Featured The Myth of "faith being credited for Righteousness"

21 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 unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:


Paul says that it is the righteousness "of God" that is "witnessed" by the law and the prophets but is now "manifested" without the law. This same righteousness of God is "unto [eis] all and upon [epi] all them that believe." The first preposition [eis] is prepostion of movement modifying the accusative "pantas" shows that this movement terminates with "all". The second preposition is one of non-movement [epi]. This proves that the first "all" and the second "all" refer to the same people - "the believing ones" (participle). Paul is saying that this righteousness of God is received "by faith" which has for its object Jesus Christ (objective genitive). That Paul intends for this to be interpreted as an objective genitive is made clear in verses 24-26 as he repeats that this faith is "in" Jesus Christ (v. 26) including "in" his blood (v. 24). Hence, this is not mere undefined faith or random believing that has no designated content or object.

However, the double prepositions in verse 22 demonstrate this righteousness of God becomes the possession of the believer. The first preposition with the accusative demands the action terminates with believing and is "upon" the believer. He is clearly saying that the righteousness "of God" becomes the righteousness of the believer by faith (not by the cross or by some later transaction 2000 years later). How this transfer of God's righteousness unto the believer occurs is explained by the word "impute" demanding that the term translated "impute" refers to the actual transfer of God's righteousness so that it terminate with and rests upon the believer. Paul explicitly uses the Aorist tense that demands the transferral of this righteousness "had" already occurred at the point of faith while Abraham was still in uncircumcision.

And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of 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:

In fact, if this righteousness had not been transferred already to Abraham at the point of faith as the above text clearly demands, then the preceding two verses are completely nonsensical as the whole point of these verses is to prove that this "blessedness" of justification had been received BEFORE he was circumcised:

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

Not only does Paul thoroughly repudiate and expose Van's interpertation as false but if Van's interpretation had any merit whatseover, Paul should have said, "Cometh this blessedness then upon post-cross believers only, or upon the pre-cross beleivers also?" If Van's view had any merit whatsoever, Paul should not even have considered the timing ("when") of justification with regard to Abraham's uncircumcision or circumcision as Van denies he received at all regardless in uncirumcision or circumcision, thus making Paul's point absolutely pointless. Van's view is thoroughly repudiated by Paul and Van can do absolutely nothing but his usual response - ridicule! He can't deal with the text, the grammar or anything except ridicule and reassert his proven false doctrine.

 

And on and on it goes mouthing without substance or scripture. On and on it goes personal opinions, bias, jerking texts out of context, and repeating nothing just to repeat nothing again over and over and over and over and over........

 

21 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 unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:


Paul says that it is the righteousness "of God" that is "witnessed" by the law and the prophets but is now "manifested" without the law. This same righteousness of God is "unto [eis] all and upon [epi] all them that believe." The first preposition [eis] is prepostion of movement modifying the accusative "pantas" shows that this movement terminates with "all". The second preposition is one of non-movement [epi]. This proves that the first "all" and the second "all" refer to the same people - "the believing ones" (participle). Paul is saying that this righteousness of God is received "by faith" which has for its object Jesus Christ (objective genitive). That Paul intends for this to be interpreted as an objective genitive is made clear in verses 24-26 as he repeats that this faith is "in" Jesus Christ (v. 26) including "in" his blood (v. 24). Hence, this is not mere undefined faith or random believing that has no designated content or object.

However, the double prepositions in verse 22 demonstrate this righteousness of God becomes the possession of the believer. The first preposition with the accusative demands the action terminates with believing and is "upon" the believer. He is clearly saying that the righteousness "of God" becomes the righteousness of the believer by faith (not by the cross or by some later transaction 2000 years later). How this transfer of God's righteousness unto the believer occurs is explained by the word "impute" demanding that the term translated "impute" refers to the actual transfer of God's righteousness so that it terminate with and rests upon the believer. Paul explicitly uses the Aorist tense that demands the transferral of this righteousness "had" already occurred at the point of faith while Abraham was still in uncircumcision.

And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of 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:

In fact, if this righteousness had not been transferred already to Abraham at the point of faith as the above text clearly demands, then the preceding two verses are completely nonsensical as the whole point of these verses is to prove that this "blessedness" of justification had been received BEFORE he was circumcised:

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

Not only does Paul thoroughly repudiate and expose Van's interpertation as false but if Van's interpretation had any merit whatseover, Paul should have said, "Cometh this blessedness then upon post-cross believers only, or upon the pre-cross beleivers also?" If Van's view had any merit whatsoever, Paul should not even have considered the timing ("when") of justification with regard to Abraham's uncircumcision or circumcision as Van denies he received at all regardless in uncirumcision or circumcision, thus making Paul's point absolutely pointless. Van's view is thoroughly repudiated by Paul and Van can do absolutely nothing but his usual response - ridicule! He can't deal with the text, the grammar or anything except ridicule and reassert his proven false doctrine.

The Truth goes on!

 

Van, if you could counter the expository basis of my post you would. Not only you would, but you would eagerly do it. But you can't and the proof is that you have nothing to say except insults and EVERYBODY on this forum (except you) knows this.

From the beginning of this thread, I have placed explicit arguments, explicit grammatical facts, explicit expository reason, before the reading audiance. In contrast, you have NEVER been able to answer a single argument. Instead you simply ASSERT on the basis of NOTHING but your own opinion and then insult what you can't deal with. That is not merely a sad commentary on your ability as a Bible believer but a sad commentary on your own person when you have to stoop that low to save your ego.

Take a look at Van's next post and you will see a clear track record of assertions based on nothing but pure opinion and insults - that characterizes him and that is a very sad characterization.

 

Do you really think that merely posting the address of a text and asserting the wording of the text majically makes it take on the MEANING you are assigning to those Biblical terms? If so, you would make a great Jehovah's Witness or a good Mormon or a good catholic that practices exactly what you are doing - mere quoting a Biblical address and Biblical words but wholly defining those words contrary to the immediate context and that is precisely what you are guilty of doing. I have shown from the immediate context that "beleiveth on him" in Romans 4:5 does not refer to any generic promise of God but in the immediate and overall context has specific gospel content with regard to God's own righteousness provided in Christ as proclaimed in the gospel both before and after the cross (Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:2; Rom. 3:21-26; 4:22-25).

I have demonstrated from the immediate context that the word translated "imputeth" (counted, reckoned) does not refer to "credit" in the sense of something not yet applied, but the context demands that it was applied fully and completed at the point of faith by Abraham as Romans 4:6-11 makes no sense at all IF that term is interpreted as you claim but makes Paul look like an absolute fool who says one thing but means the contrary to what he says. That is what your interpretation of "credit' does to Paul's words in Romans 4:5-11 - makes him look like he is directly contradicting what he is saying if language has any meaning at all.

And you? You have no responses but act like a parrot merely quoting an address and repeating the words assuming the readers of this forum are so stupid as to assume your meaning is the contextual meaning when you can't even demonstrate it or defend it. Either you are assuming all readers on the forum are absolute idiots or you are assuming your personal opinions without a shed of exegetical based evidence are infallible and Paul is so clumsy and confused that he can't speak right.

 

Roman 4:5 and the word "imputeth" does not mean "credit" in the sense of something not applied but like a credit card that one day can be used to obtain a product. That is the unbiblical position of Van. In context, the term "imputeth" means that at the point of faith in the gospel provision of Christ based entirely upon the promise of God that the righteousness of God and remission of sins were given freely by grace to Abraham as the basis to declare him righteous before God.

Romans 4:6-11 demand present application as Paul explicitly states that abraham "had" this righteousness and remission of sin or the "blessed" state of justification "when" he was in "uncircumcision" as opposed to when he was in cirucumcision. This contrast between circumcision and uncircumcision is rendered absolutely foolish by Van's interpretation of "credit" as something that did not apply to Abraham until 2000 years later. Paul says he "had" (aorist tense) it while Van's interpretation of imputeth says he did not have it. Paul says he "had" it at the point of faith "in uncirumcision" while Van's interpretation of "credit" says he did not have it at the point of faith "in uncircumcision" OR "in circumcision" thus making a complete fool of Paul and his words. Paul says David existed in the stated of the "blessed man" (righteousness applied and remission of sins obtained - vv. 6-8) while Van's interpretation denies David existed in that "blessed" state.

Paul asks if this state of blessedness cometh upon the circumcision only or upon the uncircumcision also while using Abraham to prove it came upon the uncirumcised Abraham at the point of faith while Van's interpretation of "impute" denies it comes upon either the circumcised or ununcircumcised Abraham or anyone else prior to the TIME of the cross.

However, Paul argues that TIME has no bearing in God's application of justification but only faith whether before or after the cross is sufficient for application because the cross is the promise of God who calleth things that are not as though they are (Rom. 4:16-17). Look at Romans 4:16-17 where Paul is dealing with faith and how faith makes is sure to all the seed and that God responds to faith based upon God's promise rather than time as God calleth things that are not (the cross) as though they are already reality simply because God's promise is as good as timed events, as those timed events are products of God's eternal purposes of God from which all temporal events follow. Therefore, God's promise is suffcient for present application since God's purposes are the basis for timed events. The cross is a product of God's eternal purpose not vice versa and therefore Gods' promise is as good as the yet unfulfilled event as God cannot lie.

Paul argues that TIME has no bearing as the time of the cross only justified God for applying justification based upon faith in the promise of the Gospel (Rom. 3:24-26).

Paul argues that TIME has no bearing as God applies the blood of Christ based upon "the blood of the EVERLASTING covenant" (Heb. 13:20) as the lamb "slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev. 13:8).

Van's interpetation of "imputeth" and "remission of sins" in Romans 4:5-8 is completely repudiated by Paul in the immediate and in the overall context.

 

More assertions, no responses to contextual based evidences - pitiful! However, I finally figured Van out. He is not interested in any kind of discussion, reasonable or biblical. Instead he is so full of hatred that his only goal is to derail threads.

 

FALSE!

FALSE!

FALSE!

FALSE!