If it's True That Justification by Faith ...

[brightfame52]

The problem is that you are using Heb 11:1 as proof that we are justified before we are given faith. What the problem is not, is what faith is by definition. That was not the issue. You are not using it in a lawful manner.

Doest matter, before or after faith, Faith always has an object, like Christ. Its by Faith we believe in Christ, we have never seen Him, He is invisible. 1 Pet 1:7-8

7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:

8 Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:

Now apply your logic to Faith in Christ. And Christ is our Justification b4 God. So with your logic Faith in Christ isn't lawful for Heb 11:1

 

[Arial]

Doest matter, before or after faith, Faith always has an object, like Christ. Its by Faith we believe in Christ, we have never seen Him, He is invisible. 1 Pet 1:7-8

7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:

8 Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:

Now apply your logic to Faith in Christ. And Christ is our Justification b4 God. So with your logic Faith in Christ isn't lawful for Heb 11:1

I was using Scripture, and the logic of Scripture to make my claim. If we are justified through faith, as the Bible states. then we are not justified until we have that faith, which we are given at regeneration. The illogical statement is yours. What would be really great, and in order to have this repetitive and one sided responses from you fill page after page, requiring the thread to be locked, would be if you would tackle head on the words of someone besides yourself. If you would pay attention to them instead of just calling people names, saying they deny the scriptures, and treating them with contempt, and repeating something that is so illogical as to be almost funny. Almost.

 

[Josheb]

What, if anything, is the difference between belief and faith?

Belief is an intellectual assent to truth, whereas faith is a commitment to that truth all the time, especially when it is challenging or inconvenient to maintain that commitment. Both involve trusting the truth to be true, but faith begets faithfulness. Faith (which is not works) begets faithfulness (which are works).

To say a person is Justified before God by their believing, or because of their believing, is a flat out denial that one is Justifed by Christ; For there is a difference in what Christ did, and what the person does;

Scripture explicitly states we are justified by Christ's blood and justified by faith.

Romans 5:9
Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.

Romans 3:28
For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from works [y]of the Law.

Being justified by the blood of Christ and by faith are not mutually exclusive conditions and as far as causality goes, justification by faith is causally predicated upon the shedding of Christ's blood (and a number of other conditions, as well). Viewpoints that say otherwise are incorrect, either because they are incomplete or because are heretical (teaching a false dichotomy).

Now if we acknowledge that our believing was a assent to the Truth of our Justification before God being already a accomplished fact and a done deal solely by Christ's Blood As Per Rom 5:9, then believing is just a good work and evidence of our Justification before God. For it is written Heb 11:1

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

As God's workmanship, every saint was created in Christ for good works.

Ephesians 2:10
For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

It is, therefore, necessary to discriminate between the works of the flesh and works of the Spirit. The intellectual assent to God's truth (belief) and ongoing commitment to that truth (faith) are works of God. Intellectual assent of the still-sinful flesh is not salvific. Neither is any flesh of that faith. Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness..... because Abraham acted in a manner consistent with his belief/faith!!! The faith of Abraham begat faithfulness. We are saved through the former for the latter. Now faith is the the evidence of things not seen. Faithfulness is the evidence of that faith.

Justification before God is the thing not seen by the physical Eye, but it must exist before Faith is the Evidence of it !

Yes, but the justification by Christ and by faith are not mutually exclusive conditions for while the latter does not exist apart from the former, it does, nonetheless co-occur and co-occur as a necessary part of salvation from sin. We are saved through faith and justified by faith.

Ones now having evidence of it , is not what caused it to exist before God as a fact, prior to receiving evidence of it.

I do not read anyone making that argument, so I wonder if you are just covering that base to make sure it is addressed or posting a red herring or non sequitur. Who has asserted believing causes justification?

 

[Eleanor]

What, if anything, is the difference between belief and faith?

Belief is an intellectual assent to truth, whereas faith is a commitment to that truth all the time, especially when it is challenging or inconvenient to maintain that commitment. Both involve trusting the truth to be true, but faith begets faithfulness. Faith (which is not works) begets faithfulness (which are works).

Scripture explicitly states we are justified by Christ's blood and justified by faith.

Romans 5:9
Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.

Romans 3:28
For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from works [y]of the Law.

Being justified by the blood of Christ and by faith are not mutually exclusive conditions and as far as causality goes, justification by faith is causally predicated upon the shedding of Christ's blood (and a number of other conditions, as well). Viewpoints that say otherwise are incorrect, either because they are incomplete or because are heretical (teaching a false dichotomy).

As God's workmanship, every saint was created in Christ for good works.

Ephesians 2:10
For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

It is, therefore, necessary to discriminate between the works of the flesh and works of the Spirit. The intellectual assent to God's truth (belief) and ongoing commitment to that truth (faith) are works of God. Intellectual assent of the still-sinful flesh is not salvific. Neither is any flesh of that faith. Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness..... because Abraham acted in a manner consistent with his belief/faith!!! The faith of Abraham begat faithfulness. We are saved through the former for the latter. Now faith is the the evidence of things not seen. Faithfulness is the evidence of that faith.

Yes, but the justification by Christ and by faith are not mutually exclusive conditions for while the latter does not exist apart from the former, it does, nonetheless co-occur and co-occur as a necessary part of salvation from sin. We are saved through faith and justified by faith.

I do not read anyone making that argument, so I wonder if you are just covering that base to make sure it is addressed or posting a red herring or non sequitur.
Who has asserted believing causes justification?

Paul. . .in Ro 3:28.

 

[brightfame52]

@Josheb

Scripture explicitly states we are justified by Christ's blood and justified by faith.

Ive only stated that same thing a dozen times already.

 

[brightfame52]

@Josheb

Being justified by the blood of Christ and by faith are not mutually exclusive conditions and as far as causality goes, justification by faith is causally predicated upon the shedding of Christ's blood (and a number of other conditions, as well). Viewpoints that say otherwise are incorrect, either because they are incomplete or because are heretical (teaching a false dichotomy).

They are the same thing, Justification by Faith is just another way of saying Justified by Christ, Faith is coming into the actual knowledge of having been Justified already by Christ or His Blood.

 

[Eleanor]

@Josheb



They are the same thing, Justification by Faith is just another way of saying Justified by Christ, Faith is coming into the actual knowledge of having been Justified already by Christ or His Blood.

We are justified (declared not guilty, sinless) by God (the Judge) through faith in Christ and his atoning work.

 

[brightfame52]

We are justified (declared not guilty, sinless) by God (the Judge) through faith in Christ and his atoning work.

I believe thats false. I believe its the way I just posted.

 

[Eleanor]

I believe thats false. I believe its the way I just posted.

Then it falls to you to demonstrate that justification is not the declaration by God the Judge of the remission of one's sin and guilt through faith in Christ.

 

[brightfame52]

Then it falls to you to demonstrate that justification is not the declaration by God the Judge of the remission of one's sin and guilt through faith in Christ.

I dont understand what you mean, for Justification by Faith is receiving the knowledge of having been Justified by Christ.

 

[Josheb]

Contraire. . .

Make the case.

No one gets to invent new meaning of words and then claim that is what Paul meant because the 21st century's doctrinal definitions are what Paul meant with evidence to prove the claim. We have modern futurists claiming fire coming down from heaven is space-based lasers and the drone of locusts are attack helicopters . One of the most basic first rules of sound exegesis is to understand the text as the original writer and his original audience would have understood it, not how it can be understood by the reader two millennia later.

Read the text as written, with the normal meaning of the words in their ordinary usage unless the larger text provides a reason for doing otherwise and understand what is written as the author and his first century readers would have thusly understood it.

But do please make the case for the correctness of asserting doctrinal definitions that had not yet been developed. Explain to me how scripture comes from doctrine and not the other way around. Explain to me how Paul must absolutely, inescapably must be using words with one specific meaning when all the accumulated literature of the era proves dikaioo does not mean "the act of God declaring men free from guilt and acceptable to Him." Explain to me how Paul must irrefutably be using the word in a manner completely different than the common, normal and ordinary usage of the word during the time in which he lived.

The biblical use of "justification" simply means the ability to stand before God to make one's case. The verdict itself is not justification. The verdict = the crediting of righteousness and acceptableness to God, is not the plea. No sinner-turned-saint has any plea, but Christ crucified, resurrected and ascendant, and the work of God within him/her to belief and have faith in that work. Once placed before God covered in the cleansing blood of Christ, we have an intercessor and an advocate speaking on our behalf. Not only that, but the intercessor defends us by taking our place in the dock.

Romans 8:28-34
And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that he would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified. What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered him over for us all, how will He not also with him freely give us all things? Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies; who is the one who condemns? Christ Jesus is he who died, yes, rather who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who also intercedes for us.

• The plaintiff is Jesus
• The judge is Jesus
• The prosecuting attorney is Jesus
• The defense attorney is Jesus
• The most important aspect above all these other conditions is the fact the defendant is Jesus because he has taken the place of the accused in the seat of the accused.

And before any of that can happen a person must first have some basis for arraigning the hearing in the first place. The reason a basis for (re-)hearing the case is necessary is because the judgment has already been decided, the verdict already stated, and the sentence declared. The case has been closed. The only thing that can re-open it is Christ crucified and resurrected.

John 3:18-21
He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. This is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the light and does not come to the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.

The wages of sin is death (see also Rom. 6:23). That was decided long before any of us ever drew our first breath. All who do not believe in Jesus stand already condemned. No one has to wait until they die and reach the heavenly courts to learn the verdict. The verdict has already been rendered: (sinful) humans love darkness and they will not come to Jesus. A person reaps what s/he sows, and there are only two options: eternal corruption or eternal life. The already corrupted non-believer stands in an already-existing state of condemnation long before s/he appears before God. Every aspect of the case except for the declaration of the sentence has already been adjudicated.

Only the person covered in the blood of Christ can raise his/her hand and ask for a new hearing. The minute s/he does......... the judge comes down off his throne and stands in the place of the accused. The believer has a just basis for having his case re-heard. There is no other justification but Christ by which anyone has any ability to stand before God to receive a new and different verdict. Once having stood before God and once one's case has been presented then and only then is a new and different verdict entered.

Forgiven
Deemed Righteous​

Paul was a former Pharisee. Everything he wrote on justification was couched first in the Law of Moses and he explicitly repudiated the Law as a means of obtaining any righteousness or justification. Justification was (and remains) a legal term and all it means in the ability to stand before a judge and have one's case heard. Sometimes the dikaioo resulted in being declared righteous (not innocent), but sometimes it resulted in being declared guilty and/or condemned. Sin justifies destruction. Christ justifies salvation. No one is justified by the Law and it is a mistake to read Galatians 2:16 merely to imply a sentence when Paul is saying something his first century readers would have understood much differently.

Galatians 2:16
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

Knowing that a man has no basis to stand before God based on his works of the Law?
Knowing that man is not declared righteous based on his works of the Law?

Both statements are true and correct but there is no verdict where there has been no hearing. The Law stipulated a hearing! That's what the Law does. It subjugates the King and the priest to the exact same standard(s) as the common person. It states every individual, regardless of his attributes (Jew, Gentile, rich, poor, King, priest, commoner, Hebrew, Israelite, Greek, Roman, Outer Slabovian, etc.) all stand before God to account for every vain word and every vain act ever said or done...... and the verdict to that event has already been decided. Those washed in the blood of Christ, however, will be called to account for the good works for which they were created in Christ. Everything bult on that foundation will be tested and many will exit the courtroom charred, covered in soot and empty-handed but still saved because they have an ability to stand before God without being destroyed. Otherwise, John 3:18 is the default. There is no other foundation by which anyone can stand before God to have his works evaluated. Why? Because works do not justify. Works do not provide a basis for being heard. If a person is never heard, then there is no verdict, no declared righteousness. Most theology books skip over the exegetical and logically necessary predicates. The reason most of them do that is because they start with a doctrinal definition of dikaioo, not a definition that would have been used by Paul and understood by his first century readers.

Revelation 7:13-17
Then one of the elders responded, saying to me, “These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they, and where have they come from?" said to him, “My lord, you know.” And he said to me, “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. For this reason, they are before the throne of God, and they serve Him day and night in His temple; and He who sits on the throne will spread His tabernacle over them. They will no longer hunger nor thirst, nor will the sun beat down on them, nor any scorching heat; for the Lamb in the center of the throne will be their shepherd and will guide them to springs of the water of life; and God will wipe every tear from their eyes.”

No one can remain before the throne f they do not first have a basis for standing there in the first place, no pre-existing justification to do so. No case can be plead, nor any new verdict declared.

Then it falls to you to demonstrate that justification is not the declaration by God the Judge of the remission of one's sin and guilt through faith in Christ.

I am asking you to do the same as you expect of others. Make the case for,

Contraire...

Please

 

[Josheb]

To say a person is Justified before God by their believing, or because of their believing, is a flat out denial that one is Justifed by Christ;

I dont understand what you mean, for Justification by Faith is receiving the knowledge of having been Justified by Christ.

Do you see the contradiction there? The minute "justification by faith" is asserted it runs into conflict with the premise we are justified by Christ..... unless both are true and correct. Scriptures states both are true. Arguing against one or the other is, therefore, not scriptural.

For there is a difference in what Christ did, and what the person does;

No one has said otherwise and the posters with whom you're trading posts are all monergists. None of us EVER assign anything causal to our salvation to our flesh.

Now if we acknowledge that our believing was a assent to the Truth of our Justification before God being already a accomplished fact and a done deal solely by Christ's Blood As Per Rom 5:9, then believing is just a good work and evidence of our Justification before God.

Yeah, sorta. The problem is the goalpost have been moved. A conflation of terms has been asserted. Belief and faith are not synonymous. Changing the word "faith" to "belief" is a false equivalence, especially if belief is defined merely as assent. No one has said anyone is justified by belief. The topic is justified by faith, not belief. Please try to be consistent with these terms from here on out.

For it is written Heb 11:1
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

And then the posts switch back to faith as if the two, belief and faith, are synonymous and interchangeable.

They are not the same.

Notice also that it has been argued belief is an assent to truth, but faith is the evidence. You've also asserted "justification is a thing not seen by the physical eye," yet evidence can be seen. The evidence of justification's pre-existing existence is visible! Faith that does not beget faithfulness is invisible. It's invisible because no such thing exists. Similarly, you've argued for the definition of justification being the verdict without acknowledging the predicate conditions of any verdict: there is no verdict where there is no hearing of the plea! There is no verdict where the case has not been first heard! How can the predicate necessity of justification before faith be asserted while there is complete silence regarding the predicate condition of the plea before the verdict?????

Calvary provides the basis to stand before God and provide one's plea because without Christ crucified and resurrected there is no basis, no justification, for any plea. No hearing, no plea. No plea, no new verdict.

 

[Eleanor]

I dont understand what you mean, for Justification by Faith is receiving the knowledge of having been Justified by Christ.

That is not the meaning and use of "justification" in the NT, where it is a declaration of not guilty, a sentence of acquittal, a pronouncement of sin's remission.

rebirth --> faith --> salvation --> justification --> imputation of righteousness --> sanctification through obedience in the Holy Spirit (Ro 6:16, 19).

 

[Josheb]

Paul. . .in Ro 3:28.

That verse states, "For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the Law." Does the verse mean a person is able to stand before God by faith apart from works of the Law, or does the verse mean a person is declared righteous by faith apart from the Law?

Citing a verse is meaningless unless and until you have explained your position and the rational by which that position is attained. Anyone can cite individual verses. Here are a few others:

Psalm 73:22

1 Cor. 3:19

2 Kings 2:24

Matthew 5:30

Anyone can cite scripture. The question is can the cite scripture veraciously using the normal meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as understood by the first century Christian. So please do not post "Contraire..." and expect anyone to think that is an intelligent response to anything or makes any sense. Prove what I posted incorrect with a better explanatory alternative.

 

[brightfame52]

@Josheb

Do you see the contradiction there?

No because there isnt any !

 

[brightfame52]

That is not the meaning and use of "justification" in the NT, where it is a declaration of not guilty, a sentence of acquittal, a pronouncement of sin's remission.

rebirth --> faith --> salvation --> justification --> imputation of righteousness --> sanctification through obedience in the Holy Spirit (Ro 6:16, 19).

Sure its the meaning. Faith given by God is the vehicle whereby a Justified man or women comes to know spiritually their Justification before God freely given them through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus. Thats bible 101 Rom 3:24

24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

 

[Josheb]

@Josheb

Ive only stated that same thing a dozen times already.

Yes, it has been stated justification by faith exists. That is my point. You have stated that multiple times AND argued against it at the same time! So do not merely say, "I've only stated that same thing a dozen times already," because that is not ONLY what you have done. Now perhaps that was not intentional and perhaps the contradictions weren't recognized. I will gladly give you the benefit of the doubt but my doing so does not change the fact you've posted several errors, including the simultaneously existing assertion of justification by faith AND not being justified because justification is by Christ.

Fix all those conflicts, please. If you do not know what I am taking about the either re-read my posts (because I have specified, the mistakes) or re-read your own posts as critically as you can (because you may well see them for yourself). Maybe a little clarification is all that is needed but if you meant exactly what was posted then some radical corrections are warranted.

@Josheb

They are the same thing, Justification by Faith is just another way of saying Justified by Christ, Faith is coming into the actual knowledge of having been Justified already by Christ or His Blood.

That is incorrect.

Justification by the work of Christ on Calvary and justification by faith that is the work of Christ in the redeemed due to Calvary are not the same thing. This is NOT a matter of clarification. It's just wrong. Radical correction is warranted.




I suspect the foundation of the problem is a failure to correctly discriminate pre-salvation and post-salvation conditions. It is similar to when a synergist uses epistolary verses about the already saved and regenerate believer and tries to apply them to the unsaved, unregenerate non-believer. They think intellectual assent, or belief, is sufficiently salvific. They think that because they've failed to correctly discriminate between the unsaved state and the saved state. Justification has similar conditions. Everyone God saves has an already-existing justification because of Christ's work on the cross. Being salvifically changed they also have a justification consequent to the work of Calvary that is also the work of Christ within the individual. You are 100% correct to post works of the flesh merit nothing (my words, not yours) but incorrect to conflate the two justifications. You are also correct to predicate justification by faith and justification by Christ but incorrect to assume the predicate condition makes the two synonymous or identical. They are not the same. And, as I have also already posted, you are correct to cite the predicate condition of justification by faith upon the justification of Christ but neglectful to ignore the predicate condition of standing before God prior to any declaration of freedom from guilt, acceptableness to Him, or imputed righteousness. It's just wrong. It's also not logical or scriptural to acknowledge one predicate condition and ignore another. It is hugely inconsistent.

It was also wrong to hijack the op, but the thread is too far gone to bother with that now.

It's great that justification by faith is acknowledged. Now be consistent and do not conflate it with the justification by Christ's blood. The blood and the faith thereof are not synonymous and from that one mistake several others ensued.

 

[brightfame52]

@Josheb

Changing the word "faith" to "belief" is a false equivalence,

Actually its not, they are practically the same, one is a noun and the other the same word as a verb. In fact, Paul used them the same in 2 Thess 2:13

But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
The word belief here is the noun word for faith pistis :
In Rom 3:26 the word believeth is the noun for faith as well
To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus

So thats a very poor and weak argument with me going forth !

 

[Josheb]

@Josheb

Actually its not, they are practically the same,

That is another incorrect premise upon which you've built your position. I believe I can and will walk out my door today and not die, and I have faith that belief is true and correct and I act in a manner consistent with both the belief and the faith I possess.

Merely disputing my position does not disprove what I posted. Nor does it prove your own. Scripture actually states, "justified by faith," but nowhere do we find "justified by belief." Even if we were to infer the latter from some exegetical analysis of what scripture implies..... the explicit always has greater veracity over the implicit. Exegetically speaking, the explicit always defines the implicit, never the other way around.

one is a noun and the other the same word as a verb.

That is incorrect. Etymologically both words can be nouns and both words can be conjugated as verbs. That statement is foolish. It has no basis in fact. A selective use of scripture does not change the facts of reality. If you haven't already read it, give D. A. Carson's "Exegetical Fallacies" a read. He addresses these kinds of appeals.

In fact, Paul used them the same in 2 Thess 2:13

But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:
The word belief here is the noun word for faith pistis :
In Rom 3:26 the word believeth is the noun for faith as well
To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus

Well, it has already been demonstrated on multiple occasions by multiple posters that your exegesis is lacking. You often make verse says things they do not actually state. The word "truck" is a noun, but it is also a verb. If I were to say, "Keep on trucking," I might mean any number of things that are completely unrelated to anyone actually in possess of a noun truck. Your use of 2 Tes. 2:13 is dubious because many translations translate pistis as "faith," and not "belief." What you've just done is appeal to a selective use of preferred translation and not what the verse actually states. The KJV, for example, translates that pistis as "belief" but it does so unnecessarily and in error. The modern translations that have some allegiance to the KJV tradition do likewise. It is demonstrably more consistent with the whole of the New Testament to translate that pistis as "faith." Having preferred a selective appeal to translation, the net result is the undermining of your position, not the proving of it.

BSB
But we should always thank God for you, brothers who are loved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved by the sanctification of the Spirit and by faith in the truth.

BLB
But we ought to give thanks to God always concerning you, brothers beloved by the Lord, that God has chosen you from the beginning unto salvation in the sanctification of the Spirit, and by faith of the truth;

NAS
But we should always give thanks to God for you, brothers and sisters beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

NET
But we ought to thank God always for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

The same is even more so regarding Romans 3:26. Greek trumps English every time and if we were reading Greek we would read "faith," "pistis," and not belief. We would not read a different word over the majority usage any more than we would read a different meaning over the ordinary usage. These are all foundational mistakes that are easily avoided. Those appeals to 2 Thes. 2 and Rom 3 could have and should have been checked and verified before it was posted and that did not happen. Then, as a result of the unverified being posted, I follow up and investigate it where you did not, and find the statement incorrect and the argument fallacious.

There is also two other linguistic errors in Post 238. Salvation is not synonymous with justification (unless you are RCC and that would be a matter of RCC doctrine, not scripture) and "by" and "through" are not synonymous, either. We are saved through faith. We are justified by faith. Nowhere does scripture ever state anyone is saved by faith. The Rom. 3:26 text is proof of what I just posted. These terms are not identical, synonymous, or interchangeable.

Therefore, what we see in the case you're asserting is numerous conflations; numerous examples of different words with different meanings being asserted as if they are synonymous or interchangeable. This is especially true for occasions of causality which, so far, you've addressed fairly accurately. Faith does not cause salvation. Faith does not cause justification. The cause of salvation is God's grace and the cause of justification is Christ's work on Calvary first and the commensurate work of God in the life of the regenerate to believe and then have faith he or she can act upon faithfully.

So thats a very poor and weak argument with me going forth !

The facts in evidence prove otherwise. The dissent is rife with eisegesis and fallacy.

And, for the record, my points are not being addressed. They're being avoided with non sequiturs, red herrings, factual errors, and other fallacious responses. Just a little bit of investigation would have prevented Post 238. A better response to Post posts 231, 232, 237, and everything else I've posted is warranted. Delve into scripture first, scripture alone, and endeavor to be just as skeptical and critical of extra-biblical sourced arguments as you are of my posts. I have endeavored to post scripture, not doctrine. I delved into the text as written using the ordinary meaning of the words in normal usage as understood by the first century author and his first century readers. I went further into the language to understand first century usage of the terms instead of modern doctrinal definitions. I endeavored to form my doctrines from scripture, not make scripture say what my doctrines dictate. As a consequence, my posts have, so far, withstood the criticism brought upon them.

And, for the record, disproving something I posted does not prove your alternative. And, for the record, even if one or two of my points were disproven there are at least a dozen errors in the case you've presented. Refuting one or two of them still leaves the case problematic. Post 238 was easily avoidable and the fact it was posted evidences something other than rigorous exegesis and reason.

Would you like me to go through my posts and make a list of all the points I believe need either further clarification or correction? Rather than having to go backwards and address this post on page 3 and another post on page 10, it might be helpful to take a moment to review the alternative case and real or perceived problems in what you have posted. I don't mind doing that work (it'll have to wait until later today or tomorrow because I'll be leaving for work soon, but I will gladly do so to summarize my viewpoints). Just let me know.

 

[Eleanor]

That verse states, "For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from works of the Law." Does the verse mean a person is able to stand before God by faith apart from works of the Law, or does the verse mean a person is declared righteous by faith apart from the Law?

1) Justified = declaration of not guilty, sentence of acquittal, pronouncement of remission of sin
2 ) Ro 3:28 = through faith. . .nothing about nationality, gender, employment, law keeping, age, skating skills, cooking ability, etc., etc., etc.

What do you not understand?