Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

10 things I'm right about, whether you agree or not.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Mystery View Post
    Unbelievers believe it. Believers reject it.
    Why? What role do you see Christ as performing as our Advocate and our High Priest now? What exactly is Christ doing in these two roles?
    Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



    Do you confess?
    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?


    Comment


    • Forensic Justification

      Mystery, agree? Disagree? Why?

      If there was a great material principle of the Reformation it was the doctrine of justification. The Reformers sought to correct the confounding of justification with sanctification dominant in the church at the time, stressing its legal character, and representing justification as an act of the free grace of God, wherein God pardons our sins and accepts us as righteous in His sight, but does not change us inwardly. What emerged from the Reformation was that justification is a judicial act of God, in which God declares, on the basis of the righteousness of Jesus Christ, that all the claims of the law are satisfied with respect to the sinner.

      Justification and sanctification are distinguished by the following:
      1. Justification removes the guilt of sin, restoring the sinner to all the filial rights involved in his state as a child of God, including an eternal inheritance. Sanctification removes the pollution of sin and renews the sinner ever increasingly in conformity with the image of God.
      2. Justification takes place outside of the sinner in the tribunal of God, and does not change his inner life, though the sentence is brought home to him subjectively. Sanctification takes place in the inner life of man and gradually affects his whole being.
      3. Justification takes place once for all. Justification is not repeated, nor is it a process; it is complete at once and for all time. Man is either fully justified, or he is not justified at all. Whereas sanctification is a continuous process, which is never completed in this life.
      4. While the meritorious cause of justification and sanctification lies in the merits of Christ, there is a difference in the efficient cause. God the Father declares the sinner righteous, and God the Holy Spirit sanctifies him.

      We can easily find these the forensic or legal nature of justification within the Scriptures.

      In the Hebrew, "to justify" is hitsdik, which in the majority of cases means to declare judicially that one's state is in harmony with the demands of the law, (see Exodus 23:7; Deuteronomy 25:1; Proverbs 17:15; Isaiah 5:23). Occasionally piel tsiddek has the same meaning, see Jeremiah 3:11; Ezekiel 16:50-51. From this, the meaning of these words is strictly forensic or legal.

      Others, especially liberal theologians, will attempt to ascribe the term to morality, “to make righteous”, “to make just”. Yet, for example, we can see from a passage like Proverbs 17:15 that to assign a moral view would yield an impossible sense, if the word meant "to make just."

      In the New Testament we find the verb dikaio-o, which generally means to declare a person to be just. Sometimes dikaio-o refers to a personal declaration that one's moral character is in conformity with the law, see Matthew 12:37; Luke 7:29; Romans 3:4. In the Pauline Epistles the soteriological meaning of dikaio-o is explicitly in the foreground—to declare forensically that the demands of the law as a condition of life are fully satisfied with regard to a person—see Acts 13:39; Romans 5:1; Romans 5:9; Romans 8:30-33; I Corinthians 6:11; Galatians 2:16; Galatians 3:11. For dikaio-o, just as in that of hitsdik, the forensic meaning of the term is clear from the following:
      (a) the word can bear no other sense of meaning in many instances: Romans 3:20; Romans 2:28; Romans 4:5-7; Romans 5:1; Galatians 2:16; Galatians 3:11; Galatians 5:4
      (b) the word is placed antithetically with respect to ‘condemnation’ in Romans 8:33-34
      (c) there exist interchangeable and equivalent expressions that convey a judicial or legal idea, John 3:18; John 5:24; Romans 4:6-7; II Corinthians 5:19

      If the word does not hold this meaning, there is no real distinction between justification and sanctification.


      The word dikaios connected with the verb dikaio-o above, is peculiar for it never expresses what a thing is in itself, but always what it is in relation to something else, to some standard outside of it, to which it ought to correspond. In this respect dikaios differs from agathos. For example, in classical Greek, dikaios is applied to a horse, a wagon, or some other thing to indicate that it is fit for its intended use. Agathos expresses the notion that a thing in itself answers to the ideal. In the Scriptures a man is called dikaios when, in the judgment of God, man’s relation to the law is what it ought to be, or when man’s life is such as is required by his judicial relation to God. This may include the idea that he is good, but only from a certain point of view, namely, that of his judicial relation to God.

      We also find in the New Testament the noun dikaiosis, ‘justification’. There are only two places in the New Testament where this word is found: Romans 4:25 and Romans 5:18. The word describes the act of God's declaring men free from guilt and acceptable to Him. The resulting state of this declaration is described by the word dikaiosune.

      Scripturally, “to justify” is to effect an objective relation, the state of righteousness, by a judicial sentence. We see this done in one of two ways: (1) by bringing into account the actual subjective condition of a person (to justify the just or the righteous), as seen in James 2:21; or (2) by imputing to a person the righteousness of another, that is, by accounting him righteous though he is inwardly unrighteous. This last case is the usual sense of justification in the New Testament—that through the righteousness of Christ the believer is accounted righteous—a debt the sinner owed to God that has been paid in full by Another.
      Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



      Do you confess?
      Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
      AMR's Randomata Blog
      Learn Reformed Doctrine
      I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
      Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
      Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
      The best TOL Social Group: here.
      If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
      Why?


      Comment


      • Originally posted by Mystery View Post
        of course it is "wrong". Man is "wrong".
        Okay, well, in your example, you said, "It is no longer wrong...it is just not profitable." I am just trying to find out how you apply this.

        It sounds like you are saying that some things are still wrong, in spite of your earlier Taco Hell analogy.
        "Perhaps everything terrible is in its deepest being something that needs our love" ~ Rainer Maria Rilke

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
          Why? What role do you see Christ as performing as our Advocate and our High Priest now? What exactly is Christ doing in these two roles?
          Advocate: Jesus stands in our defense that we are holy, righteous, blameless, and perfect. No one can accuse us of anything, because we are in Him.

          Jesus alone is the Advocate for those who have sin, as He alone is the propitiation for ALL sin, for ALL men.

          High Priest: The Priesthood of Jesus is perpetual. His sacrifice is ONCE for ALL. He has sat down at the right hand of God, because "it is finished". There is no more sacrifice for sin. There is no more confession.

          I am not going to go through all of Hebrews chapters 7-10 to explain every detail to you, when it is obvious from those passages that His sacrifice for sin was ONCE for ALL time 2000 years ago.

          "For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; nor was it that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood not his own. Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, shall appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him."

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Balder View Post
            Okay, well, in your example, you said, "It is no longer wrong...it is just not profitable." I am just trying to find out how you apply this.

            It sounds like you are saying that some things are still wrong, in spite of your earlier Taco Hell analogy.
            You're right, I did say that, but I meant it in relation with being accountable to God for it.

            It is wrong to murder, but it is not counted against you as wrong before God.

            That is how I should have stated it. Thank you for seeing the error.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Mystery View Post
              Advocate: Jesus stands in our defense that we are holy, righteous, blameless, and perfect. No one can accuse us of anything, because we are in Him.

              Jesus alone is the Advocate for those who have sin, as He alone is the propitiation for ALL sin, for ALL men.
              So when the Accuser stands before God, Christ is not Advocating on our behalf?

              High Priest: The Priesthood of Jesus is perpetual. His sacrifice is ONCE for ALL. He has sat down at the right hand of God, because "it is finished". There is no more sacrifice for sin. There is no more confession.
              So we are to never confess our sins in our prayers?
              Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



              Do you confess?
              Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
              AMR's Randomata Blog
              Learn Reformed Doctrine
              I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
              Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
              Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
              The best TOL Social Group: here.
              If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
              Why?


              Comment


              • Originally posted by Caledvwlch View Post
                Typical me, jumping in eight or so pages too late, but if sin is no longer a struggle for the saved, then what is it? It seems to me that the very presence of temptation can be considered a struggle.
                The presence of temptation is not a struggle if one does not struggle. Most times when I feel the urge to sin, I don't, and that's that. I don't struggle with it. I just don't sin. I don't sit there arguing with myself, "I want to sin. But I shouldn't. But I want to..."

                Originally posted by noguru View Post
                Apparently Lighthouse does not believe that his casual rendezvous with sin is a struggle. There is no struggle at all. He either sins or he doesn't. He has no remorse no matter what he does.
                You can't pay attention, so why don't you just keep your mouth shut?
                sigpic

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Caledvwlch View Post
                  Your post was stupid for more reasons than I will waste my time pointing out, as the intelligent reader will easily identify most of the reasons. But here's a question for you:

                  Why would God rescind the Law He personally handed down? If one is free from the Law, then what need is there for redemption if it was disobedience of the Law that originally got one booked on the next train to Damnationville?
                  Disobedience of the law never got anyone booked on that train. That's your first mistake.
                  sigpic

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by godrulz View Post
                    I am not a lying pig. I pig out sometimes.
                    And you lie most of the time.
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                      So when the Accuser stands before God, Christ is not Advocating on our behalf?
                      I just said He was. How did you not understand?

                      Advocate: Jesus stands in our defense that we are holy, righteous, blameless, and perfect. No one can accuse us of anything, because we are in Him.

                      Jesus alone is the Advocate for those who have sin, as He alone is the propitiation for ALL sin, for ALL men.

                      Are you asking why I said that we cannot be accused? I simply mean that they carry no weight.

                      So we are to never confess our sins in our prayers?
                      Absolutely not!

                      Only unbelievers agree with God that they have sin which needs to be forgiven.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mystery View Post
                        There is no such thing as schizophrenia Dave. Even the APA is battling over this issue, and many want it removed from the DSM because no one can define what it is.
                        Fine. But there are people who suffer bizarre delusions, many of them homeless because
                        they cannot hold a job and function in society.

                        Freedom from fear comes from a renewed mind and knowing the love of God. That is what God says, and I'm going to believe God over boneheads like you any day.
                        Fear of what? Meds? Feeling better? Being able to have real relationships?
                        Being able to hold a steady job?

                        Freedom from fear comes from humbling ourselves before Christ, accepting our limitations,
                        and accepting the relief that Christ has to offer, physically, cognitively, and spiritually.

                        There's no freedom in ignoring suffering and sin, whether its our own or others.
                        1 John 4:7-8 "Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love."

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Mystery View Post
                          That is a lie, and a false gospel.

                          Perhaps you missed where the bible proves that you are a false teacher...
                          There is a Law of love. Jesus and Paul reiterated the moral law of God in a NT context.

                          Until you can show that Jesus or Paul or any NT writer condoned murder, adultery, idolatry, gossip, lying, etc., then you are the misinformed one. I can defend my statement from many NT exhortations. Antinomian views can be subtle, as can perfectionist views.


                          It is not a false gospel to say that our love for God is inconsistent with obeying His unchanging Law (are you a murderer? If not, then you must have a false gospel like me).
                          Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

                          They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
                          I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

                          Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

                          "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

                          The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mystery View Post
                            It will no longer be counted against you by God, but it should cost you your physical life.
                            Hair splitting. Sin is sin, holy is holy. God is not mocked.
                            Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

                            They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
                            I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

                            Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

                            "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

                            The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
                              So when the Accuser stands before God, Christ is not Advocating on our behalf?

                              So we are to never confess our sins in our prayers?

                              There is something missing in his view. In my mind, it can lead to sin that grace may abound (something Paul warned about). Confession, repentance, obedience are biblical themes, not just OT principles.

                              I also think he sees one aspect of sanctification (initial setting apart as holy...I agree with those proof texts), but fails to see the progressive, practical outworking of the Spirit/character of Christ over time in the believer's life (other proof texts).
                              Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

                              They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
                              I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

                              Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

                              "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

                              The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
                                And you lie most of the time.
                                Evidence? Disagreeing with you or sincerely believing something, even if it is wrong, is not a lie.

                                I am a girl or I am black or I am skinny would be lies.

                                Believing that it is wrong to murder and called a sin in the Bible (not just a wrong doing) is not a lie, even if you disagree with me.
                                Know God and make Him known! (YWAM)

                                They said: "Where is the God of Elijah?"
                                I say: "Where are the Elijahs of God?" (Ravenhill "Why Revival Tarries")

                                Rev. 1:17, 18; Jer. 9:23, 24

                                "No Compromise!" (Keith Green)

                                The Pledge: He died for me; I'll live for Him.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X