Who Justifieth the Ungodly

[KingJ]

You dont understand spiritual things, you are yet carnal

Calling me carnal does not answer the argument.

The question remains: where do the passages actually state the conclusions you are drawing from them?

No its not, if thats the case you irrelevant

Whether someone lived centuries ago is not the issue.

The issue is whether their interpretation can be demonstrated from Scripture.

Scripture is the authority, not the age of the commentator.

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

Whether Gill and yourself believe that God taught you is not the point under discussion.

The question is whether the doctrine can be shown from the passages themselves rather than assumed and read into them.

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

"Romans 4:5 says 'him that believeth'; your argument requires the verse to say 'him that does not believe.'"

 

[KingJ]

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

I agreed that "we" is not every individual on earth. That still does not prove limited atonement.

You need to show where Isaiah 53 says "elect only," not merely assert it.

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

If the question has been answered, then it should be easy to show where the passage explicitly teaches the conclusion.

Repeating an assertion is not the same as answering the question.

It is the issue if you talking with me

the scripture I provided is the standard

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

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

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

The discussion is not about what you see in Scripture or what I see in Scripture.

The discussion is whether the conclusions being claimed actually follow from the passages cited.

Saying "you don't understand" does not demonstrate limited atonement, justification before faith, or any other doctrine.

The question remains the same: where do the passages themselves teach those conclusions?

 

[KingJ]

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

I agree you are responsible before God for what you see in Scripture.

We all are.

That is why it is important to distinguish between what Scripture says and what we infer from it.

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

Saying "it is only the elect" is the very point under dispute.

Repeating the conclusion is not proving the conclusion.

The question remains: where does the passage itself say "elect only"?

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

Whether you think you see evidence of my election is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[KingJ]

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 !!

Thank you for the honesty.

You have just admitted that whenever you read about Christ's death, you automatically interpret it as "elect only."

That is exactly my concern.

The conclusion is being brought to the passage before the passage is allowed to speak for itself.

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.

Please provide the Scripture that says Paul was justified from his mother's womb.

Paul describes himself as a blasphemer, persecutor, and enemy of Christ before his conversion.

The passage says he was called from the womb (Galatians 1:15), not justified from the womb.

Those are two different things.

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

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

Nobody is disputing that we were enemies and ungodly before faith.

The question is whether Scripture says we were already justified before faith.

Romans 5:10 says we were enemies.

Romans 4:5 says "him that believeth."

Neither passage says a person is justified before believing.

You keep assuming that conclusion rather than demonstrating it from Scripture.

 

[Brightfame52]

Calling me carnal does not answer the argument.

I didnt mean for it to

The question remains: where do the passages actually state the conclusions you are drawing from them?

You cant see it because you carnal

The question is whether the doctrine can be shown from the passages themselves rather than assumed and read into them.

You cant see it. Also scripture most times must be compared with other scriptures to form a biblical interpretation, things cant be as black and white as carnal reasoning desires it.

Whether someone lived centuries ago is not the issue.

It is if you discussing with me

Scripture is the authority, not the age of the commentator.

You dont believe scripture, the commentator does

Whether Gill and yourself believe that God taught you is not the point under discussion.

Its the point when I introduce it into the discussion

"Romans 4:5 says 'him that believeth'; your argument requires the verse to say 'him that does not believe.'"

Him that believeth on Him that Justified the ungodly ! You need to read Gill again, to help your understanding. God used men like him

 

[Brightfame52]

I agreed that "we" is not every individual on earth.

Then stop running your mouth about it. He was speaking of a specific group of people, not all mankind

You need to show where Isaiah 53 says "elect only," not merely assert it.

Doesn't need to say elect only for it to be elect only, its a given if its not all mankind in general

If the question has been answered, then it should be easy to show where the passage explicitly teaches the conclusion.

Again a unlearned person doesnt recognize the answer, Ive shown it and yet you blind to it, thats not my problem. Im sharing spiritual truth, you cant see it if you not spiritual

Repeating an assertion is not the same as answering the question.

Yes it is, its the answer I deem appropriate for you to have

The discussion is not about what you see in Scripture or what I see in Scripture.

Then you foolish to ask me any questions pertaining to what I seen and posted already

Saying "you don't understand" does not demonstrate limited atonement, justification before faith, or any other doctrine.

Its demonstrated by scripture to me, else I wouldnt post it. You not the judge of what is spiritual or not, your judgment is carnal. You lie the person of 1 Cor 2:14

The question remains the same: where do the passages themselves teach those conclusions?

In the passages which you dot see

 

[Brightfame52]

That is why it is important to distinguish between what Scripture says and what we infer from it.

No inference is fine when its based on other scripture.

Saying "it is only the elect" is the very point under dispute.

You can dispute it till judgment day, only the elect have an saving interest in Jesus Crist !!

The question remains: where does the passage itself say "elect only"?

Doest have to say it. Its an inference

Whether you think you see evidence of my election is irrelevant to the discussion

It was relevant at the time I said it

 

[Brightfame52]

Thank you for the honesty.

Thats been my position from post 1 on this forum, you should have noticed

You have just admitted that whenever you read about Christ's death, you automatically interpret it as "elect only."

Yes. To make it easy on you, folk call what I believe Calvinism or TULIP/ Doctrines of Grace. So now you know for sure, I said it

That is exactly my concern.

Concern ? You need to be concerned about yourself because you opposing the truth sir

Please provide the Scripture that says Paul was justified from his mother's womb.

Its an inference from reading scripture

Paul describes himself as a blasphemer, persecutor, and enemy of Christ before his conversion.

He was, just Justified but didnt know it yet. All the elect are ungodly sinners before converted

The passage says he was called from the womb (Galatians 1:15), not justified from the womb.

I know what it says, does it say he wasnt Justified from his mothers womb ?

Nobody is disputing that we were enemies and ungodly before faith.

And reconciled to God by Christs death if He died for you

The question is whether Scripture says we were already justified before faith.

Yes if reconciled. Cant be reconciled to God and not be Justified from sin

Romans 4:5 says "him that believeth."

Dont forget the rest of the verse " Rom 4:5

5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

The ungodly has the definite article, so its specified Abraham was Justified while in a ungodly condition.

Neither passage says a person is justified before believing.

The inference is there

 

[KingJ]

I didnt mean for it to

You cant see it because you carnal

You cant see it. Also scripture most times must be compared with other scriptures to form a biblical interpretation, things cant be as black and white as carnal reasoning desires it.

It is if you discussing with me

You dont believe scripture, the commentator does


Its the point when I introduce it into the discussion


Him that believeth on Him that Justified the ungodly ! You need to read Gill again, to help your understanding. God used men like him

You have now moved almost entirely from discussing Scripture to discussing me.

"You are carnal."

"You can't see it."

"Read Gill."

None of those are arguments from Scripture.

The issue has always been simple:

Where do the passages themselves state "elect only" or "justified before faith"?

Appealing to my alleged carnality or to Gill's interpretation does not answer that question

 

[KingJ]

Then stop running your mouth about it. He was speaking of a specific group of people, not all mankind

Doesn't need to say elect only for it to be elect only, its a given if its not all mankind in general


Again a unlearned person doesnt recognize the answer, Ive shown it and yet you blind to it, thats not my problem. Im sharing spiritual truth, you cant see it if you not spiritual

Yes it is, its the answer I deem appropriate for you to have

Then you foolish to ask me any questions pertaining to what I seen and posted already

Its demonstrated by scripture to me, else I wouldnt post it. You not the judge of what is spiritual or not, your judgment is carnal. You lie the person of 1 Cor 2:14

In the passages which you dot see

Thank you for clarifying your position.

You have repeatedly said:

"It doesn't need to say it."

"I see it."

"You can't see it."

That is precisely the concern. A doctrine should be demonstrated from Scripture, not defended by claiming special insight into Scripture.

If the passages teach "elect only" and "justified before faith," then show where they teach those conclusions.

Saying "I see it" is not the same as demonstrating it.

 

[KingJ]

Thats been my position from post 1 on this forum, you should have noticed

Yes. To make it easy on you, folk call what I believe Calvinism or TULIP/ Doctrines of Grace. So now you know for sure, I said it

Concern ? You need to be concerned about yourself because you opposing the truth sir

Its an inference from reading scripture

He was, just Justified but didnt know it yet. All the elect are ungodly sinners before converted


I know what it says, does it say he wasnt Justified from his mothers womb ?

And reconciled to God by Christs death if He died for you

Yes if reconciled. Cant be reconciled to God and not be Justified from sin


Dont forget the rest of the verse " Rom 4:5

5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

The ungodly has the definite article, so its specified Abraham was Justified while in a ungodly condition.

The inference is there

Thank you. You have now confirmed my point.

"It is an inference."

"The inference is there."

Exactly.

The doctrine is inferred by you; it is not stated by the passages themselves.

That is the distinction I have been making all along.

 

[Brightfame52]

God doesnt Justify the elect for their natural sinfulness, ungodliness, but because, Christ has died for them, and His Righteousness has been charged to their credit See 2 Cor 5:21. So they are legally righteous on a just ground, while they themselves are ungodly prior to conversion. 34

 

[Brightfame52]

You have now moved almost entirely from discussing Scripture to discussing me.

Im discussing scripture with you

Where do the passages themselves state "elect only" or "justified before faith"?

They are inferences made from knowing scripture and the plan of salvation overall. Its called syllogism, deductive reasoning. Have you done it b4 in your bible discussions ? Be honest

Appealing to my alleged carnality or to Gill's interpretation does not answer that question

Yeah it does, thats what you get at the time. You have already seen my biblical arguments and disagree.

 

[Brightfame52]

Thank you for clarifying your position.

You welcome

The doctrine is inferred by you; it is not stated by the passages themselves.

Correct, though its a biblical doctrine

That is the distinction I have been making all along

Okay, doesnt change the fact that I see the scriptures teaching that truth

 

[Brightfame52]

. A doctrine should be demonstrated from Scripture, not defended by claiming special insight into Scripture.

It was demonstrated from scripture, certain inferences can logically be made when something else is clearly taught elsewhere

If the passages teach "elect only" and "justified before faith," then show where they teach those conclusions.

You cant see it. It takes skill and knowing the word of God to see it. If Christ died for a person, and His death/blood Justifies Rom 5:9 and He died for them in 33 ad, that's when His blood Justified them b4 God, but they themselves were not born a sinner until 1957. Well they were Justified by Christs blood back in 33 ad at the cross. Now we know all mankind isnt Justified b4 God, so its only a elect portion Rom 8:33-34

33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

So I have my biblical foundation, even though you dont see it, or disagree with it.

 

[KingJ]

God doesnt Justify the elect for their natural sinfulness, ungodliness, but because, Christ has died for them, and His Righteousness has been charged to their credit See 2 Cor 5:21. So they are legally righteous on a just ground, while they themselves are ungodly prior to conversion. 34

You keep asserting that the elect are legally righteous prior to conversion, but where does 2 Corinthians 5:21 actually say that?

The passage says:

"For he hath made him to be sin for us... that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

It explains the basis of salvation in Christ.

It does not say people are justified before faith, converted years later, and only then discover they were already righteous.

That conclusion is being imported into the passage, not stated by it.

 

[KingJ]

Im discussing scripture with you

They are inferences made from knowing scripture and the plan of salvation overall. Its called syllogism, deductive reasoning. Have you done it b4 in your bible discussions ? Be honest

Yeah it does, thats what you get at the time. You have already seen my biblical arguments and disagree.

The problem is not that you are making an inference. Christians do that all the time.

The problem is when an inference is contradicted by other clear Scriptures.

For example, you infer "elect only" from certain passages, yet Scripture repeatedly presents God as impartial and not showing favoritism.

Romans 2:11
"For there is no respect of persons with God."

Acts 10:34
"God is no respecter of persons."

Therefore, an inference is only valid if it harmonizes with the whole counsel of God, not merely a select group of passages.

An inference that contradicts clearer Scriptures should be rejected.