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.

 

[Eternally-Grateful]

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

true

But God is a perfect judge. Unlike a human judge who can waver to and fro.

thats why Gods love could nto save us alone. It had to act.

the cross allowed God to still be a righteous judge, but also a loving God

 

[EarlyActs]

true

But God is a perfect judge. Unlike a human judge who can waver to and fro.

thats why Gods love could nto save us alone. It had to act.

the cross allowed God to still be a righteous judge, but also a loving God

I’m not saying Gods justice is faulty, but Caesars was. I was illustrating that God has a unique role and Justice is based on what he regards, what he says matters.

 

[EddieM]

I think most here agree with that foundational doctrine to the Protestant Christian Faith , of Justification by Faith Alone. What I will attempt to do here is unfold what is behind justification and why we need to be justified.

I do this, because it was my experience in the church for the first 23 years of my conversion, that it is a topic that was never discussed and to my recollection, even mentioned. Admittedly, that covers a small sampling of churches, six or seven, but they were in different parts of the country. Admittedly too, is the fact that they were all non-denominational and Charismatic. However, today we have options at our finger tips to sample from the websites of most churches, the sermons they preach. It is not only the non-denominational and Charismatic that are guilty of this neglect, but many mainline denominational churches as well.

"Justification may be defined as the act by which unjust sinners are made right in the sight of a just and holy God. The supreme need of unjust persons is righteousness. It is the lack of righteousness that is supplied by Christ on behalf of the believing sinner. Justification by faith alone means justification by the righteousness or merit of Christ alone, not by our goodness or good deeds." (From Reformation Study Bible text note Justification by Faith)

This, most of Orthodox Protestants adhere to. It is a forensic righteousness, a legal position before God by the imputation of Christ's righteousness through faith in him.

All well and good, but how did Christ's death on the cross make the unjust, just? What did that death do in relation to the justice of God? Here we must look at his own justice as always and everywhere a just God, who would be a liar if sin did not meet its just punishment. "The soul of one who sins shall die." We cannot have a Savior whose death only appeases an angry God and satisfies his anger against sinners by killing his Son instead. Jesus is not simply saving sinners, he is undoing what was done in Adam. And he is not simply pardoning the sinner, he is redeeming them. Taking them from one condition (a sinner) to another condition (made righteous in Christ). He is not simply removing the penalty for sin, he is conquering sin and its result, death. (Hosea 13:14; Rev 20:14; 2 Tim 1:10; 1 Cor 15:26; 1 Peter 3:18; Col 2:15; Is 25:8; 1 Cor 15:24; Rev 21:1-6) Justice against sin must be met before mercy is given. It is in the cross that mercy and justice kiss. (Psalm 85:8-10.)

In case the argument is given that in the OT sacrificial system God did grant forgiveness without the Son paying the price; it was temporary, also required a blood substitute (a death for death), did not give eternal life, did not provide justification except to a few and that through faith, not the sacrifice, and its temporariness made space and time for the appointed time of Chris's incarnation.

On the cross, Jesus gave himself as a ransom. That is, he took the penalty upon his own flesh and blood body, that the sinner deserved. He made the payment in their stead. The penalty they deserved, death, he himself bore, satisfying God's justice against sin. He died, that he might rise again from the dead, the first fruits of all those he died for. In this, he conquered the power of sin to condemn those he died for, by giving to them his imputed righteousness, undoing also the imputed to them, the sinfulness of Adam. ( Romans 8:1-4; Romans 5:6-11, 19) Therefore, the believer, through faith in the person and work of Jesus, is fully reconciled to God. His sins are not just forgiven, they are paid for, actually. Jesus did not just take a beating and die in our place. He was accomplishing something.

If Christ's death on the cross paid for the sins of everyone actually, then everyone would be justified before God, reconciled to him. There wouldn't even be any need for faith. If it was not an actual payment that was made, but rather just a body given, it did not satisfy God's justice against sin, and in fact could be considered an injustice in that the perfectly righteous simply agreed to suffer and die as God willed it. The innocent instead of the guilty but the problem of sin and the fall, not really dealt with. It would have no power to conquer and eventually destroy sin from humanity and from the world. Sin and death are real. So something real must be done to defeat them. It is said in the scriptures that Jesus game himself as a ransom. A ransom is a real payment that removes the penalty attached to it from the one who committed the act that required the penalty.

To understand what it means to be justified and how that is accomplished we must begin and end and keep consistent throughout: Who is God? What is the problem to be solved? How does God solve it in Christ? What is his end purpose that consistently works through the historical accounts of redemption, and that he tells us in the scriptures? How was the person and work of Jesus able to do this in his death and resurrection?

There are TWO justifications taught in the NT, which justification are you referring to?

 

[Arial]

There are TWO justifications taught in the NT, which justification are you referring to?

The legal declaration by God of a person being justified by the work of Christ, and the imputation of his righteousness to them, through faith.

What is the other justification taught in the NT?

 

[David Lamb]

There are TWO justifications taught in the NT, which justification are you referring to?

What two justifications do you mean? Can you give scriptural examples of both? Thanks!

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

What two justifications do you mean? Can you give scriptural examples of both? Thanks!

I'm waiting to hear this, too.

 

[Odë:hgöd]

.
FAQ: Was it really necessary to restore Jesus' crucified dead body to life?

REPLY: Jesus' crucifixion made it possible for everyone to obtain a pardon per Isa 53:6.
However, his crucifixion alone doesn't clear anybody, viz: it leaves the record of
people's wrongs intact.

For example; former US President Gerald Ford pardoned former US President Richard
Nixon, but although the pardon kept Mr. Nixon out of prison, it did nothing to clear his
name, viz: he's still in the books for criminal conduct. So then; the thing that Mr. Nixon
really needed was exoneration which, though impossible in most any of the world's
normal criminal justice systems, is very possible in Heaven's system by means of Jesus'
resurrection.

● Rom 4:25 . . He was delivered over to death for our sins, and was raised to life for our
justification.

The Greek word translated "justification" is dikaiosis (dik-ah'-yo-sis) which means
acquittal; defined as an adjudication of innocence: usually due to a lack of sufficient
evidence to convict.

That's comparable to Isa 53:11 wherein is said:

"By his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many; and he will bear their
iniquities."

The thing is: Jesus not only took the punishment for my sins, but he also bore them, i.e.
by some strange administrative process that I have yet to fully understand, God
removed my sins from me and transferred them to Jesus; in effect making me a joint
principal with him on the cross.

● Col 3:3 . . For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God.

When Jesus' crucified dead body was restored to life; he came back without those sins.
So, in the end, folks whose slates have been wiped clean by Jesus' resurrection will
have nothing on the books with which to accuse them at the great white throne event
depicted by Rev 20:11-15, viz: it will appear they have never been anything less than
100% innocent their entire lives.

● 2Cor 5:19 . . God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their
trespasses against them. (cf. Jer 31:34)

The Greek word translated "counting" pertains to keeping an inventory, i.e. an
indictment. Well; without an indictment, the great white throne will have no cause to
proceed with a trial.

* I should emphasize that Jesus tasted death for everyone's sins, yet many are on a
road to the wrong side of things because their sins are still on the books.

FAQ: How does one go about obtaining that wipe?

REPLY: By means of a simple RSVP. Find some privacy, cover your face with your hands
for a sense of connection and tell God, in your own words, out loud or under your breath,
that you'd like to take advantage of His son's crucifixion, and the resurrection of his dead
body, to protect yourself from retribution because we definitely do not want our sins
showing up in those books.
_

 

[EddieM]

What two justifications do you mean? Can you give scriptural examples of both? Thanks!

James 2 mentions Justification by faith and Justification by works.

 

[David Lamb]

James 2 mentions Justification by faith and Justification by works.

Yes, but he is not saying that there are two justifications. Rather, that if someone claims to have been justified by faith, but there is no difference in their lives, their claim is bogus. It's rather similar to what Paul wrote to the Ephesian Christians:

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” (Eph 2:8-10 NKJV)