What is Justification by faith?

The Biblicist · Jul 8, 2016

Van said:
Here is the "that. "My position from Hebrew 11:2 is that all the OT saints gained approval through 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."

Van said:
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.

. 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.

Van said:
Two very different view. How are we justified? By the blood of Christ.

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.

Van said:
That is what the bible teaches, Romans 5:9. Was Abraham justified or David justified before Christ died?

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.

Van said:
Was Abraham's faith credited as righteousness? Yes!

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!!!

Van said:
His faith, his faith, his faith.

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

Van said:
Was David justified? Nope. But David does indicate a person receives blessings when his or her faith is credited as righteousness.

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.

Van said:
Where does this go upon death? To Abraham's bosom and not Hades, because their faith was credited to them as righteousness.

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

Van said:
Here is the deal, when a person's faith is credited to the person as righteousness, they are not justified.

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.

Van said:
But when a person is subsequently placed in Christ, they are justified by the blood of Christ.

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.

The Biblicist · Jul 8, 2016

Van said:
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.

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.

The Biblicist · Jul 8, 2016

Van said:
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.

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."

The Biblicist · Jul 8, 2016

Van said:
Yet again a complete and utterly false statement. No quote, just another wholesale fabrication. Certainly this sort of vicious slander should be against the rules.

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 Biblicist · Jul 8, 2016

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.

The Biblicist · Jul 8, 2016

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).

Van · Jul 8, 2016

And the serial posting of non-germane and absurd assertions continues:
1) No verse or passage says or suggest "to gain approval" means justified without the blood of Christ.
2) Abraham was not justified by the blood of Christ until after Christ died.
3) The "blood" of the everlasting covenant is the blood of Christ, shed on the cross.
4) No verse or passage says God applied Christ's blood to Abraham or David or any OT saint before Christ died.
5) Again, Abraham was not made righteous, his faith was credited to him as righteousness. Thus Abraham gained approval through faith.
6) Next, an absurdity, you claim not to grasp the difference between Abraham's faith and Abraham himself.
7) Next, the claim Abraham's faith could not be credited to Abraham as righteousness without Abraham being justified. Yet another assertion, devoid of any support in scripture. No one is justified except through the blood of Christ.
8) Next, being blessed is equated with being justified. Just making stuff up will not cut the mustard.
9) Again, having a person obtain approval through faith does not equate with being justified by the blood of Christ.
10) Next, the fact that Abraham went to Abraham's bosom rather than the kingdom of God because he had not yet been made perfect is ignored.
11) Yet another claim that having your faith credited to you as righteousness, rather than being washed in the blood of Christ, results in justification. Hogwash.
12) Paul did not say Abraham was justified without the blood of Christ. Yet another mistaken assertion without any support in scripture.
13) Next Hebrews 10:14 says everyone set apart in Christ has been perfected, yet this is denied.
14) Next it is claimed Abraham was perfected before creation, Ephesians 1:4. This too is simply made up stuff without support. Note Hebrews 11:39-40 says the OT Saints had to wait to be made perfect.
15) Next Romans 3:24 is denied, which says we are justified when we are redeemed and transferred into Christ.
16) Yet another repeat of Biblicist's vicious slander. Again, no quote will be forthcoming. And not one other advocate of the nameless doctrine will send him a PM telling him he has mistaken me for someone else. So they are all in on it.
17) Yet another claim that having our faith credited as righteousness results in justification without the blood of Christ.
18) Finally we get the absurdity that no one could obtain approval through faith under the Old Covenant. Not Ruth, your God will be my God, or any other OT saint. Read the list in Hebrews 11 folks, just read it and it is only a partial list of the saints.

At the end of the day, the truth comes into focus. We are justified when God transfers us into Christ after crediting our faith as righteousness.

The Biblicist · Jul 8, 2016

Van said:
And the serial posting of non-germane and absurd assertions continues:

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:

Van said:
7) Next, the claim Abraham's faith could not be credited to Abraham as righteousness without Abraham being justified. Yet another assertion, devoid of any support in scripture. No one is justified except through the blood of Christ.

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.

percho · Jul 8, 2016

I believe, the faith, that brought justification (righteousness) was the obedient pouring out of the soul of the flesh which is in the blood. Lev. 17:11 Romans 5:19 Gal 3:23-25

The seed, singular, of Abraham through whom all the families of the earth would be blessed, was the faith of Abraham.

We have to be, of the faith, of Abraham, that is, Christ's, to be Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise. Gal. 3:29

The question is, before the foundation of the world whose faith was it that the Christ, (the anointed, someone had to anoint him, he did not anoint himself) the seed (singular) of a man to be called later, Abram, would be obedient unto the pouring out of the soul of the flesh in the blood?

What changed everything.

Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. Luke 22:42

who in the days of his flesh both prayers and supplications unto Him who was able to save him from death -- with strong crying and tears -- having offered up, and having been heard in respect to that which he feared, through being a Son, did learn by the things which he suffered -- the obedience, Hebrews 5:7,8 YLT----- the obedience of faith------ Whose's faith?
and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death -- death even of a cross, Phil 2:8 YLT

What does the first word of Phil 2:9 mean? διὸ What does it mean? How is it related to obedience? What did God ( The Father) do? Gal 1:1
Paul, an apostle -- not from men, nor through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who did raise him out of the dead -- What did God do? Phil 2:9 wherefore, also, God did highly exalt him, and gave to him a name that is above every name, Hebrews 5:9 and having been made perfect, he did become to all those obeying him a cause of salvation age-during,

The Biblicist · Jul 8, 2016

percho said:
I believe, the faith, that brought justification (righteousness) was the obedient pouring out of the soul of the flesh which is in the blood. Lev. 17:11 Romans 5:19 Gal 3:23-25,

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."

The Biblicist · Jul 9, 2016

percho said:
I believe, the faith, that brought justification (righteousness) was the obedient pouring out of the soul of the flesh which is in the blood. Lev. 17:11 Romans 5:19 Gal 3:23-25

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.

percho said:
The seed, singular, of Abraham through whom all the families of the earth would be blessed, was the faith of Abraham.

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.

percho said:
We have to be, of the faith, of Abraham, that is, Christ's, to be Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise. Gal. 3:29

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)

percho said:
The question is, before the foundation of the world whose faith was it that the Christ, (the anointed, someone had to anoint him, he did not anoint himself) the seed (singular) of a man to be called later, Abram, would be obedient unto the pouring out of the soul of the flesh in the blood?

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.

percho said:
What changed everything.

Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. Luke 22:42
who in the days of his flesh both prayers and supplications unto Him who was able to save him from death -- with strong crying and tears -- having offered up, and having been heard in respect to that which he feared, through being a Son, did learn by the things which he suffered -- the obedience, Hebrews 5:7,8 YLT----- the obedience of faith------ Whose's faith?
and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death -- death even of a cross, Phil 2:8 YLT

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.

percho said:
What does the first word of Phil 2:9 mean? διὸ What does it mean? How is it related to obedience?

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.

percho said:
What did God ( The Father) do? Gal 1:1
Paul, an apostle -- not from men, nor through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who did raise him out of the dead -- What did God do? Phil 2:9 wherefore, also, God did highly exalt him, and gave to him a name that is above every name, Hebrews 5:9 and having been made perfect, he did become to all those obeying him a cause of salvation age-during,

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.

The Biblicist · Jul 9, 2016

The Biblicist said:
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 irrefutable 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.

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.

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."

Darrell C · Jul 9, 2016

Van said:
Darrel C, I said you should speak for yourself.

And I agree, I should be allowed to speak for myself, rather than someone calling my doctrine Arminian, which it is not.

I try often to clarify that with you, brother, but you simply will not try to understand my position.

You might not realize it, Van, but we have been conversing since about 2010. Not just here, but, on Christian Doctrinal Discussion and Debate Forum (I miss that forum, lol).

Remember Jwayne?

Address the Post and not the Poster!

We could use a Jwayne around here, lol.

But, I forgive you, I know you didn't mean to try to ridicule me, and your intent is not that of the OP, to soothe ruffled feathers and garner support from my other antagonists, who also have ruffled feathers, and who only contribute to this forum by applauding poor exposition such as we are seeing from the poster on the topic of Justification.

And I agree with a number of things you bring up in regards to the OP.

Van said:
And please tell me which of the Arminian doctrines you disavow?

The same question could be asked me concerning Calvin. I agree with numerous things Calvin affirmed but...I am not a Calvinist. Nor am I an Arminian. You aren't part of a group simply because you agree with something found taught by the group.

Shall I call you a Catholic because you believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?

The primary issue that is relevant in regards to Arminus, and Calvin, is that both sides neglect to properly distinguish between the Ministries of the Spirit of God and the correlation of those ministries to the relevant revelation provided between the Ages.

That is the singular point I mentioned to you in a recent thread in regards to men entering entering the Kingdom of God.

One point to understand that distinguishes my own position from both is that I reject the notion that it was even possible for men to enter into the Kingdom Christ established through His Work. There was no Church of Christ prior to Pentecost, because not one man or woman had received the Eternal Indwelling of God, thereby being regenerated, and brought into New Covenant Relationship with God which demands spiritual union with God that is only accomplished by salvation in Christ.

That is one thing the OP Kicks at, which is why he has started several threads, seeking approval for his own misguided Soteriology, and this from people who have also had their feathers ruffled through debates with me on this issue.

They hate Dispensationalism. And they will satisfy their hate, without reason, and as you have pointed out...

...build their arguments on false argument.

And the funniest part of it is this: most of them agreed that such debate tactics were dishonest, but not one of them has the integrity to point out to their brother Biblicist...

...he is guilty of it.

Is that friendship?

Van said:
Arminians believe in total spiritual inability.

So why didn't you say "I am not as much a Calvinist as Darrel," since I am more in agreement with a Calvinist view than that of Arminus?

Van said:
They overwrite it with Prevenient Grace.

And I think we can know why this doctrine developed: to reconcile the apparent contradiction between what people want to believe and what Scripture actually teaches.

As I have said before, this is reconciled very easily: we simply acknowledge that spiritual truth has always been revealed to the natural man by the Spirit of God (though at times this is directly from God manifested in flesh (i.e., Genesis 3, Genesis 18, Genesis 32), That the Gospel of Christ, though presented in the Hebrew Scriptures, was not revealed in those Ages, and that the Gospel of Christ is in this Age revealed to man by the Spirit sent when God established the New Covenant through Christ.

It's really that simple.

Van said:
Your, "must be enlightened" sounds similar.

My "enlightening" is not a singular view. There is a difference between men being enlightened in the Old Testament and the enlightening ministry of God in this Age.

Calvinists and Arminians are oblivious to this simple Biblical Truth.

And worse, as we see in the example of the OP and the numerous OPs already descending from debates about it...

...they do their very best to refute it.

Van said:
Thus you seem to be more Arminian than me.

And when you understand what I actually believe you will see why you can be charged with error for calling me Arminian in my views.

Especially when it comes, not to Arminius' teachings, but what it means to be Arminian in this day, where there are other associated doctrines I view as essential associated with the System, not least of which is the view that salvation can be lost, walked away from, or comes in probationary provision.

God bless.

Van · Jul 9, 2016

Lets return to scripture. No one is justified except by the blood of Christ. After Christ died, then the OT saints who gained approval through faith, were made perfect, but not before.

Here is the difference Biblicist denies, having your faith credited as righteousness is not the same as being justified by the blood of Christ. He claims the difference is a false dichotomy. But since all OT saints had to wait to be made perfect, had to wait to enter the kingdom of God, they had not yet been washed by the blood of the Lamb.

Biblicist claims God applied the blood of Christ to the OT saints before Christ suffered and died on the cross. This is pure fiction, and no verse or passage supports this idea. Recall the OT saints had to wait, whereas the thief on the cross went straight to paradise.

Yes, the Bible's position is no one is justified except by the blood of Christ, not the promised blood of Christ. That claim is false and without support.

Darrell C · Jul 9, 2016

The Biblicist said:
I am dealing with Darrel's view

No, actually you are creating false arguments and dealing with those...where is a quote to substantiate your argument?

The Biblicist said:
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.

So where is the quote?

How about quoting something I have said that verifies your false arguments?

The Biblicist said:
Again, I am debating both views (Darrell's and Van's) and Darrell certainly does not share our view

You have never debated my views.

You have always cluttered this forum with false arguments and dodged debating my views on every single relevant point.

This is dishonest, and every member that does not point this out to you, my friend...is not your friend. They are you worst enemy because they are keeping you in that fantasy world you have created for yourself...

...that you are just in your arguments.

You are not.

Now where is a quote that states I have taught men were not justified in the Old Testament?

Until you provide that, your dishonesty remains clear to those who do not have an agenda inspired by ruffled feathers.

Continued...

Darrell C · Jul 9, 2016

Van said:
Two very different view. How are we justified? By the blood of Christ.

No, Van, we are redeemed by the Blood of Christ.

Men were justified prior to the Cross, the error is equating justification with Eternal Redemption.

Remember, the spirits of just men had to be made perfect. They are clearly declared just (even one so vile as Lot) through faith, apart from works, but, that is not the same as being redeemed through the Blood of Christ.

The bottom line is that they were saved by grace through faith, and it is not their faith that saved them...it is God, and His grace that did so. They were justified by faith, and, we know their works are not divorced from that justification, because we not only have the record of the original account/s, where we see obedience to the revealed will of God, we also see James make this a point:

James 2:21-22

King James Version (KJV)

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

James is not saying "Was not Abraham our father saved by works, when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?"

He says he was justified. Abraham's faith in God (which is integral to Abraham's salvation) was evidenced by his obedience. Had he refused his son, then we would have a record of the lack of...faith, not salvation.

The OP simply does not understand this, because his is an extreme view which originates in a misguided notion that there is a conflict between faith and works.

He does not understand that men are Eternally Redeemed through Christ's Blood, rather than what he does believe, men are saved by faith through grace.

But we, like the Old Testament Saint...are saved by grace through faith, not by faith through grace. Christ saves, and it is the Comforter that enlightens the mind to allows the natural man to understand his condition and brings about conditions where faith can be placed in the revealed truth.

So I have to point out that saying...

Van said:
Two very different view. How are we justified? By the blood of Christ.

...does not disallow nor nullify the fact that men were justified in the Old Testament, and that this is an element of how they were saved, though they were not yet made perfect.

God bless.

Darrell C · Jul 9, 2016

Van said:
I am not going to address your view of Darrel's supposed view.

And that is appreciated.

If you could spell my name properly that would help too...

God bless.

Darrell C · Jul 9, 2016

Van said:
Yet again a complete and utterly false statement. No quote, just another wholesale fabrication. Certainly this sort of vicious slander should be against the rules.

I have been pointing this out to him for page after page, thread after thread, and am doing so again, to no avail.

He states I deny men were justified or saved, yet he has no quote he can produce to substantiate this false charge.

And he has the nerve to create a thread about dishonest debate tactics.

It is against the rules, but Moderation seems to be okay with this.

Allegations are going to arise in debate, whether intentional or unintentional, explicit or implicit, but at the very least this forum should hold to a higher standard of demanding the allegations be substantiated by those charges are laid to.

To allow someone to deliberately lie and traffic in character defamation with no basis is shameless.

God bless.

Van · Jul 9, 2016

Hi Darrell C, I read your post and did not see clarity in your response.
Did I say you were an Arminian? Nope. I said you seem to be more Arminian than me.

You seem to deny that a natural unregenerate person can understand spiritual milk, the gospel of Christ, unless "enlightened" by the Holy Spirit. I believe the Holy Spirit's work product is the gospel of Christ, and thus is the power of God for salvation. You view is as Arminian as it gets.

To be clear, I am a one point Calvinist, once saved, always saved. I am a two point Arminian, Christ died for all mankind, and we are chosen for salvation through faith in the truth. I disagree that natural men need more than the revelatory grace of God's word and human witness. I disagree with your apparent view that we must be enlightened supernaturally.

I believe the election of Ephesians 1:4 was corporate, not individual, and contrary to Arminianism, I believe we are chosen for salvation during our physical lives, rather than before creation based on foreseen faith.

Thus I believe you are more Arminian than me.

P.S. Sorry about the spelling error, I may be the world's worst speller.

Darrell C · Jul 9, 2016

Van said:
Last one, our justification is based on our faith toward Christ that has been credited as righteousness by God and through the faithfulness of Christ on the cross, for we are justified by His blood, Romans 5:9.

And that is the unvarnished truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

We are Eternally Redeemed and brought into relationship with God through His Work alone. Not by works which we have performed.

That includes faith. We are not saved by faith through grace, we are saved by grace through faith.

God bless.

What is Justification by faith?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member