Who is "him that justifieth the ungodly"?

[Lamb]

Yes all have sinned. I still don't see where all have been justified though. (declared righteous)

The verse you deny is showing it to you. Romans 3:22-24. Even using the King James Version, the way the sentence is structured, it's referring to the "all" because it's part of the same sentence.

 

[Josiah]

He died only for Gods elect

Wrong. Which is why you cannot quote any verse that states "Jesus died ONLY (exclusely, solely) for the elect." As we know, the Bible specifically states the opposite.

Your very strange opinions are based on two very wrong, very unbiblical theories: That Jesus died ONLY for some... and that faith is irrelevant. Sorry, but we all know these two views are not only wrong but clearly contradict Scripture - which is why you simply refuse to quote anything in the Bible that states either view, that Jesus died ONLY for some few and that there is personal justification apart from faith. Your constant., persistent refusal to quote anything that states what you do.... your quoting Scriptures that obviously, undeniably do NOT state what you do... well, it's absurd. And clearly, communication with you is entirely and absolutely one-sided, you don't listen.

Thats universalism, if all are freely Justified

Only to you since you've decided to eliminate faith from the issue of personal justification. Your heresies can lead nowhere but to more heresy,




.

 

[prism]

The verse you deny is showing it to you. Romans 3:22-24. Even using the King James Version, the way the sentence is structured, it's referring to the "all" because it's part of the same sentence.

Regardless of the translation one uses, I don't see it...

Romans 3:22-25 BSB
And this righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no distinction, [23] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, [24] and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. [25] God presented Him as the atoning sacrifice through faith in His blood, in order to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance He had passed over the sins committed beforehand.

The whole context from v.21 through chapter 4 is faith.
You talk about sentence structure. Does your Greek language knowledge equal or surpass that of the translators?
I know this much about Koine Greek of the time, they didn't have punctuation marks, the translators had to add their own.

 

[Lamb]

Regardless of the translation one uses, I don't see it...

Romans 3:22-25 BSB
And this righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no distinction, [23] for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, [24] and are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. [25] God presented Him as the atoning sacrifice through faith in His blood, in order to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance He had passed over the sins committed beforehand.

The whole context from v.21 through chapter 4 is faith.
You talk about sentence structure. Does your Greek language knowledge equal or surpass that of the translators?
I know this much about Koine Greek of the time, they didn't have punctuation marks, the translators had to add their own.

I didn't say anything about punctuation. I said that it's part of the same sentence so it continues in that same thought. For ALL have sinned and fall short...and then it goes on to say "and are justified". So it's speaking about all who have sinned and fallen short.

 

[Albion]

The verse you deny is showing it to you. Romans 3:22-24. Even using the King James Version, the way the sentence is structured, it's referring to the "all" because it's part of the same sentence.

You talk about sentence structure. Does your Greek language knowledge equal or surpass that of the translators?
I know this much about Koine Greek of the time, they didn't have punctuation marks, the translators had to add their own.

Interestingly enough, there isn't any generally recognized Bible translation in which the punctuation calls into question the meaning of "all" as referring to all.

So, that's a lot of Bible versions and a lot of Bible translators disagreeing with your own thinking, prism.

 

[Josiah]

@brightfame52 has been trying for weeks to find something in Scripture to support his theory that Jesus died ONLY for some few.... but he still hasn't found even one verse that remotely states that. He should realize that those radical, latter-day Calvinists have been looking for that verse for over 400 years. so he shouldn't be too surprised that he can't find it either.

Here are just some of the Scriptures that verbatim, flat-out, literally STATE that Jesus died for all. for everyone:

1 John 2:2 He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.​

John 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Hebrews 2:9 But we see him who for a little while was made lower than the angels, namely Jesus, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.

2 Corinthians 5:14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all

John 1:29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

2 Corinthians 5:15 And he died for all

2 Corinthians 5:19 That is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.

1 Timothy 2:6 Who gave himself as a ransom for all.

There are several more.


Here are the Scriptures that state, "No, Jesus did not die for all but rather ONLY for ______________."


Crickets.


@brightfame52 it seems obvious that all you are doing is taking heresy... then applying what you consider logic to lead you to the only place it can - more heresy. You are wrong in insisting Jesus died ONLY for some.... and you are wrong when you thus insist that faith is irrelevant to personal justification.




.

 

[Josiah]

@brightfame52


You write, "Christ did not die for everyone. The proof of that is that not all are saved."

You have not one Scripture that states Christ died for ONLY _______.
And you simply dismiss the MANY that specifically, verbatim state He died for all.
Your apologetic fore all this is NOT because Scripture states what you do (all who can read know it states the exact opposite)
Instead, your "proof" is that "if Christ died for all, then all would be saved."
So much for faith!
Faith is completely, wholly, entirely eliminated.
No need for faith in personal justification
Faith is moot there, does nothing, it's a joke. Justification happens without faith (although faith may come sometime later)
The entire apologetic rests not on Scripture but on a heresy: Faith is irrelevant in justification.

THIS is exactly the same heresy that many Reformed did 300 years ago when they split off into Universalism, the heresy that faith has no role in personal justification, the ONLY factor is the Cross. The only difference is that Universalists don't deny all those Scriptures that state Jesus died for everyone like you do. You end up without all saved - but not because they lack faith but because Scripture is wrong when it insists He died for all.

Scripture does not state, "If Jesus died for you (and He probably didn't) then you have personal justification whether you believe or spit in His face."


Here's what Scripture states:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing but is the gift of God." Ephesians 2:8

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life." John 3:16

"God justifies him who has faith in Christ Jesus." Romans 3:26

"Everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name.” Acts 10:43

“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved." Acts 16:31

And so very, very more Scriptures just like the above.

And not one verse that states, "If you are one of the lucky few for whom Christ died (and you won't be told if you are but you probably aren't) then you are saved - you can spit in his face, denounce him and reject his Cross or believe it just doesn't matter either way because faith don't matter for nothing

Friend, it's not just the Cross. It's the Cross + faith. It's Jesus - the Cross - His atoning work... and also faith. The first is never missing, the second often is.

See post 916.



.

 

[prism]

I didn't say anything about punctuation. I said that it's part of the same sentence so it continues in that same thought. For ALL have sinned and fall short...and then it goes on to say "and are justified". So it's speaking about all who have sinned and fallen short.

While we are at it, why not 'objective condemnation'?

John 3:18
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

So those who have never heard of Jesus are 'objectively condemned' or 'objectively justified'?

 

[Josiah]

Why some are saved and not others?

It's NOT because the Bible is wrong when it repeatedly, clearly, undeniably states that Jesus died for all when it SHOULD say (but never does) that Jesus died ONLY, EXCLUSIVELY, SOLELY for those who eventually are saved (sad the Bible goofs on this so often.)

It's NOT because the Bible is wrong when it repeatedly, clearly, undeniably states we are saved by God alone, by God's grace alone.. when it SHOULD say (but never does) that Jesus actually saves no on (He just makes it possible for all to save themselves), that salvation is a cooperative thing - God does His part (but part that actually doesn't save) and we must do our part - and, well, some fail to do their part.

It's NOT because the Bible is wrong when it repeatedly, clearly, undeniably states that there is a Hell and not all are saved, when the Bible SHOULD state that their ain't no hell, ain't no judgement, all are saved.


This video is 9 minutes long....

.

 

[prism]

Interestingly enough, there isn't any generally recognized Bible translation in which the punctuation calls into question the meaning of "all" as referring to all.

So, that's a lot of Bible versions and a lot of Bible translators disagreeing with your own thinking, prism.

I thought the discourse was whether OJ was biblical or not, not the scope of the atonement.

 

[Josiah]

.

 

[Josiah]

I thought the discourse was whether OJ was biblical or not, not the scope of the atonement.

@prism


I think the discussion is whether the Bible is correct in stating that Jesus died for all... or if that's wrong.
And whether faith is essential to personal justification ... or if that's wrong.

To Objective Justification. If Christ died... then there is a reality of "Objective Justification" and some of the verses brightfame52 quotes are correct - it exists, it's there. If the atoning work of Jesus doesn't exist, then there's nothing for faith to apprehend. For faith to be effectual, there must be some reality, something there for it to apply. And the Bible insists there is... the Bible refers to this as justification. Where brightfame goes very wrong is by insisting that it does NOT exist for most.... and for those it does, no faith is necessary - it's moot. I used this example: Last weekend, I made pancakes for the two boys. I did. That's a fact. There they were.... on the griddle, GOOD and nutritious (well, sort of). Now, does that mean that if only one of them actually benefits from this that THEREFORE there were no pancakes for the other or could it be that he just didn't eat them? Or if one gets 2000 calories.... and the other didn't... this has nothing to do with one eating them and the other not? For nutrition to happen at breakfast, there must be the meal (it's got to exist) AND they have to eat it. It does no good to eat thin air, something has to BE there. Scripture speaks of His work as being atoning... but it adds that faith is essential, faith apprehends, relies, applies and trusts in what IS. The difference between objective justification and personal justification. Use whatever monikers you want, there still must be ATONEMENT there.... or faith is useless, just gasping at nothing ... and Scripture is wrong when it talks about justification existing (even, as you point out, for those who don't embrace it and thus are not justified "BECAUSE they have not believed." Jesus accomplishes something (He really did), for all, the BIble isn't lying there. Faith apprehends it - applying it to the individual.

This is not applied to the individual apart from faith. The Cross exists for all.... but faith does not exist in all.
See the video I linked in 969
See post 967


Blessings...



.

 

[prism]

See the video I linked in 969

I saw it, but the fact that Paul covers the topic in Rom. 9 in detail, proves it's not a taboo topic. Also the speaker used his fair share of human logic and reasoning to make his point.

 

[Josiah]

I saw it, but the fact that Paul covers the topic in Rom. 9 in detail, proves it's not a taboo topic.

Okay.... the Apostle Paul in Romans 9 also doesn't state that he is WRONG when he so often penned (by divine inspiration) that Jesus died for ALL, that this work/justification exists for all. And he also doesn't state that he is WRONG when he so often penned that we are saved by grace alone - solely via that work of Christ. Or that he is WRONG when he so often penned that faith is essential to personal justification, there is no personal justification apart from faith. I think Paul is saying that all he's saying is right, not heresy. So, the problem isn't with those teachings from Paul (and elsewhere)... the problem is with denying and rejecting one or more. I think the video makes that point well. Watch at least the first 75 seconds of it.



.

 

[prism]

Or that he is WRONG when he so often penned that faith is essential to personal justification, there is no personal justification apart from faith.

Sorry, but my name is not @Brightflame.

I think Paul is saying that all he's saying is right, not heresy. So, the problem isn't with those teachings from Paul (and elsewhere)... the problem is with denying and rejecting one or more. I think the video makes that point well. Watch at least the first 75 seconds of it.

I may have missed it but was the speaker's name Paul? Otherwise I was referring to the Apostle Paul.

 

[Josiah]

Sorry, but my name is not @Brightflame.

I never said it was.

I may have missed it but was the speaker's name Paul? Otherwise I was referring to the Apostle Paul.

No, the person in the video is not named Paul.

The "Paul" which I mention is the author of Romans Chapter 9.


.

 

[prism]

I never said it was.

So why recount his beliefs when responding to me?

I think the video makes that point well. Watch at least the first 75 seconds of it.

I did and that's why I said, "the speaker used his fair share of human logic and reasoning to make his point."
You came back talking about the Apostle Paul, while I was referring to the speaker, so that was confusing.

I never mentioned any speaker.
I mention the Apostle Paul whom I simply called "Paul" since I (perhaps wrongly) assumed you knew Paul is the author of Romans.

Like I said, I was referring to the speaker.
Your assumptions are quite flattering.

 

[Josiah]

I said, "the speaker used his fair share of human logic and reasoning to make his point."

@prism


Odd.... I don't see where he used any logic whatsoever (see the video in post 969). He affirmed 3 things that Scripture (and Christianity) teaches. Do you think those 3 things are wrong? Do you hold they are NOT what Scripture says but rather the "logic" of the speaker in the video? If so, we can discuss that.

He specifically REJECTS the use of anything (logic or anything else) to repudiate any of the 3 things. He argues - instead of logic - that we accept what God says and leave it at that.

It seems to me Brightfame52 (and those who echo or defend him) insist that logic requires one or two or all 3 of the things must be rejected - in order for God to be logical.



But here are the issues before us:
Is the Bible correct or is it wrong when it says that Jesus died for all... that atonement has been achieved for all?
Is the Bible correct or is it wrong when it says that faith is essential for personal justification?

Brightfame52 insists that Jesus did NOT die for all (as the Bible so often states He did) because "then all would be saved." Thus insisting the Bible is wrong... and that faith doesn't matter, faith is moot to the issue, and his apologetic is his "logic." That is the issue I'm addressing. His ENTIRE apologetic is his logic.... human logic.... in spite of the reality that he has not one verse that says what he does (and a LOT that state the exact opposite).

It seems to me that the Apostle Paul is NOT saying in Romans that what he's stating can't be true because it's not logical. I think what he's stating is that what he has said (Jesus died for all... faith is essential) is true.

It seems to me that you have an issue with Christ gaining atonement for all (Atonement) - with what is called "objective justification" or "universal grace." I've addressed that in several points to you... you've only indicated that you are "confused."


Blessings




.

 

[prism]

It seems to me Brightfame52 (and those who echo or defend him) insist that logic requires one or two or all 3 of the things must be rejected - in order for God to be logical.
But here are the issues before us:
Is the Bible correct or is it wrong when it says that Jesus died for all... that atonement has been achieved for all?
Is the Bible correct or is it wrong when it says that faith is essential for personal justification?

Brightfame52 insists that Jesus did NOT die for all (as the Bible so often states He did) because "then all would be saved." Thus insisting the Bible is wrong... and that faith doesn't matter, faith is moot to the issue, and his apologetic is his "logic." That is the issue I'm addressing. His ENTIRE apologetic is his logic.... human logic.... in spite of the reality that he has not one verse that says what he does (and a LOT that state the exact opposite).

It seems to me that the Apostle Paul is NOT saying in Romans that what he's stating can't be true because it's not logical. I think what he's stating is that what he has said (Jesus died for all... faith is essential) is true.

It seems to me that you have an issue with Christ gaining atonement for all (Atonement) - with what is called "objective justification" or "universal grace." I've addressed that in several points to you... you've only indicated that you are "confused."

It may be more fruitful to address this to BrightFlame himself.

Odd.... I don't see where he used any logic whatsoever (see the video in post 969). He affirmed 3 things that Scripture (and Christianity) teaches. Do you think those 3 things are wrong? Do you hold they are NOT what Scripture says but rather the "logic" of the speaker in the video? If so, we can discuss that.

He specifically REJECTS the use of anything (logic or anything else) to repudiate any of the 3 things. He argues - instead of logic - that we accept what God says and leave it at that.

He used logic when he presented the vain attempts of those on the differing sides of the Crux Theologorum and why they are not compatible with scripture. (I don't necessarily disagree with his conclusion.)

 

[brightfame52]

Discharged by His death !

Anyone Christ died for is a Justified person, because through Christ death for him or her, they have been discharged, acquitted of all guilt and sin before God's Law and Justice, Heb 1:3

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

Listen, all for whom He died, He purged their sins and then sat down at the Right Hand of the Majesty on High, God !

The word purged is the greek word katharismos and it does mean:

C.a cleansing from the guilt of sins wrought by the expiatory sacrifice of Christ

They have been cleansed from the penalty and guilt of their sins, they have been made clean. They have been discharged , declared not guilty, and neither shall any charges ever be laid to their account, they are these Rom 4:8

8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

No, not now, not never, being that Christ has taken away the guilt and penalty of it forever ! 12