Search Members

[T3]

@DT

While Romans 3:21-23 is fairly well known and often quoted:

“21 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[a] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ”

I think the answer to your many questions is revealed in the verses that follow it:

“24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.”

Too many Christians have been led to believe in some sort of false dichotomy between the OT and NT, as if God’s position on how anyone can be forgiven (or as most people will say, “saved”) have suddenly changed post-Jesus.  The reality, though, is that God has only ever forgiven anyone, whether OT or NT, (a.k.a.”saved them”) on the basis of that individual’s faith/trust/belief in God’s promise to be merciful and forgive them; moreover, the basis of God’sforgiveness was, is, and will always be the sacrifice that Jesus made “once for all” (Romans 6:10) when He gave His life/shed His blood as a “sacrifice of atonement” (Rom 3:24) for sin.

In practical terms, this simply means that everyone “B.C.” (or OT, if you prefer) placed their faith in the promise that God would be merciful / forgive them, and since God knew that Jesus’ sacrifice was a future reality (from the standpoint of those who sinned “B.C.”) he withheld the deserved punishment/judgment for their sin (Romans 3:25-26).  This was true for Israelites, Ninevites, Babylonians, etc., and the evidence that they were trusting God’s promise (a.k.a. “faith”, v.25) was expressed through contrition, through a broken and repentant heart, through confessing their sin and turning back to God.  Furthermore, for the Israelites who were in a covenantal relationship with God, He asked them to keep the terms of that covenant as a sign to the world that the promise was for everyone.

And so now for those of us who are “A.D.” (or NT) we not only have God’s promise that was first given through the nation of Israel, but we see how He had always planned on keeping that promise through Christ.  This is the righteousness that was revealed “apart from the Law” since by simply keeping the Law we are all still condemned (Romans 3:21).  Not only that, but what is the evidence that we are trusting in God / putting our “faith” in that promise?  Is it not contrition?  Brokenness and repentance?  Turning back to God?  Like I said, there is no dichotomy in God, no changing the rules post-Jesus, we are just living in the fulfillment of the promise rather than the promise alone,

Indeed, just as Rom 3:23 stipulates that “all have sinned and fall short” – there is no difference – verse 24 declares that “all are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus” (a.k.a. “forgiven” or “saved”) on the basis of what Jesus has accomplished through His death & resurrection – again, no difference.

Jesus has always been the focal point of God’s plan to redeem mankind: His life, His death, His blood, His resurrection…all of it.  The faith of some looked forward, whereas ours looks backward.  They had no name to praise other than God’s holy name, no clear understanding of how God would keep His promise to be merciful and forgive, whereas we see the glory, the sacrifice, and the exultation of God’s only Son, Christ Jesus our Lord.  God gave the Israelites a sacrificial system that foreshadowed Jesus’ sacrifice (blood and sacrifice was a daily part of their experience, and the day of Atonement brought the substitutionary, sacrificial blood into focus every year), and now that “it is finished”, we don’t need to continually offer sacrifices because we can praise the name of the One who willingly offered Himself in our place:

“18 For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your ancestors, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. 20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. 21 Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.” – 1 Peter 1:18-21

[T3]

A few years back, I decided to publish my 25 years of research / musings on this doctrine, “Testing the Trinity”.  It is available through most on-line booksellers in either paperback or e-book format, but I also published the full book on-line and free of charge here.

About 2/3 of the book is dedicated to exposing the house of cards that is the Trinity, and the rest explores an alternative paradigm that I believe stays true to revealed Scripture without relying on extra-Biblical ideas (like the Trinity does) to “fill in the blanks”, so to speak.  There are still some challenging passages to wrestle with, for sure, but not nearly as many as the Trinity has to dance around to maintain its integrity.

Have a look and let me know what you think!

 

[T3]

Hi Proclaimer.  Apologies if I’ve already posted this link in this forum before, but here’s my take on the whole Logos question:  The Word of God

 

 

[T3]

@DesireTruth:

Given the supernatural circumstances of Jesus’ birth, how can He be considered to be of the tribe of Judah and therefore qualify to be the Messiah?  Consider the following facts:

• The passage from Numbers would be important only when a child’s father was from one tribe (e.g., Benjamin), and the mother was from another (e.g., Simeon).  The provision to “number” through the father’s lineage was simply a clean, simple way to settle any potential confusion / disagreement.  Because if both mother and father were from the same tribe, then this provision from Numbers is effectively a moot point.
• Whereas Matthew’s genealogy traces back to David through Solomon, Luke’s traces back to David through Nathan.  Why the difference?  Because while Matthew is giving Joseph’s lineage, Luke is tracing the lineage of Mary’s father, who also happens to be of the “line of David” and therefore the “tribe of Judah”.  Thus, even apart from Joseph’s “biological input”, so to speak, Jesus would still be technically “qualified” to be the Messiah simply by virtue of His mother’s (i.e. grandfather’s) family line.  Put differently, the Numbers provision about the father makes no difference in Jesus’ case…hence Joseph’s lack of involvement in the process is effectively irrelevant in determining Jesus’ earthly tribal membership.  Now if Mary were from the tribe of Simeon, for instance, I would concede that you have a point.
• Aside from the point about Mary’s line being sufficient to support Jesus’ own earthly lineage, it is important to note that–technically–Jesus would have been Joseph’s adopted son.  As such, by virtue of Jewish law / custom, Jesus would have been regarded as Joseph’s own son with all the rights and privileges of a biological son.  Think about this in relation to our own status as “children of God” who have become fellow heirs with Christ. Even though we once had no part in Him, God now regards us as one of His own; for whereas Jesus is the “natural” Son, we are sons / daughters by adoption.

So taking these points into consideration, it seems clear that the legitimacy of Jesus’ claim to be a son of David / of the line of Judah is not in jeopardy simply because of His miraculous birth.

[T3]

@Jodi: Hear, hear!

[T3]

@Proclaimer: I have not seen this information, so I appreciate the heads-up.  When I get some free time, I’ll look over the info again.

Alternatively, I’ve published my own musings / conclusions about the Trinity, which take the additional step of trying to formulate a Biblical picture of Father, Son, and Spirit that stands in contrast to the doctrine of the Trinity.  I call it the “Filium”.  🙂  While you can order the book if you want, the entire book is available on-line here:

Testing the Trinity

[T3]

@Proclaimer: I do not.  I have tried for almost 30 years to find clear evidence of “three persons in the Godhead” from Scripture, and it simply isn’t there.  Not a single verse proclaims this “essential truth”.  It is a framework extrapolated from Scripture, constructed over 300+years of debate and speculation on the nature of Christ, and was ultimately settled by two Roman emperors deciding that the debate needed to end.  It is an extra-Biblical doctrine that I believe Paul would conclude is a “hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the elemental spiritual forces of this world rather than Christ”.  This doesn’t mean that it is therefore worthless, by definition, but it certainly calls into question how something that isn’t stated plainly in Scripture can possibly be viewed as the ultimate arbiter of Christian orthodoxy.

[T3]

Check out this link for a different perspective than the “standard response.”. https://socraticchristianity.com/books/testing-the-trinity/the-word-of-god/

[T3]

Rather than post a long reply here, I’ve attempted to answer this question here: https://socraticchristianity.com/books/testing-the-trinity/the-word-of-god/. (In the spirit of full disclosure, I find the doctrine of the Trinity to be…lacking, in both substance and logic.).

[Author]

Posts