1 Jan 2000

What about positional truth?

Submitted by theshovel
Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionSend to friendSend to friendPDF versionPDF version

"Positional" is like "clinical". It's clean, and easy to categorize and discuss in a so-called intelligent manner. It makes it sound as if it is a reality when in effect it is merely technical. Those who hold heavy to positional truth will make sure you understand that justification means to be declared righteous, but not actually made righteous. They will discuss imputation as if it validates the fact that righteousness is merely a technical counting-to-be-true but not really true.

One of the guys I learned from in the early years of my so-called grace teaching latched onto what he thought was a wonderful distinction. He differentiated between "a" righteousness and "the" righteousness of God. He used a verse in Romans 3 to prove his point that we were given NOT the same infinite, perfect righteousness of God, but a "gift" of righteousness FROM God, which is finite and not perfect in the sense that God is perfect. That ridiculous definition had pretty much sealed the differences between what the two of us saw of Christ's righteousness. But we had been drifting apart for a while.

Positional was simply a theological way (as in Systematic Theology) to hold to the teaching of our new life in Christ without actually believing it. Yuck! I hated that word for years.



I was seeking a definition of positional truth. So far yours is the best!

Add new comment

Random Shovelquote: What kind of gospel... (view all shovelquotes)

Let me get very blunt. What kind of gospel leaves you in the unknown regarding the very premise of the actual good news of Christ, which is full confidence in one’s relationship to God through Christ? What kind of gospel causes you to think it’s all about what you do or don’t do, when the good news declares that it’s not about you at all but all about Christ and what he has done and is now doing? source