KingJ
Loyal
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2015
- Messages
- 6,043
Yes of course, but lets not derail this thread. I will create a new thread to make my case.
Debunking Calvinism
- Thread starter KingJ
- Start date
Yes of course, but lets not derail this thread. I will create a new thread to make my case.
KingJ
Loyal
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2015
- Messages
- 6,043
Twistie
Loyal
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2022
- Messages
- 2,991
Ya i dont ask the dead things i go to the Living One.. Thats really absurd tho that one who claims to follow the Living God would go ask a dead thing..but to each their own i presume thats why free will exist ey?!
(@_@)
KingJ
Loyal
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2015
- Messages
- 6,043
BF, you absolutely do need to produce a verse. Here's why:
Scripture repeatedly says we are justified by our faith!
- Rom 3:22 — Righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe
- Rom 3:24 — Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus
- Rom 3:26 — The justifier of him which believeth in Jesus
- Rom 3:28 — A man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law
- Rom 3:30 — God shall justify the circumcision by faith and uncircumcision through faith
- Rom 4:3 — Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness
- Rom 4:5 — His faith is counted for righteousness
- Rom 4:9 — Faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness
- Rom 4:11 — The righteousness of faith
- Rom 4:13 — The promise was through the righteousness of faith
- Rom 4:16 — The promise is of faith that it might be by grace
- Rom 5:1 — Being justified by faith we have peace with God
- Rom 9:30 — The Gentiles attained to righteousness which is of faith
- Rom 9:32 — They sought it not by faith but as it were by works
- Rom 10:4 — Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth
- Rom 10:9 — If thou shalt believe in thine heart thou shalt be saved
- Rom 10:10 — With the heart man believeth unto righteousness
- Rom 10:11 — Whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed
- Rom 10:13 — Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved
- Gal 2:16 — A man is not justified by works but by the faith of Jesus Christ
- Gal 2:16 — We have believed in Jesus Christ that we might be justified by faith
- Gal 2:16 — By the faith of Christ shall no flesh be justified
- Gal 2:20 — The life which I now live I live by the faith of the Son of God
- Gal 3:2 — Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith?
- Gal 3:5 — He that ministereth the Spirit does so by the hearing of faith
- Gal 3:6 — Abraham believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness
- Gal 3:7 — They which are of faith are the children of Abraham
- Gal 3:8 — God would justify the heathen through faith
- Gal 3:9 — They which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham
- Gal 3:11 — The just shall live by faith
- Gal 3:14 — The blessing of Abraham comes on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ
- Gal 3:22 — The promise by faith of Jesus Christ is given to them that believe
- Gal 3:24 — The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ that we might be justified by faith
- Gal 3:26 — Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus
- Eph 2:8 — By grace are ye saved through faith
- Phil 3:9 — The righteousness which is through the faith of Christ
- Heb 10:38 — The just shall live by faith
- Heb 11:4 — Abel obtained witness that he was righteous
- Heb 11:6 — Without faith it is impossible to please Him
- Heb 11:7 — Noah became heir of the righteousness which is by faith
- Heb 11:8 — Abraham obeyed by faith
- Heb 11:13 — These all died in faith
- Heb 11:31 — Rahab perished not with them that believed not
- Jas 2:23 — Abraham believed God and it was imputed unto him for righteousness
- Jas 2:24 — Ye see then how that by works a man is justified and not by faith only
- Jas 2:26 — Faith without works is dead
- Acts 13:39 — By Him all that believe are justified from all things
- Acts 10:43 — Through His name whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins
- Acts 16:31 — Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved
- John 3:16 — Whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life
You are not defending a doctrine that is plainly stated in Scripture. You are proposing a specific doctrinal claim: that a person is legally justified before they believe and while they are still an unbeliever.
That is not my claim. It is yours.
If I claimed that people are justified ten years after faith or justified before Christ died you would rightly demand a verse. Why? Because the person making the positive doctrinal assertion bears the burden of proving it from Scripture.
You cannot simply say "the total testimony of Scripture" when the very point under debate is whether your conclusion is actually taught by Scripture.
Not a chain of inferences.
Not a theological deduction.
Not an interpretation that requires five other doctrines to be true first.
An actual passage teaching that a person is legally justified before believing.
Until you can produce that passage your doctrine remains an inference not a biblical teaching.
An inference that portrays God as monstrously evil. 10/10 evil.
---------------------
Calvinism portrays God as monstrously evil because it teaches that He favours a select few while withholding saving grace from the rest. Scripture is crystal clear that God is no respecter of persons.
Deut 4:2, Deut 13:1–5, Deut 18:20–22, Josh 1:7, Prov 30:5–6, Isa 8:20, Jer 23:16, Jer 23:25–32, Ezek 13:1–16, Matt 7:15–20, Matt 15:9, Matt 24:11, Matt 24:24, Mark 7:7–13, Acts 20:28–31, Rom 16:17–18, 2 Cor 2:17, 2 Cor 4:2, 2 Cor 11:13–15, Gal 1:6–9, Eph 4:14, Phil 3:2, Col 2:8, 1 Tim 1:3–7, 1 Tim 4:1–3, 1 Tim 6:3–5, 2 Tim 2:15–18, 2 Tim 3:13–17, 2 Tim 4:2–4, Titus 1:9–16, Heb 13:9, James 3:1, 2 Pet 2:1–3, 2 Pet 2:12–22, 1 John 2:18–27, 1 John 4:1–6, 2 John 7–11, Jude 3–4, Jude 12–19, Rev 2:2, Rev 2:14–16, Rev 2:20–24, Rev 3:9, Rev 22:18–19
The Terror of Standing Before God as a False Teacher
Brightfame52
Active
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2020
- Messages
- 1,423
KingJ, copy-pasting 50 verses that contain the word "faith" does not change the fact that you are fundamentally confusing the legal acquisition of a verdict at the cross with the experiential reception of that verdict in the conscience.
You shout that I cannot produce a single verse explicitly stating that God justifies a person prior to them having faith. You must have completely missed the verse that you yourself copy-pasted onto your own list. Let’s read it:
Look at the absolute judicial precision of the Holy Spirit's grammar.
- Who does God justify? He justifies the ungodly (asebēs—the profane, wicked, faithless rebel).
- Judicially, a court verdict can only be passed on a person in the legal state they are currently in. God passes a legal verdict of "Justified" upon the elect while they are characteristically ungodly and without faith.
- If God waited until they believed to pass the legal verdict, Paul would have written that God "justifieth the faithful believer." He didn't. God justifies the ungodly. Faith is the vital gift given to that ungodly person so they can look back at the cross and discover the shocking verdict that was already passed upon them.
1. Neutralizing Your 50 Verses
You claim these verses prove justification takes place after we have faith. No, they prove that our conscious possession, peace, and enjoyment of justification take place through faith.
Let's look at the historic event that anchors the legal timeline:
The resurrection of Jesus Christ happened in 33 AD. Why was He raised? Paul explicitly says He was raised for our justification. The resurrection was the Supreme Court of Heaven passing the public verdict of "Not Guilty" over the entire body of the elect because Christ successfully paid their debt. If our justification was achieved by His resurrection 2,000 years ago, then the legal verdict was finalized long before you or I ever existed to believe.
You are confusing the reading of a legal will (faith) with the death of the Father that actually secured the inheritance (the cross). The reading of the will gives you conscious possession, but it didn't create your legal right to the money. The death did.
2. The Real "10/10 Evil": Your System Charges God with Injustice
You call my doctrine "10/10 evil" because you are panicking under the weight of your own internal contradictions. Let’s look at the absolute theological horror of your position:
You admit that Christ successfully bore the iniquities of the elect at Calvary and that the Father was "satisfied" (Isa 53:11). Yet, you claim that five minutes before faith, those same elect people are legally condemned objects of wrath.
Think about what you are charging God with. If Christ paid the debt in full in 33 AD, and yet God still holds a legal charge of condemnation over the elect person's head until they believe, then God is demanding two payments for one debt. He takes payment from Christ, declares Himself satisfied, and yet keeps the legal ledger open to condemn the sinner. That turns the Judge of all the earth into an unjust extortioner who enforces double jeopardy.
3. The Unanswered Challenge
You dropped 50 verses because you completely dodged the structural collapse your timeline causes in Romans 5:10:
You already admitted to me on this thread: “Yes. We were reconciled while enemies.”
Answer the text, KingJ, and stop hiding behind copy-pasted lists. How can an individual be legally reconciled to God by the death of His Son (which means the judicial removal of legal hostility), while simultaneously being legally condemned under His active wrath five minutes before faith?
To separate reconciliation from justification chronologically is to invent a legal fiction. My system honors the perfect justice of God—proving that when Christ paid the debt, the elect were legally cleared once and for all. Your system portrays a fragile, double-charging deity who holds paid-for sins against His own elect.
God justifieth the ungodly (Romans 4:5). Deal with the grammar of the text.
Brightfame52
Active
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2020
- Messages
- 1,423
KingJ, Your List Does Not Establish Your Chronology
KingJ, I appreciate the effort you have made to gather these passages. But your list does not establish the conclusion you are drawing from them.I agree with you that Scripture repeatedly teaches that believers are justified by faith, that righteousness is received through faith, and that faith is the appointed means by which God's people come to know and apprehend the salvation of Christ.
I am not denying any of that.
The question is what you think those passages prove beyond that.
You repeatedly move from:
to:
That second proposition is precisely what you have not established.
1. “By faith” does not automatically mean “Christ's legal work became effective by faith”
Consider Romans 3:24:And Romans 5:9:
Paul identifies the ground of justification as Christ's redemption and blood.
So I am asking you to distinguish between the ground of justification and the means by which the justified sinner comes to apprehend and enjoy that justification.
Faith does not add anything to Christ's righteousness. Faith does not complete His obedience. Faith does not make His blood efficacious.
Christ's blood justifies.
Christ's obedience makes many righteous.
Christ bears their iniquities.
Faith receives and rests upon what Christ has accomplished.
2. Your own list contains Romans 4:5
You cite:Notice exactly what Paul says.
He does not say “him that justifieth the believer.”
He says:
The Greek is:
—“the One who justifies the ungodly.”
And what does the believer believe?
He believes on Him that justifieth the ungodly.
Faith therefore is not faith in faith. It is faith in God as the Justifier of the ungodly.
The believer is not saying, “My believing caused God to justify me.”
He is believing the divine testimony concerning the God who justifies the ungodly.
3. “His faith is counted for righteousness” does not make faith itself the righteousness
Romans 4:6 immediately speaks of:The righteousness being imputed is not the sinner's own righteousness, nor the merit of his believing.
It is the righteousness of Christ.
Faith is therefore not the legal righteousness that satisfies God's justice. Faith apprehends and rests upon the righteousness God provides in Christ.
That is why Paul can speak of:
The righteousness is of God.
4. So what do your fifty passages actually prove?
They prove that faith has a vital and experiential relationship to justification.I agree.
They establish that believers are justified by faith, that righteousness is received through faith, and that faith is God's appointed means by which His people come to consciously apprehend and enjoy Christ's salvation.
But they do not, merely by saying “by faith” or “through faith,” prove this additional proposition:
That is the very proposition under dispute.
You have established faith's role.
You have not established faith as the trigger that makes Christ's finished work legally effective.
5. Now compare your list with the passages you keep avoiding
Isaiah 53:11:The Servant justifies the many by bearing their iniquities.
Romans 5:9:
Paul directly connects justification with Christ's blood.
Romans 5:19:
Christ's obedience actually makes many righteous.
Romans 4:25:
His death dealt with the offenses, and His resurrection testifies to the completed and accepted work of Christ.
2 Corinthians 5:21:
That is substitution and imputed righteousness.
These passages are not saying Christ merely made justification possible.
They describe what Christ actually accomplished for those whom He represented.
6. This is the question you still have to answer
I am not denying justification by faith.I am distinguishing legal accomplishment from vital apprehension.
The elect are not born regenerated. They are not born believing. They are sinners by nature.
But their legal righteousness does not originate in their later act of believing.
Christ bore their sins.
Christ fulfilled righteousness for them.
Christ shed His blood for them.
Christ was raised for their justification.
The Holy Spirit subsequently regenerates them and gives them faith, whereby they come to believe, apprehend, and enjoy the salvation Christ accomplished.
So, KingJ, I will gladly acknowledge every passage on your list that teaches justification by faith.
But now answer the other side of the equation:
Did Christ actually justify those whose iniquities He bore, or did He merely make them justifiable until they believed?
If you say the latter, then show me the passage that says faith activates, completes, or makes legally effective the justification accomplished by Christ's blood.
Because Scripture says:
And:
And:
I believe we should let those texts speak for themselves.
This is not about denying justification by faith. It is about refusing to make man's believing the legal completion of Christ's finished work.
Faith does not create the legal verdict. Faith believes the God who justifies the ungodly. Faith does not supply the righteousness. Faith apprehends the righteousness God has provided in Christ. Faith does not make Christ's blood efficacious. Faith rests upon the efficacy of Christ's blood.
That is the distinction I am asking you to address from Scripture.
KingJ
Loyal
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2015
- Messages
- 6,043
Your response misrepresents the 50 passages.
I did not simply copy 50 verses containing the word “faith.” They all explicitly connect faith with justification or righteousness:
“justified by faith” — Rom 5:1
“justified by faith” — Gal 2:16
“justified by faith” — Gal 3:24
“all that believe are justified” — Acts 13:39
“God would justify the heathen through faith” — Gal 3:8
Your distinction between “legal acquisition” and “experiential reception” is your theological framework. It is not a passage of Scripture.
That is precisely the point you continue to avoid.
You have not found the verse. You have simply inserted “before faith” into Romans 4:5.
The passage says:
“To him that worketh not but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is counted for righteousness.”
Notice what you conveniently leave out:
“believeth on him”
“his faith is counted for righteousness”
The passage does NOT say:
“God justifies the ungodly before they believe.”
You have taken “ungodly” and changed it into “ungodly and therefore not yet believing.” That is your inference.
So once again:
You have supplied the timing. Scripture did not.
---------------------
Calvinism portrays God as monstrously evil because it teaches that He favours a select few while withholding saving grace from the rest. Scripture is crystal clear that God is no respecter of persons.
Deut 4:2, Deut 13:1–5, Deut 18:20–22, Josh 1:7, Prov 30:5–6, Isa 8:20, Jer 23:16, Jer 23:25–32, Ezek 13:1–16, Matt 7:15–20, Matt 15:9, Matt 24:11, Matt 24:24, Mark 7:7–13, Acts 20:28–31, Rom 16:17–18, 2 Cor 2:17, 2 Cor 4:2, 2 Cor 11:13–15, Gal 1:6–9, Eph 4:14, Phil 3:2, Col 2:8, 1 Tim 1:3–7, 1 Tim 4:1–3, 1 Tim 6:3–5, 2 Tim 2:15–18, 2 Tim 3:13–17, 2 Tim 4:2–4, Titus 1:9–16, Heb 13:9, James 3:1, 2 Pet 2:1–3, 2 Pet 2:12–22, 1 John 2:18–27, 1 John 4:1–6, 2 John 7–11, Jude 3–4, Jude 12–19, Rev 2:2, Rev 2:14–16, Rev 2:20–24, Rev 3:9, Rev 22:18–19
The Terror of Standing Before God as a False Teacher
KingJ
Loyal
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2015
- Messages
- 6,043
@Brightfame52
It is crystal clear from this thread and this one Calvinist teaching usual nonsense that even with the help of AI you cannot hold your own in a debate. Defending Calvinism requires you to stretch extremely far for straws. It must be so infuriating for you to defend such a weak and unsupported theology.
I am tired of the circles you keep forcing discussion into with your consistent inferences, assumptions and reading blunders.
I want to know what kind of person, in their right state of mind, is fine with serving a God portrayed by Calvinism, that everyone, including AI believe is a 10/10 evil monster.
Answer that for me. How demented and evil must followers of Calvinism be to follow and teach about a God that is a monster?
You come across as a little grovelling sycophant minion.
It is crystal clear from this thread and this one Calvinist teaching usual nonsense that even with the help of AI you cannot hold your own in a debate. Defending Calvinism requires you to stretch extremely far for straws. It must be so infuriating for you to defend such a weak and unsupported theology.
I am tired of the circles you keep forcing discussion into with your consistent inferences, assumptions and reading blunders.
I want to know what kind of person, in their right state of mind, is fine with serving a God portrayed by Calvinism, that everyone, including AI believe is a 10/10 evil monster.
Answer that for me. How demented and evil must followers of Calvinism be to follow and teach about a God that is a monster?
You come across as a little grovelling sycophant minion.
Brightfame52
Active
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2020
- Messages
- 1,423
KingJ,
You claim I am supplying the timing, but your own argument requires you to rewrite the text to fit a logical impossibility. Let’s look at the absolute grammatical and judicial reality of Romans 4:5.
1. The Judicial Impossibility of Your Position
A court of law can only pass a verdict on a person based on their immediate, current state at the bar.
- Paul explicitly states that God "justifieth the ungodly" (asebēs).
- If, as you claim, a person must believe before the legal verdict is passed, then they are no longer characteristically "ungodly" at the exact moment of justification—they are a "believing saint."
- For your timeline to work, Paul would have to say God "justifies the believer." He does not. The legal object of justification is explicitly defined as the ungodly.
2. Who is the "Him that Believeth"?
You accuse me of leaving out "to him that worketh not, but believeth." You are confusing the description of the person in time with the ground of the verdict.
When the elect person believes, what do they believe? They believe on "him that justifieth the ungodly."
- The object of their faith is a God who already has a track record of justifying the profane.
- Faith does not create the verdict; faith rests upon the God who already executed the verdict.
- You have the cart before the horse: you are making faith the cause of God's verdict, rather than the evidence of it.
3. The True Meaning of "Counted for Righteousness"
When Paul says faith is "counted for righteousness," he uses the bookkeeping term logizomai.
In Reformed theology, faith is not the actual, literal righteousness that satisfies the law—Christ's blood and obedience is. Faith is counted as righteousness because it is the experiential instrument by which the elect person receives the awareness of their prior, objective justification.
You are the one inserting a conditional timeline into Scripture by demanding that God cannot pass a legal verdict at the cross until a human being performs the act of believing in time. You are turning faith into a legal work that triggers God's hand.
Scripture says God justifies the ungodly. Period. Faith is how the ungodly person discovers that shocking truth.
Brightfame52
Active
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2020
- Messages
- 1,423
KingJ, I think this is where our disagreement ultimately comes down to more than Romans 4:5.
You keep demanding that Scripture explicitly state the precise formula “God legally justifies a person before that person has faith.” Because Romans 4:5 does not use those exact words, you conclude that the doctrine has not been established.
But I think that standard is itself the problem.
Scripture does not always give us every theological conclusion in one sentence. It gives us multiple propositions, and we are responsible to understand how those propositions relate to one another.
Romans 4:5 says:
Notice carefully what Paul actually says.
He does not describe God as:
He describes Him as:
And the person subsequently described in the verse is the one who:
Therefore, the text certainly does not justify turning faith into a meritorious condition by which the sinner causes God to become willing to justify him.
The question then becomes: what does Scripture mean by God's justification of the ungodly, and when does that legal act occur?
That question cannot responsibly be settled by demanding that Romans 4:5 contain the exact phrase “before faith.”
We have to consider the whole forensic testimony of Scripture.
Paul says:
Notice the condition in which they were reconciled:
“when we were enemies.”
They were not described as believers when Christ's death accomplished their reconciliation.
And Paul says this reconciliation occurred:
Likewise, 2 Corinthians 5:19 says:
That is explicitly forensic language.
Reconciliation is connected with not imputing trespasses.
So we have to ask: Is the legal removal of the sinner's liability accomplished by Christ's death, or does Christ's death merely create an opportunity for that liability to be removed later if the sinner supplies the decisive condition?
I believe Scripture teaches the former.
Christ bore the sins of His people:
He did not merely make their justification possible.
He bore their iniquities and justified them.
The same forensic accomplishment is reflected in Romans 4:25:
And therefore faith is not the thing that makes Christ's sacrifice become legally effective. Rather, faith is the God-given means by which the justified sinner comes to know, believe, and embrace the gospel concerning what Christ has accomplished.
This is why I distinguish between legal accomplishment and vital/experiential application.
The legal work is accomplished by Christ.
The Holy Spirit brings the elect into the experiential enjoyment of that salvation through regeneration and faith.
Those are not competing salvations. They are different aspects of the one salvation accomplished by Christ.
And this is why I don't believe your objection actually refutes the position.
You say:
My response is:
Neither does Romans 5:10 say “faith is required before reconciliation.”
It says:
Neither does 2 Corinthians 5:19 say:
It says:
Neither does Isaiah 53:11 say:
It says:
So the question is not whether one isolated verse contains every word necessary to formulate the doctrine.
The question is whether the combined testimony of Scripture supports the distinction.
And I believe it does.
The real problem, therefore, is not that Scripture has failed to speak. The problem is that you seem to require Scripture to speak in the exact theological formula you have predetermined before you will allow its statements to have their full implications.
That is a dangerous standard.
We should not say:
Rather, we should ask:
If Scripture says:
- God justifies the ungodly — Romans 4:5;
- Christ reconciled enemies by His death — Romans 5:10;
- God does not impute the trespasses of those reconciled in Christ — 2 Corinthians 5:19;
- Christ bore the iniquities of His people — Isaiah 53:11;
- Christ was raised for their justification — Romans 4:25;
- and faith is subsequently exercised by those who hear and receive the gospel —
You are free to disagree with the conclusion.
But disagreement is not the same thing as proving that Scripture does not support it.
And I would make one final distinction: I am not claiming to know your heart or saying that you consciously reject God. My criticism is of the method of interpretation.
If the standard becomes, “I will only accept a doctrine if Scripture states the entire conclusion in my preferred wording,” then our own rationale becomes the judge of what Scripture is permitted to teach.
We should never place our formulation above the revelation God has actually given us.
The issue is therefore not whether Romans 4:5 contains the phrase “justified before faith.”
The issue is whether we will allow the entire forensic testimony of Scripture to speak.
I believe we should let God say what He has said, in the way He has said it, and then submit our theological conclusions to that revelation rather than making our own rationale the final authority.
Gothedral
Active
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2025
- Messages
- 307
In the (LSV) Book of Saint John chapter 5: Jesus Christ says,
39 "...You search the Writings, because you think in them to have continuous life, and these are they that are testifying concerning Me;
40 and you do not will - to come to Me, that you may have life;
41 I do not receive glory from man, but I have known you, that you do not have the love of God in yourselves."
Some people will not come to Jesus of their own choice.
Like Lucifer in Heaven of all places. Like Judas during the Crucifixion.
Like me when I outright rebelled in spite of miracles of mercy and justice.
And then there's Calvin. I only care what Christ thinks.
Twistie
Loyal
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2022
- Messages
- 2,991
Have ya ever pondered that tho like thats the beauty of Free will even tho Abba new some would not return He didn't tweek us ya know? Tho He dont want any to perish He still allows free will..
Idk
Hope alls well..
(◕ᴗ◕✿)
KingJ
Loyal
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2015
- Messages
- 6,043
You keep making the same grammatical mistake.
“Ungodly” does not mean “unbelieving at the moment of justification.” Paul is contrasting the ungodly person who does not work with the one who “believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly.”
And then Paul immediately says:
“His faith is counted for righteousness.”
You cannot remove “believeth” and “his faith” from Romans 4:5 and then claim Romans 4:5 teaches justification before faith.
Your argument is still:
God justifies the ungodly → therefore God justifies them before faith.
That second step is your inference.
And your claim that faith merely gives someone awareness of a justification already received is nowhere stated in the passage.
You still have not produced your verse.
You keep explaining your inference rather than proving it from Scripture.
KingJ
Loyal
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2015
- Messages
- 6,043
You have written another long explanation of why you believe your inference but you still have not produced the passage I asked for.
You keep doing this:
Christ died → sins were dealt with → reconciliation occurred → therefore justification occurred before faith.
The first three propositions do not establish the fourth.
Romans 4:5 says “believeth” and “his faith is counted for righteousness.”
Romans 5:1 says “being justified by faith.”
Gal 2:16 says “a man is not justified by the works of the law but by the faith of Jesus Christ.”
Acts 13:39 says “all that believe are justified.”
You keep saying that faith merely reveals a justification that already happened. Show me where Scripture says that.
That is the missing premise in your entire argument.
You have not demonstrated it from Scripture. You have inferred it.
Brightfame52
Active
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2020
- Messages
- 1,423
KingJ, your claim that “'Ungodly' does not mean 'unbelieving at the moment of justification'” is one of the most astonishing pieces of theological gymnastics I have seen on this forum. You are forced to rewrite the Greek language to rescue your conditional timeline from the plain words of the Apostle Paul.
Let’s dismantle your response systematically:
- The Literal Meaning of Ungodly (Asebēs)
The Greek word used by Paul in Romans 4:5 is asebēs.
- It is a compound word made of the negative prefix (a-) and the verb for worship/reverence (sebō).
- It literally means without worship, impious, profane, unholy, and faithless.
For your timeline to work, God would be passing a verdict of "Justified" on a believer while calling them "profane and faithless" at the exact same microsecond. That is a judicial absurdity. Paul explicitly states that the legal object of the verdict is the ungodly. God justifies them while they are in that ungodly, faithless state because Christ already paid their debt at Calvary (Phase II).
- You are Turning Faith into a Meritorious Work
You insist that the words “believeth” and “his faith is counted for righteousness” prove justification occurs after faith.
You are making faith the decisive, human contribution that triggers God’s hand.
But Paul says faith is counted for righteousness because faith is the instrument of apprehension.
- Consider an insurance check. The check is legally valid and signed by the company the moment it is issued.
- When you deposit the check, your bank account changes experientially, but your deposit didn't make the check valid. The signature of the issuer did.
- The Unanswered Challenge
You keep screaming that my view is an "inference," yet you continue to run away from the unshakeable past-tense reality of Romans 4:25:
The resurrection happened 2,000 years ago. Paul explicitly connects the timing of the legal verdict (“our justification”) to that historic event. Was the legal verdict of the elect body brought out of the empty tomb in 33 AD, or was it left suspended in mid-air for two millennia waiting for human permission?
If it was finalized at the resurrection, then the legal justification of the ungodly elect is a finished historic fact long before they ever exist to believe.
I don't remove "believeth" from Romans 4:5; I put it in its proper, sovereign place. We don't believe to get God to change His judicial mind; we believe because the God who justifies the ungodly has already changed our legal status at the cross and given us the gift of sight. Deal with the grammar of asebēs and stop redefining Greek words to save your timeline.
Brightfame52
Active
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2020
- Messages
- 1,423
KingJ, you claim that the premise of faith revealing a pre-existing justification is "nowhere stated in Scripture" and is just my inference. You are asking where Scripture teaches that salvation exists as a finished reality prior to our conscious possession and belief of it.
Let's look exactly where the Holy Spirit teaches this:
- The Explicit Purpose of the Gospel: Luke 1:77
Look at the explicit mandate given to John the Baptist regarding the arrival of Christ’s salvation:
Look at the absolute precision of that order:
- What does the gospel message bring? It brings the knowledge of salvation.
- You cannot have "knowledge" of something unless that thing already exists as a completed fact. A map gives you knowledge of a city, but the map didn't create the city.
- Why do they receive this knowledge? "By the remission of their sins." Their sins were remitted and put away by the blood of the cross (Phase II: Legal). The gospel is sent to those people to bring them the vital knowledge of a remission that was already legally finalized in the court of heaven.
- The Arrival of the Faith Era: Galatians 3:23
You keep treating faith as if it is an individual choice that creates a legal status. But look at how Paul discusses the timeline of faith in Galatians:
Notice the vocabulary of the Holy Spirit. Paul does not say we were shut up until faith was "performed" or "created" by the sinner. He says we were shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed (apokalyptō—to unveil, uncover, or bring to light something that was hidden).
- The righteousness was already there, hidden in the covenant purpose of God and accomplished at the cross.
- Faith is the unveiling of that pre-existing legal reality to the conscience of the elect.
- The Legal Contradiction You Still Cannot Answer
You claim my first three propositions (Christ died -> sins dealt with -> reconciliation occurred) do not establish that justification occurred before faith.
If their debt was cancelled and God's hostility was slain 2,000 years ago, what is their legal status?
- If a person has no debt and God has no legal hostility against them, they are legally justified.
- To claim they are still "condemned" after their sins were dealt with and reconciliation occurred is a structural contradiction. You are inventing a legal fiction where a debt can be completely paid for at the cross, yet the sinner is still legally on the hook for it until they believe. That is double jeopardy.
Calvinists don't believe we have free will to choose Jesus due to our fallen state. There are endless debates about this "Total Depravity". I don't agree with Calvinists.
- I'm bad at earning money but I can wish I had the ability to earn a billion dollars. I'm still bad at earning money and will never earn a billion dollars. End of story. (actually God provides all I need)
- In my fallen state I had zero ability to earn forgiveness and eternal life but I could wish that I could obtain it. Along comes the Holy Spirit filling me with the desire to know Christ. I now have forgiveness and eternal life despite still having zero ability to earn forgiveness and eternal life. It's a free gift.
Some people (focusing on certain verses) will say that my desiring the gift is a good action on my part making me earn eternal life which contradicts the bible verses stating we can't earn it.
Some (focusing on other verses) will say that God wants us to seek Him and knock and we will find and He will answer.
The fact is all bible verses are true. People who are too smart for their own good will create models of interpretation to explain away some clear bible truths that don't fit their model. Even in quantum physics a single electron can be in two different places at the same time. Is the particle here now or over there now? The true answer is it's both here and there now. Did I choose God or did God choose me? What is the single deciding factor that tipped the balance? The true answer is both are the single deciding factor. Our tiny human brains have a problem wrapping our minds around the apparent tension. That is to be expected when reading the word of the infinite Creator. If He chooses to do so He can make this process clear to us when we are finally with Him. The joy of being with God will probably be so immense that these implementation details likely won't matter to us then.
@Twistie you have a better understanding of God because you know Jesus is alive and have a relationship with Him than the highest IQ Christian with the most sophisticated theological model can ever have.
KingJ
Loyal
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2015
- Messages
- 6,043
BF you have again substituted your interpretation for what the passages actually say.
You appear to be suffering from Ostrich Syndrome — burying your head in your theological system rather than facing what Scripture actually says.
Luke 1:77 says John would give knowledge of salvation “by the remission of their sins.” It does not say their individual justification had already occurred before faith.
Your map analogy is irrelevant because you have assumed the very point under dispute.
Gal 3:23 says we were kept under the law “unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.” It does not say a prior justification was being revealed to the conscience.
And your legal argument is still circular:
Christ dealt with sin → therefore everyone for whom He died was already justified → therefore faith only reveals that justification.
You keep putting the disputed conclusion into the premise.
Meanwhile Scripture plainly says:
“Being justified by faith” — Rom 5:1
“All that believe are justified” — Acts 13:39
“We have believed in Jesus Christ that we might be justified by faith” — Gal 2:16
You still have not produced a passage saying:
“A person is justified before he believes.”
After all these posts that passage remains missing.
The Terror of Standing Before God as a False Teacher
Brightfame52
Active
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2020
- Messages
- 1,423
Reconciliation and Justification: The Scriptural Connection
Many deny that reconciliation has a direct forensic connection with justification. But when the relevant passages are compared, Scripture presents a powerful chain of truth concerning those reconciled to God by the death of Christ.Paul writes:
Notice what Paul explicitly states.
The reconciliation was:
By the death of God's Son.
And it occurred:
When we were enemies.
The text does not say that Christ's death merely made reconciliation possible and that reconciliation occurred only when the sinner later supplied faith as an independent condition. Paul says:
The question is therefore: What does this reconciliation involve?
Paul gives us further light in 2 Corinthians 5:19:
Here reconciliation is explicitly connected with:
“Not imputing their trespasses unto them.”
That is a profoundly forensic statement.
Those whom God reconciles are described as those whose trespasses are not imputed to them.
Therefore, when Romans 5:10 says that we were reconciled to God by Christ's death while we were enemies, and 2 Corinthians 5:19 describes reconciliation in terms of the non-imputation of trespasses, Scripture establishes a direct connection between Christ's reconciling death and the removal of sin from the judicial account of those reconciled.
Now consider David's words:
Paul quotes this passage in Romans 4 while discussing justification:
Notice Paul's argument.
He introduces David's words by saying that David describes:
Then Paul supports that statement by quoting David's description of:
The forgiveness of sins.
The covering of sins.
The non-imputation of sin.
Thus Paul directly places the non-imputation of sin within his discussion of the blessedness of the person to whom God imputes righteousness without works.
The passages therefore establish the following connection:
Romans 5:10:
We were reconciled to God by the death of His Son while we were enemies.
2 Corinthians 5:19:
Reconciliation involves God not imputing trespasses to those reconciled.
Romans 4:6–8:
The non-imputation of sin is set within Paul's explanation of the blessedness of the person to whom God imputes righteousness without works.
Therefore, reconciliation accomplished by Christ's death cannot be treated as though it were merely a vague change of attitude or an empty possibility waiting for the sinner to make Christ's work effective.
Christ's death accomplished reconciliation.
Reconciliation is described in forensic terms involving the non-imputation of trespasses.
And Paul connects that blessed non-imputation with the imputation of righteousness without works.
That is why I maintain that those whom Christ reconciled to God by His death while they were enemies stood before God on the basis of Christ's accomplished work—not on the basis of any works they later performed.
The issue is not whether faith is necessary. Scripture plainly teaches that God's people believe.
The issue is whether faith is the judicial ground that causes Christ's death to become effective before God.
These passages point elsewhere.
Christ's death reconciles.
Reconciliation involves the non-imputation of trespasses.
The non-imputation of sin is inseparably connected in Romans 4 with the blessedness of imputed righteousness without works.
Therefore, the forensic basis of acceptance with God is found in Christ's accomplished work, not in anything produced by the sinner.
Faith does not provide the righteousness.
Christ does.
Faith does not satisfy divine justice.
Christ's blood does.
And faith does not cause God to discover a reason to reconcile sinners.
Christ reconciled His people to God by His death.
That is the force of Romans 5:10.
