Eternal Justification?

[brightfame52]

That is category confusion. You collapse three distinct categories into one.

Not its not and No I dont. When was Jesus made a surety Heb 7:22 ?

 

[brightfame52]

n Heb 7:22 you have the surety already being discharged.

False statement, when was Jesus constituted a Surety. Was He a Surety b4 He came into the world to die ?

 

[brightfame52]

1 Pet 1:20 and Rev 13:8 speak of God's eternal purpose but not to the forensic act of justification applied to sinners.

The Cross has always been the focal point, and His Death was just as Good as completed. God is outside of time, He doesn't have to wait to see the completion of the Cross. Rom 4:17

17 As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
God called Abraham a Father b4 Him prior to him having any children. Gen 17:5

5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

That word made in Rom 4 17 and Gen 17 5 are perfect tense

 

[brightfame52]

You treat the objective work of Christ and the subjective reckoning of righteousness as if they are the same act,

No I dont. The elect are born Justified by the objective work of Christ for them,, laid to their charge b4 Gods Law and Justice. The subjective aspect occurs in time at regeneration and faith and we become subjectively aware and knowledgeable about it. I have told you and others this many may times, so please stop misrepresenting me.

 

[Arial]

False statement, when was Jesus constituted a Surety. Was He a Surety b4 He came into the world to die ?

Definition of "surety" in this context: One who has become legally liable for the debt, default, or failure in duty of another. Most translations translate it "guarantee". The subject is Christ's superiority of the priesthood of Jesus and the full assurance of the more excellent covenant, and the truth and stability of the promises connected with it.

Jesus is surety of a better covenant. You have yanked it out of its context and thrown it into a category where it does not belong---that of justification. It is covenantal security, not eternal justification.

You are also confusing the eternal Covenant of Redemption between the Godhead before creation to redeem a people with that plan playing out in history. The Covenant of Redemption is fully formed in all its details and by ordaining and decree. That is what "before the foundation of the world" means. The plan is what we see/read unfolding within our history. Christ came and did the work of redemption with his life, death, resurrection. and ascension. The justification of an individual does not occur until that work is applied to them in the way God decreed it would and tells us it would. Through regeneration (a stony heart at enmity with him, to a new heart that is filled with his love and returns that love from that filling). And this brings with it hearing, understanding, believing, trusting in (faith) only Christ and his work, for our salvation.

 

[Arial]

The Cross has always been the focal point, and His Death was just as Good as completed. God is outside of time, He doesn't have to wait to see the completion of the Cross. Rom 4:17

My statement was not about the cross being the focal point. It was pointing out that you were misusing the scriptures by putting them in the category of forensic justification when they are in the category of God's eternal purpose.

When you base your argument for eternal justification on God's being outside of time you are confusing the eternal Covenant of Redemption with the plan of redemption which plays out in history and over time. He isn't waiting to see the completion of the cross, he is waiting for nothing. That is nowhere implied by justification through faith and not before faith. Christ still had to actually die on the cross even though before the foundation of the world, and outside of time, God decreed that he would. So that same reasoning would not say that they are justified before they are even born or prior to faith because God ordained that they would be.

 

[brightfame52]

2. Justification is the object, and faith is the act, which is conversant with it. Now the object does not depend upon the act, but the act upon the object. Every object is prior to the act, which is conversant with it; unless it be when an act gives being to the object, which cannot be the case here; unless we make faith to be the cause or matter of our justification, which has been already disproved. Faith is the evidence, not the cause of justification; and if it is an evidence, that of which it is an evidence must exist before it. Faith is indeed the evidence of things not seen; but it is not the evidence of things that are not: what the eye is in the body, that faith is in the soul. The eye, by virtue of its visive faculty beholds sensible objects, but does not produce them; and did they not previously exist, could not behold them. We see the sun shining in its brightness, but did it not exist before, it could not be visible to us; the same observation will hold good in ten thousand other instances. Faith is the hand which receives the blessing of justification from the Lord, and righteousness, by which the soul is justified from the God of its salvation; but then this blessing must exist before faith can receive it. If any should think fit to distinguish between the act of justification, and the righteousness of Christ, by which we are justified; and object, That not justification, but the righteousness of Christ, is the object of faith; I reply, Either the righteousness of Christ, as justifying, is the object of faith, or it is not: if it is not, then it is useless, and to be laid aside in the business of justification; if, as justifying, it is the object of faith, what is it else but justification? Christ's righteousness justifying me, is my justification before God, and as such, my faith considers it, and says with the church, Surely, in the Lord have I righteousness and strength. (Isa. 45:24)

 

[brightfame52]

Definition of "surety" in this context: One who has become legally liable for the debt, default, or failure in duty of another.

Okay Good answer. When did Jesus become legally liable for the debt, default or failure of others ?

 

[brightfame52]

Jesus is surety of a better covenant.

I know He is, when did He become the surety of the better covenant ?

You are also confusing the eternal Covenant of Redemption between the Godhead before creation to redeem a people with that plan playing out in history

When do you suppose Jesus was made a Surety of the better covenant ?

The Covenant of Redemption is fully formed in all its details and by ordaining and decree. That is what "before the foundation of the world" means.

When did Jesus become responsible for the sins of the elect ?

 

[Arial]

No I dont. The elect are born Justified by the objective work of Christ for them,, laid to their charge b4 Gods Law and Justice. The subjective aspect occurs in time at regeneration and faith and we become subjectively aware and knowledgeable about it. I have told you and others this many may times, so please stop misrepresenting me.

What is justification? I ask (and will tell you though many have already done so and often) because you seem to have come up with your own definition or ignored its definition. One cannot do that and come up with a biblically valid doctrine.

Justification is a legal declaration. "The Judge says---". No matter how you define justification it is what it is. So, when you say the elect are born justified, you have objective accomplishment and objective application. You are asserting a completed forensic verdict applied before faith.

If the elect are born justified then they are justified while still in Adam which contradicts Rom 5; they are justified before union with Christ; they are justified while children of wrath (Eph 2:3); they are justified before faith, yet Scripture says justification is by/through faith.

And Scripture does not treat faith as merely awareness of justification but as the God-appointed means by which justification is applied through union with Christ. Calling faith a subjective realization does no preserve the biblical distinction.

 

[brightfame52]

My statement was not about the cross being the focal point.

Mine is. Justification b the Cross has always been the focal point with God for His People. With men the Cross of Christ is either future or past, but with God it was an eternal present.

That is nowhere implied by justification through faith and not before faith

Justification by Faith is in time following regeneration and its before the mind of the Justified person, not before God. If you imply that the elect sinner isnt legally Justified b4 God until they are regenerated and given the gift of faith so they can know about it and believe, thats promoting Justification b4 God on the basis of the action of the elect sinner, and not on the Person and work of Christ alone, and that's Arminianism.

 

[Arial]

I know He is, when did He become the surety of the better covenant ?

When do you suppose Jesus was made a Surety of the better covenant ?

When did Jesus become responsible for the sins of the elect ?

It's like talking to a brick wall folks.

Those questions are one thing and have their answer. But none of them apply to justification.

You have completely lost (ignored?) the reason I pointed out that the Heb passage was not about justification but about the covenant. You were using it wrong (as proof of eternal justification) when it is not speaking of justification at all. And you are still trying to do the same., It is the worst type of hermeneutic and exegesis.

 

[brightfame52]

, when you say the elect are born justified, you have objective accomplishment and objective application.

Yes because the elect were objectively Justified at the Cross b4 God in the past. When Jesus rose from the dead it was a testification that the ones He had been delivered up for [their offences] that they were Justified Rom 4:25

25 Who was delivered for[because of] our offences, and was raised again for[because of] our justification.

Now if you deny that them He died for were by His death for them are Justified legally b4 God, you oppose and deny the very witness of His resurrection, and in essence are saying they are still in their sins. 1 Cor 15 17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

You see that ? If Christ had not risen, that would indicate them He died for are still in their sins, justice not being satisfied. But since He did rise from the dead, the elect are not in their sins, and Faith is given to believe that.

 

[brightfame52]

It's like talking to a brick wall folks.

You dont want to answer that question, i dont blame you. Anyone else want to answer it. When was Jesus setup as the Surety of the better Covenant and become responsible for the sins of the elect ?

 

[Arial]

Mine is.

Thanks for letting me and everyone else know that we are totally irrelevant in the conversation you are having with yourself that you wish us to listen to.

Justification by Faith is in time following regeneration

Yes. Exactly what I have been saying.

and its before the mind of the Justified person, not before God. I

God is the one who declares a person justified. See previous post #30.
Mod Hat:
I'm done. But if you don't start considering the words of others and engaging in what they say in good faith, instead of preaching an illogical doctrine, you will be granted a temp vacation just to get you stop requiring us to listen to you monologue over and over. And give other's who wish to be involved in the thread without your interference, a chance to do so.

 

[makesends]

You dont want to answer that question, i dont blame you. Anyone else want to answer it. When was Jesus setup as the Surety of the better Covenant and become responsible for the sins of the elect ?

Connect the dots for me please, first. What does this have to do with your thesis? I don't play this kind of game, where you try to lead someone on bit by bit, changing the subject, sloughing meanings and uses, until the logic is hopelessly lost as to how it proves your thesis.

 

[brightfame52]

Thanks for letting me and everyone else know that we are totally irrelevant in the conversation

I didnt say that, another false misrepresentation, Im happy you share your views

God is the one who declares a person justified

Yes and the resurrection of Christ is Gods declaration that the ones He died for are Justified Rom 4:25

And from what I see, you dont believe Gods testimony or declaration the resurrection of Christ provides. It was God that raised Him up

 

[brightfame52]

Connect the dots for me please, first. What does this have to do with your thesis?

Answer the question and you will find out

 

[makesends]

Answer the question and you will find out

I'm not playing your game. You're using JW tactics.

 

[Arial]

Yes and the resurrection of Christ is Gods declaration that the ones He died for are Justified Rom 4:25

And from what I see, you dont believe Gods testimony or declaration the resurrection of Christ provides. It was God that raised Him up

Talk about a misrepresentation!

The first statement is false. The resurrection is not God's declaration that the ones he died for are justified. It is proof of God's accepting the work of Christ to make justification of the elect possible through faith. A public declaration that Christ is righteous. Justified is a judicial (forensic) term. You are collapsing categories. If you know what that means, in your response to this post I expect you to tell me what you think it means---what it means to you if anything.

The second statement is a conglomeration of mixed categories collapsed together too. You are treating God's declaration about Christ as if it were God's declaration about sinners. Conflating the resurrection with justification turns Christ's vindication into an automatic verdict for persons and collapses redemptive accomplishment into personal application.

Collapse 1. God declaring Christ righteous as if it were God declaring the elect righteous.

Collapse 2. Assuming that because God acted objectively in raising Christ (a historical event that is true whether anyone believes it or not) therefore a verdict already exists for specific persons. The term "justified" is a verdict.

Collapse 3. Equating divine testimony and forensic imputation. Calling the resurrection a "declaration" does not make it justification. That is a legal category mistake.

Collapse 4. Tou collapsed the ground of justification (Christ's resurrection) into the means of justification. Scripture grounds justification in Christ's work and applies it through faith. Those two things are not the same act. The very verse you use to support your claim (Rom 4:25) refutes eternal justification. Immediately in 5:1 he says "Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God."

In 4:25 Paul does not say we were justified when Christ was raised. He says the resurrection was for our justification (unto, with a view toward, as the basis of justification).