If it's True That Justification by Faith ...

[makesends]

okay, so then is a person Justified b4 God when they are regenerated ? or does God regenerate a unjustified person ?

Still with the WHEN? HOW was it done?, is the question.

 

[Josheb]

5:19

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Here made Righteous and Justification are the same !

No, they are not. Post #200 misuses Romans 5:19. Christ does many things for those God saves through him. Christ does make us righteous. Christ's blood does justify the redeemed. That does not mean righteousness and justification are identical, synonymous, or interchangeable. It definitely does not mean the two terms can or should be conlfated in any way. The are co-occurring conditions, not identical conditions under different labels.

My car takes me to the grocery store. My car also takes me to the endodontist for a root canal. Groceries and root canals are not the same thing. My ability to breathe makes me alive. So too does my heart's ability to pump blood (which is oxygenated through my ability to breath). Respiration and pulse are correlated in their ability to make me live but they are not synonymous.

No, they are not.

Justification is a declaration of not guilty, sentence of acquittal, pronouncement of sinlessness because of faith in Jesus' atoning work.
However, they are made righteous (Ro 5:19) through the imputation (Ro 1:17, 3:21, 4:5, Php 3:9) of Christ' righteousness.
And both are through faith (Ro 3:28).

Justification is a declaration of sinlessness through faith.
Righteousness is an imputation of Christ's righteousness through faith.

Sinlessness and righteousness are not the same.
Sinlessness is simply the absence of sin.
Righteousness is the possession of righteousness, through imputation.

As I noted previously, you're both using a man-made post-scriptural doctrinal definition of justification. That's understandable given doctrinal sources' propensity to give doctrinal definitions. However, it is also misleading. When the Greek word dikaioo is unburdened by the post-biblical doctrinal connotations presented to us as denotations the word simply means the ability to have standing in order to make one's case before a court. Nothing more. The Greeks used the word for centuries before Paul used it in his letter to the Romans and the word was used centuries afterwards, too. For the Greeks the word has nothing to do with Jesus or righteousness before God, and fourth century, tenth century, 16th century, and 21st century theologians should not leave that fact out of their exposition and explanation. Doing so causes others to speak, teach, and learn about justification erroneously. Strong's can't be blamed because that resource is not designed to provide etymological information.

• God does make the regenerate believer righteous.
• God does declare the regenerate believer sinless.
• God does credit His Son's righteousness to the regenerate believer.

These are not mutually exclusive conditions, nor are they identical conditions that can or should be conflated...... and none of these has any relevance or significance if the regenerate believer never has to stand before God!!! The reason the word dikaioo has taken on the meaning it has is because in Greco/Roman societies the legal system was very vertical and hierarchical. The word is a legal term and it is not a legal term relevant to western 21st century democratic jurisprudence. People who had the opportunity to plead their case in a Roman court walked out heard do to what was (ideally) a fair, rule-of-law adjudication and they usually walked out righteous or justified in the Greco/Roman definition of the word. They were justified, not necessarily innocent or exonerated (two other legal terms that should never be conflated.

Like all the other New Testament writers, Paul is appropriating Greek terms with Greek definitions and using them to clarify the gospel (which is another Greek word that is misused in Christian teaching because the word euangelion is not the same thing as kalon eidíseis = good news). Re-read Paul's expositions on justification in Romans 2-5 and Galatians 2-3 with the understanding Paul is writing about a saint's ability to first stand before God with a case to plea and both passages will communicate a lot more than a verdict. When it is understood Paul is simultaneously using Jewish Law and repudiating it as a means of obtaining righteousness as he writes to a largely Gentile audience both passages will, again, open up with a pile of greater meaning beyond the mere declaration of a verdict.

For Christians, the ability to stand before God is not a one-time event that occurs at the beginning to decide whether or not your case goes to trial. At best that is woefully myopic and narrow-minded. At worse it is deadly. Christians have the ability to stand before God all the time AND they should do so.

I don't generally use the NIV but for the purposes of these points that translation serves well.

2 Peter 1:3-9 NIV
His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love. For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But whoever does not have them is nearsighted and blind, forgetting that they have been cleansed from their past sins.

The regenerate believer has been washed clean of all past sins. What does he or she do after he or she sins thereafter? S/he pleads his case with confession, repentance, amends (where appropriate) forgiveness and reconciliation!!! We have everything we need to live a godly life, and we can participate in the divine nature! How?!?!?!? Right at the foundation of that answer is the cross and our ability to stand before God...... all the time! There is no case without the cross. That verdict has already been rendered. And, as a result of that verdict, everyone stands condemned. In what court of law does the guilty party who has already been judged and condemned get to stand before the judge and plead any case?

None

And yet this is what the New Testament epistolary writers taught. A judged and convicted person can stand before the Judge and a previously judged, convicted and sentenced person has a case to make when they stand before the Judge anew. It has to be believed before it can be practiced and to most of the first century people what they taught was nonsense - something NOT to be believed. The incredulity was not built solely on the requirement to believe a dead Jew had come back from the grave. It required them to abandon everything they thought they knew about God/gods and Law/law. Being stamped with a label "Righteous" is a very incomplete view of dikaioo. Being stamped isn't even a very good understanding of righteousness.

Doubt this post? Then go back to Romans and re-read it with the above in mind and verify its veracity for yourselves.

And then adjust thinking, doctrine, and posting accordingly .

 

[Eleanor]

No, they are not. Post #200 misuses Romans 5:19. Christ does many things for those God saves through him. Christ does make us righteous. Christ's blood does justify the redeemed. That does not mean righteousness and justification are identical, synonymous, or interchangeable. It definitely does not mean the two terms can or should be conlfated in any way. The are co-occurring conditions, not identical conditions under different labels.

My car takes me to the grocery store. My car also takes me to the endodontist for a root canal. Groceries and root canals are not the same thing. My ability to breathe makes me alive. So too does my heart's ability to pump blood (which is oxygenated through my ability to breath). Respiration and pulse are correlated in their ability to make me live but they are not synonymous.


As I noted previously, you're both using a man-made post-scriptural doctrinal definition of justification. That's understandable given doctrinal sources' propensity to give doctrinal definitions. However, it is also misleading. When the Greek word dikaioo is unburdened by the post-biblical doctrinal connotations presented to us as denotations the word simply means the ability to have standing in order to make one's case before a court. Nothing more. The Greeks used the word for centuries before Paul used it in his letter to the Romans

It's not about how the Greeks use it, it's about how the NT uses it in light of the rest of the NT.

and the word was used centuries afterwards, too. For the Greeks the word has nothing to do with Jesus or righteousness before God, and fourth century, tenth century, 16th century, and 21st century theologians should not leave that fact out of their exposition and explanation. Doing so causes others to speak, teach, and learn about justification erroneously. Strong's can't be blamed because that resource is not designed to provide etymological information.

• God does make the regenerate believer righteous.
• God does declare the regenerate believer sinless.
• God does credit His Son's righteousness to the regenerate believer.

These are not mutually exclusive conditions, nor are they identical conditions that can or should be conflated...... and none of these has any relevance or significance if the regenerate believer never has to stand before God!!! The reason the word dikaioo has taken on the meaning it has is because in Greco/Roman societies the legal system was very vertical and hierarchical. The word is a legal term and it is not a legal term relevant to western 21st century democratic jurisprudence. People who had the opportunity to plead their case in a Roman court walked out heard do to what was (ideally) a fair, rule-of-law adjudication and they usually walked out righteous or justified in the Greco/Roman definition of the word. They were justified, not necessarily innocent or exonerated (two other legal terms that should never be conflated.

Like all the other New Testament writers, Paul is appropriating Greek terms with Greek definitions and using them to clarify the gospel (which is another Greek word that is misused in Christian teaching because the word euangelion is not the same thing as kalon eidíseis = good news). Re-read Paul's expositions on justification in Romans 2-5 and Galatians 2-3 with the understanding Paul is writing about a saint's ability to first stand before God with a case to plea and both passages will communicate a lot more than a verdict. When it is understood Paul is simultaneously using Jewish Law and repudiating it as a means of obtaining righteousness as he writes to a largely Gentile audience both passages will, again, open up with a pile of greater meaning beyond the mere declaration of a verdict.

For Christians, the ability to stand before God is not a one-time event that occurs at the beginning to decide whether or not your case goes to trial. At best that is woefully myopic and narrow-minded. At worse it is deadly. Christians have the ability to stand before God all the time AND they should do so.

I don't generally use the NIV but for the purposes of these points that translation serves well.

2 Peter 1:3-9 NIV
His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love. For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But whoever does not have them is nearsighted and blind, forgetting that they have been cleansed from their past sins.

The regenerate believer has been washed clean of all past sins. What does he or she do after he or she sins thereafter? S/he pleads his case with confession, repentance, amends (where appropriate) forgiveness and reconciliation!!! We have everything we need to live a godly life, and we can participate in the divine nature! How?!?!?!? Right at the foundation of that answer is the cross and our ability to stand before God...... all the time! There is no case without the cross. That verdict has already been rendered. And, as a result of that verdict, everyone stands condemned. In what court of law does the guilty party who has already been judged and condemned get to stand before the judge and plead any case?

None

And yet this is what the New Testament epistolary writers taught. A judged and convicted person can stand before the Judge and a previously judged, convicted and sentenced person has a case to make when they stand before the Judge anew. It has to be believed before it can be practiced and to most of the first century people what they taught was nonsense - something NOT to be believed. The incredulity was not built solely on the requirement to believe a dead Jew had come back from the grave. It required them to abandon everything they thought they knew about God/gods and Law/law. Being stamped with a label "Righteous" is a very incomplete view of dikaioo. Being stamped isn't even a very good understanding of righteousness.

Doubt this post? Then go back to Romans and re-read it with the above in mind and verify its veracity for yourselves.

And then adjust thinking, doctrine, and posting accordingly .

 

[EarlyActs]

Still with the WHEN? HOW was it done?, is the question.

As Rom 3 says, a historic event took place which accomplished it, but that event creates on offer. You are debating the offer, not the cost. The recipient of justification is not justified til they understand and receive the terms, but the productive event which accomplished justification is past tense.

A car is produced, and then the buyer receives it the next month, after learning about it and having it shipped. But his learning and ordering it did not produce the item.

 

[makesends]

As Rom 3 says, a historic event took place which accomplished it, but that event creates on offer. You are debating the offer, not the cost. The recipient of justification is not justified til they understand and receive the terms, but the productive event which accomplished justification is past tense.

A car is produced, and then the buyer receives it the next month, after learning about it and having it shipped. But his learning and ordering it did not produce the item.

I.e. synergistic salvation. This is not a car, and not a buyer. @brightfame52 take note of what your notion produces as a logical consequence.

 

[EarlyActs]

I.e. synergist. This is not a car, and not a buyer. @brightfame52 take note of what your notion produces as a logical consequence.

that car thing was an analogy, and 'logizo' (to impute) is often used in financial transactions, in reference to credit, debt, accounts, etc.

 

[brightfame52]

Justification is a declaration of sinlessness through faith.
Righteousness is an imputation of Christ's righteousness through faith.

Sinlessness and righteousness are not the same.
Sinlessness is simply the absence of sin.
Righteousness is the possession of righteousness, through imputation.

I know what justification is:

5:19

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

Here made Righteous and Justification are the same !

 

[brightfame52]

Still with the WHEN? HOW was it done?, is the question.

Is a regenerated person unjustified ? Condemned already ?

 

[brightfame52]

@Josheb

No, they are not.

Post edited by Mod. Off topic, personal attack has been deleted. Rom 5:19

19 For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.

 

[makesends]

that car thing was an analogy, and 'logizo' (to impute) is often used in financial transactions, in reference to credit, debt, accounts, etc.

No doubt that you were attempting a valid analogy, and, the fact that "'logizo' (to impute) is often used in financial transactions, in reference to credit, debt, accounts, etc.", is irrelevant to the point debated: @brightfame52 's claim, that Jesus having accomplished in full the justification of the elect, means that they are already justified when born.

Or were you trying to return the debate to the OP? True this has strayed somewhat. So show how it is relevant to the OP, quoted here:

If it's true, that 'justification by faith' is the article by which the church stands or falls, then why did not Paul write the book of Romans first, since the book of Romans is foundational to the article of justification?
Instead, most scholars believe it was 1 Thessalonians. At least Martin Luther was consistent in this that he placed Romans as the first written epistle

 

[makesends]

Is a regenerated person unjustified ? Condemned already ?

Leading questions. You still cling to the passage of time as a necessary component in what God describes as accomplished by means. Not by passage of time. Your questions, adapted to your premise, are invalid.

 

[Josheb]

It's not about how the Greeks use it, it's about how the NT uses it in light of the rest of the NT.

That is incorrect. There was no NT when Paul wrote his epistles.

 

[Eleanor]

No, they are not. Post #200 misuses Romans 5:19. Christ does many things for those God saves through him. Christ does make us righteous. Christ's blood does justify the redeemed. That does not mean righteousness and justification are identical, synonymous, or interchangeable. It definitely does not mean the two terms can or should be conlfated in any way. The are co-occurring conditions, not identical conditions under different labels.
My car takes me to the grocery store. My car also takes me to the endodontist for a root canal. Groceries and root canals are not the same thing. My ability to breathe makes me alive. So too does my heart's ability to pump blood (which is oxygenated through my ability to breath). Respiration and pulse are correlated in their ability to make me live but they are not synonymous.
As I noted previously, you're both using a man-made post-scriptural doctrinal definition of justification. That's understandable given doctrinal sources' propensity to give doctrinal definitions. However, it is also misleading. When the Greek word dikaioo is unburdened

by the post-biblical doctrinal connotations presented to us as denotations the word simply means the ability to have standing in order to make one's case before a court. Nothing more. The Greeks used the word for centuries before Paul used it in his letter to the Romans and the word was used centuries afterwards, too. For the Greeks the word has nothing to do with Jesus or righteousness before God, and fourth century, tenth century, 16th century, and 21st century theologians should not leave that fact out of their exposition and explanation. Doing so causes others to speak, teach, and learn about justification erroneously. Strong's can't be blamed because that resource is not designed to provide etymological information.

• God does make the regenerate believer righteous.
• God does declare the regenerate believer sinless.
• God does credit His Son's righteousness to the regenerate believer.

These are not mutually exclusive conditions, nor are they identical conditions that can or should be conflated...... and none of these has any relevance or significance if the regenerate believer never has to stand before God!!! The reason the word dikaioo has taken on the meaning it has is because in Greco/Roman societies the legal system was very vertical and hierarchical. The word is a legal term and it is not a legal term relevant to western 21st century democratic jurisprudence. People who had the opportunity to plead their case in a Roman court walked out heard do to what was (ideally) a fair, rule-of-law adjudication and they usually walked out righteous or justified in the Greco/Roman definition of the word. They were justified, not necessarily innocent or exonerated (two other legal terms that should never be conflated.

Like all the other New Testament writers, Paul is appropriating Greek terms with Greek definitions and using them to clarify the gospel (which is another Greek word that is misused in Christian teaching because the word euangelion is not the same thing as kalon eidíseis = good news). Re-read Paul's expositions on justification in Romans 2-5 and Galatians 2-3 with the understanding Paul is writing about a saint's ability to first stand before God with a case to plea and both passages will communicate a lot more than a verdict. When it is understood Paul is simultaneously using Jewish Law and repudiating it as a means of obtaining righteousness as he writes to a largely Gentile audience both passages will, again, open up with a pile of greater meaning beyond the mere declaration of a verdict.

For Christians, the ability to stand before God is not a one-time event that occurs at the beginning to decide whether or not your case goes to trial. At best that is woefully myopic and narrow-minded. At worse it is deadly. Christians have the ability to stand before God all the time AND they should do so.

I don't generally use the NIV but for the purposes of these points that translation serves well.

2 Peter 1:3-9 NIV
His divine power has given us everything we need for a godly life through our knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness. Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires. For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love. For if you possess these qualities in increasing measure, they will keep you from being ineffective and unproductive in your knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But whoever does not have them is nearsighted and blind, forgetting that they have been cleansed from their past sins.

The regenerate believer has been washed clean of all past sins. What does he or she do after he or she sins thereafter? S/he pleads his case with confession, repentance, amends (where appropriate) forgiveness and reconciliation!!! We have everything we need to live a godly life, and we can participate in the divine nature! How?!?!?!? Right at the foundation of that answer is the cross and our ability to stand before God...... all the time! There is no case without the cross. That verdict has already been rendered. And, as a result of that verdict, everyone stands condemned. In what court of law does the guilty party who has already been judged and condemned get to stand before the judge and plead any case?

None

And yet this is what the New Testament epistolary writers taught. A judged and convicted person can stand before the Judge and a previously judged, convicted and sentenced person has a case to make when they stand before the Judge anew. It has to be believed before it can be practiced and to most of the first century people what they taught was nonsense - something NOT to be believed. The incredulity was not built solely on the requirement to believe a dead Jew had come back from the grave. It required them to abandon everything they thought they knew about God/gods and Law/law. Being stamped with a label "Righteous" is a very incomplete view of dikaioo. Being stamped isn't even a very good understanding of righteousness.

Doubt this post? Then go back to Romans and re-read it with the above in mind and verify its veracity for yourselves.

And then adjust thinking, doctrine, and posting accordingly .

That is incorrect. There was no NT when Paul wrote his epistles.

Those epistles are the NT.
And his use of those words are the meaning of those words.

 

[Josheb]

Those epistles are the NT.

Yes, but the NT is not his epistles. Doctrine does not define the meaning of his words. Their normal meaning in ordinary usage at the time he wrote them is what defines the words.

And his use of those words are the meaning of those words.

Yes, and he did not use the words as you two have defined them. Looking up a word in some 21st century doctrinal resource does not necessarily tell us the first century meaning of a word. Our doctrines come from Paul's words, not the other way around. Paul was not consulting Strong's or Vine's to understand what he was writing. Paul did not call up A. T. Robertson or Bill Mounce for his definitions. He used everyday Greek language to communicate commonly understood concepts and then he leveraged that information to assert a new position.

During the time the NT was written the Greek dikaioō was also used too mean punish or condemn, depending on the context, which is the exact opposite f how the word is used in Christianese. The word was also used in reference to an advocate, a person who speaks on the behalf of the accused or someone who takes their side of the argument. The Septuagint's use of the term was new and unique. That new usage is thought to have originated in correlation to the Hebrew tsedeq, which means to be just or righteous. That's not how dikaioo was normally used in NT era koine Greek. It's similar to the Hebrew use of ecclesia, which we now commonly translate as "church." The Hebrew translation of Tanakh exchanged qahal (the assembly) for ecclesia (the called out). If one of us went back to the first century and said to Paul, "I'm from the church," he'd look at you like you had three heads because he'd hear gibberish. If, alternatively, we said, "I'm from among the called," he'd give you a hug and a kiss. He'd probably provide the same response if we said, "I'm from the assembly," but he might ask about Jesus because the Jews who rejected Jesus as the Messiah still called themselves the assembly. Greek writers like Herodotus and Thucydides used dikaioo to mean any form of meting out justice, including the aforementioned punitive meting out of justice and the exonerating version. Spartan literature used dikaioo to explain why Athenian rule should be eschewed because the Spartans were righteous and the gods favored them, not the Athenians. That would a rhetorical use of the word for political (not legal) purposes. As I said earlier, the word was most often used either as simply the presentation of one's case or (in the noun) form, an advocate, and a person's case could result in condemnation or justification. It was not a word that automatically transmitted a Christian view of righteousness. We could just as easily translate Romens 2:13 as...

For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be punished.

or

For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be condemned.


Were it not for the context of his larger narrative.

We could, as @brightfame52, has asserted translate the verse,

For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be righteous.

Because an individual who had experienced dikaioo could be condemned OR declared righteous (but not necessarily innocent), but that does not consistent with the larger narrative, either. Justification, as Paul used it, is not synonymous with righteousness. Righteousness is a correlative consequence of justification. Correlative, not causative. Justification does not literally cause righteousness. A Christian textbook is going to provide a doctrinal explanation, not a fuller understanding of Romans' use of dikaioo.