Doctrine of Justification explained

[StormyOne]

For crying out loud............
Some posters need to know that "hater's doctrine" is another thread.
I will try to resume on the "doctrine of justification."....

Well Crib we are discussing justification.... perhaps not in the manner in which you wanted, nor have we agreed necessarily that the "doctrine of justification" is really a doctrine. It may just be the way some have chosen to explain what they believed happened. In the absence of a direct interview with God, asking him specifically what he did, to me its a theory of justification.... but that's how discussions tend to go.... the ball is in your court... should we wait until you've laid out everything before making anymore comments?

 

[AzA]

What's "hater's doctrine"?

 

[Joe67]

Crib,

Justification brings us peace with God in our Lord Jesus Christ. This peace with God is attended by tribulations as we stand in the grace of God in hope of the glory of God in Christ Jesus in the resurrection of the body.

Your brother in the Lord Jesus,
Joe

 

[Cribstyl]

Sorry guyz, I'm kinda busy right now, but I will respond when I find time.

 

[StormyOne]

Sorry guyz, I'm kinda busy right now, but I will respond when I find time.

that's cool... no rush, take your time....

 

[Joe67]

Romans 4:1-8 witnesses to the two different needs for justification. Abraham and David are both justified by grace through faith, but with opposing positions of need for the justification.

Abraham needed a reward.

David needed forgiveness.

Joe

 

[Adventtruth]

Sorry guyz, I'm kinda busy right now, but I will respond when I find time.

Crib...im with you...I'l wait your return.

AT

 

[Cribstyl]

Crib...im with you...I'l wait your return.

AT

Thanks AT....

If the bible is our authorative source of truth,

1.We understand that ; Holiness is often defined as "set apart unto God." NKJV(567)


2.We also understand that righteousness is defined as; "what God requires of us." NKJV(296)


3.We also understand that Holiness and righteousness are attributes of God.
This means that "God is Holy,"NKJV(21)
and "God is righteous" 1. (Exd 9:27 - Rev 22:11 * among other attributes.

 

[Restin]

If the bible is our authorative source of truth,

It's only a source of truth to the one who is given to perceive it as his 'authority' regarding righteousness!

1.We understand that ; Holiness is often defined as "set apart unto God." NKJV(567)


2.We also understand that righteousness is defined as; "what God requires of us." NKJV(296)


3.We also understand that Holiness and righteousness are attributes of God.
This means that "God is Holy,"NKJV(21)
and "God is righteous" 1. (Exd 9:27 - Rev 22:11 * among other attributes.

This is how God the Father views the Son, and thereby those who trust IN the Son's righteousness!

....Restin

 

[Cribstyl]

Senti asked a good question......

Why would it be necessary for me to be declared to be not guilty?

The reason would be because of what are the charges brought up against you in court.

The fact to notice is, if the charges were "Have you kept my laws and commandments?" What would you reply to God?
All men have sinned and come up short. The wages of sin is death.

................................................................................................

Righteousness is based on what God established as the right thing to do.
It is not based solely on the law (as some teach) but more squarely on the word of God. (to you or your generation.)

Text proves that Abraham believed God's word to him, and God considered him righteous. (without the law)
Gen 15:6And he believed in the LORD, and He accounted it to him for righteousness.

Paul taught this lesson in an argumentive tone, that Abraham being declared righteous, had nothing to do with keeping laws;(Rom 4:1-4)



When God gave Moses the law to the Children of Israel, is when God had established the law as a way of righteousness for the people.

Deu 6:25 — And it shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these commandments before the LORD our God, as he hath commanded us

Lev 18:5Ye shall therefore keep my statutes, and my judgments: which if a man do, he shall live in them: I [am] the LORD.

Psa 96:13For He is coming, for He is coming to judge the earth. He shall judge the world with righteousness, And the peoples with His truth.


Paul taught and explained in his letters to churches that "the law" was the way of righteousness for Generations before the cross.

Rom 10:5 For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the law, That the man which doeth those things shall live by them.

Gal 3:12And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

 

[StormyOne]

Again I have to ask if the courtroom motif is more of a metaphor or an actual future event... If the bible writers were attempting to explain the "process" and used the courtroom analogy that is different from believing that there will be an actual trial taking place complete with table chairs, defendants, prosecuting attorney, and every individual having their day in court....

I believe it is a metaphor and we should assume or extrapolate that everything that happens in a courtroom is applicable to the process of justification... that's where I am coming from.... continue on....

 

[Cribstyl]

Again I have to ask if the courtroom motif is more of a metaphor or an actual future event... If the bible writers were attempting to explain the "process" and used the courtroom analogy that is different from believing that there will be an actual trial taking place complete with table chairs, defendants, prosecuting attorney, and every individual having their day in court....

I believe it is a metaphor and we should assume or extrapolate that everything that happens in a courtroom is applicable to the process of justification... that's where I am coming from.... continue on....

Stormy, I'm not trying to evade nor debate whether there's a judicial process for everyone is literal or a metaphorical.

Remember I said "if the bible is your authoritative source".
for instance, "if you think that the Adam's sin was not litterally about eating forbidden fruit" you have no biblical grounds to stand on.
Your rebuttals should be validated with scripture or you could be rejecting biblical truth.



I believe as the bible reads, that one man died to save all men from "condemnation."


Paul explains judgment as; "wrath of God which is revealed against ungodliness and unrigteousness of men." Rom 1:18

The bible reads, "a day is established when all men will be judged by God's standard of righteousness"


Act 17:31Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by [that] man whom he hath ordained; [whereof] he hath given assurance unto all [men], in that he hath raised him from the dead.

...................................................................................................................................

I've obligated myself to explain with scripture the doctrine of Justification. I did not plan to do it all in one post.
Your questions seem to challenge basic christian theology before it's argument are laid out.

 

[StormyOne]

Stormy, I'm not trying to evade nor debate whether there's a judicial process for everyone is literal or a metaphorical.

Remember I said "if the bible is your authoritative source".
for instance, if you think that the Adam's sin was not litterally about eating forbidden fruit, then post scripture to make your case.



I believe as the bible reads, that one man died to save all men from "condemnation."


Paul explains judgment it as the wrath of God which is revealed against ungoliness and unrigteousness of men.Rom 1:18

I also believe as the bible reads, that a day is established when all men will be judged.


Act 17:31Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by [that] man whom he hath ordained; [whereof] he hath given assurance unto all [men], in that he hath raised him from the dead.


I've obligated myself to explain with scripture the doctrine of Justification. I did not plan to do it all in one post.
Your questions seem to challenge basic christian theology before it's argument are laid out.

fair enough... I'll await the rest of the "argument..." though we must definitely revisit the "basic christian theology" term because that begs dissection....

 

[Cribstyl]

What's "hater's doctrine"?

(It's my reference)
Words from people who never have scriptures to present as truth or having something possitive to say, in order encourage faith in God's word.

 

[StormyOne]

(It's my reference)
Words from people who never have scriptures to present as truth or having something possitive to say, in order encourage faith in God's word.

Your description of "hater's doctrine" sounds more like someone who is annoyed because not everyone chooses to limit what is called "truth" to just the bible... Likewise, I would encourage people to have faith in God, not necessarily a document that many call God's word, though he never wrote it... I temporarily hijacked the thread, because I can't help but wonder if Crib's comments were directed at me.... nonetheless continue on....

 

[Cribstyl]

Your description of "hater's doctrine" sounds more like someone who is annoyed because not everyone chooses to limit what is called "truth" to just the bible... Likewise, I would encourage people to have faith in God, not necessarily a document that many call God's word, though he never wrote it... I temporarily hijacked the thread, because I can't help but wonder if Crib's comments were directed at me.... nonetheless continue on....

If the shoe fits throw it at the president............. You have created 8 active threads to discuss whatever you decide. You have chosen to derail my thread from the first post.

If we cant agree on the content of the bible, I'd rather not subscribe to your questions or opinion on anything.

Happy posting

 

[StormyOne]

If the shoe fits throw it at the president............. You have created 8 active threads to discuss whatever you decide. You have chosen to derail my thread from the first post.

If we cant agree on the content of the bible, I'd rather not subscribe to your questions or opinion on anything.

Happy posting

Thank you I enjoy posting as much as you (I have a few more threads I am pondering, stick around it could be interesting)... as far as agreeing on the content of the bible, come on Crib, you disagree with traditional adventists about their interpretation of the sabbath and what it means... so even you have a point of contention when it comes to content of the bible and what it might mean....

I am asking that you lay it out there and let's chew on it as opposed to teasing us with bits and pieces, that's all.... I am asking your view on the topic, as we all can research the doctrine of justification, that's easy. What is your take on it? Do christians ignore it? Is it lacking? Is it meaningful? What? or will you get to those kinds of questions? If not, cool... I just thought the thread was started to discuss the topic and not read a treatise on the topic... my bad....

 

[Cribstyl]

Thank you I enjoy posting as much as you (I have a few more threads I am pondering, stick around it could be interesting)... as far as agreeing on the content of the bible, come on Crib, you disagree with traditional adventists about their interpretation of the sabbath and what it means... so even you have a point of contention when it comes to content of the bible and what it might mean....

I am asking that you lay it out there and let's chew on it as opposed to teasing us with bits and pieces, that's all.... I am asking your view on the topic, as we all can research the doctrine of justification, that's easy. What is your take on it? Do christians ignore it? Is it lacking? Is it meaningful? What? or will you get to those kinds of questions? If not, cool... I just thought the thread was started to discuss the topic and not read a treatise on the topic... my bad....

Since we all know what you think about the source I claim to discuss the doctrine of justification. I dub you as the haters club president for thinking you can manipulate the dialog in this thread.

 

[StormyOne]

Since we all know what you think about the source I claim to discuss the doctrine of justification. I dub you as the haters club president for thinking you can manipulate the dialog in this thread.

tsk tsk... no need to engage in name calling Crib, that would be disrespectful, and I know that is not your intent is it? I have noticed in this recent exchange you have not attempted to answer any of my questions, is that what you do when people don't agree with you, i.e. to ignore them? That too is your choice, not a problem. There is no manipulation, just trying to get your opinion on the doctrine of justification, or perhaps you wanted to just post a sermon and have everyone sign off in agreement? If that is the case, post your sermon, since it appears discussion with you will not be possible at the moment....

 

[StormyOne]

Senti presents a progressive concept which shows the flaw in the "doctrine of justification." He posted,

Why would it be necessary for me to be declared to be not guilty? How does this view account for the fact that God sees us as one rather than as individuals. I am held responsible for Adam's fall even though I was not in Eden; why should I not benefit from Adam's justification as well?

The concept is overlooked but significant, once Adam was restored all humanity was restored because we are viewed as one, not individuals.... the doctrine of justification suggests that each of us must be "justified." Senti's point which is a valid one in my opinion is that God sees us as one, negating individual restoration...

Rom 5:17-21

It is certain that death ruled because of one person's failure. It's even more certain that those who receive God's overflowing kindness and the gift of his approval will rule in life because of one person, Jesus Christ. (18) Therefore, everyone was condemned through one failure, and everyone received God's life-giving approval through one verdict. (19) Clearly, through one person's disobedience humanity became sinful, and through one person's obedience humanity will receive God's approval. (20) Laws were added to increase the failure. But where sin increased, God's kindness increased even more. (21) As sin ruled by bringing death, God's kindness would rule by bringing us his approval. This results in our living forever because of Jesus Christ our Lord.

I'm done......