<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.4" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Declared Righteous</title>
	<link>http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/06/30/justification-a-declaration-of-righteousness/</link>
	<description>A Ministry of Shepherds' Fellowship</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 09:41:51 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Andy</title>
		<link>http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/06/30/justification-a-declaration-of-righteousness/#comment-33686</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2007 00:19:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/06/30/justification-a-declaration-of-righteousness/#comment-33686</guid>
					<description>Thank you for a clear article on justification.  A defense of Christ's imputed righteousness to the repentant sinner is significant because in doing so one is fundamentally defending the Gospel.  It seems that any argument that denies the historic Protestant teaching of justification leans toward a Roman Catholic belief in infused righteousness.  I will look forward to next week's post.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for a clear article on justification.  A defense of Christ&#8217;s imputed righteousness to the repentant sinner is significant because in doing so one is fundamentally defending the Gospel.  It seems that any argument that denies the historic Protestant teaching of justification leans toward a Roman Catholic belief in infused righteousness.  I will look forward to next week&#8217;s post.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Norm</title>
		<link>http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/06/30/justification-a-declaration-of-righteousness/#comment-33591</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jul 2007 17:47:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/06/30/justification-a-declaration-of-righteousness/#comment-33591</guid>
					<description>"Methodologically sound"? We're making this too complicated. I think Nathan is using the english word Justification" and saying that we all don't have the same definition in mind when we use it. He then goes on to clarify what he believes the Biblical definition is.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Methodologically sound&#8221;? We&#8217;re making this too complicated. I think Nathan is using the english word Justification&#8221; and saying that we all don&#8217;t have the same definition in mind when we use it. He then goes on to clarify what he believes the Biblical definition is.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: art</title>
		<link>http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/06/30/justification-a-declaration-of-righteousness/#comment-33568</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Jul 2007 14:04:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/06/30/justification-a-declaration-of-righteousness/#comment-33568</guid>
					<description>Is it methodologically sound to start an argument based on an English dictionary as opposed to the Greek word in it's context?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is it methodologically sound to start an argument based on an English dictionary as opposed to the Greek word in it&#8217;s context?
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: donsands</title>
		<link>http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/06/30/justification-a-declaration-of-righteousness/#comment-33504</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Jul 2007 20:09:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.sfpulpit.com/2007/06/30/justification-a-declaration-of-righteousness/#comment-33504</guid>
					<description>We are imputed righteousness, and not righteous in and of ourselves. Is this what you are saying?
If so I agree wholeheartedly. 2 Cor. 5:21 says clearly this is the case.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We are imputed righteousness, and not righteous in and of ourselves. Is this what you are saying?<br />
If so I agree wholeheartedly. 2 Cor. 5:21 says clearly this is the case.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
