Featured Justification

In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

And the Word became flesh, and pitched His tent in our midst.

That is nothing like a supposed hypostatic union.

God is Spirit. Invisible. No man has ever seen Him, nor can see Him. But He sent His Word into the world to be born into a human body, which was literally descened from Adam

Any notion of Jesus being FULLY God or FULLY human is abusing scripture because His body is not divine and the Spirit inside is not man

 

However, it is the revelation of scripture that is being interpreted and debated. For example, James claims that the only human aspect of Christ is a physical body that descended from Adam and so Christ is not humanity as humanity involves more than a human body. For examples, angels take upon bodily appearance of men and demons possess human bodies but neither become man simply because they possess human bodies.

For example, James defines God to be "spirit" and thus the "spirit" in Jesus was not human but divine.

The problem is that the damage incurred upon humanity was by Adam a full and complete human being. The Messiah is said to be the "Second Adam" and therefore must be a partaker of humanity as much as the unfallen first Adam in order to redeem us. Something less than full humanity cannot redeem humanity. For example, angels are also spirit creatures but God did not send an angel to indwell a body to redeem us. Christ has to be fully man in spirit, soul and body to redeem man who is spirit soul and body. Hence, Christ was more than a human body indwelt by Spirit God the Son.

Furthermore, the nature of the redemption could only be completed by God as the righteousness required is "the righteousness of God" not found in fallen man nor can be ever produced by fallen man. The penalty for sin is "eternal" which can never be satisfied by a finite creature because only an infinite being can satisfy an eternal penalty, one who encompasses eternity.

Hence, the Messiah must be fully man and fully God without confounding either.

 

I don't know that I'd say "or...or...or"

I'm firmly convinced that nustification relates to multiple concepts in scripture. That was what I was getting at in post #2

Martin opened up with a feeble case of justification relating almost exclusively to legal standing. Now - while that is one concept to which justification can be applied, it is hardly the only.

Even Paul did not limit his use of justified to that one concept, nor did he "define" justification for us.

But just like the ink blot bat, men seem only able to see justification in Romans 5 in the same way that Paul meant it in Romans 3-4

And James used it even differently from those, probably closer to what Paul was expounding in Romans 2

 

The word justify is only used in two possible senses - declare righteous or made righteous. In the context of Romans 3:24-5:2 it cannot mean "make righteous" as the context utterly denies that meaning. Romans 5 is an extension of Paul's doctrine of justification based upon Christ acting as the Second Adam

He most certainly does define what he means by justify in Romans 3:24-5:2. He defines it with ultimate precision. He defines it by contrast. He defines it by comparison. He defines it by exclusions. He defines it by inclusions. He defines by adjectival phrases. Justification is exquisitely defined with the utmost precision one can define a term.

Paul provides a very detailed definitive doctrine of justification in Romans 3:24-5:2

 

First, you need to realize that I think the preserved accounts of the apostolic fathers, Ante, Nicene, Post-nicene fathers are the preservation of the record of apostasy rather than the preservation of the records of the true churches of Christ. It is full of error and characteristic of all sorts of errors.

Your view is simply wrong and I have detailed why it is wrong. And yes that is my opinion but I am not here to express the opinions of others.

Wrong again! I am discussing scripture interpretation and harmonization of scripture teaching which naturally leads to either a Biblical based philosophical explanation or unbiblical philosphical explanation.

 

I do not believe in "sacred tradition" and these accounts are the basis for that Catholic doctrine. Furthermore, such records are uninspired, incomplete and more often inaccurate. Third, if you embrace Post-nicene Records you will become a Roman or Greek Orthodox Catholic and so to avoid that natural conclusion you must admit they are uninspired, incomplete and often inaccurate. The Post-Nicene are the logical development of the Nicene, and the Nicene the logical development of the Ante-Nicene, all of which were carefully selected and preserved by Catholic monks who are notoriously untrustworthy.

Last, the inspired prophetic record of church history demonstrates clearly that the Catholic Records characterize and preserve predicted APOSTATE CHRISTIANITY. Whatever truth may be found in these uninspired, incomplete and more often inaccurate records is not the rule but the exception to the rule.

Predicted apostate Christianity is a STATE CHURCH union type of Christianity. It is a PERSECUTING type of Christianity. It is Christianity that preaches and teaches an practices another gospel by its definition of the church and ordinances - THIS IS THE CHRISTIANITY described in these records - apostate.

 

When Christ and the Apostles predict the future of apostolic Christianity in comparison with predicted apostate christianity the "church fathers" accurately portray the predicted apostate type of Christianity.

1. Apostate Christianity will be a persecuting Christianity - Jn. 16:1-4;
2. Apostate Christianity will deny "the faith" once delivered - 1 Tim. 4:1
3. Apostate Christianity will preach "another gospel"
4. Apostate Christianity will arise from within and without apostolic churches - Acts 20:29-30
5. Apostate Christianity will be in union with secular government - Rev. 17:1-6
6. Apostate Christianity will pervert and distort true New Testament Christianity - Mat. 13:11-13
7. Apostate Christianity will characterize such doctrines as listed in 1 Tim. 4:3-5; Gal. 1:8-9; etc.

These things things characterize the "Christianity" or "Christian Church" as found recorded in the "Fathers" from the third century to the 16th century.

Apostate Christianity will increasing grow from the close of the apostolic era to the second coming of Christ- it will wax worse and worse until Jesus rhetorically asks "shall I find faith" when he comes (Lk. 18:8). The parable of the professing kingdom in Matthew 13 is an ever increase of apostate counterfeit professing kingdom while the true see are "hid" in the professing stuff.

 

both western and eastern are apostate through and through. I accept ONLY what harmonizes with scripture and what is predicted by Scripture while identifying what Scriptures predicts as characteristic of apostate Christianity. Everything found in uninspired history is biased from finite human perspective.

That is a very simplisitic and unbiblical analysis. The Scriptures are very careful in using specific chosen terms to describe what it is and what it is not. There is plenty of Scripture definition to form a biblical doctrine of the union of God and man in the one Person of Christ without inventing a new God nature (manplusgod) after the incarnation.

 

No I don't and you just don't know it. The ORAL tradition passed down by the Apostles is finalized and expressed in WRITTEN FORM as final authority over any professed oral traditions in existence regardless of whom the origin is attributed to.

Therefore, if products of oral tradition outside of the Scriptures does not harmonize with the Written record of Apostolic tradition then there is "no light in them" (Isa. 8:20).

 

Wrong on both counts. My position of the atonement has nothing to do with the Reformers or the Reformation or with secular records but with a personal study of Scripture. For example, have you ever once seen me quote anyone outside of scripture to support any aspect of my belief on the atonement? You have not and never will.

It is not what they VEIWED as heresy but what they VIEWED and PRACTICED as heresy that made them apostate. I believe the Reformers are nothing more or less than REFORMED ROMAN CATHOLICS. Indeed, that is their own testimony as they claimed to be REFORMERS of Roman Catholicism not repudiators of Roman Catholicism. They are apostate Christianity as they are characterized by the very same predicted charcteristics of apostate Christianity (state church union; apostate gospel - sacramentsal theology, etc.). I believe true apostolic Christiaity is preserved among those the state churches persecuted, and distorted as "heretics" the "free church" movement.