Questions and answers with Jeremiah2911 and others

[The Biblicist]

Such a simple question and yet you have so much trouble with it.

I know you believe justification is progressive but it must progress from some given point in time within the life of a person. When is that initial point in time?

Is it the point in time when faith is conceived in your heart? "with the heart man believeth"?

Is it the point in time when "confession with the mouth" occurs? "with the mouth confession is made..."

Is it the point in time when another public confession in baptism is made?

You are trying to "trap" me by my own words.

:laugh::thumbsup: Of course I am. This is a debate forum isn't it? We don't agree with each other or that supposed to be a secret???

When someone accepts the faith given to him Justification is efficatious for him at that time

I would like to discuss the peculiar idea expressed "accepts the faith given to him" a little later.

What is interesting is that you not only advocate progressive justification that concludes only in judgement day, but you equally make initial justification a process as well, thus really denying any point in time the beginning point of justification. Instead you want to define a PERIOD of time as the beginning point of progressive justification - the period between the conception of faith in the heart completed by profession in baptism.

Hence, your idea is that justification is NEVER obtained in fullness until judgment day because you deny it is ever fully obtained at the point of faith when faith is conceived in the heart but rather it is only introduced at that point in time in order to lead the believer into baptism to receive the seal of justification but still without obtaining full justification, as you believe baptism is simply the door or another point of introduction down the long road without full justification until actual full justification is received at judgment day. Hence, there is no actual FULLNESS of justification received here in this life but only partial justification in process toward full justification.

When someone accepts the faith given to him Justification is efficatious for him at that time to bring him towards Salvation.

Yet you go on to say that


Thus the Justified man completes his justification at baptism......Baptism is also the sealing of the New Covenant like Circumcision was in the OT.[/QUOTE]

Hence, in the first phrase you say "man completes his justification at baptism" but in the next phrase you compare it only to "the sealing" like unto Circumcision and we all know that circumcision was just the beginning of the Jewish life under the covenant terminated only in the day of judgment.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Such a simple question and yet you have so much trouble with it.

Not at all. You are having a problem asking what it is you want. You don't want to know when justification begins but when it is efficatious to the believer. But you refuse to admit that is actually what you are asking for. However, one can tell just by how you phrase your questions. Thus you are attempting to set up a parameter express a false premise and thus build a straw man in which you can knock it down without ever getting to the truth of things.

I know you believe justification is progressive but it must progress from some given point in time within the life of a person. When is that initial point in time?

See how you phrase this question. It seems to ask when does justification for the person begin? But the actual question you refuse to admit what you are really asking is when is that Justification efficatious in the persons life. The starting point is at election. Acceptance of believe begins the efficatious aspect singularily bringing the person to full justification at baptism. I've said this again and again. And will continue to do so until you either recieve understand or rephrase your question

Is it the point in time when faith is conceived in your heart? "with the heart man believeth"?

Efficatious Justification in which the person is converted to God is when he recieves or accepts the faith given to him.

Is it the point in time when "confession with the mouth" occurs? "with the mouth confession is made..."

That is equally a fruit of the converted heart but the confession does not complete the justification but certainly is an aspect of it.

Is it the point in time when another public confession in baptism is made?

A person is fully justified at baptism.

What is interesting is that you not only advocate progressive justification that concludes only in judgement day, but you equally make initial justification a process as well, thus really denying any point in time the beginning point of justification.

1st you are wrong it conlcudes at baptism unless afterwards the person falls. Then occures again at repentance. 2nd what part of the word process don't you understand?

Instead you want to define a PERIOD of time as the beginning point of progressive justification - the period between the conception of faith in the heart completed by profession in baptism.

Correction: At baptism you are fully justified.

Hence, your idea is that justification is NEVER obtained in fullness until judgment day because you deny it is ever fully obtained at the point of faith when faith is conceived in the heart but rather it is only introduced at that point in time in order to lead the believer into baptism to receive the seal of justification but still without obtaining full justification, as you believe baptism is simply the door or another point of introduction down the long road without full justification until actual full justification is received at judgment day. Hence, there is no actual justification received here an now in this life but only the process toward it.

Re-read this paragraph in the context of what I actually said. You make a couple of faulty errors in it. Fullness of Justification is reached at Baptism. The if the person falls at subsequent repentance.

[

I]When someone accepts the faith given to him Justification is efficatious for him at that time to bring him towards Salvation. [/I]

Yet you go on to say that


Thus the Justified man completes his justification at baptism......Baptism is also the sealing of the New Covenant like Circumcision was in the OT.

[/QUOTE]
And....?

Hence, in the first phrase you say "man completes his justification at baptism" but in the next phrase you compare it only to "the sealing" like unto Circumcision and we all know that circumcision was just the beginning of the Jewish life under the covenant terminated only in the day of judgment.

And....?
As is baptism. The object then is to keep our baptismal promises. Keep our lamp oil full (Parable of the 10 virgins). And stay in our relationship with God. How simple can that be?

 

[The Biblicist]

A person is fully justified at baptism....... Correction: At baptism you are fully justified.....Fullness of Justification is reached at Baptism. The if the person falls at subsequent repentance.

The adverbs are interesting "fully....fully...." and the noun "Fullness."

From reading such descriptive terms one would assume from the common ordinary of language that justification is therefore not progressive because it has already reached "fullness....at baptism." The term "fullness" ordinarily means "completeness."

Therefore we are not being progressively justified by works since it reached "fullness" at baptism. However, I think we are in for some Roman Catholic mental gymnastics?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The adverbs are interesting "fully....fully...." and the noun "Fullness."

From reading such descriptive terms one would assume from the common ordinary of language that justification is therefore not progressive because it has already reached "fullness....at baptism." The term "fullness" ordinarily means "completeness."

Therefore we are not being progressively justified by works since it reached "fullness" at baptism. However, I think we are in for some Roman Catholic mental gymnastics?

It seems you are having a hard time retaining what has been said. Point 9 on my definition of Justification

The next step is a genuine sorrow for all sin with the resolution to begin a new life by receiving holy baptism and by observing the commandments of God. The process of justification is then brought to a close by the baptism of water, inasmuch as by the grace of this sacrament the catechumen is freed from sin (original and personal) and its punishments, and is made a child of God.

So in essence there is a completeness at baptism. Yet if you fall repentance must follow.

 

[The Biblicist]

It seems you are having a hard time retaining what has been said. Point 9 on my definition of Justification
So in essence there is a completeness at baptism. Yet if you fall repentance must follow.

So in Catholic Soteriology there is no PROGRESSIVE JUSTIFICATION - incompleted action - after baptism? Hence, there is no UNFULFILLED JUSTIFICATION requiring good works progressively through life? You said it was "fulfilled" and reached its point of "fullness" and thus it was completed in Baptism?

 

[The Biblicist]

So in Catholic Soteriology there is no PROGRESSIVE JUSTIFICATION - incompleted action - after baptism? Hence, there is no UNFULFILLED JUSTIFICATION requiring good works progressively through life? You said it was "fulfilled" and reached its point of "fullness" and thus it was completed in Baptism?

The next step is a genuine sorrow for all sin with the resolution to begin a new life by receiving holy baptism and by observing the commandments of God. The process of justification is then brought to a close by the baptism of water, inasmuch as by the grace of this sacrament the catechumen is freed from sin (original and personal) and its punishments, and is made a child of God.

So, now are we subdividing justification? One aspect fulfilled by baptism but another aspect unfulfilled, still incomplete, still progressive??

So you have the "sin" part fulfilled in baptism but the "righteousness" part incompleted and progressively being fulfilled by good works???

So Romans 10:10 should read "with the heart man believeth unto remission of sins" instead of "with the heart man believeth unto RIGHTEOUSNESS"????? oops!

So Romans 4:11 should read "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the REMISSION OF SINS of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised:" instead of " And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of THE RIGHTEOUSNESS of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised:" oops!

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The next step is a genuine sorrow for all sin with the resolution to begin a new life by receiving holy baptism and by observing the commandments of God. The process of justification is then brought to a close by the baptism of water, inasmuch as by the grace of this sacrament the catechumen is freed from sin (original and personal) and its punishments, and is made a child of God.

So, now are we subdividing justification? One aspect fulfilled by baptism but another aspect unfulfilled, still incomplete, still progressive??

The other part of it flows into Sanctification.

So you have the "sin" part fulfilled in baptism but the "righteousness" part incompleted and progressively being fulfilled by good works???

Uh. It seems you didn't read it in its entirety. Try again you might get it.
What part of The process is closed? Don't you understand? What part of falling back into sin requires repentance don't you understand. Are you therefore justified while in sin? Of course not repentance is needed therefore to restore the justified state.

So Romans 10:10 should read "with the heart man believeth unto remission of sins" instead of "with the heart man believeth unto RIGHTEOUSNESS"????? Whoops!

No, its fine. You just took it out of its timeline. You want it to read "with the heart the man believeth unto righteousness and never again will he sin." It does not read that way.

So Romans 4:11 should read "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the REMISSION OF SINS of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised:" instead of " And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of THE RIGHTEOUSNESS of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised:" Whoops!

Not at all again your timeline is off. You are trying to include things after baptism and apply it to the subject before baptism. Which isn't what we are saying. You therefore are in effect purposely misconstruing what you've read. Col 2:11 Does say

9 For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10 and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority. 11 In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by[c] Christ, 12 having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

13 When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you[d] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14 having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross

Whereby

Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life....Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13 Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness.

So that when the occassion arises

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

Which is all we've been saying with justification. So there is no "whoops" save in your ego.

 

[The Biblicist]

The other part of it flows into Sanctification.

Hence, you make partitions but simply call the other part "sanctification" (until you deal with James 2). So justification is not fulfilled or complete in baptism but only ONE ASPECT of it is really "fulfilled" and it is really not "fulfilled" except conditionally, because who does not sin? Hence, no part of Justification is really "fulfilled" or ever can be fulfilled until the day of judgement as the progressive part is conditional upon continuance in good works and the "fulfilled" aspect is repeatedly refulfilled by repentance because no one continues sinlessly do they???

Uh. It seems you didn't read it in its entirety. Try again you might get it.
What part of The process is closed? Don't you understand? What part of falling back into sin requires repentance don't you understand. Are you therefore justified while in sin? Of course not repentance is needed therefore to restore the justified state.

I understand but do you? For instance, remission of sin removes all past sin in your system of justification and thus what is left is righteousness before God by obedience. If sin enters back into the picture then BOTH your righteous state of obedience, as well as, sin need to be dealt with all over again as one cannot exist apart from the other. If you have sin you are not righteous and need that sin removed whether you call that removal "remission of sins" or "cleansing of sin" it amounts to the same thing. Hence, you initial justification is repeated over and over again every time you sin.

No, its fine. You just took it out of its timeline. You want it to read "with the heart the man believeth unto righteousness and never again will he sin." It does not read that way.

It does not read that way because it does not refer to YOUR RIGHTEOUSNESSES. What the heart embraces by faith is CHRIST'S RIGHTEOUSNESS and since it Christ is incapable of unrighteousness there is no future possibility He will sin as faith has ONLY HIM as its object of righteousness (Rom. 10:1-4).

So you are missing the contextual time line and the contextual righteousness that is embraced with the heart.

Not at all again your timeline is off. You are trying to include things after baptism and apply it to the subject before baptism.

No, you are woefully distorting the contextual time line in Romans 4:11. The righteousness here was obtained BEFORE the seal/and sign and WITHOUT the seal and sign altogether! Therefore, the "seal" and "sign" have nothing to do with the actual and literal obtaining of justification to the person of Abraham whether in regard to "remission of sin" or in regard to "righteousness" in progressive sanctification because he already "HAD" that righteousness PREVIOUS to submission to the "sign" or "seal"!

Moreover, progressive sanctification had already occurred BEFORE submitting to the "sign" or "seal." Hence, this MODEL of justification by faith totally and completely repudiates the whole chronological system of the Vatican from start to finish. You have remission of sin/regeneration begun at the point of faith but not FULFILLED until there is submission to the "sign" and "seal" of justification but Abraham "HAD" justification previous to the "sing" and "seal" and even more condemning is the fact that Paul says such justification can be had by those who NEVER submit to such a "sign" or "seal" at all in their lives.

9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness [vv. 5-6 remission of sins and imputed righteousness] then upon the circumcision [baptized] only, or upon the uncircumcision [unbaptized] also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision,[baptized] or in uncircumcision? [unbaptized] Not in circumcision [baptism], but in uncircumcision [unbaptized].11 And he received the sign of circumcision,[baptism] a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised:[unbaptized] that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; [baptized] that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision [baptized] only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.[unbaptized]

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Hence, you make partitions but simply call the other part "sanctification" (until you deal with James 2). So justification is not fulfilled or complete in baptism but only ONE ASPECT of it is really "fulfilled" and it is really not "fulfilled" except conditionally, because who does not sin? Hence, no part of Justification is really "fulfilled" or ever can be fulfilled until the day of judgement as the progressive part is conditional upon continuance in good works and the "fulfilled" aspect is repeatedly refulfilled by repentance because no one continues sinlessly do they???

Read it again you keep making the same mistake. I even directed you to the section. "Closed at Baptism". Is what I think I pointed out. I even used terms like full, fully, complete, completed.

I understand but do you? For instance, remission of sin removes all past sin in your system of justification and thus what is left is righteousness before God by obedience. If sin enters back into the picture then BOTH your righteous state of obedience, as well as, sin need to be dealt with all over again as one cannot exist apart from the other. If you have sin you are not righteous and need that sin removed whether you call that removal "remission of sins" or "cleansing of sin" it amounts to the same thing. Hence, you initial justification is repeated over and over again every time you sin.

Your use of the Term "initial" is the problematic aspect of what you are speaking about. The person already has faith the committed sin needs to be dealt with is all and the person made right once again. But faith is already present.

It does not read that way because it does not refer to YOUR RIGHTEOUSNESSES. What the heart embraces by faith is CHRIST'S RIGHTEOUSNESS and since it Christ is incapable of unrighteousness there is no future possibility He will sin as faith has ONLY HIM as its object of righteousness

In your soteriology No one is made any better but basically you trick the eye of God by hiding in Jesus Robes. But that doesn't really deal with the issue now does it. God intends on our Transformation because when all is said and done nothing sinful can go before God. Which in your covering up senario is exactly what happens. You quote Romans 10:1-4 but ignore Romans 12:1-2

1 Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. 2 Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

Which is what God actually wants to do in us.

So you are missing the contextual time line and the contextual righteousness that is embraced with the heart

Not at all you can see my referrence to this in most of my posts. I think you chose to ignore them.

No, you are woefully distorting the contextual time line in Romans 4:11.

In fact I haven't it was you trying to indicate that I applied this verse specifically to baptism when I hadn't. I just showed you that you are misapplying what I've said and been saying. Indeed I said the verse is fine as it stands. You just want to believe that Justification begins and ends at belief. Righteousness is when one is clean btw.

I didn't quote Romans The righteousness here was obtained BEFORE the seal/and sign and WITHOUT the seal and sign altogether! Therefore, the "seal" and "sign" have nothing to do with the actual and literal obtaining of justification to the person of Abraham whether in regard to "remission of sin" or in regard to "righteousness" in progressive sanctification because he already "HAD" that righteousness PREVIOUS to submission to the "sign" or "seal"!

And you ignore colosians where paul makes it clear.

Moreover, progressive sanctification had already occurred BEFORE submitting to the "sign" or "seal." Hence, this MODEL of justification by faith totally and completely repudiates the whole chronological system of the Vatican from start to finish. You have remission of sin/regeneration begun at the point of faith but not FULFILLED until there is submission to the "sign" and "seal" of justification but Abraham "HAD" justification previous to the "sing" and "seal" and even more condemning is the fact that Paul says such justification can be had by those who NEVER submit to such a "sign" or "seal" at all in their lives.

thus you show your problem of starting with a wrong premise. Because this isn't what Paul is speaking of but showing how it is faith that leads to justification not the Law and how it applies to gentiles as well as Jews lest we all need to be Jews. Yet you also ignore the latter part of Romans whereby

1 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we[a] have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which

we now stand

. And we boast in the hope of the glory of God. 3 Not only so, but we[c] also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4 perseverance, character; and character, hope... We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?...so now offer yourselves as slaves to righteousness leading to holiness...4 So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God.

 

[The Biblicist]

Your use of the Term "initial" is the problematic aspect of what you are speaking about. The person already has faith the committed sin needs to be dealt with is all and the person made right once again. But faith is already present.

I understand the Vatican veiw point but that is not the Biblical view point. Faith is not INITIALLY received in justification, but rather righteousness and remission of sins are received. Hence, faith is not lost when one sins. The very nature of the sin is definable by what it is morally. Faith is INITIALLY received in regeneration not justification and so I am referring to INITIAL justification not regeneration. Therefore what is lost in the Vatican's viewpoint is righteousness due to sin not one's faith due to sin. Hence, the sin must be dealt with for righteousness to be restored = therefore in principle it is nothing more or less than a repeat of INITIAL justification.

In your soteriology No one is made any better but basically you trick the eye of God by hiding in Jesus Robes.

Completely misleading and false! Both the LEGAL POSITION and the PERSONAL CONDITION of the "ungodly" is addressed at initial salvation. The LEGAL POSITION is completely remedied by the imputation of Christ's own righteousness. The PERSONAL CONDITION is remedied by regeneration or the creation of internal holiness and true righteousness. Both are irreversable acts of God. The former is completed in totality. The latter is completed as an act but progressive in its effects (progressive sanctification) until it is completed in glorification. Hence, those who have been regenerated and justified are being made better personally by the power of the indwelling Spirit. Justification obtains guanteed entrance into heaven wheras regeneration guarantees progressive but individualized measure of sanctification that will be completed in glorification.

But that doesn't really deal with the issue now does it. God intends on our Transformation because when all is said and done nothing sinful can go before God. Which in your covering up senario is exactly what happens. You quote Romans 10:1-4 but ignore Romans 12:1-2 Which is what God actually wants to do in us.

Two different contexts dealing with two different issues. Romans 12:1 describes the former context dealing with the mercies of God in regard to salvation whereas the same text looks forward to what is your "reasonable service" in response to the mercies of God. Paul summarized these two different aspects this way "created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works."

In fact I haven't it was you trying to indicate that I applied this verse specifically to baptism when I hadn't.

Not true at all! I can go back and I can quote where it was you that first introduced circumcision as a "sign" and a "seal" to be like baptism. Shall I? I got a feeling I will have to do so in order to silence your charge here!

I just showed you that you are misapplying what I've said and been saying. Indeed I said the verse is fine as it stands. You just want to believe that Justification begins and ends at belief. Righteousness is when one is clean btw. And you ignore colosians where paul makes it clear.

Your only response is to JUMP out of this context and JUMP into another context dealing with two completely different things. Prove your point by Romans 3:9-5:2 context if you can? I am not jumping with you.

Justification BEFORE GOD does begin and end with faith "in" God's provision of Christ but sanctification BEGINS with regeneration and ends only in glorification.

 

[lakeside]

We are saved by grace through faith in Christ, not works of law. However, once we transition from the condemnation of the law into the system of grace (Rom 5:1-5), we must add works to our faith. We are not justified or saved by faith alone (James 2:24).

Also in Rom.5;2 we rejoice in the 'hope' [ not the presumptuous certainty ] of sharing the glory of God. If salvation is so assured after accepting Jesus as our Savior, why would St. Paul hope ??

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I understand the Vatican veiw point but that is not the Biblical view point.

I'm going to respond to this because it was adressed to me the rest of the post seems to be between you and HP and I haven't read through your discussion to really know where you are at and who is saying what. However, the Church's view is the biblical view. You don't want to be properly righteous or Justified because you expect to "cover up" your iniquities without properly dealing with your nature which allows you to sin as much as you like until you die in which case you'll be given a new body though at the point of death you are no closer to being Christlike then when you said "I believe"!!!! You don't like words like infused because it requires that sanctification takes place with in you rather than held in waiting until you die. Paul says you must endure, glory in your sufferings, fight, not look back, etc... all of which emplies a day by day sanctification process. We are to be transformed by what? The renewing of our minds. Not just take our out and hand it over but purposely change our thinking. All of this is truelly scriptural. So you don't like the vatican's view of Justification. Ok fine. However, now as you say that you understand it, at least understand this we are Justified by our Faith. Our Justification process is closed at baptism. And we are given forgiveness if we find ourself sinning against God. All of this is scriptural.
There is no need for initial justification by which grace gives us faith. Faith is already there. All that is needed is repentance.

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm going to respond to this because it was adressed to me the rest of the post seems to be between you and HP

It was intended to be addressed to you alone. Like many others on this forum we are going back and forth between differen threads. I siimply forgot that I had not copied your heading and had copied HP's heading in a previous post. Sorry for the confusion, it was unintentional.

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm going to respond to this because it was adressed to me the rest of the post seems to be between you and HP and I haven't read through your discussion to really know where you are at and who is saying what. However, the Church's view is the biblical view. You don't want to be properly righteous or Justified because you expect to "cover up" your iniquities without properly dealing with your nature which allows you to sin as much as you like until you die in which case you'll be given a new body though at the point of death you are no closer to being Christlike then when you said "I believe"!!!! You don't like words like infused because it requires that sanctification takes place with in you rather than held in waiting until you die. Paul says you must endure, glory in your sufferings, fight, not look back, etc... all of which emplies a day by day sanctification process. We are to be transformed by what? The renewing of our minds. Not just take our out and hand it over but purposely change our thinking. All of this is truelly scriptural. So you don't like the vatican's view of Justification. Ok fine. However, now as you say that you understand it, at least understand this we are Justified by our Faith. Our Justification process is closed at baptism. And we are given forgiveness if we find ourself sinning against God. All of this is scriptural.
There is no need for initial justification by which grace gives us faith. Faith is already there. All that is needed is repentance.

Please go back and read my post in full and answer it as addressed to your previous post. I will wait and comment because the above post does not deal adequately with my responses. I understand that you thought much of it was addressed to HP and so didn't read it.

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm going to respond to this because it was adressed to me the rest of the post seems to be between you and HP and I haven't read through your discussion to really know where you are at and who is saying what. However, the Church's view is the biblical view. You don't want to be properly righteous or Justified because you expect to "cover up" your iniquities without properly dealing with your nature which allows you to sin as much as you like until you die in which case you'll be given a new body though at the point of death you are no closer to being Christlike then when you said "I believe"!!!! You don't like words like infused because it requires that sanctification takes place with in you rather than held in waiting until you die. Paul says you must endure, glory in your sufferings, fight, not look back, etc... all of which emplies a day by day sanctification process. We are to be transformed by what? The renewing of our minds. Not just take our out and hand it over but purposely change our thinking. All of this is truelly scriptural. So you don't like the vatican's view of Justification. Ok fine. However, now as you say that you understand it, at least understand this we are Justified by our Faith. Our Justification process is closed at baptism. And we are given forgiveness if we find ourself sinning against God. All of this is scriptural.
There is no need for initial justification by which grace gives us faith. Faith is already there. All that is needed is repentance.

Either you did not read my post completely or you are intentionaly perverting the very position I set forth.

Justification does not occur apart from regeneration and so imputed righteousness does not occur apart from imparted righteousness. However, imparted righteousness is incomplete and progressive and never completed until glorificatioin. In contrast imputed righteousness is complete and never can be improved upon because it is Christ's own righteousness.

Justification does not INFUSE righteousness to anyone. Regeneration is IMPARTED righteousness by a creative act as we are "created in true righteousness and holiness" (Eph. 2:10; 4:24; Col. 3:10).

By confusing regeneration with justification you are preach "another gospel" than the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Either you did not read my post completely or you are intentionaly perverting the very position I set forth.

I don't see how. You must explain yourself because you advocate a "covering up" righteousness rather than a transformative one. Please explain your view.

Justification does not occur apart from regeneration and so imputed righteousness does not occur apart from imparted righteousness.

exactly my point. You refuse to believe that one is righteous indeed. Or is even made that way.

However, imparted righteousness is incomplete and progressive and never completed until glorificatioin.

Here you contradict yourself. If you believe that you are not being made righteous how can it be progressive? And why allow yourself leighway until glorification? Does it permit more sin? Doesn't Paul and Hebrews say "IF" you sin? In which case we are to struggle against sin rather than accomidate it? "IF" implies not a certainty. Does it not. Doesn't God want to make us new right now? Or does he just put everything off until the end?

In contrast imputed righteousness is complete and never can be improved upon because it is Christ's own righteousness.

Under whose clothes you hide your nature rather than deal with your nature. Snow covered manuer is still something to avoid stepping in I assure you.

Justification does not INFUSE righteousness to anyone. Regeneration is IMPARTED righteousness by a creative act as we are "created in true righteousness and holiness" (Eph. 2:10; 4:24; Col. 3:10).

These verses support my position that we are transformed made righteous infused with his righteousness. Our nature is dealt with

For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness

This is infused. New nature given to us by Christ we know have his righteouness not our own and we use it.

10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.

This righteousness each of these verse talks about isn't "covering up our nature" but put into us truelly so that we can act on it.

By confusing regeneration with justification you are preach "another gospel" than the gospel of Jesus Christ.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Can you be justified without regeneration? Can you believe or have faith without regeneration? There is no confusion.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are simply playing games. You certainly are perverting the position I set forth!

Thus the Justified man completes his justification at baptism......Baptism is also the sealing of the New Covenant like Circumcision was in the OT. - TS

Romans 4:11 totally destroys the whole Roman Catholic interpretation of justification being completed in baptism:


9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness [justification = imputed righteousness without works and remission of sins - vv. 5-8] then upon the circumcision [baptized] only, or upon the uncircumcision [unbaptized] also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision,[baptism] or in uncircumcision [unbaptized]? Not in circumcision [baptism], but in uncircumcision [unbaptized].
11 And he received the sign of circumcision [baptism], a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised [unbaptized]: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised;[not baptized] that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Paul not only argues that justification was "had" while Abraham was "in uncircumcision" and NOT "in circumcision" but the reason for being justified NOT IN CIRCUMCISION was to prove that circumcision was not necessary to be justified "that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised;[not baptized] that righteousness might be imputed unto them also" without circumcision [baptism].


No stronger words could repudiate the whole Roman Catholic dogma that justification is completed in baptism.



My explanation of imputed versus imparted righteousness does not negate the fact that Paul completely repudiates the doctrine of Justification by Rome. Regardless, if I am wrong or right on my explanation it is clear that the Roman Catholic explanation is repudiated by Paul.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You are simply playing games. You certainly are perverting the position I set forth!

I certainly have not. Ie Imputed

to attribute or ascribe

; Infused

To put into or introduce as if by pouring

Your own word usages certifies what I've said of your position holds true. There is no actual transformative process because you aren't having the holy spirit actually poured into you but rather a consept of righteousness is being attibuted to you. And so how can I pervert your position as these are the terms you used to describe your faith? As Catholics we believe in a transformative aspect rather than have something attributed even though it may or may not be true.

Thus the Justified man completes his justification at baptism......Baptism is also the sealing of the New Covenant like Circumcision was in the OT. - TS

Yes this is true

Romans 4:11 totally destroys the whole Roman Catholic interpretation of justification being completed in baptism:

It does not at all you've missapplied Romans 4:11

And in fact this passage supports my claim that justification begins prior to baptism and is complete in it. All this passage asserts is that Abraham had faith but circumcision was the sign and seal of the faith he already had as it is in baptism. At circumcision Abraham was complete in his justification as the sign and seal was placed on him. Note this passage doesn't suggest the sign and seal was done away with rather that Abraham by his faith which was evedent in his seal is the father for all those who have faith and are not sealed by circucision. See your issue is that you take a starting point in the process and make it a concluding point. Faith leads to obedience and obedience applies the finishing grace. Abraham starts with faith and ends in circumsision. We believe and seal our believe with the inpouring of the Holy Spirit at baptism. But faith is the key with out it there can be no obedience or seal.

And he received circumcision as a sign, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them

No stronger words could repudiate the whole Roman Catholic dogma that justification is completed in baptism.

Therefore your application of that verse is entirely wrong and in fact is speaking to another issue altogether primarily that it is by faith by which we begin our journey and is the start of our justification. Because you cannot without faith have anything towards God even if you took on your self circucmcision or baptism.

My explanation of imputed versus imparted righteousness does not negate the fact that Paul completely repudiates the doctrine of Justification by Rome. Regardless, if I am wrong or right on my explanation it is clear that the Roman Catholic explanation is repudiated by Paul.

And again you''ve misapplied that passage.

 

[The Biblicist]

It does not at all you've missapplied Romans 4:11

And in fact this passage supports my claim that justification begins prior to baptism and is complete in it. All this passage asserts is that Abraham had faith but circumcision was the sign and seal of the faith he already had as it is in baptism.

Absolutely False! Romans 4:9-11 is not talking about receiving faith prior to circumcision and then justification completed in circumcision. The blessing He is talking about is justification received by faith ALREADY BEFORE being circumcised. Note the question in verse 9


9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

This "blessedness" includes righteousness imputed and sins remitted:

6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Hence, he is not addressing "faith" and "justification" separately but together and asking "COMETH THIS BLESSEDNESS (imputed righteousness - v. 6; non-imputation of sin - vv. 7-8) on the circumcision only or cometh it upon the uncircumcised??? This leads the precise question of "WHEN" did Abraham obtain it - "in" cirucumcision as Rome teaches or "in" uncircumcision as Baptist teach it?


10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

To be "in" circumcison means "when" circumcision occurs and thereafter as you continue to be circumcised.

To be "in" uncircumcision means all the time previous to being circumcised.

This is a complete repudiation of Roman Catholicism from its roots up. This "blessedness" (imputed righteousness, non-imputation of sin = remission of sins) occurred "WHEN" he was without circumcision and thus it was "HAD" without circumcision.

More devestatating to Roman Catholicism is that the purpose of Paul's point in defining precisely when justification by faith "had" been received was "NOT IN CIRCUMCISION" was to prove justification can be had by those who NEVER submit to circumcision.

11.......the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Hence, the "sign" and "seal" is NOTHING OTHER THAN AN OUTWARD SYMBOL that never literaly or actually conveys grace, justification, regeneration or any other aspect of LITERAL salvation, but is in precise keeping with all ceremonial ordinances that merely provide an EXTERNAL TESTIMONY to something already accomplished by faith long before the ceremonial act:


Luke 1212 ¶ And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
13 And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him.
14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

When was his cleansing literally completed? When Jesus said "be thou clean. and IMMEDIALELY the leprosy departed from him"?

OR while ceremonial act "for thy cleansing"????

What was the design for the ceremonial cleansing? Was it to conclude his LITERAL cleansing and obtain LITERAL cleansing in the act?

OR was it "for a testimony UNTO THEM"???

This is the significance of a "sign" and "seal" - "for a TESTIMONY" not to literally obtain anything it signifies.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Absolutely False! Romans 4:9-11 is not talking about receiving faith prior to circumcision and then justification completed in circumcision. The blessing He is talking about is justification received by faith ALREADY BEFORE being circumcised.

Then ask yourself this very simple question. Why does Paul call it a sign and seal? A sign of what? A seal for what? Ie seal in this context

To establish or determine irrevocably

the gk being sphragis. and seal in this context

that by which a person or a thing is distinguished from others and is known

the gk being sēmeion. Which is the topping off or completion of the act of God. Again you confuses the begining of a process with the end of the process. In which end, in this case is the seal. Again Paul is clear that he is distinguishing having the seal without faith from that of having faith. Faith is where justification begins in the Human (though as I've said the human needs the interior working of the Holy Spirit first.) The seal stamps the man with that justification; completion. Paul is saying to the Judaizers in this passage that circumcision is nothing without faith. A true teaching.

Therefore you miss certain things from this passage. Who is Paul's audience of whom is Paul speaking about what. I think you miss this and misapply the whole passage. He wants the Church body here to move from the views of the Judiazers who rely on the circumcision rather than the faith.