Justification by Faith-Out Of Date

[Victor E.]

This is a Reformed concept, though I think it’s based on Augustine. The idea is that humans were created with the ability to not sin. However as a result of the Fall, human nature changed. We are now not capable of being sinless. It’s not that we’re guilty of Adam’s sin, but that as a result of Adam’s sin we’re guilty ourselves.

Is having a fallen nature something we can be considered guilty of? You might at first glance think not. In fact Calvin does distinguish between an infant who hasn’t done anything wrong but has a fallen nature, and someone who has done things wrong. However by its very nature, heaven can’t include sinners. Someone who has a nature that will inevitably lead to sin is not going to be acceptable there even if they haven’t committed their first sin yet. It’s just a matter of time …

FYI: Calvin does believe that infants are saved. It’s not that they’re perfect: they are fallen, and so would be guilty. However God makes special provisions to forgive them all. But once someone is old enough to be morally responsible, if they haven’t repented and have faith, they are condemned. Not just because of specific sins, but because they are by nature sinners. By not holding infants responsible, people are given a pass until they’re old enough to repent (though Calvin himself doesn’t quite say that).

How much of this did Paul believe? He does say that sin entered human life with Adam as salvation entered with Christ. So at the very least Paul does’t think it’s just chance that all humans happen to have sinned. It’s inherent in the human race post-Adam. He sees himself as split down the middle, wanting not to sin but doing it anyway. Presumably those without faith are in even worse shape. So I think there are signs that Paul sees the kind of inherent compulsion to sin that is described by having a fallen nature, and he does seem to see it as a fault of the whole human race, going back to Adam.

I think this makes a lot more Biblical sense than saying that we’re considered guilty of Adam’s sin itself. I don’t see that in Paul nor anywhere else.

How would you explain 1 Corinthians 15:35-49 and Ephesians 2 (Children of wrath by nature)?

 

[hedrick]

How would you explain 1 Corinthians 15:35-49 and Ephesians 2 (Children of wrath by nature)?

1 Cor 15:35 isn’t relevant to sinfulness. It simply distinguishes our perishable body and an immortal resurrection body. Of course most Christian theology teaches that after our resurrection we’re free from sin, but this passage doesn’t say that. There’s nothing inherently sinful about being mortal nor inherently sinless about being immortal (after all, the devils are evil spiritual beings).

Eph 2 contrasts what people were like before and after their conversion. They were fallen before but reconciled now. Certainly the description of the state before is consistent with Calvin’s concept of having a fallen nature. The phrase "by nature children of wrath" fits particularly well the the idea of a corrupted nature, as he teaches. I'm sure you're aware that "children of" is a Hebrew idiom, so the phrase "children of wrath" means simply people worthy of God's wrath. But Eph 2 doesn’t say anything about how they got to be sinful, so it's not really as explicit about the fall as some others.

It’s also not as explicit as some places in Romans about just what happens when they converted. It says, as Romans does, that it’s by faith and not by works. But it’s not particularly explicit about how that works. There’s little talk about either imputation or transformation. Rather, the focus is on Christ’s role as reconciler. It’s a wonderful passage, but it’s not a great place on which to find answers to the specific questions raised in this thread.

 

[ladodgers6]

This is a Reformed concept, though I think it’s based on Augustine. The idea is that humans were created with the ability to not sin. However as a result of the Fall, human nature changed. We are now not capable of being sinless. It’s not that we’re guilty of Adam’s sin, but that as a result of Adam’s sin we’re guilty ourselves.

Yes, I understand the Reformed position. Calvin followed Augustine view of Original sin. John Murray takes it further, than those two. You disagree with the imputation of the Adam's sin. But you say that we are guilty as a result of Adam's sin. How so, if they did not personally participated?

Is having a fallen nature something we can be considered guilty of? You might at first glance think not. In fact Calvin does distinguish between an infant who hasn’t done anything wrong but has a fallen nature, and someone who has done things wrong. However by its very nature, heaven can’t include sinners. Someone who has a nature that will inevitably lead to sin is not going to be acceptable there even if they haven’t committed their first sin yet. It’s just a matter of time …

But in Psalms 51:5Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. Calvin says, For that natural depravity which we bring from our mother's womb, though it does not immediately bring forth its fruits, is nevertheless sin in the sight of God and deserves his vengeance. And this is the sin which they call original. So here the infant is not personally sinning, but is sinful at birth. This is the imputation of Adam's sin. This is why death & condemnation reigns over us all. By One Man's act of disobedience, bought death & condemnation on us all. The Judgement has been rendered to everyone, because of One trespass.

FYI: Calvin does believe that infants are saved. It’s not that they’re perfect: they are fallen, and so would be guilty. However God makes special provisions to forgive them all. But once someone is old enough to be morally responsible, if they haven’t repented and have faith, they are condemned. Not just because of specific sins, but because they are by nature sinners. By not holding infants responsible, people are given a pass until they’re old enough to repent (though Calvin himself doesn’t quite say that).

Please show me where in Scripture that God makes special provisions for infants? And where in Scripture does it teach even implicitly that infants are given a pass until they are old enough to repent? Because in the time of flood, everyone including infants were wiped out because sin was so great in the land, except God's elect Noah and his family. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah which also included infants. God purged Canaan which also included infants. I do not know if they were saved or not. But God's judgement was rendered.

How much of this did Paul believe? He does say that sin entered human life with Adam as salvation entered with Christ. So at the very least Paul does’t think it’s just chance that all humans happen to have sinned. It’s inherent in the human race post-Adam. He sees himself as split down the middle, wanting not to sin but doing it anyway. Presumably those without faith are in even worse shape. So I think there are signs that Paul sees the kind of inherent compulsion to sin that is described by having a fallen nature, and he does seem to see it as a fault of the whole human race, going back to Adam.

I think this makes a lot more Biblical sense than saying that we’re considered guilty of Adam’s sin itself. I don’t see that in Paul nor anywhere else.

Murray states that verse 12 is an unfinished comparison. We only know of its implied apodosis (the main (consequent) clause of a conditional sentence (e.g., I would agree in if you asked me I would agree) from the following verses. It would be impossible to suppose that Paul, dealing expressly with the subject of the universal reign of death, should so explicitly and repeatedly affirm in the succeeding verse something quite different from that he affirms in what is the unfinished introduction of his argument. If verse 12 were in a context of its own and if there were some plausible evidence of transition from one phase of teaching to another, then we could say that in verse 12 he deals with one fact and in verses 15-19 with another. But the fact that verse 12 does not complete the comparison and relies upon the succeeding verses to supply this completion makes it totally impossible to posit any transition from one phase of truth to another.

18Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.

This verse is crucial because the judgement against Adam and his progeny is already rendered. The ONE trespass bought condemnation for all people. And ONE righteous act bought Justification & Eternal Life to all who believe.

Now Murray brings something up that I have overlooked. And I am glad that I am reading this book again. Listen to what Murray says, The parallel instituted in Romans 5:12-19 as a whole is that between the way in which condemnation passes upon men through the sin of Adam and the way justification comes to men through the righteousness of Christ. In the case of the righteousness of Christ, this righteousness comes to the justified through no other medium than that of UNION with Christ; it is not mediated through the righteousness inwrought in the believer in regeneration and sanctification. To use the language of imputation, it is not by mediate imputation that believers come into the possession of the righteousness of Christ in justification. It would be contradictory of Paul's doctrine of Justification to suppose that the righteousness and obedience of Christ becomes ours unto justification because holiness is conveyed to us from Christ or that the righteousness of Christ is mediated to us through the holiness generated in us by regeneration. The one ground upon which the imputation of the righteousness of Christ becomes ours is the union with Christ through Faith. In other words, the justified person is constituted/declared righteous by the obedience of Christ because of the solidarity established between Christ and the justified person. The solidarity constitutes the bond by which the righteousness of Christ becomes that of the believer. Once the solidarity is posited there is no other mediating factor that could be conceived of as necessary to the conjunction of the righteousness of Christ and the righteousness of the believer. This is to say that the conjunction is immediate. If the case is thus on that side of the analogy which pertain to justification, we should expect the modus operandi (a particular way or method of doing something, especially one that is characteristic or well-established: "the volunteers were instructed to buy specific systems using our usual modus operandi—anonymously and with cash") to be the same in connection with condemnation. To put the argument in the order underlying the parallelism, immediate imputation in the case of Adam's sin provides the parallel by which to illustrate the doctrine of justification and is thus eminently germane to the governing thesis of the apostle in this part of the epistle.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Was King David's infant son who died, "saved"?

I suppose it depends on how you interpret King David's statement that he would go where the son had gone someday.

Not arguing, just following.

Happy Thanksgiving, to those who celebrate it.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

The question

Was King David's infant son who died, "saved"?

I suppose it depends on how you interpret King David's statement that he would go where the son had gone someday.

Not arguing, just following.

Happy Thanksgiving, to those who celebrate it.

The question isn't about salvation of the young, it's about whether the baptism given as a disision for Christ holds up in the heavenly court of laws or is it just a dedication of the parents to raise their children right in the hopes they will choose Christ

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Yes, I understand the Reformed position. Calvin followed Augustine view of Original sin. John Murray takes it further, than those two. You disagree with the imputation of the Adam's sin. But you say that we are guilty as a result of Adam's sin. How so, if they did not personally participated?


But in Psalms 51:5Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. Calvin says, For that natural depravity which we bring from our mother's womb, though it does not immediately bring forth its fruits, is nevertheless sin in the sight of God and deserves his vengeance. And this is the sin which they call original. So here the infant is not personally sinning, but is sinful at birth. This is the imputation of Adam's sin. This is why death & condemnation reigns over us all. By One Man's act of disobedience, bought death & condemnation on us all. The Judgement has been rendered to everyone, because of One trespass.


Please show me where in Scripture that God makes special provisions for infants? And where in Scripture does it teach even implicitly that infants are given a pass until they are old enough to repent? Because in the time of flood, everyone including infants were wiped out because sin was so great in the land, except God's elect Noah and his family. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah which also included infants. God purged Canaan which also included infants. I do not know if they were saved or not. But God's judgement was rendered.


Murray states that verse 12 is an unfinished comparison. We only know of its implied apodosis (the main (consequent) clause of a conditional sentence (e.g., I would agree in if you asked me I would agree) from the following verses. It would be impossible to suppose that Paul, dealing expressly with the subject of the universal reign of death, should so explicitly and repeatedly affirm in the succeeding verse something quite different from that he affirms in what is the unfinished introduction of his argument. If verse 12 were in a context of its own and if there were some plausible evidence of transition from one phase of teaching to another, then we could say that in verse 12 he deals with one fact and in verses 15-19 with another. But the fact that verse 12 does not complete the comparison and relies upon the succeeding verses to supply this completion makes it totally impossible to posit any transition from one phase of truth to another.

18Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.

This verse is crucial because the judgement against Adam and his progeny is already rendered. The ONE trespass bought condemnation for all people. And ONE righteous act bought Justification & Eternal Life to all who believe.

Now Murray brings something up that I have overlooked. And I am glad that I am reading this book again. Listen to what Murray says, The parallel instituted in Romans 5:12-19 as a whole is that between the way in which condemnation passes upon men through the sin of Adam and the way justification comes to men through the righteousness of Christ. In the case of the righteousness of Christ, this righteousness comes to the justified through no other medium than that of UNION with Christ; it is not mediated through the righteousness inwrought in the believer in regeneration and sanctification. To use the language of imputation, it is not by mediate imputation that believers come into the possession of the righteousness of Christ in justification. It would be contradictory of Paul's doctrine of Justification to suppose that the righteousness and obedience of Christ becomes ours unto justification because holiness is conveyed to us from Christ or that the righteousness of Christ is mediated to us through the holiness generated in us by regeneration. The one ground upon which the imputation of the righteousness of Christ becomes ours is the union with Christ through Faith. In other words, the justified person is constituted/declared righteous by the obedience of Christ because of the solidarity established between Christ and the justified person. The solidarity constitutes the bond by which the righteousness of Christ becomes that of the believer. Once the solidarity is posited there is no other mediating factor that could be conceived of as necessary to the conjunction of the righteousness of Christ and the righteousness of the believer. This is to say that the conjunction is immediate. If the case is thus on that side of the analogy which pertain to justification, we should expect the modus operandi (a particular way or method of doing something, especially one that is characteristic or well-established: "the volunteers were instructed to buy specific systems using our usual modus operandi—anonymously and with cash") to be the same in connection with condemnation. To put the argument in the order underlying the parallelism, immediate imputation in the case of Adam's sin provides the parallel by which to illustrate the doctrine of justification and is thus eminently germane to the governing thesis of the apostle in this part of the epistle.

Well said

Adam's sin provides the parallel by which to illustrate the doctrine of justification and is thus eminently germane to the governing thesis of the apostle in this part of the epistle.

 

[OcifferPls]

Impute is an accounting or legal term. It means that something is credited that isn’t actually there.

Paul says that faith is imputed as righteousness. I think what he actually meant is that God accepts our faith as righteousness, i.e. that faith puts us right with him.

The exegesis is complex, partly because the key terms have a range of meanings. First righteousness. Someone who is righteous is living as God wants, but that person is also in good standing with God. Righteousness is never seen as moral perfection. The righteous person is certainly committed to living a godly life, but they are often far from perfect. They do, however repent when they fail. At any rate, although righteousness can refer to living as God wants, in the context of Paul’s argument it probably refers to being in good standing with God.

(The reason I pick that meaning is that Paul is dealing with the question of whether circumcision defines people as part of the people of God. He argues that it’s faith, not circumcision. So the issue in this particular argument is really good standing as a member of God’s people more than the quality of life, though they clearly go together.)

Next we have an issue as to whether circumcision or faith makes you a member of God’s people or is a sign of being a member of God’s people. The two are very close together. I think at times Paul says that justification is a sign of being in good standing with God but at other times says that it puts one right with God. I wonder whether Paul even distinguished the two meanings. However theologians have argued loudly, with N T Wright maintaining that faith is a badge of being one of God’s people. I.e. when Paul says faith is imputed as righteousness he means that faith is the sign of being one of God’s people.

At any rate, it seems clear to me that what Paul is actually saying is that it is faith, not circumcision that defines one / makes one a member of God’s people. I.e. that faith is accepted by God (imputed as) being in the right status (righteous).

Now, in the 16th Cent righteousness seems to have been understood (I think by both sides) as referring to moral perfection. It seems to have been obvious to everyone that God demands moral perfection, since models of the atonement (again, I think on both sides) depended upon Christ being righteous when we can’t be.

Protestants read Paul correctly as saying that being in right standing with God was based on faith. They observed the use of the “imputed” term. Since only a perfect person can stand before God, and Christ was a perfect sacrifice for us, they understood that when faith is imputed as righteousness, what’s really going on is that Christ’s perfection (righteousness) is imputed as ours. It’s a reasonable gloss given the assumptions. But Paul never actually says that Christ’s righteousness is imputed as ours. What he actually says is that our faith is imputed as righteousness.

It depends on how you read Paul. Does Paul use accounting terminology to express an acceptance by God for righteousness we do not yet possess? Yes. He also talks about transformation, and about "christos" being fully formed "in you" (which could necessitate a clarification on the reality of being accepted before being fully changed). The reason why this works is because Christ was/is not an atheist, according to NT texts, and because faith is more than a receipt of acceptance. I.e., people of faith are "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pe 1:4), being "justified" literally "by faith" (Rom 3:28), that being none other than the "faith of Jesus Christ," that nature being referred to here as the "righteousness of God." That is, Christ's righteousness is the righteousness of God which is also our righteousness by believing, which we are partaking of, being "transformed" into the same image, through Christ, being formed in us. So the case that Paul implicitly asserts that we receive Christ's own righteousness as God's own righteousness, in agreement with other NT authors is pretty strong.

 

[OcifferPls]

It depends on how you read Paul. Does Paul use accounting terminology to express an acceptance by God for righteousness we do not yet possess? Yes. He also talks about transformation, and about "christos" being fully formed "in you" (which could necessitate a clarification on the reality of being accepted before being fully changed). The reason why this works is because Christ was/is not an atheist, according to NT texts, and because faith is more than a receipt of acceptance. I.e., people of faith are "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Pe 1:4), being "justified" literally "by faith" (Rom 3:28), that being none other than the "faith of Jesus Christ," that nature being referred to here as the "righteousness of God." That is, Christ's righteousness is the righteousness of God which is also our righteousness by believing, which we are partaking of, being "transformed" into the same image, through Christ, being formed in us. So the case that Paul implicitly asserts that we receive Christ's own righteousness as God's own righteousness, in agreement with other NT authors is pretty strong.

Lastly, there does appear to be a conflict of interest present here in modern theology. I should make it clear that I have no incentive to prop up a certain theologian who has asserted that faith eventually passes away, contrary to Paul, who asserted that faith remains. Further, I would be much more content to remain a theist for an eternity, with the love of God, than to become a "god" that has no God.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The question
The question isn't about salvation of the young, it's about whether the baptism given as a disision for Christ holds up in the heavenly court of laws or is it just a dedication of the parents to raise their children right in the hopes they will choose Christ

My apologies. I was very rushed this morning. I should have quoted.

The post was in answer to ladodgers post asking about Scriptural references to special provision being made for infants.

I don't buy into the "age of accountability" argument myself. I just wanted to know how ladodgers would take that particular case.

So I do apologize, but I'm not talking about any kind of heavenly court of law, or decision, or any such thing. I hope you'll forgive me for not entering into debate, but that wasn't my point at all.

 

[ladodgers6]

Was King David's infant son who died, "saved"?

I suppose it depends on how you interpret King David's statement that he would go where the son had gone someday.

Not arguing, just following.

Happy Thanksgiving, to those who celebrate it.

Hey Anastasia, by all means please ask any question that you may have. I'll try my best to answer it. I can't answer that. The Scripture teaches not to ask that question of who will to heaven, and who is not going to heaven. I am just pointing out, Original Sin. Of how we are formed in Sin, before we even actually sin personally. If I am not mistaken I believe these are King David's words. Join in the discussion if you like. Not pushing, just asking.

Happy Thanksgiving, a time for Family to gather together and praise for everything they have.

 

[ladodgers6]

My apologies. I was very rushed this morning. I should have quoted.

The post was in answer to ladodgers post asking about Scriptural references to special provision being made for infants.

I don't buy into the "age of accountability" argument myself. I just wanted to know how ladodgers would take that particular case.

So I do apologize, but I'm not talking about any kind of heavenly court of law, or decision, or any such thing. I hope you'll forgive me for not entering into debate, but that wasn't my point at all.

I am only asking, what is the age of accountability?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

My apologies. I was very rushed this morning. I should have quoted.

The post was in answer to ladodgers post asking about Scriptural references to special provision being made for infants.

I don't buy into the "age of accountability" argument myself. I just wanted to know how ladodgers would take that particular case.

So I do apologize, but I'm not talking about any kind of heavenly court of law, or decision, or any such thing. I hope you'll forgive me for not entering into debate, but that wasn't my point at all.

No apology necessary. The post didn't have a quote so I didn't know who it was addressed to. I thought you were referring to infant baptism so was trying to explain my view of dedication of parents to prepare the child for a committed baptism. David's son wasn't given an opportunity to ever make a decision for God. I think this thread has finally worked it's way around to this topic, but I also don't want to enter into debate about it.
Have a happy Thanksgiving. We have already celebrated ours in Canada.

 

[ladodgers6]

No apology necessary. The post didn't have a quote so I didn't know who it was addressed to. I thought you were referring to infant baptism so was trying to explain my view of dedication of parents to prepare the child for a committed baptism. David's son wasn't given an opportunity to ever make a decision for God. I think this thread has finally worked it's way around to this topic, but I also don't want to enter into debate about it.
Have a happy Thanksgiving. We have already celebrated ours in Canada.

Yes I agree that this thread got off track a bit. I really want to stick to the topic.

 

[ladodgers6]

Well said

Yea, John Murray nailed it.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I am only asking, what is the age of accountability?

Are you asking what does it mean? Or what is the cutoff age?

I'm not really the best person to answer in either case, since it's not something I subscribe to in so many words.

Usually those who teach it say that all persons under age-x essentially get a free pass and are not counted guilty of any of their sins, but after they pass that cutoff they require being "saved" in the same way as everyone else. Various ages are put forth. I hear 12 most often, but opinions range quite a bit.


I don't believe God has such a yardstick. I believe that God is capable and complex enough to judge every person rightly.

Below a certain (very young) age, no sin is possible, imo. At what time God starts judging how, I don't know, but His judgment is correct of course. We do believe those under a certain capacity are innocent of personal sins, and we know God is merciful and loving, and we trust in His mercy.

But because we do NOT believe in personal guilt transmitted to all mankind of Adam's sin, nor do we believe that God must have some measure of satisfaction in the form of human suffering in response to sin, we would not speak of it in terms of the age of accountability doctrine.

 

[ladodgers6]

Are you asking what does it mean? Or what is the cutoff age?

Both, but I would like to start a new thread to discuss it.

I'm not really the best person to answer in either case, since it's not something I subscribe to in so many words.

Usually those who teach it say that all persons under age-x essentially get a free pass and are not counted guilty of any of their sins, but after they pass that cutoff they require being "saved" in the same way as everyone else. Various ages are put forth. I hear 12 most often, but opinions range quite a bit.

I have not heard of getting a pass, or a age limit.

I don't believe God has such a yardstick. I believe that God is capable and complex enough to judge every person rightly.

Below a certain (very young) age, no sin is possible, imo. At what time God starts judging how, I don't know, but His judgment is correct of course. We do believe those under a certain capacity are innocent of personal sins, and we know God is merciful and loving, and we trust in His mercy.

Is there any Scripture that states what you are saying. Or is it just presuppositions? Just because the infant does not bring forth personal sin, death & condemnation still reigns over all of us.

But Psalms 51:5, states we are sinful at birth, and in sin my mother conceived me. This is the original sin of Adam imputed to his progeny. By One Man's trespass, condemnation pass upon us all.

But I do believe that the infant can be saved if the parents are believers. And that's why Calvin believed in infant baptism. I think I read something about that in Scripture I will research it and start a new thread to gather people views on it.

But because we do NOT believe in personal guilt transmitted to all mankind of Adam's sin, nor do we believe that God must have some measure of satisfaction in the form of human suffering in response to sin, we would not speak of it in terms of the age of accountability doctrine.

God does not have some measure of satisfaction in the form of human suffering in response to sin. This is a misconception of Classical Calvinism. Our pain & suffering is the result of One Man, not God. The Scriptures are clear of God hate for sin. God is Holy, Holy, Holy, the Law is God's Holy Moral Character. This is God's will that we be perfectly Holy. God says He does not find pleasure in the death of the wicked. Sin is a serious matter to God. But people attempt to water down sin and the Law, so that they can get into heaven. Condemnation should shake the very core of the sinner, who hears God's Law preach to them. Because then they will understand the condition they stand before a Holy God who holds everyone accountable for their sins. And when they hear the Gospel preached to them, they will run to Christ who came to save SINNERS! Through One Man's Act of righteous. All that I have said in found in Scripture.

I am not arguing with you, only sharing Biblical Truth with you.

 

[bcbsr]

Justification by Faith — Out of Date?
Benjamin B. Warfield

​

Seems to me the thread, from its first response, got off track missing the main point, which I think is alluding to the contrast of salvation being conditioned upon faith in Christ alone, and that "faith" being trusting in Christ, this in contrasted to the unspoken fact that most of the Christian community from early on to the present has been dominated by the idea that salvation is contingent upon one's ongoing performance, where "faith" is equated with works rather than set in contrast with works as Paul speaks of it in Romans 4

Rom 4:5 "However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness."​

The "circumcision" who preached that one must be circumcised and follow the law of Moses to be saved was quickly followed up by the Neo-Circumcision sects which made salvation contingent upon one's compliance to whatever set of regulations the particular sect of Neo-Circumcision imposed upon its people, such as Catholicism the mother of Neo-Circumcision sects.

I find the easiest way to identify such sects who don't believe in salvation by trusting in God's promise is by seeing how they stand on the issue of Eternal Security. In my own estimate about 90% of "Christians" don't believe the gospel. Though I'll call them "Christian" as the Bible uses that term to indicate what outsiders call insiders and not what insiders call insiders.

 

[ladodgers6]

Seems to me the thread, from its first response, got off track missing the main point, which I think is alluding to the contrast of salvation being conditioned upon faith in Christ alone, and that "faith" being trusting in Christ, this in contrasted to the unspoken fact that most of the Christian community from early on to the present has been dominated by the idea that salvation is contingent upon one's ongoing performance, where "faith" is equated with works rather than set in contrast with works as Paul speaks of it in Romans 4

Yea, I agree the thread got off track. Exactly, legalism & antinomianism has plagued Christendom from the every beginning. Because this is the devil is trying to destroy, the Gospel of Christ that Paul preached. A God who acts, and saves His people from their sins.

Rom 4:5 "However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness."​

This is one of my favorite passages.

The "circumcision" who preached that one must be circumcised and follow the law of Moses to be saved was quickly followed up by the Neo-Circumcision sects which made salvation contingent upon one's compliance to whatever set of regulations the particular sect of Neo-Circumcision imposed upon its people, such as Catholicism the mother of Neo-Circumcision sects.

Exactly, just like the New Perspective on Paul. That say Faith Alone, but ultimately its the life lived by the believer that determined their 'FINAL JUSTIFICATION', not the life lived by Christ!

I find the easiest way to identify such sects who don't believe in salvation by trusting in God's promise is by seeing how they stand on the issue of Eternal Security. In my own estimate about 90% of "Christians" don't believe the gospel. Though I'll call them "Christian" as the Bible uses that term to indicate what outsiders call insiders and not what insiders call insiders.

Trusting in God and His promise to save sinners in His Son is a FREE GIFT. Its not earned by us through ANY TYPE OF WORKS, including the works of the believer!

 

[~Anastasia~]

Both, but I would like to start a new thread to discuss it.
I have not heard of getting a pass, or a age limit.


Is there any Scripture that states what you are saying. Or is it just presuppositions? Just because the infant does not bring forth personal sin, death & condemnation still reigns over all of us.

But Psalms 51:5, states we are sinful at birth, and in sin my mother conceived me. This is the original sin of Adam imputed to his progeny. By One Man's trespass, condemnation pass upon us all.

But I do believe that the infant can be saved if the parents are believers. And that's why Calvin believed in infant baptism. I think I read something about that in Scripture I will research it and start a new thread to gather people views on it.


God does not have some measure of satisfaction in the form of human suffering in response to sin. This is a misconception of Classical Calvinism. Our pain & suffering is the result of One Man, not God. The Scriptures are clear of God hate for sin. God is Holy, Holy, Holy, the Law is God's Holy Moral Character. This is God's will that we be perfectly Holy. God says He does not find pleasure in the death of the wicked. Sin is a serious matter to God. But people attempt to water down sin and the Law, so that they can get into heaven. Condemnation should shake the very core of the sinner, who hears God's Law preach to them. Because then they will understand the condition they stand before a Holy God who holds everyone accountable for their sins. And when they hear the Gospel preached to them, they will run to Christ who came to save SINNERS! Through One Man's Act of righteous. All that I have said in found in Scripture.

I am not arguing with you, only sharing Biblical Truth with you.

We have a different view of "original sin".

The curse involved physical death, and the fall of creation. Decay, thorns, sickness, suffering attendant with all of that. It is the condition of the created order as a result of Adam's sin. Everyone is born subject to that. And everyone themselves sins, as a result of that.

Condemnation is a separate matter. It is a fine distinction, since all DO sin, and so all are subject to that in themselves as well.

But this does bring up the question of infants.

We don't suppose to know God's mind. Perhaps the status of the parents as believers does matter. (I'm speaking from myself, and not for Orthodoxy here.) But we DO know God as a loving and merciful God. Certain ways of looking at condemnation seem to have crept in with some of the much later writers. You know that we reject the Penal Substitution model of the atonement? Without those later ideas of God's desire to inflict suffering on men in retribution for their sins, the idea of condemned infants doesn't make a lot of sense. But still ... we do not presume to know the mind of God and we simply trust in His mercy.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Justification by Faith — Out of Date?
Benjamin B. Warfield

Justification by Faith, we see, is not to be set in contradiction to justification by Works. It is set in contradiction only to justification by our Own Works. It is justification by Christ's Works. The whole question, accordingly, is whether we can hope to be received into God's favor on the ground of what we do ourselves, or only on the ground of what Christ does for us. If we expect to be received on the ground of what we do ourselves — that is what is called Justification by Works. If on the ground of what Christ has done for us — that is what is meant by Justification by Faith. Justification by Faith means, that is to say, that we look to Christ and to him alone for salvation, and come to God pleading Christ's death and righteousness as the ground of our hope to be received into his favor. If Justification by Faith is out of date, that means, then, that salvation by Christ is out of date. There is nothing, in that case, left to us but that each man must just do the best he can to save himself.​

So you are saying that Christ commits works by saving His children?

This is an old song and dance. Faith and works together.

So explain justification by Christ's works and justification in general?