Justification from Eternity

[twin1954]

I thought that I would leave you with an example of your incoherence and duplicity…amply demonstrated by you in this exchange over a few posts concerning Rom 8:9

But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.




Twin - The context of the statement by Paul is not concerning justification but one of walking in the Spirit.

moonbeam - To suggest, as you do, that the context of Paul’s statement (regarding the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the redeemed sinner) has nothing to do with, or, concerning justification...deserves to be dismissed with a degree of incredulousness.

twin - First of all I didn't say that the verse has nothing to do with justification I said that the context isn't justification. There is a difference. Please don't put words in my mouth.

moonbeam - Than...would I be correct in inferring from your words, that you do in fact recognise that Rom 8:9 does have application regarding justification ?

twin - No you wouldn't be.



.

I have a feeling that there is only one here who thinks my posts are incoherent and as for being duplicitous it is a false accusation against a fellow believer. The moderators would tell me to report your last post but I will not. I will let it pass with only this warning, don't accuse me of dishonesty again.

Some advice, though I seriously doubt that you will take it, leave off the big sounding words that show off your amazing vocabulary and speak in clear and plain terms that are easily understood by all. The usual reason one uses such intellectual language and long and tedious speech is because they don't have a clue about what they are talking about. If you can't say it in a few words and in plain language long speeches and big words will not help. I have been preaching the Gospel for about 30 years now and know by experience that what I say is fact.

 

[drjean]

I didn't read where anyone referenced this: http://www.understanding-ministries...ver-the-doctrine-of-eternal-justification.pdf

Very interesting read for those who truly wish to continue study. It does conclude:

Goodwin’s clearstatements against eternal justification;see earlier quotes.

For example:
It is vain to say I am justified only in respect to
the court of mine own conscience. The faith that Paul and the other apostles were justified by, was their believing on Christ that they might be justified (Galatians 2:15, 16), and not a believing they were justified already. [Justifying Faith, p 325]

 

[twin1954]

I didn't read where anyone referenced this: http://www.understanding-ministries...ver-the-doctrine-of-eternal-justification.pdf

Very interesting read for those who truly wish to continue study. It does conclude:

I haven't read the whole article yet but it seems to me that the writer first misstates Fortner's view, I know Don personally and have spent many hours with him on this and other issues. Secondly the writer seems to advocate for faith justifying us rather than the imputed righteousness of Christ. Faith being the instrument of justification, or justification by faith, is not Biblical. We are justified by the imputed righteousness of Christ not by our faith.

 

[JM]

The great benefit of surffing the forum with a phone...the inability to get in to a dust up. My thumbs are too fat to write long posts and I honestly do not turn on my desk top on too often.

For answers to the objections raised by moon see Job Hupton's work.

 

[twin1954]

The great benefit of surffing the forum with a phone...the inability to get in to a dust up. My thumbs are too fat to write long posts and I honestly do not turn on my desk top on too often.

Eat low fat, exercise and use your fingers instead of your thumbs.

For answers to the objections raised by moon see Job Hupton's work.

 

[moonbeam]

speak in clear and plain terms that are easily understood by all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8Dz3691_BY






.

 

[moonbeam]

The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him. - (Proverbs 18:17)

 

[moonbeam]

I hope you understand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-ENipUB8NI

 

[moonbeam]

speak in clear and plain terms that are easily understood by all.

I would like a reply to the two questions regarding Rom 8:1 which are underlined and bolded.



Chapter eight of Romans is utilised by Paul to bring together the various strands of argument he has employed in previous sections into a cohesive whole. The inter-related subjects of law, guilt, justification, adoption and sanctification are all brought together in concise statements, the scope of which encompass all facets of subject matter previously discussed.

The statements made in Rom 8:1 and 8:9 are of this category and are extremely precise, and accurate, in regards their scope, which includes the law, guilt, justification, adoption and sanctification …for example

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

”There is therefore now”… is the introduction of the summary of the previous content concerning law, guilt, justification, adoption and sanctification touched on in previous discourse.

“no condemnation”…. is clearly a judicial term relating to matters of law, guilt and punishment, it must relate, primarily, to being justified and justification, the definition of which equates to a judicial finding of no condemnation because of innocence.

“to them which are in Christ Jesus”.... referencing election and sanctification, adoption and justification.

“who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit”.... referencing sanctification (progressive and declarative) and justification, and adoption.


Question One - Can you agree with me that Paul’s use of Rom 8:1 is sufficiently broad to encompass my view above ?

Question Two - If you conclude otherwise...Can you elaborate on how the phrase “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus” should be understood as exclusively referencing sanctification and excluding reference to justification ?

.

 

[twin1954]

I would like a reply to the two questions regarding Rom 8:1 which are underlined and bolded.



Chapter eight of Romans is utilised by Paul to bring together the various strands of argument he has employed in previous sections into a cohesive whole. The inter-related subjects of law, guilt, justification, adoption and sanctification are all brought together in concise statements, the scope of which encompass all facets of subject matter previously discussed.

The statements made in Rom 8:1 and 8:9 are of this category and are extremely precise, and accurate, in regards their scope, which includes the law, guilt, justification, adoption and sanctification …for example

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

”There is therefore now”… is the introduction of the summary of the previous content concerning law, guilt, justification, adoption and sanctification touched on in previous discourse.

“no condemnation”…. is clearly a judicial term relating to matters of law, guilt and punishment, it must relate, primarily, to being justified and justification, the definition of which equates to a judicial finding of no condemnation because of innocence.

“to them which are in Christ Jesus”.... referencing election and sanctification, adoption and justification.

“who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit”.... referencing sanctification (progressive and declarative) and justification, and adoption.


Question One - Can you agree with me that Paul’s use of Rom 8:1 is sufficiently broad to encompass my view above ?

Question Two - If you conclude otherwise...Can you elaborate on how the phrase “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus” should be understood as exclusively referencing sanctification and excluding reference to justification ?

.

Already answered in post #111.

 

[moonbeam]

Already answered in post #111.

I have taken the liberty of reproducing that section of your post #111 below in blue italic font (for ease of reference)

Contrary to what you assert Rom. 8:1 does not set the context of what follows. You make the mistake of reading the chapter breaks placed by men as though they were inspired by God. They were not. In reality the subject changes from justification to the walk in the Spirit and assurance in verse 3. No commentator I know will back up your assertion. All of them see a transition in the passage. Therefore your use of Rom. 8:9 as you do is a misuse of the verse and cannot back up your assertion.

I am aware that the original documents did not have chapter and verse divisions, and that these were added later by scholars to assist in study, and therefore not of divine origin. I am also aware that these chapter divisions are not always placed appropriately, and that this can be a hindrance to comprehending the content, context, and intent of the original author. Of course being aware of this issue is the remedy, and the wise bible student considers the text on either side of these chapter divisions (even ignoring them) to ensure he captures the original authors thought correctly.

It seems to me that you were not aware that I knew this...and so assumed (incorrectly) that the context of my two questions regarding Rom 8:1 was concerning the scripture which followed after i.e. Rom 8:2 - 39.

This is made obvious by your comment “Contrary to what you assert Rom. 8:1 does not set the context of what follows.” ....and following on from this you based your comments…"the Spirit and assurance in verse 3."



When in fact...the context of my two questions asked in post #129 were in regards to the scripture that came before Rom 8:1...i.e. Romans chapter one to eight.



This can be seen by the bolded sections of my previous post to you (below) in italics

Chapter eight of Romans is utilised by Paul to bring together the various strands of argument he has employed in previous sections into a cohesive whole. The inter-related subjects of law, guilt, justification, adoption and sanctification are all brought together in concise statements, the scope of which encompass all facets of subject matter previously discussed.

”There is therefore now”… is the introduction of the summary of the previous content concerning law, guilt, justification, adoption and sanctification touched on in previous discourse.



In light of the above it is obvious that you have failed to comprehend both the context of my questions, and the content of my questions.

Therefore I respectfully ask that you reconsider my two questions below and resubmit you response

Question One - Can you agree with me that Paul’s use of Rom 8:1 is sufficiently broad to encompass my view above ?

Question Two - If you conclude otherwise...Can you elaborate on how the phrase “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus” should be understood as exclusively referencing sanctification and excluding reference to justification ?

.

 

[twin1954]

I have taken the liberty of reproducing that section of your post #111 below in blue italic font (for ease of reference)

Contrary to what you assert Rom. 8:1 does not set the context of what follows. You make the mistake of reading the chapter breaks placed by men as though they were inspired by God. They were not. In reality the subject changes from justification to the walk in the Spirit and assurance in verse 3. No commentator I know will back up your assertion. All of them see a transition in the passage. Therefore your use of Rom. 8:9 as you do is a misuse of the verse and cannot back up your assertion.

I am aware that the original documents did not have chapter and verse divisions, and that these were added later by scholars to assist in study, and therefore not of divine origin. I am also aware that these chapter divisions are not always placed appropriately, and that this can be a hindrance to comprehending the content, context, and intent of the original author. Of course being aware of this issue is the remedy, and the wise bible student considers the text on either side of these chapter divisions (even ignoring them) to ensure he captures the original authors thought correctly.

It seems to me that you were not aware that I knew this...and so assumed (incorrectly) that the context of my two questions regarding Rom 8:1 was concerning the scripture which followed after i.e. Rom 8:2 - 39.

This is made obvious by your comment “Contrary to what you assert Rom. 8:1 does not set the context of what follows.” ....and following on from this you based your comments…"the Spirit and assurance in verse 3."



When in fact...the context of my two questions asked in post #129 were in regards to the scripture that came before Rom 8:1...i.e. Romans chapter one to eight.



This can be seen by the bolded sections of my previous post to you (below) in italics

Chapter eight of Romans is utilised by Paul to bring together the various strands of argument he has employed in previous sections into a cohesive whole. The inter-related subjects of law, guilt, justification, adoption and sanctification are all brought together in concise statements, the scope of which encompass all facets of subject matter previously discussed.

”There is therefore now”… is the introduction of the summary of the previous content concerning law, guilt, justification, adoption and sanctification touched on in previous discourse.



In light of the above it is obvious that you have failed to comprehend both the context of my questions, and the content of my questions.

Therefore I respectfully ask that you reconsider my two questions below and resubmit you response

Question One - Can you agree with me that Paul’s use of Rom 8:1 is sufficiently broad to encompass my view above ?

Question Two - If you conclude otherwise...Can you elaborate on how the phrase “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus” should be understood as exclusively referencing sanctification and excluding reference to justification ?

.

I have told you more than once that I am not going to debate this with you. Framing your assertions in the form of a question in order to try and force me to answer because I said I would answer your questions about what I believe and why isn't going to work either. You haven't asked me what I believe or why, you asked me to respond to your assertions. Sorry but I am done. You can find all the answers already in this thread if you wish to look.

 

[Hammster]

ADMIN HAT ON



Tiny clean up

Please stick to the topic and leave the personal stuff out.


ADMIN HAT OFF

 

[JM]

Wonderful quote,

"It deserves regard and attention, that the saints under the Old Testament, were justified by the same righteousness of Christ, as those under the New, and that before the sacrifice was offered up, the satisfaction given, and the everlasting righteousness brought in; for Christ's blood was shed for the remission of sins that were past, and his death was for the redemption of transgressions under the first Testament, Romans 3:25 Hebrews 9:15. Now if God could, and actually did, justify some, three or four thousand years before the righteousness of Christ was actually wrought out, taking his Son's word and bond as their Surety, and in a view of his future righteousness; why could he not, and why may it not be thought he did, justify all his elect from eternity, upon the word and bond of their Surety, and on the basis of his future righteousness, which he had engaged to work out, and which he full well knew he would most certainly work out? and if there is no difficulty in conceiving of the one, there can be none in conceiving of the other."

 

[JM]

Goodwin:

Their justification before faith, coram Deo, in the sight of God, is of them not as actually existing in themselves, but only as they were represented in their head; for their persons, as considered as represented in Christ, did in him, as their head, receive justification, and all blessings else, but not in themselves do they receive them actually as existing until faith; as we are said then to be condemned and corrupted in the first Adam, when he sinned, as representing us, but we are in our own persons not actually corrupted till we exist and are born from him. So as to conclude this, they are said before faith to be justified in Christ by representation only, and not as in themselves. They are said to be in themselves actually justified through Christ after faith, but they cannot be said to be justified of themselves without Christ, neither before nor after faith (8:138).​

 

[moonbeam]

Wonderful quote…

From and early responder regarding justification from eternity


"It is not Biblical,"

 

[JM]

Moonbeam, I've block you.

 

[moonbeam]

Actually, it proves it. It comforts the Saints to know that we have God the Holy Spirit in us and therefore suffer no condemnation. Why? Because of God's grace in election.

Walking in the Spirit does not equal justification. Just as the Lamb Jesus Christ was seen as "slain from the foundation of the world" we are seen in Christ from the foundation of the world.

JM

In regards to Rom 8:1 which your above comments were referencing

Question One - Do you regard this scripture to be a stand alone proposition ?

Question Two - Do you regard this scripture having a context which extends to previous discourse i.e Rom chapters 1 to 7 inclusive ?

Question Three - Do you regard this scripture having a context which extends to following discourse i.e Rom chapters 8 to 16 inclusive ?

.

 

[moonbeam]

I thought that I would modify my post, which was not well received by some, in order that my reply could be made in a less inflammatory mode…yet still deliver the content of my thought to others who may be interested…the post is probably 95% original…with some material redacted and a few alterations to specific words.

My intention in doing so is not to be disrespectful to any person or authority…but to voice my thoughts concerning some varied subject matter.

I have told you more than once that I am not going to debate this with you.

I know…and you put that little caveat in early as a get out of jail clause for when you might need it (suspecting even at this early stage that you would) … comments below from your post #102

"I will consider trying to answer questions about the truth of the doctrine though. I will try to explain what I believe and why but I am not going to defend it."

To paraphrase your prepared caveat - I will consider answering questions (perhaps)… on second thought… I will try explaining what I believe and why…ah…without making any attempt to discover if it's wrong or even right.

To avoid the destructive ramifications of Rom 8:1 and Rom 8:9 on your false doctrine (which I was gently choking you with) culminating in my post #131... forced you into playing your get out of jail card.

What choice did you have ? …. well you could have chosen to examine the scripture Rom 8:1 with me ?...but of course that was an exceedingly unattractive option, the immanent defeat of your false doctrine, and you it's defender along with it, was decidedly unpalatable.

Framing your assertions in the form of a question in order to try and force me to answer because I said I would answer your questions about what I believe and why isn't going to work either.

I know…nothing seems to work.

Do you have any suggestions yourself in regards what might work ?

As explained earlier ….To paraphrase your prepared caveat - I will consider answering questions (perhaps)… on second thought… I will try explaining what I believe and why…ah…without making any attempt to discover if it's wrong or even right.

You haven't asked me what I believe or why,

Hello…I might be wrong about this…but I kind of get the impression, faint though it be, that you could, might, possibly be advocating justification from eternity…..but then again (you know its not always easy to discern a persons position) perhaps you lean more towards eternal justification.

I think it's probably a toss up between those two…taking into account the OP heading and various video's, taped sermons, documentation, links and comments over the last 14 pages of this thread…and of which I have watched, listened, and read.

you asked me to respond to your assertions.

Yes I did…and I think if you search back through this thread you might find that post where I made mention that I believe justification from eternity was a false doctrine and therefore must be opposed and refuted…I kind of thought that would give you a general idea of the direction and thrust of my assertions…which I would be looking for a response to.

Sorry but I am done.

Well….I was actually hoping you would give me the opportunity to make you feel a whole lot sorrier than you feel at the moment…even deeply depressed.

I feel like you have robbed me… I feel quite barren and forlorn.

Anyone who had a heart would, and should, feel sorry for me.

You can find all the answers already in this thread if you wish to look.

I will continue to explore the material provided here and in my personal research.

There was a guy who used to post in this forum by the username of Miqurgw…and I always liked his response when his opponents would post the writings of Puritan theologians and other reputable scholars etc…He would say "I'm not interested in debating with a dead man"

Not in anyway as dismissing their thoughts/writings as worthless…but because they can not respond to your line of enquiry, or be probed for clarification or weaknesses…the thing is…past refutations and defences are ok and will always continue to be a buttress…but new weapons are forged and developed everyday…Satan develops new and sophisticated strategies to undermine the truth continuously and so our defences and attack strategies and tactics need to be constantly refined and tested (forum discussions)…to ensure they will be effective in combat, the battle space being a fluid environment.

I prefer the live interaction…I prefer to do my own thinking and develop my reasoning through personally developed attack vectors, which can be a little unorthodox…I like to study my opponents position from many angles…test their defences, their resolve, their intellect, their grasp of philosophical concepts that underpin the frame work of their theological construct…when I enter into a discussion, as a contender, this is what it is all about for me…The Truth of scripture is (boxing idiom)…THE UNDISPUTED - THE UNDEFEATED - CHAMPION OF THE WORLD.


I intend to start a thread in the near future which will have a deliberately provocative title and content…I do that so that I will be attacked, probed for weakness and engaged in relentless strivings with the regenerated minds of my brethren (who are bent on crushing my filthy lies)

Of course I believe it to be The Truth….I might, in fact, be delusional, a pawn in the hand of Satan, a deceitful Trojan Horse, a seducer of unstable minds, a false professor, a mentally unstable scitzo…all of which is possible (from your perspective)

And so you are invited to the fray….slay me if you are able.

If I find my self on the floor looking up at the ceiling…wondering what my name is and how it is I materialised in another dimension and whats that strange ringing in my ears….Than perhaps the truth I thought I had wasn't the undisputed, undefeated, champion of the world…but just a pile of manure that got stuck in-between my ears somehow.


Anyway….I don't feel so barren and forlorn anymore.

I just realised that JM is still out there…so I still have the opportunity to engage in combat…theologically of course….and for all the right reasons.

.

 

[moonbeam]

Actually, it proves it. It comforts the Saints to know that we have God the Holy Spirit in us and therefore suffer no condemnation. Why? Because of God's grace in election.

JM ... Your attempt to alienate “justification” from the intent and context of Rom 8:1 fails.

Why ? ......because of your comment (bolded ) above.

Justification flows from Election...the scope and precision of the scripture at this point does not allow for justification to be excluded from the intent of the original author.

I understand that accepting what I assert (above) concerning Rom 8:1 would leave you in a vulnerable position in regards defending your false doctrine of justification in, and from, eternity...it would, in effect, destroy it.

Justification is fully intended in the legitimate scope of this scripture.


There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Walking in the Spirit does not equal justification.

JM - Walking in the Spirit.......is to be Justified.

To be Justified.......is to Walk in the Spirit.

The two descriptors used in Rom 8:1 are precise enough that the proposition is a stand alone statement, a theological fact, and all encompassing in the range of its meaning...and it is logically applicable to justification.

This fact erodes the foundation of your false doctrine...as it forms the logical link to Rom 8:9 ...... and at that point, your ship flounders.

Just as the Lamb Jesus Christ was seen as "slain from the foundation of the world" we are seen in Christ from the foundation of the world.

As the Elect children of God.....chosen in Christ.......to BE

Your false doctrine does not allow....the BEING of God.

It’s all has-been in your false doctrine.


JM - You are invited to make a reply, to the brethren, concerning these matters...your brother in Christ….BP

.