Justification

Boy! I wonder why God wrongly used OT types in declaring Jesus is the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world?

I wonder why he refers to obedient saved people who listen to him and follow him as sheep?

I mean, after all, they aren't really clean animals, are they?

God should know better than to wrongly apply an OT truth.

 

KS is remarkably like "salvation" in Islam. There's no guarantee, and there is no way to measure if you've done enough to qualify. The best you can do is blow yourself up for Allah (martyr yourself) and hope that was enough.

Hey, I think there's a solution to the KS problem right there...

 

I precisely said that it was two different metaphors to illustrate two different truths.

Several other people tried to say they were both the same thing by being how you get into the family.

 

Amy that question has been answered many times before. That's what the majority of the NT is all about. It's the rule book so that you can run in such a way as to not be disqualified along the way or even at the finish.

But just to boil it down from the book of James it is a faith that works. If you are going to have this life you are going to have to believe and this faith is going to have to produce the proper fruits. If you don't produce the fruits or you stop believing then you will be disqualified.

Amy just because you make a claim does not make it so. No one has ever denied the power of Christ. But the power of Christ is conditional not guaranteed. Now if you have some Scripture that says it's gauranteed then please but it forth and then tell me how you are going to work around the "condition" (non-guarantee) in I John 1:9.

Again I John 1:9. IF WE CONFESS. That's not guarantee that's IF.

 

Okay, if clean = saved, then let's apply the same reasoning to this passage:

Ah, now that God has made all those unclean animals clean, this passage must teach universal salvation, since there are no longer any unclean animals to separate from the sheep. Oh, sorry, I forgot to do it the way you guys do it, as a challenge with the bogus reasoning included as assumed true...

So, God cleansed all animals and the Bible says clean means saved. Since all animals are now clean, nobody can remain unsaved, can they?
.

 

Since they are different, then I'm sure you will retract the question, "If we are born from above into the family of God, why must we also be adopted?" The question is no longer valid since they are separate metaphors.

 

An Exposition on Justification

The law is the harbinger of death. We would not have known sin if the law had not said to refrain from sin. In this point we are alive, until we transgress the law. Look at verse 9.

So, we were formerly alive, until the law. Now we are under the penalty of death (since we are given God‘s commandments and are unable to meet these righteous requirements; much like trying to pay off a million dollar debt you owe, but do not have the money). We are not “dead” yet, even lost, only dead in our trespasses (it is possible to be redeemed); otherwise, to suggest we are dead entirely, is to suggest we have paid the price for our disobedience to God, which of course we have not paid until we have suffered his wrath, which is damnation (and even then he is not appeased, but only in the death of his Son; Christ died for the sins of the whole world, whether people accept it or not, so truly unbelievers die in vain, even though they go to Hell).

We (unbelievers now) are alive (as a free-willed, soul - which is eternal). We divorce the justice of our disobedience through death (the penalty, or spiritual death). Or if we turn to Christ in faith, we divorce the justice of our disobedience to God, through our shared death (which is to say: through faith in Christ’s resurrection, or victory over death):

The death that is being mentioned here is the payment for disobedience to the Lord. It is not referring to our physical death (that was a punishment for a different transgression), but our eternal death. I believe this because we are alive, only made dead when we transgress the law (but we are still alive; unless someone dies when they sin, in which case I’d not be here but in the grave). Like a court-ruling: our sentence is death. So, while we live, we are dead spiritually. Now, to assume we have no life, is to say that we have nothing to atone for. God will still be found true.

The death hasn’t taken place yet, otherwise, we (we being Christians) would not need to reconcile ourselves dead in order that we might experience our hope for glory, who is Christ, who defeated death for us, and has resurrected - the resurrection of course being the official triumph over death.

Our hope is Christ:

I know that was a lot. Hopefully, God forgive me, I haven’t blasphemed or gone heretical.
*Brackets in quotes are mine.

 

How many more times must we repeat the same thing over and over and over?

Be faithful.

Please show where any of us has said that it is anything other than the power of Christ that makes it possible for us to be faithful.

It's precisely the blood that was shed for the remission of sins that gives that power.

But, we have to confess our sins on an ongoing basis to access that power. We, as saved people, can refuse to do that. We can live lawless lives, which is a specific no-no.

Why do you automatically equate "wicked" with "unsaved"? Do you not think that a saved person has the ability to sin and not confess it?

So, do you think that a saved person can live completely in the flesh, doing whatsover he wants, no matter how abominable, and not answer for it?

When the Bible tells us that we have to give an accounting for our works whether good or bad, it really means that we are really just going to get rewarded for our good works?

Or perhaps he's going to give us a good scolding?

Or perhaps you think we have a license to sin?

Yet we post Scripture after Scripture and you get "amens" from someone who posts none. Should tell you something right there.

 

Why would I do that?

They are two different metaphors covering two different subjects, yet there are others who try to say they are two entirely different things that really and truly mean the exact same thing.

I've given the definition of the Greek word and the English word, neither of which lines up with the claims of "adoption" having anything to do with being placed into the family, and birth does have to do with being put into a family, yet some still try to claim that two different metaphors for two completely different things are really the same, it's just that God didn't know a better way of saying it.

God said what he meant and means what he says. If we are born into a family, we have no need to be legally placed into that family.

Sonship has to do with position within the family.

Birth and adoption are two entirely different things.

 

This is ridiculous. According to your doctrine of works, even one sin will send you to 1000 years of hell.
You are either washed clean of sin or you're not. You can't have it both ways.

Even one sin will not only keep you out of the kingdom, but it will keep you out of the presence of God forever. Being punished in hell for 1000 years will not justify you in God's eyes. Only faith in the shed blood of Christ will justify you. You are either justified or you're not. You cannot be partially justified.

Yes, we are to confess our sins. Another "sign" that a person is saved. Under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, a believer will hate his sin and want fellowship restored with his Father. When a believer sins, it sickens him that he has sinned against the One that he loves more than anything. Unsaved people couldn't care less.

 

EXACTLY. So why do we have I John 1:9 where believers are told to confess in order to have forgiveness. Either their sins have already been forgiven or they haven't. You can't have it both ways.

Scripture says they haven't been. I think that's the one we need to go with in this and ALL cases!

If we have sin in our lives then we have to confess it. Why? So that God can forgive that which is not forgiven. You can't forgive something that is already forgiven.

 

To restore fellowship.

If you have a fight with your wife your fellowship is broken, but you're still married. It doesn't nullify the covenant. But, until you apologize to one another, you will remain in a broken relationship.

 

Mind showing where I've even hinted at that?

You can't, because I haven't. It's the lifestyle that will result in that. That's why we're judged at the Judgment Seat of Christ for our works, whether good or bad. If they're all eradicated forever at the moment of salvation, whether past, present, or future, then there's nothing for which we need to be judged.

 

Which is exactly what we are saying!

BTW, have you ever bought a new dress, got it dirty, and washed it? Next time you wear it, you might go out to eat and you drop a little ketchup on it. Well, you have to wash it again.

By the same token, at the moment of salvation, we start with a clean slate. Then, that little greem monster of envy creeps in, or we have a lustful thought, or we really do it right and go out and commit adultery, we have to go before the Lord and we have to confess that sin and our sins are washed away. As far as the east is from the west. He will remember them no more.

But, if we arrive at the Judgment Seat with unconfessed sin, we have to answer for it (them).

 

Here's the deal though. You said all of our sin is forgiven at the moment of salvation. If that is true then there is nothing that can disrupt our fellowship, because anything we are going to do in the future God has already dealt with it according to you. So it is impossible to break fellowship with God over something He has already forgiven.

EXACTLY. Because my wife hasn't already forgiven me for future fights. She can't forgive me until one the fight happens and there is something to forgive and then I have to offer my apology.

But what you are saying is that my wife has already forgived me for all the fights that we ever have.

It just doesn't fit. You don't forgive something that is already forgiven.

 

This is yet another underhanded debate tactic the KSers love to use. You refute soundly something they say, and their reaction is, "Exactly! That's what we've been saying all along!"

And then they go on to contradict what you said. I can only conclude that they're either too stupid to recognize the difference, or they're just devious in their debate tactics.

 

So, in order to restore our fellowship with God we must suffer for 1000 years in hell.

 

Amy you can't address a flaw in your logic by trying to change the subject.

I John 1:9 is what it is. You don't/can't forgive what is already forgiven. That's IMPOSSIBLE. That would make God imperfect, because His first forgiveness didn't work if He has to do it a second time.

 

Then what is the 1000 year punishment for? What good will come of it?

If you were forgiven of all of your past sins at the moment of salvation, and you are continually forgiven for your present sins when you confess them, then what pray tell are you going to be punished for in the 1000 years?


And I was addressing a flaw in your logic.

 

Nothing. That's why we have an Advocate before the Father. But if we don't confess then we are not going to be blameless at the JSOC. And if we are found with blame a Holy, Perfect God is not just going to sweep that under the carpet. Scripture tells us we will be rewarded whether good or bad.

You haven't shown one yet.