A Jehovah's Witness is at my Door!

[Thinkingstuff]

The Scripture is not a dictionary but it does contain definitions. For example, it defines sin as the transgression of the law (1 Jn. 4:6).

There is no definition in that verse. The bible reveals what something may be but its not a definition. Certainly one aspect of sin is that it is a transgretion against the law. But that doesn't contain the entirety of the meaning of sin. Sin is revealed and shown for what it is. Not necissarily defined as one would do with a dictionary.

Where do you believe "righteousness" originates from? From non-living matter? From cultural mores? Does not the Bible say God IS rightoeous and He IS holy! Romans 3:20 says the righteousness revealed in the Law and by the prophets and in the life of Christ is "the righteousness OF GOD." Does He not say "Be ye holy AS I AM Holy? If that is not a direct reference to his own PERSONAL righteousness as a MORAL quality than what is? Moreover, what command would God ever give to men that does not stem from, harmoinze with the same moral attributes found in God's own Person and his own fellowship within the Divine Persons? Isn't "love" simply the summation of all the Law and prophets and does not Scripture say "God IS love"?

My grandchildren are here so I have to go. Finish later.

I don't understand what any of what you said has to do with what you quoted me saying. The Law is more than an instrument to reveal righteousness. It shows us what we are to measure ourselves against. So explain what you are saying in relation to that comment. And you still haven't explained what you mean when you say "God's righteousness".

 

[Yeshua1]

See it shows how little you know. I'm not driven crazy by grace or justification. I don't even have a problem with recieving Jesus by faith. What I do have a problem is that you define faith a something that is heart felt in your gut belief that something is so and seperate that from the final equation of faith. That one acts on what they have faith in. Which James is getting at. Look at the Context of James. In James chapter 1 James is discussing to fellow christians that they need to live rightly. And to do this they need to focus on scriptures

Just a note about the above passage. It is clear he is speaking to fellow Christians. If James were a baptist we wouldn't have said "the implanted word which has saved you." But no he doesn't say that he says "which is able to save you" as if they hadn't acheived salvation yet. Then look at what he says emphasising as I have shown Paul to have done that Faith must be acted on. Do what scriptures tell you else you forget who you really are. And if you act on your faith you will be blessed. Then look at how he presses the argument in James 2 He goes on to show that not only do they need to act on the scripture but when they have people come to "church" that if they show partiality because of their wealth and attire then they sin and as we all know if you break one aspect of the law you've sinned against the whole law so these people who do that would have broken the law and sinned against God. And then he makes his point very clear when he continues his argument for right living when he says I think thats pretty clear. James doesn't disect faith from the actions of that faith as you do. Which is why he says

Are you actually Justified fully before God by receiving/believing upon jesus, apart from ANY works that you do, or not?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Are you actually Justified fully before God by receiving/believing upon jesus, apart from ANY works that you do, or not?

James makes it plain

You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.]

I believe you have a problem with how the term justification is understood by James. Justification is not a legal fiction or subject to a singular moment in time. James makes that clear in his statement. You are holding to a forensic view of Justification. That there is the legal fiction that we are only declared so but not in actuality. By Jesus Christ giving us his life and grace we become in fact righteous not just declared righteous but are being remade into our righteous selves which is process called sanctification.

 

[Yeshua1]

James makes it plain

I believe you have a problem with how the term justification is understood by James. Justification is not a legal fiction or subject to a singular moment in time. James makes that clear in his statement. You are holding to a forensic view of Justification. That there is the legal fiction that we are only declared so but not in actuality. By Jesus Christ giving us his life and grace we become in fact righteous not just declared righteous but are being remade into our righteous selves which is process called sanctification.

So you are holding to the RCC view that a sinner cannot be fully justified until they have co assisted/co operated with the grace of God sufficient to actually be 'good enough" to be declared justified by God?

 

[DHK]

James makes it plain

As I told Moriah, I will tell you.
You are in a dangerous position when you ignore the context of James (overall context) and hang your salvation on just two words in the book of James. Disregarding the totality of Scripture and gambling your entire salvation on just two words in the entire Bible is quite unbelievable. As he said "it is the only place in the Bible where "faith only" is used (James 2:24). It is quite sad when a person does that.

As I explained previously to you in this thread, the book is not even addressing the subject of salvation. James is writing to believers. His entire theme is "practical Christian living." He is speaking of works as being the outcome or outworking of genuine faith. It does not contradict Romans 4:1-5, but your interpretation makes in contradict that passage. Therefore it cannot be the correct interpretation for the Bible does not contradict itself.

Faith is not a work. A man is saved by faith alone. That is very clear from Romans 4:1-5; Romans 5:1; Eph.2:8,9 and dozens of other passages.

I believe you have a problem with how the term justification is understood by James. Justification is not a legal fiction or subject to a singular moment in time.

Have you ever been to court and seen a person who is accused of a crime for which he is not guilty. When he is cleared of the crime, he is declared justified--just as if he never sinned. His slate is wiped clear of the accusations that were marked against him.
Though we have sinned, our penalty has been paid in full. Jesus paid it for us. He satisfied the Judge, God the Father. Now the Father looks down on those who believe on Christ and have received that payment, and he sees them as justified--just as if they have never sinned. His sin has been paid for. His slate has been wiped clean. Jesus paid it all.

James makes that clear in his statement. You are holding to a forensic view of Justification. That there is the legal fiction that we are only declared so but not in actuality. By Jesus Christ giving us his life and grace we become in fact righteous not just declared righteous but are being remade into our righteous selves which is process called sanctification.

Sanctification has nothing to do with justification.
Justification is an act which Jesus did in the past. Sanctification is a process which only those that are justified can enter into. If I have been justified, then I can start setting myself apart from sin and being more like God. That is an impossibility before that time. It has nothing to do with the "event" of justification.

 

[Alive in Christ]

So you are holding to the RCC view that a sinner cannot be fully justified until they have co assisted/co operated with the grace of God sufficient to actually be 'good enough" to be declared justified by God?

That certainly is what the church of Rome believes and teaches.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

James makes it plain

I believe you have a problem with how the term justification is understood by James. Justification is not a legal fiction or subject to a singular moment in time. James makes that clear in his statement. You are holding to a forensic view of Justification. That there is the legal fiction that we are only declared so but not in actuality. By Jesus Christ giving us his life and grace we become in fact righteous not just declared righteous but are being remade into our righteous selves which is process called sanctification.

I agree with this, as I do not believe in forensic justification. However, I do not believe in the RC view of justification, either.

 

[Wittenberger]

As I told Moriah, I will tell you.
You are in a dangerous position when you ignore the context of James (overall context) and hang your salvation on just two words in the book of James. Disregarding the totality of Scripture and gambling your entire salvation on just two words in the entire Bible is quite unbelievable. As he said "it is the only place in the Bible where "faith only" is used (James 2:24). It is quite sad when a person does that.

As I explained previously to you in this thread, the book is not even addressing the subject of salvation. James is writing to believers. His entire theme is "practical Christian living." He is speaking of works as being the outcome or outworking of genuine faith. It does not contradict Romans 4:1-5, but your interpretation makes in contradict that passage. Therefore it cannot be the correct interpretation for the Bible does not contradict itself.

Faith is not a work. A man is saved by faith alone. That is very clear from Romans 4:1-5; Romans 5:1; Eph.2:8,9 and dozens of other passages.

Have you ever been to court and seen a person who is accused of a crime for which he is not guilty. When he is cleared of the crime, he is declared justified--just as if he never sinned. His slate is wiped clear of the accusations that were marked against him.
Though we have sinned, our penalty has been paid in full. Jesus paid it for us. He satisfied the Judge, God the Father. Now the Father looks down on those who believe on Christ and have received that payment, and he sees them as justified--just as if they have never sinned. His sin has been paid for. His slate has been wiped clean. Jesus paid it all.

Sanctification has nothing to do with justification.
Justification is an act which Jesus did in the past. Sanctification is a process which only those that are justified can enter into. If I have been justified, then I can start setting myself apart from sin and being more like God. That is an impossibility before that time. It has nothing to do with the "event" of justification.

Amen! Even our faith is a gift from God, not of our own volition or efforts. Salvation/justification is a FREE gift. Our "sentence" of eternal, hell-bound damnation is wiped clean by the blood of Christ and we are made holy and pure in the sight of God Almighty. Our life in Christ is a life of joyful service and submission to His gracious will. Our good works are performed out of love and appreciation for his free gift and his selfless act of love.

We do not do good works because we fear the torment of Purgatory. This was one of Luther's principle criticisms of Rome.

Purgatory is the reason why some Catholic Christians crawl on bloody knees up the long, steep steps of Cathedrals to lessen their term of punishment in that place. In times past, the same was done and more to lessen the term of a dead loved one already there in torment.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

So you are holding to the RCC view that a sinner cannot be fully justified until they have co assisted/co operated with the grace of God sufficient to actually be 'good enough" to be declared justified by God?

Can you be saved if you refuse the will of God? See this is what is really at issue. The problem is that when we consider Ephesians and James Paul and James are dealing with two problems. Paul is dealing with the problem of Jewish Christians wanting to assert salvation by works as if they can earn it. By nature of their adherance to Jewish custom. James deals with the other extremity which is those who believe that faith is without action. That all one has to do is have a belief and not act on that belief and continue to live in sin. These are two apposing and extreem perspectives. You cannot earn salvation it is a gift on the other hand faith isn't alone but is acted upon making it a living faith. That is the road which the Catholics take. So if you have a belief but fail the will of God for your life (ie sanctification) and refuse to be redeemed in your life but hold just to a belief that something is true then there is something wrong with your faith. Calvinist will often say "this person was never saved to begin with". It is in this sence which I am speaking

 

[The Biblicist]

Can you be saved if you refuse the will of God?

The will of God concerning what? Every human being refuses to do the will of God every day and it is called sin. The sin of omission is just as much sin as the sin of commission and both equally are failures to do the will of God.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The will of God concerning what? Every human being refuses to do the will of God every day and it is called sin. The sin of omission is just as much sin as the sin of commission and both equally are failures to do the will of God.

I modified my last post you will want to read it again. But to follow up. Can you continue to live in sin reject righteousness and hold a belief that Jesus is who he says he is and still be saved or must you be transformed in your life?

 

[The Biblicist]

I modified my last post you will want to read it again. But to follow up. Can you continue to live in sin reject righteousness and hold a belief that Jesus is who he says he is and still be saved or must you be transformed in your life?

No life is instantly transformed but rather is BEING transformed which demands sin is still active throughout ones life.

You fail to comprehend that OUR LIFE is not the basis for our justification but it is the life of Christ that is the basis for our justification before God because God's law demands for righteousness be satisfied BEFORE we can be justified and that demand is to be PERFECT EVEN AS the Father in heaven is perfect.

We can no more satisfy the righteous demands of the Law of God than we can satisfy the PENAL demand of the law of God for sin.

Hence, your type of soteriology must trash the standard of righteousness demanded by the law of God and reduce it to something we can satisfy and that is exactly what the Pharisees did and that is why we have Matthew 5:16-48 in the scriptures. This passage corrects the Phariseeical view of the Law whereby TRADITIONS of the elders had reduced the standard of the Law to a righteousness that sinners could attain. So throughout this portion of scripture Jesus repeatedly says "you have heard" (oral traditional interpretation of the law). Tradition had REDUCED the righteous standard of the Law to a level that sinful men could attain. That is why Jesus said for one to enter heaven they must "EXCEED the righteousness of the scribes and pharisees" and to do that so must their interpretations of God's law EXCEED the interpretational traditions of the elders.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No life is instantly transformed but rather is BEING transformed which demands sin is still active throughout ones life.

I agree with this statement.

You fail to comprehend that OUR LIFE is not the basis for our justification

Contrarily I think you fail to understand the meaning of both Justification and Redemption. In both cases it is not our life but Christ's life that both redeems and Justifies. However, in both cases we are participating in Christs life.

Let me give you an example. There is a birthday party with Cake! Ummm Good! Right? Now when God created man he made us in such a way as to already be at the party. We were members with free access to cake (Remember this is an example) We sinned make ourselves enemies of God. Or whomever has a birthday party will only have friends over at the party rather than enemies. Enemies are not invited. But we once were not only invited but actually at the party. Well, no longer. (remember example) Now God gives us two things he restores our friendship status and gives us the invite to the party. Now that isn't all God wants for us he wants to be participants at the party and eat cake. Redepmtion and Justification both places us into the position we were at before (participating at the party eating cake) It isn't just receiving the invite and being made friends. Are we truelly friends if we are made right in our relationship but fail to attend the party? You are stuck at the being made friends again with the invite to the party when I'm discussing not only that but participating at the party eating cake. Participating at the party is what true friends do and they do it by their will. However, unless God himself made us friends of his own initiative rather than ours we could even consider getting an invite. In otherwords no matter what I do to get God to give me an invite I will never get it. But God initiates the friendship and the invite and all I have to do is accept it. But once I accept it and choose not to go to the party and eat cake and participate at the party am I really his friend? That (in a poor example) is in a way of what I'm trying to get at. God saves us and gives us his divine life to live but if we refuse to live it then are we doing what God wanted us to do. Are we truelly saved? In this example your theology says not only does God make you friends and gives you an invite he picks you up (kicking and scraming or not) and drags you to the party where you don't really have to do anything accept sit there and in fact you can disrupt the party as much as you want kicking over tables and walk away from it if you want or you don't have to do that based on what you want rather than what he wants.

Again it was an example to show you how I'm approaching both redemption and Justification and how it differs from yours.

 

[The Biblicist]

I agree with this statement.


Contrarily I think you fail to understand the meaning of both Justification and Redemption. In both cases it is not our life but Christ's life that both redeems and Justifies. However, in both cases we are participating in Christs life.

We cannot participate in a life that we never lived 2000 years ago. Justification is the imputation of Christ's life of satisfaction. Sanctification is Christ participating in OUR life progressively.

Jesus said "it is finished" just before dying on the cross. The Greek term translated "finished" refers to paying a bill in full. What was paid in full by Christ?

Let me give you an example. [/QUOTE]

Everything about your example is wrong.

1. God made man upright in fellowship with him on the basis of works not grace. No need for grace because there was no fallen man.

2. Man fell from works (not from grace) by bad works - became enemies

3. Now fellowship with God is on an entirely different basis - grace. We can NEVER return to our previous state as that state depends on personal absolute sinlessness and we have already sinned. Adam maintained the prefallen state by a lack of personal sin.

4. However, God's standard of sinlessness has not changed but our personal status has changed - we are sinners.

5. To become reconciled to God, we must be restored to God's PRE-fallen righteous standard sinlessness.

6. That is why Christ came to earth and lived and died as a man to provide IN OUR PLACE and impute to our account what we never can personally accomplish.

7. On the cross that satisfied was fulfilled - paid in full - FOR US!

There is a birthday party with Cake! Ummm Good! Right? Now when God created man he made us in such a way as to already be at the party. We were members with free access to cake (Remember this is an example) We sinned make ourselves enemies of God. Or whomever has a birthday party will only have friends over at the party rather than enemies. Enemies are not invited. But we once were not only invited but actually at the party. Well, no longer. (remember example) Now God gives us two things he restores our friendship status and gives us the invite to the party. Now that isn't all God wants for us he wants to be participants at the party and eat cake. Redepmtion and Justification both places us into the position we were at before (participating at the party eating cake) It isn't just receiving the invite and being made friends. Are we truelly friends if we are made right in our relationship but fail to attend the party? You are stuck at the being made friends again with the invite to the party when I'm discussing not only that but participating at the party eating cake. Participating at the party is what true friends do and they do it by their will. However, unless God himself made us friends of his own initiative rather than ours we could even consider getting an invite. In otherwords no matter what I do to get God to give me an invite I will never get it. But God initiates the friendship and the invite and all I have to do is accept it. But once I accept it and choose not to go to the party and eat cake and participate at the party am I really his friend? That (in a poor example) is in a way of what I'm trying to get at. God saves us and gives us his divine life to live but if we refuse to live it then are we doing what God wanted us to do. Are we truelly saved? In this example your theology says not only does God make you friends and gives you an invite he picks you up (kicking and scraming or not) and drags you to the party where you don't really have to do anything accept sit there and in fact you can disrupt the party as much as you want kicking over tables and walk away from it if you want or you don't have to do that based on what you want rather than what he wants.

Again it was an example to show you how I'm approaching both redemption and Justification and how it differs from yours.[/QUOTE]

 

[The Biblicist]

I agree with this statement.


Contrarily I think you fail to understand the meaning of both Justification and Redemption. In both cases it is not our life but Christ's life that both redeems and Justifies. However, in both cases we are participating in Christs life.

We cannot participate in a life that we never lived 2000 years ago. Justification is the imputation of Christ's life of satisfaction. Sanctification is Christ participating in OUR life progressively.

Jesus said "it is finished" just before dying on the cross. The Greek term translated "finished" refers to paying a bill in full. What was paid in full by Christ?

Let me give you an example.

Everything about your example is wrong.

1. God made man upright in fellowship with him on the basis of works not grace. No need for grace because there was no fallen man.

2. Man fell from works (not from grace) by bad works - became enemies

3. Now fellowship with God is on an entirely different basis - grace. We can NEVER return to our previous state as that state depends on personal absolute sinlessness and we have already sinned. Adam maintained the prefallen state by a lack of personal sin.

4. However, God's standard of sinlessness has not changed but our personal status has changed - we are sinners.

5. To become reconciled to God, we must be restored to God's PRE-fallen righteous standard sinlessness.

6. That is why Christ came to earth and lived and died as a man to provide IN OUR PLACE and impute to our account what we never can personally accomplish.

7. On the cross that demand was fulfilled - paid in full - FOR US! - that is the "good news" of the gospel - yours is bad news.

8. It is received by faith simply because our works cannot improve but only degrade it.

9. Our personal life is not designed for justification as only a sinless life can be justified before God and Christ has "paid that in full." Our life is therefore not under the demands of the law but is dead to the law. Hence, God can accept the incomplete righteousness worked out of our lives by the indwelling Spirit of God for other things - fellowship, rewards, spiritual growth or progressive sanctification.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

We cannot participate in a life that we never lived 2000 years ago. Justification is the imputation of Christ's life of satisfaction. Sanctification is Christ participating in OUR life progressively.

So basically your soteriology is such that God doesn't care about our sanctification, Redeemption which means to restore to Original State, or justification which isn't a legal fiction. Your whole soteriology rest only on the fact that if you believe in Jesus Christ is able to restore you and make you able to live rightly it doesn't matter whether you are actually restored or live rightly all that matters is that you believe that he is capable of doing it. I'm sorry that doesn't cut it. Jesus wants us to participate in his life. According to you

We cannot participate in a life that we never lived 2000 years ago.

so you are also saying that Paul was confused when he said

Now if we are children, then we are heirs--heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory

How could Paul share in Christ sufferings when he wasn't even converted until long after Jesus Death and resurrection? That is your nonsense logic. Paul undestood that being heirs we could participate in Christ life. We can share in Christ Sufferings, We can share in his Glory we can share in his righteousness. You want a legal fiction of righteousness not righteousness in actuality. Jesus wants us to be like him in every respect. He didn't save us to grant us the ability to stay in our sins. But according to your soteriology that is exactly what Jesus did.

Jesus said "it is finished" just before dying on the cross. The Greek term translated "finished" refers to paying a bill in full. What was paid in full by Christ?

It is finished so now we can leave our life of sin and take on his life not continue in sin which is what you are suggesting by this statement. Using a modern consept. Jesus paid our credit card bill and I can run up the charge again unlimitedly. That is incorrect.

Everything about your example is wrong.

As in all examples attempting to explain the mystery of God and his salvation there is a point of inadquacy. However. Not every thing in inaccurate.

1. God made man upright in fellowship with him on the basis of works not grace. No need for grace because there was no fallen man.

All this shows is your inadiquate definition of Grace. For example I can say my daughter is graceful. Her nature in such a way conveys an elegance or a grace about it. It is her natural state. A state of Gracefulness. For you grace means someone else paying off your debts. But Grace is more than that. Being in the presence of God for both angels and men is to be in Grace. When men were created we were in a natural state of Grace.

2. Man fell from works (not from grace) by bad works - became enemies

Man chose to be the enemy of God and we did fall from Grace as did Satan. Being in God from the begining is the natural state of Grace. And as I said we became his enemies.

3. Now fellowship with God is on an entirely different basis - grace. We can NEVER return to our previous state as that state depends on personal absolute sinlessness and we have already sinned. Adam maintained the prefallen state by a lack of personal sin.

Then Jesus doesn't redeem which in its definition includes restoration. My position is not only does Jesus Redeem us but Joins himself to us and makes us co-heirs with him. A true love story.

4. However, God's standard of sinlessness has not changed but our personal status has changed - we are sinners.

We weren't created sinners as the bible attest to.

5. To become reconciled to God, we must be restored to God's PRE-fallen righteous standard sinlessness.

I agree but you don't. Not with your statement. You hold that Jesus just pays our debt and we aren't redeemed to our original state. There is no need to do God's will because our debt to him is paid in full. His will is just a happy side effect if we choose or not choose to do it.

6. That is why Christ came to earth and lived and died as a man to provide IN OUR PLACE and impute to our account what we never can personally accomplish.

Translation - pay off our credit card so we can run it up again.

Sanctification for you is optional. Depends on how you feel on a particular day. There is no joining or participating in his life. I find that sad. Its like God is our lover and though he makes satisfaction to make you his friend its unrequanted as you don't really want participate in this life of his. For a lack of a better analogy you want to have sex without the obligation of commiting and living a faithful life with your spouce.

 

[The Biblicist]

Q

So basically your soteriology is such that God doesn't care about our sanctification,

Consider this sentence - "I believe IN Christ and therefore I am committed to be faithful TO Christ."

If you can understand this sentence and the distinctions between the use of 'believe" versus "faithful" and the difference between "in" versus "to" and the role "therefore" plays in this sentence, then you will understand the difference between your soteriology and mine. My soteriology is expressed by this sentence. Justification is expressed by the phrase preceding "therefore" and sanctification is expressed by the phrase following "therefore."

The difference between the first and second phrases is the difference between what Christ does FOR US versus what Christ does THROUGH us or what we do FOR CHRIST. It is not an either/or but both without confusing one with the other. The term "therefore" makes a division between cause and consequences.

Redeemption which means to restore to Original State,

It means to "buy back" or "purchase" and refers to the price paid rather than the condition of what is being bought. On the other hand sanctification refers more to the condition of what has been bought as it basically means to "separate" or "set apart" and in the context of purchase it is to "set apart" what has been purchased unto holiness - which is a progressive incompleted action where as "redemption" is a completed action that obtains right to do with the product as desired.

or justification which isn't a legal fiction.

Here is where you completely trash the gospel as "good news." The very essence of the gospel is the "good news" of what sinners can NEVER do for themselves and only what Christ could and did FOR them "freely by grace."

Consider what he did on the cross which he said "paid in full" (literal Greek). What was "paid IN FULL"? What Christ paid "in full" was what only a sacrificial spotless lamb could accomplish and nobody else. To completely satisfiy God's demand (paid in full) the lamb must be "spotless" which is a type of SINLESS PERFECTION. Why must Christ be SINLESS in order to satisfy this bill completely and how did his spotless condition satisfy this demand and pay it in full?

Moreover, this spotless lamb must DIE! The shedding of blood must be unto death and nothing less would do to "pay in full" this demand by God.

Tell me TS have you personally accepted the death of Christ to have PAID IN FULL your own penalty of sin? Or do you deny your own penalty for sin is PAID IN FULL??? Do you have to share that payment and thus deny Christ PAID IN FULL any sin penalty in your behalf? Will you have to do pennance and go to purgatory and only as you finish PAYING IN FULL your own penalty in purgatory will it be PAID IN FULL???

The difference between your soteriology and mine is that you DENY Christ actually paid in full the penalty of sin and I trust him to have paid my penalty of sin IN FULL - no pennance, no purgatory but to be absent from the body IS to be present with the Lord. Your soteriology denies the very essence of the "good news" of Jesus Christ's death.

Moreover, your soteriology denies the very essence why the Lamb of God MUST be spotless or be completely rejected by God as a PAYMENT for sin. The reason people go to hell is because of the penalty of sin. The reason why they spend ETERNITY in hell is because they are ETERNALLY and personally defiled by sin and therefore there is no ceasing of the penalty.

Christ had to be SINLESS in order to have "PAID IN FULL" the redemptive price of our salvation because only SINLESSNESS satisfies the righeous standard of God to JUSTIFY anyone for eternal life.

Your soteriology repudiates the SINLESSNESS of Christ as the FULL PAYMENT that satisfies the Law of God. Instead your soteriology views Christ's satisfaction as INCOMPLETE made only complete by our own IMPERFECT participation in satisfying the demand for justification in the sight of God's Law.

Hence, your soteriology rejects that God's righteous demands for sinners were "paid in full" by Christ on the cross but rather your soteriology demands sins are yet to be paid in full in purgatory for nearly all believers and God's demands for sinless righteousness WILL NEVER be paid in full but an incompleted and imperfect righteous life must merely outweigh the unrighteous aspect of their life to be justified before God on judgement day. Hence, your soteriology denies that Christ or believers ever "paid in full" the SINLESS demands of God's Law.

We believe that Christ's righeousness received by faith secures entrance into heaven and Christ's death satisfies enternity in hell and thus the believer is fully justified by Christ's own life and death whereas their sanctification is progressive and just as certain to be completed in glorification BEFORE they meet the Lord (1 Thes. 4:17) by the work of the indwellling Spirit of God which begins in regeneration and ends in glorification. We do not confuse the FINISHED work of Christ with the progressive work of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Consider this sentence - "I believe IN Christ and therefore I am committed to be faithful TO Christ."

I should hope so that is what he saved you for. However, according to your soteriological method that commitment is optional not a requirement.

If you can understand this sentence and the distinctions between the use of 'believe" versus "faithful" and the difference between "in" versus "to" and the role "therefore" plays in this sentence, then you will understand the difference between your soteriology and mine. My soteriology is expressed by this sentence. Justification is expressed by the phrase preceding "therefore" and sanctification is expressed by the phrase following "therefore."

Contrarily, the problem you face is you make a distinction between what one believes and how one acts. I consider one acts what they believe.

It means to "buy back" or "purchase" and refers to the price paid rather than the condition of what is being bought.

The problem faced here is you ignore the restoritive act that Jesus intended by his sacrifice. To redeem isn't only paying the price but restoration. All of these definitions apply

The payment of an obligation...Deliverance upon payment of ransom...Recovery of something pawned or mortgaged

You only adhere to the one aspect of the definition - Payment of the obligation and ignore the recovery/restoration aspect of the definition. Both are meant in scripture.

On the other hand sanctification refers more to the condition of what has been bought as it basically means to "separate" or "set apart" and in the context of purchase it is to "set apart" what has been purchased unto holiness - which is a progressive incompleted action where as "redemption" is a completed action that obtains right to do with the product as desired.

We are purchased to be set apart in not only what we believe, who we are, but also those things we do. We are saved unto good works.

Here is where you completely trash the gospel as "good news." The very essence of the gospel is the "good news" of what sinners can NEVER do for themselves and only what Christ could and did FOR them "freely by grace."

No you are wrong. I have never implied that we initiate our salvation or become saved by our own merits. Never once the Good news is that Jesus did it. But now we are free to act in that freedom of sanctification, living righteously. Living out our Justification. You want to absent the person from their behavior and obligations the participation in the life of Christ.

Tell me TS have you personally accepted the death of Christ to have PAID IN FULL your own penalty of sin?

Yes.

Or do you deny your own penalty for sin is PAID IN FULL???

My sins are paid in full and to be forgiven all I have to do is ask for forgiveness. Now let me ask you a question which is more to the point. Do you believe the consequences of your sin are gone? Let me give you an example question. If I had illicit sex in my life before comming to Jesus Christ and contracted HIV. Just because God forgave me my sin has he gotten rid of my disease? (Not saying he couldn't) No. In fact all those people I passed the disease on to will also have it No matter what standing I have before God. Now that I'm made right with God do I have an obligation not to pass that disease on to anyone else? And if I ignore God and continue to spread that disease around am I really righteous?

How about this. Just because my sins are paid in full does that alleviate my responsibility to be a disciplined christian? I would say no. You would say yes.

 

[The Biblicist]

However, according to your soteriological method that commitment is optional not a requirement.

I don't know how many times I have utterly and repeatedly denied this false accusation. I have repeatedly stated there is no such thing as a human being who is justified who is not also regenerated and sanctification stems from regeneration not justification. What you fail to acknolwedge is that I merely place them in their proper cause and consequence order without denying either. There is no such thing as a justified man who will not ultimately be a completely glorified man and everything in between is progressive, incomplete, and a matter of degree that differs from person to person.

Contrarily, the problem you face is you make a distinction between what one believes and how one acts. I consider one acts what they believe.

A Straw man argument. They are not in contrast to each other. One is the necessary consequence of the other. Again, there is no such thing as a justified man who is not also a regenerated man. They are distinct but not one without the other.

The problem faced here is you ignore the restoritive act that Jesus intended by his sacrifice.

The LEGAL claims against the elect were paid in full, completely restored on the cross by the Second Adam as their representative. What was not restored on the cross was PRACTICAL sanctification of the elect. That is progressive in nature and therefore cannot be regarded on the cross as completed or restored.

However, it is the LEGAL claims paid in full that make possible the PRACTICAL restoration that is progressive and future in regard to restoration.

We are purchased to be set apart in not only what we believe, who we are, but also those things we do. We are saved unto good works.

Now, is the time to be picky in regard to the correct terms. Paul says complete satistfacton and justifcation by the blood and resurrection of Jesus Christ is received by faith (Rom. 3:24-26; 4:24-25). We are justified so that we may be sanctified through good works without confusing either with the other as YOU DO! One is the legal cause whereas the other is the practical manifestation of regeneration.

The term "salvaiton" and "saved" is too generic when dealing with these issues as both terms are unbrella terms that are inclusive of things which must be distinguished from one another without denying any. Your soteriolgy is based upon CONFUSION of those things the scriptures distinguish under the unbrella terms of "salvation" and "saved". The term "saved" refers to all the past tense aspects (regeneration, conversion, justification, adoption) without confusing any one of these aspects with the other and without denying any one of these aspects but correctly defining them and their logical relationship to each other.

The term "salvation" is even a broader unbrella term that includes all aspects of salvation from the past to the future. Every false gospel is based upon CONFUSION of these terms and aspects and the failure to distinguish between things that differ and to distinguish between the logical cause and consequence relationships betweent them. Here lies the very roots of your false doctrine.

No you are wrong. I have never implied that we initiate our salvation or become saved by our own merits.

Pleeeeease don't give me this run around! I know exactly how you define your terms and the problem is in the definition of your terms. My definition is spelled out in Romans 4:16-21. Romans 4:16-21 defines justifying grace and faith in regard to the person being justified as PASSIVE and merely RECEPTIVE and excludes ALL ACTIVE PARTICIPATION or CONTRIBUTION by the person being justified.

1. Abraham and Sarah's contributing co-participating ACTIVE factors are "DEAD".

2. They could do absolutely nothing but DEPEND upon God's Power and RECEIVE God's Promise - period!

3. Your soteriology is that which comes from the ACTIVE role demonstrated by Abraham and Hagar whereby Ishmael is the product of cooperation with the promises of God.

Never once the Good news is that Jesus did it.

Read Romans 1:16-17; 3:24-28; 4:24-25 in connection with 1 Cor. 15:3-4. The gospel is NEVER ONCE what YOU DO or HAVE DONE but What Christ did FOR sinners.

You want to absent the person from their behavior and obligations the participation in the life of Christ.

Total misrepresentation! Totally false. Again, there is no such person who is truly justified by faith who is not also regenerated and thus in some degreee of progressive sanctification yet without confusing one of these aspects with the other or denying one without the other but in their proper cause and consequence relationship. There is not one truly justified person who will not live some extent of life on earth and gain some degree of sanctification who will not be perfectly glorified at the resurrection before they ever meet Jesus Christ (1 Thes. 4:17).

My sins are paid in full and to be forgiven all I have to do is ask for forgiveness.

The Bible says "thou shalt not lie"! You do not believe that merely asking forgiveness is sufficient. Indeed, not even last rites are sufficient as there is personal payment in purgatory for nearly all Catholics! Why lie?

Furthermore, you do not believe to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord as you deny anyone can come into the presence of God until their sins are purged in purgatory.

Now let me ask you a question which is more to the point. Do you believe the consequences of your sin are gone? Let me give you an example question.

Answered this already above. The statement on the coss refers to something already completely paid in full in the past tense. That refers to the LEGAL satisfaction of the law in regard to ETERNAL life and death. Hence, the cross obtain ETERNAL consequences by satisfying all LEGAL claims against the sinner through the PERSON of Jesus Christ as His LEGAL representative.

What is not restored by Christ on the cross past tense is the PROGRESSIVE RESTORATION of the Person of the sinner. That is the act of progressive sanctification. Again, there is no such person as one who is justified who is not also regenerated without confusing the two with each other or their proper relationship with each other and works. Justification is based upon Christ's works for us while regeneration is the work of the Holy Spirit in us in order to progressively sanctify us through good works.

However, what was also purchased

Now that I'm made right with God do I have an obligation not to pass that disease on to anyone else? And if I ignore God and continue to spread that disease around am I really righteous?

Why select one PARTICULAR sin? Why not tell the truth and say, "And if I ignore God and continue to sin and I really righteous?"

I will let you answer that question by answering this question! Do you know better than to sin? If so, Have you stopped sinning? Will you die a sinless man?

The only way you can answer "yes" to these questions is to redefine sin! When Jesus answered what is the Great Commandment of the Law he provided an answer that commanded the complete absence of both sin of ommission as well as commission. Either violates that postive command! So have you EVER obeyed that command? If so, when? Where? How?

TS that command demands NO SIN of ANY KIND in order for you to obey it with "ALL" your mind and "ALL" your heart" and "ALL" your strength as "ALL" leaves nothing left to come short of or you have not obeyed this command at "ALL" with "ALL". The very fact you die in a PROGRESSIVE and thus an INCOMPLETE righteousness means you die a "sinner."

What you do not realize is that your soterilogy is attempting to replace Christ with YOU and YOUR satisfaction of the Law's standards. What Christ FINISHED on the cross or PAID IN FULL was the LEGAL consequences which are ETERNAL and therefore we now have "ETERNAL life" and "shall not come into condemnation" but have "passed from death unto life" LEGALLY and POSITIONALLY by the Person and work of Christ finished on the cross. It is this FINISHED work that provides the basis for TEMPORAL and PROGRESSIVE salvation that can only be finished and completed with glorification.

 

[Yeshua1]

I modified my last post you will want to read it again. But to follow up. Can you continue to live in sin reject righteousness and hold a belief that Jesus is who he says he is and still be saved or must you be transformed in your life?

justification before God is ONLY thru the death of jesus as propiation for our sins!

God ONLY requires to have the sinners receive that Gift of god by faith ONLY in jesus!


ONCE saved by God, THEN we will walk as odedient children to the lord...

IF we walk in sin, we face loss of rewards and the sure Chaistisement of the father to correct our ways!