Featured Sanctification not inclusive of Justification

Well, I commend you on at least attempting to substantiate your ideas by the text. However, what does Paul say is "counted for righteousness"? Does he say the redemptive work of Christ WITHOUT faith is "counted for righteousness" for the "ungodly"????????? OR does he say "HIS FAITH"???


Look at Abraham's imputation of righteousness in verse 3

3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

What was counted unto him for righteousness? Did Paul say the redemptive work of Christ WITHOUT FAITH was counted unto him for righteousness? OR did Paul say "Abraham BELIEVED...IT was counted unto him for righteousness.

Finally, if God justified the "ungodly" by the redemptive work of Christ WITHOUT works or faith then please tell us why does Paul make the silly continuous contrast between "works" and "faith" in direct regard to justification of the "ungodly" from Romans 3:27-4:6???????

If your position were correct shouldn't Paul be contrasting "works" versus "Christ's redemption" in Romans 3:27-4:6 rather than contrasting justification "BY" works versus "BY" faith (Rom. 3:28) in Romans 3:27-4:6???

 

You have made a start now answer the questions and objections that I have made to your post - if you can?


Here they are again:

Look at Abraham's imputation of righteousness in verse 3

3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

What was counted unto him for righteousness? Did Paul say the redemptive work of Christ WITHOUT FAITH was counted unto him for righteousness? OR did Paul say "Abraham BELIEVED...IT was counted unto him for righteousness.

Finally, if God justified the "ungodly" by the redemptive work of Christ WITHOUT works or faith then please tell us why does Paul make the silly continuous contrast between "works" and "faith" in direct regard to justification of the "ungodly" from Romans 3:27-4:6???????

If your position were correct shouldn't Paul be contrasting "works" versus "Christ's redemption" in Romans 3:27-4:6 rather than contrasting justification "BY" works versus "BY" faith (Rom. 3:28) in Romans 3:27-4:6???

 

Are you calling Paul a liar? Here is what Paul said about faith and grace:

Rom. 4:16 Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

Are you denying that "faith" is "by grace"?


In Romans 4:3-4 is not Paul contrasting works with believing rather than contrasting both works/faith with grace?

3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

He says "worketh" is not reckoned "of grace" does that mean that Abraham in verse 3 was reckoned by works since you say that "believed" is works and does not verse demand that reckoning righteousness to Abraham was due to that he "beleived"??? Therefore if "works" is not "of grace" does not that mean "believed" is "of grace" or how else could Abraham be counted righteous in verse 3?

 

You are trying to change the subject because you cannot answer the objections I have placed before you.

However, Where did I say that I was Paul? I simply quoted Paul's words in Romans 4:16. Do you believe or deny what he said? Is "faith....by grace"? If you deny it you are calling Paul a liar - it is just that simple.

Now get back to the subject and answer the evidence I have placed before you HONESTLY instead of attempting to change the subject.

 

Here is another post SBM cannot answer and has not attempted to answer with OBJECTIVE contextual based responses!

 

Here is another post that SMB cannot answer and has made no attempt to try.

 

Readers here is an open admission by SBM that he cannot answer the Scriptural based objections that I have placed before him. Just go back and read my responses and look at his response. He is perverting Romans 4:1-6 and has been exposed and cannot answer. What more proof do we need that his doctrines are false?

 

SBM cannot answer why Romans 3:27-4:6 is contrasting "works" with "faith" instead of "works/faith" with "grace"?

SMB cannot answer why Romans 3:3-4 teaches that "works" cannot be counted "of grace" but "beleived" can be counted for righteousness and even he admits this righteousness is "by grace."

SMB cannot answer why Paul uses present tenses with "believeth...imputeth....justifieth" in regard to the "ungodly" proving that these things did not occur in eternity past or with the life of Christ but are concurrent with each other at the point of transition when the "ungodly" is "righteous" before God by these actions.

SMB cannot answer why Paul demands "faith" is "by grace" in Romans 4:16 since he says faith is "of works" and not "by grace" (v. 16) or "of grace" (Rom. 4:3-4).

SMB is teaching false doctrine pure and simple.

 

In Romans 4:3 the term "beleived" is an Aorist tense completed action verb. In verses 5-6 Paul uses three present tense verbs "believeth....justifieth.....imputeth" in regard to the "ungodly."

In Romans 4:3 the transition point from "ungodly" to "righteous" occurred a the point of "believed." However, what was concurrent at that point of transition with "believed" is "justifieth...imputeth" as that is what brought Abraham "before God" from "ungodly" to "righteous." Hence, the present tense verbs are used simply to show that these are concurrent actions that occur at the same time together rather than progressive actions.

The Aorist tense in verse 3 deny justification is a progressive action.

The Aorist tense in verse 9 joined with the fact that justification is seen as an already completed action PRIOR TO circumcision while he was in "uncircumcision."

The Aorist tense in Romans 5:1 demonstrate it is a completed action in the past because the result is obtained - peace with God.

The Perfect tense in Romans 5:2 demonstrates it is a completed action that stands completed up to the present.

The fact that the saints are GLORIFIED at the resurrection BEFORE they come before the judgement throne proves justification was a completed action and that judgement of their works has nothing with to do with justifying them entrance into heaven but with rewards in heaven (1 Cor. 3:14-15).

 

There is no one on this forum that is so stupid that they cannot see that Paul is plainly CONTRASTING justification "by works" with justification "by faith" in Romans 3:27-4:6.

There is no one on this forum so stupid that they cannot see that you are doing the very exact opposite and including justification by "faith" to be justification "works" and therefore you are completely and utterly in direct contradiction to what Paul is saying in Romans 3:27-4:6.

 

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.

1 ¶ What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?
2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

No one is so stupid to fail to see that Paul is contrasting justification by faith with justification by faith in this context while you are doing the very opposite! You are including justification by faith with justification by works.

 

SBM must make Paul contrast "justification by faith" with justification by grace in Romans 3:26-4:6 or his whole doctrine of eternal justification and justification by Christ's redemption WITHOUT FAITH completely is proven to be false - it is just that simple!

Here is clear and unrefutable evidence from Romans 4:26-4:6 that SBM has PERVERTED the Biblical doctrine of justification.

PERVERTED - meaning he has some truth but mixed it with error and thus created a false doctrine.

The truth he has is:

1. Yes, we have been justified, saved, glorified, called, regenerated "according to God's Purpose" (Rom. 8:28) before the world began but what "I have purposed it" is yet something "I WILL DO it" rather than the perversion of SBM that demands "I HAVE ALREADY DONE it." - Isa. 46:11

2. Yes, Christ has finished His work of redemption and removed all legal obstacles and satisfied all legal requirements for our salvation (Rom. 8:32) but God has not yet justified us and won't until "by faith" we receive that good news of that finished work (Rom. 4:26) because God's purpose of justification is through "sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth whereunto he called you by the preaching of our gospel to the OBTAINING of THE GLORY of Jesus Christ" (2 Thes.2:13-14). Just as the blood shed at the altar must be taken and applied to the rest of the temple so the work of Christ is worthless until it is applied to the elect.

3. The Covenant work of Redemption is a COHESIVE work that cannot be concluded by One Covenant Person or their work apart from the other Covenant Persons and their works and so no single work by any single Person of The Covenant of Redemption can stand alone in and of itself or in and of itself obtain salvation for anyone. By Divine Purpose they are INTEGRATED with each other for "OBTAINING" salvation.

 

Back on track that justification is a completed work at the point of faith in the gospel and is distinct from progressive sanctification just as distinct as the work of Christ in His own person is distinct of the work of the Spirit of Christ in our own person. We are justified by the former and sanctified by the latter. To confuse the two is to teach and preach "another gospel" as it is the work of Christ in His own Person that is the "good news" of the gospel and thus the object of justifying faith.

The Good news is NOT what we do for Christ but what Christ did for us and that is the sole object of faith.

Justifying faith is RECEIVING that news and RESTING upon the promise founded upon that news.

Sanctifying faith is what we do in our own body through the power of the indwelling Spirit of Christ out of love for having been justified and thus knowing Christ as our Savior.

 

James 2:14-26 is not found in the context of the "ungodly" (Rom. 4:5) or the transition point from whence the "ungodly" believes and is justified by faith before God, but rather in the context of one who is existing in the continuing state of new birth (James 1:18) which Paul claims is inseparable from "good works" (Eph. 2:10).

Good works do not have their source in justification by faith as justification by faith embraces the works of Christ performed for us in the person of Jesus Christ. However, it is equally true there is no such thing as a justified man who is not a regenerated man. Hence, the man who says they are justified by faith in the works found in the Person of Christ for them is also a man who has been regenerated by the Spirit of God and has the Spirit of Christ working in him both to will and to do of His good pleasure = good works (Philip. 2:13).

James is looking at the profession of justification and the work of justification not separate from the work and evidence of regeneration as Paul is in Romans 3:24-5:1 but the inseparable relationship to the professed believer as Paul is looking at it in Romans 6-8.

In pragmatic reality there is no such thing as a justified man who is not producing works of righteousness to some degree simply because there is no such thing as a justified man who is not a regenerated and sanctified man and yet justification is not regeneration or sanctification.

Paul is looking at the DOCTRINAL reality of justification and its relationship to regeneration and sanctification while James is looking at the PRAGMATIC reality and they are not the same. Pragmatically where there is no good works there is no spiritual life but doctrinally justification is by faith without works and distinct from regeneration and its fruit of imparted manifest righteousness.

James is speaking of the PRAGMATIC reality because His words demand it:

26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.
27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.

14 ¶ What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?.


All these statements are terms of PRAGMATIC demonstration rather than THEOLOGICAL doctrine. James is dealing with what can be SHOWN and DEMONSTRATED pragmatically in the life of the professor rather than what is THEOLOGICALLY true and doctrinally correct. James is not denying the THEOLGICAL distinctions drawn by Paul in Romans 3-5 but is demanding the PRAGMATIC distinctions made by Paul in Romans 6-8 where justification and regeneration are inseparable in the PRAGMATIC life of the justified evidenced by "good works."

Therefore, everything James says about justification must be interpreted from a PRAGMATIC rather than a DOCTRINAL point of view. Pragmatically where there is no works there is no justification by faith. Where there is no works the faith professed is dead. Pragmatically, faith without works is dead just as the body without the spirit is dead. Pragmatically, such faith is no different than the faith of demons. Pragmatically man is not justified by faith alone but by works.

 

Let's get this straight! You are admitting that Paul is contrasting justification by works with justification by faith but yet demanding that there is no contrast between justification by works and justification by faith because faith is of works??? You talk about pure DOUBLE TALK!