You accused me of not following you, not listening to you, not understanding you, but is there anything you posted that DESERVES to be followed, listened or understood?
If you care for Scripture and love the truth, then yes. Your lack of respect in that statement is itself inconsistent with Scripture. When we understand that people are made in the image of God, then we see that all deserve respect for that reason alone, which includes listening to what others say whether we agree or not. If we truly love others, then it is incumbent on us to correct them where they are wrong or likely wrong.
Over the previous several pages, you've just been consistently antagonistic, you accused others of being "ambiguous", "ignorant", "conflating", and me of "irrelevant",
Because it’s all true. There is nothing antagonistic or nasty in those remarks, unlike remarks I’ve received, they’re merely observations about what others are saying. If something isn't clearly stated and can have more than one meaning, then it is, by definition, ambiguous. If someone says something about someone else when they have no knowledge of the person, then that is, by definition, ignorant. If someone is confusing the definitions of a given word, then they are, by definition, conflating. If someone brings up a point that isn't relevant to the point being made, then that is, by definition, not relevant.
Also, it was someone else that first mentioned being ambiguous, and unlike others, I haven’t personally attacked anyone, yet you’re not calling out anyone else. Why is that?
and all you've done was hiding behind your dictionary as though you were the sole contributor to the definition of "justification" and you owned its intellectual property. Instead of using the language to convey your opinion regarding the validity of the Sola Fide doctrine, you're modulating the language with your own definition of certain words, and forcing everybody else to align with it, if they don't you throw at them these charges.
None of those “charges,” apart from conflating, had anything to do with the meaning of justification. But if someone is using a definition that doesn’t fit the context, then they’re conflating the meaning. This is why we have things such as lexicons, so we can have a better idea of what is being said. It’s strange that you think I’m using my “own definition of certain words” when I have clearly appealed to three lexicons. And in doing so, I clearly gave contexts in which the word was used that show different meanings. It’s all pretty straight forward.
Then why did you mention those "classical Greek writings"? I was but following YOUR "irrelevant" lead.
Go back through the discussion on this point.
You stated: "A word is never just a word. What the dictionary says about it is only its face value. If you only read the face value and argue by its face value, you'd be scratching the surface and stuck there, you'd never know the infinite references, cannotations and symbolisms beneath the surface from cultural, historical and biblical perspectives."
(Note the irony that you appeal to "cultural" and "historical" perspectives, but are dismissing anything to do with any cultural or historical meanings of justification.)
I replied: "As I have clearly stated, context determines the meaning used."
So, I was agreeing with you.
You replied: "What context of "classical greek writings" is it in?"
I replied: "Not relevant."
My "lead" was not at all irrelevant, as my point was that the meaning goes further back than its use in the NT and that based on the meaning(s) is why that particular word was used.
Again, YOUR statement, not mine. My statement is always substitutionary atonement, ask yourself whether there's evidence of that in the bible.
Not relevant
as to the meaning of justification. It's easy to prove by simply plugging in the meaning. Look at what you have Paul saying:
Rom 4:2 For if Abraham was [substitutionary atonement] by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.
When it should be:
Rom 4:2 For if Abraham was [declared righteous] by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. (ESV)
Note also the problem with your reasoning regarding this point.
You stated: "I don't care about how justification is used in other "classical Greek writings", I only care how it's used in the NT, the NT writers had imbued it with brand new meanings."
I asked: "Did they? What evidence do you have?"
You responded: 'The "context" that determines the meaning used.'
But had you also asked: 'What context of "classical greek writings" is it in?'
So, you were arguing that context determines the meaning of a word. Then, you say that "you don't care how justification is used" in writings prior to the NT. That means, you cannot know the meaning that it had prior to the NT. Therefore, you also cannot know with certainty that "the NT writers had imbued it with brand new meanings." If you cannot know what it was, you cannot know if it was changed, with certainty anyway. That was my point.
Are you sure what are you arguing? What's the point of this squabble over the definition of "justification"? Isn't the topic supposed to be whether faith alone is sufficient for salvation? I'm not sure what the point of this whole debate is.
Exactly. Which begs the question as to why you jumped in. You came in without having been involved in the discussion and so don't know why the discussion is focused on the definition of justification. If you're going to jump into a discussion that has been ongoing for some time, it would do you well to start reading from the beginning.
I disengaged from your train of thoughts and T-boned it with my own train of thoughts.
Which, if you are going to continue to do, then do everyone a favour and don't. Either join the discussion and contribute positively to it or stay out and don't derail it.
What I'm trying to tell you is, if somebody has predetermined the subject and object of justification, you can't correct them with Strong’s, Thayer's, or the NASEC, none of that matters unless you correct them with the right subject and object - i.e. right biblical context.
Which is exactly what I did. Please read more thoroughly.
