The Blessedness - Romans 4:6-8

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist,

Stop accusing Michael of things he does not do.

Man it gets old to hear that unfounded nonsense as a defense to debating doctrine and sharing our beliefs.

What is getting old is your false accusations! You nor Michael have EVER provided a contextual based defense of what you believe. I don't even think you know what "a contextual based defense" is! Do you?

 

[Moriah]

What is getting old is your false accusations! You nor Michael have EVER provided a contextual based defense of what you believe. I don't even think you know what "a contextual based defense" is! Do you?

I prove my beliefs with scripture and explanation.

You attack constantly by saying you do not like our techniques. Too bad, now stop personally attacking.

 

[The Biblicist]

I am used to it; that's all he and some others can do.

You are absolutely telling a falsehood! You NEVER respond with a contextual based defense of your position. Such a response cannot be found on this thread and I have never found one on any other thread. Your MO is when contextual evidence is presented you either ignore it or start calling others "accusers." If you cannot respond to Biblical based evidence then why are you even on this forum? It is a debate forum - provide some kind of Biblical based response to the evidence I have presented several times. Not ONCE have you responded with a CONTEXTUAL based response - Not Once!

 

[The Biblicist]

I prove my beliefs with scripture and explanation.

You attack constantly by saying you do not like our techniques. Too bad, now stop personally attacking.

You have NEVER provided any Contextual based response to Biblical evidence presented against you and you have NEVER presented a contextual based argument - NEVER!

When you are confronted with Contextual based evidence that your explanations are wrong you start throwing mud and ignore it and call those who expose your ignorance as "ACCUSERS" when in reality the only accusation is your complete ignorance of God's Word.

Try responding to contextual based evidence against your positions by pointing out where and how the arguments against your reasoning are in error according to the immediate context.

 

[Moriah]

You are absolutely telling a falsehood! You NEVER respond with a contextual based defense of your position. Such a response cannot be found on this thread and I have never found one on any other thread. Your MO is when contextual evidence is presented you either ignore it or start calling others "accusers." If you cannot respond to Biblical based evidence then why are you even on this forum? It is a debate forum - provide some kind of Biblical based response to the evidence I have presented several times. Not ONCE have you responded with a CONTEXTUAL based response - Not Once!

Definition of contextual: Of, involving, or depending on a context.


Biblicist,

You need to stop with the ridiculous false accusations. Michael and I both deal with context.

Stop attacking and try to debate doctrine.

 

[The Biblicist]

How do the Catholics explain the practice of baptising infants in light of Matt 28:18-20?

They simply claim that infants are provided faith by the church and it is later confirmed and so infants are proper subjects for baptism.

 

[Moriah]

You have NEVER provided any Contextual based response to Biblical evidence presented against you and you have NEVER presented a contextual based argument - NEVER!

When you are confronted with Contextual based evidence that your explanations are wrong you start throwing mud and ignore it and call those who expose your ignorance as "ACCUSERS" when in reality the only accusation is your complete ignorance of God's Word.

Try responding to contextual based evidence against your positions by pointing out where and how the arguments against your reasoning are in error according to the immediate context.

YOU are the one throwing mud, just read this post right here, right now.
LOL

 

[The Biblicist]

Definition of contextual: Of, involving, or depending on a context.


Biblicist,

You need to stop with the ridiculous false accusations. Michael and I both deal with context.

Are you kidding me? Every reader on this forum knows you NEVER present a contextual based response! Instead you turn to ridicule or accusations of "accuser" toward those who merely point out contextual based facts that contradict your interpretations.

Stop attacking and try to debate doctrine.

I would if you or Michael would debate! Both you simply IGNORE the Contextual based evidence presented against your assertions. It would be great if YOU would debate the evidence instead of ignoring it or charging those who merely present contrary evidence as being "accusers." Debate the evidence presented by demonstrating why it is wrong contextually rather than ignoring it or slinging mud!

 

[Moriah]

Are you kidding me? Every reader on this forum knows you NEVER present a contextual based response! Instead you turn to ridicule or accusations of "accuser" toward those who merely point out contextual based facts that contradict your interpretations.






I would if you or Michael would debate! Both you simply IGNORE the Contextual based evidence presented against your assertions. It would be great if YOU would debate the evidence instead of ignoring it or charging those who merely present contrary evidence as being "accusers." Debate the evidence presented by demonstrating why it is wrong contextually rather than ignoring it or slinging mud!

Can you stop yourself, Biblicist? Look at this, ANOTHER post just filled with false accusations and personal attacks.

 

[The Biblicist]

Can you stop yourself, Biblicist? Look at this, ANOTHER post just filled with false accusations and personal attacks.

You are making my point! I simply pointed out that you fail to respond to contextual based arguments by pointing out errors in the arguments according to the immediate context BUT respond either by RUNNING from the text and context and JUMPING to another context in order to PIT that scriptures against scripture OR make accusations as you do above.

Obviously, you cannot understand what I am saying or else you would not be responding exactly as I predicted.

 

[The Biblicist]

Rom. 4:6 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.

Abraham is being used to illustrate Paul's doctrine of justification by faith without works.

1. Abraham lived 430 years before Moses and the Old Covenant Law

2. Abraham's "works" cannot be construed to be of the Old Covenant

3. Abraham was the "father of circumcision" and therefore what role does circumcision play in justification by faith.

The subject is Justification and two requiresments must be met for the "ungodly" to be justified before God:

1. Imputed righteousness - v. 6
2. Forgiveness of sins - vv. 7-8

The man in possession of these two requirements is the "blessed" man and this is the state of "blessedness"!

The argument on this forum is how does such a man obtain this state of "blessedness" and thus be a "blessed...man."

The answer is provided in Romans 4:9-12

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.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of 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:
12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.


Again, Catholic Church Catechism makes it very clear that circumcision plays the same sacramental role under the Old Covenant that baptism does under the New Covenant and they argue that point using Colossians 2:12.

"Jesus' circumcision, on the eighth day after his birth, IS THE SIGN of his incorporation into Abraham's descendants, into THE PEOPLE OF THE COVENANT. It is THE SIGN of his submission to THE LAW and his deputation to Israel's worship, in which he will participate through his life. THIS SIGN PREFIGURES that 'circumcision of Christ' WHICH IS BAPTISM." - #527 Catholic Church Catechism, 2nd Edition, p. 133

"CIRCUMCISION: The rite prescribed in Judaism and other cultures which involves the cutting off the foreskin of a male. Circumcision was a SIGN OF THE COVENANT between God and his people Israel and PREFIGURED THE RITE OF CHRISTIAN INITIATION IN BAPTISM. " - Glossary, Catholic Church Catechism, 2nd Edition, p. 871

"SIGNS OF THE COVENANT. The Chosen People received from God distinctive SIGNS and SYMBOLS tht marked its liturgical life. These are no longer solely celebrations of cosmic cycles and social gestures, but SIGNS OF THE COVENANT, SYMBOLS of God's mighty deeds for his people. Among these liturgical SIGNS FROM THE OLD COVENANT are CIRCUMCISION, anointing and consecration of kings and priests, laying on of hands, sacrifices, and above all the Passover. The Church SEES IN THESE SIGNS A PREFIGURING OF THE SACRAMENTS OF THE NEW COVENANT." - #1150, Catholic Church Cathechism, 2nd Edition, p. 297

Therefore, if we replaced the words "circumcised" and "circumcision" with any of the New Testament SIGNS and SYMBOLS in Romans 4:9-12 we would have the Apostles view of the Roman Catholic application of such signs in regard to justification by faith:


9 ¶ Cometh this blessedness then upon the BAPTIZED only, or upon the UNBAPTIZED also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in BAPTISM, or in UNBAPTISM? Not in BAPTISM, but in UNBAPTISM.
11 And he received the sign of BAPTISM, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being UNBAPTIZED: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not BAPTIZED; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
12 And the father of BAPTISM to them who are not of the BAPTIZED only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he being yet UNBAPTIZED.



Here is a clear and explicit absolute rejection of the very foundation upon which Roman Catholic Sacramentalism is built and defined by the Apostle Paul.

I am reposting the OP in order for us to get back on track. I think we can agree that we are off the OP and so let's return to the OP and drop all discussion that does not relate to this OP and the immediate context that the OP deals with.

 

[Moriah]

I have replied to this post before, but I will do it again, so that there is a chance that it will be understood better, and the chance that more people will hear the truth.

Originally Posted by The Biblicist
Rom. 4:6 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.

My Bible translation uses the words “credited as righteousness.” Whether or not you use the translation that says ‘imputed’ or “credited” it is clear this is about God declaring someone being righteous without works.

Who are the people whom God will credit righteousness without works? Those people are the ones who will believe in Jesus, it is about the New Covenant. This is for all people who believe in Jesus.

Now, what does David mean “without” works? The Jews had the works of the law. God nailed these works to the cross. What works did God nail to the cross? God nailed sin offerings to the cross. God nailed burnt offerings to the cross. God nailed observance of special days to the cross. God nailed various external washings to the cross. God nailed circumcision of the flesh to the cross. God nailed all these WORKS that the Jews had to do JUST TO WORSHIP God, the Jews had to do all those works because of sin.

Did God nail obeying Him to the cross? Of course, not, we still have to obey God. Did God nail stop sinning to the cross? Of course, not, we still are not to sin. Did God nail doing good to the cross? Of course, not, we still are to do good.

God nailed the works to the cross that we no longer have to do just to worship God.

Abraham is being used to illustrate Paul's doctrine of justification by faith without works.

1. Abraham lived 430 years before Moses and the Old Covenant Law
2. Abraham's "works" cannot be construed to be of the Old Covenant

Abraham had to be circumcised, as did his sons and all the males in his household. The scriptures even speak about BEFORE ABRAHAM AND CIRCUMCISION. In Romans Paul says in Romans 4:10, “Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before?
Right there that should tell you it IS about the work of circumcision.

Circumcision is definitely the Work spoken of in the explanation of Abraham and works. The fact that Abraham lived so long before the Law of Moses, this shows too what the works are, the works of the law like sin offerings. Circumcision was also in the Law of Moses.
Surely, you are not arguing that Abraham was allowed to be sinful and live a life of wickedness are you? With your beliefs and explanations, you claim that Abraham was considered righteous for believing while he lived a sinful wicked life. You ARE claiming that obeying in anything is a work. Wisdom proves you wrong about your doctrines, for Abraham was not allowed to live any kind of way and still be considered righteous apart from works. People falsely call obeying God in anything a work, but that is not so, for Abraham obeyed God from the beginning, and before circumcision and before the Law of Moses.
Did Abraham live a wicked life before circumcision and the Law of Moses? NO.

3. Abraham was the "father of circumcision" and therefore what role does circumcision play in justification by faith.

The subject is Justification and two requiresments must be met for the "ungodly" to be justified before God:

Please only use God’s words. Do not use one of your teacher’s words or your own words. Where does the Bible say, “The subject is Justification and two requirements must be met for the “ungodly” to be justified before God”?

1. Imputed righteousness - v. 6

Imputed, or credited righteousness is the fact that someone has faith, that someone believes.

2. Forgiveness of sins - vv. 7-8

God gives forgiveness of sins to those who believe.

Again, Catholic Church Catechism makes it very clear that circumcision plays the same sacramental role under the Old Covenant that baptism does under the New Covenant and they argue that point using Colossians 2:12.

"Jesus' circumcision, on the eighth day after his birth, IS THE SIGN of his incorporation into Abraham's descendants, into THE PEOPLE OF THE COVENANT. It is THE SIGN of his submission to THE LAW and his deputation to Israel's worship, in which he will participate through his life. THIS SIGN PREFIGURES that 'circumcision of Christ' WHICH IS BAPTISM." - #527 Catholic Church Catechism, 2nd Edition, p. 133

"CIRCUMCISION: The rite prescribed in Judaism and other cultures which involves the cutting off the foreskin of a male. Circumcision was a SIGN OF THE COVENANT between God and his people Israel and PREFIGURED THE RITE OF CHRISTIAN INITIATION IN BAPTISM. " - Glossary, Catholic Church Catechism, 2nd Edition, p. 871

"SIGNS OF THE COVENANT. The Chosen People received from God distinctive SIGNS and SYMBOLS tht marked its liturgical life. These are no longer solely celebrations of cosmic cycles and social gestures, but SIGNS OF THE COVENANT, SYMBOLS of God's mighty deeds for his people. Among these liturgical SIGNS FROM THE OLD COVENANT are CIRCUMCISION, anointing and consecration of kings and priests, laying on of hands, sacrifices, and above all the Passover. The Church SEES IN THESE SIGNS A PREFIGURING OF THE SACRAMENTS OF THE NEW COVENANT." - #1150, Catholic Church Cathechism, 2nd Edition, p. 297

Therefore, if we replaced the words "circumcised" and "circumcision" with any of the New Testament SIGNS and SYMBOLS in Romans 4:9-12 we would have the Apostles view of the Roman Catholic application of such signs in regard to justification by faith:
is a clear and explicit absolute rejection of the very foundation upon which Roman Catholic Sacramentalism is built and defined by the Apostle Paul.

It is clear that Catholics and those from the reformed group have false beliefs concerning works.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Definition of contextual: Of, involving, or depending on a context.


Biblicist,

You need to stop with the ridiculous false accusations. Michael and I both deal with context.

Completely true. He can't accept the clarity of our conclusions, so he has to deflect by making false accusations.

Stop attacking and try to debate doctrine.

He is not capable of ceasing to attack.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Can you stop yourself, Biblicist? Look at this, ANOTHER post just filled with false accusations and personal attacks.

He accuses us of slinging mud, yet he is the one who uses words like "cultist" to describe us.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

I prove my beliefs with scripture and explanation.

You attack constantly by saying you do not like our techniques. Too bad, now stop personally attacking.

Exactly!

And he claims he wants to debate and we don't, but who is the one having a tantrum and throwing out all kinds of wild and false accusations?

 

[DHK]

My faith is in God.

Who said the demons were saved?

How do you bring Nero into this discussion?

As an example of faith. But you have a hard time believing and understanding. Let me ask you. Do you believe that Nero lived. Do you have faith in the history books that Nero was a person that lived at the time of the Apostle Paul? Are you able to exercise your faith to come to a belief in those facts.

I see you have a hard time understanding.

Who brought Nero into this discussion. Do you believe Nero existed as a man? Do you have faith?

Let me try again. I love to tell you.

James says faith without action is dead.

Do you get that?

No, James teaches that if faith does not produce works then faith is dead. Works never saves anyone. Faith produces works. James is addressing Christians who are already saved teaching them about their Christian walk, not about salvation.

You teach such faith is a saving faith.

Faith is faith is faith. You don't know what faith is.
Perhaps to you faith is some esoterical, mystical, metaphysical, existential, supernatural and magical experience that somehow you have to lay hold of with sensory perceptions hoping beyond hope that the unseen might become true.
Does that sum it up concisely?

How do you not see the error in that?

See error? Me? No, I see ignorance in your post to me.

You teach the dead faith James tells us about is a saving faith.

I teach what James teaches, which you do not understand. James was writing to Christians, not the unsaved. The product of a Christian's faith is works.

James says even the demons believe and shudder. Shuddering is an action that the demons do.

Oh, come now. My children shudder when they get cold. They are not demonic. I shudder at the things you post on this board. The demons shudder at the very thought of standing before a holy and just God who will throw them into the Lake of Fire prepared for the devil and his angels. (Rev.20:10)

Even the demons believe and have an action.

Oh, I see. You are the one that thinks they are saved.
Faith + works = salvation.
But I believe that faith in Christ alone saves. You don't believe that.

YOU teach that we are NOT to obey, that we are not to have any action on our part, and you say to believe otherwise is a false teaching worthy of condemnation.

Do you get it now?

You don't get it.
Salvation is by faith and faith alone. You consider faith a work, just like SBM. In that respect you believe the same as SBM, who is a hyper-Calvinist. You both believe that faith is a work.
But faith is not a work. And salvation is not of works. What you are posting is in error; not Scriptural.
You do err not knowing the Scriptures.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

If that were true then you could easily respond to these simple and clear contextual based evidences that repudiate your position. If that were true you wouldn't make such a foolish distinction between "imputation" and "reckoned" as both translates the very same Greek term.

If that were true we could find such a response on this thread but we cannot!

The truth is you have NEVER provided a Biblical based refutation of these simple contextual facts.


DEMONSTRATE don't make unfounded ASSERTIONS!

I always back up what I believe with scripture and show that what I believe was held in the earliest churches. It's the Latin West that has perverted the NT and early church views -- that includes the RCC and the Magisterial Reformers. But you go ahead and promote what Luther and Calvin taught and try to convince yourself that you are very far removed from the RCC.

And, if it pleases you, continue to come up with new adjectives to describe me. I will not say anything more that is personally demeaning to you. If I were to die tonight or soon, I don't want that to be on my record.

 

[Moriah]

As an example of faith. But you have a hard time believing and understanding.

No, you do.

Let me ask you. Do you believe that Nero lived. Do you have faith in the history books that Nero was a person that lived at the time of the Apostle Paul? Are you able to exercise your faith to come to a belief in those facts.

I am here to speak about the Word of God, not Nero.

Who brought Nero into this discussion. Do you believe Nero existed as a man? Do you have faith?

You brought Nero into this conversation.

No, James teaches that if faith does not produce works then faith is dead. Works never saves anyone. Faith produces works. James is addressing Christians who are already saved teaching them about their Christian walk, not about salvation.

It does not matter if it is before or after salvation, for faith without action is DEAD. It is NEVER alive. It is not the saving faith that you claim it is.

Faith is faith is faith. You don't know what faith is.
Perhaps to you faith is some esoterical, mystical, metaphysical, existential, supernatural and magical experience that somehow you have to lay hold of with sensory perceptions hoping beyond hope that the unseen might become true.
Does that sum it up concisely?

I believe in what God says faith is, would you like me to tell you?

I teach what James teaches, which you do not understand. James was writing to Christians, not the unsaved. The product of a Christian's faith is works.

James says faith without action is dead. It is not alive faith before one is a Christian. IT IS DEAD.

Oh, come now. My children shudder when they get cold. They are not demonic. I shudder at the things you post on this board. The demons shudder at the very thought of standing before a holy and just God who will throw them into the Lake of Fire prepared for the devil and his angels. (Rev.20:10)

Even the demons believe and shudder shuddering is an action. You claim Christians are saved by only believing without any reaction. In fact, you not only say it is a heretical belief to say we are to have an action with our beliefs, you also call it a condemned, and accursed belief, and that we are NOT to obey God.

Oh, I see. You are the one that thinks they are saved.
Faith + works = salvation.
But I believe that faith in Christ alone saves. You don't believe that.

Even the demons believe and have an action, and they are not saved. Yet you believe humans cannot believe with a reaction. Are you beginning to see the ludicrousness in such teaching?

Salvation is by faith and faith alone. You consider faith a work, just like SBM.

Where have I said faith was or was not a work?

 

[Moriah]

He is not capable of ceasing to attack.

I do not think he is capable of it either.

 

[The Biblicist]

No such distinction is made in Romans 4:1-25. You are simply misinterpreting what Paul says.

Rom. 4:5 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,

First, all the verbs in these two verses are in the present tense showing identifical or simeltaneous action with each other and all modify the "ungodly."

Believing, justifying and imputeth are all simeltaneous actions that are all "WITHOUT WORKS" and descriptive of the "ungodly" person. Hence, the righteousness is derived from an external source as the person being justified, beliving and being imputed righteousness is "ungodly." An "ungodly" person cannot be the source of righteousness. Neither can his works be the source of righteousness by the very fact he is believing "without works" or "worketh not."

The righteousness is related to "his faith" (not faithfulness as that is being denied by the fact his state is "ungodlly" and it is "without works.").

The righteousnesss is found in the OBJECT of His faith or in the Person and work of Jesus Christ EXTERNAL to himself ("ungodly") and EXTERNAL to his own works ("worketh not" "without works").

You cannot simply dissect this text from its context and make if mean what you want it to mean. The "faith" in question has already been defined in the introduction in Romans 3:24-26 and in the application in Romans 4:21-25. The righteousness obtained by faith is found "in" the object of that faith or in the Person and works of Jesus Christ:

Rom. 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Paul merely introduces Abraham to illustrate this introductory assertion! This is also proven by the APPLICATION of Abraham's faith in Romans 4:21-25 in the conclusion of this illustration:

21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
23 ¶ Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

For your position to be true in this context one would have to get rid of the term "ungodly" and replace it with "godly" and get rid "worketh not" and "without works" and replace it with "works of righteousness."

Moreover the SAME Greek term is translated "imputeth" and "counted" and "reckoned" and so you theological distinction between "imputeth" and "reckoned" is false.




Here is your problem! You need to get your theology from the Scripture not from TRADITIONS of men and uninspired church history.



You are not fighting me! You are fighting the Apostle Paul. He is the one that used the SAME Greek term for all three words (counteth, imputeth, reckoned). He is the one that defines the person needing justified as "ungodly." He is the one that defines "righteousness" received by faith to be EXTERNAL to the person being justified by claiming his person to be "ungodly" and his justification is "without works" and "worketh not".

Your problem is with Paul! You need to stop getting your theology from secular traditions of men and start getting from the scriptures based upon EXEGESIS rather than EISGESIS!

Resposted because no one answered