Thank you for being polite and well mannered. That is refreshing. I see you take your time and are enabled also. Praise God You are very studious, and that is refreshing. Most are not, though they pen many words and think they are.
The same sort of posts were inches from getting me banned at that other website. I've never in my life seen a group so thinning skinned in my life! Wow!
To be clear, I don't suffer fools lightly and I don't mince words. It's an internet forum, not the lobby of a church. If you want to understand where my posts are coming from there are just a few things you need to know....
God’s character comes first. I work from God's qualitative nature outward. Righteousness, justice, mercy, love, and reason are the bedrock. That is why I reject doctrines that paint God as arbitrary, cruel, or incoherent, no matter how historic or widely accepted they may be.
Reason is king. I write as though doctrine must make sense or it is not true. I do not settle for mystery as a stopping point, but treat it as an invitation to think harder.
I aim to persuade, not merely to declare and expect other to do the same. I do not preach at people, I reason with them. I want them to see it for themselves. That kind of Socratic energy is part of what made my most favorite bible teacher effective, and I relate to it and emulate it as best I can.
I am not afraid to be sharp when it matters. I do not minced words with bad theology or moral cowardice. I aim for grace, but never at the cost of clarity.
I treat theology as practical, not abstract. The bible wasn't written in a sort of mystical code that only the initiated understand. Not that there aren't some issues that are more complex than others, nor that good bible teachers aren't needed but simply that all one NEEDS, to understand the bible, is to read it and take it to mean what it plainly states. Bad theology destroys lives and good theology sets people free.
No sir. It is not just the flow of chapters 3 and 4 that need considered. It is the overall premise and context of the letter.
That was not the basis of the argument you made in your post. Your argument was entirely grammatical in nature.
Into and upon are not the same. That is subjective and is not considering the context of the surrounding passages and letter. In particularly the closing sentence. Verse 31 states that Faith establishes the Law. This same faith is what the Just live by and in which the Gospel is shared as chapter one verses 16 and 17 state.
Speaking of grace, God's unmerited favor, the Gift of salvation. It is not just speaking of the hereafter. The Law through His Spirit, through Christ is to be in our hearts and minds. This is prophesied. Though you are correct in saying that chapter 4 (and 5 while I am at it) speak of the justification that will get us into Heaven. Chapter 5 ends with this, "by the righteousness of one [the free gift came] upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."
Chapters 6-8 speak of this righteousness which is placed in us. That the many shall be made. In that Six basically states, shall we continue in sin that grace abounds? No, No! How shall we who are dead to sin live any longer therein. Know you not that we who have been baptized into Christ, have been baptized into His death; that the body of sin be destroyed, hence forth not to serve sin. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Being then made free from the sin (that the law gave us knowledge of), we became the servants of righteousness through Christ Jesus. That we have fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. Chapter 8 continues, For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made us free from the law of sin and death. For what the law that gave us the knowledge of sin could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit in and through Christ that the Body sin be destroyed. Couple that with chapter 10 verses6-8, and we get the full picture. Faith speaks in this wise, say not in your heart, bring Christ down from above or up from the deep. But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, [even] in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach. The faith that establishes the Law that the just live by and the Gospel is shared. And what was prophesied, for the Law, His word is in our hearts and in our mouths that we do it. (Deut 30:10-14) God said it, so it must be so.
Okay, so first of all, let me just say that while I know it's usually just a matter of personal preference, you really will be better off using something other than the King James Bible. The form of the English language it uses is four centuries old. We do not speak that form of English any longer and haven't for quite a long while. There are better alternatives. The New King James is one of the very best translations into modern English. Having said that, the King James gets the job done but I had to at least mention it. Moving on....
Now, my habit is to take posts like this and address them point for point but I can't do that here without created fifty rabbit trails that would only serve to muddy the water and so I'm just going to respond in, more or less, general terms....
It seems to me that you're basically evading the point and just restating your position without addressing the argument. You're quoting a large number of verses, but you are not directly addressing the claim you originally made. You said that Romans 3:22 supports the idea that there are two types of justification, one internal and one external, based on the phrases "into all" and "upon all." That is a linguistic and contextual claim. The burden is on you to show that Paul intended to draw a categorical distinction between two types of justification based on prepositions. The repetition is best understood as Hebrew-style parallelism, which is a rhetorical device, not a doctrinal bifurcation. If your reading were correct, Paul would have to be introducing a new theological category, and he simply is not doing that here. The context of Romans 3 is about the universal failure of both Jew and Gentile to attain righteousness through the law, and the universal offer of righteousness through faith. "Into all" and "upon all" are reinforcing that this righteousness is extended broadly, not that it comes in two separate modes. You are reading far too much into the grammar and importing a structure that does not exist in the flow of argument.
The later chapters you cite are dealing with
sanctification, not justification and certainly not a second kind of justification. The transformation described in Romans 6–8 is the outworking of having been justified. It is not describing a second kind of justification being “put into us.” Romans 5:18 speaks of “justification of life,” not to create a second category of justification, but to show that the result of justification is life. That is the conclusion of the entire Adam–Christ typology: just as Adam’s sin resulted in condemnation and death, Christ’s righteousness results in justification and life. One of the key points of that typology is the undoing of original sin, not through a twofold justification, but through a single righteous act that restores what Adam’s disobedience destroyed. The emphasis is on result and consequence, not on the creation of two kinds of justification.
You are stringing together phrases from different chapters that use similar language, but you're not asking whether Paul is using the terms the same way in each place or addressing the same concept. Romans 3–5 deals with how the ungodly are declared righteous before God. Romans 6–8 deals with how the justified are to live. Paul is not creating two parallel justifications; he is explaining how those who are justified are called to walk in newness of life. That is not a second justification, it's sanctification. The law being fulfilled in us is the result of walking after the Spirit, not a redefinition of how righteousness is credited.
To equate every mention of righteousness or justification with the same theological function regardless of context is to flatten Paul’s argument. That is not proper exegesis; it is proof-texting without regard for context. I am not denying that God’s Spirit writes the law on our hearts, nor that we are called to walk in righteousness. What I am denying is that Romans 3:22 introduces two types of justification. It simply does not. You are taking the fruit and treating it as though it were another vine. You are taking the effect of having been justified, namely living righteously, and mistaking it for the source of justification itself. That turns Paul’s entire ministry on its head and preaches law instead of grace.
