Featured Justified before saved !

>Think Bible says to us that a sinner is freely justified by being BOTH regenerated and saved, regeneration work of God, and we than place faith in christ and are saved!

OK. Is this a process or an event?

 

Complete absolute ignorance! The mind of man has nothing to do with what is in the mind of God but until what is in the mind of God is executed by the will and power of God it is not fulfilled or existent in TIME and space.

Go learn what Isaiah 46:11b means as you have no clue!

Nor was it FULFILLED in God's mind! Go learn what Isaiah 46:11b means!

Purpose is one thing but accomplishment is quite another thing. Purpose cannot replace accomplishment because if that were true then accomplishment is unnecessary. The fact that Christ came and died demands that merely PURPOSE IN THE MIND OF GOD was not sufficient.

You are speaking as one who is ignorant and the sad thing is you are completley incapable of being taught truth.

 

It is not the MIND of God that redeems/saves/justifies/regenerates or glorifies but the Mind of God sovereignly imposed upon time and space in ACTION that does.

The MENTAL state of God prior to creation obtains NOTHING no more than a PLAN means NOTHING without implementation. The eternal covenant does not satisfy redemption before God! The covenant satisfies nothing but God's purpose to redeem. It is his soverign implementation of that covenant that actually satisifes redemption in his sight.

The truth is that God's eternal purpose provides the secure basis for the promise of redemption only because He sovereignly determines to execute it in time and space. To separate God's Purpose from His sovereing execution is the playground of fools but that is precisely your position. Go learn Isaian 46:11!

 

Stop jerking a text out of context - finish the thought given by Paul:

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

The subject introduced is justfication BY FAITH not justification by the cross APART from faith. That idea is your heresy!

 

This is the best response you are capable of! ZERO response to the very context placed in front of your face.

You can't understand that Romans 3:24 INTRODUCES the subject which is EXPLAINED by Romans 3:25-5:2 and that subject is clearly and repeatedly stated to be justification "BY FAITH."

Not ONCE in this context do we read justification by "eternal purpose" or by the cross or by his blood APART FROM faith - NOT ONCE!

 

Ignorance is your response??? Again, Romans 3:24 is the INTRODUCTION while Romans 3:25-5:2 is the EXPLANATION and anyone capable of reading can see the EXPLANATION is clearly and repeatedly about justification BY FAITH. NOT ONE WORD about eternal justification by eternal purpose in this explanation! NOT ONE WORD about justification by grace, blood, cross APART FROM faith in this explanation - NOT ONE WORD!

 

Both of the above texts are simply jerked out of their context and interpreted by you to be something different and separate from what the context defines them. So it is with all false doctrines - prooftexts jerked out of contexts.

We have already placed these texts back into their proper context and shewed they have NOTHING to do with your perverted doctrines. There is no such Biblical doctrine as eternal justification by eternal purpose separated from applied justification by faith. There is no such Biblical doctrine as justfiication by the blood/cross of Christ apart from justification by faith.

Purpose without application is stupidity on steroids as it is irrational.

Provision without application is oxymoronic and that is precisely the sum of your false interpretations of these and many other scriptures teaches.

 

You simply ASSERT this but fail to deal with the evidence that it is you that has misinterpreted these texts. Again, Romans 3:24 INTRODUCES the subject while Romans 3:25-5:2 EXPLAINS that introduction and it is ALL about justification BY FAITH. You cannot overturn this fact and that is why you are forced merely to make empty and ignorant assertions.

I challenge you to find the term "justification" or "justified" in Romans 3:24-5:11 that is not contextually identified with and defined by "faith"! You cannot do it EXCEPT by cherry picking a text and JERKING it out of its context.

Just like Romans 4:8 is contextually restricted to the time and place when Abraham was "IN UNCIRCUMCISION" as the immediate context demands (Rom. 4:9-10) and thus refers to justification BY FAITH rather than at the cross or in eternity as you clumsily and inaccurately jerk Romans 4:8 out of its context in order to force it into your false mold.

 

Si when ewere you justified before God, and when you received jesus by personal faith in Him and his work on the Cross?

 

Again, you jerk this text out of its context when verses 25-5:2 restrict this statement within the context and application with faith. Just continuing reading:

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.


This is so obvious that one must be blind in one eye and cannot see out of the other eye OR so completely immersed in false doctrine they refuse to acknowledge what the context demands.

You are the latter.

 

This is a debate forum and yet you refuse to deal with the evidence I placed in front of your eyes. You are wrong and you know it and so all you can do is ignore the contextual evidence and merely repeat words that are empty and vain.