certain set of consequences that would befall man if he broke the rules that he gave him in the garden, which was to not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So, when man decided he knew better than God, he positionally removed himself from God and took on a sin nature that is one that misses the mark of God's holiness every time.

And it's deserving of God's wrath, right? Because that's why Christ came, because it's not just like, oh, you guys are separated now. it deserves. Yeah, that's where you get the separation. So as we keep going on here, you're going to see where that wrath comes out, and we'll use a different word for it. But as a result, we've got this sin-created chasm between God and man now. There's a massive amount of space that exists between them, one that would seem impossible to fill because of the holiness of God and the demands that God had placed on the innocent Adam.

So, at this stage, we have a family starting, don't we? What family is that? A human family. A human family, that's right. And specifically, all the history that Adam is beginning in the garden, this is the beginning of Adam's history, and this is what you inherit. So, we've got this chasm that man's relationship with God has now changed, we've separated them, and at this point, God's role before man changes. So, he removes the role or the mantle of friendship, and he takes on this role of a perfect judge.

Notice how my mom even sewed this a little differently to look like a judge's cloak. We can thank my mom Connie for this. She worked with me years ago to build these little guys. So what do we have here? We have a relationship. that affects both the condition and the position of man, and it changes the role of how God views man.

So as a perfect judge, God found man, what? When he looked at man, and he judged him based on his choices, what did he see? Sin. He saw sin. So the gavel came down, he judged him as guilty. Right? Gavel. You hold the gavel. So when you're thinking of wrath, think of judgment. Think of the role of being a perfect, holy, righteous judge who is now looking on man and saying, because of your choice, I now must judge you based on my holiness as guilty of sin which causes what? What are the consequences of sin? Death. That's right. Separation. So man is convicted as a perpetual, incurable lawbreaker, and the sentence was eternal death. What are the three aspects of death? Is this a trick question? No? Maybe? In what ways did man die as the consequence of his sin in the garden?

Okay, he spiritually died, and physically, and we're told that there's an eternal separation as well. It's the second death. One where you're not only spiritually separated in life and physically going to die, you're also going to be eternally separated from God. So the Bible calls it the second death.

So all of that consequence fell on the sinful man, but God didn't leave it this way, and this is where we're getting into the justification side of things. He didn't leave him in his predicament, and this is what we sit and ponder and can't get our minds around as believers.

This is the wonder of wonders. God stepped down from his judgment seat and put back on the mantle of a friend. Is it that friendship? When he stepped down, what kind of friendship did he put on? So he put on the mantle of a friend, the mantle of the sinless Jesus, leaving the lofty heights of the judgment seat, he descended as the God-man, Jesus, to stand with us in front of the bench. So now we have what? A representative, an advocate, So not only was God the judge, he also is the advocate. He chose to step down as the judge and put on that mantle of friendship as a substitution for us.

So Jesus is to stand with us in front of the bench. He only had one purpose and that is to remove that putrid cloak of sin and take it upon himself. He takes on the sin of the world. And where does he take that sin? To the cross. And when he did that, he met the death requirement.

That is Romans 8.2, the law of sin and death. And he also showed us supreme love.

It says in John 15.13, greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.

So we now no longer have this sentence of death on man hanging over us. Okay? Sin has been taken care of on the cross. Okay? So we remove sin. Jesus paid our full debt, our full sin debt, and the sin is removed. So we've got that removed. Now, I just want to pause here and kind of show you what's going on judicially in heaven. So, we've got the certificate of debt.

In the beginning, when Adam chose that he would rather have the knowledge of good and evil than to trust the creator of the universe, his certificate of death looked a lot like this. His sins added up to that eternal death in all its three-part meaning. And so this was the certificate of death that he held on to until the point where Jesus came and took care of the sin problem on the cross. And as a result of that, he no longer bears that sin, and his certificate of death looks like this. What does that say? So the Bible says if we put our trust in Jesus, that He will clothe us with the spotless robe of His righteousness.

Okay? See how things have changed a little bit? Visually? So when the judge looks at man, what does he see? He sees Christ. And is that relationship still separated? So the friendship has been restored in a new way, all through the provisions of what the Lord Jesus did on the cross on our behalf. And so on the basis of that, the Lord can look at man, those that have put their faith in the sacrifice of what Christ did, and He can declare them justified. And visually, that's what the term means.

Is this positional or conditional? No. Positional. And we're blind. Is it positional or conditional? Does it have consequences conditionally? Yes. But are we perfect and sinless in our condition today? Condition? No. So just to answer the question, Does to be made righteous, is that imputed or is it imparted? It's declared. And that's what imputed means, right? It's declared as so, and it is imputed to your position that you are now seen as covered by the righteousness of Christ. You are seen as righteous as Christ is righteous. You are in Him.

So, visually speaking, that's what we're talking about. This is a positional truth. Justification is positional with conditional consequences. Consequences might not be the right word, but we're going to talk about in these next several questions what does the reality or the truth of justification do for our condition. So, one last thing.

The question now is, can anyone, any man, or any power whatsoever, improve upon what God has done here? No. Are you sure? Is it complete? Is it perfect? At the same time, should man, who is in this position before God, ever fear that God's going to somehow take away that cloak of righteousness that He has put around him? This is something that God did, isn't it? Did man do anything here? He simply believed in what the Lord was doing for him. So there's no fear in this relationship any longer, and there's no fear that this position can ever be changed. This is who you are in Christ, justified. Okay, thanks guys.

Did that help? Yeah, it's nice. A lot of times the word justification ends up being a big theological term that you can't get your mind around. I found that that illustration has helped a lot of different age groups remember how things appear in the courtroom of heaven. I think it's a good one. And thrown the Holy Spirit cape.

All right, so I want to hear, just real quick, we won't leave question one right away, but based on what we just said, and even what you did in terms of your reading and preparation for today, what is your answer to question one? How did you define it? on the basis of what Christ has done. And because, as you said, God sees us clothed in the righteousness of Christ. Yep. Well said. Yeah, Holly.

So, it's impossible to go back to innocence. It's not like God declared us innocent again. God declared us righteous. So that whole guilty and innocent is gone, right? Yeah. Innocence is not an option any longer. Does that make sense? Alright, let's look at question two. What does it mean to be born into the wrong family? Okay, let's do this. Who wants to read 1 Corinthians 15, 22? Labe's got that one.

Alright, Ephesians 2, 1 through 3? You guys haven't used your bottles in a while. Just kidding. Ephesians 2, 1-3. You got that one, Donna? And then Romans 5, 14-17. Romans 5, you got it? Okay. So what we're wanting to pick up in these verses as we read them is what is happening in terms of who we are in Adam, okay? So pay attention to those components of the verses. So 1 Corinthians 15, 22. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. See the family differences there? What's the headship of the family that equals death or separation? And what's the headship of the family that leads to life?

Ephesians 2.1-3.

And you have he quickened who was dead in trespasses and sins, wherein in time past you walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience, among whom also we had our conversation in times past in the lust of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others."

There's several answers to your questions there in that verse. But that dead and trespasses and sins, at what position with our cloak illustration, what were the two cloaks that we saw that illustrated this verse. Man was cloaked in sun and the Lord in perfect judge, right? Romans 5, 17. 14-17, sorry.

Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the attempts of Adam, who was a type of him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one, many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. The gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned. For on the one hand, the judgment arose from one transgression, resulting in condemnation. But on the other hand, the free 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 the life of the one Jesus Christ. So by one man, and who is that man? Adam. Adam. Adam's offense. Death reigned. Okay?

So the question is, what does it mean to be born in the wrong family? What happens? Why is it the wrong family? Why did Mike use that term, wrong? Were you born in the wrong family? Adam was ahead of the race. What's so wrong with that? That could be a lot of fun. What's wrong with that? Why were you born into the wrong family? Was that God's intention for man? Any other thoughts on that question?

I think it can't be wrong because it's the only one. You know, it's not like there was a good family, a right family, and then a wrong family, they're all wrong. The family is only wrong. And it's not until you choose to believe in Christ that you get to go to the good family. Okay, so there's a choice later about the family, but right now we're talking about being born.

And you mentioned that there was only one option, so why could that be wrong? But does the lack of options make something right or wrong? I don't know. No. It's wrong because its headship was wrong. It couldn't be right. It couldn't be right. Right. You're born into a family that produces trespasses and sins, and as a result, you live in a state of death or separation from God. That's how you were born. And what's wrong with that?

What's wrong is that the holy righteous views of the Lord as our judge cannot allow fellowship with that kind of situation. Is He perfectly loving while also being perfectly just? That's one of those things about the Lord that is just confounding in many ways because He is completely and perfectly balanced with His justice and His love. So, if He was only just, you being born in the wrong family, could he leave you that way and still be perfectly just?

Sure. Could have done it. But he's also perfectly loving. which is why he stepped down out of that role and, as we saw, donned the cloak of the perfect sinless Jesus to make a way for man to solve that problem. He solved the problem, but he made a way for man to reap the consequences of that solution.

Mike? I think that sometimes we have a notion in our minds that if I were Adam in the garden, I would not have done what he did. What do you think about that? What do you think about that? If you were Adam and you were there and you're, you know, you're the first man, you'd think, well, I wouldn't have been as foolish as he was. You know, I think, yeah, we all would. And also we also would have chose to kill Christ on the cross. Why wouldn't we be as foolish as Adam was? Because we were born with a sin nature.

Well, I mean before, let's say you were created first. You're Adam. You don't have a sin nature. You're just standing there. But you're not the same person as Adam. Why did you, you know, would you have done the same thing or would you have been intelligent enough to not just tell Eve, no thank you. Yes, that's what I've been, no thanks. Would you have done that? Probably. Probably not.

I think it's a really important point because our identification with Adam is complete and total. Everything that he did, we would do. Everything, including the way he acted in innocence, we would have acted exactly the same way. And the reason that's such an important principle is that that same principle holds true when you're in Christ. We will act as He acts, because we're from Him.

Does that make sense? So I can't go to God and say, you know, you screwed up, you should have put me in there, we wouldn't have had this problem. But that's not true. I would have done exactly what Adam had done, because I'm exactly like him. Even in innocence I would have been exactly like him. So I would have done the same thing. It's a great principle because the principle holds true once you come into Christ. It's the same principle. You are so identified with the head of your race that you do what he does. I got one step further that may back that up.

Even before Adam was created, they knew what was going on in the covenant was that Christ would come and pay. That was before anybody. So before there was even anybody created. So if it was Adam or Mike or whoever, it was already planned that he would create it and he would have to go to the cross.

That's where I look at where the definition of love is. Before even created, he knew what was going to go on and he would have to send Christ. And that to me is where we get the eternal love for us. When you say about love and all that, he knew it was going to happen.

And they already knew he was going to have to send Christ before anybody, Adam or any of us, we would have sinned. And it was planned for. I think though that knowing that the covenant between the Father and the Son and the son had nothing to do with us. There was no guarantee there that the satisfaction of Christ's work would be accrued to or be offered to Adam's race because the transaction was between the two of them to deal with the insult of sin. That's my point in that it didn't matter whether it was Adam or Fred or Bill or Steve or anybody. It was between the father and the son.

It didn't matter who it was. It was going to be anybody. They had to make a new creature, a new creation, because it couldn't just be like, I think I was in the Hungry Heart today, you just don't fix up the old one. It's got to be totally new. I think that the entire Old Testament proves that you can't fix the old guy. He's non-fixable.

Any other thoughts on that? One thing I would maybe just add, and this is kind of maybe a soft parallel perspective on, sometimes the question, if I were Adam, would I have done the same thing, it also unfortunately applies to many situations, if I were God, I would do da-da-da-da-da, or would I do da-da-da-da-da. Sometimes this if-I-were, and in many cases, can get you away from focusing on what is said to what you might deem logical and reasonable in a world that is governed by a sovereign and holy God, and He has stated how it was. I would just balance some of this perspective on, you know, don't try to get yourself in too many shoes, and focus on the shoes you're in, if that makes sense. Because I have seen a lot of believers, and new believers at that, get really hung up with, well, man, Adam just screwed it up for all of us. And a lot of times we do go to the point of making sure that they understand, well, you would have done the same thing.

But you know what they're really thinking in the back of their mind? No, I wouldn't. No, I wouldn't. And then all of a sudden, what are they thinking about with this whole teaching, the gospel truths? Now they're focused on what they would or wouldn't have done in a hypothetical situation to, you know, 4,000 years ago, or whatever. And, right?

I think it's sort of important that we look at this verse just here in Romans as being why we believe this. I mean it isn't just that this is a theory on our part, that I wouldn't have sinned. Like Adam, it says here that I would have. It says that in Adam, all died, all were separated. And that we are a part of that sin. We were there. It's not that we just, we were born later. In Adam, we existed. Sin right along with it. It's the authority that we have, I think, for what might have been put in our sin.

And it's like, you know, that's who we are. Like a dog is going to chase a squirrel. You know, a dog's not going to say, I'm not going to, I wouldn't have chased that squirrel. It's like, you're a dog, you're going to chase it. Yeah. That's a good point.

I think that Adam's problem, and therefore ours, is that we don't understand well enough who God is and how God is in order to consider whether to obey his commandment or not. Do you think that Adam was lacking any information needed to not trust God in that moment of the knowledge of good and evil scenario? Because what you're saying kind of suggests that he didn't know enough about God. He didn't have any reason to understand God's justice.

Because it wasn't necessary. It had not been used. He was innocent, right? And so he was clueless. And if we'd been there, we'd have been clueless. Well, I think clueless is probably maybe not the best term. Innocence is the state. So, it's just, it's the same. The situation was, the consequence didn't exist, and so the role of judge did not need to be revealed. Right, and so it wasn't as though, oh, if I only knew that he would have judged me, you know, and he did say that there were consequences, so he did have that insight to God's justice in that way, that he knew the consequences. He didn't know how far that would necessarily play out.