"Forensic Justification" makes no sense

[guanophore]

…However, with forensic justification it means they are still dirty but somehow God says they’re clean. And then to prove that statement true, He proceeds to wash them clean.”

They believe that God justifies the ungodly. By nature we are separated from God until we are regenerated by his grace. Then we declared righteous, at which point He proceeds to transform us into the righteousness He has declared us to have. It is not “to prove the statement true”, it is because all who he justifies, he glorifies, and conforming to His character is part of what it means to be a saved person.

To refresh your memory, I said “was that ever in question” and you still waffled on and on as if it were in question. It’s like you just didn’t understand what “was that ever in question” meant when it is such a simple statement.

You are correct. You say you understand, but your expressions make it appear that you do not. It seems to you that there was never any question that you understand, but your posts leave the impression that understanding is questionable.

There definitely was no light bulb going on there.

Hope springs eternal!

Actually it is your post that seem to display this lack of understanding of relativism. You seem to think “that you have your truth and I have my truth and that’s all okay” is not relativistic.

I can understand why it might seem that way to you. You really don’t seem to understand my position at all, but project your own upon it. Therefore, you read into what I am saying and find what you expect. You are in error, as I do not have this position. It is another example of how you say you understand, but you dont.

So you don’t think I have articulated their position?

No, nor mine.

What an inarticulate theologian E.L Mascal must be, considering that it was his text that I used to “articulate” my position. :rolleyes: But it seems you didn’t get it or you will not be going on and on about “not articulating their position”.

From their point of view, you don’t seem to get it. I am sure you get Mascal’s explanation.

And there you go again with “your predilection for hyperbole”. Righteous indignation. FYI there was no righteous indignation in my responses.

It comes across that way. Has it occurred to you that someone else might have a different perception than yours?

No I don’t FEEL that way. It IS that way.

It may seem to you that the way you perceive things is the only way, and the right way, however, other people may see them differently, and they may also believe that the way they see things if right, and you are wrong. Insisting that your position and perception is the only right one is not very conducive to productive dialogue.

 

[JonNC]

So you honestly believe that it is not a stupid statement?

And the explanation was a sanitation. Luther also claimed that he can commit adultery and it would be all okay. Some people try to sanitize his statements by putting it down to his predilection for hyperbole.

Cory,
Where did Luther make this claim?

If you are talking about Luther’s letter to Melanchthon, which ends with:

This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness, but, as Peter says, we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world. No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small? Pray boldly—you too are a mighty sinner.”

“…a thousand times a day” - it is clearly an exaggeration - hyperbole - intended to place into light the greatness of Christ’s mercy, His sacrifice for our sakes, and His willingness to forgive our sins.

Jon