Ye must be born again !

Then use your brain and apply the same thing to the term "called" and "glorified" because they are both inseparably connected with "justified"!!!

You won't and you don't because it would make your doctrine of "no condemnation" look like it is - foolish!

 

[no need to take action of moderator when you are not one--personal attack deleted]
God be with you.

 

It is impossible to define them as sinners except they are under the law! Have you ever read Romans 3:9 and 3:19-20 and noted the universal language?

Rom. 3:9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin;

Rom. 3:19 ¶ Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

 

personal attack deleted

 

Your posts, if not related to the OP will be deleted. If they are related to another poster they will be treated as a personal attack. Please read the rules posted at the bottom of each page. If you are not willing to abide them, then leave your resignation at the door as you exit the board, and find another place to make your complaints about others. It is not needed here.

 

you ignored the Scripture I placed before you. It used universal language demonstrating that even the elect were "under sin" and "under the law" and it is the law that defines sin and CONDEMNS anyone as a sinner and ONLY THE LAW.

 

I beg you DHK to be a just moderator and not allow Dr, Walter to use his Ad hominem tactics anymore.

Calling someone blind, deaf and dumb on almost every one of his posts are against the rules! Please be fair and I will no longer do your job for you.

Let this public forum be a Christain example not a dug slinging pit of mud that people run from like the plague once they see this sort of Un Charitable talk going on.

 

Rom. 3:19 ¶ Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

There is no guilt under law without condemnation first under law and "all the world" are become "guilty."

 

Notice what you are doing! You are pitting scripture against scripture as though Romans 3:9,19 are false. This is what you must do when you misinterpret one truth and pit it against another truth.

Romans 3:9 and 19 use UNIVERSAL terms - "Gentiles" and "Jews" (v. 9) and "every mouth" and "all the world." However, you simply pit scripture against scripture.

 

Neither can you be saved and lost at the same time OR regenerate or unregenerate at the same time OR unglorified and glorified at the same time. Neither can you be a sinner and not under the law because there is no sin where there is no law.

Rom. 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

 

Where there is no law there is no sin and there can be no determination by the law that one has sinned except they are "UNDER" the law and Romans 3:19 makes it clear that "every mouth" not just the mouth of the non-elect and the "whole world" not just part of the world of mankind are under the law.

 

You actually believe that the proper way to deal with scriptures that flatly contradict your interpretation is to pit other scriptures against them? That is the method of every cult. When a person holds to a position that forces him to pit scripture against scripture that is absolute proof his interpretation of the scriptures he is using to pit against other scriptures is wrong.

Your interpretation of Revelation 13:8 and Galations 3:13 is wrong and it is obvious because you pit these scriptures against Romans 3:9,19. The proper interpretation harmonizes them not contradicts them. Neither of these scriptures contradict Romans 3:9,19. The elect were "even as others" before they were redeemed in time and space and they were redeemed in time and space because of God's purpose of redemption before the world began not because they had any actual existence before the world began - that simple!

 

Again, you are of the opinion that the way to deal with scriptures that flatly oppose your prooftexting methods is simply to pit scripture against scripture and ignore the Biblical data that flatly contradicts your interpretation!

There is no argument about the meaning of "redemption" but the argument is the relationship between eternal purpose, actual provision and actual application and actual existence of the elect.

You pit one of these aspects against the other aspects. You make the post-creation aspects exist pre-creation when in fact they do not exist at all except as divine THOUGHT. This is proven by the relationship of "justified" in the eternal purpose inseparably connected with "called" and "glorified" IN THE SAME ETERNAL PURPOSE IN CHRIST. You want to place the concept of "justified" before creation as actual and applied to actual and existent elect but then you admit that "called" and "glorified" cannot be applied before creation as actual and applied to actual and existent elect because that would mean they were NEVER unregenerated, NEVER unglorified or NEVER SINNERS just as you demand they were NEVER condemned but "justified."

I don't if it is your ability to use rational common sense or if you are simply blind to the problem. However, one thing everyone on this forum can agree with is that the solution cannot be pitting scripture against scripture and ignoring contrary scriptural and rational evidence as you consistenly do. Think about it!

 

This text does NOT say that he was justified BEFORE he repented but his act of repentance PRECEDED Christ's declaration of his justification just as it does in Romans 3-5:1 repeatedly where we are "justified by faith" not "justified BEFORE faith."

Secondly, there can be no "guilt" and no designation as "sinner" apart from bein "UNDER the law" and "UNDER sin" (Rom. 3:9,19). You have simply pitted more scripture against scripture. You have simply read into a text what is neither explicitly said or implicitly meant.