by the resurrection. Surely He was not declared righteous on the basis of the imputation of His own righteousness." mark: if you are going to have two kinds of righteousness, it certainly would make sense to have two kinds of justification. And of course NT Wright does have a future justification based on what his politically active self (he wouldn't say "soul") will do RS: You can refrain from bringing up NT Wright all the time. Dr. Wright is wrong when he denies the imputation of the righteousness of Christ and I am asserting that strongly. McMark: But I Tim 3:16 is a very interesting verse to think about. Christ was justified. I hope you are not denying that. Now, how was Christ justified? Certainly not by becoming born again. Christ was justified by satisfying the righteous requirement of the law for the sins imputed to Christ. Again, I hope you don't deny that sins were imputed to Christ. I sure hope you don't say that Christ needed a new birth. RS: Sigh, I am beginning to think that you don't actually read what I say but instead just close your eyes and put your finger down in order to come up with a response. I have asserted previously (on different occasions in our discussions) that sins were imputed to Christ. Other than the incarnational birth which was new and needed to save sinners and declare the righteousness of God in doing so, Jesus did not need a new birth.