Featured What is Justification by faith?

And not a single word about men not being justified.

You cannot validate your charge and you need to at least admit this to yourself.

You are only going to make things worse for yourself. Which is what you do here.

Its not my claim, it is the teaching of Scripture, which, I would add, you have falsely accused me of denying, just as you falsely charge me with denying the justification of the Old Testament Saint.

I cannot put it any simpler terms than I do above.

And still nothing about Old Testament Saints not being justified.

That is what you were asked to quote me on, Biblicist.


Continued...

 

Spot on Darrell C!! You may wonder why such an absurd position is pushed that is so unbiblical. The logic goes like this. The OT saints could not have obtained approval through faith unless they were altered by irresistible grace, according to the nameless doctrine. Regeneration before faith ring a bell? Therefore they were "quickened" or "made alive" before Christ died. How could this be accomplished? Why you take the "promised blood" and use it to regenerate, make alive, quicken the OT saints, so they can gain approval. And of course, if the promised blood is applied, the sin burden is washed away, and the OT saints are justified by the promised blood. then you redefine "perfected" so that they really did not have to wait in Abraham's bosom. If this concoction was not so sad, it might be viewed as over the top funny.

 

No, you will sit back in fear that your error might be exposed and your ego damaged...



And it will be, so sit back, be patient, your dishonesty is made very clear in this latest post.


God bless.

 

Now watch this, Biblicist, you are trying to prove that my words are empty, and presenting it as a fulfillment of my challenge to you to provide a quote that shows I said Old Testament Saints were not justified.

In the next few statements you will wrest the context of what I have said:

These are not my "explanations," amigo, they are simply Basic bible truths you reject.

You know full well when I say "they did not receive remission of sins" that is not me saying they didn't receive remission of sins at all, it is in a context of a discussion that distinguishes between Eternal Remission through Christ and the remission of sins provided through vicarious animal sacrifice.

Its right there in what I say in the above quote.

Funny how you charge others with wresting context and then present such blatant violation of context of an antagonist.

Now where in anything I say here do you see me saying the Old Testament Saint was not justified? The context is dealing with remission of sins, and is specific to the contrast drawn by the Writer of Hebrews between that which is temporal (and could not take away sins, which means, amigo, they were not forgiven on an eternal basis), and Remission which is Perfect.

The former has an animal dying, the latter is the Lord offering up Himself.

Now, again, please quote what it is that makes you think I teach Old Testament Saints were not justified?


Continued...

 

Again, the distinction between the Provision under the Law and in prior Ages to the Provision of Christ and the New Covenant.

I have done many posts making this distinction, and nothing I have said denies they were justified, or saved.

Just because you say my words are empty...doesn't make that true.

You are teaching that remission of sins is equable between the Ages and Hebrews teaches explicitly that it is not.

You have still failed to justify your charge, and you are still viewed as slandering.

Now find a quote that justifies your charge.

And when you do, we will look at it just as we are with this "proof."


Continued...

 

Can you tell me, if you are trying to show yourself an honest debater...why you would leave off the rest of my statement?

Here is what I said:

Link


Yet you post part of my statement in a desperate attempt to justify your false charges.

I told you before, Biblicist, this will only get worse for you. Set aside your pride and start dealing with the Doctrine.

And do I think anyone among your "friends" will acknowledge this point, and seek to help you from your current course of action?

Doubtful.

So you are still under a burden to quote me saying Old Testament Saints were not justified.

That you may have misunderstood a statement of mine is one thing, but after about three threads now of debating you, I can see that this is not the case. You are simply set on a course to slander, and whatever it takes to accomplish that you will resort to.

So quote me, Biblicist, I have nothing to fear in anything I have said, and I can again show you how it is not only relevant to the erroneous doctrine you teach, but where my Biblical Basis is found.

And by the way, this is a post that will likely be repeated. Wouldn't want anyone to miss such a clear picture of dishonest debate. I will likely import this to the thread you created to let those who agreed with you judge for themselves whether this is being dishonest in debate.

Continued...

 

Dishonorable.

Dishonorable.

It does not include the context in which it is stated, and does not draw the distinction between the two differing provisions for remission of sins.

However, if you would like to publicly state that the blood of bulls and goats brought about the same remission of sins on an eternal basis...

...do so now, and seek to restore your integrity as a debater.

And while your at it, still waiting for a quote in which I teach, either implicitly or explicitly...that Old Testament Saints were not justified.


Continued...

 

Still nothing about justification.

Here is the Biblical Basis, offered to you many times, for the above statement:


Hebrews 10:10-14

King James Version (KJV)


10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:

12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool.

14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.


I have also quote Hebrews 8 and 9, would you care to see them again?

I have pointed out that the New Covenant is the Covenant through which eternal remission was promised...and received:



Hebrews 10:15-18

King James Version (KJV)


15 Whereof the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he had said before,

16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.

18 Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.


That men received Eternal Redemption under the Law is carnal teaching, my friend.



Continued...

 

I stand by that statement. I do not divorce works and obedience from the Record of Scripture.

While Paul makes it clear righteousness was not imputed based on works, but faith, and was not a wage or reward, that does not nullify the truth of James' teaching that Abraham was in fact justified by works. The contrast would be to teach James is in error, that Abraham was not justified by his works.

How do you reconcile that?

Faith was evidenced in their obedience. Abraham believed God but evidenced his belief by being willing to sacrifice his son.

Do we nullify Abraham's obedience to God for the sake of making sure no-one thinks we are teaching works-based salvation?

Consider:


Hebrews 4

King James Version (KJV)

6 Seeing therefore it remaineth that some must enter therein, and they to whom it was first preached entered not in because of unbelief:


There is a correlation between faith and obedience, both explicitly as well as implicitly.

And to try to charge me with works-based doctrine only shows the level you will stoop to just to maintain the delusion of grandeur you so evidently suffer from.

If you actually understood my doctrine, Biblicist, you would not constantly be forced to create false arguments so you have someone to debate with which will not expose your error.


Continued...

 

I hope they make a difference. Hopefully if anyone does read this exchange they will see you trying to justify yourself with partial quotes and false arguments, and perhaps...caution you.

But it appears I ma the only friend you have here, Biblicist.


Continued...

 

Hmm, interesting.

And I quote:

Amigo, what is good for the goose is truly good for the gander.

Where have I done that?

Again...give a quote Biblicist.

My bottom line rests on one element of a very complex issue?

Absurd.

And that you correlate my doctrine with false arguments that you cannot even produce a single quote to justify it with makes it even more absurd.
I'm not even sure how you can possibly think that my doctrine rests upon a single issue, much less how you delude yourself that my doctrine can be dismantled by s singular issue.

And that is what upsets you...you frequently dismantle your own positions yet you cannot touch a singular point of my own doctrine.


Continued...

 

It is apparent you have no desire to talk with Darrell or Van, you simply want to speak at them, lol.

Jiminy crickets.

So tell me again, exactly which error of mine have you...exposed?

You're supposed to be exposing my error of teaching Old Testament Saints were not justified, remember?

How's that going for you, Biblicist. How much time have you spent reviewing our discussions?

Surely you have found something where I explicitly or even implicitly teach Old Testament Saints were not justified.


Continued...

 

This one's for you, @percho:

Then we must make the term soul mean something other than a reference to a person in totality, because when God created man...He didn't give man a soul, He made man a living soul.

Again, pulpit bred teachings that do not cover the full scale of what Scripture means when it refers to the soul.


Continued...

 

So please provide a quote that justifies your charge towards me.

You've had all day to do that.

Please quote me where I say that justification in a salvific context is a mixture of faith plus works. Then, you can address what I also say in that discussion concerning works and faith in regards to salvation.

You are not properly representing what I say, which is a dishonest debate tactic, so the next time you snivel about dishonest debate tactics keep in mind you are a hypocrite.

I can Biblically support men being justified by works, and that does not mean I teach men are saved by works.

But because I draw a distinction between the state of the Old Testament Saint who was saved by Grace through Faith, and the born again believer in relationship with God through the New Covenant, and you cannot comprehend that, you equate the two.

But this gives an opportunity to look at what the Jew Believed, including the disciples, which differs greatly from what the Apostles believed after Pentecost. Again, which is just one element of my doctrine you have sought to "expose," lol.

You can't do it, Biblicist. The strength of my Doctrine is based on numerous irrefutable Basic Bible Truths. That is why you resort to false arguments.


Continued...

 

So quote where I do this.

You seem to think just because you say something it is going to be accepted. That is the problem with some people, and their reaction to opposition to the supposed authority they think themselves to have is usually the same: emotional outburst.

Well guess what...I am not one who takes any man's word for granted, all are subject to the same standard, they must back up what they say with Scripture. I don't care if you are a Pastor, a Pope, or a deli meat salesman. You are not above the same test everyone else is subject to.

And I have tried your spirit, Biblicist, and found it wanting. Dishonorable, in fact.

Not vehemently, because the truth is, biblicist, most should be able to see the utter absurdity of your teaching by now. It is hypocritical, uses dishonest debate tactics, and has a habit of not only changing to suit your current understanding, but at times can be seen to seek to teach two opposing views.

And with that, think I'll go do something that will be profitable, cut some grass.

Still waiting for a quote that justifies your charge.

How appropriately titled this thread has turned out to be.


God bless.

 

I have read all the post in here and I admire your patience. But there must come a time when we must stop putting pearls before swine. I would say that on the debate thread passive aggressive and gaslighting should be included as I have seen plenty of that on this thread.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk