3

What does "freely justified" mean in Romans 3:24? Does it support a justification of sinners as righteous when they remain actually sinners?

This has been closed with absolutely baseless justification by some people, which I believe are religiously motivated in bias rather than adhering to the rules.

It has no feature of being an opinion based: Opinion-based -

discussions focused on diverse opinions are great, but they just don't fit our format well.

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than on facts, references, or specific expertise.

It’s often possible to rewrite opinion-based questions to focus on a more fact-based line of questioning. If you see a way to do this, consider editing the question.

Also Steven commented:

I’m voting to close this question because it's a 'Stump the Chumps' question - posing a premise the author refuses to accept whilst asking respondents to justify it - it is here with the intention of stirring debate rather than seeking a genuine answer. Per the Help Center, "If your motivation for asking the question is “I would like to participate in a discussion about ______”, then you should not be asking here."

What premise he is referring to is only known to him, a baseless assertion. The question not general and open-ended; It is only based on one verse and is not asking anyone's opinions and survey, and not even asking the clarification of a fringe or non-existent doctrine but a widespread doctrine; and got some upvotes as well as answers. It is not inviting a discussion and debate; I have responded to some answers with disagreements mainly about the quality of their answers; this has nothing to do with the content and quality of the question. They have objected that they are "confused" by the term false justification, and apparently their sentiments have been hurt. This has nothing to do with the rules and policies.

One of those who voted opinion based Close is Nigel who openly expressed his personal discomfort and ignorance on the doctrine the question is based; I provided him with information of the doctrine. The same has been done with a similar question focused on Romans 4:5 closed as off-topic. It seems they have been offended by my characterization of the particular theology as "false justification", but I don't see how that gives them an excuse to pull it down as opinion based and off-topic when the question is not based on the meaning of the term false-justification. Why should I even cater to the demands of some religiously biased people, which would reduce the clarity of the question?

Regardless of the religious bias and emotional discomfort by some of those who closed it, the questions merely ask the meaning of those verses, and narrows it down to a particular theology which people like Dan Wallace, James White believe. I am hoping for a serious action by the senior admins on this, since this site has been changed into a religious mob which is no way secular and open-minded, imposing baseless censorship on free exchange of thoughts. We can clearly see the reason for the decline of this site, which hampers free thoughts and debates due to religious insecurities and mob mentality.

Just when I expected a senior moderator curiousdanni to intervene and take action against those falsely flagging legitimate questions due to their religious insecurity; she/he comes and attacks my intentions in the question.

I can't see how anyone who thinks Paul was an inspired Biblical author could ever think that he taught a "false justification", so I can't see how this was asked in good faith. – curiousdannii

Nothing to be expected of this dead website ruled by a mob.

1
  • Amen I back you up, easy to be run over by a certain narrative of what's accepted as questions. +1 Jul 29 at 14:32
1

We can only discern your intentions by what you write on this site. When you wrote

If he means what I call a false justification contrary to fact, doesn't that go against the immutable, just character of God?

who was that meant to be addressed to? Anyone who thinks Paul was an inspired Biblical author isn't going to simultaneously say that he taught a "false" justification. There are lots of different ways Christians interpret what Paul wrote, but surely none of them would say he was teaching a false Gospel, would they? Only those who reject Paul would say that. That's why I find it difficult to understand how your question could have been asked in good faith. It's asking the responders to simultaneously work from the position that Paul is speaking God's words, while also teaching what is "contrary to fact". Now maybe I've misunderstood you, but I hope you can see how what you wrote is not the clearest and could lead to this sort of misunderstanding.

In general, as I commented on the question, I think it's a bad fit for this site because it seems more concerned with theological synthesis than it does exegesis. It starts with a long paragraph about systematic theology, not Romans 3. Then you ask whether the sacrificial system is meant to balance justice and mercy. It may or it may not, but that's not the subject matter of Romans 3. Paul does have a lot to say about mercy, but in Romans 9 onwards.

I think it would be much better to move this investigation to the Christianity site: then you can interrogate the Calvinists and ask them to justify how their theology can possibly be compatible with the scriptures.

2
  • Your ignorance about forensic justification cannot justify closing the question. At worst my characterisation of it as false justification, which none of those who answered objected to, can be seen a bit pejorative. But to make an excuse saying it is unclear is just wrong. The q is clear to those who answered, regardless of our differences. My long details in the Q are meant to show the implications of the particular theology. False or forensic justification doesn't mean a false gospel. You need to admit being biased against free debate and thoughts bec I dared to challenge your religion
    – Michael16
    Jun 17 at 12:42
  • Maybe your excuse is that the question is too detailed and long? That it should be more open and simple? How does that fit into any rule for a qualified question?
    – Michael16
    Jun 17 at 12:52
-2

The long points and description of the Q are meant to narrow down the debate for the answers to avoid them using remarks like mercy and justice are by nature contradictory and God cannot be merciful and just at the same time. False or forensic justification doesn't mean false gospel. You and most of the others are clearly ignorant about forensic justification, and I am sure none of the professionals would refuse to accept the fact that forensic justification can be said false justification. If this term alone is your objection, then you could simply edit it. The emotional sentiments of some fanatics should not dictate the rules and workings of this site. As far as my intentions are concerned, it is a personal attack and bigotry for which I flagged your comment on the Q, which you and your fellow cult members will reject as false. If these questions cannot be asked here because they expose and hurt the feelings of the ruling religious hypocrite mob, then you can't possibly suggest they would be allowed in Christianity SE.

Also, someone objected that the Q is inviting a debate, because perhaps he noticed my arguments in the replies to some answers. None of these things violate any rule. The question is extremely specific and challenging a widespread doctrine, it is not pejorative and offensive. The question only asks exegesis for the mainstream Lutheran theology, and my wordings "contrary to fact" simply reiterates Luther's own words.

Luther’s “Sermon on Our Blessed Hope”

We see grain sowed in the ground. Reason now asks: What happens to the grain in winter that has been sowed in the ground? Is it not a dead, moldy, decayed thing, covered with frost and snow? But in its own time it grows from that dead, moldy, decayed grain into a beautiful green stalk, which flourishes like a forest and produces a full, fat ear on which there are 20, 30, 40 kernels, and thereby finds life where only death existed earlier. Thus God has done with heaven, earth, sun and moon, and does every year with the grain in the field. He calls to that which is nothing that it should become something and does this contrary to all reason. Can He not also do something which serves to glorify the children of God, even though it is contrary to all reason?

also

Conceived in sorrow and corruption, the child sins in his mother’s womb. As he grows older, the innate element of corruption develops. Man has said to sin: ‘Thou art my father’—and every act he performs is an offense against God; and to the worms: ‘You are my brothers’—and he crawls like them in mire and corruption. He is a bad tree and cannot produce good fruit; a dunghill, and can only exhale foul odors. He is so thoroughly corrupted that it is absolutely impossible for him to produce good actions. Sin is his nature; he cannot help committing it. Man may do his best to be good, still his every action is unavoidably bad; he commits a sin as often as he draws his breath. (Werke, (Wittenberg Edition), Vol. III, p. 518.)

There is little surprise that those learned who know their religion are not offended by my characterization of it as false justification (not false gospel). They proudly believe in their religion, are not ashamed of it. I only asked the exegetical questions surrounding that belief.

4
  • "I only asked the exegetical questions surrounding that belief." This sounds like a Biblical Basis question on the Christianity site.
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Jun 17 at 13:30
  • "The question only asks exegesis for the mainstream Lutheran theology," In general, questions should not be directed at a denomination on this site. Again, that's for Christianity.
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Jun 17 at 13:31
  • 1
    @curiousdannii absolutely not; just because I pulled the background of the theology to educate the unaware, it doesn't mean it violate the rules. On the contrary it is best to write as much details as we can and when it is also informative. The Q is still strictly concerning one verse. It is not directed to any denomination but if that's your objection, then I will simply remove the mention of false justification and pose it like a contradiction question and will see if you allow it or not.
    – Michael16
    Jun 17 at 13:33
  • 1
    And if you think the mods are fanatics, bigots, and are personally attacking you, please contact Stack Exchange staff. I think I'll probably stop commenting now, but hopefully more community members will see this discussion and leave their thoughts.
    – curiousdannii Mod
    Jun 17 at 13:33

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .