I would rather that when you quote scripture to support your view, that you don't isolate their meaning from the context they are a part of. And that you don't use scriptures to support one thing, when the scripture itself is speaking of and addressing something entirely different.
But, Brightfame, I showed you that Eph 1:4 is not saying the elect have eternal union in Christ. See, we already dealt with this in posts #325 and 328. You just say the same thing and start the same conversation over again. You have been doing the exact same thing for 338 posts!!! You go away for awhile, sometimes a long time, then come back and restart the same thread with the same conversations over again. And in case you were unaware, there is a rule against reviving an old thread if nothing new is being added to it. Now, you know.
I know what righteousness is in Christ and when one is justified they are declaring righteous
In 1 Corinthians 15:22 it says all die in Adam so we're all men in Adam before they died in Adam? Did God consider all men in Union with Adam?
Don't expect me to give you a chapter review just because I show you a verse quote forget about that
I disagree with your understanding of Ephesians 1:4
Yes. It was what he decreed. It is called in theology, federal headship. Adam became a sinner. All men come from him by natural birth. All are sinners.
Justified Through faith. They are declared righteousness and that is the grounds for their justification.
Exactly, Christ was a Federal Head of the Elect b4 the foundation, and when He was incarnated. Christ was a Federal Head b4 Adam, for in all things Christ has the preeminence Col 1:16-18
True. . .(imputed) righteusness by God in Ro 1:17, 3:21, 4:5, Php 3:9 is clear enough.
He wasn't the federal head of the elect until he came as the federal head of the elect and did the work to redeem them and returned to the Father.
See above. Adam was their head when they were born. They had to be called and brought to Christ, given to him by the Father. The eternal Son of God had to come to us as one of us, and substitute himself for us on the cross. He had to bear the penalty for our sins so that we could be justified, before anyone could be justified before God. This calling and bringing are the very idea in the biblical doctrine of election and predestination.
I already know that and in and of itself, is just an opinion that is irrelevant as far as a conversation goes. Pick my understanding as I gave it a part, piece by piece, and show me what is wrong with it.
It is good then, that I did not ask for a chapter review. How about then we do this. When you give an out of context scripture as supporting your claim of justification before one has come to Christ; and I respond with a contextual analysis of that scripture that shows it is not stating what you claim it is; you respond to the contextual analysis provided.
You contradict me by quoting a scripture that you have misinterpreted. I believe it is a misinterpretation and gave you expositionally support for my reasons that I consider yours a misinterpretation in post #352, going even farther than the one scripture to verify what I said with Romans 8:28-30. You have made no comment of anything in that post and even failed to quote any of it. You simply, as I have stated previously, contradict me with nothing but your opinion of the meaning of a scripture. As though, that is all anyone needs. If you say it, it must be so. Which, of course, is not a conversation.
Im going to do exactly what you and others do, give scripture from various context, if you want a book study, get with your pastor or something.
It is sad that you obviously have no idea what I said or why I said it. That is why you don't do it and don't recognize the difference when others do it. Or its value.
Even in YOUR arrangement, they are not the same. If Justification declares one righteous, then Justification and Righteousness are not the same thing.
