Orthodox Christians

[The Biblicist]

I disagree with your interpretation of Romans 4:5-12. That passage has nothing to do with repudiating ordinances in regeneraton or remissions of sins.

It has everything to do with remission of sins (Rom. 4:6-8). Imputed righteousness and remission of sins are the blessings of justification by faith and that is why the man justified by faith is the "blessed" man!

Romans 4:9-12 demand that these blessings of justification by faith, both postive and negative are received prior to any external submission to divine rites as Abraham was so blessed while IN UNCIRCUMCISION instead of circumcision which Rome demands/asserts/teaches is parallel to baptism. Hence, justification = imputed righteousness and remission of sins are obtained WITHOUT circumcision/baptism/divine rites by faith in the completed work of Christ that fully satisfied the Laws demands (Rom. 3:25) and is thus the "end of the law for righteousness (Rom. 10:4).

I don't know what passage you are referring to but Romans 3:25 says Nothing in that passage that says complete satsifaction.

It is found in the word "propitiation." To "propiate" is to satisfy! Christ SATISFIED the wrath of God's Law on sin. Christ SATISFIED the righteous demands of God's law for sinlessness as only a SPOTLESS lamb of God would do.

not substitutionary rather he offered up himself in brotherhood, a holy, perfect, blameless sacrifice, freely offered for all sinners for sinners.

Pure unadulterated 100% genuine hog wash! He suffered as the just "FOR" the unjust not WITH the unjust. He died "FOR" sinners not WITH sinners. The whole Levitical sacrificial system (The Type) is supremely SUBSTITUTIONARY in nature as the antitype.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

It has everything to do with remission of sins (Rom. 4:6-8). Imputed righteousness and remission of sins are the blessings of justification by faith and that is why the man justified by faith is the "blessed" man!

I disagree. The remission of sin is the example Paul uses showing that the man who's sin is forgiven is blessed. But the point of the text is the primacy of faith. You seem to be having contextual problems. Thus Abraham had faith and it was accounted to him as righteousness. Not to the one who believes he can "earn his salvation" making God indebted to him. vs 3 and 4. But to the one who believes as his faith is counted as righteousness by God who justifies the ungodly vs 5 where we can see David saying blessed is the man who's sin is forgiven as and example of this vs 6.
So we see this has nothing to do with ordinances. See you seem to be pulling the cart before the horse. Speaking specifically to Jews Paul is saying that by virtue of their circumcision they aren't saved. Rather Faith was first. and is the forgiveness of sins only for the circumcised? But rather for all who first have faith. So contextually we see that Paul speaking to Jewish Christians is saying that they can't say God owes them forgiveness because of their circumcision but God forgives on the bacis of faith. but note that having first the faith Abraham walked in obedience which is what Paul has been telling them to do from Romans chapter 1.

It is found in the word "propitiation." To "propiate" is to satisfy! Christ SATISFIED the wrath of God's Law on sin

Catholics don't have a problem with this and I said so in my previous post.

Christ SATISFIED the righteous demands of God's law for sinlessness as only a SPOTLESS lamb of God would do.

and if you read what I posted you see that I agreed with this. So what are you arguing about?

Pure unadulterated 100% genuine hog wash! He suffered as the just "FOR" the unjust not WITH the unjust. He died "FOR" sinners not WITH sinners. The whole Levitical sacrificial system is supremely SUBSTITUTIONARY in nature.

Animals where substitutes in the OT. Substitues by their nature are imperfect replacements. Jesus is joined with humanity in his incarnation (truelly our brother) and thus is the perfect sacrifice as I quoted Paul saying

God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God

making us truelly Sons and Daughters of God for those who join themselves to Jesus in Faith

for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith- Gal 3:26

. Note what I've said is totally scriptural therefore not as you say hogwash.

 

[The Biblicist]

I disagree. The remission of sin is the example Paul uses showing that the man who's sin is forgiven is blessed

There is no such thing as "justification" while sins are not remitted (Rom. 4:6-8). There is no such thing as Justification while there is no righteousness imputed to the "ungodly" (Rom. 4:5).

The word "justification" is an oxymoronic term to anyone still in their sins and still with righteousness before God. The example Paul gives includes BOTH:

5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

The words "even as" refer to verses 5-6 and justification of the ungodly. The example includes both imputation of righteousness and non-imputation of sin as one without the other is oxymoronic in regard to "justification."

Where there is no remission of sins there is no justification

Where there is no imputed righteousness there is no justification

Abraham was JUSTIFIED BY FAITH (inclusive of imputed righteousness/non-imputation of sin) WITHOUT WORKS and IN UNCIRUCMISION.


There is no such thing as a "blessed" man who is still in his sins and still without imputed righteousness! Abraham was a "blessed" man while IN UNCIRCUMCISION and that would be as UNBAPTIZED today according to Rome's own assertions that circucmision is paralell to baptism.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

There is no such thing as "justification" while sins are not remitted (Rom. 4:6-8).

I'm curious what is your definition of Justification? In any case while this may be the case it doesn't impact my argument in that I wasn't arguing that Justification was given while sins were not remitted. I was arguing that the context of Romans 4 is about the primacy of faith and remmission of sins was the example shown to prove Pauls point. The verses you referred to aren't about refuting ordinances.

The word "justification" is an oxymoronic term to anyone still in their sins and still with righteousness before God.

Are you suggesting that the consept of justification or the definition of Justification is incongruous to people still in their sins? Anyone who still in their sins believes the fact that they are sinners is incongruous with how they view themselves. They haven't even gotten to justification though I'm sure they understand the consept as its a popular one in legal settings.

 

[The Biblicist]

I'm curious what is your definition of Justification?

The term "justification" is a forensic legal term that in the court of law belongs to those who have been fully acquitted of all charges before the law and thus deemed by the law as righteous.

In any case while this may be the case it doesn't impact my argument in that I wasn't arguing that Justification was remitted while sins were not. I was arguing that the context of Romans 4 is about the primacy of faith and remmission of sins was the example shown to prove Pauls point. The verses you referred to aren't about refuting ordinances.

Your argument is false because your interpretation of the text is false as there is no such thing as a "blessed" but unjustified man or one still in their sins and that is exactly Paul's point.

Are you suggesting that the consept of justification or the definition of Justification is incongruous to people still in their sins?

No! I am saying it is incongruous to people whom the Law views as still in their sins! Get the difference?

Christ satisfied the law completely and that is why he is the END of the Law for all who believe in him (Rom.10:4). He was "made to be sin" not EXERPERIENTALLY because he "knew no sin" experientially in regard to his own actions but representatively in regard to our own actions before God on the cross while we are "made the righteousness of God in him" not EXPERIENTIALLY because we are not sinless in regard to our own actions but representatively by his own actions - 2 Cor. 5:21 - by imputation (Rom. 4:5-8)

 

[The Biblicist]

Animals where substitutes in the OT. Substitues by their nature are imperfect replacements.

The animals were not regarded substitutes according to their nature but according to how they fit the TYPE of sinlessness - "without blemish." Hence, according to TYPE they were PERFECT substitutes as they were TYPES of Christ who is our PERFECT substitute.

Hence, both the type and antitype teach the same thing - substitutionary atonement.

 

[The Biblicist]

The term "justification" is a forensic legal term that in the court of law belongs to those who have been fully acquitted of all charges before the law and thus deemed by the law as righteous.









Your argument is false because your interpretation of the text is false as there is no such thing as a "blessed" but unjustified man or one still in their sins and that is exactly Paul's point.




No! I am saying it is incongruous to people whom the Law views as still in their sins! Get the difference?

Christ satisfied the law completely and that is why he is the END of the Law for all who believe in him (Rom.10:4). He was "made to be sin" not EXERPERIENTALLY because he "knew no sin" experientially in regard to his own actions but representatively in regard to our own actions before God on the cross while we are "made the righteousness of God in him" not EXPERIENTIALLY because we are not sinless in regard to our own actions but representatively by his own actions - 2 Cor. 5:21 - by imputation (Rom. 4:5-8)

Go to go to Portland. Will respond tomorrow

 

[Thinkingstuff]

The term "justification" is a forensic legal term that in the court of law belongs to those who have been fully acquitted of all charges before the law and thus deemed by the law as righteous.

I was wondering but its evident you do have a sense of Humor! Good for you. By the way Justification isn't just a "forensic legal term". You forget an aspect of the word justification that you are ignoring particularily the vindication aspect of Justification or the process aspect of justification. Which both must be considered as well as the rest of it.

Your argument is false because your interpretation of the text is false as there is no such thing as a "blessed" but unjustified man or one still in their sins and that is exactly Paul's point.

I disagree. My interpretation is spot on. Paul is speaking to the primacy of Faith and as an example uses the remission of sins which is blessed to the one who was given it. Pauls Point remains that you can't make God indebted to you but that it is by faith whereby one can be made righteous like Abraham was before he was circumcized thus Jews can't hold their circumcision over God. Quoting David just proved his point because David said a man was blessed when he was forgiven without having to pay the price for forgiveness.

No! I am saying it is incongruous to people whom the Law views as still in their sins! Get the difference?

Nope.

Christ satisfied the law completely and that is why he is the END of the Law for all who believe in him (Rom.10:4).

And what? I haven't said something contradictory to this.

He was "made to be sin" not actually in regard to his own actions but representatively in regard to our own actions before God on the cross while we are "made the righteousness of God in him" not actually in regard to our own actions but representatively by his own actions - 2 Cor. 5:21 - by imputation!

Red herring. I never said "in regard to his own actions". I said Jesus was joined to humanity by his incarnation thus being a proper sacrifice rather than an imperfect substitute for humanity like animals were in the OT. He could actually stand for humanity being joined to it yet without flaw as the rest of us are with flaw. Now which way are you assigning imputation? Towards the incarnation? So you are saying Jesus was attributed humanity? I hold that you are off. He was Human in Fact as he is Divine in Fact. Humanity wasn't imputed to Christ. He was incarnate. Big difference. Jesus was Joined to humanity.

 

[Yeshua1]

Are they Christians or not? Do you think they will be saved?

Despite have a wrong Gospel message, there will still be saved out from them sinners by grace of God, same as per in the RCC!

 

[billwald]

In 325 AD there were a half dozen or so bishops in the Orthodox Catholic Church. The Bishop of Rome was automatically the council president by tradition. The Bishop of Rome didn't pull out of the Orthodox Catholic Church until centuries later thus the Eastern Orthodox Church has a unique claim to the proper noun, "Christian." Rome pulled out of the Church as a minority member. The rebel Romans did gain the upper hand until the city of Florence paid the Bishop of Rome to raise a crusade to invade and trash Constantinople. It was a cash deal.

 

[zara]

In 325 AD there were a half dozen or so bishops in the Orthodox Catholic Church. The Bishop of Rome was automatically the council president by tradition. The Bishop of Rome didn't pull out of the Orthodox Catholic Church until centuries later thus the Eastern Orthodox Church has a unique claim to the proper noun, "Christian." Rome pulled out of the Church as a minority member. The rebel Romans did gain the upper hand until the city of Florence paid the Bishop of Rome to raise a crusade to invade and trash Constantinople. It was a cash deal.

thanx, billwald:

The the Nicaean Council of 325AD was presided over by Constantine the Great, the Bishop of Rome wasn't even there and sent a courier. Constantine dictated that he will make the final determinations on all: Attendees, issues, dates, Scriptures, dogmas ...... and otherwise. The RCC pulled out of Roman and Byzantine Christianity in 1054AD at the schism. Whereupon the Byzantine Emporers and Orthodoxy presided over all Roman Empire regions including Egypt (Alexandria) to England.

The RCC was then only a political entity of the " Papal States", monastic tribes, .... and were on their own after 440AD when the West Rome collapsed.

Rome never gained the "upper hand". ...... The Venetians and the Bishop of Rome hired the "Dung of Christianity" (Crusades) paying them with indulgences who then severely weakened Byzantium and the Orthodoxy in the fourth Crusade in 1204. Finally in 1453AD the Arabs and Ottomans defeated the Byzantines and the Orthodoxy escaped to Russia.

zara ......... :thumbs:

 

[Michael Wrenn]

They teach a false gospel and so those who really believe in the gospel they teach are not going to heaven. They simply are a slightly different ism than the greatest ism in professed Christianty (Romanism). However, as in all ism's there are those who are saved in spite of their affiliation and teachings.

That is a lie.

Some could just as easily say the same thing about what you teach.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I disagree with your interpretation of Romans 4:5-12. That passage has nothing to do with repudiating ordinances in regeneraton or remissions of sins. It certainly has to do with the primacy of faith over being able to work to gain salvation as if God would owe anybody anything. But it doesn't forgo ordinances. That is a misreading of that passage. Faith must come first. Works done with out faith to hold over God doesn't work. However, contextually in Romans Faith is always primary so that once obtain works of obedience would follow. Paul in this passage repudiates the idea that works of their own cannot move God to save us.


We're going to have to disagree.


I don't know what passage you are referring to but Romans 3:25 says Nothing in that passage that says complete satsifaction. Not that I disagree that Christ provides complete sastisfaction for the propitiation of our sins by dying on the cross for those who believe. But I don't think that is what you mean.



I agree that Christ won the victory over sin by satisfying God's law in his life and rising from the dead in his own power. But you miss an important aspect. The very nature of the incarnation reveals that God joins himself to man in order to satisfy attonement requirements but not substitutionary rather he offered up himself in brotherhood, a holy, perfect, blameless sacrifice, freely offered for all sinners for sinners. which, was worth so much more than our punishment. Taking upon himself sin and death.

Perfect!

The penal substitutionists isolate the atonement from the rest of Christ's work and compartmentalize it, just as they do other aspects of the Gospel.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

The animals were not regarded substitutes according to their nature but according to how they fit the TYPE of sinlessness - "without blemish." Hence, according to TYPE they were PERFECT substitutes as they were TYPES of Christ who is our PERFECT substitute.

Hence, both the type and antitype teach the same thing - substitutionary atonement.

And what does Leviticus 5:11-13 do to your theory of penal substitution, where it was allowed to bring flour as a sin offering? Was the flour "perfect" and "without blemish"; was it a PERFECT substitute?

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I was wondering but its evident you do have a sense of Humor! Good for you. By the way Justification isn't just a "forensic legal term". You forget an aspect of the word justification that you are ignoring particularily the vindication aspect of Justification or the process aspect of justification. Which both must be considered as well as the rest of it.


I disagree. My interpretation is spot on. Paul is speaking to the primacy of Faith and as an example uses the remission of sins which is blessed to the one who was given it. Pauls Point remains that you can't make God indebted to you but that it is by faith whereby one can be made righteous like Abraham was before he was circumcized thus Jews can't hold their circumcision over God. Quoting David just proved his point because David said a man was blessed when he was forgiven without having to pay the price for forgiveness.


Nope.



And what? I haven't said something contradictory to this.

Red herring. I never said "in regard to his own actions". I said Jesus was joined to humanity by his incarnation thus being a proper sacrifice rather than an imperfect substitute for humanity like animals were in the OT. He could actually stand for humanity being joined to it yet without flaw as the rest of us are with flaw. Now which way are you assigning imputation? Towards the incarnation? So you are saying Jesus was attributed humanity? I hold that you are off. He was Human in Fact as he is Divine in Fact. Humanity wasn't imputed to Christ. He was incarnate. Big difference. Jesus was Joined to humanity.

Excellent! And here again we see the false doctrine promulgated by 15th century errant legalists.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Despite have a wrong Gospel message, there will still be saved out from them sinners by grace of God, same as per in the RCC!

And fundamentalist Baptists.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

thanx, billwald:

The the Nicaean Council of 325AD was presided over by Constantine the Great, the Bishop of Rome wasn't even there and sent a courier. Constantine dictated that he will make the final determinations on all: Attendees, issues, dates, Scriptures, dogmas ...... and otherwise. The RCC pulled out of Roman and Byzantine Christianity in 1054AD at the schism. Whereupon the Byzantine Emporers and Orthodoxy presided over all Roman Empire regions including Egypt (Alexandria) to England.

The RCC was then only a political entity of the " Papal States", monastic tribes, .... and were on their own after 440AD when the West Rome collapsed.

Rome never gained the "upper hand". ...... The Venetians and the Bishop of Rome hired the "Dung of Christianity" (Crusades) paying them with indulgences who then severely weakened Byzantium and the Orthodoxy in the fourth Crusade in 1204. Finally in 1453AD the Arabs and Ottomans defeated the Byzantines and the Orthodoxy escaped to Russia.

zara ......... :thumbs:

Thanks to you and bill for the good history lesson.

Christianity owes the Eastern church gratitude because it is the Eastern theologians who are responsible for the philosophical and Christological underpinnings and formulations of the faith. Here is where the orthodox doctrines of the Trinity and the natures of Christ were hammered out, formed, and defended against heresies.

 

[Anastasia]

Despite have a wrong Gospel message, there will still be saved out from them sinners by grace of God, same as per in the RCC!

Then how do they differ from others, like Muslims, Jews, atheists, agnostics, etc.? Or do they in the eyes of God as you see it?

 

[Anastasia]

Well, first of all I would challenge that Ancestrial sin is different than how scripture speaks of it. Ancestrial sin for the Orthodox holds that humanity has a fallen nature by virtue of decending from Adam and Eve. Humanity, because of the first event, trends towards sin. However, emphasising God's Justice man is accountable for their own personal sin. But we don't hold the guilt for Adam's or Eve's sin. Personally however I hold that we do hold the guilt but then I'm Catholic.

Interesting. BTW, your profile says your denomination is Baptist. Did this change at some point?

 

[Anastasia]

OK. You are the Theologian here.

If by theologian, you refer to your previous post there, then yes. We all can be of not are already.

I still join the camps defining Days to mean era's that can be billions of years and can overlap.

Sue convinces me. How about you?

After having been so challenged in my old earth creationist threads back in the day, I am surprised there are so many people here who are willing to defend the Orthodox. Honestly, I was expecting to have to defend my new church here more, not the other way around with your guys. What happened to the Baptist Boards I knew and usually didn't like?