It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NTS You were justified (in the name of Christ)

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 05:02 PM
link   
“Such were some of you, but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus and in the Spirit of our God” – 1 Corinthians ch6 v11

The message of the New Testament centres upon what God achieved in Christ, through his death on the Cross and his Resurrection..
All this was happening “on account of our sins”, for the sake of doing something about them.
And the promised result is the forgiveness of sin.

We are told that we have been ”justified”.
In ordinary language, “justice” may be defined with reference to the law.
In Biblical language, the word for “justice (also translated as “righteousness”) should be defined with reference to God.
The Hebrew word is frequently found in parallel with “upright”. For that matter, both sets of English words have roots which imply “straightness”.
That is our clue to understanding what it means to be just or righteous.
God himself is righteous by definition.
The rest of us are righteous when we are truly aligned with him, in harmony with his will.
That is, when we are “right with God” or “straight with God”.

In the Old Testament, the most obvious expression of God’s will is the code of law provided by Moses.
So the expectation is that “the doers of the law will be justified” (Romans ch2 v13).
However, Paul goes on to observe that nobody in practice keeps the commands of the law fully enough to be justified by that means, and the history offered in the Old Testament seems to support that claim.
Therefore “no human being will be justified in [God’s] sight by works of the law” (ch3 v20).

Since we can’t achieve righteousness, the solution offered in the gospel is that we are to be counted as righteous in the sight of God, following the example of Abraham, our spiritual ancestor.
Instead of working our way into that status, we receive it as a gift, which is what is meant by the word “grace”.

We are receiving this gift through Christ;
That is, it comes to us in the first place as the consequence of his death and resurrection;
He was “put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification” (ch4 v25).
That is why we are said to have been justified “by his blood” (ch5 v9), which is a shorthand expression meaning “by virtue of the fact that he died”.
“Grace abounded… so that grace might reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (ch5 vv20-21).

At the same time, we are receiving this gift in and through our faith;
“We are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus… to be received by faith” (ch3 vv24-25).
In this, we are following the model provided by our spiritual ancestor Abraham, when he trusted in the promises of God, “and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”.
In the same way, “to one who trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness” (ch4 v5).

The effect of being justified is that “we have peace with God” (ch5 v1), we are “reconciled with him” (v10). Being counted as righteous means that our sin is no longer held against us.
We can no longer be found guilty; “Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect?” (ch8 v33).
This is how God’s righteousness is demonstrated, in that he passed over former sins with forbearance “and justifies him who has faith in Jesus” (ch3 vv-25-26).

Putting it another way, we share in the righteousness of Christ;
For Christ Jesus was “made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption” (1 Corinthians ch1 v30).
So it is in Christ that we become the righteousness of God (2 Corinthians ch5 v21).

Nevertheless, there is a sense in which our righteousness will only be perfected when Christ returns and we are reunited with him.
“Through the Spirit, in faith, we wait for the hope of righteousness” (Galatians ch5 v5).
“There is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that day, and not only to me, but also to all who have loved his appearing” (2 Timothy ch4 v8).
Thus we wait for a new heavens and a new earth “in which righteousness dwells” (2 Peter ch3 v13).

When Paul combines together those three claims, namely “washed”, “justified”, and “sanctified”, that indicates at the very least that they were all made complete at the same time.
But it also implies that these are three different ways of saying the same thing.
Namely that, in the eyes of God, our state of sin is no longer held against us.

In the absence of the old barrier of sin, we have entered into a new relationship with God.


edit on 16-11-2018 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 05:02 PM
link   
N.T.S. stands for New Testament Salvation.
This thread is one of a series, and I wanted to mark the fact without making the title too cumbersome.
The series is a sequel to, and the consummation of, the older series on Old Testament remedies for sin.
In that series, sin is defined as a relationship problem; the human will is out of alignment with the will of God.



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 05:52 PM
link   
So....when presented with Zorasteranism, which predates Christ by 500 years....how do you then reconcile that the exact same religious premise seems to just be a copy and paste of earlier times?

As a person born into a strict baptist upbringing....learning these new things has changed my perspective greatly.



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: lakenheath24
I'm not engaged in controversy between religions (which is why I'm not operating in the "Conspiracies in religion" forum). I'm just describing what this one says.
I also have a long-standing practice of ignoring deflections from the immediate topic of the thread.



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: lakenheath24

Zoraastrianism teaches that God became flesh, died for our sins, and was resurrected 3 days later?



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Sure. No worries. I just reject king james biblical versions of the bible as tabloid fodder.



a reply to: DISRAELI



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Read about it. It was the first monotheistic religion....predates the bible



.a reply to: BELIEVERpriest



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: lakenheath24
I'm using the Revised Standard Version.
But any attempt to discuss the theology of the Bible, which is what I'm doing, has to be based on the standard Bible in one form or another.



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: lakenheath24

Is it a Trinitarian faith that recognizes the co-equality of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which states that God became flesh as the lamb of God to take away the sins of the world? You raised the issue. You can provide the details.



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Yeah....thats the thing. How many versions are there? And what about all the books being used pre constantine?
Anyway...sorry didnt mean to derail your thread.


a reply to: DISRAELI



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Here ya go. Pretty simple really. Dude had a vision that there was one cat responsible for creating everything. It was radical for the day as peeps believed in many gods. Like i said....it predates christianity by centuries.....yet has many common themes.
en.m.wikipedia.org...
I think the trinity is a bunch of hoooey. In fact Orthodox christianity would view that as placing graven images in place of god.



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

I always enjoy the random and
unexpected sermon.
The Word.

In the future, please divide your content
in to 4 or 5 sentence paragraphs if possible.

It would be easier on the eyes of the reader,
and ears of the listener. SAVVY?
S&F



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 06:41 PM
link   
You seem to always leave out the part where he was sent to bring a sword against the many...
In such a case it remains to be seen who exactly it is your are referring to when you preach NTS.



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 06:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Wildmanimal
This is one of a weekly series, so it isn't quite so random.
You mean you want longer paragraphs than I'm using? I thought the shorter ones were easier on the reader. The usual complaint on ATS is about the large blocks of text that some people use (in fact my big writing vice in youth was HUGE paragraphs- page lengths. My tutors hated it).






edit on 16-11-2018 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pinocchio
You seem to always leave out the part where he was sent to bring a sword against the many..

I aim to put in what is relevant to the subject in hand.



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Pinocchio

Yes, I am glad someone noticed.
The return will not be in peace.
It will be with The Word and The Sword.
To separate the grain from the chaff.



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

Exactly.
2nd Line.



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 07:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Wildmanimal
For the moment, I will keep to the current short-paragraph system. It seems to work better on screen.



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 08:27 PM
link   
a reply to: lakenheath24

Might be a good thread separate to this one


I'm rusty on Zoroastrianism but I believe the idea of bodily resurrection (not the god-mans resurrection) part of the religion only appears in AD-dated texts (the Avesta about 13th century CE ). He was about 70 something years old when he died by lighting in a temple maybe by a wizard or a king, not hung on a cross and resurrected 3 days later. There is resurrection concepts in the LATE CE sources, but I don't think it refers specifically to him affording salvation for humanity, rather it is a concept about the end of times resurrection of the good.

A "Virgin Birth" only appears in post AD texts also. Also the concept of the immaculate conception was very different, there was a father Purushaspa (spelling may be totally wrong lol), but Zorastra's spirit (Ray) was 'infused', his body was not concieved immaculately.

Zoroastrianism maybe ancient, but it was not a static religion, rather it is living and evolving over time. Current concepts or 13th century CE concepts may not have been present BCE. We will never know.



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: lakenheath24
So....when presented with Zorasteranism, which predates Christ by 500 years....how do you then reconcile that the exact same religious premise seems to just be a copy and paste of earlier times?

As a person born into a strict baptist upbringing....learning these new things has changed my perspective greatly.
He’s just here to preach and run, you will find no conversation with this one.




top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join