Who is "him that justifieth the ungodly"?

[Albion]

There really is nothing to the point you are laboring so hard to get across. The Scriptures teach that Christ reconciled Man and God, and this was accomplished by the sacrifice of the Cross. The key item at issue concerns when this was accomplished, not when it was planned or foreseen.

But you imagine that everything, right down to the individual human, was determined and settled, unchangeably, long in advance of our births.

As a result, you have convinced yourself that nothing else enters into the process. However, to do that you have to make the Crucifixion be a mere gesture and Faith be almost meaningless.

There is no way that such a theory, which would require us to ignore large sections of Scripture, can be correct. Not so long as the Bible is recognized as being the word of God.

Rom 5:9

9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

You quote this verse as though it proves your theory, but it clearly does not.

See that it's "NOW" that the recipients of the message are changed--and "BY HIS BLOOD."

So, who is the writer speaking to? That's right, it's people alive in the first century, only a short time after the history-altering sacrifice of the Cross had taken place.

 

[prism]

Romans 5:9 NASB95
Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.

See that it's "NOW" that the recipients of the message are changed--and "BY HIS BLOOD."

Paul is simply contrasting our former position (enemies) to our current position (reconciled) and is saying 'now' being justified, how much more we shall be saved.

See that it's "NOW" that the recipients of the message are changed--and "BY HIS BLOOD."

the text says 'justified', it doesn't say 'changed'.

 

[prism]

It's easier to mark a post 'disagree'

, than to explain why.

 

[Albion]

It's easier to mark a post 'disagree'

, than to explain why.

I already explained it.

"Now" meant to the real, live people who were being addressed by the Apostle there that the great event had occurred in their own time, not thousands of years prior. And the event was identified as well. It was not simply a thought in the mind of Almighty God eons earlier as had been claimed on this thread.

As for the silly (I think) complaining about my use of the word changed, which was employed for the sake of avoiding anything that could be thought ambiguous, I was of course referring to justification. Humans passing from being UNjust in God's eyes to then being considered justified certainly IS a change!

 

[prism]

As for the silly (I think) complaining about my use of the word changed, which was employed for the sake of avoiding anything that could be thought ambiguous, I was of course referring to justification. Humans passing from being UNjust in God's eyes to then being considered justified certainly IS a change!

Rom 5:9 says...

Romans 5:9 NASB95
Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.

Says nothing about change in the text, just 'justified by His Blood'. It's not wise to add words to Scripture.

 

[MoreCoffee]

In rom 4:5 Paul wants us to believe in someone who "justifies the ungodly", i was just wondering who that is, exactly?

It is God who justifies; when you think about it only God can justify.

 

[Albion]

Says nothing about change in the text..

It's not wise to add words to Scripture..

Nobody added any words to Scripture there. And your complaint is doubly mistaken because when anyone passes from not being justified to then being justified, his status has changed! I'm pretty sure that you understand this yourself.

 

[Messy]

Romans 5:9 NASB95
Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him.


Paul is simply contrasting our former position (enemies) to our current position (reconciled) and is saying 'now' being justified, how much more we shall be saved.


the text says 'justified', it doesn't say 'changed'.

The O.T. saints weren't justified by His blood. Otherwise the sacrifices wouldn't have been necessary, if it was enough that the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the earth.

 

[Albion]

The O.T. saints weren't justified by His blood. Otherwise the sacrifices wouldn't have been necessary, if it was enough that the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the earth.

This is a tricky issue for theologians, but the OT saints were indeed justified by his blood, and the sacrifice (of the Cross) was necessary.

As we've talked about it on these forums before, these people were not sent to hell as some others were, but they were not allowed to go to heaven, either. Not until Christ paid the price he did. They were kept in Abraham's Bosom, also known as Paradise, until the Crucifixion.

 

[prism]

It is God who justifies; when you think about it only God can justify.

On what basis does He justify?

 

[prism]

Nobody added any words to Scripture there. And your complaint is doubly mistaken because when anyone passes from not being justified to then being justified, his status has changed! I'm pretty sure that you understand this yourself.

Ok, so you are reading into the text.

 

[prism]

The O.T. saints weren't justified by His blood. Otherwise the sacrifices wouldn't have been necessary, if it was enough that the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the earth.

What if the OT sacrifices typified the one true Sacrifice as explained in Hebrews? Then they would have been justified by the antitype, the blood of the Lamb.

 

[MoreCoffee]

On what basis does He justify?

That is not in the scope of the thread's question.

 

[prism]

That is not in the scope of the thread's question.

But if one neglects the Son, then there is no justification period.

 

[MoreCoffee]

But if one neglects the Son, then there is no justification period.

Jesus is God and God justifies.

 

[Messy]

What if the OT sacrifices typified the one true Sacrifice as explained in Hebrews? Then they would have been justified by the antitype, the blood of the Lamb.

It was a foreshadow.
Hebrews 10
This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” 17 then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”

 

[Messy]

But if one neglects the Son, then there is no justification period.

Then how can you think it happens before we accept His offer? In a way it did, cause He took our sins in His body, but as long as you don't believe that your sins aren't gone.

 

[prism]

Jesus is God and God justifies.

Right, but would that mean the Mohammedans and Jews are justified when they invoke God's name?

 

[prism]

It was a foreshadow.
Hebrews 10
This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” 17 then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.”

I said type and you say foreshadow. Could you explain the difference between a foreshadow and a type?

 

[prism]

Then how can you think it happens before we accept His offer? In a way it did, cause He took our sins in His body, but as long as you don't believe that your sins aren't gone.

I think you are confusing me with Brightflame, we are justified 'in time' when we believe, not before. I believe it is based on God's election.