Event vrs Process Justification

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by ascund:
[QB] Hey Bob

What is up is that you force your own denominational error upon the text.

The unit from 1:18 - 3:19 has the same message.

You call it running, I call it CONTEXT.

You have YET to deal with EVEN ONE line of Romans 2 let alone the chapter or all the points raised IN THAT CHAPTER.

That is called "running and hiding" on this board.

Surely you could have brought yourself to address ONE!!

I fully understand that you would RATHER talk about Romans 1 and 3! I get it!

I fully understand that you NEED to avoid the bulk of Romans 2 and "spin it" as IF it ONLY mentined the FAILING cases. (This was ALREADY pointed out in the analysis I gave of Romans 2!!)

So "so far nothing new" in your antics. IN fact my comments in Romans 2 written long before your participation here fully anticipated the antics you are now using! (As can be seen from my introduction to the chapter!)

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I post Romans 2: 1-11
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3384.html#000006

You run and hide


I post Romans 2:11-13
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3384.html#000007

You run and hide.


I post Romans 2:12-16 and 25-26
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3384.html#000008

You run and hide!!


I post ALL Romans 2:17-29 as a group with comments
http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3384.html#000009

You run and …. .HIDE!

At some point – a “pattern” is noticed!

 

[BobRyan]

Bob said -
#1. "He has lost Christ" - you seem to reject OSAS.

#2. You seem to make justification a matter of "mental exercise" and not simply an event of the Romans 2 type with the circumcision of the heart by the Holy Spirit when you say that it is the understanding of the person that determines how real the Justification is -

#3. In Romans 3:28 and Romans 5:1 we see justification event "past". But in Romans 2 and James 2 we see a future justification "by works and not by faith alone". One in which "Judgment is passed in favor of the saints" (Daniel 7) on that future day when "We must ALL stand before the judgment seat of Christ" 2Cor 6.

So which justification are you talking about?

I resonde DIRECTLY to the DETAIL in your OP -- and you do not answer my points.

But you CHOOSE to focus on Romans 2 as if a closer look would help your case!! And would SHOW no Gospel hope in Romans 2!!!

Lloyd said --
Don't ignore context. Rom 2 is about God condemning all self-righteous obedience. Their is nothing in that chapter upon which to base your hope of heaven. Context ends with Rom 3:19 where you won't say one word in your own self-righteous defense.

I respond with a FULL disclosure of Romans 2 DETAIL and you "run and hide".

Then you post the next day --

Lloyd
How many times have I asked you for a BIBLE definition of justification? The above Sep 03 post is your dodge tactic

But it is YOU that ran and hid Lloyd!

I directly responded to YOUR OP and even asked you questions about WHICH form of Justification you were referencing as I gave you SEVERAL places to CHOOSE from and pointed out that you would probably want to "run and hide" from the Gospel justification mentioned in Romans 2.

It is YOU that has turned on this and hidden from the direct response method!

How can you simply go on "pretending"??

For my part - since you never answered MY question about WHICH Justification texts you want to avoid or read -- we are LEFT with the same unanswered point!!

How can this continually be a surprise to you?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

Hi Bob,

The scriptures tell us to study and rightly divided the word of truth. It also tells us that precept must be upon precept. Lloyd makes a good point that one should approach the bible as a whole, singling out each specific precept of God's Word and building a solid packaged doctrine. The bible tells us that Jesus Christ is the foundation on which we must build, which means starting with His purpose for coming, dieing and rising again to life. Then build doctrine from there.

It does no good to do an analysis of a single chapter or book from the bible without
1) identifying the precept you are desiring to interpret ( in this case justification and the object thereof)
2) refering to ALL of God's counsel concerning that precept. This is why Matt 18 has you believing in forgiveness revoked. Forgiveness revoked is such a bizzare notion it turns the biblical character of God upside down spinning on His head. No offense, but I would expect a babe in Christ to wrestle with such a parable and not one like yourself who has read enough scripture to know better. The full counsel of God negates any possibility of such an interpretation.

Anyway, one must understand God's justification of the sinner, which is ALL God and NONE sinner in order to rightly divide any part of God's Word.

Thanks for the post Lloyd!

God Bless!

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by steaver:
Hi Bob,

The scriptures tell us to study and rightly divided the word of truth.

Here we go again.

"Believe it or not" I get that part.

I also "get the silly point" that BOTH SIDES can STOP a close review of the Bible - BOTH could "run and hide from Romans 2" and INSTEAD just keep telling the OTHER SIDE that they are not "rightly dividing the word of truth"..

This is not the difficult part of the debate.

Both points I see very clearly!!

But I was hoping for some "substance".

See?

Steaver -- The bible tells us that Jesus Christ is the foundation on which we must build, which means starting with His purpose for coming, dieing and rising again to life. Then build doctrine from there.

You can not argue that Romans 2 can not be read UNTIL you are first OSAS in doctrinal belief!

In fact you can not argue that ANY scripture that appears to refute OSAS CAN NOT be read until one is FIRST OSAS in bias!!

See?

Steaver

It does no good to do an analysis of a single chapter or book from the bible without
1) identifying the precept you are desiring to interpret ( in this case justification and the object thereof)

Justification IS the subject of Romans 2 -- see Romans 2:11-13!! Paul points out the Gospel Justification so CENTRIC to the chapter.

This was ALREADY pointed out in my first comments on Romans 2.

I should hate to think that one can not read the ENTIRE chapter of Romans 6 until one FIRST agrees to OSAS!!

In fact I would hate to think that ANY chapter of the Bible could not be read until one first agrees to OSAS!

What has been going on is the post of "reasons" from "bias" why someone does "not LIKE the points SEEN In THE TEXT" in Romans 2 and Matt 18.

But such posts are NOT exegesis not even REMOTELY exegesis.

How is this so difficult "to get"??

Steaver
2) refering to ALL of God's counsel concerning that precept. This is why Matt 18 has you believing in forgiveness revoked. Forgiveness revoked is such a bizzare notion

I see you not quoting the part of the text THAT SHOWS the debt RETURNING and the FORGIVENESS revoked.

I see you simply SAYING that you don't like the idea!

Don't YOU SEE - that such a response is NOT exegeting Matt 18 even REMOTELY?!!

How can you be satisified with such a response to the inconvenient points of scripture raised against OSAS?!!

I would much rather base my faith and belief in a sound exegetical rendering and ACCEPTANCE of each inconnenient point of the text.


You simply mask your own bias -- calling it "the full counsel of God" and then simply show how this is your basis for rejecting the inconvenient "details avoided" in Matt 18

Steaver said
The full counsel of God negates any possibility of such an interpretation.

To put it bluntly. I fully understand how such methods would appeal to the OSAS group and fellow members of it - as they are all challenged by the inconvenient points in each of these ENTIRE CHAPTERS that have been referenced.

That part I get.

What I don't get is how you would expect such subjective and biased methods to be seen as "compelling" outside of that little group.

Anyway, one must understand God's justification of the sinner, which is ALL God and NONE sinner in order to rightly divide any part of God's Word.

Also - don't get me wrong about 4 and 5 point Calvinism as described in your comment above. I have no doubt that ONCE you are a Calvinist of that persuasion -- you are fully motivated to ignore the inconvient chapters of scripture that I am pointing out.

I get that!

And of course I am not a Calvinist. So I see how that wrecks your desired starting point for reading (and basically glossing over) Matt 18 and Romans2 and Ezek 18 and ...

But isn't that the very essence of the reason for this discussion area? To explore scripture MORE objectively OUTSIDE the confines of the yes-man club where all share the same bias?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Since the "JUSTIFICATION" mentioned in Romans 2;11-13 is so "unnacceptable" to Calvinists and others of the OSAS bias...

Romans 2
11 For there is no partiality with God.
12 For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law;
13 for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.

(IN fact the OSAS supporters refuse to let this statement on justification be read until one has ANOTHER view of justification other than what Paul presents IN the chapter)

Lets try something else.

Rev 3 --

Here we have the SINNER who is ALONE and APART from UNION with Christ on the INSIDE and Christ on the OUTSIDE knocking.

Here we see the point BEFORE Justification and Christ walks us all the way through to the point FOLLOWING justification.

Rev 3
20 "Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.

21 " He who overcomes, I will grant to him to sit down with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

John 12:32 God DRAWS all of mankind

John 16:8-12 God CONVICTS all the world of sin and righteousness and judgement.

And in Rev 3 Christ STANDS at the door of the heart and knocks.

BUT THEN - the action CHRIST identifies for the one on the INSIDE who is ALONE and without Christ - must take place for UNION (regeneration) to take place.

It is clear.

And Obvious.

And Arminian.

And not OSAS.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

I will provide my comments on Romans 1 and 3 if that is what is "stopping OSAS" posters from reading and responding to Romans 2.

Just let me know.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[steaver]

You can not argue that Romans 2 can not be read UNTIL you are first OSAS in doctrinal belief!

In fact you can not argue that ANY scripture that appears to refute OSAS CAN NOT be read until one is FIRST OSAS in bias!!

See?

That's not what I said.

I should hate to think that one can not read the ENTIRE chapter of Romans 6 until one FIRST agrees to OSAS!!

In fact I would hate to think that ANY chapter of the Bible could not be read until one first agrees to OSAS!

Never said any of this.

I see you not quoting the part of the text THAT SHOWS the debt RETURNING and the FORGIVENESS revoked.

I see you simply SAYING that you don't like the idea!

Don't YOU SEE - that such a response is NOT exegeting Matt 18 even REMOTELY?!!

How can you be satisified with such a response to the inconvenient points of scripture raised against OSAS?!!

I would much rather base my faith and belief in a sound exegetical rendering and ACCEPTANCE of each inconnenient point of the text.


You simply mask your own bias -- calling it "the full counsel of God" and then simply show how this is your basis for rejecting the inconvenient "details avoided" in Matt 18

Your missing the whole point of my post. One cannot simply disect a parable WITHOUT refering to the full counsel of God.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steaver said
The full counsel of God negates any possibility of such an interpretation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob said;

To put it bluntly. I fully understand how such methods would appeal to the OSAS group and fellow members of it - as they are all challenged by the inconvenient points in each of these ENTIRE CHAPTERS that have been referenced.

That part I get.

What I don't get is how you would expect such subjective and biased methods to be seen as "compelling" outside of that little group.

Such methods? If you do not consider the full counsel of God Bob then you will most always come up with a shakey interpretation of the passage.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steaver;

Anyway, one must understand God's justification of the sinner, which is ALL God and NONE sinner in order to rightly divide any part of God's Word.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bob said;

Also - don't get me wrong about 4 and 5 point Calvinism as described in your comment above. I have no doubt that ONCE you are a Calvinist of that persuasion -- you are fully motivated to ignore the inconvient chapters of scripture that I am pointing out.

Call me what ever you like Bob, but the full counsel of God concludes exactly what I said. Maybe you should step back and study it all together rather than getting yourself hung up on parables and exclusive passages hard to be understood.

But isn't that the very essence of the reason for this discussion area? To explore scripture MORE objectively OUTSIDE the confines of the yes-man club where all share the same bias?

Scripture interprets scripture Bob, but you want others to answer your post in the confines of each passage. This is what creates mis-interpretations.

God Bless!

 

[BobRyan]

See the other thread for Romans 3 - -hope this gets things started for the OSAS group.

 

[ascund]

Hey BobRyan

It is clear that you aren't up to an honest study of God's Word on your own. So here is the promised study. I'll just give the basics first. Then you can see if anything pops up.

Try this:
SORTED BY VOICE, THEN TENSE

ACTIVE VOICE
Luke 10:29; Pres Act Inf; The lawyer, willing to justify himself, said to Jesus …
Luke 16:15; Pres Act Ptcp; You are those who are justifying yourselves before men.
Rom 3:26; Pres Act Ptcp; God is the One justifying those who believe in Jesus.
Rom 8:33; Pres Act Ptcp; God is the One Who justifies.
Gal 3:8; Pres Act Ind; God would justify the heathen through faith.

Rom 3:30; Fut Act Ind; God will justify by faith.

Rom 8:30; Aor Act Ind; Those who he called, he justified and glorified.
Luke 7:29; Aor Act Ind; The publicans justified God.

PASSIVE VOICE
Acts 13:39; Pres Pass Ind; All who believe are justified
Rom 3:24; Pres Pass Ptcp; Being justified freely by his grace through Jesus’ redemption.
Rom 3:28; Pres Pass Infin; We are justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Rom 4:5; Pres Act Ptcp; Those who believe in Jesus are justified. Faith is counted for righteousness.
Gal 2:16; Pres Pass Ind; We are not justified by the works of the law.
Gal 3:11; Pres Pass Ind; No one is justified by the law. The just (dikaios) shall live by faith.
Gal 5:4; Pres Pass Ind; Christ is of no effect if you are justified by the law. Ye are fallen from grace.
James 2:24; Pres Pass Ind; A man is justified by works and not by faith only.

Matt 11:19; Aor Pass Ind; Wisdom is justified of her children.
Luke 7:35; Aor Pass Ind; Wisdom is justified by her children.
Rom 3:4; Aor Pass Subj; God’s Word is given that you might be justified.
Rom 4:2; Aor Pass Ind; If Abraham was justified by works he can boast.
Rom 5:1; Aor Pass Ptcp; Being justified by faith, we have peace with God.
Rom 5:9; Aor Pass Ptcp; Being justified by Jesus’ blood, we shall be saved from God’s wrath.
I Cor 6:11; Aor Pass Ind; We are justified and sanctified in Jesus’ name by God’s Spirit.
Gal 2:17; Aor Pass Infin; If we seek to be justified by Christ and found to be sinners, is Christ the minister of sin? God forbid!
Gal 3:24; Aor Pass Subj; The law brought us to Christ that we might be justified by faith.
I Tim 3:16; Aor Pass Ind; God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, believed in the world, and received up into glory.
Tit. 3:7; Aor Pass Ptcp; Being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs.
James 2:21; Aor Pass Ind; Was not Abraham justified by works when he offered up Isaac?
James 2:25; Aor Pass Ind; Rahab was justified by works.
Rev 22:11; Aor Pass Imper; He who is righteous, let him be righteous still.

Matt 12:37; Fut Pass Ind; You will be justified by your words.
Rom 2:13; Fut Pass Ind; The doers of the law will be justified.
Rom 3:20; Fut Pass Ind; No one will be justified by the deeds of the law.

Luke 18:14; Perf Pass Ptcp; The publican went away justified.
Rom 6:7; Perf Pass Ind; He that is dead is freed (justified) from sin.
I Cor 4:4; Perf Pass Ind; I am not yet justified (because of stewardship).


Ball in your court. This will be tough for you since there is more than one verse to absue.

What do you see? What patterns are there? Where is God mentioned? Where are humans mentioned?

This will be a tough task for you since you are asked to think independently from denominational creeds. But here is where biblical theology begins.

Since you've probably never been here, I'll post my observations tomorrow. I mean - how much embarassment does one have to endure before they figure out that God's Word is prime - not denominational error?!

But good luck on your attempted observations.
Lloyd

 

[ascund]

Bob?

How are you doing on an honest study here?

Sort of overwhelming isn't it! You are only used to botching a handful of verses and now you have to look at all the verses that contradict your view.

Rom 2 - you do it out of context. Here you'll have to compare it to other verses that you run from.

In fact, look at all those verses from Romans. Do you think Paul changes his mind back and forth from chapter 2 to chapter 5 etc?

Harmony Bob! This is what you cannot do! Your method can only pit one set of verses against another part. By ignoring total context - you make the parts of God's Word you don't like the equivalent of a disdained lie.

True harmony, Bob, uses all the verses and can explain why one verse appears different than the great weight of scripture.

True harmony does not pick one verse that supports human-centered self-righteousness and then uses it to "interpret" the great weight of scripture. That is a really bad hermeneutic!

True harmony from a face to face examination of ALL of God's Word is what I'm after here. I expect you to drop out in a couple of exchanges as it gets to close to exposing your Christ-denying position.

Tomorrow Bob - I can hardly wait. But I promised I wouldn't post my lexical conclusions until tomorrow. I'll probably be looking around 530 EST.

Good luck!
Lloyd

 

[BobRyan]

You are making this too easy Lloyd.

You post factless, textless, scripture-devoid pointless posts and then claim that "soon" you will post something with substance.

Still waiting Lloyd!

I on the other hand have enumerated so many points FROM THE TEXT that you are simply awash in a backlog of UNANSWERED POINTS.

Which means - POINTS THAT REMAIN!

Get it?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

BTW Lloyd --

Thank you for pointing out that the information conveyed in the english text BY the TRANSLATORS is correct.

PASSIVE VOICE
Acts 13:39; Pres Pass Ind; All who believe are justified

ACTIVE VOICE
Luke 16:15; Pres Act Ptcp; You are those who are justifying yourselves before men

There is nothing like having someone pedantically emphasize the rather banal point that the translators know what they are doing and the english is "correct".

I know I for one am always excited to see that same old point made over and over "as if it is news".

Thanks again.

 

[ascund]

Hey Bob

I didn't give a complete listing of context with the references. For example, the Luke 16:15 reference comes with just a short part of the sentence in which the verb occurs.

Does this relieve you of looking at your Bible? No Bob! You still need to use CONTEXT. Here, CONTEXT shows that Jesus is condemning the Pharisees for their self righteous quest for justification. This active use of the verb denies self-righteousness.

This is an excellent example of your theology. Avoid or abuse context, then force self-righteousness upon text. I love it. Your theology is demolished at every part of your furtive posts.

What don't you understand about the passive voice in Acts 13:39? That believe has the action of looking to Jesus in faith does not support a full-fledged system of works, endurance or water baptism. It does mean that one has to actively change their mind about Jesus. Don't try to stupidly brand me as a Calvinist. I've told you plenty of times how wrong you are in this aspect.

Both verses (especially in context) demolish your process human-centered Christ-denying self-righteous heresy.

Lloyd

 

[ascund]

Hey Bob

Really Bob, if this is all you can do with my nice list, then you will fail even kindergarden theology. TEN THOUSAND posts from a kindergarden flunky. That is indeed something to discuss at the coffee pot tomorrow.

No wonder your theology is so warped, you can't even see that the context refutes your Christ-denying view.

I have serious doubts about your personal heart relation with Jesus. Can you truly believe in Jesus while you deny Him?

Lloyd

 

[ascund]

Hey Bob

I'm a little early on this. But since I had to get up to take care of business, I might as well give you your first lesson on justification.

It's too bad you couldn't do the leg work yourself. I could have viewed you as a scholar of some sort. Now I just know two things about you: you have nothing else to do and you don't like to open your Bible either.

Lexical conclusions next post!
Lloyd

 

[ascund]

Hey Bob

I'm trying to keep things short and simple for you. Here are the conclusions.

LEXICAL CONCLUSIONS

FROM THE ACTIVE VOICE
Negatively,
Jesus shows the lawyers error in self justification (Luke 10:29).
We can justify ourselves before others (Luke 16:15).

Positively,
God alone is active in justification (Rom 3:26; 8:30,33; Gal 3:8).
Positional justification is linked with positional sanctification (Rom 8:30).

Other, The publicans justified God: Luke 7:29.


FROM THE PASSIVE VOICE
Negatively,
Before other humans, we are justified by works and faith (James 2) and our words (Matt 12:37).

Positively,
Humans are passively justified by God’s grace, by faith in Jesus’ name, by God’s Spirit, apart from works or deeds of the law. Justification results in permanent forgiveness of sin (Rom 6:7).

Hope you get it!

Lloyd

 

[ascund]

Hey Bob

Just in case you are having trouble working through the previous post, here is an even more condensed form upon which you can ruminate.

Lexical Conclusions of Justification:
__1. Justification is an EVENT.
__2. Human activity is denied for justification.
__3. Only God is active in EVENT justification.


Surprise! Process justification is the anti-gospel!

Now don't go running to your cut and paste stuff. Go to the list (I do hope you copied my list somewhere) and use only those verses as the basis of your next error. If I can keep you to this pre-101 theological study on justification, there is hope that you won't run down to many rabbit trails.

I know it is hard on you Bob. But this is the only way in which we should approach God's Word. So try not to get angry and put in the leg work necessary to come up with a valid theological position.

Lloyd

 

[ascund]

Bob?

No comment? Nothing ready to cut and paste as an evasive response? No handy denominational interpretation of a sanctification verse to run and hide behind?

Just verses on justification. I would be worried if I was you. 40 references that totally demolish your theology and your pit-Bible-against-Bible hermeneutic.

Justification is the chief article by which the church (or an individual) stands or falls (Luther).

Lloyd

 

[BobRyan]

Lloyd this may come as a surprise to you but the COMMON ground that you have with me is ONLY the Bible - not your pontificating. I am looking for you to post "substance" not speculation and blind Calvinist assertion.

ANYONE can simply ASSUME the salient points of their argument instead of PROVING them.

Get it?

Yet?

In Christ,

Bob