1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Sanctification not inclusive of Justification

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by The Biblicist, May 19, 2012.

Top Posters
Page 3 of 7
  1. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Let the readers cleary see that the subject in Romans 3:26-5:1 is "justification by faith" (Rom. 3:28)


    28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.



    in contrast to "justification by works" (Rom. 4:2).


    2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.


    There is no contrast being made by Paul between "justification by grace" and "justification by faith" as they are inclusive of each other. Hence, SMB is reading into this text what Paul neither states or means.

    Furthermore the Aorist tense completed action of "believed" in Romans 4:3 is then explained to be "of grace" in Romans 4:4-6 instead of "of works" and Paul places all three action words "believeth...justifieth....imputeth" in the present tense to show concurrent action in regard to the TRANSITION point when the "ungodly" becomes righteous before God. These present tense verbs deny Paul is speaking about justification APART FROM faith whether in eternity past or in the life and death of Christ. Again proving that SBM's doctrine of justification is false.
     
    #41 The Biblicist, May 21, 2012
  2. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    I know SBM and you have the thread going on for some time now. However, with your original thread I see some problems with your indication of the catholic position with regard to Justification and Sanctification. I would like to clear it up on this thread but I don't know how far your discussion has progressed. However, I would like to further clarify the Catholic position. Would that be Ok or do I need to start another thread? Which would you prefer?
     
    #42 Thinkingstuff, May 21, 2012
  3. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Actually, SBM has derailed the thread from its original intent which was to discuss the relationship between justification and sanctification in the book of Romans.
     
    #43 The Biblicist, May 21, 2012
  4. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    May I then put for the Catholic position regarding Justification and sanctification and apply as I see it to the book of Romans then?
     
    #44 Thinkingstuff, May 21, 2012
  5. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Just for clarification purposes the following statement I made in the first post:

    Rome and those who follow her basic soteriology attempt to define justification so that it is inclusive of sanctification.

    was used only to introduce Rome's soterology which from the Biblical perspective treats progressive sanctification in the same way as justification in regard to entrance into heaven and final judgement. From that point forward the emphasis shifted to "those" who follower her "basic soteriology" or this merging of justification with sanctification.

    I fully well know from a technical point of view that Rome claims an initial point of justification in baptism but also claims that justification "entails the sanctification of his whole being" (CCC #1995). Thus for all practical purposes makes justification a progressive work of conformation to the righteousness of Christ. Thus changing Biblical justification from an IMPUTED positional work to an IMPARTED work personal work.
     
    #45 The Biblicist, May 21, 2012
  6. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Be my guest!
     
    #46 The Biblicist, May 21, 2012
  7. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Ok we can start there. You seem to get the basic thrust or view of the Catholic Position. I'll try to provide support as I see it for the Catholic view using scripture and then make application to the book of Romans. Fair? However, with other people in mind I might explain a few things that you may already be aware of.
     
    #47 Thinkingstuff, May 21, 2012
  8. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Take it away!
     
    #48 The Biblicist, May 21, 2012
  9. savedbymercy

    savedbymercy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    6,058
    Likes Received:
    166
    the bib

    Wait a minute now, are you the reincarnation of Paul ? I did not know Paul was posting in this thread !

    I have yet to see Paul teach the heresy you teach, Justification by works, a man's act of faith, and regeneration through faith ! The New Birth is through the Resurrection of Christ 1 Pet 1:3

    3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

    begotten us again means:

    to produce again, be born again, born anew

    2) metaph. to have one's mind changed so that he lives a new life and one conformed to the will of God
     
    #49 savedbymercy, May 21, 2012
  10. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Look! You don't even have sufficient common sense to logically follow your own posts! Go back and read your own post that I responded to! You are the one (not Paul) that admitted that Paul's made a contrast between works and faith! That was YOUR COMMENT - that was YOUR ADMISSION.


    I agree with that, in fact I have already stated that Paul was making a contrast - SBM - Post #39

    I simply pointed out that YOUR ADMISSION was not coherent or logical with itself much less with Paul's Words.
     
    #50 The Biblicist, May 21, 2012
  11. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    I have started a new thread. SBM makes it his hobby of derailing threads to suit his own interests.
     
    #51 The Biblicist, May 21, 2012
  12. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Here is my post again! Do you find me saying I am Paul? I quoted Paul's words to show that your admission followed by contradicting your own admission does not maken any sense nor does it agree with Paul's words.
     
    #52 The Biblicist, May 21, 2012
  13. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by savedbymercy
    I agree with that, in fact I have already stated that Paul was making a contrast, but Paul never said that believing is not a work. !

    In the first part of your sentence you admit Paul is contrasting faith to works but in the second part of your sentence you are denying they are contrasted but inclusive of each other - make up your mind!

    Either way, what you say and what Paul said contradicts.
     
    #53 The Biblicist, May 21, 2012
  14. Thinkingstuff

    Thinkingstuff Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,248
    Likes Received:
    9
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    Most of what I confer here is gleened from a paper provided by David J. Palm to the Midwest Baptist Conference Theological Workshop on Feb. 29th 1996. Having read this paper I think it most clearly express my thinking as well as the Catholic Point view regarding the topic of Sanctification and Justification. Interesting to note in providing the basis of seperation (and in certain area's there is agreement), Palm used John Murray's book "Redepmtion Accomplished and Applied". This being the case I will also quote from this book though I haven't read it entirely. G.E. Ladd from his book "A Theology of the New Testatment" states that
    As David Palm indicates this particular view of Justification is forensic or "a once for all decree" soley resulting in a change of relationship. This occures at the point of reception of a "saving faith". In this view, there is no fundamental change in a person's nature which can be seened as the oft quoted analogy of Martin Luther's "snow covered dung hill". Thus there is no process. Thus it is imputed as you've mentioned several times. The problem with this view fundamentally as I see it is that ultimately, since by this Justification we are declaired righteous and we are garmented or clothed with "Christ's righteousness", we objectively remain sinners. So as Alister McGrath says in his "Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, the beginings to the Reformation", 2 vol 1:182 via David Palm's Paper "Catholic Teachiing of Justificaiton and Sanctification p. 7
    David Palm further indicates that
    With this in mind it is important to note that
    And here is the crux. Catholics believe that God's declarative word as effective and sees that is how scripture express it as well.
    Cardinal Newman expresses this view simply by stating
    Romans 4:17 further shows this characteristic
    Thus Cardinal Newman says
    which seems to me to confer with 1 Pet 1:23
    So David Palm can say
    As we can see in Paul's thought process in Romans 5:19
    If declaration soley is what is meant then we have the added problem of this passage
    Where Palm notes
    Now you may take the route saying that a man is righteous "who has fulfilled the demands laid upon him by the relationshiop in which he stands"; Yet this doesn't reflect the person's ethical character but a "faithfulness to a relationship". However, it is clear in scripture that men are capabable of doing things that are righteous:
    Matt 6:1
    Matt 24:31-40
    Luke 1:6
    Matt 5:20
    Acts 10:35
    and 1 John 2:29
    as well as 1 John 3:12
    Especially not what John says in 1 john 3:7
    where john says we can be righteous by acting righteous.

    So with this in mind I view several things in Romans for (in my perspective a more full context). Note in Romans 1 the context and the foundation is laid with the introduction that is often over looked.
    Calling the Gentiles to specifically Obedience which comes from Faith, which Paul also book ends his entire epistle as we see in the last chapter as well
    The call is to obedience upon reciept of faith Which is the greater context of the letter because it begins and ends with it. Look at Roman 5:19
    So in summery it can be succinctly said of the Catholic view that
    I've run out of time. I'll have to get back latter but here is a starting point. I want to deal more with Romans at a later time.
     
    #54 Thinkingstuff, May 21, 2012
  15. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    52,624
    Likes Received:
    2,742
    Faith:
    Baptist
    What MUST I do to get saved? i am NOT saved right here and now!

    Beieve/receive by faith jesus as messiah, and than you SHALL be saved!

    Future act based upon future act of faith!
     
    #55 Yeshua1, May 21, 2012
  16. savedbymercy

    savedbymercy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    6,058
    Likes Received:
    166
    the bib

    Yes, He is contrasting being Justified by works, [something man does] and being Justifed by Faith, something that is revealed to man.

    However Paul does not teach that one is Justifed by works, what something a man does !

    No they are. There is a big difference in being Justified by what one does, and believing what was revelaed, that God Justifed you because of what Christ did in your behalf. Faith reveals to one that their Justification before God was accomplised in their behalf at the Cross !

    You on the other hand teach that one gets Justifed before God because of their act of believing, whereas before their act of believing took place, they were not Justified before God.

    Is that what you believe ? Answer honestly, unless I have misunderstood your posts, that one is not Justified before God before they believe ?
     
    #56 savedbymercy, May 21, 2012
  17. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    Where does one begin with such a mess?

    A "revelation" is not something a man does, controls, empowers, or effects and thus cannot in any way be regarded as a "work" of man. Man is merely the recipient of a 'revelation."

    Second, you have changed your previous definition of "faith" from something a man DOES to that which "is revealed to man." Your change only condemns your view as your new definition of "justified" by faith to mean "revealed" by faith makes man the passive object of something only God can do in man.



    YOU are the only that has argued that justification by faith would be justificaiton by works instead of by grace - NOT I!



    Paul's argument is not between "justified by works" versus "revealed by faith"!!!!!! That is something YOU INVENTED but not Paul as Paul demands we are "JUSTIFIED by faith" not "REVEALED by faith."

    YOU ARE CHANGING PAUL'S LANGUAGE TO FIT YOUR HERESY!

    No sir! Paul is the one who demands that we are "JUSTIFIED BY faith" before God and not I:

    Rom. 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.


    You are asking if I believe Romans 3:28 for what it says? You are asking me if I believe "a man is JUSTIFIED BY FAITH"? Of course I believe what he says but YOU DO NOT! You change the words "justified by faith" to "revealed by faith" and anyone knows that the term "justified" does not mean "revealed" no matter how hard you try to make it mean that.

    You simply do not believe the Word of God and so you CHANGE IT to fit what you want to believe.
     
    #57 The Biblicist, May 21, 2012
  18. savedbymercy

    savedbymercy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    6,058
    Likes Received:
    166
    the bib


    Misrepresentation already, show us any where in the post that I stated that revelation is something man does ! A revelation is something man believes. Now show whre I made that statement, or admit you are being deceitful again !
     
    #58 savedbymercy, May 21, 2012
  19. savedbymercy

    savedbymercy New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2011
    Messages:
    6,058
    Likes Received:
    166
    the bib

    It is Both, the Gospel [Faith] is revealed to Faith ! Rom 1:16-17

    16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

    17 For therein[The Gospel] is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

    The Gospel is called the Faith. Paul said He preached the Faith Rom 10:8

    But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;

    Gal 1:23

    But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.

    Now, that Faith [ The Gospel ] is Preached to the Elect and it then Reveals to them the Gospel of their salvation in Christ, and they believe it with God given Faith !
     
    #59 savedbymercy, May 21, 2012
  20. The Biblicist

    The Biblicist Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2011
    Messages:
    16,008
    Likes Received:
    481
    How can anyone deal with someone that cannot even reason logically??????????:BangHead::BangHead:

    You defined "works" as something one does. You defined faith as something one does. Hence, you defined both works and faith as something one does. Then you substituted the term "revealed" for the term "faith" which you have previously defined as something one does equals works.

    However, the term "revealed" has nothing to do with what a man does. The gospel reveals but the gospel is not faith! Go figure!
     
    #60 The Biblicist, May 21, 2012
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 3 of 7
Loading...