Who Justifieth the Ungodly

[Brightfame52]

You keep adding the words "before faith" to passages that never say it.

Im teaching scripture. do far you cant be taught

Romans 4:5 says the one who believes is counted righteous.

He believeth in Him that justified the ungodly ! Again Gill writes:

but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly: or that ungodly one: particular reference is had to Abraham, who in his state of unregeneracy was an ungodly person; as all God's elect are in a state of nature, and are such when God justifies them, being without a righteousness of their own; wherefore he imputes the righteousness of another, even that of his own Son, unto them: and though he justifies the ungodly, he does not justify their ungodliness, but them from it; nor will he, nor does he leave them to live and die in it; now to him that worketh not, that is perfect righteousness; or has no opportunity of working at all; or what he does, he does not do, that he might be justified by it; but exercises faith on God as justifying persons, who, like himself, are sinners, ungodly and destitute of a righteousness:

This isnt some novel invention of mine, godly men taught this centuries ago

 

[Brightfame52]

None of those verses say a person is already justified while remaining an unbeliever.

Rom 4:5 points that out, Justified while in a state of unregeneracy. Plus Rom 5:10 collaborates by being reconciled to God while being enemies.

I cant help it if you cant see the truth, you still accountable for it

 

[Brightfame52]

You are proving my point.

The passage says: "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way."

The we is limited, the we isnt talking about everyone in the known world.

Yet you immediately add "Isaiah's people only" and "not the whole world."

Because its correct. Isa 53:8

8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
Dose that sound like all humanity ? My People ? You are very unlearned
Barnes: on Isa 53/8

For the transgression of my people - The meaning of this is not materially different from 'on account of our sins.' 'The speaker here - Isaiah - does not place himself in opposition to the people, but includes himself among them, and speaks of them as his people, that is, those with whom he was connected' - (Hengstenberg). Others, however, suppose that Yahweh is here introduced as speaking, and that he says that the Messiah was to be cut off for the sins of his people.

JFB

my people—Isaiah, including himself among them by the word "my" [Hengstenberg]. Rather, Jehovah speaks in the person of His prophet, "My people," by the election of grace (Heb 2:13)

Gill writes:

for the transgression of my people was he stricken; that is, either through the malice and wickedness of the people of the Jews, whom the prophet calls his people, he was stricken, not only with the scourges of the whip, but with death itself, as the efficient cause thereof; or rather because of the transgressions of God's elect, in order to make satisfaction for them, he was stricken by divine justice, and put to death, as the meritorious cause thereof; and so they are the words of God the Father; and this, with the preceding clause, give a reason, showing both why he was taken from the prison of the grave, acquitted, and exalted, and why the wickedness of his age could not be declared; he being stricken and cut off in such a manner, when he was an innocent person; and since it was only for the transgressions of others, even of God's covenant people, the people he chose, and gave to Christ, Matthew 1:21.

You need to learn how to study b4 you debate, cause u look lost right now

 

[Brightfame52]

Whether something “looks reasonable” is not the question.

Thats what I said though, whether its the question or not, you either accept it or not

If your conclusion is not supported by the passages themselves, then it is not proof, only interpretation.

They supported by scripture to me, it doesnt have to meet what you think about whats supported by scripture, when it appears to me you are very unlearned in the scripture

If your conclusions cannot be tested from the passages and you refuse to show how they follow from them, then there is no real discussion.

Im not working on your stuff, you not running me around playing bible hopscotch with you. Present your views, Ill read them, but I already know I dont agree with you because you oppose my work , Do your own work, let others be the judge whats what

 

[Brightfame52]

If something is truly from Scripture, it should be demonstrable from Scripture.

I have given you my scriptures already, you dont agree

 

[Brightfame52]

Quoting Scripture and stating a conclusion is not the same as proving the conclusion from the passage.

I cant prove truth to someone who doesnt have the same level of understanding/enlightment that God has given me, thats above my paygrade. So my job is to quote scripture as I have understood it, regardless if you dont understand it

Saying “no you’re not” is not a scriptural argument.

It wasnt suppose to be

I have repeatedly asked to be shown from the passages where my interpretation is wrong.

Look at my interpretations of the scriptures I have shown forth and you will have been shown

 

[Brightfame52]

If your doctrine is truly from Scripture, then show it directly from the passages without adding conclusions like ‘elect only’ or ‘before faith’ that the passages themselves never state; otherwise what you are presenting is not faithful exegesis of Scripture.”

I have shown you what I see from scripture, doesnt matter if it doesnt meet your sound bite requirements.

Aka false teaching. Aka enroute to eternal hell one-day.

That could be where u headed if you not an elect, and at this point you show no evidence you are, but I know nobody's final destination

 

[Brightfame52]

Rom 4:5 proves that the elect are in a state of Justification while in a state of ungodliness. Its comparable to the elect being reconciled to God while being enemies Rom 5:10 34

 

[KingJ]

Im teaching scripture. do far you cant be taught

Incorrect on both. You are adding to scripture and inserting your conclusions.

He believeth in Him that justified the ungodly ! Again Gill writes:

This isnt some novel invention of mine, godly men taught this centuries ago

Whether someone taught it centuries ago is irrelevant.

The question is not whether John Gill or other theologians believed it. The question is whether Scripture teaches it.

The issue remains: where does Romans 4:5 actually say a person is justified before faith?

The passage says:

"him that believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly..."

It does not say "him that was already justified before he believed."

 

[KingJ]

The we is limited, the we isnt talking about everyone in the known world.

I agree the "we" is not every individual on earth.

My point is that Isaiah 53:6 does not say "the elect only."

That limitation is being supplied by your theology, not by the passage itself.

The burden is on you to show where Isaiah makes that distinction.

Because its correct. Isa 53:8

8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
Dose that sound like all humanity ? My People ? You are very unlearned
Barnes: on Isa 53/8

Isaiah 53:8 says:

"For the transgression of my people was he stricken."

The question is not whether Isaiah is speaking about "my people."

The question is how you get from "my people" to "therefore Christ died only for the elect."

The passage never makes that argument.

Also, calling someone "unlearned" is not an answer to the question. Show where the passage explicitly teaches your conclusion rather than simply asserting it.

Rom 4:5 points that out, Justified while in a state of unregeneracy. Plus Rom 5:10 collaborates by being reconciled to God while being enemies.

I cant help it if you cant see the truth, you still accountable for it

Romans 4:5 does not say "justified while remaining an unbeliever."

It says:

"him that believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly..."

Paul's example is of a believer, not an unbeliever.

Likewise Romans 5:10 says we were reconciled while enemies. It does not say we were justified before faith.

You keep adding "before faith" to passages that never actually state it.

JFB

Gill writes:

You need to learn how to study b4 you debate, cause u look lost right now

The commentaries don't actually prove your point.

JFB says "my people" may refer to Israel or to God's people. It does not say "therefore Christ died only for the elect."

Gill's statement is simply a Calvinistic interpretation.

The issue is not what Gill says the passage means.

The issue is where Isaiah 53:8 itself says "elect only."

"My people" appears in the passage.

"Elect only" does not.

 

[KingJ]

Thats what I said though, whether its the question or not, you either accept it or not

Whether I accept it is not the issue.

The issue is whether the doctrine can be demonstrated from Scripture.

A belief does not become true simply because it appears reasonable to the person holding it.

They supported by scripture to me, it doesnt have to meet what you think about whats supported by scripture, when it appears to me you are very unlearned in the scripture

What appears supported to you is not the standard.

Scripture is the standard.

That is precisely why I keep asking where the passages actually state the conclusions you are drawing from them.

Calling someone "unlearned" is not a substitute for demonstrating your doctrine from Scripture.

Im not working on your stuff, you not running me around playing bible hopscotch with you. Present your views, Ill read them, but I already know I dont agree with you because you oppose my work , Do your own work, let others be the judge whats what

I am not asking you to defend my position.

I am asking you to show how your conclusions follow from the passages you cite.

If a doctrine cannot be demonstrated from Scripture and can only be asserted, then readers should be cautious about accepting it.

-----------------

A doctrine should be accepted because it is demonstrated from Scripture, not because the person teaching it is convinced of it.

 

[KingJ]

I have shown you what I see from scripture, doesnt matter if it doesnt meet your sound bite requirements.

The issue is not what you see in the passage.

The issue is whether the passage actually teaches it.

You keep saying you see "elect only" and "justified before faith," but when asked where those phrases or concepts are actually stated, you appeal to your interpretation rather than the wording of Scripture.

That could be where u headed if you not an elect, and at this point you show no evidence you are, but I know nobody's final destination

Whether I am elect is not the subject under discussion.

The subject is whether your doctrines can be demonstrated from Scripture.

When a discussion about doctrine turns into speculation about another person's election, it usually means the original argument has not been answered.

 

[KingJ]

Rom 4:5 proves that the elect are in a state of Justification while in a state of ungodliness. Its comparable to the elect being reconciled to God while being enemies Rom 5:10 34

Romans 4:5 does not say "the elect are justified while remaining unbelievers."

It says:

"But to him that believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly..."

Paul's example is an ungodly person who believes, not an unbeliever who has already been justified.

Likewise Romans 5:10 says we were reconciled while enemies. It does not say we were justified before faith.

You keep inserting "before faith" and "elect only" into passages that never actually state either conclusion.

 

[KingJ]

@Brightfame52 - USA Learns Homepage

 

[Brightfame52]

Incorrect on both. You are adding to scripture and inserting your conclusions.

You dont understand spiritual things, you are yet carnal

Whether someone taught it centuries ago is irrelevant.

No its not, if thats the case you irrelevant

The question is not whether John Gill or other theologians believed it. The question is whether Scripture teaches it.

Scripture taught me and gill and others duh. Problem with you is you havent been taught of God and the scriptures.

The issue remains: where does Romans 4:5 actually say a person is justified before faith?

By saying one is Justified while being ungodly. One doesnt have Faith when in a ungodly condition. Duh

 

[Brightfame52]

I agree the "we" is not every individual on earth.

Then stop running your mouth. Isa 53 is about limited atonemnt.

Also, calling someone "unlearned" is not an answer to the question.

An unlearned person doesnt know when a question has been answered.

 

[Brightfame52]

Whether I accept it is not the issue.

It is the issue if you talking with me

What appears supported to you is not the standard.

the scripture I provided is the standard

Calling someone "unlearned" is not a substitute for demonstrating your doctrine from Scripture.

You have rejected the scripture I used, so you are unlearned. Everything I posted I used scripture. Gill saw it in Rom 4:5 and others

If a doctrine cannot be demonstrated from Scripture and can only be asserted, then readers should be cautious about accepting it.

You cant see it in scripture. Just because I see something in scripture and you dont, doesnt make it not supported by scripture.

I am not asking you to defend my position.

You havent established one, just rejecting one you cant understand.

 

[Brightfame52]

The issue is not what you see in the passage.

It is, Im responsible to God on what I see in scripture, not what you cant see

You keep saying you see "elect only" and "justified before faith," but when asked where those phrases or concepts are actually stated, you appeal to your interpretation rather than the wording of Scripture.

because it is only the elect, that needs to be emphasized !

When a discussion about doctrine turns into speculation about another person's election,

I dont know if you elect or not, but at this present time I see no evidence of it

 

[Brightfame52]

Romans 4:5 does not say "the elect are justified while remaining unbelievers."

Doesn't have to literally say it, but mean it. Christ only died for the elect. Thats my position, limited atonement ! So whenever Im making a statement regarding Christs death, I understand it as limited to the elect, always !!

Paul's example is an ungodly person who believes, not an unbeliever who has already been justified.

Paul and every other elect vessel of mercy were Justified b4 God from their Mothers womb. When he was persecuting believers, he was Justified by Christ Death for him.

Likewise Romans 5:10 says we were reconciled while enemies. It does not say we were justified before faith.

Dude you dont have Faith in God and Christ when you are an enemy against God, u r a unbeliever

You keep inserting "before faith" and "elect only" into passages that never actually state either conclusion.

Because you are an enemy b4 faith and ungodly b4 faith duh

 

[Brightfame52]

@Brightfame52 - USA Learns Homepage

Too bad I cant tell you to learn the scriptures