Justification: Action of God or Accomplishment of Man?

Uh... let's uh... take uh... telephones and talk with brother peter. Hello brother peter.

Hi uh... i had a question about your view on justification. It's my understanding that you believe that a justified believer. That's what you believe. Well what would you say. And respond goes on to say e there clearly indicating that people who are really proving that a justified.

Justification by Scripture Rather Than Eisegesis

Well that's an awesome example of eisegesis uh... i i appreciate the presentation of it because when you want to talk about justification it would seem that you would go to the text in the bible that specifically address justification rather than going to other texts specifically warning passages and things like that make assumptions based upon that mainly man-centered assumptions rather than god-centered assumptions and then read it back in the text.

Which is exactly what the roman catholic church has done uh... in its definitions. Uh... especially on this subject it would seem to me that if you want to discuss justification why not go to the text that discuss justification first determine what the inspired text says there and then make application elsewhere.

Well isn't that in fact what you do. Because i i'm not sure why this information was was volunteered but uh... you are not an orthodox roman catholic you're a set of a kind of uh... city. They can just aren't you not uh... i would.

Consider myself and say that i am a a true catholic.

I would point out that would the pope consider you to be a true catholic.

No but we can prove that he's not a real catholic. Ok so.

So but you would do that by going to particular texts. But before i get to that it's interesting that you you're diverting here from the issue. No i'm not. I'm demonstrating that you're using two different standards because i would imagine that any arguments he would use to defend your rebellion against the bishop of rome and your identification of him as a false one would involve first going to text that would specifically address the issue but you don't do that here.

And so i'm saying is that i could be i could quote passages from all kinds of books in the bible. I've written a book on this issue and the bible itself says that man is not justified in james chapter two verse twenty four and there are a host of other passages but.

The bible is infallible. You claim to believe that. I most certainly do. Have you read my book on justification. No. Okay. But i haven't read yours so that is in the exact same book.

Okay well so saying that you know another passage might say something else. The bottom line is that the bible is infallible. And so if we have the bible clearly teaching that a justified believer could be in the camp with those who are losing their salvation that is a definitive example of having conformity with scripture.

Well let me give you an.

The Golden Chain of Redemption in Romans 8

Example where the bible actually addresses justification is actually addressing the subject and demonstrates that what you believe uh... is a doctrine of demons. Specifically uh... you believe that a person can be baptized validly baptized and hence enter in the state of grace but not uh... gain justification.

That's your whole point.

A person who yes an adult received the mark of baptism without receiving the character that's correct. So without receiving the justification that's correct if he puts a positive obstacle in the way an impediment.

So could a person at one point be justified then lose that that grace of justification.

I just quoted ephesians five five three which clearly teaches that he can't.

Except the term justification isn't in ephesians five is it.

It doesn't matter because you would agree that.

I just wanted to point that out. You're reading it into it and everybody sees that. Let me go to a text that actually does use the term and let's see if your interpretation works.

Uh... what's obvious. You don't have a response to ephesians. Five five three.

Actually actually i've just uh... anyone who's who's fair-minded realizes that i'm going to a text that talks about justification and that demonstrates that since justification isn't even being discussed in ephesians five.

Argument. But again here's. Here's the text. When we go to the actual work of god in christ jesus in romans eight we are told there uh... that god works all things uh... together for the good of those who love god those are the called according to his purpose.

And then it says for those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his son nor that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called.

And those whom he called he also justified. And those whom he justified he also glorified. This is called the golden chain of redemption. Now there is the actual term and it is god who is doing the justification justification the divine action.

And so those whom he called he also justified and those whom he justified he also glorified. Now you just told me that there are those who are justified who will not be glorified. So either your justification.

Well i can respond to that.

He's speaking there in the context of those who are actually among the elect and in their case they are justified and they wind up being glorified. But that's not necessarily the truth with every single individual who has ever justified.

And that's why the book of romans itself teaches that believers if they don't continue in goodness will be cut off. For instance in romans eleven it's speaking to believers and it says but toward thee if thou continue in his goodness otherwise thou also shall be cut off.

Yes romans eleven is actually talking to gentiles and in comparison to the jews so you've just introduced a distinction here. He's not talking to the jews. I've let you make a presentation. I'm gonna respond to it.

I've given you more time that i've taken. So this needs to be a dialogue not simply preaching. You're the guest. Okay i just want to make sure you understand that. Uh... you've just introduced a distinction where you have individuals who are not predestined who are not called yet are justified and then don't become glorified.

Could you show me where that. Uh... where paul presents that because to be justified since that's a divine act has to be done the same basis for all men. That's the whole point of paul's argument. Romans three four and five is a justification for anyone is all on the same basis of faith in the finished work of jesus christ.

So you have some people because they are of the elect who are justified and they therefore be glorified. But evidently you have other people who have uh... they have a different kind of justification.

Where is this justification discussed.

It's a it's a gratuitous assertion because you would have to prove that saint paul saying that every single person who is justified is glorified and he's not and just responding to what you were saying about the passage of romans which also contradicts your entire belief he's not talking about unbelievers there he's talking about the believers and he says be not high minded but fear and he's speaking to them the believers and he says you also shall be cut off unless you continue in goodness if you are assured of your salvation.

If a believer can never lose his justification he would never say that.

A couple things. First of all this is a wonderful example and i really do appreciate your calling so people can hear the vast chasm of difference between those people. Because i've i've talked about this many times in the program but having someone actually do it illustrates it far better than my describing it.

There are those who read the bible in a god-centered way. And there's those who read the bible in a man-centered way. And there are those who read text about salvation as something that god does. And there are those who read text about salvation something that man does.

And this is this is one of the best examples that i can give because i keep going to these texts. Where in romans eight you say i've made a gratuitous assumption that all those that are justified are glorified.

Well that's what romans eight thirty says. Uh... you gratuitously say that's because you're just looking at the elect there. But there's these non-elect people that are truly christians and i say could you show me where there's anybody like that.

And of course nowhere in scripture. Do you have anyone who is not elect who's going to be justified because the obvious reason that the non-elect are dead in their trespasses and sins and hence are never going to exercise saving faith in jesus christ to be justified.

But you're the one that keeps looking at these things. And you look at romans eleven where paul is addressing groups of people specifically here the gentiles who are in danger of boasting against the jews and turn that into a text that then overthrows the rest of what romans eight actually says when it says what then shall we say to these things.

If god is for us who can be against us. He who did not spare his own son but gave him up for us all. Now who is this. Us all. Uh... was. Was christ given up for all men. Or was christ given up for different groups of people who is this.

That is how we not with him also graciously give us all things who will bring a charge against god's elect. Those are the ones for whom christ gave up his life.

Note what is going on is in fact that you are applying your misunderstanding of certain passages and ignoring the entire tenor of the rest of scripture with if you look at the parables of jesus they have no meaning.

But i think.

I was a let. Let let's see if you can walk through romans eight with me. Let let's see if you can answer my questions. Uh... i really ask who'd know who's. I don't think you did.

He did not spend a little anything else because you want to focus just on the.

One misunderstanding you have. Well so it's only the misunderstanding from the.

Text. You don't want to go to anything else such as the parable that's what you.

Can't do sir. You know i did you know. I responded by saying.

You have not established or proven because it's not there. And let's walk.

Through that i guess i can't believe who did not spare his own son but gave him up for us all. How will you not also with him graciously give us all things who's is talking about. Who's the audience. Beef did you hang up.

Not here. Okay. I couldn't hear anything who's who's talking. What i mean every time i try to speak and i can't finish the sentence. Everybody knows that's not the case because i've been listening so and we do record this so people will know.

That's.

Not the case but the last few times i've tried to respond you have just interrupted me. That's a fact and the tape bears that out. You're asking me about romans eight and i responded by saying that he did not say that every single person who was ever justified before be glorified.

He's speaking of those who aren't. They are justified and wind up being glorified. Okay. That's why we see in the okay now.

That's it. No no no. You know you cannot. Of course. Exactly because you can't handle scripture. No sir you are the one who cannot walk through this text.

Right you just said you can't even provide a semblance of a response to ephesians 5.

Okay i just put you on hold because obviously everyone can see what's going on here. I want to do exegesis. I want to walk through the text. You can't. As soon as you get to the point where the text is demonstrating your error you jump to another text into your interpretation of that.

I want to walk through the text. I want to ask you a question. You tell me that romans 8 says. I have not established that all those are justified or glorified. Upon what basis you said. Well this is just about the elect.

Okay. Then if this is just about the electing about to put you back on so you can answer this question. If you want this question there's no reason to continue this because i think the demonstration has already been very well made as to who's doing exegesis and who isn't.

But here's the question in romans 8 32. He who did not spare his own son but gave him up for us all. If you say that's only the elect then are you agreeing with us that christ has been given only for the elect and that how will he not also with him graciously give us all things only has to do with the elect.

And then that does that not then mean that only the elect can be justified. That there is no basis for justification for the others. There's the question. Can you answer it from the text.

Your question is art did christ die for all men. Yes he did die for all men. So.

The us all in romans 832 is universal hello. It includes the believers he shed.

His blood for all men which necessarily included the believers because they are part of humanity. Okay. So that doesn't prove that everyone who is justified is therefore glorified. And and actually if you look at the extended context of because the chapters okay as you know were put there of course afterward.

And so if we look at the extended context it's all throughout Romans that you can lose your salvation. Okay. And that whether or not you have salvation is dependent upon whether or not you observe the laws of God whether or not you continue in goodness.

And so the extended context and even before that in Romans 2 it's clearly teaching you that unless you observe certain things and it's not a given that a believer will do that you will lose your salvation.

I.

Honestly couldn't think of anything more opposite of what Paul actually teaches and what you just said but again that's also why you pointed out you don't like to talk about the parable Jesus. Bring you back to the text because you just contradicted yourself and I and I think people find it very useful to see this.

You first of all tell us that in Romans 830 those just there that's just the elect and so so that justification doesn't necessarily result in glorification for everybody. But then in the next sentence you just abandoned the context of that being just the elect and made it universal.

What in the context indicates that all of a sudden things have changed because the text itself says who shall bring any charge against God's elect in verse 33. So you you.

Exactly you just made my point. Am I still on. Yes you are okay. Exactly he's talking about the elect. You just made the point. In verse 33 who shall bring a.

Charge against the elect. What is their phrase. Read the next phrase. I don't have.

It is God who justifies right there justifies those among the elect who will eventually wind up being glorified. You just refuted yourself and so the.

Preceding part of the sentence that says he who did not spare his own son but gave him up for us all. What's your point the elect. What your point the elect. My point is that you can't walk through this text and keep making all the differentiations you do when the text yes you did.

Your entire point of Romans 830 has been that that isn't a text that's relevant to whether God's justification is an eternal justification that it is a divine act and that it cannot fail because I'm limiting that solely to the elect and I then you introduce the idea that there can be people who can be truly justified but are not of the elect and I'm saying to you that distinction throws the entirety of Romans all of Romans and especially Romans 8 into a complete uproar and you have not been able to be consistent in following it right.

Which.

Is why anyone who reads any bit of scripture in depth who is honest okay can see that there are many passages which clearly teach that a believer can.

Lose his job. Thank you brother Peter. I appreciate you joining us. Oh there you go. Excellent excellent example. Once you start making charges of dishonesty I figure the phone calls over with because that just gets a little silly.

But there you go. Excellent excellent example of how you can not. There is the difference between a scripture derived theology and one that is forced upon scripture from outside that remember just uh was it the last program.

I think this last program that I went through John 6 and George Bryson. And what is it about Arminians. They can't walk through John 6 beginning at the beginning and going to the end they can't do it.

Why. Because their theology is derived from external sources rather than scripture. Now we just listen to an unorthodox Roman Catholic a set a set of a contest. Or they they sometimes say study. They contest whatever.

Who therefore would not even be considered orthodox from the Roman Catholic perspective. But hey I'd like I said I'd love to hear Jerry Matitox debate with you know Jimmy Akin or somebody like that. I'd be great awesome.

But there you just heard someone who has a very man-centered. Did you hear that Romans teaches us about what we must do to fulfill. And you're sitting here the whole point it's making it's the exact opposite of that.

And again if we started if we went through Romans 2 if we started Romans 1 if we just went through the text point by point none of that would ever be substantiated. But it's not exegesis that these folks don't do.

It's is a Jesus. It's reading into the text help me understand his argument just a little bit because in verse 30 he's saying that that is the elect. But somewhere between verse 30 and verse 31 it becomes universal.

It became somehow became universal for 32 because gave up for us all. And then goes back to the elect in the very next phrase in verse 33. Believe me. Okay it is it is sadly unusual for these folks to be challenged to do what I was just challenging him to do so 32 is is universal.

When it says gave him up for us all. So us all is a universal us all. Well Christ died for everyone. But that would include believers. I think that's what he said. But given the context of the passage why would Paul use the word us.

Well I can answer that but I can't. I'm not going to try to answer for him. The point is this. The point is this because it would make sense if he just simply said delivered him up for all here here it is from their perspective there are people who are justified who are not part of the elect.

That goes back to Augustine. Okay there are people who are justified who are not part of the elect. That's the foundational error of the Roman Catholic view of justification. Because it does not understand what justification is the only person who's justified as a person who has the righteousness of Christ.

The only way to have the righteous Christ to be united with him the only way to have that is to be feel amongst the elect. So they have this this distinction this this came out believe it or not in a debate with Jerry Maddix in December of 1990 here in Phoenix where he agreed with John 6.

But he said well that's just about the elect. And but we've got these other people who are also justified but they are not of the elect. Did you get the impression that the caller understood that you don't believe that anyone who's not elect can be justified.

He understands that. Yeah. But but he would he just rejects that again. But it's in it's very clear it doesn't see the Roman Catholic operates on a much lower standard than we do in regards to exegesis.

Because you've got this external authority. And so as long as you can find verses that sound like that. Well then that's good. Because you're not having to derive your theology from the text. Your theology is coming from an infallible source outside the text.

And so then you find sections in the text that well that fits with that. And see it's real easy to go to text like the warning passages and Ephesians 5 for example do not partake with them. But well you know he assumed that meant that do not become like them in the sense that you then would somehow lose your salvation.

And you know justifications even there so on and so forth the warning passages in Hebrews the warning passages all through the New Testament are addressed to the people of God. He's assuming that if as long as someone is in the congregation that means you're in because from their perspective baptism you know brings everything in.

And of course that's where the problem is as well because they don't have a biblical doctrine justification that is involved with union with Christ saving faith coming from the Spirit of God you know all the rest of these things it's a it's a package deal.

There's no no no toys about. See I think that's where sometimes I disconnect when I listen to that conversation because there's so many things that go by so fast. And in my brain I've got this worldview that exactly that that not all who are sitting in church are in the church.

Right. And he yeah yeah I understand that I understand that but again it was useful to me because even looking at the text in Ephesians 5 even even looking at what was there what does Paul say. For at one time you were darkness but now you are light in the Lord.

Now when you address that to the entire congregation yes that's very true of those who are truly in Christ. But as Hebrews makes plain as John made plain in in 1st John 2 there are those who are in the congregation who do not have true saving faith and they are the ones who will eventually go out from us.

So it might be demonstrated they were not truly of us. Those warnings are given to the elect so that we might know what God's will is and what is pleasing in his sight. And if our nature has been changed we will want to do what God has revealed is appropriate and pleasing to him.

That's how the warnings function for us. So I appreciate that. I I've not heard of his book and evidently he's not heard of mine either. I would love again I would love to compare what he says about James 2 with my entire chapter on just you and the God who justifies it would again illustrate the exact same thing.

And that is once one side got external authority I don't care what it is you can not walk through the text of scripture and do so consistently you'll always have to engage. Nice Jesus. We just saw that great illustration of it.

Thanks for listening to the violin today remember next time Zainab bin Josh and the Quran we'll see you then. God bless.