Redemption

[Tsalagi]

In which post did I cite Galatians 3:6?
Galatians 3:6

Even so Abraham BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS RECKONED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.

I did cite Romans 4 which includes Romans 4:3. And post #46 makes the case we benefit when God credits our faith as righteousness, referring to our election for salvation.

Romans 4:23-24 (NASB)
Now not for his [Abraham's]sake only was it written that it [righteous faith] was credited to him,
but for our sake also, to whom it [righteous faith] will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead,

And note folks the false charge that I violate "context." Calvinists charge their opponents with whatever malfeasance they are engaged in. I kid you not.

You have cited Galatians 3:9 and 13 multiple times in this thread; it is disingenuous to talk about faith being "credited" as righteousness while referencing that chapter and claim verse 6 (the "context") wasn't specifically cited. This is distraction over substance. Please try supporting the claim that salvation faith is "credited" as righteousness. Referencing Abraham's faith in God's promise (whatever your source) is erroneous and unpersuasive; that example of living faith has zero to do with the point of salvation.

If you are not violating context, then why do you cite Romans 4:24 and proceed to conflate its reference to ongoing faith in God the Father as a believer with saving faith in Jesus Christ at the point of salvation?

p.s. I am not a Calvinist, a fact clear to anyone who pays attention to my posts.

 

[Van]

You have cited Galatians 3:9 and 13 multiple times in this thread; it is disingenuous to talk about faith being "credited" as righteousness while referencing that chapter and claim verse 6 (the "context") wasn't specifically cited. This is distraction over substance. Please try supporting the claim that salvation faith is "credited" as righteousness. Referencing Abraham's faith in God's promise (whatever your source) is erroneous and unpersuasive; that example of living faith has zero to do with the point of salvation.

If you are not violating context, then why do you cite Romans 4:24 and proceed to conflate its reference to ongoing faith in God the Father as a believer with saving faith in Jesus Christ at the point of salvation?

p.s. I am not a Calvinist, a fact clear to anyone who pays attention to my posts.

So you said I cited Galatians 3:6, and then changed the reference to Galatians 3:9 without acknowledging the error caused distraction, but you then charge me with your malfeasance, just like Calvinist posters do.

Many posters have said they were not Calvinist, yet were 4 or 5 point advocates of the TULIP. Which of these doctrines do you disavow?

Did I conflate an individual's faith in Christ with "ongoing in God the Father as a believer with saving faith in Jesus Christ at the point of salvation. Nope. Did I say anything about "ongoing faith" in reference in Romans 4? Nope so more "distraction" on display. What did I say?

Romans 4:23-25 (NASB)
Now not for his sake only was it written that it [righteous faith]was credited to him, but for our sake also, to whom it [righteous faith] will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.

The bogus claim was made this "credited as righteousness faith" did not result in our election for salvation. Might one humbly ask the contextual expert how we are justified, if not through faith in Christ and the Father? No answer will be forthcoming.

 

[Yeshua1]

So you said I cited Galatians 3:6, and then changed the reference to Galatians 3:9 without acknowledging the error caused distraction, but you then charge me with your malfeasance, just like Calvinist posters do.

Many posters have said they were not Calvinist, yet were 4 or 5 point advocates of the TULIP. Which of these doctrines do you disavow?

Did I conflate an individual's faith in Christ with "ongoing in God the Father as a believer with saving faith in Jesus Christ at the point of salvation. Nope. Did I say anything about "ongoing faith" in reference in Romans 4? Nope so more "distraction" on display. What did I say?

Romans 4:23-25 (NASB)
Now not for his sake only was it written that it [righteous faith]was credited to him, but for our sake also, to whom it [righteous faith] will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.

The bogus claim was made this "credited as righteousness faith" did not result in our election for salvation. Might one humbly ask the contextual expert how we are justified, if not through faith in Christ and the Father? No answer will be forthcoming.

What justifies us then? our faith or the Lord Jesus death and resurrection?

 

[Van]

What justifies us then? our faith or the Lord Jesus death and resurrection?

Does God have the power to limit His knowledge during the incarnation, but not at other times?

 

[Tsalagi]

So you said I cited Galatians 3:6, and then changed the reference to Galatians 3:9 without acknowledging the error caused distraction, but you then charge me with your malfeasance, just like Calvinist posters do.

Many posters have said they were not Calvinist, yet were 4 or 5 point advocates of the TULIP. Which of these doctrines do you disavow?

Scripture supports the five points only if the adjectives are removed.

Did I conflate an individual's faith in Christ with "ongoing in God the Father as a believer with saving faith in Jesus Christ at the point of salvation. Nope. Did I say anything about "ongoing faith" in reference in Romans 4? Nope so more "distraction" on display. What did I say?

Romans 4:23-25 (NASB)
Now not for his sake only was it written that it [righteous faith]was credited to him, but for our sake also, to whom it [righteous faith] will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, He who was delivered over because of our transgressions, and was raised because of our justification.

The bogus claim was made this "credited as righteousness faith" did not result in our election for salvation. Might one humbly ask the contextual expert how we are justified, if not through faith in Christ and the Father? No answer will be forthcoming.

Yes, you did conflate saving and living faith. You did so by quoting Romans 4:23-25 as support for what happens at salvation, when that is manifestly NOT what Paul is talking about. Abraham (already saved) believed the promise of God that he and his seed would "inherit the world" (Romans 4:13) and that faith was credited εἰς - unto, with a view toward - righteousness.

Your phrase "righteous faith" is not scriptural; faith is not righteous or righteousness, righteousness is "from faith" (Romans 10:6). Paul in Romans 4:23-25 is not speaking of righteousness imputed from Christ at the point of salvation, he is talking about believers walking by faith in God's promises . That same righteousness is "about to be" (μέλλει) credited to us "who are believers" (present active participle) in the One who raised Christ from the dead, i.e. the Father. God the Father is not the object of saving faith, He is the object of our living faith.

We come to the Father through Christ (John 14:6) and trust Him for provision, blessing. and righteousness (Matthew 6:31-33).

 

[Brightfame52]

What justifies us then? our faith or the Lord Jesus death and resurrection?

The Lords death Justified them He died for, and His resurrection declares that Rom 4:25

25 Who was delivered for[because of] our offences, and was raised again for[because of] our justification.

 

[Yeshua1]

Does God have the power to limit His knowledge during the incarnation, but not at other times?

Just the Son did at that time, not the Father or Spirit!

 

[Van]

Just the Son did at that time, not the Father or Spirit!

Are you saying the Son is more powerful that the Father or the Spirit. I doubt any support for that falsehood can be found in scripture.

 

[Brightfame52]

Annexed with this redemption through Christ, strictly by His death is forgiveness of sins. Lets look at two scriptures where this is true Eph 1:7

7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Col 1:14

14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

The elect have these blessings before they even realize it, redemption and forgiveness of sins. There's no such thing as Christ dying for one and they dont as a result have redemption and forgiveness through His Blood, because its through Christ alone.13

 

[Van]

Annexed with this redemption through Christ, strictly by His death is forgiveness of sins. Lets look at two scriptures where this is true
Ephesians 1:7
7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;

Colossians 1:14
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

The elect have these blessings before they even realize it, redemption and forgiveness of sins. There's no such thing as Christ dying for one and they don't as a result have redemption and forgiveness through His Blood, because its through Christ alone.13

First apparently this poster denies 2 Peter 2:1 where a false teacher who had been bought was heading for destruction.

Next we get a sample absurdity, where salvation through Christ is not the same as salvation by grace through faith.

And finally look at the two verses again, redemption through His blood is "in (within) Him."

Also note, salvation before creation is precluded by 1 Peter 2:9-10, because we once had not been chosen as God's people and once had not received mercy. If we had been somehow placed as foreseen individuals into foreseen incarnate Christ whose death was foreseen, we could not have existed without being chosen or having received mercy. It is a lock.

 

[Brightfame52]

van

First apparently this poster denies 2 Peter 2:1 where a false teacher who had been bought was heading for destruction.

Says nothing about the blood of Christ here. Im talking about redemption through His Blood

Next we get a sample absurdity, where salvation through Christ is not the same as salvation by grace through faith.

You sound confused. I speaking about what Christ did by His Blood

And finally look at the two verses again, redemption through His blood is "in (within) Him."

Right for those He died for. They were in Him since before the foundation, chosen in Him Eph 1:4-7

Also note, salvation before creation is precluded by 1 Peter 2:9-10, because we once had not been chosen as God's people and once had not received mercy. If we had been somehow placed as foreseen individuals into foreseen incarnate Christ whose death was foreseen, we could not have existed without being chosen or having received mercy. It is a lock.

You really sound confused. Gods Chosen people have always been in Christ Eph 1:4

Col 1:14

14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

The elect have these blessings before they even realize it, redemption and forgiveness of sins. There's no such thing as Christ dying for one and they dont as a result have redemption and forgiveness through His Blood, because its through Christ alone.

 

[Van]

On and on, now this poster says 2 Peter 2:1 says "nothing about the blood of Christ!"
Does this poster agree Christ bought with His blood the person headed for destruction? Or does the naysayer deny the obvious.
Does Ephesians 1:4 say individuals were in Christ before Creation? Nope - that view is precluded by 1 Peter 2:9-10
How is this obviously false teaching supported in light of scripture? The scripture is ignored.

Salvation before creation is precluded by 1 Peter 2:9-10, because we once had not been chosen as God's people and once had not received mercy. If we had been somehow placed as foreseen individuals into foreseen incarnate Christ whose death was foreseen, we could not have existed without being chosen or having received mercy. It is a lock.

 

[Brightfame52]

On and on, now this poster says 2 Peter 2:1 says "nothing about the blood of Christ!"
Does this poster agree Christ bought with His blood the person headed for destruction? Or does the naysayer deny the obvious.
Does Ephesians 1:4 say individuals were in Christ before Creation? Nope - that view is precluded by 1 Peter 2:9-10
How is this obviously false teaching supported in light of scripture? The scripture is ignored.

Salvation before creation is precluded by 1 Peter 2:9-10, because we once had not been chosen as God's people and once had not received mercy. If we had been somehow placed as foreseen individuals into foreseen incarnate Christ whose death was foreseen, we could not have existed without being chosen or having received mercy. It is a lock.

Does 2 Pet 2:1 say anything about people being bought by the blood of Christ ? Yes or No ?

 

[Brightfame52]

What's redemption through Christ ?
Its also Justification freely, notice Rom 3:24

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

This is an unbelievable result from redemption, that religionist cant accept, and that's if Christ died for one, they are freely Justified by His Grace through redemption that is in Christ Jesus. The religionist insists that faith is a condition for this free justification, but that's a erroneous teaching that detracts from redemption.14

 

[37818]

The religionist insists that faith is a condition for this free justification,

Romans 3;24-25, ". . . Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith . . . ."

 

[Yeshua1]

Are you saying the Son is more powerful that the Father or the Spirit. I doubt any support for that falsehood can be found in scripture.

All 3 are equally God, but Jesus was the only One who accepted limitations of the human flesh!

 

[Van]

All 3 are equally God, but Jesus was the only One who accepted limitations of the human flesh!

Why not answer the question, is Jesus the only all powerful God able to limit His knowledge? A yes or no will suffice.

 

[Van]

Does 2 Pet 2:1 say anything about people being bought by the blood of Christ ? Yes or No ?

2Peter 2:1
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

Timothy 2:6
who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony given at the proper time.

Note the rejection of Christ having bought with His blood those heading for destruction. Christ laid down His life for all, those to be saved, and those never to be saved.

Does scripture tell us Christ bought people with something other than his blood? No, of course not!! Those that deny the cross, deny the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves.

 

[Yeshua1]

Why not answer the question, is Jesus the only all powerful God able to limit His knowledge? A yes or no will suffice.

he was a human, so willingly accepted those limitations while here upon the earth!

 

[Van]

he was a human, so willingly accepted those limitations while here upon the earth!

Was that a yes or a no.
Why not answer the question, is Jesus the only all powerful God able to limit His knowledge? A yes or no will suffice.

Mar 13:32
“But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

How could Jesus who is "all knowing" not know? How could the Holy Spirit who is all knowing not know since He searches all things?

Y1 will once again evade answering, because his claims are unbiblical.