Questions and answers with Jeremiah2911 and others

Such a simple question and yet you have so much trouble with it.

I know you believe justification is progressive but it must progress from some given point in time within the life of a person. When is that initial point in time?

Is it the point in time when faith is conceived in your heart? "with the heart man believeth"?

Is it the point in time when "confession with the mouth" occurs? "with the mouth confession is made..."

Is it the point in time when another public confession in baptism is made?

:laugh::thumbsup: Of course I am. This is a debate forum isn't it? We don't agree with each other or that supposed to be a secret???

I would like to discuss the peculiar idea expressed "accepts the faith given to him" a little later.

What is interesting is that you not only advocate progressive justification that concludes only in judgement day, but you equally make initial justification a process as well, thus really denying any point in time the beginning point of justification. Instead you want to define a PERIOD of time as the beginning point of progressive justification - the period between the conception of faith in the heart completed by profession in baptism.

Hence, your idea is that justification is NEVER obtained in fullness until judgment day because you deny it is ever fully obtained at the point of faith when faith is conceived in the heart but rather it is only introduced at that point in time in order to lead the believer into baptism to receive the seal of justification but still without obtaining full justification, as you believe baptism is simply the door or another point of introduction down the long road without full justification until actual full justification is received at judgment day. Hence, there is no actual FULLNESS of justification received here in this life but only partial justification in process toward full justification.

When someone accepts the faith given to him Justification is efficatious for him at that time to bring him towards Salvation.

Yet you go on to say that


Thus the Justified man completes his justification at baptism......Baptism is also the sealing of the New Covenant like Circumcision was in the OT.[/QUOTE]

Hence, in the first phrase you say "man completes his justification at baptism" but in the next phrase you compare it only to "the sealing" like unto Circumcision and we all know that circumcision was just the beginning of the Jewish life under the covenant terminated only in the day of judgment.

 

The adverbs are interesting "fully....fully...." and the noun "Fullness."

From reading such descriptive terms one would assume from the common ordinary of language that justification is therefore not progressive because it has already reached "fullness....at baptism." The term "fullness" ordinarily means "completeness."

Therefore we are not being progressively justified by works since it reached "fullness" at baptism. However, I think we are in for some Roman Catholic mental gymnastics?

 

So in Catholic Soteriology there is no PROGRESSIVE JUSTIFICATION - incompleted action - after baptism? Hence, there is no UNFULFILLED JUSTIFICATION requiring good works progressively through life? You said it was "fulfilled" and reached its point of "fullness" and thus it was completed in Baptism?

 

The next step is a genuine sorrow for all sin with the resolution to begin a new life by receiving holy baptism and by observing the commandments of God. The process of justification is then brought to a close by the baptism of water, inasmuch as by the grace of this sacrament the catechumen is freed from sin (original and personal) and its punishments, and is made a child of God.

So, now are we subdividing justification? One aspect fulfilled by baptism but another aspect unfulfilled, still incomplete, still progressive??

So you have the "sin" part fulfilled in baptism but the "righteousness" part incompleted and progressively being fulfilled by good works???

So Romans 10:10 should read "with the heart man believeth unto remission of sins" instead of "with the heart man believeth unto RIGHTEOUSNESS"????? oops!

So Romans 4:11 should read "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the REMISSION OF SINS of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised:" instead of " And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of THE RIGHTEOUSNESS of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised:" oops!

 

Hence, you make partitions but simply call the other part "sanctification" (until you deal with James 2). So justification is not fulfilled or complete in baptism but only ONE ASPECT of it is really "fulfilled" and it is really not "fulfilled" except conditionally, because who does not sin? Hence, no part of Justification is really "fulfilled" or ever can be fulfilled until the day of judgement as the progressive part is conditional upon continuance in good works and the "fulfilled" aspect is repeatedly refulfilled by repentance because no one continues sinlessly do they???

I understand but do you? For instance, remission of sin removes all past sin in your system of justification and thus what is left is righteousness before God by obedience. If sin enters back into the picture then BOTH your righteous state of obedience, as well as, sin need to be dealt with all over again as one cannot exist apart from the other. If you have sin you are not righteous and need that sin removed whether you call that removal "remission of sins" or "cleansing of sin" it amounts to the same thing. Hence, you initial justification is repeated over and over again every time you sin.

It does not read that way because it does not refer to YOUR RIGHTEOUSNESSES. What the heart embraces by faith is CHRIST'S RIGHTEOUSNESS and since it Christ is incapable of unrighteousness there is no future possibility He will sin as faith has ONLY HIM as its object of righteousness (Rom. 10:1-4).

So you are missing the contextual time line and the contextual righteousness that is embraced with the heart.

No, you are woefully distorting the contextual time line in Romans 4:11. The righteousness here was obtained BEFORE the seal/and sign and WITHOUT the seal and sign altogether! Therefore, the "seal" and "sign" have nothing to do with the actual and literal obtaining of justification to the person of Abraham whether in regard to "remission of sin" or in regard to "righteousness" in progressive sanctification because he already "HAD" that righteousness PREVIOUS to submission to the "sign" or "seal"!

Moreover, progressive sanctification had already occurred BEFORE submitting to the "sign" or "seal." Hence, this MODEL of justification by faith totally and completely repudiates the whole chronological system of the Vatican from start to finish. You have remission of sin/regeneration begun at the point of faith but not FULFILLED until there is submission to the "sign" and "seal" of justification but Abraham "HAD" justification previous to the "sing" and "seal" and even more condemning is the fact that Paul says such justification can be had by those who NEVER submit to such a "sign" or "seal" at all in their lives.

9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness [vv. 5-6 remission of sins and imputed righteousness] then upon the circumcision [baptized] only, or upon the uncircumcision [unbaptized] also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision,[baptized] or in uncircumcision? [unbaptized] Not in circumcision [baptism], but in uncircumcision [unbaptized].11 And he received the sign of circumcision,[baptism] a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised:[unbaptized] that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; [baptized] that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision [baptized] only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.[unbaptized]

 

I understand the Vatican veiw point but that is not the Biblical view point. Faith is not INITIALLY received in justification, but rather righteousness and remission of sins are received. Hence, faith is not lost when one sins. The very nature of the sin is definable by what it is morally. Faith is INITIALLY received in regeneration not justification and so I am referring to INITIAL justification not regeneration. Therefore what is lost in the Vatican's viewpoint is righteousness due to sin not one's faith due to sin. Hence, the sin must be dealt with for righteousness to be restored = therefore in principle it is nothing more or less than a repeat of INITIAL justification.

Completely misleading and false! Both the LEGAL POSITION and the PERSONAL CONDITION of the "ungodly" is addressed at initial salvation. The LEGAL POSITION is completely remedied by the imputation of Christ's own righteousness. The PERSONAL CONDITION is remedied by regeneration or the creation of internal holiness and true righteousness. Both are irreversable acts of God. The former is completed in totality. The latter is completed as an act but progressive in its effects (progressive sanctification) until it is completed in glorification. Hence, those who have been regenerated and justified are being made better personally by the power of the indwelling Spirit. Justification obtains guanteed entrance into heaven wheras regeneration guarantees progressive but individualized measure of sanctification that will be completed in glorification.

Two different contexts dealing with two different issues. Romans 12:1 describes the former context dealing with the mercies of God in regard to salvation whereas the same text looks forward to what is your "reasonable service" in response to the mercies of God. Paul summarized these two different aspects this way "created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works."

Not true at all! I can go back and I can quote where it was you that first introduced circumcision as a "sign" and a "seal" to be like baptism. Shall I? I got a feeling I will have to do so in order to silence your charge here!

Your only response is to JUMP out of this context and JUMP into another context dealing with two completely different things. Prove your point by Romans 3:9-5:2 context if you can? I am not jumping with you.

Justification BEFORE GOD does begin and end with faith "in" God's provision of Christ but sanctification BEGINS with regeneration and ends only in glorification.

 

We are saved by grace through faith in Christ, not works of law. However, once we transition from the condemnation of the law into the system of grace (Rom 5:1-5), we must add works to our faith. We are not justified or saved by faith alone (James 2:24).

Also in Rom.5;2 we rejoice in the 'hope' [ not the presumptuous certainty ] of sharing the glory of God. If salvation is so assured after accepting Jesus as our Savior, why would St. Paul hope ??

 

It was intended to be addressed to you alone. Like many others on this forum we are going back and forth between differen threads. I siimply forgot that I had not copied your heading and had copied HP's heading in a previous post. Sorry for the confusion, it was unintentional.

 

Please go back and read my post in full and answer it as addressed to your previous post. I will wait and comment because the above post does not deal adequately with my responses. I understand that you thought much of it was addressed to HP and so didn't read it.

 

Either you did not read my post completely or you are intentionaly perverting the very position I set forth.

Justification does not occur apart from regeneration and so imputed righteousness does not occur apart from imparted righteousness. However, imparted righteousness is incomplete and progressive and never completed until glorificatioin. In contrast imputed righteousness is complete and never can be improved upon because it is Christ's own righteousness.

Justification does not INFUSE righteousness to anyone. Regeneration is IMPARTED righteousness by a creative act as we are "created in true righteousness and holiness" (Eph. 2:10; 4:24; Col. 3:10).

By confusing regeneration with justification you are preach "another gospel" than the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

You are simply playing games. You certainly are perverting the position I set forth!

Thus the Justified man completes his justification at baptism......Baptism is also the sealing of the New Covenant like Circumcision was in the OT. - TS

Romans 4:11 totally destroys the whole Roman Catholic interpretation of justification being completed in baptism:


9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness [justification = imputed righteousness without works and remission of sins - vv. 5-8] then upon the circumcision [baptized] only, or upon the uncircumcision [unbaptized] also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision,[baptism] or in uncircumcision [unbaptized]? Not in circumcision [baptism], but in uncircumcision [unbaptized].
11 And he received the sign of circumcision [baptism], a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised [unbaptized]: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised;[not baptized] that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Paul not only argues that justification was "had" while Abraham was "in uncircumcision" and NOT "in circumcision" but the reason for being justified NOT IN CIRCUMCISION was to prove that circumcision was not necessary to be justified "that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised;[not baptized] that righteousness might be imputed unto them also" without circumcision [baptism].


No stronger words could repudiate the whole Roman Catholic dogma that justification is completed in baptism.



My explanation of imputed versus imparted righteousness does not negate the fact that Paul completely repudiates the doctrine of Justification by Rome. Regardless, if I am wrong or right on my explanation it is clear that the Roman Catholic explanation is repudiated by Paul.

 

Absolutely False! Romans 4:9-11 is not talking about receiving faith prior to circumcision and then justification completed in circumcision. The blessing He is talking about is justification received by faith ALREADY BEFORE being circumcised. Note the question in verse 9


9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

This "blessedness" includes righteousness imputed and sins remitted:

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.

Hence, he is not addressing "faith" and "justification" separately but together and asking "COMETH THIS BLESSEDNESS (imputed righteousness - v. 6; non-imputation of sin - vv. 7-8) on the circumcision only or cometh it upon the uncircumcised??? This leads the precise question of "WHEN" did Abraham obtain it - "in" cirucumcision as Rome teaches or "in" uncircumcision as Baptist teach it?


10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

To be "in" circumcison means "when" circumcision occurs and thereafter as you continue to be circumcised.

To be "in" uncircumcision means all the time previous to being circumcised.

This is a complete repudiation of Roman Catholicism from its roots up. This "blessedness" (imputed righteousness, non-imputation of sin = remission of sins) occurred "WHEN" he was without circumcision and thus it was "HAD" without circumcision.

More devestatating to Roman Catholicism is that the purpose of Paul's point in defining precisely when justification by faith "had" been received was "NOT IN CIRCUMCISION" was to prove justification can be had by those who NEVER submit to circumcision.

11.......the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

Hence, the "sign" and "seal" is NOTHING OTHER THAN AN OUTWARD SYMBOL that never literaly or actually conveys grace, justification, regeneration or any other aspect of LITERAL salvation, but is in precise keeping with all ceremonial ordinances that merely provide an EXTERNAL TESTIMONY to something already accomplished by faith long before the ceremonial act:


Luke 1212 ¶ And it came to pass, when he was in a certain city, behold a man full of leprosy: who seeing Jesus fell on his face, and besought him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
13 And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him.
14 And he charged him to tell no man: but go, and shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing, according as Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.

When was his cleansing literally completed? When Jesus said "be thou clean. and IMMEDIALELY the leprosy departed from him"?

OR while ceremonial act "for thy cleansing"????

What was the design for the ceremonial cleansing? Was it to conclude his LITERAL cleansing and obtain LITERAL cleansing in the act?

OR was it "for a testimony UNTO THEM"???

This is the significance of a "sign" and "seal" - "for a TESTIMONY" not to literally obtain anything it signifies.