Eternal Justification?

[brightfame52]

If no, then what does “incurred condemnation” mean?

lol you joking arent you. Read this Rom 5:18

18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification

Now who incurred this condemnation according to Rom 5:18a and how ?

 

[makesends]

When, precisely, was the debt paid?

• If in eternity, then the cross is not propitiatory.
• If at the cross, then liability persisted until payment.

While I may agree, here, I have a problem with the wording, "If [the debt was paid] at the cross, then liability persisted until payment. The temporal language of 'persisted' establishes a mental construction of the being paid at the cross, allowing (as in @brightfame52 's earlier thread) that since it was paid at the cross, he may still be right about the elect subsequent to the cross no longer being at enmity with God nor responsible for their sin.

To put it another way: At the cross, Christ was liable not only for the sins of those elect who came before the cross. As I have been saying, that it happened on the timeline is evident. But, WHEN on that timeline it happened is irrelevant to the question at hand. WHAT happened is. And again, it rather obviously happened during this temporal economy, unlike in Brightfame's sloughing of terms and combining of categories, where he throws time at the subject in all the wrong places, as though time did not exist for certain aspects of God's decree concerning the elect but did for its effects.

I think it is not irrelevant that I also see some of the same thing possible with the argument about Pentecost and the Spirit's indwelling the OT saints. But that is another subject for another thread.

 

[Arial]

Then he failed, he was found a liar,, found to be untrustworthy

The question was not about Paul. It was about the debt. So, answer the actual question.

If Paul failed to pay the debt did his promise pay the debt or did the slave still owe the debt? Did the debt go unpaid until Paul applied the money to the debt?

Now we all know how any reasonable person would answer those questions.

So let's apply that reasonableness to the questions:


If Jesus agreed to pay the sin debt of the sinner, was the debt of the sinner paid simply by his agreeing to do so? Was it paid before it was actually applied to his debt?

If it were paid before it was applied to the debt, and the elect are never condemned for their sin as a result, exactly what debt do they owe?

Don't repeat yourself. Answer the questions and the questions @John Bauer asked. It is reasonable for us to not only ask that you do so, but reasonable to expect that someone who knew they were right fighting and not properly conducting a forum conversation, (that they were wrong and being illogical and unscriptural in fact), would refuse to do so. That they would act like they were never asked and instead deflect to something else or repeat their position. All of which violates a number of rules.

If the surety failed. Yes because justice must be satisfied, the debt hasn't been satisfied

Correct. But you have asserted by your reasoning that the elect had no debt. That Christ's agreement to be a surety itself paid the debt that didn't exist. And that was the point of my asking about Paul's promise to pay a debt. His promise did not pay the slave's debt.

Do you suppose Christ may have proved a failure, even the remotest possibility? Could the Father been less than 1000% His Son would pay the debt ? In fact b4 the Surety ever literally died, the Father said this Matt 3 17

: 17 and lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

That is utterly beside the point. Every deflection is duly noted. The question isn't about the certainty of Christ dying for his sheep. It is about when it actually removes guilt and condemnation from the elect. The Scripture used does not apply to the subject of surety or justification.

Do you realize that if a debt was paid before it ever became a debt, then no debt was paid since there was no debt? Do you recognize that? Answer the question.

 

[Arial]

No it doesnt, the indebtness was charged to Christ, hence this confirms why Christ must die, the indebtness of the Sheep. As soon as Christ came out of Mary He was indebted to the Justice of God for the sins of the Sheep, not the Sheep, that would be double jeporady

Then the elect were never indebted, but you say above they were. All in the same breath. It isn't double jeopardy because the eternal decree and the temporal application are not the same thing. You have had that and all the other category collapses you "reason" with (and I use that word lightly) (A nod to you @makesends, hoping it isn't pasta this time and throwing some humor alongside the brick wall), explained so many times that it is mind-blowing why you keep doing it.

What God decrees/ ordains to come to pass in our world. does not come to pass until it comes to pass. In the CoR God ordained that the Son would come to do the work of redemption (that is, make the way for the redemption of any from condemnation because of sin) by his perfect righteousness as one of us and being himself a substitute for us, bearing the penalty for sin that we deserve. The Son did so willingly.

The Spirit came to apply that work to the condemned sinner (John 3). If the elect were not condemned, did not owe a sin debt, why does Scripture tell us that no one can enter or see his kingdom apart from this application of Christ's work to a person---and explicitly tells us how---through faith.

 

[brightfame52]

The question was not about Paul. It was about the debt.

This want about Paul as well ? Lets read the question again:

If Paul failed to pay the debt did his promise pay the debt or did the slave still owe the debt?

 

[brightfame52]

If Jesus agreed to pay the sin debt of the sinner, was the debt of the sinner paid simply by his agreeing to do so?

The debt was paid at the Cross, but Christ was responsible for the debt way b4 the Cross, not the sinner.

Then on another note the debt was to be paid to God the Father at the Cross, which in His estimation in the eternality of His Being, the Cross was a done deal from all eternity.

Jesus purchased a eternal redemption Heb 9:12

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

The word eternal here, to my understanding encompasses eternal future and past, the benefits of that atonement had no beginning and no ending. And the word redemption means lytrōsis:

1. a ransoming, redemption
2. deliverance, esp. from the penalty of sin

So it can be argued, though not perfectly comprehended, that the elect b4 they even sinned in time were redeemed by the death of Christ, always and forever redeemed from the penalty of sin they would incur

That word for eternal means:

1. without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be
2. without beginning
3. without end, never to cease, everlasting

Chew on that

 

[brightfame52]

Then the elect were never indebted,

No they incurred it by their actions, but the debt was laid to the account of Christ to pay it

Like if a Sheperds sheep break out the pen and destroy his neighbors property and value, the Sheep never are indebted to pay the debt, their Shepherd is.

 

[brightfame52]

The Spirit came to apply that work to the condemned sinner (John 3)

False the Spirit came to apply the benefits of the blood washed justified saint, with a new nature and heart corresponding with their righteous standing with God and to come into the knowledge of it

If the elect were not condemned, did not owe a sin debt, why does Scripture tell us that no one can enter or see his kingdom apart from this application of Christ's work to a person---and explicitly tells us how---through faith.

This is gibberish to me

i have told you a million times what Faiths role is in Justification. It sounds like to me you trusting in your faith and not Christ, just saying. It sounds like you condition Justification b4 God legally on something you do or what God sees in you. Even the work of the Spirit is something in us.

 

[JesusFan]

False the Spirit came to apply the benefits of the blood washed justified saint, with a new nature and heart corresponding with their righteous standing with God and to come into the knowledge of it


This is gibberish to me

i have told you a million times what Faiths role is in Justification. It sounds like to me you trusting in your faith and not Christ, just saying. It sounds like you condition Justification b4 God legally on something you do or what God sees in you. Even the work of the Spirit is something in us.

All of us, even the very elect, were born sinners and not in covenant with God yet, correct?

 

[brightfame52]

All of us, even the very elect, were born sinners and not in covenant with God yet, correct?

No for the part the elect being born not in covenant with God. They have always been in Covenant with God but not in themselves per se, but in and with their Covenant Head and Surety Jesus Christ.

Isa 42:6-7

6 ;I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;

7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.

But the elect were born sinners

 

[makesends]

Hilarious. What if Paul did not keep his word? Does the slave still owe the debt? Or did Paul's word/promise pay the debt?

—good way to look at it.

 

[brightfame52]

—good way to look at it.

I think its a bad way of looking at it, and its an attack against a biblical principle. The point was Philemon upon the behest of Paul, would look for Paul to pay any debt the slave owed him. Same with God the Father and God the Son as Surety, prearrangement had established any debt the elect incur, the Son would pay the debt.

 

[Arial]

—good way to look at it.

As per usual, it missed its mark anyway. Rather the mark was dodged by deflection, pretending it wasn't dodging.

 

[atpollard]

Hilarious. What if Paul did not keep his word? Does the slave still owe the debt? Or did Paul's word/promise pay the debt?

—good way to look at it.

Paul was being used as an analogy for GOD in the example, so if GOD does not keep his word, then our unforgiven sins are the least of our problems ... we are "sinners in the hands of an evil god" [thus have MUCH bigger problems than sin].

 

[brightfame52]

Paul was being used as an analogy for GOD in the example, so if GOD does not keep his word, then our unforgiven sins are the least of our problems ... we are "sinners in the hands of an evil god" [thus have MUCH bigger problems than sin].

In my anolgy Paul was being the Surety who promised to pay what the debtor owes, so Philemon is for God who the debt is owed to

 

[Arial]

Paul was being used as an analogy for GOD in the example, so if GOD does not keep his word, then our unforgiven sins are the least of our problems ... we are "sinners in the hands of an evil god" [thus have MUCH bigger problems than sin].

If Paul is being used as an analogy of God, it is guaranteed that the analogy will fall flat on its face---and it did.

But God keeping his promise is not the issue or the reason that @brightfame52 made the analogy. Orr why I responded in the way that I did. His claim is that since Jesus promised to be the surety for the sins of the elect, then the elect are born uncondemned. In effect, the promise was not just a guarantee of his suretyship but was the application of it to the elect before the foundation of the world. He is saying they were never under condemnation.

 

[brightfame52]

the promise was not just a guarantee of his suretyship but was the application of it to the elect before the foundation of the world. He is saying they were never under condemnation.

Was it a time Jesus was not the Surety of the elect ?

 

[Arial]

False the Spirit came to apply the benefits of the blood washed justified saint, with a new nature and heart corresponding with their righteous standing with God and to come into the knowledge of it

Would you please give scriptural exegesis of that using the principle of scripture interprets scripture and not the false hermeneutic you have claimed to use of comparing scripture with scripture. Since you are going to ignore every exegetical breakdown of scripture on this subjec that is given you---the least you could do is provide one for your own statements.

John 3 does not say that the Spirit came to apply the benefits of the blood washed justified saint corresponding with their already held righteous standing with God so they would have knowledge off it. Jesus says plainly and explicitly---"Unless one is born again (born of the Spirit) he cannot see or enter the kingdom of heaven." John 1 says they are born from above by the will of God. BORN is not knowledge given of an already existing state.

This is gibberish to me

The gibberish was when you said the elect were never condemned, never owed a sin debt, even though they were born sinners by nature and were full of sin, but that Jesus paid for their sin debt before they were born so they wouldn't be condemned. My post was just showing you why your assertion was gibberish, I'm not surprised that you couldn't follow the logic.

i have told you a million times what Faiths role is in Justification.

And every time you have said it to me, I have asked you to show me where the Bible defines faith as you do. You still haven't done that. You redefine words from their Scripture meaning in order to make them fit your assertion. You have to. On their own and according to their real biblical usage and meaning, they trample your view of eternal justification under foot.

It sounds like to me you trusting in your faith and not Christ, just saying. It sounds like you condition Justification b4 God legally on something you do or what God sees in you. Even the work of the Spirit is something in us.

It doesn't matter what it sounds like to you---you are wrong. And I have shown you at least twice how and why that is wrong but do you listen or care? Obviously not. But I would advise you to not repeat it again.

 

[JesusFan]

No for the part the elect being born not in covenant with God. They have always been in Covenant with God but not in themselves per se, but in and with their Covenant Head and Surety Jesus Christ.

Isa 42:6-7

6 ;I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;

7 To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.

But the elect were born sinners

Those chosen to be foun found in Christ shall indeed get saved, but until saved are still lost in their sins

 

[atpollard]

In my anolgy Paul was being the Surety who promised to pay what the debtor owes, so Philemon is for God who the debt is owed to

Was it a time Jesus was not the Surety of the elect ?

So what?
Could you define "Surety" for me (so I can understand how you are using the term).

Merriam-Webster defines it as: "one who has become legally liable for the debt, default, or failure in duty of another".

What does it mean to be "legally liable" for a debt that has not yet been incurred?
"Legally" to whom? In what court?

Thus my request for YOUR meaning for the term when you apply it to "Jesus before creation" so I can at least understand what you are attempting to claim.

Based on common English, it is a nonsensical term:
[I cannot guarantee a mortgage on a house that has not been built for a great grandchild that has not been born. Call a bank and try to get them to agree to make you the "surety" for such a debt.]