The Loaded Question (Philippians 2:13)

[bcbsr]

We know who He justified. We know the basis of the justification, which is faith. But what (not who) is God justifying?

He reckoning the wicked man to be right in his sight on the basis of the forgiveness of sins, as he mentions in the same passage, as I pointed out, and as is consistent with the New Covenant promise "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." Heb 8:12

 

[Grip Docility]

God does not give faith to people as a gift.

Faith comes by hearing the word of God Romans 10:17 and the faith some people develop in their heart Romans 10:10 may not be strong.

I believe "initial belief" in response to the Gospel, is as you are stating, our part. Once initial belief occurs... The Father indeed draws a person into "Deeper Faith" / "True Belief" / "Saving Faith" from my perspective.

We merely respond, and He supplies all the rest.

It is between initial faith and the Father's Draw to "True Belief", that people may get hung up on cares of this world, carnal perfection, and other things that can weaken and even, sometimes, destroy a person's faith.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Check other Bibles, some state that 'his faith is counted for righteousness' NOT 'credited as righteousness'. Can anybody see a difference between 'counted for' and 'credited as'?

Splitting hairs. Both mean basically the same thing. God viewed Abraham as a righteous man because of his obedience to Him.

 

[def]

I believe "initial belief" in response to the Gospel, is as you are stating, our part. Once initial belief occurs... The Father indeed draws a person into "Deeper Faith" / "True Belief" / "Saving Faith" from my perspective.

We merely respond, and He supplies all the rest.

It is between initial faith and the Father's Draw to "True Belief", that people may get hung up on cares of this world, carnal perfection, and other things that can weaken and even, sometimes, destroy a person's faith.

Just adding.
The two beliefs are laid out in John 11:25-26, and more importantly, the passages spell out the consequences of the two beliefs. It is the second belief that a person 'never die'.

 

[TheSeabass]

Thanks for providing yet another example of Salvation-by-Works Christians misconstruing scripture, in this case by confusing Old Covenant with New.

God does not contradict Himself, ever. So how does one reconcile Romans 4:4 with Exodus 23:7?

 

[Grip Docility]

Exodus 23:7 "Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked."

Romans 4:5 "justifieth the ungodly" would not contradict Exodus 23:7 "I will NOT justify the ungodly".

David and Abraham were ungodly men, neither were perfectly sinless but God justified them. Why? Both had a faithful obedience. So God justifies wicked men who turn to God in obedience....men are wicked until they faithfully obey God. There is no instance of God justifying wicked men who remain impenitently wicked.

The wicked do not admit their darkness, as if the almighty doesn’t know about it.

The wicked person that does admit their darkness, will receive oil within that is ignited by God and is God.

Their darkness will be dispelled. Yet, their light is neither Carnal nor of them selves.

 

[Grip Docility]

God does not contradict Himself, ever. So how does one reconcile Romans 4:4 with Exodus 23:7?

One wicked man is sick and denies it.

One wicked man is sick and calls the DOCTOR.

 

[TheSeabass]

Oh, so what you're saying is that Paul was mistaken in calling them "false brothers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves." While they outwardly identified themselves as "believers" (Luke was simply recording their outward identification), in reality they were false brethren. What does Paul indicate about when they became false brothers. It's not when they "went out". It's when they "had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves.", so it's when they went in.

As expected you didn't bother reading the middle phrase even though I pointed it out
"if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us"

But of course Salvation-by-Works Christians must read their salvation by works soteriology into scripture.

The false brethren went out from among the church in Jerusalem. Acts 15:24.
They were members of the church at Jerusalem teaching ideas not sanctioned by the Apostles. Verse 24 says they "went out from us"... it does NOT say "they went out from us but they were not of us".



Luke identified those in Acts 15:5 as having "believed". This was not a claim they made for themselves but inspired Luke says they were believers, Luke did not say they faked their belief or only pretended to believe but they "believed".

John did not say they never belonged to us...they were NOT of us when they went out.
Again, the verse cannot be universally since John was talking about specific individuals. Nor does the command in verse 24 make any sense if it were impossible for the word to not dwell in the Christian.

 

[TheSeabass]

One wicked man is sick and denies it.

One wicked man is sick and calls the DOCTOR.

The issue is that faith onlyists try to find away for God to justify wicked men while those wicked men do nothing. So they use Romans 4:5 and have us think God justifies the ungodly without the ungodly having to do any work of obedience. Yet God, Who never contradicts Himself OT or NT, says in Ex 23:7 He will not justify the ungodly which throws a wrench in faith onlyists assumptions in Romans 4:5. God did not justify Abraham or David apart from their obedience, no verse says David or Abraham were justified by faith only for such a verse would contradict James 2:24.

Romans 6:16 Paul says each of serve one of two masters, we serve either:
1) sin unto death
or
2) obedience unto righteousness

Which master do faith onlyists serve?

 

[Grip Docility]

Which master do faith onlyists serve?

The GOOD SHEPHERD!.

The Rock is my foundation.

 

[Grip Docility]

The false brethren went out from among the church in Jerusalem. Acts 15:24.
They were members of the church at Jerusalem teaching ideas not sanctioned by the Apostles. Verse 24 says they "went out from us"... it does NOT say "they went out from us but they were not of us".



Luke identified those in Acts 15:5 as having "believed". This was not a claim they made for themselves but inspired Luke says they were believers, Luke did not say they faked their belief or only pretended to believe but they "believed".

John did not say they never belonged to us...they were NOT of us when they went out.
Again, the verse cannot be universally since John was talking about specific individuals. Nor does the command in verse 24 make any sense if it were impossible for the word to not dwell in the Christian.

It’s all Jesus. We respond. He Exodus 14:14.

Some people complain He doesn’t work fast enough or do enough.

I’m begging Him to help me be still, Daily.

 

[Phil W]

In other words: sinless perfection as taught by Arminians and Wesleyan Methodists.

I know Wesley once taught it, but the church that sprang forth from his teachings no longer does...to the best of my knowledge.
But I have no clue about Arminians.

 

[Phil W]

So, what is the alternative?

The alternative to sanctification is remain dirtied by sin.

Receiving "entire sanctification" through receiving the "second blessing" as understood by Arminian Wesleyan Methodists?

Not familiar with that.

A couple of years ago, a guy on CF maintained that he had not sinned for the last 30 years! He was shot down in flames as I remember.

Were the "mods" amenable to such discussions, we could debate it in a new thread.
But I have been told they are not...so either PM me with questions or lose a chance to learn something new/old.

 

[Phil W]

The temptation bit is interesting, should point that out to the Pope, and keep the Lord's Prayer as it is.

Interesting?
Unless you don't believe the words of Paul in the bible are true, it can be denigrated to interesting.
I consider it the truth, and I keep looking for the escapes when I am tempted.

 

[Phil W]

I see, what you're saying is that a person has to do works to be qualified to be saved. You're saying salvation is contingent up works, which in other words is "salvation by works".

To attain the righteousness from God one must abandon the notion of qualifying to be saved by his works, and in place of that trusting Christ to save you.

Does this mean I can continue to walk in darkness/sin, disobedience and lust, and still count myself "saved"?

 

[Phil W]

The GOOD SHEPHERD!.

The Rock is my foundation.

Do you or do you not consider "following" a Shepherd is "work"?

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The false brethren went out from among the church in Jerusalem. Acts 15:24.
They were members of the church at Jerusalem teaching ideas not sanctioned by the Apostles. Verse 24 says they "went out from us"... it does NOT say "they went out from us but they were not of us".



Luke identified those in Acts 15:5 as having "believed". This was not a claim they made for themselves but inspired Luke says they were believers, Luke did not say they faked their belief or only pretended to believe but they "believed".

John did not say they never belonged to us...they were NOT of us when they went out.
Again, the verse cannot be universally since John was talking about specific individuals. Nor does the command in verse 24 make any sense if it were impossible for the word to not dwell in the Christian.

Here is what 1 John 2:19 actually says"

"They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us."

When we look at the whole verse instead of extracting part of it and trying to make it say what John never meant, we see that he says, "If they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us". This means that they didn't belong to them at all, ever, and did not stop belonging to them just when they decided to leave. He says that if they really belonged to them, they would have stayed, but the fact that they left showed that they never belonged in the first place.

It is important that Scripture is quoted correctly for what the writer actually says and means, instead of injecting a false meaning into it. Peter says that some are twisting the words of Paul to their own destruction. This is the possible outcome of those who misquote and twist the Scripture to support their own opinions.

 

[Grip Docility]

Do you or do you not consider "following" a Shepherd is "work"?

Nothing for the Love of my life is work.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

I know Wesley once taught it, but the church that sprang forth from his teachings no longer does...to the best of my knowledge.
But I have no clue about Arminians.

The Arminian belief comes from Arminius who, in the 17th Century taught that a person received Christ through personal choice and that the Holy Spirit responds to that choice and causes the person to be converted. Calvinism says that a sinner is helpless and hopeless unless the Holy Spirit initiates enlightenment and the power to make the choice through saving faith. Arminius taught that the Atonement was available to every sinner and that election was conferred on the basis of the sinner choosing for Christ. Calvin taught that some were elected, and others were predestined to hell.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The alternative to sanctification is remain dirtied by sin.


Not familiar with that.


Were the "mods" amenable to such discussions, we could debate it in a new thread.
But I have been told they are not...so either PM me with questions or lose a chance to learn something new/old.

I believe that conversion is an act of God's grace through faith, and the sanctification process starts at that point and is progressive as we grow in grace and our minds are conformed to the mind of Christ. It is a life-long process. But this is not licence to behave any way we like, because we receive Jesus as our Saviour and our Lord as the same time. There is no such thing as having Jesus as Saviour but not Lord. If He is not Lord of all, he is not Lord at all, and if Jesus is not Lord then the person is not yet converted. Therefore, the converted believer follows the Law because he loves it - because he loves Christ and wants with all his heart to be obedient to Him, even though he falls short so many time, and mourns over his shortcomings and failures. Mourning over imperfection is a sure sign of genuine conversion to Christ.

Boasting that one has not sinned for 30 years is self-righteousness and pride and indicates that he needs yet to ditch his religion and be converted to Christ.