It is a faithful saying: if we deny him, he also will deny us

 

https://www.facebook.com/sing.f.lau/posts/pfbid02cDUi6P1aT2bDcnbuuh2xBXT6zbcufsYbwKuX7J79UJkpNyiF3RVa9h9pLmTBJ6Z6l

Dec 23, 2012

2Tim 2:11-13
It is a faithful saying: For
- if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him:
- if we suffer, we shall also reign with him:
- if we deny him, he also will deny us:
- if we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

Why, in our unbelief, Christ remains faithful while in our denial of Him, He will also deny us?

How are unbelief in Christ and denial of Christ related?

In what way do we deny Him?

In what way will Jesus deny us?

What are the consequences of His denying us?

I would be pleased to hear your answers. Thanks.
-------

Low Wei Yan
Interestingly challenging...

Brendon Double-You
One who abides in Christ, because he has been grafted in by the Vinedresser - will not adopt a habitual pattern of denying Him. Whether that denial come through public testimony (or rather, absence of) or a denial of His love, power, and the sufficiency of His grace in the outworking our life (thought, word, and deed).

Low Wei Yan
Hmm.. let me try.. A man in the state of sin naturally rebels and denies Christ as they are spiritually dead. This act of denial is also proof that Christ denied him of spiritual life.. Believe however is one of the fruit of the Spirit. It is also the work (John 28-29). So, even if we do not do this work for whatever reason which may include our inability to do so, Christ cannot deny his elect.. I think this is set in a situation where some elect were faced with an ultimatum to either deny Christ and live or believe Christ and certain death. So, only the true elect will be able to choose not to deny Christ. However, there are also elect not faced with such a situation.. to these elects, Christ cannot deny them as Christ election is purely by grace and not any works of man (including the work of believing)...

Sing F Lau
Thanks... please note that Paul says, "if WE deny him, he will also deny us."

The people under consideration is 'we' and 'us' - they are God's children who are BELIEVERS!

An interpretation that doesn't bear this in mind is off tangent!

God's children who are believers DO deny Christ... it is a reality, not hypothetical.

Christ will also deny those that deny Him... that is also a reality, not hypothetical.

So, we need to consider the fact of our denial of Christ, , and the consequences of Christ's reciprocal denial of us... who are God's children.

Does the term 'true elect' imply 'false elect' or 'not true elect'?

Julius Stewart
Very well stated Sing. Well done.

Low Wei Yan
hmm... getting more interestingly challenging.. seems like the word "deny" needs more due consideration..

Julius Stewart
We will be denied kingdom fellowship. We can not be denied sonship.

Julius Stewart
Same thing here. Mat 10:32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

Mat 10:33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

Marty-Sandy Smith
Consider that, in Simon Peter, we have a disciple who both confessed Jesus Christ (Matthew 16) and denied Jesus Christ - not once, but three times!

Consider also that, in the apostle Paul, we have one who began his trip to Damascus in unbelief.

Perhaps those examples will help to arrive at answers.

Robert Cook Sr.
OH! am I thankful for 2Timothy 2:13 "He cannot deny Himself" If I reject Him now I have no comfort or rest now, this is a snare of the devil that God must grant repentance for so be patient. See rest of chapter.

Mr Spurgeon on Christmas

Charles Haddon Spurgeon, the famous English Baptist preacher,
was born on June 19, 1834, in Kelvedon, Essex, England,
to parents John and Eliza Spurgeon.
He became known as the "Prince of Preachers"
for his powerful sermons and extensive writings,
serving for decades at the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London. 

  ==================

One can't be more honest and plain than Mr Spurgeon on Christmas...

Quite unlike "the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive the simple."

Mr Spurgeon said,
“There is no reason upon earth beyond that of ecclesiastical custom why the 25th of December should be regarded as the birthday of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ any more than any other day from the first of January to the last day of the year; and yet some persons regard Christmas with far deeper reverence than the Lord’s Day. You will often hear it asserted that “The Bible and the Bible alone is the religion of the Protestants,” but it is not so. There are Protestants who have absorbed a great deal beside the Bible into their religion, and among other things, they have accepted the authority of what they call “the church,” and by that door, all sorts of superstitions have entered.

There is no authority whatever in the word of God for the keeping of Christmas at all, and no reason for keeping it just now except that the most superstitious section of Christendom has made a rule that December 25th shall be observed as the birthday of the Lord, and the church by law established in this land [England] has agreed to follow in the same track. You are under no bondage whatever to regard that regulation. 

We owe no allegiance to the ecclesiastical powers which have made a decree on this matter, for we belong to an old-fashioned church which does not dare to make laws, but is content to obey them. At the same time the day is no worse than another, and if you choose to observe it, and observe it unto the Lord, I doubt not he will accept your devotion: while if you do not observe it, but unto the Lord observe it not, for fear of encouraging superstition and will-worship, I doubt not but what you shall be as accepted in the non-observance as you could have been in the observance of it.”

Charles H. Spurgeon, his introductory comments before preaching on the birth of Jesus Christ, December 24th, 1876

=====

Do enjoy your Christmas festivities; however, just be honest to admit that it has no biblical basis whatsoever. Specious arguments only diminish your integrity further.
Next time, don't say "sola scriptura" so loudly. 

Behold those lowly village shepherds

Behold those lowly village shepherds

#humble_shepherds
#little_kings

Behold those lowly village shepherds... and those little napoleons in Jerusalem 

Luke 2
9 And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.
10 And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.
12 And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
15 And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us.
16 And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.
17 And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child.
18 And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds.
19 But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in hr heart.
20 And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them.

Look at the responses of the lowly village shepherds to the glad tidings the Lord had made known to them. Are you of their kindred? They wholeheartedly believed the glad tidings brought to them. Initially, they were overcome by the majestic appearance of the angels but once they recovered from that they sprang into action.

- "Let us NOW go even unto Bethlehem..." There was this sense of urgency to meet the newborn Saviour, Christ the Lord. To them, everything else can wait. To many, it is "what's the rush. Christ can wait!"

- "Let us go to see this thing which IS COME TO PASS..." The Saviour, Christ the Lord, whom they had been expecting has finally arrived. These simple village folks were expecting their Messiah, foretold by the prophets! They must see for themselves this wonderful fulfilment!

- "Let us see the thing which the Lord hath made known to us." To them, it is the Lord Himself who had made known the glad tidings to us, though it was delivered through the angel of the Lord.

- "And they came with haste..." They rushed from the field to the inn. How earnest and eager they were to meet their Saviour. There was a full moon - in the middle of the month of Tishri - bidding them godspeed.

- "And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying..." They were eyewitnesses. They not only believed what the Lord had made known to them, they actually witnessed the truth of it, and they bore witness to what they had seen!

- "The shepherds... glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them." The lowly shepherds rejoiced in the great honour the Lord God of heaven had bestowed upon them; they glory in the coming of the Saviour, Christ the Lord; and praised God for the fulfilment of the great promise.

What is your reaction to the glad tidings brought to you?

Are you like these lowly shepherds?
Or are you like Herod the King and his fellow urbanites of Jerusalem, of New York, London, Putrajaya, or Timbaktu?

"When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him."

Matthew 2
1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
3 When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

Are you TROUBLED by the glad tidings concerning the Saviour, Christ the Lord, the King of the Jews?

Little kings are indeed troubled by the coming of the King of kings!

But sinners rejoice at such glad tidings!

It's safe to fool around with a babe in a manger;

He is now the exalted King of kings on His throne. Be wise, pay homage. Amen.

Psalms 2:12
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

The wages of sin vs. the gift of God

 

The wages of sin vs. the gift of God

Wages are earned, dues for the works done;

They are owed by you, who have laboured for them.

Sin will not defraud you of your just dues;

You shall be paid your wages in full.

The gift is bestowed freely by the gracious giver.

It is not what you have worked for nor earned.

God alone gives this gift, by His free grace alone;

He bestows this gift of eternal life in Jesus Christ.

O Lord, what an infinitely wise and fitting gift!

What other gift is relevant to a man who has earned the wages of sin?

What does a man dead in trespasses and sin need most? It is eternal life in Jesus Christ, and this is freely bestowed upon him, who is NOT ONLY completely unable to do anything to earn or deserve the eternal life - Jesus Christ has done it all - BUT ALSO actively in enmity against God in his native state.

Mat 1:21
And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

Saving His people from their sins is saving them from the wages of sin, i.e. death.

Jesus secured eternal life for them, through His sinless life of perfect obedience unto all of God's law, and His sacrificial death - both on behalf of the sinners He came to save!

Glory to God and His only begotten Son. Amen.

The New is Old, and Wright is Wrong!

The New is old, and Wright is wrong!

https://www.facebook.com/groups/successfulsavior/permalink/10163653338357519/

Please help.
What is the New Perspective of Paul's teachings one Mr Wright is advocating?
Thanks.

James
It's my understanding that Wright is mainly arguing for a new definition of Justification. And that he's moving away from Reformed views on Justification towards a view that would be more in common with Roman Catholicism, ie Justification is based on works.

Sing
James: Thank you. Is that it?
But the Reformed/Protestants' justification by faith is essentially justification by works.

John 6
28 ¶Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29 ¶Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

James
Sing: I agree, but the difference is that Reformed Justification claims it's not by works, and it's my understanding that Wright isn't making that same claim. It seems that he's arguing for justification by works.

James
He makes other claims that I wouldn't agree with. Here's a transcript of a speech that outlines more of the issues. (Being a PB, I believe Ligoners Reformed doctrine of Justification is in error. But I think one can glean through it to see where their are problems with Wright's beliefs.)
https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/whats-wrong-wright-examining-new-perspective-paul?

Sing
James: Thanks.

Dan
James: Bit of a tight-rope act, using Ligonier as a guide, but I believe you're correct, provided one has the discernment to see where they jump the shark as well. I felt the same way about John W Robbin's criticism of The Gospel According to Jesus by John MacArthur. Many good observations in that essay, but a lot of reformed baggage as well. Proceed with caution. 🙂

James
Dan: I agree on the tightrope. I hesitated to share it because it's such a mess theologically.

Dan
James: I feel your pain, brother. Been there. It's been well said, "Eat the chicken, throw away the bones." Honestly, when reading "theological works" it's an essential skill.

James
Bro Dan, are you familiar with Elder Jimmy Barber and his book "Justification: The Heart of the Gospel"? It's an excellent biblical defence and historic account of Particular Baptist, and thence PB, doctrine of justification. Even though it was written in 1988, it answers all the errors that modern Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians are making against it now.

Dan
James: I have read it, and he does make several good observations regarding the doctrine of Justification. If memory serves, his assertions regarding the distribution of the gospel were problematic, IMO. Chicken and bones cautions apply...

Yes, God's own children can be gainsayers

Yes, God's own children can be gainsayers!

Please help with this passage.

Titus 1:9 KJV — Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

Q. Who are the gainsayers that can be convinced by the faithful word?
Q. What is it to be convinced by the faithful word?

Thank you most kindly.

==========

Michael
A gainsayer is an argumentative person who may be an unbeliever or a sceptical believer (one who believes Jesus is Christ but objects to biblical explanations as to who and how he saved). The word "exhort" conveys the idea of encouragement, and "convince" in the text conveys the idea of refuting and/or rebuking. Paul's instruction directs ministers to use content from God's word to form sound teaching that corrects error in ways that encourage gainsayers to believe the truth.

Contextually, the phrase "able by sound doctrine" infers using correct explanations and examples from God's word to express relevant, logically constructed and ethically delivered responses that refute objections to the gospel stated by unbelievers and also the objections of skeptical believers. In this regard, preachers must not resort to coercive sophistry nor sentimental methods of persuasion and neither must we ever be quarrelsome. Our goal is not to win arguments; but rather, it is to win people to the truth and therein become faithful followers of Christ.

Sing
Michael: Thank you, Sir.

Would Apostle Paul have God's children in mind when he instructed Titus to convince the gainsayers with the faithful word, since the faithful word requires spiritual discernment?

Can God's children be gainsayers?
(I think only gainsayers who are already God's children can be convinced by spiritual truth; spiritual things are spiritually discerned.

Michael
Sing: IMO, yes. His teaching in I Cor 2:14, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned" supplies a logical basis to infer the gainsayers Paul intends are born again. Were the intended gainsayers unquickened how can they be encouraged by exhortation and convinced of truth by things that proceed from and/or relate to the Spirit of God? Paul explicitly states man in his natural state of sin cannot do so.

Joe
Precisely, Mike. A wise and Biblical preacher/pastor will lead by example and by gentle, but sound Biblical teaching, always building his case on “Book, chapter, and verse.” Never by despotic attitudes or methods.

Sing
Joe: Thank you, Uncle Joe.

Dan
This passage is Paul’s instruction to Titus regarding the qualification for elder in the Lord’s church. When it speaks of convincing the gainsayers, we should not lose sight of the audience for whom such conviction is possible. The natural (unregenerate) man cannot be convinced of spiritual truth.

“But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (I Corinthians 2:14).

The most sound, doctrinal argument from the scriptures has no convicting effect on a carnally minded man whose unregenerate disposition is enmity against God.

“Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.” (Romans 8:7)

While it is true that some “gainsayers” (i.e., those who reject and oppose biblical truth) are unregenerate, Paul’s suggestion is not directed toward convincing the unregenerate. God does not send his ministers on a fool’s errand. In this context, the “gainsayers” are those who are born again people, within the domain of an elder’s ministry, who actively oppose certain aspects of the truth. It is possible to convert these men to the truth through the consistent application of sound doctrine, rightly divided, and properly argued from the scriptures. I believe this is what the epistle of James is addressing in many places and it is for this reason that he concludes with:

“Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert him; Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.” (James 5:19-20)

Notice that James is speaking to and about “brethren” and of the profitability of converting those who are in error. This is a primary function of gospel ministry within the Lord’s NT church and is instrumental to our growth in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.

Sing
Dan: Thank you. That's exactly my thought. But you said it so well.

Dan
Sing: Thanks for the kind encouragement, brother Sing.

Sing
I asked about the above passage in another group...
Below is one reply... picking on the KJT used.

------

KJT hater
Sing, first of all, get rid of that kjb with its 16th-century English. It has over 300 archaic words in it.

Sing
Thank you, Sir.
Archaic words can be learned; bad translations with serious doctrinal implications are far more serious.

A little article explains it:
https://things-new-and-old.blogspot.com/2015/12/why-i-turned-to-kjb.html

KJT hater
Sing, Kjb is based on a text not codified till the 5th century AD and is a copy of a copy of a copy. It's a Freemason's bible.

---------

Ray
Sing, Thanks, sir.
Why I turned to the KJ translation...
THINGS-NEW-AND-OLD.BLOGSPOT.COM

Dan
Sing: KVJ hate is real and this objection is difficult to address. It takes a simple discussion of a particular passage (Titus 1:9, which is relatively straightforward) and turns it into an enormous debate on bible translations (which is a complicated and lengthy matter, to say the least). There are a lot of potential ways to handle this sort of objection, and I do not suggest that I have the best way. Nevertheless, in a situation like this, where a single passage is under consideration, I would probably ask, "Well, what does your preferred translation say?" I suspect that in most instances, no matter what translation is selected, there's no material difference in the implication of that passage or what is intended by "gainsayers" - regardless of what term or terms they have used in its place.

In my experience, many make a lot of the differences that exist between various bible translations while overlooking the overlap in meaning between them. Consider how the NIV renders this verse:

"He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it." (Titus 1:9, NIV)

There's not a plug nickel's difference in meaning between how the NIV states this and how the KJV states it, so far as I can tell. One might say, "Yes, but in the KJV you had to look up GAINSAYER because it's an archaic word." Well, that may be true, but the need to look up certain English words when reading the bible is unavoidable, irrespective of the translation chosen. Upon closer examination, the NIV uses more archaic and difficult words in many places when held alongside the KJV, opting for "blustering" in stead of "strong" (Job 8:2), "colonnade" instead of "porch" (I Kings 7:6), "dejected" instead of "sad" (Genesis 40:6), and there are many such examples.

So, when facing such an objection to the KJV, one must apply wisdom in figuring out how best to address it. I'm not sure I have that wisdom, but I will pass along that I've found it helpful at times to retrain our attention on the verse under consideration, look at their preferred translation with them, hopefully find agreement in the meaning, and then plant a few seeds regarding the bible "version" issue as a follow-up to all of that. Getting someone to agree on what a a particular verse means is one thing. I suspect in many instances we will find significant common ground irrespective of translation. Getting someone to change bibles, particularly those who have been marinated by the wise and prudent regarding the superiority of Wescott/Hort, Nestle/Aland, "new manuscripts," who are surrounded by what they believe to be so great a cloud of witnesses (i.e., headcount fallacy)... like rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem, that work usually requires that we place stone upon stone over time with care.

Sing
Dan: Thanks. To me, English is my third language; to say that KJT is harder than other English translations is just a cauldron of cow dung!

Dan
Sing: This objection, which I have faced many times, is baseless. In my experience, those who say it are usually repeating the talking points of the wise and prudent.

Imputation of Christ's righteousness

No righteousness of Christ, no gospel.
Christ's righteousness is imputed to the elect.

#righteousnessofChrist
#imputationofrighteousness

Inquirer
I have to say his arguments sounded very convincing.
He seems to be an Arminian, but he is Reformed. Anyway, he seems to know what he is talking about. And u were the one who attacked what he posted in his Reformed group on FB 😅. The post is here:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/775537956487669/posts/1492075451500579/️

sing
Great. Which part convinced you?
I did not attack him.
I made a statement: "No righteousness of Christ, no gospel."  Unfortunately, he disputed the statement by saying things he knows not.

Inquirer
Well, he sounded like he knows his Scriptures. He said: Righteousness cannot be imputed, so is wrath.
U don't scold me, ya. U scold him.

sing
If righteousness cannot be imputed, what is your understanding of the doctrine of justification?

The imputation of Christ's righteousness to the elect is at the heart of the doctrine of justification.

Jesus suffered the wrath of God when He died the substitutionary death on the cross. Why? The sins of all His people were imputed to Him, and He suffered the full and complete penalty due to those sins.

The silly things he said are not worthy of scolding or debunking.

1 Corinthians 14:38 KJT "But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant."

sing
No imputation of Christ's righteousness to the justly condemned, no justification. This is absolutely elementary.

'Those whom God effectually calls, he also freely justifies,
- not by infusing righteousness into them,  [[POPULAR ERROR NEGATED]
- but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous [THE TRUTH STATED] ;
- not for anything wrought in them, or done by them [POPULAR ERROR NEGATED],
- but for Christ's sake alone; [THE TRUTH STATED]
- not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; [POPULAR ERROR NEGATED]
- but by imputing Christ's active obedience unto the whole law, and passive obedience in his death for their whole and sole righteousness [THE TRUTH STATED]

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

The above is taken from the 1689 CoF chapter 11.

Christ's active obedience secured the righteousness needed for the justification of His people. God FREELY applies this righteousness of His provision in Christ to each elect at their effectual calling out of their native state of condemnation.

Christ's passive obedience unto death bore the just and righteous wrath of God upon the sins of His people, AND SECURED the forgiveness needed for His people; He endured the wrath of God in their place.

(Please note that the popular fable of justification by faith is plainly repudiated in the statements above.)

I hope the above helps.

False this, and false that - a zero-sum game of many

Both are equally starfruit. 
One is not any less starfruit than the other. 

I harvested these 8 starfruit this morning from the same plant. They reminded me again of the popular nonsense spouted by self-righteous elitist exclusivists - they alone are true this and true that! Others are false this and false that! 
What arrogance and impudence!

False sheep... false church... false professors... false believers... etc.

A sheep is a sheep, as sheep as it could be...

No matter what adjective you want to describe a sheep, you are still describing a SHEEP, stupid! It is still as sheep as could be. It may be a sick sheep, a fleeced and conned sheep, a harassed sheep, a lost sheep, a wayward sheep... a naive sheep, a self-conceited sheep... a haughty unrepentant sheep... go add more adjectives to turn sheep into a goat!

The adjective 'true' is redundant.

A man is a man.... as true a man as can be... he may be a sissy man, a blind man, a weak man, a con man, a beastly man, a godly man... a great man... upright man... heartless brainless man... or blameless... black... beige... or brown like me... well formed or deformed... limbless man... he is a man STILL. You can never 'adjectivized' a man into a non-man!!! Even a dead man remains a man! 

These are all equally starfruits.

Not one is a false starfruit

This is another gospel, which is no gospel

 

#Another_gospel

1. This is the gospel:

"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." Romans 3:24.

This is GOOD NEWS indeed to the condemned needing justification by God.

"freely by his grace" - the ALONE  method, the condemned are justified by God.

"... through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus" - the ALONE basis, the condemned are justified by God.

This is wonderfully good news!

2. This is another gospel:

"Being justified by your faith alone in Jesus Christ."

This is BAD NEWS (in fact, it is an injurious mockery) to the condemned needing justification by God. The condemned is just incapable of exercising faith in order to be justified by God. 

It was said, "justification by faith is the doctrine by which the church stands or falls." If that's true, is your church standing or has it fallen? 

Have you understood?

The faith of God... the faith of Christ... your faith in them

The faith of God, the faith of Christ, and your faith in them

 

The faith of God... the faith of Christ... your faith in them.

Rom 3:3
For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?

Rom 3:22
Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

God has faith in Jesus, His only begotten Son. "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased... be hearing him."

For thousands of years, God had freely justified multitudes of His elect and gave them eternal life based on what the promised seed of the woman would accomplish when the eternal Word was made flesh in time and begotten the Son of God.

How could God justly forgive the sins of His people prior to Christ making the actual payment for them on the cross?

Ro 3:24-25
24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God..."

In the above text...
- Through whose faith in Christ blood?

- What do 'sins that are past' refer to? Whose sins? 'Past' with reference to what?

- Is 'his righteousness' referring to God's attribute of righteousness, or to God's provision of righteousness?

- To what is the forbearance of God related? What would have happened if there was no such divine forbearance?

-----
Joe

I'll give you my view of the passage.

I believe Paul is referring to all the sins of God's elect that were committed prior to Calvary. God didn't save His people in the Old Testament era one way and now in the New Testament era another way. He saves all of His chosen ones alike.

If this be the case, God relied on the finished work of Christ for the salvation of His Old Testament people just as He does for us. From a human, temporal perspective, Paul could describe this work as the Father's faith in His Son's blood long before the Son came and shed His blood.

"Faith" in this sense certainly does not carry the notion of hope, or of trusting what we do not know. It rather carries the idea of perfect reliance. The Father applied the finished work of Christ to His elect in regeneration, fully relying on the work, although it was yet future. Hope this helps.

Dav

Q. Through whose faith in Christ blood?
A. God the Father’s – Knowing that the Son would be faithful to die for the sins of many.

Q. What do 'sins that are past' refer to? 'Past' with reference to what?
A. Sins of God’s children prior to the coming of Christ.

Q. Is 'his righteousness' God's attribute of righteousness, or God's provision of righteousness?
A. Christ’s righteousness as the only acceptable sacrifice.

Q. To what is the forbearance of God related?
A. God tolerated the sins of His people and considered them as already forgiven, even though the actual act of redemption had not been accomplished.

Bernie
Br. Joe, you have exactly expressed my understanding of Paul's language in these precise verses (Rom. 3:24-25).

People err when they attempt to define the Father's faith in His Son by applying Paul's faith definition that is labeled in Hebrews 11:1. This particular verse (11:1) describes the faith of the regenerated elect, not the faith God had in His Son. God's faith is that confidence and reliance had in His Son by reason of God's perfect, absolute knowledge.

Man's faith is variable (neither consistent nor absolute); whereas, God's faith is constant and is with the absolute perfection of certainty. Brother Joe's post is with such clarity of truth. Many thanks for it.

I appreciate this needed discussion

Wells
Thanks for your post, Bro. Sing. Just today I saw someone post this verse and then go on to say that "past sins" refers only to the sins of believers prior to regeneration. I appreciate your explanation.
========

This illustration will help...

When I was growing up in a little village, my late father had to go away for work, often for weeks on end. He would make arrangements with the local grocery store to ensure that the shop would supply whatever his household would need in his absence. Dad would leave the family with a notebook; we would bring along that notebook to the shop to get whatever supplies the household required, and the shopkeeper, who had faith in my father, would gladly supply us with everything we had need of in Dad's absence, recording every item in the notebook.

When Dad returned, we would bring the notebook along and settled all the debts incurred. The grocer man had faith in Dad and supplied us the groceries on credit.

God had faith in the Word, the second person of the Godhead, absolutely confident that the eternal Word would be made flesh and be begotten the Son of God in order to execute the work of redemption for all those given to Him in the eternal covenant of redemption.