Featured Justification

The word "taking" means that as God he did not previously possess that "likeness of men." Hence, the humanity was something acquired that before did not exist with the God nature. So in fact it does teach precisely what I am saying. It proves the "likeness of men" is ADDITIONAL to the God nature.

Again, if Jesus can grow in knowledge as a man without ceasing to be the omnipresent God, why can't he as a man also suffer experiential disfellowship with the Father without ceasing to be God? If one, why not the other? Both limitations are found in his humanity not his deity OR do you believe his mutable knowledge as a man made the nature of God mutable as well?

Just as three distinguishable Persons CO-EXIST in ONE GOD without confusion of persons, so two distinguishable natures CO-EXIST in ONE PERSON without confusion of natures.

 

Why would God declare us righteous if He had made us righteous? Where do you find "declared righteous" rather than justified?

Note, you say you have died with Christ. This refers to being spiritually baptized into His death. Thus you have undergone the Circumcision of Christ, your sin burden had been removed, and therefore you have been made righteous.

Bottom line, your question is based on your assertion you have been "declared" rather than made righteous.

 

You are confusing regeneration wherein spiritual union is attained with justification. Justification is a legal position distinct from regeneration. In regeneration the righteous of Christ is imparted to the inward new nature by spiritual union but in justification it is imputed by faith, which faith embraces the promise of the Gospel of Christ as in the case of Job - "I know that MY REDEEMER liveth"

Jesus means Jehovah is salvation and "Christ" is the Messiah preached in the Old Testament by all the prophets concerning the promised redemption through faith in Christ (Acts 10:43; Heb. 4:2; Acts 26:22-23; etc.). Righteousness was imputed because their faith embraced that promised redeemer.

 

No sir, I am not mistaken. You are simply changing the subject. No one said that the unfallen human nature is out of sync with God's nature. Jesus in his human nature was as sinless on the cross as before the cross. It is his LEGAL POSITION that was out of sync with the Divine Nature and that was the "cup" he did not wish to partake - to become sin for us LEGALLY and POSITIONALLY.

We most certainly can speak of Christ doing something in his humanity that he did not do in his divinity. In his divinity he never ceased to be God with all attributes of God - including immutability and omniscience but in his humanity he was LIMITED in knowledge, and GREW in knowledge and there is no possible rational way you can deny that. Likewise, in his humanity he could experience the consequences of being made sin legally including the Father forsaking him without any break in fellowship within the divine essence of one God.

 

Let's just nip this whole argument in the bud. You believe that Jesus was fully God, do you not? Yes! You believe he was fully man do you not? Yes! The issue between us is whether the divine God nature of Christ IS the human nature of Christ. I say it is not, you are saying it is, indeed you are saying that in Christ it becomes ONE AND THE SAME NATURE. I am saying that very belief denies that he is both God AND man, as your position has created a NEW GOD who is NEITHER God AND man but is DIVINE HUMANITY whose divinity is human and whose humanity is divine. The Scriptures clearly contradict that conclusion.

I am saying that Christ can express himself in the human nature without expressing himself equally in the divine nature. EVIDENCE: He expressed MUTABILITY, LIMITED KNOWLEGE in the human nature! That is a fact that no amount of argument will change. Now, you are left with the conclusion by your reasoning that the DIVINE NATURE in Christ was equally LIMITED IN KNOWLEGE and MUTABILE and that contradicts the very incommunicable attributes of God.

 

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Gen 1:27

because whom He did foreknow, He also did fore-appoint, conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be first-born among many brethren; Rom 8:29 YLT

If Adam turns out to be one of those fore-appointed, conformed to the image of His Son, Will that image be equal to or greater than the image in which he had been created? Was Adam at the moment of his creation, equal unto the image of the resurrected Son of God? I agree he was created upright, righteous but did he remain so? We have been, by the death and resurrection of the Son, been imputed with the righteousness of God. After the coming again of Jesus, the blessed hope, at the adoption to whit, the redemption of the body, will we and or Adam, forever remain righteous ? That is without sin?

Will the resurrected and or changed man, in the image of the firstborn from the dead, Son be of a higher nature than the created Adam at his creation?

 

Let me understand you clearly. Are you saying that Jesus was not 100% man but only 100% God?

Again, you are confusing communicable with incommunicable attributes. God is NOT the only one who is "holy" because he has communicated holiness to angels and to men. However, God is the only one who is IMMUTABLE and ETERNAL and OMNISCIENT and OMNIPRESENT as these are incommunicable attributes. To possess these attributes MAKE GOD TO BE GOD and distinct from creatures.

You have not confronted the evidence squarely. The indisputable evidence is that the MAN Jesus was MUTABLE, he was not omniscient as he GREW (mutability) in both "WISDOM" and "KNOWLEGE" and the nature of God cannot GROW in these areas as he is omniscient by nature. Therefore, just as there are three distinguishing Persons in ONE GOD without confusion of Persons, there are TWO NATURES in ONE PERSON without confusion of natures. That my friend, is the only possible explanation that harmonizes these scriptures.

It is not ontological to Christ as Christ had no existence prior to the incarnation. Christ was a "fulfillment" to prophecy - "Christ" refers to the humanity that did not pre-exist the incarnation.

Again, you are confusing communicable attributes with non-communicable attributes. God is NOT the only one who is holy as we can be "holy even as I am holy"! However, we cannot be omniscient or immutable or omnipresent "even as I am"!

Sorry brother, your position is erroneous.

 

Lets see if I understand. First you say I am misunderstanding. Fair enough, but since you did not state your differing view, I am left to assume you do not accept that we are "declared righteous" but rather made righteous by the washing of regeneration, the circumcision of Christ.

 

Hi Biblicist.

Justification is not a legal position, but a spiritual condition. We who are born anew are being continually justified by the blood of the Lamb. It is just as though we did not sin.

Righteousness was not "imputed" but made via the washing of regeneration, the circumcision of Christ.

When God credits our faith in Christ as righteousness, He transfers us into the kingdom of His Son. We are spiritually baptized into His death, undergo the circumcision of Christ, and arise in Christ a new creation born anew, having undergone the "washing of regeneration." Justification is a simple straightforward concept, no need to make it mystical.

Spiritually "in" Christ = justified; spiritually not "in" Christ = not justified.

 

I continue to place the same evidence before you post after post and post after post you simply ignore the Biblical evidence and simply repeat empty assertions. So this conversation is hopeless. My position would never lead to rejection that Jesus is both God and man.

 

Hi Van, long time

The very use of the term by Paul is found in reference to the "law" and thus it is a legal term.

Paul explicitly deals with your position and repudiates it very clearly by using the Aorist (Rom. 4:11) and Perfect tense verbs (Rom. 5:1-2). He confines it to an Aorist completed action "in circumcision" while completely denying it is a progressive action by saying "not in circumcision" which characterizes the most of Abraham's life.

Again you are embracing Roman Catholic doctrine that confuses regeneration with justification and which error is the root error of "another gospel" whereby progressive sanctification is made equal to justification thereby denying that Christ's life and death satisfied the law once and for all - finished.

He is not crediting "our faith" but "imputing" righteousness provided by Christ's active and passive obedience "FOR US" which is what that "faith" embraces in the promise declared in the gospel.

You are confusing regeneration with justification and thus making mumbo jumbo of the gospel of Christ and repudiating the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice by including works of righteousness performed in your own body by the Spirit of God. Your position is the essence of Seventh Day Adventism and its view of justification.

The preposition "in Christ" is used many different ways in Scripture. At least 7 different ways. (1) In Christ before the foundation of the world by elective purpose - Eph. 1:4; Rom. 8:28-33. (2) In Christ by representation -Rom. 5:12-19; (3) In Christ positionally through justification - Rom. 3:24-5:2; (4) In Christ by spiritual union through regeneration - Eph. 2:5,10; (5) In Christ metaphorically as metaphorical members in the metaphorical body of Christ - the congregation of Christ - 1 Cor. 3:16; 6:17-18; (6) Figuratively in Christ by baptism - 1 Pet. 3:21; (7) In Christ experientially as we "walk in him" - Col. 2:6