Justification

[EarlyActs]

Justification is actually in the greek a legal term,


A person who goes to a trial because they are convicted of a crime, who is found innocent, is justified. or declaires righteous, or innocent.

If a person is found guilty. they have to be justified to be released from jail

there are two ways

1. They pay their debt to society, they are literally released with a term of being justified ie they can not be tried for the same crime again. so they are declaired paid in full

2. if a person can not pay their debt, they will never be released. or someone who is innocent must "redeem" or pay for their sin by paying the debt they owe.

Now in this case. the person can recieve their payment, or they can deny or reject their payment (I know who would ever do it.. But pride has a crazy way of doing things that do not make sense)

salvation biblically falls under the send case. we can not pay our debt, God did by going to the cross and taking what was against us and nailing it to the cross. Well the jews did when they hung him on the cross. as have most people who lived.

God is all loving, But he demands we make a choice. Recieve his gift and live, or reject it and stay dead.

But again, we must recieve it in faith, or reject it in unbelief. God does not force us to take his gift.

he who believes is not condemned, he who believes is condemned already

Check your last line.

Pretty good but it also has to do with regarding someone against ‘facts.’ In fact Caesar could justify a dubious person at will.

 

[EarlyActs]

There is a third, which is not faulty, and puts the lie to the "interlocked appeal to human reason" —God's point-of-view.

I'm not saying that any of us is capable of understanding it, but that we should understand, at the least, that ours is going to be faulty. (I do agree, however, with several theologians, (including Francis Shaeffer, Martin Luther and RC Sproul), that reason is not to be removed 'from the equation'. To be funny, here, "Kierkegaard may have been savant, but if so, he was an idiot savant.")

To say that Christ MUST be exalted means that it is logically necessary. It also implies duty by lesser beings. It also invokes the act of God in accomplishing it. It does NOT imply that God is required to do anything, as if for some reason he might not have done it.

There must be justice in the universe; this is the final line of Ecclesiastes and of the Gospel. I don’t know why you are having a problem with that.

The Godhead determined before this world that if there was such sin, that Christ would be exalted for intervening and saving us.

It sounds like you think Gods point of view is against reason at the end. Yet Rom 1 tells us that these things are understood. The righteousness of God has been revealed because there must be such a righteousness or else it’s all hopeless. Its news has been made available before the day of punishment.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
There is a third, which is not faulty, and puts the lie to the "interlocked appeal to human reason" —God's point-of-view.

I'm not saying that any of us is capable of understanding it, but that we should understand, at the least, that ours is going to be faulty. (I do agree, however, with several theologians, (including Francis Shaeffer, Martin Luther and RC Sproul), that reason is not to be removed 'from the equation'. To be funny, here, "Kierkegaard may have been savant, but if so, he was an idiot savant.")

To say that Christ MUST be exalted means that it is logically necessary. It also implies duty by lesser beings. It also invokes the act of God in accomplishing it. It does NOT imply that God is required to do anything, as if for some reason he might not have done it.

There must be justice in the universe; this is the final line of Ecclesiastes and of the Gospel. I don’t know why you are having a problem with that.

Where do you see me having a problem with the fact that there must be justice in the universe? I don't have a problem with that. I love it! You have accused me now, so explain.

The Godhead determined before this world that if there was such sin, that Christ would be exalted for intervening and saving us.

Not just "such a sin", but all the sins that his Elect have committed and will commit. I don't remember, without looking back through the posts, what sin that is you are talking about, by "such a sin", but I'm not sure it is relevant. ANY sin, will be justly dealt with, either against the ones who sinned, or by Jesus Christ's substitution in the place of those upon whom God chose to show mercy.

It sounds like you think Gods point of view is against reason at the end.

HUH? Explain.

Do you mean, I think God's point of view is beyond our ability to reason? —That's true enough, but it is still reasonable, and we have reason with which to reach after it. But it is not only reasonable—it is finally the only reality. It is not just sight—it is fact.

Yet Rom 1 tells us that these things are understood. The righteousness of God has been revealed because there must be such a righteousness or else it’s all hopeless. Its news has been made available before the day of punishment.

Agreed. Why are you telling me this? Do I seem somehow to disagree with it? How am I disagreeing with it, (if that is why you are saying it)?

 

[EarlyActs]

To me, by the intense, 'awe'ful, burning purity of God, any unrighteousness is killed, completely done away with. Yet God can cover himself so that we may live. We are, at present, not able to see him, who "dwells in unapproachable light".

It is with the mathematical precision of an equation that he has justified us, giving us his very HOLY Spirit who is entrenched within us —even intractable in us— so that, for our sakes, so that we don't die by that contact, it is logically necessary for him to see us as righteous, justifying us.

Those who want to complain that the Reformed and Calvinists allow little concept of God's Love do not understand the depth of God's having come to us, and having made his home in us, and 'already, but not yet', made us one in Him, able to directly approach the Godhead, whose Almighty Spirit is our lawyer pleading our case with groanings that words cannot express. Yes, it takes that much effort to maintain us with this filth clinging to us, the 'old man', as acceptable to God! Only the Almighty can love that much.

WE consider ourselves aching to be with Him, and to see Him as He is. How much more then does God love us, who has gone to this much trouble to make us able to finally see Him as He is! I judge Adam and Eve, even when they were pure, before they disobeyed, hardly worth God's flicking them away with a careless brush of his hand. But he made them, and us, for his purposes. Nobody better tell me we don't believe in God's LOVE.

Re the mathematical precision paragraph:
There is a line there that God sees us as righteous through the fact that Spirit is in us.

That’s not what justification is. It is not an internal change, even though there is some change. To say so confuses effect with cause.

It is the declaration against fact that we are righteous in Christ. Luther said we are ‘simul iustis et peccator’ (at the same time righteous and sinful). Of course this other ‘alien’ righteousness (also a Luther tenet) is not against the fact that Christs righteousness was accomplished for us. Just against ours.

To tie this to our discussion of what God must do or not, He must include us for fellowship because of Christ, but not bc of ourselves.

 

[EarlyActs]

makesends said:
There is a third, which is not faulty, and puts the lie to the "interlocked appeal to human reason" —God's point-of-view.

I'm not saying that any of us is capable of understanding it, but that we should understand, at the least, that ours is going to be faulty. (I do agree, however, with several theologians, (including Francis Shaeffer, Martin Luther and RC Sproul), that reason is not to be removed 'from the equation'. To be funny, here, "Kierkegaard may have been savant, but if so, he was an idiot savant.")

To say that Christ MUST be exalted means that it is logically necessary. It also implies duty by lesser beings. It also invokes the act of God in accomplishing it. It does NOT imply that God is required to do anything, as if for some reason he might not have done it.

Where do you see me having a problem with the fact that there must be justice in the universe? I don't have a problem with that. I love it! You have accused me now, so explain.

Not just "such a sin", but all the sins that his Elect have committed and will commit. I don't remember, without looking back through the posts, what sin that is you are talking about, by "such a sin", but I'm not sure it is relevant. ANY sin, will be justly dealt with, either against the ones who sinned, or by Jesus Christ's substitution in the place of those upon whom God chose to show mercy.

HUH? Explain.

Do you mean, I think God's point of view is beyond our ability to reason? —That's true enough, but it is still reasonable, and we have reason with which to reach after it. But it is not only reasonable—it is finally the only reality. It is not just sight—it is fact.

Agreed. Why are you telling me this? Do I seem somehow to disagree with it? How am I disagreeing with it, (if that is why you are saying it)?

I was thrown by the last line in your paragraph starting: “To say that Christ must be exalted…”. Both Ps 16 and 110 make it imperative that the Son would be raised from death and be enthroned above all other names.

Imperative means it must occur. Not by human demand, but human reason can agree that this is the only fair outcome for Christ.

This is slightly different than a general belief that there must be final justice—like the ending of Ecclesiastes. Because in Christ-based theology , it is because of Christs (new) accomplishments as ‘the Servant or the Holy One or the Righteous One.’ They were expected by the prophets, and now completed ‘as a public demonstration’ (Rom 3). He now gets to be enthroned “beside/at the right hand” of God until the Father smashes His enemies , which then become where He ‘puts His feet up to rest.’

You also said that an interlocking with human reason was a lie.

When you said that God’s point of view (about Biblicism vs hostility to the Bible) was a third alternative, I agree. Simply bc that is what I had already said.

The Biblicist does not like or want to do the work of demonstrating God’s truth in any other realm than ‘this proof text says so in English, so that’s the truth. God says it in English, and I believe it.’ ( I put ‘in English’ there, bc they don’t even do transliteration which would at least show original word choice). He seldom knows history or classic literature or even the full history of 1st century Israel.

 

[EarlyActs]

[aside: does anyone know any background on why the auto-suggest always puts Gid for God?]

 

[Hazelelponi]

[aside: does anyone know any background on why the auto-suggest always puts Gid for God?]

Mine spells correctly in Christian fashion.

Jews will write G-d like that so as to remove the o, thereby not writing dog backwards or something.

But I have only seen the Jews do this. Just add God spelled correctly into your autocorrect.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

Check your last line.

Pretty good but it also has to do with regarding someone against ‘facts.’ In fact Caesar could justify a dubious person at will.

was Caesar a perfect judge?

 

[makesends]

[aside: does anyone know any background on why the auto-suggest always puts Gid for God?]

It may be a learning app, like my phone has. It learns my repeated mistakes, and begins to suggest them.

 

[EarlyActs]

was Caesar a perfect judge?

No my point was that part of justification is in the mind of the judge.