What is Justification by faith?

[Darrell C]

Hi Darrel C, I read your post and did not see iclarity in your response.
Did I say you were an Arminian? Nope. I said you seem to be more Arminian than me.

You seem to deny that a natural unregenerate person can understand spiritual milk, the gospel of Christ, unless "enlightened" by the Holy Spirit. I believe the Holy Spirit's work product is the gospel of Christ, and thus is the power of God for salvation. You view is as Arminian as it gets.

To be clear, I am a one point Calvinist, once saved, always saved. I am a two point Arminian, Christ died for all mankind, and we are chosen for salvation through faith in the truth. I disagree that natural men need more than the revelatory grace of God's word and human witness. I disagree with your apparent view that we must be enlightened supernaturally.

I believe the election of Ephesians 1:4 was corporate, not individual, and contrary to Arminianism, I believe we are chosen for salvation during our physical lives, rather than before creation based on foreseen faith.

Thus I believe you are more Arminian than me.

Okay, well you are more Catholic, and more Mormon than me, so nyaah!




God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

By "the blood of the EVERLASTING COVENANT" (Heb. 13:20). "The blood" merely represents the provision promised in the gospel.

Again, the mythology of a Covenant that stands outside of time and has always been in effect.

Pure fiction.

The New Covenant is the Everlasting Covenant, and Redemptive History is clearly divided into when this Covenant comes into being as a fulfillment to the Promise of God and those Ages which precede it in which men were in differing Covenants.

Abraham, for example, was in relationship with God through a Covenant that held the promise of the New Covenant, but was not the New Covennat.

This is pulpit bred mythology, not Biblical Doctrine.

Sorry, I am not going after this rabbit trail either but staying with the text (Rom. 3-5)

Another example of refusing to examine details relevant to the subject as a whole.

Yet, you create a thread complaining when someone takes a singular issue and focuses on it.

Contradict yourself much?

Don't answer, everyone already knows, and would be honest with you about it if they didn't have an agenda fueled by hatred, which came about through debate as well.

These aren't your friends, Biblicist, they aren't helping you by sharing a hatred for myself.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

They were PERFECTED "in Christ" before the world began by PURPOSE (Eph. 1:4). They were PERFECTED "in Christ" at the point of justification legally and positionally. They ARE being perfected "in Christ" by progressive sanctification. They WILL BE perfected in Christ at glorification. They are perfected by "the blood of the everlasting covenant" to their persons at any time in history. They are perfected "in Christ" at the point of historical PROVISION. However, the good news of the gospel is that Old Testament saints could be PERFECTED LEGALLY "before God" by justification at the point of faith.

No, Biblicist, they were not perfected in Christ before the world began.

All men are born separated from God, not born having their sins forgiven.

You are ignorant of the Doctrine of Perfection and will not suffer that anyone teach you, because you are unteachable. Your ego will not allow that you are in error about something.

We don't have "illegally perfected Saints" in the Old Testament, and legally perfected Saints in the New. The Writer, thus the Holy Ghost...is clear: they were not made perfect...

...period.

You are making it up as you go. That is not a Biblical approach.

And by the way...where is the quote of me denying Old Testament Saints were justified?

Continued.

 

[Darrell C]

The positions of both Van and Darrell crumble when you properly define the Biblical content of justification.

Your "Biblical content of Justification" teaches that men are saved by faith through grace, and you make the Cross of Christ a mere formality.

Insufferable codswaddle (and you can ask @Martin what codswaddle means, I have no idea).

What ever it means, it is an apt description of the nonsense you teach.

By the way, ever come to a conclusion whether infants in the womb have no ability to discern right or wrong or if they are regenerated in the womb at death or if at death still means something different than after death?

And by the way...where is that quote of me denying men were justified in the Old Testament?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell uses the term "justified" but denies its contents. He uses the term "justified" but defines it as inclusive of works plus faith when the Bible clearly and explicitly repudiates any kind of justification that includes works. He confuses sanctification with justification.

Okay, quote me where you come to this erroneous understanding of what I have said. This one should be easy, because I have spoken of justification by works in regards to Abraham.

It has nothing to do with sanctification, it has everything to do with we do not divorce Abraham's works from the fact that he was justified.

Will you quote me? Doubt it, because you have already shown you have no problem slandering people without justification, and you will not repent of this dishonesty in your debate tactics.

The simple fact is that James makes it clear Abraham was justified by his works:


James 2:21-22

King James Version (KJV)

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?


Abraham's faith was made complete, not by the works themselves, but simply becaue he did that which evidenced his faith. We wouldn't know Abraham believed God's promise of an heir, and that all families of the earth would be blessed though him...if we did not havea record of something Abraham did which drives home the fact that Abraham believed God and was a man of faith.

Now...

...where is that quote?


Continued...

 

[Van]

No, Van, we are redeemed by the Blood of Christ.
Men were justified prior to the Cross, the error is equating justification with Eternal Redemption.

Remember, the spirits of just men had to be made perfect. They are clearly declared just (even one so vile as Lot) through faith, apart from works, but, that is not the same as being redeemed through the Blood of Christ.

The bottom line is that they were saved by grace through faith, and it is not their faith that saved them...it is God, and His grace that did so. They were justified by faith, and, we know their works are not divorced from that justification, because we not only have the record of the original account/s, where we see obedience to the revealed will of God, we also see James make this a point:

No one was justified prior to the cross. No scripture saying or suggesting will be posted. On the other hand, we are justified by the blood of Christ, Romans 5:9.

Now lets consider James 2:21-26. James is saying Abraham was "justified" by faith that was alive and not dead. But when was he justified? It does not say. Rehab was "justified" again by faith that was alive and not dead. But when was Rehab justified. Both Abraham and Rehab had to wait to be made perfect, until Christ died in order to be justified by the blood of Christ. They gained approval by faith, during their lives, but had to wait to be made perfect after Christ died.

 

[Darrell C]

So in short, both Van and Darrell must deny the Biblical content of "justified" and thus pervert the Biblical doctrine to support their theory that none could be actually justified as we are until the historical event of the cross.

Where have I done this?

This is slander until you quote me doing this.

That Moderation has not taken issue with this is curious.

Over and over you have been asked to substantiate you charges, yet you do not.

It is assumed that your "Biblical content of justification" is correct by yourself, when what is clear is that you are equating justification with Eternal Redemption.

The Old Testament was not Eternally Redeemed...that is clear:


Hebrews 9:12-15

King James Version (KJV)

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.


Justification is not why the Old Testament Saints were saved. They were saved by grace through faith, not by faith through grace.

And the infant that dies in the womb has no capacity for faith...

...yet they are saved by grace as well.


Continued...

 

[Van]

Okay, well you are more Catholic, and more Mormon than me, so nyaah!

God bless.

I will take that as a non-denial denial. Thus it appears I was spot on.

 

[The Biblicist]

Lets return to scripture.

Notice his post contains NO SCRIPTURE and my post is filled with Scriptures, all of which he completely ignores, and wisely so, because he can't respond and neither does he try to respond as it would be his undoing.

In my last post, the readers know I obliterated his false dichotomy of which he has no response, as there is no possible response.

He returns to his mantra. He refuses to believe that God can act apart from time and space with regard to His eternal purpose of redemption. Now let's take a look at a text that shreds his position:

Rom. 3:25 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.

Now, lets look at this from Van's point of view. He argues that God cannot APPLY the blood of Christ prior to the historical provision occurred. He not only argues he cannot but he did not. However, if this is what this text is teaching then please tell us why God needs to be declared ("declare...declare") righteous and that he "might be just" if he only acts on the historical made provision??? If he only applied the blood based upon the actual provision of blood then he is just.

However, God can apply "the blood" previous to the cross based purely on His own promise that the blood would be shed, thus calling the things that are not yet as though they are and thus we read "the blood of the everlasting covenant" (Heb. 13:20) and "the lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev. 13:8) and having been "chosen in him before the world began" (Eph. 1:4). Personal salvation is the direct application of God's eternal purpose or "everlasting covenant" whereas both the "old" and "new" covenants are earthly administrations that merely declare the truth of the everlasting covenant, neither being sacramental or legislative covenants. The "old" covenant declared the truth of God's holiness by the moral law. God's provision of salvation is declared in the ceremonial laws - but the "old" was never designed to justify or save anyone nor were animal blood sacrifices designed to literally remit sins but only provide the "witness" by believers in the gospel they were already righteous and justified by faith (Heb. 11:4). The "new" covenant administration is not sacramental or legislative either, but declarative in nature. The ordinances declare the gospel. The ministry declares the gospel, the "new" covenant declares the fulfillment in the Person and work of Christ of what the "old" anticipated.

What this text is really teaching is that God APPLIED the blood of the cross based solely upon faith in God's promise in the "past" BEFORE the cross that the provision would occur. "At this time" (time of Christ and apostles) when the promise was fulfilled in the historical provision, it (that provision) declared God "just" for having applied it to them by faith, thus the "justifier" of them (imputed righteousness and remission of sins) that embraced that promise by faith. Abraham and David are given as examples of those justified (righteousness of God imputed; sins remitted - Rom. 4:1-11) all "without works."

The absolute proof is that Van cannot overturn my exposition of Romans 4:1-11. Paul is not disputing Abraham and David were justified, but disputing they were justified by works. The only other alternative he offers is "by faith without works" or "he that worketh not BUT believeth."

Van must deny the obivous! He must deny that "justified before God" is WITHOUT RIGHTEOUSNESS and WITH SIN. The context repudiates Van's dichotomy completely and irrefutably showing that his whole position is simply false.

 

[percho]

God has a "soul" and it is not blood and man was made in the image of God and God does not have a body or "breath" but "is spirit."

That referred to God manifested in the flesh. Jesus the Christ born of the virgin Mary of the seed of David who was obedient into pouring out the soul of the flesh that is in the blood. Isa 53:12

because he hath poured out his soul unto death:

That was the obedience of one which brought righteousness for the many referred to in Romans 5:19 Righteousness being justification.

 

[Darrell C]

No one was justified prior to the cross. No scripture saying or suggesting will be posted. On the other hand, we are justified by the blood of Christ, Romans 5:9.

And Romans 5:9 contrasts justification through faith in that available to Abraham, and justification accomplished through the Cross.

You're just not going to be able to deny that Abraham is said to be justified by faith by Paul, and justified by works by James.

Neither are saying that Abraham was saved by his faith or works on an eternal basis. Both are saying he was justified. Big difference.

Lot is considered Just while he dwells in Sodom, and as far as I am concerned, the man was due for a flogging, lol. Any man that would offer up his daughters to evil men...

...not on my watch.

But, Lot had faith to leave the city, right?

Was Lot saved because he left the city, thus escaping the judgment of God?

No, he was saved by grace, not faith. He was justified...by faith.

Now lets consider James 2:21-26. James is saying Abraham was "justified" by faith that was alive and not dead. But when was he justified? It does not say. Rehab was "justified" again by faith that was alive and not dead. But when was Rehab justified. Both Abraham and Rehab had to wait to be made perfect, until Christ died in order to be justified by the blood of Christ. They gained approval by faith, but were made perfect after Christ died.

Van, it is very simple:


James 2:21-22

King James Version (KJV)

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?


Just as James teaches that those who say and do not do, such as saying "Be ye warmed and filled without providing that which is necessary," are not justified despite the "saying," even so Abraham was not justified just by saying, but by doing. The context is before men. That is where these works fit into this context. James is not saying Abraham was saved by works, but justified.

And the fact is that he was justified, you cannot deny that.

And that is the point the OP misses: Eternal Salvation in Christ is not identical to being justified and declared a Saint of God.

When Paul teaches Abraham was justified by faith, neither is he saying "Abraham was eternally redeemed by faith."

He is saying he was justified, and to equate that with Christ's Work is a mistake many make.


God bless.

 

[The Biblicist]

Now where is a quote that states I have taught men were not justified in the Old Testament?

My what a short memory you have. I have said repeatedly that you claim that they were justified, you use the Biblical terms in your claim. I have told you this, I don't know, at least three times. However, in spite of claiming it, and using the right Biblical terms ("justified by faith") you EMPTY those terms of its Biblical meaning and therefore you repudiate the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith and deny anyone was truly justified before the cross.

Let me see if I can break it down for you so that I won't have to repeat this a fifth time. Catholics claim they believe in justification by faith and salvation by grace. They make the claim and use the right terms but when they define these terms they empty those words of their true Biblical meaning. That is YOU!

In Romans 3-5 "justified before God" is inseparably inclusive of imputation of "the righteousness of God" and "remission of sins" of the "ungodly." Any use of "justified before God" where there is no inclusion of imputed righteousness of God and remissions of sin is not Biblical justification.

Now here is your opportunity to agree or disagree so all the readers can see precisely where you stand and how you differ from what I just stated.

If you disagree YOU ARE PROVING THE VERACITY OF MY CHARGES. If you agree with me than I will sincerely apologize.

 

[Darrell C]

The Aorist and Perfect tenses joined with the time restriction of the justified event within the confines of uncircumcision completely repudiate both of their veiws.

More grammatical suicide.

And it has nothing to do with my views.

That Abraham was justified by faith prior to circumcision does not equate to...

...Abraham's was made perfect in Christ because he was justified by his faith.

Before you presume to speak for me you need to first understand what it is I believe.

Now, again, where is a quote to substantiate your charge that I teach the Old Testament Saint was not justified?

You can't provide it, you know it, and everyone here knows it. That you will not be honest about this shows the depths you will lower yourself to in Doctrinal Debate.

Now provide the quote or admit that you have not been honest, and are therefore guilty of the very things you snivel about.


Continued...

 

[The Biblicist]

That referred to God manifested in the flesh.

God claiming he has a "soul" is found in the Old Testament long before the incarnation. Sorry, nice try but no winner.

 

[Darrell C]

My what a short memory you have. I have said repeatedly that you claim that they were justified, you use the Biblical terms in your claim. I have told you this, I don't know, at least three times. However, in spite of claiming it, and using the right Biblical terms ("justified by faith") you EMPTY those terms of its Biblical meaning and therefore you repudiate the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith and deny anyone was truly justified before the cross.

So show me where I emptied the term.

Where is the quote.

You cannot provide it, and you know it.

You are doing the same waffling here that you did in regards to your statement that infants do not have the personal ability to discern good or evil.

So quote me where the Justification I teach is not biblical as you charge.

Do that right now, or continue to be seen as a slanderer and a dishonest debater.


Continued...

 

[Van]

Notice his post contains NO SCRIPTURE and my post is filled with Scriptures, all of which he completely ignores, and wisely so, because he can't respond and neither does he try to respond as it would be his undoing.

Lets return to scripture. No one is justified except by the blood of Christ. After Christ died, then the OT saints who gained approval through faith, were made perfect, but not before.

Romans 5:9, Much more then, having been justified by His blood...."
Hebrews 11:2, For by it [faith] the men of old gained approval.
Hebrew 11:39-40, And all these [OT saints] having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.

In my last post, the readers know I obliterated his false dichotomy of which he has no response, as there is no possible response.

Material false statement.

Here is the difference Biblicist denies, having your faith credited as righteousness is not the same as being justified by the blood of Christ. He claims the difference is a false dichotomy. But since all OT saints had to wait to be made perfect, had to wait to enter the kingdom of God, they had not yet been washed by the blood of the Lamb.

God is the justifier of those who believe in Jesus.

However, God can apply "the blood" previous to the cross based purely on His own promise....] No verse or passage says or suggests this. The view is bogus.

Any argument based on assertions devoid of scriptural support are without merit.

 

[The Biblicist]

More grammatical suicide.

And it has nothing to do with my views.

It has everything to do with your view. In fact you must NEUTER the Biblcial content of justification in order to maintain your view. You must deny that to be "justified before God" is inclusive of imputation of GOD's RIGHTEOUSENESS (see Rom. 3:20-21) through faith in the promised Christ, and you must deny it is inclusive of "remission of sins" both of which are spelled out clearly for you in Romans 4:1-8.

If one has the righteousness of God by imputation he is in a LEGAL POSITION OF PERFECTION. If he is without sin before the Law he is LEGALLY PERFECT again with regard to his POSITION and that is what Justification is all about, ones LEGAL POSITION before the Law of God.

And so, you are forced to deny the Biblical content of justification before God and thereby deny they were "justified" by faith.

 

[The Biblicist]

No one was justified prior to the cross. No scripture saying or suggesting will be posted. On the other hand, we are justified by the blood of Christ, Romans 5:9.

Now lets consider James 2:21-26. James is saying Abraham was "justified" by faith that was alive and not dead. But when was he justified? It does not say. Rehab was "justified" again by faith that was alive and not dead. But when was Rehab justified. Both Abraham and Rehab had to wait to be made perfect, until Christ died in order to be justified by the blood of Christ. They gained approval by faith, during their lives, but had to wait to be made perfect after Christ died.

Van, until you deal with my posts explicitly there will be no response from me as you simply repeat and repeat and do your best to remove our discussion from Romans 3-5. Sorry, I am not budging.

 

[Darrell C]

Let me see if I can break it down for you so that I won't have to repeat this a fifth time. Catholics claim they believe in justification by faith and salvation by grace. They make the claim and use the right terms but when they define these terms they empty those words of their true Biblical meaning. That is YOU!

So quote me where I can be seen to be guilty of this.

Do it now.

Or your dishonesty will remain as the only consistent thing about your teaching.

There is a huge difference between my own position concerning Justification and that of the Catholic. I do not claim men are justified by faith and then must also have works to ensure salvation. I do not teach that those justified by faith in the Old Testament were made perfect, or confuse, as you do, justification by faith with Eternal Redemption that became available to man, whether alive or dead...

...only through Christ's Work. That includes the Incarnation, His Vicarious Death, His Resurrection, His Return to Heaven, and His sending of the Promised Spirit.

I do not confuse Abraham being justified by faith with Abraham being under a fictitious pulpit bred mythological teaching of a Covennat that was in place before the New Covenant was established on the Blood of Christ.

Now quote what it is that you feel I said that likens me in any way to Catholic Doctrine, do it now, and quit dodging the challenge.

You know you can't, and all you can resort to are false arguments you create which gives you something you can actually debate with.

That's why you start threads, seeking support for your doctrine and fellowship in your dislike of me. But every thread has seen you defeat your own OP, and get no nearer to providing a substantiation for your false charges and false arguments.

Now quote me, Biblicist.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

It has everything to do with your view. In fact you must NEUTER the Biblcial content of justification in order to maintain your view. You must deny that to be "justified before God" is inclusive of imputation of GOD's RIGHTEOUSENESS (see Rom. 3:20-21) through faith in the promised Christ, and you must deny it is inclusive of "remission of sins" both of which are spelled out clearly for you in Romans 4:1-8.

If one has the righteousness of God by imputation he is in a LEGAL POSITION OF PERFECTION. If he is without sin before the Law he is LEGALLY PERFECT again with regard to his POSITION and that is what Justification is all about, ones LEGAL POSITION before the Law of God.

And so, you are forced to deny the Biblical content of justification before God and thereby deny they were "justified" by faith.

Quote me saying what it is I have said that gives you the right to say I teach the Old Testament was not justified.

This is a completely separate issue from what imputed righteousness means and how that is relevant to justification.

Quit changing the subject, Biblicist...

...and quote me.

When you have done that I will deal with your error on these other issues, but for now you are going to be held accountable for your slander and misrepresentation.

Your only hope is that the peanut gallery shows up and gets this thread shut down.

Now quote whatever it is that shows me teaching the Old Testament Saint was not justified.


Continued...