Featured What is Justification by faith?

To "gain approval" before God and to be "justified before God" is one and the same thing. Those not "justified before God" are not approved by God. Those not approved by God and not "justified before God."

. To "impute" righteousness and not to impute sin IS justification. Justification IS NOT simply imputed righteousness. Paul's argument is that Abraham was justifiED at the point of gospel faith - meaning he was imputed righteousness at the point of gospel faith and sin was remitted at the point of gospel faith. You do not believe that! You deny actual justification existed until after Christ while Paul completely repudiates your view.

You are dissecting Biblical justification and then pitting one part against another or treating one part as not essential to the whole. Justification IS imputed righteousness AND remission of sins. Anything short of those two inseparable elements is not Biblical justification then or now.

By "the blood of the EVERLASTING COVENANT" (Heb. 13:20). "The blood" merely represents the provision promised in the gospel. The "blood" cleanses our conscience but it is not literal blood that literally cleanses our conscience but what the literal blood represents - the truth of the gospel. Our conscience rightly condemns us due to our violation of our conscience. However it is the TRUTH of the gospel that removes the guilt and quiets the conscience. The gospel is the good news that God's provision for sin and righteousness is sufficient to satisfy all the demands of the law, thus making peace with God. Our conscience can no longer condemn us because the TRUTH of the gospel is that all of our sins are satisfied by God's provision. Faith embraces that and thus the conscience is cleared and quieted. This "blood" was proclaimed in every sacrifice, as every sacrifice declared this promised provision obtained at the point of faith in the gospel.

Yes, both were at the point of faith as God applied the blood to them based upon PROMISE as declared in the gospel. Paul uses the Aorist and Perfect tense to prove they were completely and forever justified at the point of gospel faith.

First you say Abraham was NOT JUSTIIFED and then you say Abraham was credited for righteousness as though they are two different subjects. THEY ARE NOT! You are just emptying Biblical justification of its necessary and essential content. There is no crediting of righteouness wehre there is no justification. There is no crediting for righteousness where there is no remission of sins. There is no remission of sins or crediting of righteousness where there is no justification. You have created an artificial distinction between "crediting for righteousness" and "justification" when they are ONE AND THE SAME THING. Romans 4:1-4 proves they are one and the same thing as Justification by works is contrasted to justified by faith whereas crediting them with righteousness is the objective of both!!!

I am not going to get side tracked, so forget it!

Your statement is oxymoronic as Justification is "BLESSEDNESS" he speaks. Justification IS being credited for righteousness and justification IS remission of sins so thoroughly there is no future crediting of sin.

You are inventing a false dichotomy that does not exist between justification and imputed righteousness whereas the context denies this false dichotomy.

Sorry, I am not going after this rabbit trail either but staying with the text (Rom. 3-5).

Here's the deal you don't know what you are talking about! The context makes it extremely clear that justification IS being credited righteousness before God and IS remission of sins and anything less is false doctrine of imputed righteousness as well as a false doctrine of justification by faith.

Paul disagrees. He said Abraham was completely justified before God at the point of gospel faith based wholly upon God's promise of the coming provision. That provision when it occurred "justified God" for applying justification to all Old Testament believers.

 

You can't deal with Romans as it condemns your position. You can't deal with any context where the term "justified" occurs because it condemns your position. Hebrews 10:10-14 is dealing with sanctification not justification.

They were PERFECTED "in Christ" before the world began by PURPOSE (Eph. 1:4). They were PERFECTED "in Christ" at the point of justification legally and positionally. They ARE being perfected "in Christ" by progressive sanctification. They WILL BE perfected in Christ at glorification. They are perfected by "the blood of the everlasting covenant" to their persons at any time in history. They are perfected "in Christ" at the point of historical PROVISION. However, the good news of the gospel is that Old Testament saints could be PERFECTED LEGALLY "before God" by justification at the point of faith.

 

You miss the obvious. Paul uses the Aorist and Pefect tense "justified" and then restricts it within the limits of his life of "uncircumcision" demanding it was a COMPLETED act of justification - meaning their sins were remitted and removed as far as the east is from the west, meaning they were positionally righteous before the law of God at the moment of gospel faith.

The only way you can get around this in the context is to create a false dichotomy between "justified" and "imputed righteousness."

 

I don't think I am confusing you with another person. Are you denying that at one time on this forum you denied that infants were born depraved with a sin nature?

 

The positions of both Van and Darrell crumble when you properly define the Biblical content of justification.

Van must create a false dichotomy between the word "justified" and "credit righteousness." In reality there is no such thing as "justified before God" without righteousness being credited as without it the person remains unrighteous and condemned "before God." There is no such thing as "justified" without "remission of sins" as without it the person remains condemned under sin. To be justified is to be credited righteousness and sins remitted.

Darrell uses the term "justified" but denies its contents. He uses the term "justified" but defines it as inclusive of works plus faith when the Bible clearly and explicitly repudiates any kind of justification that includes works. He confuses sanctification with justification.

So in short, both Van and Darrell must deny the Biblical content of "justified" and thus pervert the Biblical doctrine to support their theory that none could be actually justified as we are until the historical event of the cross.

The Aorist and Perfect tenses joined with the time restriction of the justified event within the confines of uncircumcision completely repudiate both of their veiws.

 

No one denies that the historicity of the cross must occur as God promised it would occur and without its occurrence God would have been proven to be a liar.

However, it is not the necessity of the historicity of the cross that is being argued. What is being argued is whether or not God could APPLY the benefits of the cross based on God's promise that the historicity would indeed occur.

This question should be no controversy because it is self-evident that all the fruits of the Spirit are manifested in the personal lives of all the Old Testament saints and such fruits cannot originate within spiritual vacuums. They cannot originate from "the flesh" as it is depraved and anti-god.

If either Van's or Darrell's positions were true, then they would consistently deny that any salvational characteristic could be manifested in or by persons before the cross. Yet, they are not consistent with their theory as the evidence is self-evident that such a view is foolish.

The fact is that remission of sins "ARE" a personal fact in the life of Abraham and David WITHOUT works and WITHOUT sacrifices. That imputed righteousness is a personal reality between God and Abraham and between God and David. That "justification" is NON-EXISTENT without both and therefore to admit they were "justified" is to admit their positions are erroneous. (capitals for emphasis only).

 

These are all absurd strawman arguments. However, for the present I will deal with only one and that one is the downfall of the whole positions of both Van and Darrell. Van says:

Readers, here is where the whole position by van and Darrel breaks down and collapses and it is easy to demonstrate they are in error when they imagine a dichotomy between justification and imputed righteousness. Here is the unanswerable evidence:

1 ¶ What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Paul is not arguing about whether Abraham was justified or not, but he is arguing that he was not "justified by works" but by something else. The only other option offered in this entire context to "works" for justification is "by faith." Notice verse 5 and the only two possible options provided "worketh not BUT believeth."

The Jews believed that righteousness was obtained "by works" in addition to "faith" or faithfulness to God's commandments, such a person they regarded as "godly." Paul is refuting that idea as he claims that righteousness and remission of sins is obtained "by faith WITHOUT WORKS" and by one who is "ungodly" with regard to his own person by the standard of God's own righteousness or glory ("fall have sinned and COME SHORT OF THE GLORY of God"). Thus Abraham was not Justified by works but obtained righteousness and remission of sins by faith alone WITHOUT works.

In Paul's mind, justification before God IS based wholly upon being righteous and without sins and therefore to be "justified" must be inclusive of being righteous and without sin before God or one is not justified "before God." Therefore, imputed righteousness and remission of sins are irrefutably inseparable from justification before God.

Van is denying the obvious and manufacturing a dichotomy that does not exist in Romans 3-4. Everything else he bases his arguments on are mere distractions from the real issue. When the real issue is seen, meaning Justification before God IS being righteous and without sin then all the other distractions can be properly addressed.

Since this is the ultimate bottom line upon which both Van's and Darrell's whole theory rests,if they are wrong here they are wrong in all the little diversions they want us to take up valuable time with.

Any objective Bible student can easily and clearly see what I am saying here is absolute indisputable truth. I am not trying to convince either Van or Darrell because that is a fools errand. God alone is capable for doing that. I am simply exposing their error and this truth fully exposes their error.

There is no point in following any other rabbit trail. This issue settles it once and for all. If they are wrong here they are wrong altogether.

In Paul's mind justification is not obtained by works but by faith and what faith obtains is justification or what is defined as imputed righteousness and remission of sins. Abraham is the model of justification by faith both THEN and NOW and no matter how many times Van may deny Abraham was FULLY and COMPLETELY justified Paul places indisputable evidences that Van will never attempt to approach honestly or objectively. Those evidences are aorist and perfect tense verbs and narrowly confined within the time of uncircumcision which proves it was a COMPLETED action. Moreover, the perfect tense takes the reader back to the POINT of faith, which is the ONLY ALTERNATIVE provided by Paul in contrast to "by works." This demonstrates it is a completed action at the point of faith in the promised gospel provision. As a completed action it inherently includes application at that very same point in time and so such a person can be called "The Blessed Man" - vv. 6-8.

 

God has a "soul" and it is not blood and man was made in the image of God and God does not have a body or "breath" but "is spirit."

 

Man is made in the image of God and God has a soul and spirit and they are not blood nor breath. Man's "soul" cannot be killed by man (Mt. 10:28) yet blood is destroyed by man at death as it returns to dust. The "spirit" of man goes UPWARD and returns to God at death but "breath" dissipates into the atmosphere. So the cultist idea that man's soul is nothing but "blood" and his spirit is nothing but breath is completely repudiated by Scripture. Man is more than biological life, his soul and spirit are like unto God whose soul and spirit exist apart from a biological life form.

No, Paul tells you explicity who the "seed" singular was and it was Christ (Gal. 3:16)

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

No, "of faith" means in context of Galatian's that you are a beleiver in the gospel of Christ (Gal. 3:6-7; 22,24,26)

Faith is a gift of God, a fruit of the Spirit and thus the fruit of regeneration. The lost man is without God, thus without life, without light and without holiness (Eph. 4:18-19). Regneration is the creative work of God whereby light of knowledge is created in the darkness of the human heart (2 Cor. 4:6). That light of "knowledge" is said to be specific knowlege ("of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ" - 2 Cor. 4:6) and this knowledge is the substance and hope of faith which is eternal life (Jn. 17:3). Therefore we are "created in Christ Jesus" by quickening/new birth (Eph. 2:1,5,10).

The Old Testaments tells us plainly who "annointed Christ as well as the New Testament. He was annointed by his fellows or equals - God the Father anointed him by the power of God the Holy Spirit. This is plainly seen in his baptism.

Nothing changed. It was totally righteous for Christ to not want to be made sin as he had resisted sin unto death (Heb. 12:3-4). If there could be any other way it would be a righteous desire to accomplish it another way without being made sin and separated from his Father. There is no sin here. There is no change of mind here. Indeed, if the holy and righteous Christ had not desired this it would have been sin as to desire to be made sin is sin.

You forget he was totally man as much as totally God and his humanity had to grow in knowledge and wisdom. He "learned obedience" just as any other man "learns." That does not mean he learned it through trial and ERROR as no sin was found in him neither did he sin.

The word means "necessary" or "needful" and as a man it was necessary and needful for him to GROW physically, GROW in wisdom...GROW in knowledge. As the Second Adam he must demonstrate obedience rather than disobedience to God in order to inherit what Adam disinherited by disobedience.

Your problem is that you are failing to see Christ as fully man and yet fully God. Your problem is the same problem that JW's have both with Christ and the soul and spirit of man. They only see HALF-truths and that is your problem. You refuse to accept anything but HALF-truths on these subjects.

Now, you are attempting to derail this thread on these obsessions you seemingly cannot reconcile in your own mind. Nearly every thread you attempt to inject these same questions into regardless of the subject of the thread. Please create your own thread if you want to continue in your half-truth journey.

 

Van's position on justification in Romans 4 with regard to Abraham and David is simply it did not happen. Both Van and Darrell deny the inherent Biblical content of the term "justify" in order to maintain their false theories.

The opposite of the term "justifiy" is "condemn." The Law is what manifests the "glory of God" or the righteousness of God:

But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ

Paul's argument here is very very simple. Formerly the Law and the interpreters of the Law (the prophets) were the means to "manifest....the righteousness of God." If one wanted to know what God's righteousness is, he need only to study the Law and those inspired interpreters of the law and they would reveal what is God's rightousness or his glory. God's righteousness is the only righteousness accepted by God as His own righteousness is the standard demanded by the Law. Therefore to violate just "one point" of the law is to violate every point of the Law because the law's standard is sinless perfection as that is God's righteousness - "be ye therefore PERFECT EVEN AS your Father in heaven is perfect." That is God's standard.

The word "condemn" or "condemnation" is the consequence for "sin" which is to "come short of the glory of God" or coming short of God's standard of righteousness (holiness).

In contrast, the term "justify" requires that this standard of righteousness be attained and sin be totally removed or remitted. This righteousness "of God" is obtained "by faith of Jesus Christ." Remission of sins is also obtained by faith in Christ:

Rome. 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe:

Acts 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness that WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH upon his name shall receive remission of sins.

Therefore, it is "by faith" that both the righteousness of God and remission of sins are obtained. The term "justify" is inherently inseparable from that condition of having the righteousness of God and remission of sins or else they are still under "condemnation" for having "sinned and come short of the glory of God." The Jews believed this content meaning of justify was by a mixture of faith plus works (as Darrel believes) but Paul claims that the righteousness of God and remission of sins, which is the Biblical content meaning of justification "before God" was by faith. When one understands the grounds of "condemnation" there is no other possible option for the content meaning of "justified before God" but having obtained the righteousness of God and remission of sins. The repudiation that this content meaning is obtained "without works" demands it can only be obtained by imputation or is an alien righteousness that cannot originate in by spiritual union (regeneration) or through by progressive sanctification but must be obtained "by faith" in the good news of a sufficient substitutionary provision.

Van and Darrell want to separate this "righteousness" and "remission of sins" from the term "justify." That is the only way their repudiation of the Biblical CONTENT meaning of justify with regard to Abraham, David and all Old Testament saints will stand. If they admit to this content meaning of "justify....justified" then they are forced to admit that there is a distinction between APPLICATION based on divine promise versus historical PROVISION. They will be forced to admit that "the blood" is used in scripture as a metaphor for the good news or knowlege of the gospel, which knowlege is what literally cleanses the conscience freeing it from guilt of "condemnation" because they have the righteousness of God credited to their account and their sins fully remitted - thus a cleansed conscience from sin.


Therefore, Romans 3:25-26 actually teaches that God applied the blood of Christ (v. 24) or the knowledge of the good news that the provision promised in the gospel could be received by faith before the historical provision occurred based solely upon God's promise it would occur. Therefore, when the actual provision occurred it JUSTIFIED GOD - (not make him righteous, but declared him righteous) for having justified believers from sins in the past before the cross occurred. Hence, they were fully saved as much as we are (regenerated, justified, progressively sanctified, indwelt by the Spirit and entered heaven) and now together with us they are waiting to be perfected by glorification at the second coming of Christ.

God acts according to his eternal purpose of redemption rather than according to time and space fulfillment's of prophecy. Van ties God's redemptive applications to historical events instead of God's eternal purpose of redemption. Therefore, it is received by faith whether before or after the cross based upon the promise of God. It is "the blood of the EVERLASTING covenant" (Heb. 13;20) and "the blood shed before the foundation of the world" (Rev. 13:8). It's application is not dependent upon the historical event but upon the veracity of God's promise that this event would occur as God "calleth those things which be not as though they were" (Rom. 4:17).


However, both Darrell and Van will vehemently deny this last paragraph above as truth. But remember, the truths of this last paragraph is their only other option when their false dichotomy and emptying out the Biblical meaning of "justified" is exposed as error, and it is obvious error. The term "justify" is inclusive of the righteousness of God and remission of sins or else the word "justify" is meaningless "before God."