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!

Why the crucifixion?

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by Helen, Oct 28, 2005.

  1. Monergist

    Monergist New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    0
    So are you saying that Righteousness is needed IN ADDITION TO justification before a sinner can have right standing with God?
     
  2. Monergist

    Monergist New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    0
    It seems starnge that you chide me for taking a whole VERSE out of context, but you demonstrate that you are more than willing to take a phrase, --or even just a word (ex. world, all) out of context to fit your scheme.
     
  3. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    What you say here makes sense and it is the first argument I have seen which deals with the issue straight on. The quote you refer to is found in Romans 14:23, and is the conclusion of Paul's explanation regarding not doing something in front of a brother weaker in the faith which might cause him to go against his conscience. Paul's conclusion, though, has a far wider sweep than simply whether or not one eats meat! I appreciate the reminder of that passage.

    "...and everything that does not come from faith is sin." Although Paul is referring to actions here -- using eating meat as an example -- he is referring to sin in an entirely different way than he does in Romans 7 and other places where he states that law defines sin. Perhaps the answer to that seeming discrepancy lies in Romans 2: 12-16? This is the passage in which Paul refers to Gentiles who do not have the law nevertheless show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts and therefore obeying their consciences is the same as obeying the law.

    Put this with Romans 1 where no man has an excuse due to the witness of creation itself and you are right -- unbelief becomes a sin because it even goes against the conscience of the Gentile which will accuse him in accord with the truth he has been presented with.

    Thank you for helping me answer my question/challenge regarding unbelief, whether it is a sin or merely a choice. It is clearly both.

    This, then, would be the sin that is atoned for, but never forgiven. For all sin is atoned for, but one is not forgiven.

    edit: just noticed in answering Monergist the quote from Paul in Romans 5:15 -- "And where there is no law there is no transgression". When you think about it, though, the law that is being broken by unbelief is the very first commandment, isn't it? "You shall have no other gods [authorities] before me". Those who suppress the truth (Romans 1) choose to worship the created rather than the creator and this puts other gods before our Lord God.

    So there is a law that unbelief breaks. I wonder why the others did not point this out?
     
  4. Helen

    Helen <img src =/Helen2.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2001
    Messages:
    11,703
    Likes Received:
    2
    Monergist, yes. Justification is a legal position Christ supplied to all to be taken or refused. Righteousness, however, is a gift to those who respond in faith. It is listed as a gift in Romans 5. Abraham believed, and it was credited to him as righteousness. Romans 4:13 refers to the righteousness that comes by faith. This, clearly, is not given to everyone -- only to those who have faith, for all righteousness is in Christ Jesus.

    If you are talking about 'right standing with God' in terms of a legal condition, then righteousness is not necessary. If you are talking about a 'right standing with God' in terms of a relationship with Him, then righteousness, which comes by faith, is absolutely necessary in addition to justification.

    As far as chiding you regarding a verse, I was not chiding at all. I ended up agreeing with you when the verse was put in context, remember? I just wanted to point out that any verse depends on context. As far as the use of words meaning what they mean, however, I have also used context to show that and then simply referred to the words later.
     
  5. whatever

    whatever New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,088
    Likes Received:
    1
    Good point. Also, God commands all men everywhere to repent, and refusal to do so must be sin.
     
  6. Monergist

    Monergist New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes Received:
    0
    I've waited a few days to respond to this argument, as I've taked some time to sort through it. I'm not clear on some points; from what I can tell the argument is rather muddled.

    One point that I am unclear on is this statement-- "If you are talking about 'right standing with God' in terms of a legal condition, then righteousness is not necessary. Perhaps you or someone can expand on this; perhaps I am being obtuse. Thayer's defines "righteousness" as:

    Strong's simple definition is:
    In the broad sense as well as the narrow, I fail to see how it could be as you state. "...in terms of a legal condition, then righteousness is not necessary."

    Also, I have trouble with the statement: "Justification is a legal position Christ supplied to all to be taken or refused. Righteousness, however, is a gift to those who respond in faith." Later you state "...righteousness, which comes by faith, is absolutely necessary in addition to justification. I see no biblical warrant for these claims.

    Easton's defines justification as:
    Nowhere does scripture state that "
    Justification is a legal position Christ supplied to all... .

    I hope that you can shed some light on what I see as contradictions to the clear teaching of scripture. For right now, it seems that this argument is a distortion of the true gospel and is a subtle attack on the Biblical doctrine of the Imputed Righteousness of Christ.
     
  7. BobRyan

    BobRyan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    32,913
    Likes Received:
    71
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    In Romans 3 we find that it is essential to the Gospel and the character of God that He not only "Forgive us our sins" but that He ALSO "Cleanse us from all unrighteousness - so that "He might be both JUST and the JUSTIFIER of him who diligently seeks after God" Rom 3. With the result that we "establish the Law" Rom 3:31 in our walk of faith where we "Walk even as He walked" 1John 2:6 in that by the "Spirit we put to death the deeds of the flesh" Rom 8.</font>[/QUOTE]
    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  8. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    One of Hell's torments will be to know then that they could have been saved, but neglected or rejected God's only plan through His Son, Jesus.

    All of the sins of the world were place on Christ as the Apostle John says in I John 2:2. To neglect so great and perfect plan of salvation, will become Hell in the tortured minds of all lost sinners not for 10,000 years but forever, a term that we really cannot explain to other people.
     
Loading...