What Eeternal Justificationist Can't Answer

[The Biblicist]

SBM cannot answer the following exposition of Romans 4:6-10. He avoids this exposition by simply repeating his assertions and that is what he will do in response to the following exposition. Why? Because he cannot answer it:

Romans 4:9-10 completely repudiates his interpretation of the time when non-imputation occurred in this context. Here are his problems and I list them:

1. Verse 9-10 deal with both with "when" and "how" imputation of righteousnes and non-imputation of sin occurred.

2. Verse 10 provides only TWO choices concerning "when" non-imputation occurred and they are - (1) in uncirumcision and (2) uncirucmision and both restrict its occurrence within the life time of Abraham.

3. Paul restricts the "when" to "in circumcision"

4. Hence, neither imputation of righteousness (v. 6) or non-imputation of sin (vv. 7-8) occurred before the world began or at the cross according to the context.

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.
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.

The justification described in verses 6-7 ocurred "IN CIRCUMCISION" not in eternity past, not on the cross. But according to this Biblcial context it occurred in verse 3 or at the point of faith.

This exposition not only condemns "eternal justification" but condemns "sacramentalism" and "progressive justification" doctrines as well.

What will be SBM's response? That is easy, there will not be a response to this text. He will simply PIT another scripture against this text and reassert his false doctrine. This is the same kind of response Catholics on this forum give to this exposition because neither can deal with it honestly or objectively.

 

[savedbymercy]

There is no need for me to chase this dead horse. The Elect never had their sins imputed to them ! That fact alone is Justification before God, so no need to do a expostion of Rom 4, even though if you search my previous posts and threads, I have covered Rom 4. Nothing in Romans 4 does away with this Truth in Rom 4:7-8

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 non imputation of sin is the Elects Justification before God Rom 8:33

33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

 

[The Biblicist]

There is no need for me to chase this dead horse.

Paul says it happened "in cirucumcision" (v. 10) while SBM says it occurred "in eternity"! Which one is writing by inspiration, Paul or SBM?

You are a sorry excuse for a Bible teacher. You know you are perverting Romans 4:7-8 and yet you do it intentionally in full light that verse 10 repudiates your interpretation completely and thoroughly and yet you willfully choose to lie. I do not know why they allow you to stay on this forum because this is a debate forum and you refuse to enter into honest debate.

Readers, did I not predict exactly what SMB would do? And he did not fail to do it. This should expose him to every reader on this forum for what he is - a false teacher.

 

[The Biblicist]

SBM cannot answer the following exposition of Romans 4:6-10. He avoids this exposition by simply repeating his assertions and that is what he will do in response to the following exposition. Why? Because he cannot answer it:

Romans 4:9-10 completely repudiates his interpretation of the time when non-imputation occurred in this context. Here are his problems and I list them:

1. Verse 9-10 deal with both with "when" and "how" imputation of righteousnes and non-imputation of sin occurred.

2. Verse 10 provides only TWO choices concerning "when" non-imputation occurred and they are - (1) in uncirumcision and (2) uncirucmision and both restrict its occurrence within the life time of Abraham.

3. Paul restricts the "when" to "in circumcision"

4. Hence, neither imputation of righteousness (v. 6) or non-imputation of sin (vv. 7-8) occurred before the world began or at the cross according to the context.

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.
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.

The justification described in verses 6-7 ocurred "IN CIRCUMCISION" not in eternity past, not on the cross. But according to this Biblcial context it occurred in verse 3 or at the point of faith.

This exposition not only condemns "eternal justification" but condemns "sacramentalism" and "progressive justification" doctrines as well.

What will be SBM's response? That is easy, there will not be a response to this text. He will simply PIT another scripture against this text and reassert his false doctrine. This is the same kind of response Catholics on this forum give to this exposition because neither can deal with it honestly or objectively.

Here is the contextual evidence again. Will SBM attempt to refute it like a real and true Bible teacher? No! Because he is not a true Bible teacher but false religionist teacher.

Paul says it occurred "in circumcision" while SBM says it occurs "in eternity"! Who is writing by inspiration, Paul or SBM????

 

[The Biblicist]

Rom. 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

SBM wants to read this text as follows:

Rom. 4:10 How was it then reckoned? when he was yet unborn before the foundation of the world, or at the time of faith? Not at the time of faith but in eternity past. .

However, it simply does not say that! It does not infer or imply that!

SBM will not be honest with the Word of God.

SBM cannot answer the following exposition of Romans 4:6-10. He avoids this exposition by simply repeating his assertions and that is what he will do in response to the following exposition. Why? Because he cannot answer it:

Romans 4:9-10 completely repudiates his interpretation of the time when non-imputation occurred in this context. Here are his problems and I list them:

1. Verse 9-10 deal with both with "when" and "how" imputation of righteousnes and non-imputation of sin occurred.

2. Verse 10 provides only TWO choices concerning "when" non-imputation occurred and they are - (1) in uncirumcision and (2) uncirucmision and both restrict its occurrence within the life time of Abraham.

3. Paul restricts the "when" to "in circumcision"

4. Hence, neither imputation of righteousness (v. 6) or non-imputation of sin (vv. 7-8) occurred before the world began or at the cross according to the context.

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.
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.

The justification described in verses 6-7 ocurred "IN CIRCUMCISION" not in eternity past, not on the cross. But according to this Biblcial context it occurred in verse 3 or at the point of faith.

This exposition not only condemns "eternal justification" but condemns "sacramentalism" and "progressive justification" doctrines as well.

What will be SBM's response? That is easy, there will not be a response to this text. He will simply PIT another scripture against this text and reassert his false doctrine. This is the same kind of response Catholics on this forum give to this exposition because neither can deal with it honestly or objectively.

 

[savedbymercy]

Non imputation = Justification !

the bib

Paul says it happened "in cirucumcision"

Circumcision or no circumcision, That has nothing to do with with non imputation of sin. Non imputation occurred before circumcision, you bet, because it occurred before Abraham had a Physical being lol !

Non Imputation is God in Christ in Covenant before the world began, not imputing the worlds trespasses against them 2 Cor 5:19 ! Paul preached Eternal Justification right there, that is Eternal Reconciliation.

You need to prove that God at anytime imputed legally the sins of the Elect to them. In order to do that you will need rip 2 Cor 5:19 out of the bible, along with Rom 4:7-8 and last but not least Rom 8:33

33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

The inability of anyone to lay or impute a charge against God's Elect is by default their Justification before God !

Talking about in circumcision, have you lost your mind, has nothing to do with Justification before God !

 

[The Biblicist]

the bib



Circumcision or no circumcision, That has nothing to do with with non imputation of sin. Non imputation occurred before circumcision, you bet, because it occurred before Abraham had a Physical being lol !

Non Imputation is God in Christ in Covenant before the world began, not imputing the worlds trespasses against them 2 Cor 5:19 ! Paul preached Eternal Justification right there, that is Eternal Reconciliation.

You need to prove that God at anytime imputed legally the sins of the Elect to them. In order to do that you will need rip 2 Cor 5:19 out of the bible, along with Rom 4:7-8 and last but not least Rom 8:33

33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

The inability of anyone to lay or impute a charge against God's Elect is by default their Justification before God !

Talking about in circumcision, have you lost your mind, has nothing to do with Justification before God !

:tongue3o you think simply denying what Romans 3:10 says makes your interpretation better:BangHead:

Furthermore, has anyone said that circucmision or uncircumcision had anything to do with justification? Not I? Not Paul? You built a straw man argument and burnt it because you still cannot deal with verse 10 where Pauls spells out when justification occurred. It occurred "IN" uncircumcision rather than before the world began!

 

[savedbymercy]

:tongue3o you think simply denying what Romans 3:10 says makes your interpretation better:BangHead:

Furthermore, has anyone said that circucmision or uncircumcision had anything to do with justification? Not I? Not Paul? You built a straw man argument and burnt it because you still cannot deal with verse 10 where Pauls spells out when justification occurred. It occurred "IN" uncircumcision rather than before the world began!

Non Imputation is God in Christ in Covenant before the world began, not imputing the worlds trespasses against them 2 Cor 5:19 ! Paul preached Eternal Justification right there, that is Eternal Reconciliation.

You need to prove that God at anytime imputed legally the sins of the Elect to them. In order to do that you will need rip 2 Cor 5:19 out of the bible, along with Rom 4:7-8 and last but not least Rom 8:33

33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

The inability of anyone to lay or impute a charge against God's Elect is by default their Justification before God !

2 Cor 5:19

19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

An acquitted World !

 

[plain_n_simple]

SBM:The Elect never had their sins imputed to them !

All have sinned and come short......

 

[The Biblicist]

You need to prove that God at anytime imputed legally the sins of the Elect to them. In order to do that you will need rip 2 Cor 5:19 out of the bible, along with Rom 4:7-8 and last but not least Rom 8:33

No, all I have to show is that your position is obtained by pitting scripture against scripture (and I have done that) and that your selective proof texting is jerking texts out of context and misinterpreting them. That is simple to prove to those who have eyes to see (that is where you run into problems).

33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

The inability of anyone to lay or impute a charge against God's Elect is by default their Justification before God !

In context, this is addressed to those who are already BELIEVERS for the purpose to prove that they cannot lose their salvation. It is not addressed to the unregenerated elect. It is a context that shows that God works all things according to His purpose but you don't even understand those words "work all things" as that refers to the IMPLENTATION of His Purpose. Predestinated to be conformed refers to the IMPLENTATION of his purpose.

I have answered 2 Cor. 5:19 and you have NEVER even attempted to deal with Romans 4:10 because YOU CAN'T.

 

[savedbymercy]

SBM:The Elect never had their sins imputed to them !

All have sinned and come short......

I never said the elect were never sinners, they never were condemned, charged with their sins. Christ was !

Rom 8:33-34



33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

God in Justice cannot charge and condemn the Elect for their sins and Christ for their sins !