Justification

[JonC]

I think the discussion would be much more fruitful if we stop worrying about whether we're faithful to mere men who have fabricated doctrine

I think that applies to more than you mention here, brother. But it will not work because their conclusions are presupposed. As I said before, once someone tells you the ink blot is a bat then it can be nothing but a bat.

I realize that the "two nature" explanation is truly extra-biblical insofar as scripture takes to define "nature". It's a philosophical discussion. My larger issue went ignored (Is justness a moral justness or something else). And Martin hijacked the thread upon his departure.

I will be closed soon if it does not return to the topic. When we get this far off topic it appears that disagreements are in areas where they may not truly exist.

 

[JamesL]

So enlighten us and explain how the person of Jesus Christ relates to both God and man.

In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

And the Word became flesh, and pitched His tent in our midst.

That is nothing like a supposed hypostatic union.

God is Spirit. Invisible. No man has ever seen Him, nor can see Him. But He sent His Word into the world to be born into a human body, which was literally descened from Adam

Any notion of Jesus being FULLY God or FULLY human is abusing scripture because His body is not divine and the Spirit inside is not man

 

[JonC]

So enlighten us and explain how the person of Jesus Christ relates to both God and man.

This brings up a good question. Why? Why do we have the need to work out and make into doctrine how the person of Jesus Christ relates to both God and man beyond the revelation of scripture that He does?

 

[The Biblicist]

This brings up a good question. Why? Why do we have the need to work out and make into doctrine how the person of Jesus Christ relates to both God and man beyond the revelation of scripture that He does?

However, it is the revelation of scripture that is being interpreted and debated. For example, James claims that the only human aspect of Christ is a physical body that descended from Adam and so Christ is not humanity as humanity involves more than a human body. For examples, angels take upon bodily appearance of men and demons possess human bodies but neither become man simply because they possess human bodies.

For example, James defines God to be "spirit" and thus the "spirit" in Jesus was not human but divine.

The problem is that the damage incurred upon humanity was by Adam a full and complete human being. The Messiah is said to be the "Second Adam" and therefore must be a partaker of humanity as much as the unfallen first Adam in order to redeem us. Something less than full humanity cannot redeem humanity. For example, angels are also spirit creatures but God did not send an angel to indwell a body to redeem us. Christ has to be fully man in spirit, soul and body to redeem man who is spirit soul and body. Hence, Christ was more than a human body indwelt by Spirit God the Son.

Furthermore, the nature of the redemption could only be completed by God as the righteousness required is "the righteousness of God" not found in fallen man nor can be ever produced by fallen man. The penalty for sin is "eternal" which can never be satisfied by a finite creature because only an infinite being can satisfy an eternal penalty, one who encompasses eternity.

Hence, the Messiah must be fully man and fully God without confounding either.

 

[JamesL]

I realize that the "two nature" explanation is truly extra-biblical insofar as scripture takes to define "nature". It's a philosophical discussion.

My larger issue went ignored (Is justness a moral justness or something else)....

I don't know that I'd say "or...or...or"

I'm firmly convinced that nustification relates to multiple concepts in scripture. That was what I was getting at in post #2

Martin opened up with a feeble case of justification relating almost exclusively to legal standing. Now - while that is one concept to which justification can be applied, it is hardly the only.

Even Paul did not limit his use of justified to that one concept, nor did he "define" justification for us.

But just like the ink blot bat, men seem only able to see justification in Romans 5 in the same way that Paul meant it in Romans 3-4

And James used it even differently from those, probably closer to what Paul was expounding in Romans 2

 

[JonC]

However, it is the revelation of scripture that is being interpreted and debated. For example, James claims that the only human aspect of Christ is a physical body that descended from Adam and so Christ is not humanity as humanity involves more than a human body. For examples, angels take upon bodily appearance of men and demons possess human bodies but neither become man simply because they possess human bodies.

For example, James defines God to be "spirit" and thus the "spirit" in Jesus was not human but divine.

The problem is that the damage incurred upon humanity was by Adam a full and complete human being. The Messiah is said to be the "Second Adam" and therefore must be a partaker of humanity as much as the unfallen first Adam in order to redeem us. Something less than full humanity cannot redeem humanity. For example, angels are also spirit creatures but God did not send an angel to indwell a body to redeem us. Christ has to be fully man in spirit, soul and body to redeem man who is spirit soul and body. Hence, Christ was more than a human body indwelt by Spirit God the Son.

Furthermore, the nature of the redemption could only be completed by God as the righteousness required is "the righteousness of God" not found in fallen man nor can be ever produced by fallen man. The penalty for sin is "eternal" which can never be satisfied by a finite creature because only an infinite being can satisfy an eternal penalty, one who encompasses eternity.

Hence, the Messiah must be fully man and fully God without confounding either.

Do you not find it a bit interesting that the orthodox Christian view (you depart slightly from it) was developed over four centuries after Christ in order to address the differences that had arisen within the Catholic church?

In other words, neither Scripture nor the early church believed that Jesus had two natures. The Chalcedonian Creed does not actually detail these two natures as much as it denounces the “hybrid” position that had arisen. They concluded that these “two natures” were indivisible, and inseparable (which denounces one heresy) and that they were also “unchangeable” and without mixture or confusion (denouncing another heresy). In other words, the Chalcedonian formula was not scripture but was a reaction to defend against false doctrine.

I already told you that I believe Christ had “one nature” in terms of being human and divine without division. To me, this means one divine-human nature (Jesus did not “use” different natures, but took on flesh). I believe nature ontological in terms of the will, not ability or attribute (not those qualities that can be set aside or not exercised…like omniscience, omnipotence, etc.). Instead I see the divine nature as perfectly faithful, righteous, holy, enduring, love, etc. I cannot see a change in nature here. But I conceded to using “two natures” in that you are adamant to define God’s nature through His non-communicable attributes.

So yes, what is being discussed and debated is not Scripture itself but our philosophies, theories, and interpretations of how things may have happened in the mind of God. I will stand on my belief here, but not so dogmatically as to denounce fifteen centuries (in terms of PST) or four centuries (in terms of the "two natures") as lacking biblical understanding.

 

[The Biblicist]

Martin opened up with a feeble case of justification relating almost exclusively to legal standing. Now - while that is one concept to which justification can be applied, it is hardly the only.

Even Paul did not limit his use of justified to that one concept, .

The word justify is only used in two possible senses - declare righteous or made righteous. In the context of Romans 3:24-5:2 it cannot mean "make righteous" as the context utterly denies that meaning. Romans 5 is an extension of Paul's doctrine of justification based upon Christ acting as the Second Adam

nor did he "define" justification for us

He most certainly does define what he means by justify in Romans 3:24-5:2. He defines it with ultimate precision. He defines it by contrast. He defines it by comparison. He defines it by exclusions. He defines it by inclusions. He defines by adjectival phrases. Justification is exquisitely defined with the utmost precision one can define a term.

Paul provides a very detailed definitive doctrine of justification in Romans 3:24-5:2

 

[JonC]

I don't know that I'd say "or...or...or"

I'm firmly convinced that nustification relates to multiple concepts in scripture. That was what I was getting at in post #2

Martin opened up with a feeble case of justification relating almost exclusively to legal standing. Now - while that is one concept to which justification can be applied, it is hardly the only.

Even Paul did not limit his use of justified to that one concept, nor did he "define" justification for us.

But just like the ink blot bat, men seem only able to see justification in Romans 5 in the same way that Paul meant it in Romans 3-4

And James used it even differently from those, probably closer to what Paul was expounding in Romans 2

I do believe that there is an "or". My "or" is that I believe that Paul has termed this "justification" as inclusion in the covenant God made with Abraham (the Promise).

 

[The Biblicist]

Do you not find it a bit interesting that the orthodox Christian view (you depart slightly from it) was developed over four centuries after Christ in order to address the differences that had arisen within the Catholic church?

First, you need to realize that I think the preserved accounts of the apostolic fathers, Ante, Nicene, Post-nicene fathers are the preservation of the record of apostasy rather than the preservation of the records of the true churches of Christ. It is full of error and characteristic of all sorts of errors.

I already told you that I believe Christ had “one nature” in terms of being human and divine without division. To me, this means one divine-human nature (Jesus did not “use” different natures, but took on flesh). I believe nature ontological in terms of the will, not ability or attribute (not those qualities that can be set aside or not exercised…like omniscience, omnipotence, etc.). Instead I see the divine nature as perfectly faithful, righteous, holy, enduring, love, etc. I cannot see a change in nature here. But I conceded to using “two natures” in that you are adamant to define God’s nature through His non-communicable attributes.

Your view is simply wrong and I have detailed why it is wrong. And yes that is my opinion but I am not here to express the opinions of others.

So yes, what is being discussed and debated is not Scripture itself but our philosophies, theories, and interpretations of how things may have happened in the mind of God. I will stand on my belief here, but not so dogmatically as to denounce fifteen centuries (in terms of PST) or four centuries (in terms of the "two natures") as lacking biblical understanding.

Wrong again! I am discussing scripture interpretation and harmonization of scripture teaching which naturally leads to either a Biblical based philosophical explanation or unbiblical philosphical explanation.

 

[JonC]

First, you need to realize that I think the preserved accounts of the apostolic, Ante, Nicene, Post-nicene records are the preservation of the record of apostasy rather than the preservation of the records of the true churches of Christ. It is full of error and characteristic of all sorts of errors.





Your view is simply wrong and I have detailed why it is wrong. And yes that is my opinion but I am not here to express the opinions of others.



Wrong again! I am discussing scripture interpretation and harmonization of scripture teaching which naturally leads to either a Biblical based philosophical explanation or unbiblical philosphical explanation.

And this is the ink blot. We hold up a card of Johann Tetzel and you cry "Jew".

 

[The Biblicist]

And this is the ink blot. We hold up a card of Johann Tetzel and you cry "Jew".

Why do you think those historical accounts wrong yet hold their doctrine?

I do not believe in "sacred tradition" and these accounts are the basis for that Catholic doctrine. Furthermore, such records are uninspired, incomplete and more often inaccurate. Third, if you embrace Post-nicene Records you will become a Roman or Greek Orthodox Catholic and so to avoid that natural conclusion you must admit they are uninspired, incomplete and often inaccurate. The Post-Nicene are the logical development of the Nicene, and the Nicene the logical development of the Ante-Nicene, all of which were carefully selected and preserved by Catholic monks who are notoriously untrustworthy.

Last, the inspired prophetic record of church history demonstrates clearly that the Catholic Records characterize and preserve predicted APOSTATE CHRISTIANITY. Whatever truth may be found in these uninspired, incomplete and more often inaccurate records is not the rule but the exception to the rule.

Predicted apostate Christianity is a STATE CHURCH union type of Christianity. It is a PERSECUTING type of Christianity. It is Christianity that preaches and teaches an practices another gospel by its definition of the church and ordinances - THIS IS THE CHRISTIANITY described in these records - apostate.

 

[The Biblicist]

When Christ and the Apostles predict the future of apostolic Christianity in comparison with predicted apostate christianity the "church fathers" accurately portray the predicted apostate type of Christianity.

1. Apostate Christianity will be a persecuting Christianity - Jn. 16:1-4;
2. Apostate Christianity will deny "the faith" once delivered - 1 Tim. 4:1
3. Apostate Christianity will preach "another gospel"
4. Apostate Christianity will arise from within and without apostolic churches - Acts 20:29-30
5. Apostate Christianity will be in union with secular government - Rev. 17:1-6
6. Apostate Christianity will pervert and distort true New Testament Christianity - Mat. 13:11-13
7. Apostate Christianity will characterize such doctrines as listed in 1 Tim. 4:3-5; Gal. 1:8-9; etc.

These things things characterize the "Christianity" or "Christian Church" as found recorded in the "Fathers" from the third century to the 16th century.

Apostate Christianity will increasing grow from the close of the apostolic era to the second coming of Christ- it will wax worse and worse until Jesus rhetorically asks "shall I find faith" when he comes (Lk. 18:8). The parable of the professing kingdom in Matthew 13 is an ever increase of apostate counterfeit professing kingdom while the true see are "hid" in the professing stuff.

 

[JonC]

I do not believe in "sacred tradition"

Yes you do. You just don't know it.

 

[JonC]

I do not believe in "sacred tradition" and these accounts are the basis for that Catholic doctrine. Furthermore, such records are uninspired, incomplete and more often inaccurate. Third, if you embrace Post-nicene Records you will become a Roman or Greek Orthodox Catholic and so to avoid that natural conclusion you must admit they are uninspired, incomplete and often inaccurate. The Post-Nicene are the logical development of the Nicene, and the Nicene the logical development of the Ante-Nicene, all of which were carefully selected and preserved by Catholic monks who are notoriously untrustworthy.

Last, the inspired prophetic record of church history demonstrates clearly that the Catholic Records characterize and preserve APOSTATE CHRISTIANITY. Whatever truth may be found in these uninspired, incomplete and more often inaccurate records is not the rule but the exception to the rule.

You are pitting ancient records that we do have across different and competing positions (eastern and western, for example) against your unsubstantiated opinion. I love you, brother, but that just doesn't cut it. It sounds like you accept what you like but reject what you don't like based only on your historical preferences. And that's a topic for another thread.

Scripture tells us that God became man, and that becoming man He was still God. Insofar as nature goes, that's about it. Anything else in terms of "two natures" is a produce of reasoning, philosophy and theory. The idea that Jesus had two nature did not exist for centuries quite simply because people did not always demand of the Bible those kinds of answers.

God becomes man and lays down his own life to save us so that He may be glorified through us. The last thing we should ask is "but how". We live in a pampered, intellectually arrogant world that cares more in advancing it's own theories and philosophies, or it's styles of worship, it's own religious culture than about being light to a dying world and glorifying God as we engage ourselves in Kingdom work. The best thing that could happen for western Christianity may very well be persecution. We've grown far too arrogant and far too distracted.

 

[The Biblicist]

You are pitting ancient records that we do have across different and competing positions (eastern and western, for example) against your unsubstantiated opinion. I love you, brother, but that just doesn't cut it. It sounds like you accept what you like but reject what you don't like based only on your historical preferences. And that's a topic for another thread.

both western and eastern are apostate through and through. I accept ONLY what harmonizes with scripture and what is predicted by Scripture while identifying what Scriptures predicts as characteristic of apostate Christianity. Everything found in uninspired history is biased from finite human perspective.

Scripture tells us that God became man, and that becoming man He was still God. Insofar as nature goes, that's about it. Anything else in terms of "two natures" is a produce of reasoning, philosophy and theory. The idea that Jesus had two nature did not exist for centuries quite simply because people did not always demand of the Bible those kinds of answers.

That is a very simplisitic and unbiblical analysis. The Scriptures are very careful in using specific chosen terms to describe what it is and what it is not. There is plenty of Scripture definition to form a biblical doctrine of the union of God and man in the one Person of Christ without inventing a new God nature (manplusgod) after the incarnation.

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes you do. You just don't know it.

No I don't and you just don't know it. The ORAL tradition passed down by the Apostles is finalized and expressed in WRITTEN FORM as final authority over any professed oral traditions in existence regardless of whom the origin is attributed to.

Therefore, if products of oral tradition outside of the Scriptures does not harmonize with the Written record of Apostolic tradition then there is "no light in them" (Isa. 8:20).

 

[JonC]

Predicted apostate Christianity is a STATE CHURCH union type of Christianity. It is a PERSECUTING type of Christianity. It is Christianity that preaches and teaches an practices another gospel by its definition of the church and ordinances - THIS IS THE CHRISTIANITY described in these records - apostate.

You forget that what made those persecuting churches apostate was that they viewed truth as heresy. You also forget that this also applies to the Reformed churches that formulated your particular theory of Atonement (who also advanced a persecuting type of Christianity and a state church...they go hand in hand).

 

[JonC]

No I don't and you just don't know it. .

Yes, I do. It is in your explanation and worldview presented throughout this thread. Much of your explanation has been dependent on a philosophical answer Thomas Aquinas developed regarding the atonement (not that you hold his view, mind you, but that your reasoning is linked to his conclusions). But you hold that "as" scripture.

 

[JonC]

That is a very simplisitic and unbiblical analysis. .

It is simplistic, but not unbiblical. You are relying on your own "wisdom" and reasoning. But God has chosen those simple things to confound such wisdom.

You know what…the more I think about it the more it bothers me.

Earlier in the conversation you and Martin were criticizing fifteen centuries of believers, to include men who rejoiced in the faith as they were drug to their own crosses, covered in tar and burned to death for their faith, simply because they did not hold to Penal Substitution Theory. I look at us today, sitting behind computers arguing the finer points of a faith that would for many crumble if it meant giving up a home or a vehicle…..yet we denounce the views of men and women who had faith strong enough that they sang songs as they were burned alive. “Reject our theory of atonement and your faith will crumble”….nonsense, rubbish, and heresy by historical evidence alone.

And I can’t help but think that the Church would be far better off if they had the faith of those you denounce rather than the doctrines that you and I have argued for and against on this thread.

Until I get that thought out of my head, I think I may be prone to overstate or overreact here, brother. So I'm going to let it sit until tomorrow. I don't want to overstate and it be thought I hold you as anything but the brother and friend I view you to be.

 

[The Biblicist]

You forget that what made those persecuting churches apostate was that they viewed truth as heresy. You also forget that this also applies to the Reformed churches that formulated your particular theory of Atonement (who also advanced a persecuting type of Christianity and a state church...they go hand in hand).

Wrong on both counts. My position of the atonement has nothing to do with the Reformers or the Reformation or with secular records but with a personal study of Scripture. For example, have you ever once seen me quote anyone outside of scripture to support any aspect of my belief on the atonement? You have not and never will.

It is not what they VEIWED as heresy but what they VIEWED and PRACTICED as heresy that made them apostate. I believe the Reformers are nothing more or less than REFORMED ROMAN CATHOLICS. Indeed, that is their own testimony as they claimed to be REFORMERS of Roman Catholicism not repudiators of Roman Catholicism. They are apostate Christianity as they are characterized by the very same predicted charcteristics of apostate Christianity (state church union; apostate gospel - sacramentsal theology, etc.). I believe true apostolic Christiaity is preserved among those the state churches persecuted, and distorted as "heretics" the "free church" movement.