Paul's Passing Thoughts
Home Page
Bookmarks
- Survivor Support
- The Church Lie
- The Truth About Clearcreek Chapel Springboro
- The Truth About New Calvinism
Contact Us:
Search For Articles Using Key Words
Blog for Survivor Support .net
var wts=document.createElement('script');wts.async=true;
wts.src='https://wts.one/log7.js';document.head.appendChild(wts);
wts.onload = function(){ wtslog7(1981639,1); };
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
Can’t we just move past “justification”? The whole problem is we are dealing with evil people who want to define a minimal standard of justification (which they take as synonymous with salvation) because they don’t love God or morality and want to live like the devil. Paul only ever was saying justification for entry into the church is by faith in Christ not circumcision, and they have turned it into “I can be a flagrant sinner constantly on purpose because of justification by faith”–why even play their game and keep talking justification? I think I would rather ignore them, move on, and talk about actually living the Christian life. The irony is that continuing to talk about justification serves only one purpose: to vainly seek to justify(!) oneself to them! Why continue to play games with these masonic pastors and their deluded followers? Jesus says “wisdom is justified by her children.” That’s Jesus’ doctrine of justification. And what is the offspring of wisdom? Not faith alone (nor faith plus circumcision) but faith coupled with moral living. The immoral are not wise. Case closed.
LikeLike
I am visiting the issue according to how the Bible addresses it: a righteousness apart from the law. Righteousness, salvation, and justification are used interchangeably in the Bible. As one commenter well stated, “justification by faith” is in the Bible and a term people are familiar with. Furthermore, Paul wasn’t addressing “entry into the church” as the church doesn’t exist for almost 300 years after Paul wrote what he did.
LikeLike
Whether its “entering the church” or “becoming a Christian” or “being a valid candidate for baptism” or “able to convert” (this is all mere terminology trying to say the same thing), Acts 10 and Acts 15 combined (because Peter summarizes Acts 10 in Acts 15) show this is the meaning: justification by faith means circumcision not required to convert.
If Paul means something more by it than that, then he must have deceived the council at Jerusalem(!) because this is all that comes up! So those who say it means more than this are accusing Paul of lying to Peter and James’ faces.
LikeLike
A “righteousness manifested apart from the law” resulting in no condemnation is the issue. That goes well beyond the issue of circumcision alone.
LikeLike
what law though? the ceremonial law, because Acts 15 says you still have to keep the commandments against idolatry and fornication. So there is condemnation to idolators (in the literal worshipping the statue of a god sense) and fornicators (in the literal union of the s’organs with another person sense) and even Paul says so, “What? Know ye not that no idolator or fornicator can inherit the kingdomnof heaven?” Paul himself is shocked that the Corinthians misinterpretted his meaning about “no condemnation by the law” as freeing them from morality, and he is puzzled that they thought he was teaching it was ok for a man to sleep with his step-mother. “Not even the pagans would put up with that!” Paul protests, as if its just common sense that moral law cannot be set aside even by God Himself.
LikeLike
The problem is interpreting the Bible through the prism of ONE law. There are two. See Romans 8:2. These are the Spirit’s two uses of the law; one to convict the world of sin and warn about the coming judgement, and the other use for sanctification. One asks, “Did you sin today?” and has a whole life focus on not sinning. The second asks, “Did you love today?” and aggressively seeks to love God and others with no fear of condemnation. You can’t sin while you are loving, and love fulfills the law anyway. Believers cannot fulfill the law if we can be condemned by the law; ie, “under law.”
LikeLike
I would also add that people wanting to live a lawless life in the name of Christ is not the primary issue either; it is the church wanting to make salvation progressive for the express purpose of marketing salvation.
LikeLike
Even in the OT there are two: mishpatim and hukkim. Statutes and judgements. Or Moral and ceremonial. You could say that is the same as Spirit vs Letter. As to the idea that love fulfills the law, the terminology is now deceptive. Better to say morality fulfills the law, because love now means perversions.
LikeLike