Inherint contradictions teaching Faith Alone

[Carry_Your_Name]

You try too hard in some ways, but not trying hard enough in other ways. Of course justification isn't a standalone term. You really need to slow down and try and read what people are writing and have written.

Context determines the meaning of a word--its links to the other words. The Greek word for "justification" is dikaioō and was around prior to the writing of the Greek NT. It's meanings doesn't change just because it was used in the NT. God didn't inspire the meanings of the words--apart from those that the writers actually did make up--just the words used. That means that God inspired the use of many words, like justification, precisely because they already had specific meanings that fit the contexts in which the NT writers used them.

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. In this case, 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. You're not teaching or explaining God's word, you're just having weaponzied an ancient Greek lexicon as both a sword and a shield, hitting your opponent with it and hiding behind it, and you're doing it in a condescending, preachy tone.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Justified -
knowing that a man is not justified (G1344) by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified (G1344) by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. (G1344) Galatians 2:16
Strong's G1344 - Justified dikaioō

1. to render righteous or such he ought to be
2. to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
3. to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be

Was not Abraham our father justified (G1344) by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. (G1343) ” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified (G1344) by works, and not by faith only. James 2:21-24
Strong's G1443 righteousness dikaiosynē
Righteousness and Justified come from the same Greek root word which is G1342
Strongs G1342 dikaios

1. righteous, observing divine laws
   1. in a wide sense, upright, righteous, virtuous, keeping the commands of God
      1. of those who seem to themselves to be righteous, who pride themselves to be righteous, who pride themselves in their virtues, whether real or imagined
      2. innocent, faultless, guiltless
      3. used of him whose way of thinking, feeling, and acting is wholly conformed to the will of God, and who therefore needs no rectification in the heart or life
         1. only Christ truly
      4. approved of or acceptable of God
   2. in a narrower sense, rendering to each his due and that in a judicial sense, passing just judgment on others, whether expressed in words or shown by the manner of dealing with them

Well illustrated.
Do you think anyone actually fills the bill ?
I mean, actually is...

1. righteous or such he ought to be
2. righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
3. just, righteous, or such as he ought to be.

?

 

[Hopeful 2]

To made perfectly holy, yes, but that doesn't mean we are unholy now.

I guess our definitions of "perfectly" differ.

Suit yourself. That's really not any different than Muslims and many other religions that don't have good news. It must be nerve-wracking not having any assurance.

I have the seal of the inheritance from God.
As long as I keep loving Father with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength; and my neighbor as I love myself, He will keep His promise.
I also have a new, divine nature.
But even with those amazing gifts, I still half to keep on my toes; or lose it all.
My race won't end until my dying breath.

 

[Free]

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.

As I have clearly stated, context determines the meaning used.

In this case, 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.

Did they? What evidence do you have?

You're not teaching or explaining God's word, you're just having weaponzied an ancient Greek lexicon as both a sword and a shield, hitting your opponent with it and hiding behind it, and you're doing it in a condescending, preachy tone.

Not at all. Strong’s, Thayer's, and the NASEC are hardly ancient. The meanings given in those actually matter and I’ve shown how the two different contexts of Romans 4 and James 2 require two different meanings of justification, both of which are given in each of those references.

We will not come to a proper understanding of Scripture if we either ignore the meanings of the words written or ignore the both the immediate and larger contexts in which they are used. We must learn how to determine which meaning is the best fit.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

As I have clearly stated, context determines the meaning used.

What context of "classical greek writings" is it in?

Did they? What evidence do you have?

The "context" that determines the meaning used.

Not at all. Strong’s, Thayer's, and the NASEC are hardly ancient. The meanings given in those actually matter and I’ve shown how the two different contexts of Romans 4 and James 2 require two different meanings of justification, both of which are given in each of those references.

We will not come to a proper understanding of Scripture if we either ignore the meanings of the words written or ignore the both the immediate and larger contexts in which they are used. We must learn how to determine which meaning is the best fit.

Or maybe, in this case, we should rather determine "who" or "what" is justified by "who" or "what", instead of the term "justification" itself. Same for "work" and "faith" - what kind of "work"? "Faith" in what or who? Nobody cares about your Strong’s, Thayer's, the NASEC if they have predetermined the subject and object of this justification, and that's the "context" that determines its meaning to them, exactly as you said.

 

[Free]

What context of "classical greek writings" is it in?

Not relevant.

The "context" that determines the meaning used.

Okay, so you made a claim and have no evidence.

Or maybe, in this case, we should rather determine "who" or "what" is justified by "who" or "what", instead of the term "justification" itself. Same as "work" and "faith" - what kind of "work"? "Faith" in what or who? Nobody cares about your Strong’s, Thayer's, the NASEC if they have predetermined the subject and object of this justification, and that's the "context" that determines its meaning to them, exactly as you said.

It appears you're not even trying to understand what others are saying and seem to argue for the sake of arguing, which is not conducive to productive discussion. You also don't seem to understand how language works.

If someone has predetermined the subject and object of justification, which has been the case and which I have been trying to correct, then that is on them. I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Not relevant.

Then why did you mention those "classical Greek writings"? I was but following YOUR "irrelevant" lead.

Okay, so you made a claim and have no evidence.

Again, YOUR statement, not mine. My statement is always substitutionary atonement, ask yourself whether there's evidence of that in the bible.

It appears you're not even trying to understand what others are saying and seem to argue for the sake of arguing, which is not conducive to productive discussion. You also don't seem to understand how language works.

If someone has predetermined the subject and object of justification, which has been the case and which I have been trying to correct, then that is on them. I'm not sure what your point is.

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. Trust me, I understand what you're saying, although it's terribly irritating; I just choose to dismiss it as irrelevant as you've repeatedly dismissed mine. I disengaged from your train of thoughts and T-boned it with my own train of thoughts.

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.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

Not relevant.


Okay, so you made a claim and have no evidence.


It appears you're not even trying to understand what others are saying and seem to argue for the sake of arguing, which is not conducive to productive discussion. You also don't seem to understand how language works.

If someone has predetermined the subject and object of justification, which has been the case and which I have been trying to correct, then that is on them. I'm not sure what your point is.

And to clarify, it's not like I'm intentionally being rude or disruptive. 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? Over the previous several pages, you've just been consistently antagonistic, you accused others of being "ambiguous", "ignorant", "conflating", and me of "irrelevant", 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. This is not any personal attack, in case you attempt to falsely accuse me of that, it's just my observation. Theologically I'm on your side, I hated sinless perfectionism heresy, and I believe in Sola Fide as well, any good work is but RESULT and PROOF of faith.

 

[JLB]

No, that is not the correct definition. You are picking just one of several definitions which fits what you want James to be saying. As I pointed out previously, the definition for James 2:21 and 24, is the second one under Outline of Biblical Usage in your Strong's screenshot: "to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous." It is evidence of one who already is righteous, which is the very point that James sets out to make, based on verses 17 and 18:

Jas 2:17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.
Jas 2:18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. (ESV)

Now you are blatantly misrepresenting me.

I gave the meaning of the word Justified in James 2:21.

The root and base meaning is righteous. Right with God.

I also gave the contextual flow of James use of the word righteousness and justified in his discourse.

I also showed the same word was used in Paul's letter to the Galatians so we see that it's not a different Greek word being used.

You are blatantly misrepresenting me. You are blatantly denying the truth that the scriptures teach.

Don't bother addressing me again.

After this blatant attack on me I will not address you in in any thread or post.


Justified -

knowing that a man is not justified (G1344) by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified (G1344) by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. (G1344) Galatians 2:16


Strong's G1344 - Justified dikaioō

1. to render righteous or such he ought to be
2. to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
3. to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be

Was not Abraham our father justified (G1344) by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. (G1343) ” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified (G1344) by works, and not by faith only. James 2:21-24


Strong's G1443 righteousness dikaiosynē



Righteousness and Justified come from the same Greek root word which is G1342

Strongs G1342 dikaios

1. righteous, observing divine laws
   1. in a wide sense, upright, righteous, virtuous, keeping the commands of God
      1. of those who seem to themselves to be righteous, who pride themselves to be righteous, who pride themselves in their virtues, whether real or imagined
      2. innocent, faultless, guiltless
      3. used of him whose way of thinking, feeling, and acting is wholly conformed to the will of God, and who therefore needs no rectification in the heart or life
         1. only Christ truly
      4. approved of or acceptable of God
   2. in a narrower sense, rendering to each his due and that in a judicial sense, passing just judgment on others, whether expressed in words or shown by the manner of dealing with them

JLB

 

[JLB]

Well illustrated.
Do you think anyone actually fills the bill ?
I mean, actually is...

1. righteous or such he ought to be
2. righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
3. just, righteous, or such as he ought to be.

?

Only those who obey Him fit the bill.

And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him. Hebrews 5:9

 

[Free]

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.

 

[Free]

Now you are blatantly misrepresenting me.

I gave the meaning of the word Justified in James 2:21.

The root and base meaning is righteous. Right with God.

Where is the misrepresentation? You gave a meaning, one of three, as I pointed out, based on the very definitions you provided. It is the context that determines which meaning should be used for a correct understanding of what is written.

The one use keep using for James 2:21--"right with God"--is not the right one, as I have pointed out more than once. I have repeatedly stated that it is the second definition given by Strong's, which you even provided:

"to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered"

In James 2:21, he is not saying that Abraham was declared righteous by his works, but that he "showed," "exhibited," and "evinced" that he was already righteous by his works. And, as I pointed out, that is precisely Paul's point in Rom 4 (see HERE, HERE, and HERE)

I also gave the contextual flow of James use of the word righteousness and justified in his discourse.

I also showed the same word was used in Paul's letter to the Galatians so we see that it's not a different Greek word being used.

You are blatantly misrepresenting me. You are blatantly denying the truth that the scriptures teach.

I haven't misrepresented you, although you have done so to me and personally attacked me, but, whatever. You simply don't seem to have understood anything I've stated. I have never stated that a different word was being used, in any passage I've addressed. In fact, I've clearly stated that it is the same word, but it is different meanings of that word that are being referred to.

After this blatant attack on me I will not address you in in any thread or post.

That's fine. There was no attack by me, at all, unlike what you have done twice to me in last few pages.

Justified -

knowing that a man is not justified (G1344) by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified (G1344) by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. (G1344) Galatians 2:16


Strong's G1344 - Justified dikaioō

1. to render righteous or such he ought to be
2. to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
3. to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be

Was not Abraham our father justified (G1344) by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. (G1343) ” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified (G1344) by works, and not by faith only. James 2:21-24


Strong's G1443 righteousness dikaiosynē



Righteousness and Justified come from the same Greek root word which is G1342

Strongs G1342 dikaios

1. righteous, observing divine laws
   1. in a wide sense, upright, righteous, virtuous, keeping the commands of God
      1. of those who seem to themselves to be righteous, who pride themselves to be righteous, who pride themselves in their virtues, whether real or imagined
      2. innocent, faultless, guiltless
      3. used of him whose way of thinking, feeling, and acting is wholly conformed to the will of God, and who therefore needs no rectification in the heart or life
         1. only Christ truly
      4. approved of or acceptable of God
   2. in a narrower sense, rendering to each his due and that in a judicial sense, passing just judgment on others, whether expressed in words or shown by the manner of dealing with them

Yes, I know. You've posted the definitions multiple times. I'm not sure what you think you're showing. One of the reasons why lexicons can be dangerous, is that if one doesn't know how to use them along with proper hermeneutics, they can come to a wrong understanding.

I've pointed out several times that there are multiple meanings of the one word, dikaioō, and I'm not sure why you don't seem to understand that. The context in which that one word is used determines which precise meaning should be used in that particular instance.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Now you are blatantly misrepresenting me.

I gave the meaning of the word Justified in James 2:21.

The root and base meaning is righteous. Right with God.

I also gave the contextual flow of James use of the word righteousness and justified in his discourse.

I also showed the same word was used in Paul's letter to the Galatians so we see that it's not a different Greek word being used.

You are blatantly misrepresenting me. You are blatantly denying the truth that the scriptures teach.

Don't bother addressing me again.

After this blatant attack on me I will not address you in in any thread or post.


Justified -

knowing that a man is not justified (G1344) by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified (G1344) by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. (G1344) Galatians 2:16


Strong's G1344 - Justified dikaioō

1. to render righteous or such he ought to be
2. to show, exhibit, evince, one to be righteous, such as he is and wishes himself to be considered
3. to declare, pronounce, one to be just, righteous, or such as he ought to be

Was not Abraham our father justified (G1344) by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. (G1343) ” And he was called the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified (G1344) by works, and not by faith only. James 2:21-24


Strong's G1443 righteousness dikaiosynē



Righteousness and Justified come from the same Greek root word which is G1342

Strongs G1342 dikaios

1. righteous, observing divine laws
   1. in a wide sense, upright, righteous, virtuous, keeping the commands of God
      1. of those who seem to themselves to be righteous, who pride themselves to be righteous, who pride themselves in their virtues, whether real or imagined
      2. innocent, faultless, guiltless
      3. used of him whose way of thinking, feeling, and acting is wholly conformed to the will of God, and who therefore needs no rectification in the heart or life
         1. only Christ truly
      4. approved of or acceptable of God
   2. in a narrower sense, rendering to each his due and that in a judicial sense, passing just judgment on others, whether expressed in words or shown by the manner of dealing with them

So, sinners are not justified.
I'm glad we don't have to be sinners, since the resurrection of Jesus Christ !

 

[Hopeful 2]

Only those who obey Him fit the bill.
And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him. Hebrews 5:9

Yes, sinners are not justified !

 

[JLB]

Yes, sinners are not justified !

Sinners who obey the Gospel are justified.

Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

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.

I don't see any respect for the Scripture in you either. I've never challenged your theology, I questioned your attitude and tactics. You don't seem to be listening to anybody else but yourself, so don't blame me for returning the favor.

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.

Is there anything in your argument relevant to the validity of Sola Fide doctrine? Instead of fumbling over the definition of "justification", how about we go back to the real topic? Are apostate believers still "justified"? Or are they never believers in the first place, according to Calvinism? Could any of your Strong's give an answer to that?

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?

Because you're the only one who's been “justifying" yourself by saying "because it's all true". I believe there's a difference between "justification" and "SELF-jutification."

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

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.

What's pretty straight forward is that we're here to talk about any perceived errancies in the doctrine of Sola Fide, not any lexicon. You've been misleading others into a rabbit hole, and that is what's really "irrelevant".

Not relevant as to the meaning of justification. It's easy to prove by simply plugging in the meaning.

"Context determines the meaning of a word--its links to the other words," is that your statement or not? If so, what makes "justification" an exception? What makes the meaning of "justification" adherent to your lexicon instead of the direct context?

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.

And my point is that original words in the NT setting have gained new meanings. "Christ" is not just a motion of smearing or anointing, but the holy title of our lord and savior; "baptism" is not just a motion of immersing in water, but a quintissential rite, a sacred initiation, having a bath or a swim may involve immersion, which fits the definition, but surely neither is considered a baptism, can we at least agree on that? Likewise, "justification" is not "dikaioo" in general, but specifically, justified by faith, not one's own reasoning, work or penance.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

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.

You tell me. You diverted the thread into a squabbling over the meaning of "justification" in your first post here (#7), and it went on and on from there. You've never seemed to be insterested in a discussion over Sola Fide. If I begged the question, then this question is returned back to sender.

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.

Yeah, says you who derailed it first in your post #7. Give me a break.

 

[Free]

I don't see any respect for the Scripture in you either. I've never challenged your theology, I questioned your attitude and tactics. You don't seem to be listening to anybody else but yourself, so don't blame me for returning the favor.

The problem is, there is no attitude on my part and nothing wrong with my tactics. I could talk about your attitude and tactics, however. This is far from the first time you’ve interrupted a discussion with your self-righteousness.

This is a theological discussion in which I am reading what others are writing, quoting them, and responding with Scripture and arguments based on Scripture and the accepted meanings of words.

Is there anything in your argument relevant to the validity of Sola Fide doctrine? Instead of fumbling over the definition of "justification", how about we go back to the real topic? Are apostate believers still "justified"? Or are they never believers in the first place, according to Calvinism? Could any of your Strong's give an answer to that?

Read the OP. It’s an attack on justification by grace alone, through faith alone. Hence why the meaning of justification in James 2:21 and 24 at the heart of the issue.

Because you're the only one who's been “justifying" yourself by saying "because it's all true". I believe there's a difference between "justification" and "SELF-jutification."

More of that self-righteousness.

What's pretty straight forward is that we're here to talk about any perceived errancies in the doctrine of Sola Fide, not any lexicon. You've been misleading others into a rabbit hole, and that is what's really "irrelevant".

Again, read the OP. At the center is the meaning of justification. The OP is using the wrong meaning in James 2:21 and 24, leading him to believe that faith alone is error.

“It's not just that we can be justified by our faith alone, but it's at war against ever being justified by faith with works: Faith Alone must always Stand Alone against ever having works added to it.”

The OP thinks that justification is by faith and works, based on an incorrect definition of justification. That is, as Paul says in Gal 1:6-10, a false gospel and a grave error.

"Context determines the meaning of a word--its links to the other words," is that your statement or not? If so, what makes "justification" an exception? What makes the meaning of "justification" adherent to your lexicon instead of the direct context?

Again, it’s like you’re not even reading what I’m writing. I have consistently said that justification has multiple meanings, as was shown several times using lexicons. But the context determines the specific meaning that is being used in a particular instance.

And my point is that original words in the NT setting have gained new meanings. "Christ" is not just a motion of smearing or anointing, but the holy title of our lord and savior; "baptism" is not just a motion of immersing in water, but a quintissential rite, a sacred initiation, having a bath or a swim may involve immersion, which fits the definition, but surely neither is considered a baptism, can we at least agree on that?

But we’re talking about one specific word here, namely, justification.

Likewise, "justification" is not "dikaioo" in general, but specifically, justified by faith, not one's own reasoning, work or penance.

I don’t understand what you’re saying here. And how does that fit with what you first said, “The only biblically correct meaning of justification is Christ's substitutionary atonement on the cross, anything else is secondary.”?

You tell me. You diverted the thread into a squabbling over the meaning of "justification" in your first post here (#7), and it went on and on from there. You've never seemed to be insterested in a discussion over Sola Fide. If I begged the question, then this question is returned back to sender.

As I said, “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.”

Yeah, says you who derailed it first in your post #7. Give me a break.

If you had read the OP and understood what the central issue is, you would have known that my post was on point and got right to the heart of the matter. A wrong understanding of justification leads to an error in understanding what is meant by justification is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. It starts with the definition of justification.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Sinners who obey the Gospel are justified.

Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38

If they sin, they have not repented of sin.
They are not justified-shown innocent.