Who is "him that justifieth the ungodly"?

[Josiah]

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

Correct. And this is apprehended by faith.

You promote two heresies....
1) That Christ did NOT die for all as the Bible states, but ONLY for some few.
2) Faith is irrelevant to justification, you go to some length to avoid even speaking of it.



.

 

[Lamb]

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'?

That isn't objective at all because the beginning of the verse says "Whoever believes in him not". That would be subjective.

 

[prism]

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

That's actually a good Scripture verse revealing objective justification.

Hebrews 1:3
The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of His nature, upholding all things by His powerful word. After He had provided purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.

@brightflame, with your continual yammering, you'll turn me back into a Lutheran lol.

 

[Josiah]

the beginning of the verse says "Whoever believes in him not".

Yup.

Brightfam52 starts with two foundational views:
1. The Bible is so wrong when it states that Jesus died for all (He only died for some few)
2. The Bible is so wrong when it states that faith in Christ's atoning work is essential (faith is meaningless to justification).

Since he bases everything on two heresies, well... all that follows must also be heresy. Thus the chain of wrong things that comes from him.

But is there any use in pointing this out to him? No, he just doesn't care.
Is there any use in noting that none of the verses he quotes actuallly supports his view? No, he just doesn't care.



.

 

[prism]

That isn't objective at all because the beginning of the verse says "Whoever believes in him not". That would be subjective.

What if they never heard of Jesus? According to John 3:18 they would already be condemned (see also Rom 5:18).

 

[prism]

He starts with two heresies:
1. The Bible is so wrong when it states that Jesus died for all (He only died for some few)
2. The Bible is so wrong when it states that faith in Christ's atoning work is essential (faith is meaningless to justification).

@Lamb had quoted me, and so you persist in ascribing point #2 to me. I've reminded this forum a dozen times that is @brightfame52 position, NOT MINE.

 

[Josiah]

What if they never heard of Jesus? According to John 3:18 they would already be condemned (see also Rom 5:18).

@prism

Since the "default" position is void of faith and since faith is essential to personal justification, therefore there is no personal justification when there is no faith; there is condemnation because there is not personal justification (yet, anyway). This by no means suggests that Christ's atoning work is unavailable to them or doesn't exist (there IS objective justification), it simply means they aren't accessing/apprehending such.

The condemnation, however, is not eternal. Scripture suggests that at one point, ALL are "died in their trespasses" (Paul says "we were...."), it's the condition we're born with since we are born without faith. When faith comes, the condemnation no longer exists, there is no condemnation for those who are "in Christ" (have faith).



.

 

[Josiah]

Lamb had quoted me, and so you persist in ascribing point #2 to me.

I'm addressing Lamb about Brightfam52.


.

 

[prism]

Read the post. You aren't mentioned.

I'm addressing Lamb about Brightfam52.


.

Mine points to #982 where Lamb quoted me.

 

[Albion]

What if they never heard of Jesus? According to John 3:18 they would already be condemned (see also Rom 5:18).

If they never have heard of Him, I'd think we would be on safe grounds to conclude that they are not saved but that the possibility of any of these people getting to hear of Him and so believe would remain for the rest of their lives. Therefore...subjective.

 

[prism]

If they never have heard of Him, I'd think we would be on safe grounds to conclude that they are not saved but that the possibility of any of these people getting to hear of Him and so believe would remain for the rest of their lives. Therefore...subjective.

I asked in reference to John 3:18...

John 3:18
Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

Would they be 'objectively justified' or 'objectively condemn'?

I've heard of simultaneously just and a sinner (and believe it), but this other would be a bit of a stretch.

 

[Josiah]

I asked in reference to John 3:18...

John 3:18
Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

Would they be 'objectively justified' or 'objectively condemn'?

I've heard of simultaneously just and a sinner (and believe it), but this other would be a bit of a stretch.

@prism See Post 987.

No, this has nothing whatsoever to do with simul justus et peccator. It has to do with faith being essential to the change from condemned to justified. Without faith, there is condemnation (and without faith is, you might say, the de facto reality) all are void of faith until they aren't.



.

 

[Albion]

I asked in reference to John 3:18...

John 3:18
Whoever believes in Him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe has already been condemned, because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.

Right, but that language does not mean that the door to conversion is forever closed to them.

If that were the case, all the times that Jesus called people to repentance, or to believe in him, or the like, would make no sense. I do not think that we can conclude that Jesus was talking just to hear himself talk.

John 1:12​

"12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God"​

.

​

​

​

.​

​

 

[prism]

Right, but that language does not mean that the door to conversion is forever closed to them.

If that were the case, all the times that Jesus called people to repentance, or to believe in him, or the like, would make no sense. I do not think that we can conclude that Jesus was talking just to hear himself talk.

John 1:12​

"12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, the gave the right to become children of God"​

Since you partially quoted me, please answer the question I asked..

"Would they be 'objectively justified' or 'objectively condemn'?" (Regarding John 3:18)

 

[prism]

That isn't objective at all because the beginning of the verse says "Whoever believes in him not". That would be subjective.

I could go with objective mercy but objective justification is too much of a stretch.

Romans 11:32
For God has consigned everyone to disobedience so that He may have mercy on everyone.

 

[Lamb]

I could go with objective mercy but objective justification is too much of a stretch.

Romans 11:32
For God has consigned everyone to disobedience so that He may have mercy on everyone.

But you believe in subjective justification?

 

[Josiah]

I could go with objective mercy but objective justification is too much of a stretch.

So, God FEELING something but not SUPPLYING or DOING anything is enough to save us?

IMO, for faith to do anything, it has to apprehend something that EXISTS, that's THERE.... or is apprehending a feeling enough? If so, then Jesus was unnecessary, if so nothing had to be done - just felt.


.

 

[prism]

But you believe in subjective justification?

Yes, I hold to the 5 Solas.

 

[prism]

So, God FEELING something but not SUPPLYING or DOING anything is enough to save us?

IMO, for faith to do anything, it has to apprehend something that EXISTS, that's THERE.... or is apprehending a feeling enough? If so, then Jesus was unnecessary, if so nothing had to be done - just felt.


.

His Holy Spirit, Word, promises, perfect obedience, shed blood is more than sufficient provision for apprehending.

 

[Josiah]

Yes, I hold to the 5 Solas.

One of those is SOLUS CHRISTUS. It teaches that God not only FELT something but DID something - something real, something existing, something there - something for SOLA FIDE to embrace, apprehend, trust, apply. That's objective justification. Subjective justification is meaningless without objective justification.... as is feeling with nothing for that feeling to grasp.



.