You've done it. Some of your own text was coming through as part of a quote.
It's fine now.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What is Justification by faith?
- Thread starter The Biblicist
- Start date
- Status
It's fine now.
Of course in your mind you think you have silenced me when in fact your responses primarily consisted of arguments based on circular reasoning, ignore contextual details spelled out in no uncertain terms and then rest of your responses are nothing but insults.
The truth is I am sick and tired of arguing with you about arguing with you. If you think you have nothing more to say then please remove your self from the debate. If you have something more to say then stick to the arguments being set forth in my posts. My arguments are specific and explicit, I would like someone to respond to those arguments from your camp with just as specific responses to those specific arguments without diversive tactics, insults, ridicule and mind games.
Now, back to the issues and the Romans 3-5 context.
Its always the other guy.
As I said...quote me denying that the Old Testament Saints were not justified.
You are being dishonest about this, and you can clear it up with a single quote.
Get busy.
When you do so, I will take up discussion with you again, but until then, I am quite content to let you continue to use dishonest debate tactics.
God bless.
What is it with you? of course you used the terms and made the claims. But terms with definitions contrary to the Biblical definitions are worthless and make your claims false.
Do I really have to quote you many times over saying that remission of sins was not obtained by faith in the gospel but that you believe they were obtained in connection with sacrifices? When in fact the Biblical content of Biblical justification IS remission of sins by faith and not by faith plus works or obedience and it is spelled out in black in white in Romans 4:5-8??????????????
Everybody on this forum who has got two cents of common sense knows you are playing word games?
I am through arguing with you about arguing with you. Either enter into this debate or please remove yourself as you are derailing this thread which is against forum rules.
So where is the quote to justify your charge?
Just one, Biblicist. That's all you need.
God bless.
The debate right now is whether you have been honest in your sharge against me.
No appeal for sympathy is going to change that, and no rule is being broken, unless it is false charges which are an attack.
You do not have liberty to raise false charges against another member and then cry foul when you are challenged...to back it up.
That's the debate. There is nothing in the rules that a member has to adopt your teaching simply because you have spoken.
In this thread, and the other, I am going to ask this same question for every post you make until you answer it. You can't answer what you want to answer and ignore that which challenges your teaching and really think...
...that is debate.
So I am full in, my friend, and that fact is you don't set the rules for what is debate and what isn't, particularly when your rules are make false statements about other members and refuse to back it up. I often say things that appear to be attacks but I try to give the reason for the statement/s.
Here is an example: I say your doctrine contradicts itself and can at times be seen to evolve in the process of a discussion. My proof? Well, how about the numerous posts concerning you saying infants have "no personal ability to discern right and wrong" which then, when you are forced to cede the point that we have an example of someone separated from God benefiting from the Grace of God, you start talking about John the Baptist understanding the good news of Christ's birth.
So which is it?
And I will cede the point that John and any infant can benefit from the ministry of the Holy Ghost in that Age, but...that is just another facet of my own doctrine, and comes into no conflict with my view that men were not born again before Pentecost.
And I don't even know why I am wasting my time with this, lol, because you would not address these issues before, so not sure why you would now.
Again, at this time...quote me saying the Old Testament Saints were not justified. You know you can't. I know you can't, because I know what my doctrine is. I don't have to worry that you can find me saying that.
God bless.
Yet again we have my supposed positions misrepresented without providing quotes of what I actually said. Anyone who pays attention to how my views are portrayed by the nameless doctrine proponents is naive.
Now let's turn to Biblicists points he is willing to debate.
1) He can certainly choose the positions to which he wants to respond.
2) No one is debating that Paul addresses justification based on faith in Romans.
3) No one is debating that Abraham is used to present how faith in Christ result in justification. But when and where that justification occurs is under debate.
4) No OT saint was justified before Christ died. Romans 3:24
5) No one is debating that "Adamic sin is what made all men sinners by nature and spiritually dead/separated from God and thus they come into the world already condemned, already dead in sins by nature at conception.
6) No one is debating that Scripture is the final authority in presenting Paul's doctrine of justification based on faith.
Thus the only point is #4, So why so much misdirection?
Now let's turn to Biblicists points he is willing to debate.
1) He can certainly choose the positions to which he wants to respond.
2) No one is debating that Paul addresses justification based on faith in Romans.
3) No one is debating that Abraham is used to present how faith in Christ result in justification. But when and where that justification occurs is under debate.
4) No OT saint was justified before Christ died. Romans 3:24
5) No one is debating that "Adamic sin is what made all men sinners by nature and spiritually dead/separated from God and thus they come into the world already condemned, already dead in sins by nature at conception.
6) No one is debating that Scripture is the final authority in presenting Paul's doctrine of justification based on faith.
Thus the only point is #4, So why so much misdirection?
I see Martin has chimed in with his own misrepresentations. Good grief
1) No one said, saving faith was based on believing the right historical doctrine.
2) Saving faith is our faith, no matter how flawed, that God, who knows our heart, credits as righteousness.
3) 2 Corinthians 5:21 say we became the righteousness of God in Him. Romans 5:19 says the many (everyone placed in Christ) will be "made" righteous. This is done by the washing of regeneration, the circumcision of Christ.
4) Justification occurs when we are washed by Christ's blood, Romans 3:24.
5) No one is advocating Easy Believism.
1) No one said, saving faith was based on believing the right historical doctrine.
2) Saving faith is our faith, no matter how flawed, that God, who knows our heart, credits as righteousness.
3) 2 Corinthians 5:21 say we became the righteousness of God in Him. Romans 5:19 says the many (everyone placed in Christ) will be "made" righteous. This is done by the washing of regeneration, the circumcision of Christ.
4) Justification occurs when we are washed by Christ's blood, Romans 3:24.
5) No one is advocating Easy Believism.
Darrel C, I said you should speak for yourself. And please tell me which of the Arminian doctrines you disavow? Arminians believe in total spiritual inability. They overwrite it with Prevenient Grace. Your, "must be enlightened" sounds similar. Thus you seem to be more Arminian than me.
Yet again Biblicist has misrepresented my view without quoting it. Here is his fabrication.
But my position from Hebrew 11:2 is that all the OT saints gained approval through faith. And Paul uses Abraham (Romans 4:4-5/24) to show that NT saints also have their faith credited as righteousness in the same way.
Abraham had to wait to be made perfect, NT saints do not, because our faith is credited after Christ died.
No one claimed Abraham's approval was based on works, rather than faith. God knows the heart and credited Abraham's faith as righteousness based on that, and not works.
Next we get absurdity, the idea someone asserted that people were not unholy at the point where they were justified. Good Grief, God is the justifier of the unjust.
Justification occurs during regeneration, as born anew new creations we have been justified, made righteous, blameless, perfect, and holy.
But my position from Hebrew 11:2 is that all the OT saints gained approval through faith. And Paul uses Abraham (Romans 4:4-5/24) to show that NT saints also have their faith credited as righteousness in the same way.
Abraham had to wait to be made perfect, NT saints do not, because our faith is credited after Christ died.
No one claimed Abraham's approval was based on works, rather than faith. God knows the heart and credited Abraham's faith as righteousness based on that, and not works.
Next we get absurdity, the idea someone asserted that people were not unholy at the point where they were justified. Good Grief, God is the justifier of the unjust.
Justification occurs during regeneration, as born anew new creations we have been justified, made righteous, blameless, perfect, and holy.
Last edited:
Please notice that my posts 28, 29 and 31 addressed misrepresentations. Justification based on faith is an extremely important topic. But rather than address it, I must spend an inordinate amount of time addressing the misrepresentations (with no quotes to support) posted by opponents.
If we translate the preposition "ek" as based on, "dia" as through, "ex" as from, and the construction lacking a separate preposition as by, and arrange the phrases to make the meaning more clear,we get these translations of our verses:
Romans 3:28 For we consider a person to be justified by faith apart from the works of the law.
Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified based on faith through our Lord Jesus Christ, we have peace with God.
Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a person is not justified from the works of the law but through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, even we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified based on the faithfulness of Christ and not from the works of the law, because from the works of the law no one will be justified.
Galatians 3:24 Thus the law has become our escort to Christ, so that we could be justified based on faith.
In summary, we are justified based on our faith in Christ being credited as righteousness by God through the faithfulness of Christ on the cross.
If we translate the preposition "ek" as based on, "dia" as through, "ex" as from, and the construction lacking a separate preposition as by, and arrange the phrases to make the meaning more clear,we get these translations of our verses:
Romans 3:28 For we consider a person to be justified by faith apart from the works of the law.
Romans 5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified based on faith through our Lord Jesus Christ, we have peace with God.
Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a person is not justified from the works of the law but through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ, even we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified based on the faithfulness of Christ and not from the works of the law, because from the works of the law no one will be justified.
Galatians 3:24 Thus the law has become our escort to Christ, so that we could be justified based on faith.
In summary, we are justified based on our faith in Christ being credited as righteousness by God through the faithfulness of Christ on the cross.
Last edited:
But that is not what the Bible teaches. Romans 4:1-11 demonstrates they received justification at that time and as a completed action, not some time after the cross.
First, you are jumping out of context into a completely different context. "Perfect" in Hebrews 11:39-40 is still something we are waiting with them for and that is still in the future from our own day: The preceding context makes this "promise" clear that it is not justification or regeneration or progressive sanctification but glorification in the heavenly Jerusalem:
9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.
39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.
How can you simply ignore the context? He is clearly speaking of something even future from our day not regeneration or justification or progressive sanctification but becoming "perfect" sinless in a sinless new heaven and earth with a heavenly Jerusalem. The word "justify" or "justification" is not found in this context at all. . He is speaking of something not located in this present earth but the cross and salvation is located in this present earth. Come on let's be honest with the context! Don't use this text again unless you can contextually demonstrate your interpretation.
I am dealing with Darrel's view and your view and he does define justification in the Old Testament by faith plus works, obedience to the Law and sacrifices. Moreover, your view is futuristic not a present application of justification, therefore no completed act of justification at all in their life time. However, the text repudiates your futuristic view by claiming it occurred as a completed action within the period of his life characterized by uncircumcision and repudiating it as a progressive incomplete action that would carry it into his life characterized by circumcision.
Come on! Paul says it was completed action within his uncircumcised life not some futuristic hope or futuristic action yet to occur. You know fully well the debate is whether they were actually justified as a COMPLETED ACTION in their life time versus an action not completed until the cross.
More nonsense! You don't believe they were regenerated so why this sophist argument? Do you believe they were regenerated and justified as a completed action at the point of faith????
Good grief, give us a break will you! I certainly can choose what I want to debate or are you the owner of this forum or God???? What do you think "thread" subjects are? Why do think it is against rules to derail a thread subject???
We are in fact arguing about the very essence of what justification is, what faith is, and what imputed righteousness is and thus what "justification by faith" is in Romans 4. I am charging both you and Darrell with complete and utter denial and perversion of the doctrine of justification as set forth in Romans 3-5.
You obviously don't understand the nature of this argument. You are in fact denying that Abraham is being set forth as the example of justification by faith as a completed action. You deny the very essence of justificaiton and that is justification IS remission of sins and IS imputed righteousness based upon the provision of the Gospel which is accessed, embraced and applied by faith in the gospel.
Therefore no one was justified!!!! Good grief, can't you connect your own arguments together? This admission totally repudiates all of your response above.
Again, I am debating both views (Darrell's and Van's) and Darrell certainly does not share our view and neither did you share this view a few years ago.
Remember this when you have no other recourse to defend your view but historians.
Misinformation. Faith is consistently defined in this context as resting on the Person of God with regard to his promised provision as revealed in His gospel. Hence, in reality justification is NOT based "upon" or "on" Faith but "in" God's Person and Promised gospel provisions. Faith merely embraces the gospel truth and thereby that truth is personally embraced, and becomes the "substance' and "hope" of faith and thus snyonymous with faith. Therefore, it is "through" faith the truth of the gospel is applied by God to the believer. That application is by imputation, thus counting the righteousness of God and remission of sins promised in the gospel provision as legally belonging to the believer. Thus justification is based upon Christ's substitutionary provisions for sin and righteousness as directly applied in Romans 3:24-26 and Romans 4:22-25.
Last edited:
Here is the "that. "My position from Hebrew 11:2 is that all the OT saints gained approval through faith. And Paul uses Abraham (Romans 4:4-5/24) to show that NT saints also have their faith credited as righteousness in the same way.
Two very different view. How are we justified? By the blood of Christ. That is what the bible teaches, Romans 5:9. Was Abraham justified or David justified before Christ died? Of course not. Was Abraham's faith credited as righteousness? Yes! His faith, his faith, his faith. Was David justified? Nope. But David does indicate a person receives blessings when his or her faith is credited as righteousness. Where does this go upon death? To Abraham's bosom and not Hades, because their faith was credited to them as righteousness.
Here is the deal, when a person's faith is credited to the person as righteousness, they are not justified. But when a person is subsequently placed in Christ, they are justified by the blood of Christ.
The error being presented by Biblicist is to claim a person is justified when their faith is credited to them as righteousness. However, for OT saints, Christ's sacrifice had not yet occurred, so they had to wait in Abraham's bosom.
But here is the biblical view:
Hebrews 10:14
For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. Everyone set apart in Christ, has been, past tense, perfected.
I am not going to address your view of Darrel's supposed view.
Everyone is unholy until justified by the blood of Christ. No one was justified before Christ died.
Next, yet another misrepresentation, no one was justified before Christ died.
If Abraham had been justified, he would have not have had to wait in Abraham's bosom until the blood of Christ was spilled.
I am sorry to say Biblicist has ceased to present anything to address. Romans 3:24 proves his view is bogus. And his response is to claim it invalidates my view.
Everyone is unholy until justified by the blood of Christ. No one was justified before Christ died.
Next, yet another misrepresentation, no one was justified before Christ died.
If Abraham had been justified, he would have not have had to wait in Abraham's bosom until the blood of Christ was spilled.
I am sorry to say Biblicist has ceased to present anything to address. Romans 3:24 proves his view is bogus. And his response is to claim it invalidates my view.
Last edited:
- Status